[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 6, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21136-21192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10206]
[[Page 21135]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 21136]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051; FRL-8898-1]
RIN 2060-AO15
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the current National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland
Cement Manufacturing Industry. These proposed amendments would add or
revise, as applicable, emission limits for mercury, total hydrocarbons
(THC), and particulate matter (PM) from kilns and in-line kiln/raw
mills located at a major or an area source, and hydrochloric acid (HCl)
from kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills located at major sources. These
proposed amendments also would remove the following four provisions in
the current regulation: the operating limit for the average hourly
recycle rate for cement kiln dust; the requirement that cement kilns
only use certain type of utility boiler fly ash; the opacity limits for
kilns and clinker coolers; and the 50 parts per million volume dry
(ppmvd) THC emission limit for new greenfield sources. EPA is also
proposing standards which would apply during startup, shutdown, and
operating modes for all of the current section 112 standards applicable
to cement kilns.
Finally, EPA is proposing performance specifications for use of
mercury continuous emission monitors (CEMS), which specifications would
be generally applicable and so could apply to sources from categories
other than, and in addition to, portland cement, and updating
recordkeeping and testing requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2009. If any one
contacts EPA by May 21, 2009 requesting to speak at a public hearing,
EPA will hold a public hearing on May 26, 2009. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are
best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before June 5,
2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0051, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Docket, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for
Portland Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0051. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Docket, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5605; fax
number: (919) 541-5450; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information
A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed
amendments?
B. Summary of the National Lime Association v. EPA Litigation
C. EPA's Response to the Remand
D. Reconsideration of EPA Final Action in Response to the Remand
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL
A. Emissions Limits
B. Operating Limits
C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
IV. Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL
A. MACT Floor Determination Procedure for all Pollutants
[[Page 21137]]
B. Determination of MACT for Mercury Emissions From Major and
Area Sources
C. Determination of MACT for THC Emissions From Major and Area
Sources
D. Determination of MACT for HCl Emissions From Major Sources
E. Determination of MACT for PM Emissions From Major and Area
Sources
F. Selection of Compliance Provisions
G. Selection of Compliance Dates
H. Discussion of EPA's Sector Based Approach for Cement
Manufacturing
I. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment
V. Comments on Notice of Reconsideration and EPA Final Action in
Response To Remand
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
Proposed Amendments
A. What are the affected sources?
B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
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 economic impacts?
J. What are the benefits?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code
Category \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................ 327310 Portland cement plants.
Federal government...................... ........... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government........... ........... Portland cement plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact
the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control.
D. When and where would a public hearing occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by
May 21, 2009, a public hearing will be held on May 26, 2009. To request
a public hearing contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policy and Programs Division, Energy
Strategies Group (D243-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone
number 919-541-7966, e-mail address: [email protected] by the date
specified above in the DATES section. Persons interested in presenting
oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be
held should also contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at least 2 days in advance
of the potential date of the public hearing.
If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the
EPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 12th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, Washington, DC 20460 or at a nearby location.
II. Background Information
A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed amendments?
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set
emissions standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) emitted by major
stationary sources based on performance of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT). The MACT standards for existing sources must
be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved
by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the
administrator has emissions information) or the best performing 5
sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section
112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the
MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as
stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). EPA also must
consider more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When
considering beyond-the-floor options, EPA must consider not only the
maximum degree of reduction in
[[Page 21138]]
emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy, and nonair
environmental impacts when doing so.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least
30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas,
and section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to regulate, under section 112(d)
standards, the area source \1\ categories that represent 90 percent of
the emissions of the 30 ``listed'' HAP (``urban HAP''). We implemented
these listing requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An area source is a stationary source of HAP emissions that
is not a major source. A major source is a stationary source that
emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of
any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
\2\ \\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, EPA has amended the area source category list
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The portland cement source category was listed as a source category
for regulation under this 1999 Strategy based on emissions of arsenic,
cadmium, beryllium, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls. The final
NESHAP for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (64 FR 31898,
June 14, 1999) included emission limits based on performance of MACT
for the control of THC emissions from area sources. This 1999 rule
fulfills the requirement to regulate area source cement kiln emissions
of polychlorinated biphenyls (for which THC is a surrogate). However,
EPA did not include requirements for the control of the non-volatile
metal HAP (arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, and lead) from area sources in
the 1999 rule or in the 2006 amendments. To fulfill our requirements
under section 112(c)(3) and 112(k), EPA is thus proposing to set
emissions standards for these metal HAP from portland cement
manufacturing facilities that are area sources (using particulate
matter as a surrogate). In this proposal, EPA is proposing PM standards
for area sources based on performance of MACT.
Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and to regulate under
standards established pursuant to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4),
categories of sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of
emissions of each of seven specific HAP: alkylated lead compounds;
polycyclic organic matter; hexachlorobenzene; mercury; polychlorinated
byphenyls; 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans; and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachloroidibenzo-p-dioxin. Standards established under CAA 112(d)(2)
must reflect the performance of MACT. ``Portland cement manufacturing:
non-hazardous waste kilns'' is listed as a source category for
regulation under section 112(d)(2) pursuant to the section 112(c)(6)
requirements due to emissions of polycyclic organic matter, mercury,
and dioxin/furans (63 FR 17838, 17848, April 10, 1998); see also 63 FR
at 14193 (March 24, 1998) (area source cement kilns' emissions of
mercury, dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzo-p-furans, polycyclic organic
matter, and polychlorinated biphenyls are subject to MACT).
Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires EPA to establish specific
performance standards, including emission limitations, for ``solid
waste incineration units'' generally, and, in particular, for ``solid
waste incineration units combusting commercial or industrial waste''
(section 129(a)(1)(D)).\3\ Section 129 defines ``solid waste
incineration unit'' as ``a distinct operating unit of any facility
which combusts any solid waste material from commercial or industrial
establishments or the general public.'' Section 129(g)(1). Section 129
also provides that ``solid waste'' shall have the meaning established
by EPA pursuant to its authority under the [Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act]. Section 129(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 129 refers to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA). However, this act, as amended, is commonly referred to as
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250, 1257-
61 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the court vacated the Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI) Definitions Rule, 70 FR 55568
(Sept. 22, 2005), which EPA issued pursuant to CAA section
129(a)(1)(D). In that rule, EPA defined the term ``commercial or
industrial solid waste incineration unit'' to mean a combustion unit
that combusts ``commercial or industrial waste.'' The rule defined
``commercial or industrial waste'' to mean waste combusted at a unit
that does not recover thermal energy from the combustion for a useful
purpose. Under these definitions, only those units that combusted
commercial or industrial waste and were not designed to, or did not
operate to, recover thermal energy from the combustion would be subject
to section 129 standards. The DC Circuit rejected the definitions
contained in the CISWI Definitions Rule and interpreted the term
``solid waste incineration unit'' in CAA section 129(g)(1) ``to
unambiguously include among the incineration units subject to its
standards any facility that combusts any commercial or industrial solid
waste material at all--subject to the four statutory exceptions
identified in [CAA section 129(g)(1).]'' NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250,
1257-58.
In response to the Court's remand and vacatur of the CISWI
Definitions rule, EPA has initiated a rulemaking to define which
secondary materials are ``solid waste'' for purposes of subtitle D
(non-hazardous waste) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
when burned in a combustion unit. See Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 74 FR 41 (January 2, 2009) (soliciting comment on whether
certain secondary materials used as alternative fuels or ingredients
are solid wastes within the meaning of Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act). That definition, in turn, would
determine the applicability of section 129(a).
This definitional rulemaking is relevant to this proceeding because
some portland cement kilns combust secondary materials as alternative
fuels. However, there is no federal regulatory interpretation of
``solid waste'' for EPA to apply under Subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and EPA cannot prejudge the outcome of
that pending rulemaking. Moreover, EPA has imperfect information on the
exact nature of the secondary materials which portland cement kilns
combust, such as information as to the provider(s) of the secondary
materials, how much processing the secondary materials may have
undergone, and other issues potentially relevant in a determination of
whether these materials are to be classified as solid wastes. See 74 FR
at 53-59. EPA therefore cannot reliably determine at this time if the
secondary materials combusted by cement kilns are to be classified as
solid wastes. Accordingly, EPA is basing all determinations as to
source classification on the emissions information now available, as
required by section 112(d)(3), and will necessarily continue to do so
until the solid waste definition discussed above is promulgated. The
current data base classifies all portland cement kilns as section 112
sources (i.e. subject to regulation under section 112). EPA notes,
however, that the combustion of secondary materials as alternative
fuels did not have any appreciable effect on the amount of HAP emitted
by any source.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Development of the MACT Floors for the Proposed NESHAP for
Portland Cement. April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21139]]
B. Summary of the National Lime Association v. EPA Litigation
On June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898), EPA issued the NESHAP for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLL).\5\ The 1999 final rule established emission limitations for PM as
a surrogate for non-volatile HAP metals (major sources only), dioxins/
furans, and for greenfield \6\ new sources total THC as a surrogate for
organic HAP. These standards were intended to be based on the
performance of MACT pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We did not
establish limits for THC for existing sources and non-greenfield new
sources, nor for HCl or mercury for new or existing sources. We
reasoned that emissions of these constituents were a function of raw
material concentrations and so were essentially uncontrolled, the
result being that there was no level of performance on which a floor
could be based. EPA further found that beyond the floor standards for
these HAP were not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cement kilns which burn hazardous waste are a separate
source category, since their emissions of many HAP differ from
portland cement kilns' as a result of the hazardous waste inputs.
Rules for hazardous waste-burning cement kilns are found at subpart
EEE of part 63.
\6\ For purposes of the 1999 rule a new greenfield kiln is a
kiln constructed after March 24, 1998, at a site where there are no
existing kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling on petitions for review of various environmental groups, the
DC Circuit held that EPA had erred in failing to establish section
112(d) standards for mercury, THC (except for greenfield new sources)
and hydrochloric acid. The court held that ``[n]othing in the statute
even suggests that EPA may set emission levels only for those * * *
HAPs controlled with technology.'' National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.
3d 625, 633 (DC Cir. 2000). The court also stated that EPA is obligated
to consider other pollution-reducing measures such as process changes
and material substitution. Id. at 634. Later cases go on to hold that
EPA must account for levels of HAP in raw materials and other inputs in
establishing MACT floors, and further hold that sources with low HAP
emission levels due to low levels of HAP in their raw materials can be
considered best performers for purposes of establishing MACT floors.
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 875, 882-83 (DC
Cir. 2007).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In the remainder of the opinion, the court in National Lime
Ass'n upheld EPA's standards for particulate matter and dioxin (on
grounds that petitioner had not properly raised arguments in its
opening brief), upheld EPA's use of particulate matter as a
surrogate for HAP metals, and remanded for further explanation EPA's
choice of an analytic method for hydrochloric acid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA's Response to the Remand
In response to the National Lime Ass'n mandate, on December 2,
2005, we proposed standards for mercury, THC, and HCl. (More
information on the regulatory and litigation history may be found at 70
FR 72332, December 2, 2005.) We received over 1,700 comments on the
proposed amendments. Most of these comments addressed the lack of a
mercury emission limitation in the proposed amendments. On December 20,
2006 (71 FR 76518), EPA published final amendments to the national
emission standards for these HAP. The final amendments contain a new
source standard for mercury emissions from cement kilns and kilns/in-
line raw mills of 41 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, or
alternatively the application of a limestone wet scrubber with a
liquid-to-gas ratio of 30 gallons per 1,000 actual cubic feet per
minute of exhaust gas. The final rule also adopted a standard for new
and existing sources banning the use of utility boiler fly ash in
cement kilns where the fly ash mercury content has been increased
through the use of activated carbon or any other sorbent unless the
cement kiln seeking to use the fly ash can demonstrate that the use of
fly ash will not result in an increase in mercury emissions over its
baseline mercury emissions (i.e., emissions not using the mercury-laden
fly ash). EPA also issued a THC standard for new cement kilns (except
for greenfield cement kilns that commenced construction on or before
December 2, 2005) of 20 parts per million (corrected to 7 percent
oxygen) or 98 percent reduction in THC emissions from uncontrolled
levels. EPA did not set a standard for HCl, determining that HCl was a
pollutant for which a threshold had been established, and that no
cement kiln, even under worst-case operating conditions and exposure
assumptions, would emit HCl at levels that would exceed that threshold
level, allowing for an ample margin of safety.
D. Reconsideration of EPA Final Action in Response to the Remand
At the same time we issued the final amendments, EPA on its own
initiative made a determination to reconsider the new source standard
for mercury, the existing and new source standard banning cement kiln
use of certain mercury-containing fly ash, and the new source standard
for THC (71 FR 76553, December 20, 2006). EPA granted reconsideration
of the new source mercury standard both due to substantive issues
relating to the performance of wet scrubbers and because information
about their performance in the industry had not been available for
public comment at the time of proposal but is now available in the
docket. We also committed to undertake a test program for mercury
emissions from cement kilns equipped with wet scrubbers that would
enable us to resolve these issues. We further explained that we were
granting reconsideration of the work practice requirement banning the
use of certain mercury-containing fly ash in cement kilns to allow
further opportunity for comment on both the standard and the underlying
rationale and because we did not feel we had the level of analysis we
would like to support a beyond-the-floor determination. We granted
reconsideration of the new source standard for THC because the
information on which the standard was based arose after the period for
public comment. We requested comment on the actual standard, whether
the standard is appropriate for reconstructed new sources (if any
should occur) and the information on which the standard is based. We
specifically solicited data on THC emission levels from preheater/
precalciner cement kilns. We stated that we would evaluate all data and
comments received, and determine whether in light of those data and
comments it is appropriate to amend the promulgated standards.
EPA received comments on the notice of reconsideration from two
cement companies, three energy companies, three industry associations,
a technical consultant, one State, one environmental group, one ash
management company, one fuels company, and one private citizen. As part
of these comments, one industry trade association submitted a petition
to withdraw the new source MACT standards for mercury and THC and one
environmental group submitted a petition for reconsideration of the
2006 final action. A summary of these comments is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Summary of Comments on December 20, 2006 Final Rule and
Notice of Reconsideration. April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the reconsideration discussed above, EPA received a
petition from Sierra Club requesting reconsideration of the existing
source standards for THC, mercury, and HCl, and judicial petitions for
review challenging the final amendments. EPA granted the
reconsideration petition. The judicial petitions have been
[[Page 21140]]
combined and are being held in abeyance pending the results of the
reconsideration.
In March 2007 the DC Circuit court issued an opinion (Sierra Club
v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007) (Brick MACT)) vacating and
remanding section 112(d) MACT standards for the Brick and Structural
Clay Ceramics source categories. Some key holdings in that case were:
Floors for existing sources must reflect the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources, not levels EPA considers to be achievable by all
sources (479 F. 3d at 880-81);
EPA cannot set floors of ``no control.'' The Court
reiterated its prior holdings, including National Lime Ass'n,
confirming that EPA must set floor standards for all HAP emitted by the
major source, including those HAP that are not controlled by at-the-
stack control devices (479 F. 3d at 883);
EPA cannot ignore non-technology factors that reduce HAP
emissions. Specifically, the Court held that ``EPA's decision to base
floors exclusively on technology even though non-technology factors
affect emissions violates the Act.'' (479 F. 3d at 883)
Based on the Brick MACT decision, we believe a source's performance
resulting from the presence or absence of HAP in raw materials must be
accounted for in establishing floors; i.e., a low emitter due to low
HAP proprietary raw materials can still be a best performer. In
addition, the fact that a specific level of performance is unintended
is not a legal basis for excluding the source's performance from
consideration. National Lime Ass'n, 233 F. 3d at 640.
The Brick MACT decision also stated that EPA may account for
variability in setting floors. However, the court found that EPA erred
in assessing variability because it relied on data from the worst
performers to estimate best performers' variability, and held that
``EPA may not use emission levels of the worst performers to estimate
variability of the best performers without a demonstrated relationship
between the two.'' 479 F. 3d at 882.
The majority opinion in the Brick MACT case does not address the
possibility of subcategorization to address differences in the HAP
content of raw materials. However, in his concurring opinion Judge
Williams stated that EPA's ability to create subcategories for sources
of different classes, size, or type (section 112 (d)(1)) may provide a
means out of the situation where the floor standards are achieved for
some sources, but the same floors cannot be achieved for other sources
due to differences in local raw materials whose use is essential. Id.
at 884-85.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``What if meeting the `floors' is extremely or even
prohibitively costly for particular plants because of conditions
specific to those plants (e.g., adoption of the necessary technology
requires very costly retrofitting, or the required technology
cannot, given local inputs whose use is essential, achieve the
`floor')? For these plants, it would seem that what has been
`achieved' under Sec. 112(d)(3) would not be `achievable' under
Sec. 112(d)(2) in light of the latter's mandate to EPA to consider
cost. * * * [O]ne legitimate basis for creating additional
subcategories must be the interest in keeping the relation between
`achieved' and `achievable' in accord with common sense and the
reasonable meaning of the statute. '' Id. at 884-85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the implications of this decision, EPA granted
the petition for reconsideration of all the existing source standards
in the 2006 rulemaking.
A second court opinion is also relevant to this proposal. In Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008) the court vacated the
regulations contained in the General Provisions which exempt major
sources from MACT standards during periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction (SSM)). The regulations (in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
63.6(h)(1)) provided that sources need not comply with the relevant
section 112(d) standard during SSM events and instead must ``minimize
emissions * * * to the greatest extent which is consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices.'' The current Portland Cement
NESHAP does not contain specific provisions covering operation during
SSM operating modes; rather it references the now-vacated rules in the
General Provisions. As a result of the court decision, we are
addressing them in this rulemaking. Discussion of this issue may be
found in Section IV.G.
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL
This section presents the proposed amendments to the Portland
Cement NESHAP. In the section presenting the amended rule language,
there is some language that it not amendatory, but is presented for the
reader's convenience. We are not reopening or otherwise considering
unchanged rule language presented for the reader's convenience, and
will not accept comments on such language.
A. Emissions Limits
We are proposing the following new emission limits in this action
categorized below by their sources in a typical Portland cement
production process.
Kilns and In-line Kiln/Raw Mills
Mercury. For cement kilns or in-line kilns/raw mills an emissions
limit of 43 lb/million(MM) tons clinker for existing sources and 14 lb/
MM tons clinker for new sources. Both proposed limits are based on a 30
day rolling average.
THC. For cement kilns or in-line kilns/raw mills an emissions limit
of 7 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for existing sources and 6 ppmv
for new sources, measured dry as propane and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen, measured on a 30 rolling day average in each case. Because the
proposed existing source standard would be more stringent than the new
source standard of 50 ppmv contained in the 1999 final rule for
greenfield new sources, we are also proposing to remove the 50 ppmv
standard.
As an alternative to the THC standard, we are proposing that the
cement kilns or in-line kilns/raw mills can meet a standard of 2 ppmv
total combined organic HAP for existing sources or 1 ppmv total organic
HAP combined for new sources, measured dry and corrected to 7 percent
oxygen. We believe this standard is equivalent to the proposed THC
standard as discussed in section IV.C. The alternative standard would
be based on organic HAP emission testing and concurrent THC CEMS
measurements that would establish a site specific THC limit that would
demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP limit. The site
specific THC limit would be measured as a 30 day rolling average.
PM. For cement kilns or cement kilns/in-line raw mills an emissions
limit of 0.085 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker for existing sources and
0.080 lb/tons clinker for new sources. Kilns and kiln/in-line raw mills
where the clinker cooler gas is combined with the kiln exhaust and sent
to a single control device for energy efficiency purposes (i.e., to
extract heat from the clinker cooler exhaust) would be allowed to
adjust the PM standard to an equivalent level accounting for the
increased gas flow due to combining of kiln and clinker cooler exhaust.
Opacity. We are proposing to remove all opacity standards for kilns
and clinker coolers because these sources will be required to monitor
compliance with the PM emissions limits by more accurate means.
Hydrochloric Acid. For cement kilns or cement kilns/in-line raw
mills an emissions limit of 2 ppmv for existing sources and 0.1 ppmv
for new sources, measured dry and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. For
facilities that are required to use a continuous emissions monitoring
[[Page 21141]]
system (CEMS), compliance would be based on a 30 day rolling average.
Clinker Coolers
For clinker coolers a PM emissions limit of 0.085 lb/ton clinker
for existing sources and 0.080 lb/tons clinker for new sources.
Raw Material Dryers
THC. For raw materials dryers an emissions limit of 7 ppmv for
existing sources and 6 ppmv for new sources, measured dry as propane
and corrected to 7 percent oxygen, measured on a 30 day rolling
average. Because the proposed existing source standard would be more
stringent than the new source standard of 50 ppmv contained in the 1999
final rule for Greenfield new sources, we are also proposing to remove
the 50 ppmv standard.
As an alternative to the THC standard, the raw material dryer can
meet a standard of 2 ppmv total combined organic HAP for existing
sources or 1 ppmv total organic HAP combined for new sources, measured
dry and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. The alternative standard would
be based on organic HAP emission testing and concurrent THC CEMS
measurements that would establish a site specific THC limit that would
demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP limit. The site
specific THC limit would be measured as a 30 day rolling average.
B. Operating Limits
EPA is proposing to eliminate the restriction on the use of fly ash
where the mercury content of the fly ash has been increased through the
use of activated carbon. Given the proposed emission limitation for
mercury, whereby kilns or cement kilns/in-line raw mills must
continuously meet the mercury emission limits described above
(including when using these materials) there does not appear to be a
need for such a provision. For the same reason, EPA is proposing to
remove the requirement to maintain the amount of cement kiln dust
wasted during testing of a control device, and the provision requiring
that kilns remove from the kiln system sufficient amounts of dust so as
not to impair product quality.
C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
We are proposing the following changes in testing and monitoring
requirements:
Kilns and kiln/in-line raw mills would be required to meet the
following changed monitoring/testing requirements:
CEMS (PS-12A) or sorbent trap monitors (PS-12B) to
continuously measure mercury emissions, along with Procedure 5 for
ongoing quality assurance.
CEMS meeting the requirement of PS-8A to measure THC
emissions for existing sources (new sources are already required to
monitor THC with a CEM). Kilns and kiln/in-line raw mills meeting the
organic HAP alternative to the THC limit would still be required to
continuously monitor THC (based on the results of THC monitoring done
concurrently with the Method 320 test), and would also be required to
test emissions using EPA Method 320 or ASTM D6348-03 every five years
to identify the organic HAP component of their THC emissions.
Installation and operation of a bag leak detection system
to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit. If electrostatic
precipitators (ESP) are used for PM control an ESP predictive model to
monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM emissions from kilns
would be required. As an alternative EPA is proposing that sources may
use a PM CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-11. Though we are
proposing the PM CEMS as an alternative compliance method, we are
taking comment on requiring PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance.
CEMS meeting the requirements of PS-15 would be required
to demonstrate compliance with the HCl standard. If a facility is using
a caustic scrubber to meet the standard, EPA Test Method 321 and
ongoing continuous parameter monitoring of the scrubber may be used in
lieu of a CEMS to demonstrate compliance. The M321 test must be
repeated every 5 years.
For clinker coolers, EPA is proposing use of a bag leak detection
system to demonstrate compliance with the proposed PM emissions limit.
If an ESP is used for PM control on clinker coolers, an ESP predictive
model to monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM emissions from
kilns would be required. As an alternative, EPA is proposing that a PM
CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-11 may be used.
Raw material dryers that are existing sources would be required to
install and operate CEMS meeting the requirement of PS-8A to measure
THC emissions. (New sources are already required to monitor THC with a
CEM). Raw material dryers meeting the organic HAP alternative to the
THC limit would still be required to continuously monitor THC (based on
the results of THC monitoring done concurrently with the Method 320
test), and would also be required to test emissions using EPA Method
320 or ASTM D6348-03 every five years to identify the organic HAP
component of their THC emissions.
New or reconstructed raw material dryers and raw or finish mills
would be subject to longer Method 22 and, potentially, to longer Method
9 tests. The increase in test length duration is necessary to better
reflect the operating characteristics of sources subject to the
proposed rule.
IV. Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL
A. MACT Floor Determination Procedure for all Pollutants
The MACT floor limits for each of the HAP and HAP surrogates
(mercury, total hydrocarbons, HCl, and particulate matter) are
calculated based on the performance of the lowest emitting (best
performing) sources in each of the MACT pool sources. We ranked all of
the sources for which we had data based on their emissions and
identified the lowest emitting 12 percent of the sources for which we
had data, which ranged from two kilns for THC to 11 kilns for mercury
for existing sources. For new source MACT, the floor was based on the
best performing source. The MACT floor limit is calculated from a
formula that is a modified prediction limit, designed to estimate a
MACT floor level that is achievable by the average of the best
performing sources (i.e., those in the MACT pool) if the best
performing sources were able to replicate the compliance tests in our
data base. Specifically, the MACT floor limit is an upper prediction
limit (UPL) calculated from: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ More details on the calculation of the MACT floor limits
are given in the memorandum Development of The MACT Floors For The
Proposed NESHAP for Portland Cement. April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPL = xp + t * (VT)\0.5\
Where:
Xp = average of the best performing MACT pool sources,
t = Student's t-factor evaluated at 99 percent confidence, and
vT = total variance determined as the sum of the within-
source variance and the between-source variance.
The between-source variance is the variance of the average of the best
performing source averages. The within-source variance is the variance
of the MACT source average considering ``m'' number of future
individual test runs used to make up the average to determine
compliance. The value of ``m'' is used to reduce the variability to
account for the lower variability when averaging of individual runs is
used to determine compliance in the future. For example, if 30-day
averages are used to
[[Page 21142]]
determine compliance (m=30), the variability based 30-day average is
much lower than the variability of the daily measurements in the data
base, which results in a lower UPL for the 30-day average.
B. Determination of MACT for Mercury Emissions From Major and Area
Sources
The limits for existing and new sources we are proposing here apply
to both area and major new sources. These limits would also apply to
area sources consistent with section 112(c)(6) of the Act, as EPA
determined in the original rule. See 63 FR at 14193.
1. Floor Determination
Selection of Existing Source Floor
Cement kilns' emissions of mercury reflect exclusively the amounts
of mercury in each kiln's feedstock and fuel inputs. The amounts of
mercury in these inputs and their relative contributions to overall
mercury kiln emissions vary by site. In many cases the majority of the
mercury emissions result from the mercury present as a trace
contaminant in the limestone, which typically comes from a proprietary
quarry located adjacent to the plant. Limestone is the single largest
input, by mass, to a cement kiln's total mass input, typically making
up 80 percent of that loading. Mercury is also found as a trace
contaminant in the other inputs to the kiln such as the additives that
supply the required silica, alumina, and iron. Mercury is also present
in the coal and petroleum coke typically used to fuel cement kilns.
Based on our current information, mercury levels in limestone can
vary significantly, both within a single quarry and between quarries.
Since quarries are generally proprietary, this variability is inherent
and site-specific. Mercury levels in additives and fuels likewise vary
significantly, although mercury emissions attributable to limestone
often dominate the total due to the larger amount of mass input
contributed by limestone (see further discussion of this issue at Other
Options EPA considered in Setting Floor for Mercury below).
The first step in establishing a MACT standard is to determine the
MACT floor. A necessary step in doing so is determining the amount of
HAP emitted. In the case of mercury emitted by cement kilns, this is
not necessarily a straightforward undertaking. Single stack
measurements represent a snapshot in time of a source's emissions,
always raising questions of how representative such emissions are of
the source's emissions over time. This problem is compounded in the
case of cement kilns, because cement kilns do not emit mercury
uniformly. Our current data suggest that, for all kilns, the mercury
content of the feed and fuels varies significantly from day-to-day.
Because most cement kilns have no mercury emissions control, the
variations in mercury inputs directly translate to a variability of
mercury stack emissions. For modern preheater and preheater/precalciner
kilns this problem is compounded because these kilns have in-line raw
mills. With in-line raw mills, mercury is captured in the ground raw
meal in the in-line raw mill and this raw meal (containing mercury) is
returned as feed to the kiln. Mercury emissions may remain low during
such recycling operations. However, as part of normal kiln operation
raw mills must be periodically shut down for maintenance, and mercury-
containing exhaust gases from the kiln are then bypassed directly to
the main air pollution control device resulting in significantly
increased mercury emissions at the stack. The result is that at any
given time, mercury emissions from such cement kilns are either low or
high, but rarely in equilibrium, so that single stack tests are likely
to either underestimate or overestimate cement kilns' performance over
time. Put another way, we believe that single short term stack test
data (typically a few hours) are probably not indicative of long term
emissions performance, and so are not the best indicator of performance
over time. With these facts in mind, we carefully considered
alternatives other than use of single short-term stack test results to
quantify kilns' performance for mercury.
An alternative to short term stack test data would be to use
mercury continuous monitoring data over a longer time period. Because
no cement kilns in the United States have continuous mercury monitors,
this option was not available. However, mercury is an element.
Therefore, all the mercury that enters a kiln has to leave the kiln in
some fashion. The available data indicate that almost no mercury leaves
the kiln as part of the clinker (product). Therefore, our methodology
assumes over the long term that all the mercury leaves the kiln as a
stack emission with three exceptions:
1. If instead of returning all particulate captured in the
particulate control device to the kiln, the source instead removes some
of it from the circuit entirely, i.e., the kiln does not reuse all
(wastes some) cement kiln dust (CKD); or
2. The kiln is equipped with an alkali bypass, which means all CKD
captured in the alkali bypass PM control is wasted, and/or;
3. If the kiln has a wet scrubber (usually for SO2
control), the scrubber will remove some mercury which our methodology
assumes will end up in the gypsum generated by the scrubber.
Based on these facts we decided that the most accurate method
available to us to determine long term mercury emissions performance
was to do a total mass balance. We did so by obtaining data on all the
kiln mercury inputs (i.e., all raw materials and all fuels) for a large
group of kilns, and assuming all mercury that enters the kiln is
emitted except for the three conditions noted above. Pursuant to
letters mandating data gathering, issued under the authority of section
114, we obtained 30 days of daily data on kiln mercury concentrations
in each individual raw material, fuel, and CKD for 89 kilns (which
represent 59 percent of total kilns), along with annual mass inputs and
the amount of material collected in the PM control device (or alkali PM
control device) that is wasted rather than returned to the kiln.
These data were submitted to EPA as daily concentrations for the
inputs, i.e., samples of all inputs were taken daily and analyzed daily
for their mercury content. We took the daily averages, calculated a
mean concentration, and multiplied the mean concentration by annual
materials use to calculate an annual mercury emission for each of the
89 kilns. If the facility wasted CKD, we subtracted out the annual
mercury that left the system in the CKD. If the facility had a wet
scrubber (the only control device currently in use among the sampled
kilns with any substantial mercury capture efficiency), we subtracted
out the annual mercury attributable to use of the scrubber. There are
five cement kilns using wet scrubbers and EPA has removal efficiencies
for four of these kilns (based on inlet/outlet testing conducted at
EPA's request concurrent with the input sampling). We attributed a
removal efficiency for the fifth kiln based on the average removal
efficiency of the other four kilns.
We acknowledge that an additional source of uncertainty in the mass
balance methodology for estimating the capture efficiencies of wet
scrubbers is the variability in the mercury speciation ratios
(elemental to divalent). These ratios, which are dependent on the
amount of chlorine present and other factors, would be expected to vary
at different kilns. Only the soluble divalent mercury fraction will be
[[Page 21143]]
captured by a wet scrubber. We note, however, that mercury speciation
would be expected to have little effect on mercury emissions in the
case where wet scrubbers, or other add-on controls such as activated
carbon injection (ACI), are not used, because for most facilities,
mercury captured in the PM controls is returned to the kiln. In cases
where some of the collected PM is wasted, we had 30 days of actual
mercury content data for wasted material.
For each kiln, we calculated an average annual emission factor,
which is the average projected emission rate for each kiln. We did this
by dividing calculated annual emissions by total inputs. We then ranked
each kiln from lowest average emission factor to highest. The resulting
emissions factors for 87 of the 89 ranged (relatively continuously)
from 7 to 300 pounds of mercury per million tons of feed. Two kilns
showed considerably higher numbers, approximately 1200 and 2000 pounds
per ton of feed. These two facilities have atypically high mercury
contents in the limestone in their proprietary quarries which are the
most significant contributors to the high mercury emissions.
Based on these data and ranking methodology, the existing source
MACT floor would be the average of the lowest emitting 12 percent of
the kilns for which we have data, which would be the 11 kilns with
lowest emissions (as calculated), shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Mercury MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury emissions
Kiln code (lb/MM ton feed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1233................................................ 7.14
1650................................................ 10.83
1589................................................ 11.11
1302................................................ 14.51
1259................................................ 15.16
1315................................................ 15.41
1248................................................ 18.09
1286................................................ 21.12
1435................................................ 22.89
1484................................................ 22.89
1364................................................ 23.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT--Existing kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker)....... 16.6 (27.4)
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)............................. 9.52
99th percentile: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons 26 (43)
clinker)...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT--New kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons clinker)....... 7.1 (11.8)
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)............................. 1.3
99th percentile: lb/MM tons feed (lb/MM tons 8.4 (14)
clinker)...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average emission rate for these kilns is 16.6 pounds per
million tons (lb/MM) tons feed (27.4 lb/MM tons clinker). The emission
rate of the single lowest emitting source is 7.1 lb/MM tons feed (11.8
lb/MM tons clinker).
As previously discussed above, we account for variability in
setting floors, not only because variability is an element of
performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best performance
over time. Here, for example, we know that the 11 lowest emitting kiln
emission estimates are averages, and that the actual emissions will
vary over time. If we do not account for this variability, we would
expect that even the kilns that perform better than the floor on
average would potentially exceed the floor emission levels a
significant part of the time--meaning that their performance was
assessed incorrectly in the first instance.
For the 11 lowest emitting kilns, we calculated a daily emission
rate using the daily concentration values and annual materials inputs
divided by each kiln's operating days.\11\ The results are shown in
Table 1 and represent the average performance of each kiln over the 30-
day period. We then calculated the average performance of the 11 lowest
emitting kilns (17 lb/MM tons of feed) and the variances of the daily
emission rates for each kiln which is a direct measure of the
variability of the data set. This variability includes the day-to-day
variability in the total mercury input to each kiln and variability of
the sampling and analysis methods over the 30-day period, and it
includes the variability resulting from site-to-site differences for
the 11 lowest emitters. We calculated the MACT floor (26 lb/MM tons
feed) based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earlier
from the average performance of the 11 lowest emitting kilns, Students
t-factor, and the total variability, which was adjusted to account for
the lower variability when using 30 day averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the daily calculations, we treated the CKD removal as if
it was a control device, and applied the overall percent reduction
rather that using the daily CKD concentration value. We used this
approach because if we used daily CKD removal values, some days
showed negative mercury emissions rates. This is because of the
mercury recycling issues discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also has some information which tends to corroborate the
variability factor used to calculate the floor for mercury. These data
are not emissions data; they are data on the total mercury content of
feed materials over periods of 12 months or longer. Because mercury
emissions correlate with mercury content of feed materials, we believe
an analysis of the variability of the feed materials is an accurate
surrogate for the variability of mercury emissions over time. These
long term data are from multiple kilns from a single company that are
not ranked among the lowest emitters, but are nonetheless germane as a
crosscheck on variability of mercury content of feed materials
(including whether 30 days of sampling, coupled with statistically
derived variability of that data set and a 99th percentile, adequately
measures that variability).
One way of comparing the variability among different data sets with
different average values is to calculate and compare the relative
standard deviations (RSD), which is the standard deviation divided by
the mean, of each set. If the RSD are comparable, then one can conclude
that the variability among the data sets is comparable. The results of
such an analysis are given in Table 2 below. The long term data
represent long term averages of feed material mercury content based on
12 months of data or more, whereas the MACT data sets are for 30
consecutive days of data. The RSD of the long term data range from 0.29
to 1.05, and the RSD of the MACT floor kilns range from 0.10 to 0.89.
This comparison suggests that our method of calculating variability in
the proposed floor based on variances/99th percentile UPL appears to
adequately encompass sources' long-term variability.
[[Page 21144]]
Table 2--Comparison of Long-Term Kiln Feed Mercury Concentration at Essroc Plants With the Feed Mercury
Concentration Data for the MACT Floor Kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPM Hg in feed
--------------------------
Kiln Standard RSD Source
Mean deviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1248 \a\............................ 0.021 0.002 0.10 MACT floor kiln.\b\
1589 \a\............................ 0.021 0.002 0.10 MACT floor kiln.
1435................................ 0.012 0.002 0.16 MACT floor kiln.
1484................................ 0.012 0.002 0.16 MACT floor kiln.
1233................................ 0.011 0.002 0.16 MACT floor kiln.
1650................................ 0.025 0.005 0.22 MACT floor kiln.
Speed............................... 0.055 0.016 0.29 Essroc.\c\
1286................................ 0.006 0.002 0.32 MACT floor kiln.
1364................................ 0.006 0.002 0.32 MACT floor kiln.
San Juan............................ 0.322 0.108 0.34 Essroc.
Bessemer............................ 0.021 0.007 0.35 Essroc.
Logansport.......................... 0.022 0.008 0.37 Essroc.
Naz III............................. 0.016 0.010 0.61 Essroc.
Naz I............................... 2.974 1.838 0.62 Essroc.
1302................................ 0.006 0.004 0.68 MACT floor kiln.
1315................................ 0.006 0.004 0.68 MACT floor kiln.
Martinsburg......................... 0.023 0.017 0.89 Essroc.
1259................................ 0.008 0.007 0.89 MACT floor kiln.
Picton.............................. 0.075 0.078 1.05 Essroc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Same feed sample applied to multiple kilns at the plant.
\b\ MACT floor kilns' variabilities are all based on approximately 30 days of data.
\c\ Essroc kiln's variabilities are all based on 12 months to three years of data.
We are proposing to express the floor as a 30-day rolling average
for the following two reasons. First, as explained earlier, daily
variations in mercury emissions at the stack for all kilns with in-line
raw mills is greater than daily variability of mercury levels in
inputs. This is because mercury is emitted in high concentrations
during mill-off conditions, but in lower concentrations when mercury is
recycled to the kiln via the raw mill (`mill-on'). We believe that 30
days is the minimum averaging time that allows for this mill-on/mill-
off variation.
Second, a 30-day rolling average is tied to our proposed
implementation regime, which in turn is based on the means by which the
data used to generate the standard were developed. As explained above,
the proposed floor reflects 30 days of sampling which are averaged,
corresponding to the proposed 30-day averaging period. EPA is also
proposing to monitor compliance by means of daily monitoring via a
CEMS, so that the proposed implementation regime likewise mirrors the
means by which the underlying data were gathered and used in developing
the standard.
Critical to this variability calculation is the assumption that EPA
is adequately accounting for variable mercury content in kiln
inputs.\12\ As noted, we did so based on 30 days of continuous sampling
of all kiln inputs, plus use of a further statistical variability
factor (based on that data set) and use of the 99th percentile UPL. The
30-day averaging time in the standard is a further means of accounting
for variability, and accords with the data and methodology EPA used to
develop the floor level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Since only five kilns have stack control devices,
variability of performance of these controls (wet scrubbers),
although important, plays a less critical role in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicit comment on the accuracy and appropriateness of this
analysis. The most pertinent information would of course be additional
data of raw material and fuel mercury contents and usage to specific
kilns (especially data from sampling over a longer period than 30
days).\13\ EPA also expressly solicits further information regarding
potential substitutability of non-limestone kiln inputs and whether
kilns actually utilize inputs other than those reflected in the 30-day
sampling effort comprising EPA's present data base for mercury, and if
so, what mercury levels are in these inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Some advance commenters have posited a larger variability
factor to reflect the historic known variation in mercury content in
limestone and other inputs, as reflected in various geological
surveys. However, at issue is not variability for the source
category as a whole, but specific sources' variability. So any
resort to information not coming directly from a best performer's
own operating history must be accompanied by an explanation of its
relevance for best performer's variability in order to be considered
relevant. See Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 881-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of New Source Floor
Based on Table 1, the average associated with the single lowest
emitting kiln is 7 lb/MM tons feed (12 lb/MM tons clinker). Applying
the UPL formula discussed earlier based on the daily emissions for the
best performing kiln, we calculated its 99th percentile UPL of
performance, which results in a new source MACT level of 8.4 lb/MM tons
feed (14 lb/MM tons clinker).
Because this new source floor is expressed on a different basis
than the standard EPA promulgated in December 2006, which was a 41
[micro]g/dscm not to be exceeded standard, it is difficult to directly
compare the new source floor proposed in this action to the December
2006 standard. The December 2006 new source mercury emissions limit was
based on the performance of wet scrubber-equipped cement kilns. In our
current analysis these wet scrubber-equipped kilns were among the
lowest emitting kilns, but not the lowest emitting kiln used to
establish this proposed new source limit. Based on this fact, we
believe this proposed new source floor (and standard, since EPA is not
proposing a beyond-the-floor standard) is approximately 30 percent
lower than the December 2006 standard.
Other Options EPA Considered in Setting Floors for Mercury
EPA may create subcategories which distinguish among ``classes,
types, and sizes of sources''. Section 112(d)(1). EPA has carefully
considered that possibility
[[Page 21145]]
in considering potential standards for mercury emitted by portland
cement kilns. Were EPA to do so, each subcategory would have its own
floor and standard, reflecting performance of the sources within that
subcategory. EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP,
rather than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts
warrant (so that, for example, a subcategory for kilns emitting
mercury, but a single category for kilns emitting HCl, is legally
permissible with a proper factual basis). Normally, any basis for
subcategorizing must be related to an effect on emissions, rather than
to some difference among sources which does not affect emissions
performance.
The subcategorization possibilities for mercury which we considered
are the type of kiln, presence of an inline raw mill, practice of
wasting cement kiln dust, mercury concentration of limestone in the
kiln's proprietary quarry, or geographic location. Mercury emissions
are not affected by kiln type (i.e., wet or dry, pre-calcining or not)
because none of these distinctions have a bearing on the amount of
mercury inputted to the kiln or emitted by it. In contrast, the
presence of an in-line raw mill affects mercury emissions in the short
term because the in-line raw mill tends to collect mercury in the
exhaust gas and transfer it to the kiln feed. However, since (as
discussed above) the raw mill must be shut down periodically for
maintenance while the kiln continues to operate, all or most of the
collected mercury simply gets emitted during the raw mill shutdown and
total mercury emissions over time are not changed.
The practice of wasting cement kiln dust does affect emissions.
This practice means that a portion of the material collected on the PM
control device is removed from the kiln system, rather than recycled to
the kiln. Some of the mercury condenses on the PM collected on the PM
control device, so wasting CKD also removes some mercury from the kiln
system (and therefore it is not emitted). However, since this practice
could be considered to ``control'' mercury, subcategorization by CKD
wasting would be the same as subcategorizing by control device, which
is not permissible. See 69 FR at 403 (Jan. 5, 2004).
There is no variation in kiln location (i.e., geographical
distinction) which would justify subcategorization. We examined the
geographical distribution of mercury emissions and total mercury and
found no correlation. For example, no one region of the country has
kilns that tend to be all low- or high-emitting kilns.
We also rejected subcategorization by total mercury inputs.
Subcategorization by this method would inevitability result in a
situation where kilns with higher total mercury inputs would have
higher emission limits. Total mercury inputs are correlated with
mercury emissions. So a facility that currently has lower mercury
inputs could potentially simply substitute a higher mercury raw
material without any requirement to control the additional mercury. In
addition, fuels and other additives are non-captive \14\ situations,
and thus do not readily differentiate kilns by ``size, class, or
type''. Finally, because of the direct correlation of mercury emissions
and mercury inputs, subcategorization by total mercury inputs could
potentially be viewed as a similar situation to subcategorization by
control device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ `Non-captive' means these materials do not necessarily come
from the facility's proprietary quarry and the facility has choices
for the source of these materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subcategorization option that we believe is most pertinent
would be to subcategorize by the facility's proprietary limestone
quarry. All cement plans have a limestone quarry located adjacent to or
very close to the cement plant. This quarry supplies limestone only to
its associated plant, and is not accessible to other plants. Typically
quarries are developed to provide 50 to 100 years of limestone, and the
cement kiln is located based on the location of the quarry. See 70 FR
at 72333. For this reason, we believe that a facility's proprietary
quarry is an inherent part of the process such that the kiln and the
quarry together can be viewed as the affected source. Also, the amount
of mercury in the proprietary quarry can significantly affect mercury
emission because (as noted above) limestone makes up about 80 percent
of the total inputs to the kiln. Thus, kilns with mercury above a given
level might be considered a different type or class of kiln because
their process necessarily requires the use of that higher-mercury
input.
The facts, however, do not obviously indicate sharp disparities in
limestone mercury content that readily differentiate among types of
sources. Figure 1 presents the average mercury contents of the
proprietary quarries on the 89 kilns in EPA's present data base.
[[Page 21146]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.052
These data, as we presently evaluate them, do not readily support a
subcategorization approach--putting aside for the moment the high
mercury limestone kilns (at the far right of the distribution tail in
Figure 1) which are discussed separately. As shown in Figure 1, mercury
levels in limestone are more of a continuum with no immediately evident
breakpoints (again, putting aside the high-mercury limestone kilns).
More important, kilns with quarries with varied mercury content can and
do have similar mercury emissions, and in many instances, limestone
mercury is not the dominant source of mercury in the kilns' emissions
notwithstanding that limestone is the principal volumetric input. Thus
for about 55 percent of the kilns (49 of 89), non-limestone mercury
accounted for greater than 50 percent of the kiln's mercury
emissions.\15\ For nearly 70 percent of the kilns (62 of 89), limestone
mercury accounted for at least one-third of total mercury emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In certain instances, percentages of non-limestone mercury
are high because limestone mercury content was low. However, in many
instances, non-limestone mercury contributions exceeded those from
limestone even where limestone mercury contribution was relatively
high. See Table 3.
Table 3--Origins of Mercury in Portland Cement Manufacturing
[Sorted by limestone percent] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limestone
mercury Percent Hg Percent Hg Percent Hg
Random number kiln code concentration from limestone from other raw from fuels
(ppb) \a\ materials
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1629............................................ 652.92 92 8 0
1647............................................ 40.88 89 5 7
1581............................................ 96.73 88 9 3
1376............................................ 27.43 87 5 8
1609............................................ 1120.75 87 13 0
1688............................................ 27.43 87 5 8
1690............................................ 27.43 87 5 8
1339............................................ 21.00 84 8 9
1324............................................ 21.30 83 1 16
1693............................................ 21.72 80 7 13
1692............................................ 20.23 79 13 8
1419............................................ 20.92 77 16 8
1248............................................ 20.92 76 17 6
1302............................................ 6.24 76 7 17
1686............................................ 51.21 76 19 6
1239............................................ 59.40 74 17 8
[[Page 21147]]
1315............................................ 6.24 74 7 19
1265............................................ 12.18 73 16 11
1251............................................ 20.92 70 16 13
1592............................................ 46.99 68 11 21
1650............................................ 24.92 68 3 28
1643............................................ 22.02 67 1 33
1674............................................ 22.02 67 1 32
1225............................................ 46.99 66 11 23
1268............................................ 16.97 65 4 31
1226............................................ 21.45 64 11 26
1589............................................ 20.92 64 30 5
1200............................................ 86.65 63 5 32
1218............................................ 86.65 63 5 32
1415............................................ 20.00 63 29 7
1439............................................ 46.99 63 11 27
1421............................................ 13.00 62 27 11
1435............................................ 11.56 62 25 13
1463............................................ 12.18 62 13 25
1484............................................ 11.56 62 25 13
1481............................................ 39.12 60 35 5
1337............................................ 57.17 59 17 24
1375............................................ 20.67 59 21 20
1448............................................ 57.17 59 17 24
1615............................................ 20.67 58 21 21
1259............................................ 8.31 57 23 20
1327............................................ 20.67 57 21 23
1604............................................ 20.00 55 22 23
1256............................................ 21.63 54 41 5
1294............................................ 21.63 54 41 5
1343............................................ 21.63 54 41 5
1350............................................ 21.63 54 41 5
1220............................................ 21.54 53 40 6
1635............................................ 21.23 52 41 7
1638............................................ 39.00 48 3 48
1233............................................ 11.31 46 41 14
1240............................................ 21.23 44 3 53
1331............................................ 16.93 44 12 44
1417............................................ 39.00 44 3 53
1594............................................ 16.93 42 12 46
1371............................................ 20.10 40 16 44
1619............................................ 20.10 40 16 43
1660............................................ 16.93 39 11 50
1443............................................ 20.00 38 57 5
1396............................................ 20.43 35 61 4
1436............................................ 20.10 35 15 50
1286............................................ 5.67 33 2 65
1364............................................ 5.67 32 2 66
1582............................................ 24.59 30 13 57
1591............................................ 24.59 30 13 57
1655............................................ 24.59 30 13 57
1253............................................ 12.94 29 60 11
1323............................................ 12.94 29 60 11
1390............................................ 12.94 29 60 11
1639............................................ 12.94 29 60 11
1663............................................ 12.94 29 60 11
1308............................................ 6.15 27 1 72
1520............................................ 19.86 27 34 38
1521............................................ 6.15 27 1 72
1536............................................ 10.65 27 0 73
1246............................................ 20.00 26 65 9
1316............................................ 20.00 26 65 9
1559............................................ 5.00 26 19 55
1335............................................ 20.30 25 55 21
1437............................................ 21.20 25 50 25
1597............................................ 21.20 25 49 26
1219............................................ 11.25 20 71 8
1560............................................ 11.09 18 76 5
1494............................................ 5.22 17 54 28
[[Page 21148]]
1610............................................ 163.39 17 10 73
1530............................................ 5.22 15 53 32
1630............................................ 22.60 15 84 2
1538............................................ 8.42 10 89 1
1356............................................ 8.23 8 91 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The combined percentages of limestone, other raw materials, and fuels add to 100 percent.
These data seem to indicate that although quarry mercury content is
important, other non-proprietary inputs can and do affect mercury
emissions as well, often to an equal or greater extent. Quarries with
similar limestone mercury content can and do have very different
mercury emissions. These facts, plus the general continuum in the
limestone mercury data, seem to mitigate against subcategorizing on
this basis for the great bulk of industry sources.
Moreover, as stated above, subcategorization is limited by the CAA
to size, class, or type of source. Both EPA and advance industry
commenters \16\ applied various statistical analyses to the mercury
limestone quarry data set and these analyses indicated that there could
be populations of quarries that were statistically different. However,
it is unclear to us that a statistical difference in a population is
necessarily the same as a distinction by size, class, or type. More
compelling facts, at least in our present thinking, are the apparent
continuum of limestone mercury levels, and the fact that limestone
mercury levels are less of a driver of mercury emission levels than one
would expect if this is to be the basis for subcategorization across a
broad set of the facilities. EPA is also concerned that
subcategorization by quarry mercury content may allow some higher-
emitting facilities to do relatively less for compliance were they to
be part of a separate subcategory where mercury levels of best
performers were comparatively high. (Of course, these levels could be
reduced by adopting standards reflecting beyond-the-floor
determinations.) Conversely, the case could occur where a lower emitter
might be subject to a greater degree of control than a high emitter.
For example, if we were to establish a subcategory at 20 ppb mercury in
the limestone, kilns at just below the 20 ppb level might be required
to apply mercury controls while kilns just above the 20 ppb level,
which would likely include kilns that would determine the floor level
of control, would have to do nothing to meet the mercury standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Minutes of March 19, 2006 meeting between
representative of the Portland Cement Association and E. Craig,
USEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of this analysis, however, does not apply to the kilns at the
far end of the distribution, especially the two facilities shown in
Figure 1 which have the highest quarry mercury contents which quarries
appear to be outliers from the general population. These sources'
mercury emissions are related almost entirely to the limestone mercury
content, not to other inputs.
However, EPA is not proposing to create a separate subcategory for
these high mercury sources. We note that if we set up a separate
subcategory for these facilities, even if we proposed a beyond-the-
floor standard based on the best estimated performance of control for
these two facilities, their emissions limit would potentially be 500 to
800 lb/MM tons clinker, which is well above any other kiln, even when
uncontrolled, in our data base, and 8 to 13 times the floor established
for other existing sources (assuming no further subcategorization).
Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or onto land where it
can be washed into water. Once deposited, certain microorganisms can
change it into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in
fish, shellfish and animals that eat fish. Fish and shellfish are the
main sources of methylmercury exposure to humans. (See section IV.4 for
further discussion of mercury health effects.) Mercury is one of the
pollutants identified for special control under the Act's air toxics
provision (see section 112c(6)), and kilns in a high-mercury
subcategory, no matter how well controlled, would still be allowed to
emit large amounts (at least pending a section 112(f) residual risk
determination)).
EPA is also mindful of the holding of Brick MACT and other
decisions that EPA must account for raw material HAP contributions in
establishing MACT floors, and the fact that raw materials may be
proprietary or otherwise not obtainable category-wide does not relieve
EPA of that obligation. See, e.g. 479 F. 3d at 882-83.
There are also competing considerations here. The concurring
opinion in Brick MACT supports subcategorization in situations
involving sources' dependence on high-HAP raw materials to avoid
situations where a level of performance achieved by some sources proves
unachievable by other sources even after application of best
technological controls, viewing such sources as of a different type
than others in the source category. 479 F. 3d at 884-85. A further
consideration is that one of the high mercury kilns here has
voluntarily entered into an enforceable agreement to install activated
carbon (the best control technology currently available so far as is
known) to control its mercury emissions and this agreement appears to
have the support of directly affected stakeholders (local citizen
groups, regional and state officials).\17\ The company is poised to
begin installation of the control technology. However, neither EPA nor
the company believe that this source could physically achieve the level
of the mercury floor derived from a single source category approach
(i.e., the no subcategorization approach proposed above) using
activated carbon alone. We do not currently have any data on the
possibility that this site may have portions of its existing quarry
that have lower mercury content, or if the site could apply different
mercury controls in addition to ACI to meet the proposed limit. Closure
of this kiln and possibly other high mercury emitting kilns is a
possible consequence of a single standard without subcategories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Minutes of meeting between EPA and representatives of Ash
Grove Cement. February 27, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA repeats that it is not proposing for mercury any subcategories
for
[[Page 21149]]
mercury for the reasons discussed above. Nonetheless, this remains an
issue EPA intends to evaluate carefully based on public comment, and
expressly solicits comment addressing all aspects of determinations
whether or not to subcategorize. These comments should address not only
the issue of a high-mercury subcategory (addressing plants in the
upward right-hand tail of the distributional curve in Figure 1), but
other sources as well. EPA also solicits comment regarding non-
limestone inputs to cement kilns, and whether there is any potential
basis for considering a valid subcategorization approach involving such
materials.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ One of these high-mercury sources suggested that because it
is an area source, EPA develop a mercury standard for it based upon
Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) rather than MACT. See
section 112(d)(5) of the Act. Aside from questions about whether use
of activated carbon is a generally available control technology
here, EPA has already determined that all cement kilns' mercury
emissions are subject to MACT under authority of section 112(c)(6).
See 63 FR at 14193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Alternatives Considered for Mercury Standard
EPA is proposing to rank sources by emission level in determining
which are best performing. We also considered another option of ranking
best performers based on their relative mercury removal efficiency, and
presenting a standard so-derived as an alternative to the standard
based on ranking by lowest emissions. The MACT floor for new sources is
to be based on the performance of the ``best controlled'' similar
source, and the term ``control'' can be read to mean control
efficiency. It can also be argued that the critical terms of section
112 (d)(3)--``best controlled'' (new)/``best performing'' (existing)--
do not specify whether ``best'' is to be measured on grounds of control
efficiency or emission level. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 661
(''average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of units' * * * on its own says nothing about how the
performance of the best units is to be calculated''). Existing source
floors determined and expressed in terms of control efficiency are also
arguably consistent with the requirement that the floor for existing
sources reflect ``average emission limitation achieved'', since
``emission limitation'' includes standards which limit the ``rate'' of
emissions on a continuous basis--something which percent reduction
standards would do. CAA section 302(k). There are also instances where
Congress expressed performance solely in terms of numerical limits,
rather than performance efficiency, suggesting that Congress was aware
of the distinction and capable of delineating it. See CAA section
129(a)(4).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See also section 112(i)(5)(A), which allows sources that
achieve early reductions based on measured rates of removal
efficiency a reprieve from MACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also arguments that percent reduction standards are not
legally permissible. The Brick MACT opinion states, arguably in dicta,
that best performers are those emitting the least HAP (see 479 F. 3d at
880 (``section [112 (d)(3)] requires floors based on emission levels
actually achieved by best performers (those with the lowest emission
levels)'').\20\ More important, the opinion stresses that raw material
inputs must be accounted for in determining MACT floors. Id. at 882-83.
A problem with a percent reduction standard here is that it would
downplay the role of HAP inputs on emissions by allowing more HAP to be
emitted provided a given level of removal efficiency reflecting the
average of best removal efficiencies is achieved. For these reasons,
EPA is not proposing an alternative standard for mercury expressed as
percent reduction reflecting the average of the best removal
efficiencies. EPA solicits comment on this alternative from both a
legal and policy standpoint, however.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The issue of whether best performers can be based on
source's removal efficiency was not presented in Brick MACT, or any
of the other decided cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Beyond the Floor Determination
We are not proposing any beyond-the-floor standards for mercury.
When we establish a beyond the floor standard we typically identify
control techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit
more stringent than the MACT floor. Under the proposed amendments, most
existing kilns would have to have installed both a wet scrubber and
activated carbon injection (ACI) for control of mercury, HCl and
THC.\21\ To achieve further reductions in mercury beyond what can be
achieved using wet scrubber and ACI in combination, the available
options would include closing the kiln and relocating to a limestone
quarry having lower mercury concentrations in the limestone,
transporting low-mercury limestone in from long distances, switching
other raw materials to lower the amount of limestone in the feed,
wasting CKD, and installing additional add-on control devices. For
reasons discussed further below we believe that all but the latter
option (add-on controls) are either cost prohibitive or too site
specific to serve as the basis of a national potential beyond the floor
standard. For that reason, we estimated the cost and incremental
reduction in mercury emissions associated with installing another
control device in series to the other controls. The add-on controls
considered included a wet scrubber and ACI. Because ACI is less costly
and is expected to have a higher removal efficiency as well as being
potentially capable of removing elemental mercury (using halogenated
carbon) which a scrubber cannot remove, we selected ACI as the beyond-
the-floor control option (i.e., the kiln would now have an additional
ACI system in series with the wet scrubber/ACI system required to meet
the MACT floors for mercury, THC, and HCl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL),
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2 million
tpy kiln as it would be representative of the impacts of other kilns.
Annualized costs for an additional ACI system would be $1.254 million
per year. The quantity of mercury leaving the upstream controls would
be an estimated 3.3 lb/yr. Assuming a 90 percent control efficiency,
the additional ACI system would remove about 3.0 lb/yr of mercury for a
cost-effectiveness of approximately $420,000 per lb of mercury
reduction. A 90 percent removal efficiency may be optimistic given the
lower level of mercury entering the device and a removal efficiency on
the order of 70 percent is more likely. At this efficiency, the
additional mercury controlled would be 2.3 lb/yr for a cost
effectiveness of approximately $540,000 per pound of mercury removed.
At either control efficiency, we believe cost of between $420,000 and
$540,000 per pound of mercury removed is not justified and we are
therefore not selecting this beyond-the-floor option.
There are two potential feasible process changes that have the
potential to affect mercury emissions. These are removing CKD from the
kiln system and substituting raw materials, including fly ash, or
fossil fuels with lower-mercury inputs. Although substituting low-
mercury materials and fuel may be feasible for some facilities, this
alternative would depend on site-specific circumstances and, therefore,
must be evaluated on a site-by-site basis and EPA's current view is
that it would not be a uniformly applicable (or quantifiable) control
measure on which a national standard could be based (although as noted
earlier, EPA is expressly soliciting quantified comment regarding
potential substitutability of non-limestone kiln inputs). In addition,
in the case of substitution of lower
[[Page 21150]]
mercury inputs, we believe that mandating lower mercury materials (such
as a ban on fly ash containing mercury as a raw material) would not
result in mercury reduction beyond those achieved at the floor level of
control.
Based on material balance data (feed and fuel usage, control device
catch recycling and wasting, and mercury concentrations) that we
gathered with our survey of 89 kilns, 58 percent of kilns waste some
amount of CKD while 42 percent waste none. Among kilns that waste CKD,
the percentage reduction in mercury emissions by wasting CKD ranged
from 0.13 percent to 82 percent, with an average of 16.5 percent and
median of 7 percent. For kilns that waste some CKD, CKD as a percentage
of total feed ranges from 0.16 percent to 13.7 percent, with a mean of
4.5 percent. Any additional emission reductions that can be achieved by
wasting CKD depend on several site-specific factors including:
The concentration of mercury in raw feed and fuel
materials.
The concentration of mercury in the CKD.
The amount of CKD already being wasted.
The dynamics of mercury recirculation and accumulation--
Internal loops for mercury exist between the control device and kiln
feed storage and the kiln for long dry and wet kilns. For preheater and
precalciner kilns, there is usually an additional internal loop
involving the in-line raw mill. These internal loops and the
distribution of mercury throughout the process are not predictable and
can only be determined empirically.
Mercury speciation may affect the extent to which mercury
accumulates in the CKD, with particulate and oxidized mercury more
likely to accumulate while elemental mercury is likely emitted and not
affected by CKD wasting.
Reducing mercury emissions through the wasting of CKD may be
feasible for some kilns that do not already waste CKD or by wasting
additional CKD for some kilns that already practice CKD wasting.
However the degree to which CKD can be used to reduce mercury emissions
cannot be accurately estimated due to several factors. For example,
increasing the amount of CKD wasted would result in a reduction in the
mercury concentration of the CKD, so that, over time, the effectiveness
of wasting CKD decreases. We do not have long-term data to quantify the
relationship between amount of CKD wasted, CKD mercury concentration
and emissions.
The ability to reduce mercury emissions by wasting more CKD also is
affected by the mercury species present. The particulate and oxidized
species of mercury can accumulate in CKD, but not the elemental form.
Therefore wasting CKD will not necessarily control elemental mercury.
We do not have data that would allow us to quantify the effect of
mercury speciation. By wasting CKD, additional raw materials would be
required to replace the CKD as well as additional fuel to calcine the
additional raw materials, thereby offsetting to some extent the
benefits of wasting CKD. There is the further potential consideration
of additional waste generation, an adverse cross-media impact EPA is
required to consider is making beyond-the-floor determinations. The
interaction of these factors is complex and has not been adequately
studied.
One cement plant has investigated the potential to reduce mercury
emissions by wasting CKD. This facility, using mercury CEMS and
material balance information, estimated that wasting 100 percent of CKD
when the raw mill is off (about 19,000 tons of CKD or 16 percent of
total baghouse catch, or 1 percent of total feed) would reduce mercury
emissions by about 4 percent. This facility did not estimate the
reductions in mercury emissions by wasting more CKD. As with the
potential to reduce mercury emissions using raw materials substitution,
the effectiveness of CKD wasting in reducing emissions may provide
cement plants the ability to reduce mercury emissions but the degree of
reduction will have to be determined on a site-by-site basis.
Because the degree to which mercury emissions can be reduced by
material substitutions or through the wasting of CKD are site specific,
these process-related work practices were not considered as beyond-the-
floor options.
As a result of these analyses, we determined that, considering the
technical feasibility and costs, there is no reasonable beyond the
floor control option, and are proposing a mercury emission limit based
on the MACT floor level of control.
C. Determination of MACT for THC Emissions From Major and Area Sources
The limits for existing and new sources we are proposing here apply
to both area and major new sources. We have applied these limits to
area sources consistent with section 112(c)(6). See 63 FR 14193 (THC as
a surrogate for the 112(c)(6) HAP polycyclic organic matter and
polychlorinated biphenyls, plus determination to control all THC
emissions from the source category under MACT standards).
1. Floor Determination
Selection of Existing Source Floor
For reasons previously discussed in the initial proposal of the
Portland Cement NESHAP (63 FR 14197, March 24, 1998), we are proposing
to use THC as a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP that are emitted
from the kiln (as is the current rule). The THC data used to develop
the MACT floor were obtained from 12 kilns using CEMS to continuously
measure the concentration of THC exiting each kiln's stack. Only kilns
1 (regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO)) and kilns 11 and 12 (ACI) have
emissions controls which remove or destroy THC. We also obtained THC
data from manual stack tests, typically based on 3 one hour runs per
test. The CEMS data are superior to the results of a single stack test
for characterizing the long term performance and in determining the
best performing kilns with respect to THC emissions for several
reasons. The manual stack test is of short duration and only represents
a snapshot in time; consequently, it provides no information on the
variability in emissions over time due to changes in raw material feed
or in kiln operating conditions. In contrast, the CEMS data include
measurements that range from 31 consecutive days to almost 900 days of
operation for the various kilns. This extended duration of the CEMS
test data gives us confidence that for any particular kiln CEMS data
will capture the variability associated with the long-term THC
emissions data, and thus give the most accurate representation of a
source's performance. In addition, a MACT standard based on CEMS data
would be consistent with the way we are proposing to implement the THC
emission limit (i.e., by requiring continuous monitoring with a THC
CEMS).
In order to set MACT floors we are ranking the kilns based on the
average THC emissions levels (in ppmv) achieved (i.e., each kiln's
averaged performance, averaged over the number of available
measurements. This ranking is shown in Table 4.
[[Page 21151]]
Table 4.--Summary of THC CEMS Data and MACT Floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Kiln Average readings Kiln type In-line raw mill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiln 1............................. 4.0 35 Preheater/precalciner Yes.
Kiln 2............................. 5.6 695 Wet.................. No.
Kiln 3............................. 6.8 692 Long dry............. No.
Kiln 4............................. 6.8 31 Preheater/precalciner Yes.
Kiln 5............................. 11.1 702 Long dry............. No.
Kiln 6............................. 23.7 470 Preheater/precalciner No.
Kiln 7............................. 45.0 742 Preheater/precalciner Yes.
Kiln 8............................. 51.6 774 Preheater/precalciner Yes.
Kiln 9............................. 51.9 843 Preheater/precalciner Yes.
Kiln 10............................ 62.8 880 Preheater/precalciner Yes.
Kiln 11 and Kiln 12 Combined....... 748.1 790 Wet.................. No.
Existing Source Average (ppmvd at 4.8
7% O2, propane).
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)............ 1.9
Existing Source 99th percentile 7
(ppmvd at 7% O2, propane).
New Source Average (ppmvd at 7% O2, 4.0
propane).
Variability (t*vT\0.5\)............ 1.5
New Source 99th percentile (ppmvd 6
at 7% O2, propane).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average performance of the best performing 12 percent of kilns
(2 kilns) is 4.8 ppmvd THC (a daily average expressed as propane at 7
percent oxygen). We calculated variability based on the variances in
the performance of the two lowest emitting kilns. This includes day-to-
day variability at the same kiln, variability among the two lowest
emitting kilns, and because one dataset included 695 daily
measurements, it represents long term variability at a single kiln. We
calculated the MACT floor (7 ppmvd) based on the UPL (upper 99th
percentile) as described earlier from the average performance of the 2
lowest emitting kilns, Student's t-factor, and the total variability,
which was adjusted to account for the lower variability when using 30
day averages.
In this case the proposed new and existing source MACT floors are
almost identical because the best performing 12 percent of kilns (for
which we have emissions information) is only two sources. The reason we
look to the best performing 12 percent of sources is that the cement
kiln source category consists of 30 or more kilns. Section 112(d)(3)(A)
of the Clean Air Act provides that standards for existing sources shall
not be less stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved
by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which
the Administrator has emissions information), * * * in the category or
subcategory for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources.''
A plain reading of the above statutory provisions is to apply the 12
percent rule in deriving the MACT floor for those categories or
subcategories with 30 or more sources. The parenthetical ``(for which
the Administrator has emissions information)'' in section 112(d)(3)(A)
modifies the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, which is
the clause it immediately follows.
However, in cases where there are 30 or more sources but little
emission data this results in only a few kilns setting the existing
source floor with the result that the new and existing source MACT
floors are almost identical. In contrast, if this source category had
less than 30 sources, we would be required to use the top five best
performing sources, rather than the two that comprise the top 12
percent. Section 112 (d)(3)(B).
We are seeking comment on whether, with the facts of this
rulemaking, we should consider reading the intent of Congress to allow
us to consider five sources rather than just two. First, it seems
evident that Congress was concerned that floor determinations should
reflect a minimum quantum of data: At least data from five sources for
source categories of less than 30 sources (assuming that data from five
sources exist). Second, it does not appear that this concern would be
any less for source categories with 30 or more sources. The concern, in
fact, would appear to be greater.\22\ We note further that if we were
to use five sources as best THC performers here, the existing source
floor would be 10 ppmvd. We are specifically requesting comment on
interpretive and factual issues relating to the proposed THC floors,
and also reiterate requests for further THC performance data,
especially from kilns equipped with CEMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ As noted, basing the proposed existing source THC floor on
data from two sources (i.e. 12 percent of the 15 sources for which
we have CEM data) largely eliminates the distinction between new and
existing source THC floors. Yet this is an important statutory
distinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of New Source MACT Floor
The new source MACT floor would be the best performing similar
source accounting for variability, which would be 6 ppmvd. We used the
same procedure in estimating variability for the new source based on
the 35 observations reported.
Alternative Organic HAP Standards
EPA is also proposing an alternative floor for non-dioxin organic
HAP, based on measuring the organic HAP itself rather than the THC
surrogate. This equivalent alternative limit would provide additional
flexibility in determining compliance, and it would be appropriate for
those rare cases in which methane and ethane comprise a
disproportionately high amount of the organic compounds in the feed
because these non-HAP compounds could be emitted and would be measured
as THC. A previous study that compared total organic HAP to THC found
that the organic HAP was 23 percent of the THC. We also analyzed
additional data submitted during the development of this proposed rule
that included simultaneous measure of organic HAP species and THC. Data
were available from tests at five facilities, and the organic HAP
averaged 24 percent of the THC. Based on these analyses, we are
proposing an equivalent alternative
[[Page 21152]]
emission limit for organic HAP species of 2 ppmv (i.e., 24 percent of
the 7 ppmv MACT standard for THC) for existing sources and 1 ppmvd for
new sources. The specific organic compounds that will be measured to
determine compliance with the alternative to the THC limit are benzene,
toluene, styrene, xylene (ortho-, meta-, and para-), acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, and naphthalene. These were the organic HAP species that
were measured along with THC in the cement kiln emissions tests that
were reviewed. Nearly all of these organic HAP species were identified
in an earlier analysis of the organic HAP concentrations in THC in
which the average concentration of organic HAP in THC was 23 percent.
Other Options Considered
We also examined the THC results to determine if subcategorization
by type of kiln was warranted and concluded that the data were
insufficient for determining that a distinguishable difference in
performance exists based on the type of kiln. The top performing kilns
in Table 4 include various types: wet, long dry, and preheater/
precalciner kilns; older (wet kilns) and newer (precalciner kilns); and
those with and without in-line raw mills. Although the type of kiln and
the design and operation of its combustion system may have a minor
effect on THC emissions, the composition of the feed and the presence
of organic compounds in the feed materials apparently have a much
larger effect. For example, organic compounds in the feed materials may
volatilize and be emitted before the feed material reaches the high
temperature combustion zone of the kiln where they would have otherwise
been destroyed.
We also evaluated creating separate subcategories for kilns with
in-line raw mills and those without. With an in-line raw mill kiln,
exhaust is used to dry the raw materials during the grinding of the raw
meal. This drying step can result in some organic material being
volatilized, thus increasing the THC emissions in the kiln exhaust.
This means that kilns with in-line raw mills would, on average, have
higher emissions than kilns without in-line raw mills. The existence,
or absence, of a raw mill is believed to have a distinct effect on
emissions of THC, as one would expect. It is difficult to generalize
that difference because the effect of the raw mill will vary based on
the specific organic constituents of the raw materials. In tests at one
facility, THC emissions, on average, were 35 percent higher with the
raw mill on than when the raw mill was off.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ E-mail and attachments. B. Gunn, National Cement Company of
Alabama to K. Barnett. USEPA. March 12, 2009. THC Mill on/Mill Off
Variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This physical difference could justify subcategorization based on
the presence of an in-line raw mill. There are also potential policy
reasons for doing so. By not subcategorizing, use of in-line raw mills
may be discouraged because, to meet a THC standard, in-line raw mill-
equipped kilns would potentially have to utilize an RTO. Use of RTOs
has various significant adverse environmental consequences, including
increase in emissions of criteria pollutants, and significant extra
energy utilization with attendant increases in carbon dioxide
(CO2) gas emissions.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL),
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has performed floor calculations for subcategories of kilns
with and without in-line raw mills. The result of that calculation,
where we were using the top 12 percent, was that the floor for kilns
with in-line raw mills was actually lower than the floor for those
without, which is atypical: sources with in-line raw mills will
typically have higher emissions because of the extra volatilization. We
believe this result is the artifact of the small data set used to
calculate the existing source MACT floor. Based on these results, we
have concluded that the current data are not sufficient to allow us to
subcategorize by the presence of an in-line raw mill, but would
consider subcategorizing if additional data become available. We are
specifically requesting comment on subcategorization by the presence or
absence of an in-line raw mill and requesting data on this issue.
2. Beyond the Floor Determination
Practices and technologies that are available to cement kilns to
control emissions of organic HAP include raw materials material
substitution, ACI systems and limestone scrubber and RTO. We do not
think it is appropriate to develop a beyond-the-floor control option
based on material substitution here because substitution options are
site specific.
We examined the use of either ACI systems or RTO (with a dedicated
wet scrubber) \25\ as the basis for potential beyond-the-floor THC
standards for existing and new sources. (We did not examine other
beyond-the-floor regulatory options for existing or new sources because
there are no controls that would, on average, generate a greater THC
reduction than a combination of a wet scrubber/RTO.) These technologies
are currently in limited use in the source category. At one facility,
activated carbon is injected into the flue gas and collected in the PM
control device. The activated carbon achieved a THC emissions reduction
of approximately 50 percent, and the collected carbon is then injected
into the kiln in a location that insures destruction of the collected
THC. The THC emissions from this facility are the highest for any
facility for which we have data due to very unusual levels of organic
material in the limestone and may not be representative of the
performance that can be achieved by kilns with more typical THC
emissions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ A wet scrubber is needed as a pretreatment step before
gases are amenable to destruction in an RTO.
\26\ The same facility that uses ACI has a second control scheme
for THC consisting of a wet scrubber/RTO in series. However, due to
operational problems, this system has not operated more than a few
months at a time and data from it are not representative of the
performance of these control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACI has been demonstrated in other source categories, such as
various types of waste incinerators including municipal waste
incinerators, to reduce dioxin/furan by over 95 percent.\27\ The actual
performance of ACI systems on cement kiln THC emissions are expected to
be less than that achieved on dioxin/furan emissions as kiln flue gases
are a mixture of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, which
vary according to the organic constituents of raw materials. We have
therefore conservatively estimated that ACI systems can reduce THC
emissions by 75 to 80 percent. A second facility has a continuously
operated limestone scrubber followed by an RTO. This facility has been
emission tested and showed volatile organic compound (VOC), which are
essentially the same as THC, emission levels of 4 ppmv (at 7 percent
oxygen), and currently has a permit limit for VOC of approximately 9
ppmv. The RTO has a guaranteed destruction efficiency of 98 percent of
the combined emissions of carbon monoxide and THC. Based on this
information, we believe this facility represents the best possible
control performance to reduce THC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ (Chi and Chang, Environmental Science and Technology, vol.
39, issue 20, October 2005; Roeck and Sigg, Environmental
Protection, January 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing the potential beyond-the-floor options for THC, we
first determined that most existing kilns would have to install an ACI
system for control of THC and/or mercury. A few kilns would be expected
to install an RTO in order to get the THC proposed reductions. To
evaluate the feasibility of
[[Page 21153]]
beyond-the-floor controls, we assumed that a kiln already expected to
install an ACI system would install in series an RTO including a wet
scrubber upstream of the RTO to protect the RTO. We estimated the costs
and emission reductions for a 1.2 million tpy kiln as the cost
effectiveness of the beyond-the-floor option would be similar for all
kilns. Annualized costs for an additional RTO system would be $3.8
million per year. The quantity of THC leaving the upstream controls
would be an estimated 18 tpy. At higher THC concentrations, for example
15 ppmv and above, an RTO will have a removal efficiency of about 98
percent. This mass of THC leaving the device upstream of and entering
the RTO is equivalent to a THC concentration of about 3 ppmv. At this
low level, an RTO's removal efficiency is expected to be no better than
50 percent. At a 50 percent control efficiency, the RTO would reduce
THC emission by about 9 tpy for a cost-effectiveness of approximately
$411,000 per ton of THC removal. If the organic HAP fraction of the THC
is 24 percent, 2 tpy of organic HAP would be removed at a cost
effectiveness of approximately $1.7 million per ton of organic HAP
removed. At a cost effectiveness of $411,000 per ton of THC and $1.7
million per ton of organic HAP, we believe the cost of the additional
emission reduction is not justified (this is a far higher level than
EPA has deemed justified for non-dioxin organic HAP in other MACT
standards, for example). In addition to the high cost of control, the
additional energy requirements, 7.1 million kwh/yr and 81,000 MMBtu/yr,
would be significant. Increased CO2 emissions attributable
to this energy use would be on the order of 9,900 tpy per source.\28\
The additional energy demands would also result in increased emissions
of NOX (20 tpy), CO, (8 tpy), SO2 (27 tpy), and
PM10 (1 tpy) per source. Because of the high costs and minimal
reductions in THC and organic HAP as well as the secondary impacts and
additional energy requirements, we are not selecting this beyond-the-
floor option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL),
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore we are proposing for cement kilns an existing source THC
emissions limit of 7 ppmvd and a new source limit of 6 ppmvd, measured
as propane and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. We are also proposing for
an alternative equivalent organic HAP emissions limit of 2 ppmvd for
existing kilns and 1 ppmvd for new kilns.
THC Standard for Raw Material Dryers
Some plants may dry their raw materials in separate dryers prior to
or during grinding. See 63 FR at 14204. This drying process can
potentially lead to organic HAP and THC emissions in a manner analogous
to the release of organic HAP and THC emissions from kilns when hot
kiln gas contacts incoming feed materials. The methods available for
reducing THC emissions (and organic HAP) is the same technology
described for reducing THC emissions from kilns and in-line kiln/raw
mills. Based on the similarity of the emissions source and controls, we
are also proposing to set the THC emission limit of materials dryers at
7 ppmvd (existing sources) and 6 ppmvd (new sources).
The current NESHAP has an emissions limit of 50 ppmvd for new
greenfield sources. The limit is less stringent than the proposed
changes in the THC emissions limits for new (as well as existing)
sources. For that reason, we are proposing to remove the 50 ppmvd
emissions limit for this rule.
D. Determination of MACT for HCl Emissions From Major Sources
In developing the MACT floor for HCl, we collected over 40 HCl
emissions measurements from stack tests based on EPA Methods 321 and
26. Studies have suggested that Method 26 is biased significantly low
due to a scrubbing effect in the front half of the sampling train (see
63 FR at 14182). Because of this bias, we used the HCl data measured at
27 kilns using Method 321 in determining the proposed floors for
existing and new sources. The data in ppmv corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (O2) were ranked by emissions level and the top 12
percent (4 kilns) lowest emitting kilns identified.\29\ The top 4 kilns
were limited to major sources, and to sources where we had a minimum of
three test runs to allow us to account for variability in setting the
floor. (Note that neither of these decisions significantly changed the
final result of the floor calculation). These emissions data are shown
in Table 5. The average of the four lowest emitting kilns is 0.31
ppmvd. The variability for the 4 lowest emitting kilns includes the
run-to-run variability of three runs for each stack test and the
variability across the 4 lowest emitting kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ \\ EPA notes that this floor determination, like the one
for THC discussed in the preceding section, raises the issue of
whether a floor determination for source categories with 30 sources
or greater should be based on the performance of less than five
sources. As discussed above, the literal language of section 112
(d)(3)(A) supports basing the floor on the average performance of
the best performing 12 per cent of sources, even where the total
number of such sources is less than five. We solicited comment on
that issue in the preceding section and repeat the solicitation
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated the MACT floor (2 ppmvd) based on the upper 99th
percentile UPL from the average performance of the 4 lowest emitting
kilns and their variances as described earlier. If we had used the five
lowest emitting kilns that calculated floor would be 5 ppmvd.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Development of the MACT Floors for the Proposed NESHAP for
Portland Cement, April 15, 2009.
Table 5--HCl MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl
emissions
Kiln (ppmvd @ 7%
O2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................... 0.02
2.......................................................... 0.02
3.......................................................... 0.22
4, 5 (one stack) \a\....................................... 0.97
6.......................................................... 1.21
7.......................................................... 1.32
8.......................................................... 1.76
9.......................................................... 1.95
10......................................................... 2.57
11......................................................... 2.57
12......................................................... 4.30
13......................................................... 7.15
14......................................................... 9.84
15......................................................... 11.06
16......................................................... 12.83
17......................................................... 12.83
18......................................................... 13.60
19......................................................... 15.65
20......................................................... 18.54
21......................................................... 18.93
22......................................................... 19.19
23......................................................... 19.86
24......................................................... 28.28
25......................................................... 33.06
26......................................................... 34.68
27......................................................... 56.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT--Existing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average (Top 4)............................................ 0.31
Variability (t*vT\0.5\).................................... 1.94
99th percentile............................................ 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT--New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................................................... 0.02
Variability (t*vT\0.5\).................................... 0.12
99th percentile............................................ 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Because these two kilns exhaust through a single stack they were
treated as a single source for the HCl floor determination.
MACT for new kilns is based on the performance of the lowest
emitting kiln. The average HCl emissions for the lowest emitting kiln
in this data set is 0.02 ppmv. Using the same statistical technique to
apply run-to-run variability for that kiln's emissions data, the HCl
MACT floor for new kilns is 0.14 ppmvd at 7 percent O2.
[[Page 21154]]
For facilities that do not use wet scrubbers to meet the HCl limit,
these standards would be based on a 30-day rolling average, consistent
with the proposed use of CEMS (i.e., continuous measurements) for
compliance. See section E below.
It should be noted that these emission limits, as well as many of
the data from the lowest-emitting kilns, are below the published
detection level of the test method (EPA test method 321) as it
currently exists for one specific path length and test condition. As
discussed further in section IV.I., EPA believes these source-supplied,
recent data and detection limits are correct, and EPA is proposing to
revise the detection limit for Method 321 in light of this data.
Beyond the Floor Standard for HCl
Based on the HCl emissions data, most kilns (both existing and new)
would have to install limestone scrubbers in order to comply with the
proposed floors for HCl. Scrubbers are expected to reduce HCl emissions
by an average of at least 99 percent. Scrubbers added to reduce HCl
emissions will also reduce emissions of SO2 and will remove
oxidized mercury as well.
In examining a beyond-the-floor option for HCl, we evaluated the
use of a more efficient HCl scrubber.\31\ We assumed a spray chamber
scrubber is sufficient to meet the MACT floor, and that scrubber is
expected to remove HCl at an efficiency of 99 percent (as just noted).
However, we estimate that a packed-bed scrubber would have removal
efficiency greater than a spray chamber due to its increased surface
area and opportunity for contact between the scrubbing liquid and the
acid gases. We estimated the costs and emission reductions for a 1.2
million tpy kiln as the cost-effectiveness results would be similar for
all kilns. Annual costs for a packed bed scrubber for a 1.2 million tpy
kiln would be approximately $2.2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ We could identify no other control options for acid gas
removal that would consistently achieve emissions reduction beyond
the floor level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming a control efficiency of 99.9 percent, the incremental
emission reduction using the beyond-the-floor packed-bed scrubber, that
is, the reduction in HCl emissions after initial control by the MACT
floor control (a spray chamber scrubber), would be about 2.4 tpy. At an
annual cost of $2.2 million, the cost effectiveness is $929,000 per ton
of HCl removed. Adverse non-air quality impacts, such as energy costs,
water impacts, and solid waste impacts would be expected to be similar
for both the floor and beyond-the-floor level of control. See Impacts
memorandum, Table 7. Considering the high costs, high cost
effectiveness and small additional emissions reduction (and adverse
cross-media impacts), we do not believe that a beyond-the-floor
standard for HCl is justified.
Other Alternatives for HCl Standards
One option to HCl standards that we considered would be to set a
standard that used SO2 as a surrogate for HCl. The reason to
allow this option would be that some kilns already have SO2
controls and monitors. Acid gas controls that remove SO2
also remove HCl at equal or greater efficiency.\32\ However, we are not
proposing this option because we have no data to demonstrate a direct
link between HCl emissions and SO2 emissions--that is--it is
unclear that ranking best HCl performers based on SO2
emissions would in fact identify lowest emitters or best controlled HCl
sources. We are requesting comment on the efficacy of using
SO2 as a surrogate for HCl, and data demonstrating that
SO2 is or is not a good surrogate for HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Institute of Clean Air Companies. Acid Gas/SO2
Control Technologies. Wet Scrubbers. http://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also considered the possibility of proposing a health-based
standard for HCl. Section 112(d)(4) allows the Administrator to set a
health-based standard for a limited set of HAP: ``pollutants for which
a health threshold has been established''. EPA may consider that
threshold, with an ample margin of safety, in establishing standards
under section 112 (d). In the 2006 rule, EPA determined that HCl was a
``health threshold pollutant'' and relied on this authority in
declining to establish a standard for HCl. 71 FR at 76527-29. We are
taking comment on a health-based standard.
However, we are not proposing a health-based standard here. The
choice to propose a MACT standard, and not a health-based standard, is
based on the fact that, in addition to the direct effect of reducing
HCl emissions, setting a MACT standard for HCl is anticipated to result
in a significant amount of control for other pollutants emitted by
cement kilns, most notably SO2 and other acid gases, along
with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi-volatile compounds. For example,
the additional reductions of SO2 alone attributable to the
proposed MACT standard for HCl are estimated to be 126,000 tpy in the
fifth year following promulgation of the HCl standard.\33\ These are
substantial reductions considering the low number of facilities.
Although MACT standards may only address HAP, not criteria pollutants,
Congress fully expected MACT standards to have the collateral benefit
of controlling criteria pollutants as well, and viewed this as an
important benefit of the air toxics program.\34\ It therefore is
appropriate that EPA consider such benefits in determining whether to
exercise its discretionary section 112 (d)(4) authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Proposed
Revisions to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL),
April 15, 2009.
\34\ See S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though this is not our preferred approach for the reasons discussed
above, we request comment on a health-based standard for HCl and other
information on HCl health and environmental effects we should consider.
Commenters should also address the issue of other environmental
benefits which might result from control of HCl at a MACT level,
including control of other acid gases and control of secondary PM
(i.e., PM condensing from acid gases). We will consider these comments
in making an ultimate determination as to whether to adopt a health-
based standard for HCl.
Finally, we determined that even if we opted to set a health-based
standard, we would still need to set a numerical emission limit given
that section 112(d)(4) requires that an actual emission standard be in
place. In order to determine this level, we conducted a risk analysis
of 68 facilities using a screening level dispersion model (AERSCREEN).
Utilizing site specific stack parameters and worst-case meteorological
conditions, AERSCREEN predicted the highest long term ground level
concentration surrounding each facility. The results of this analysis
indicated that an emission limit of 23 ppmv or less would result in no
exceedances of the RfC for HCl with a margin of safety.\35\ Although,
as discussed above, EPA is not proposing a health-based standard, EPA
solicits comment on the level of 23 ppmv (as a not-to-exceed standard)
should EPA decide to pursue the option of a health-based standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Derivation of a Health-Based Stack Gas Concentration Limit
for HCl in Support of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry,
April 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Determination of MACT for Non-Volatile Metals Emissions From Major
and Area Sources
PM serves as a surrogate for non-volatile metal HAP (a
determination upheld in National Lime Ass'n, 233 F. 3d at 637-39).
Existing and new major sources are presently subject to a PM
[[Page 21155]]
limit of 0.3 lb/ton of feed which is equivalent to 0.5 lb/ton clinker.
EPA is proposing to amend this standard, and also is proposing PM
standards for existing and new area source cement kilns. In all
instances, EPA is proposing to revise these limits because they do not
appear to represent MACT, but rather a level which is achievable by the
bulk of the industry. See 63 FR at 14198. This is not legally
permissible. Brick MACT, 479 F. 3d at 880-81.
For this proposal, we compiled PM stack test data for 45 kilns from
the period 1998 to 2007. EPA ranked the data by emissions level and the
lowest emitting 12 percent, 6 kilns, was used to develop the proposed
existing source MACT floor.
As for the previous floors discussed above, we calculated the
variances of each lowest emitting kiln and accounted for variability by
determining the 99th percentile UPL as described earlier. The average
performance for each of the lowest emitting kilns was generally based
on the average of 3 runs which comprise a stack test. Consequently, the
variability represents the short term variability at a kiln (e.g., a 3
hour stack test period) and the variability across the 6 lowest
emitting kilns. (This analysis is consistent with the way we would
propose to determine compliance, i.e., conduct 3 runs to perform a
stack test.) For the lowest emitting kiln (whose performance was used
to establish the proposed new source floor), there were only 3 runs and
the results of these runs were relatively close together, a
circumstance which would lead to an inaccurate (and inadequate)
estimation of the kiln's long term variability were these data to be
used for that purpose. However, we know the 6 lowest emitting kilns are
equipped with fabric filters that are similar with respect to
performance because they are similar in design and operation, and the
larger dataset provides a much better estimate of the variability
associated with a properly operated fabric filter of this design.
Consequently, for the proposed new source floor, we used the average
performance of the lowest emitting kiln and the variability associated
with the best fabric filters to assess the lowest emitting kiln's
variability.
The emissions for the top six kilns ranged from 0.005 to 0.008 lb/
ton clinker. Accounting for variability as described above, we
calculated an existing source MACT floor of 0.085 lb/ton clinker. For
new kilns, the limit is based on the best lowest emitting kiln, which
has emissions of 0.005 lb/ton clinker. Accounting for variability
results in a calculated new source MACT floor of 0.080 lb/ton clinker.
These PM emissions data are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6--PM MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM
emissions
Kiln (lb/ton
clinker)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................... 0.005
2.......................................................... 0.0075
3.......................................................... 0.0075
4.......................................................... 0.0081
5.......................................................... 0.0108
6.......................................................... 0.0232
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT--Existing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................................................... 0.010
Variability (t*vT\0.5\).................................... 0.075
99th percentile............................................ 0.085
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT--New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................................................... 0.005
Variability (t*vT\0.5\).................................... 0.075
99th percentile............................................ 0.080
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also proposing to set a PM standard based on MACT for
existing and new area source cement kilns. Portland cement kilns are a
listed area source category for urban HAP metals pursuant to section
112(c)(3), and control of these metal HAP emissions (via the standard
for the PM metal surrogate) is required to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of urban metal HAP
are subject to section 112 control, as required by section 112(c)(3).
EPA is proposing that this standard reflect MACT, rather than GACT,
because there is no essential difference between area source and major
source cement kilns with respect to emissions of either HAP metals or
PM. Thus, the factors that determine whether a cement kiln is major or
area are typically a function of the source's HCl or formaldehyde
emissions, rather than its emissions of HAP metals. As a result, there
are kilns that are physically quite large that are area sources, and
kilns that are small that are major sources. Both large and small kilns
have similar HAP metal and PM emissions characteristics and controls.
Given that EPA is developing major and area sources for PM at the same
time in this rulemaking, a common control strategy consequently appears
warranted for these emissions. We thus have included all cement kilns
in the floor calculations for the proposed PM standard, and have
developed common PM limits based on MACT for both major and area
sources.
Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor Standards
There is very little difference in the proposed floor levels for PM
for either new or existing sources, and we believe that a well-
performing baghouse represents the best performance for PM. To evaluate
beyond-the-floor controls, we examined the feasibility of replacing an
existing ESP or baghouse with a new baghouse equipped with membrane
bags which might result in a slightly better performance for PM
(reflected in the modest increment between the proposed floors for new
and existing sources). We estimated the costs and emission reductions
for a 1.2 million tpy kiln. The cost-effectiveness results will be
similar for all kilns. Under the MACT floor, baseline emissions of 0.34
lb/ton of clinker are reduced to 0.085 lb/ton of clinker, a reduction
in PM emissions of 51 tpy. Further reducing emissions down to the
proposed PM limit for new sources would incrementally reduce emissions
by an additional 3 tpy. The annualized cost of a baghouse with membrane
bags would be $1.73 million per year, or a cost effectiveness of
$576,000/ton of PM (far greater than any PM reduction EPA has ever
considered achievable under section 112(d)(2) or warranted under other
provisions of the Act which allow consideration of cost). Assuming that
the metal HAP portion of total PM is 1 percent, the cost effectiveness
would be about $58 million per ton of metal HAP. Based on these costs
and the small resulting emission reductions, we believe a PM beyond-
the-floor standard is not justified for existing sources and not
technically feasible for new sources.
Other Standards for PM
Emissions from fabric filters or ESP are typically measured as a
concentration (grains per dry standard cubic feet) and then converted
to the desired format using standard conversions (54,000 dry cubic feet
per minute of exhaust gas per ton of feed, 1.65 tons of feed per ton of
clinker). All of the data used to set the proposed PM emissions limit
were converted in that fashion. Therefore, the basis of the proposed PM
standard is actually a concentration level. There are certain cases
where this conversion must be adjusted, however. Some kilns and kiln/
in-line raw mills combine the clinker cooler gas with the kiln exhaust
and send the combined emissions to a single control device. There are
significant energy savings (and attendant greenhouse gas emission
reductions) associated with this practice, since heat can be extracted
from the clinker cooler
[[Page 21156]]
exhaust. However, there need to be different conversion factors from
concentration to mass per unit clinker. In the case where clinker
cooler gas is combined with the kiln exhaust the standard would need to
be adjusted to allow for the increased gas flow. If this allowance is
not made, then the effective level of the PM standard would be reduced
(the result being that the proposed standard would not properly reflect
best performing kilns' performance, and also discouraging use of a
desirable energy efficiency measure). See 73 FR at 64090-91 (Oct. 28,
2008). Therefore, we are proposing that facilities that combine the
kiln and clinker cooler gas flows prior to the PM control would be
allowed to convert the equivalent concentration standards (which are
0.0067 or 0.0063 lb/ton clinker for new and existing sources,
respectively) to a lb/ton clinker standard using their combined gas
flows (dry standard cubit feet per ton of feed). It should be noted
that this provision will not result in any additional PM emissions to
the atmosphere compared to the same kiln if it did not combine the
clinker cooler and kiln exhaust, and may actually decrease emissions
slightly due to improvements in overall process efficiency.
In addition to proposing to amend the PM standard for kilns we are
proposing to similarly amend the PM emissions limit for clinker
coolers. Fabric filters are the usual control for both cement kilns and
clinker coolers. As EPA noted in our proposed revision to Standards of
Performance for Portland Cement Plants (73 FR 34078, June 16, 2008) we
believe that the current clinker cooler controls can meet the same
level of PM control that can be met by the cement kiln. Therefore, we
are proposing as MACT the same PM emissions limits for both clinker
coolers and kilns.
In sum, because we believe that the costs of a beyond-the-floor
standard for PM are not justified, we are proposing a PM standard for
existing kilns and clinker coolers of 0.085 lb/ton of clinker, and for
new kilns and clinker coolers of 0.080 lb/ton of clinker.
F. Selection of Compliance Provisions
For compliance with the mercury emissions standards we are
proposing to require continuous or integrated monitoring (either
instrument based or sorbent trap based). As explained earlier in this
preamble, we do not believe that short term emission tests provide a
good indication of long term mercury emissions from cement kilns. We
considered the option of requiring cement kilns to measure and analyze
mercury content of all inputs to the kiln, as was done to gather the
data used to develop the proposed standards. However, that data
gathering was done based on a daily analysis of all inputs to the kiln.
If we were to make that the compliance option and require daily
analyses, the cost would be comparable to the cost of a mercury
monitoring system. If we were to allow less frequent analyses to reduce
costs, then we are concerned that the accuracy may be reduced (and the
standard would no longer be implemented in the same manner as it was
developed). In addition, in order to meet the proposed mercury emission
limits, we anticipate that many facilities will install add-on
controls, which will create another variable that would make the
measurement of mercury content of inputs (instead of continuous or
integrated stack measurement) significantly less accurate. In order to
determine an outlet emissions rate based on input measurements, the
control device would have to be tested under various operating
conditions to insure that the removal efficiency could be accurately
calculated, and continuous monitoring of control device parameters
(i.e. parametric monitoring) would be necessary. Given issues related
to input monitoring, and the cost associated with control device
monitoring, plus a desire to implement the standard in a manner
consistent with its means of development, we believe that a continuous
or integrated mercury measure at the stack is the preferred option, and
are proposing that sources demonstrate compliance with mercury
monitoring systems that meet either the requirements of PS-12A or PS-
12B.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Information related to the development of Performance
Specifications 12A and 12B can be found in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0056 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not aware of any cement kilns in the U.S. that have
continuous mercury monitoring systems. However, there are numerous
utility boilers that have installed and certified mercury CEMS. We see
no technical basis to say that these continuous mercury monitoring
systems will not work as well on a cement kiln as they do on a utility
boiler. In addition, we are aware that there are 34 cement kilns that
have operating continuous mercury monitors in Germany.\37\ There were
problems in the application of continuous mercury monitoring systems
when they were first installed on these German cement kilns, but their
performance has been improved so they now provide acceptable
performance. We are requesting comment on the feasibility of applying
mercury continuous monitoring systems to cement kilns in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ E-mail and attachment. M. Bernicke, Federal Environment
Agency to A. Linero, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
February 8, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, we propose and promulgate monitoring system performance
specifications and performance test methods in accordance with their
development, independent of publication of source category emissions
control regulations. There are circumstances dictating that we publish
such measurement procedures and requirements simultaneously with an
emissions regulation because of integral technical relationships
between the standard and the monitoring performance specifications and
test methods and because such a combination is convenient and cost-
effective. Such combined publication also allows commenters to prepare
comprehensive comments on not only the performance specifications or
test methods but also on their specific applications. In today's
notice, we are reproposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, appendix B by
adding Performance Specification 12A--Specifications and Test
Procedures For Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems in Stationary Sources. We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B by adding Performance Specification 12B--
Specifications and Test Procedures For Monitoring Total Vapor Phase
Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources Using a Sorbent Trap
Monitoring System, and proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60 Appendix F by
adding Procedure 5--Quality Assurance Requirements for Vapor Phase
Mercury Continuous Monitoring Systems Used at Stationary Sources for
Compliance Determination.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Notwithstanding the connections between the performance
specifications and this proposal, the mercury monitoring performance
specifications remain technically independent from the proposed
standards, as they exist independent of the proposed standard (see
following paragraph in text above). Furthermore, EPA has adopted,
and would continue to adopt such specifications and protocols,
whether or not it were amending the NESHAP for portland cement
kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We previously promulgated versions of these performance
specifications with the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). On March 14,
2008, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued
its mandate vacating CAMR on other grounds not related to these
performance specifications. We are reproposing these performance
specifications today. We also want to make clear that these performance
specifications are generally applicable,
[[Page 21157]]
i.e. apply wherever mercury CEMS are required and so are not limited in
applicability to portland cement kilns.
In PS-12A, we refer to and apply a span value, a Hg concentration
that is constant and related (i.e., twice) to the applicable emissions
limit. The span value is used in assessing the mercury CEMS performance
and in defining calibration standards. We expect that mercury emissions
from these facilities to be highly variable including short term
periods of concentrations exceeding the span value. We request comment
on whether the proposed approach for establishing CEMS calibration
ranges and assessing performance will adequately assure the accuracy of
the reported average emissions that might include measurements at
concentrations above the span value. If not, what alternative
approaches should we consider?
For demonstrating compliance with the proposed THC emissions limit
we are proposing the use of a CEMS meeting the requirements of PS-8A.
This requirement already exists for new kilns. There are existing kilns
that already have THC CEMS, and indeed, EPA used CEMS data from these
kilns as the basis for the proposed standards. As previously noted,
changes in raw materials can materially affect THC emissions without
any obvious indication that emissions have changed. For this reason,
and to be consistent with the means by which EPA developed the proposed
standard, we believe (subject to consideration of public comment) a
CEMS is necessary to insure continuous compliance.
If a source chooses to comply with the proposed alternative
equivalent organic HAP emissions limit,\39\\\ rather than the THC
limit, we are not proposing the use of a continuous monitor to directly
measure total organic HAP. We are instead proposing to use EPA Method
320 to determine the actual organic HAP content of the THC at a
specific facility. Thereafter, compliance would be measured based on
the facility's THC measurement at the time of the Method 320 test for
organics. The proposed rule thus provides that THC is measured
concurrently, using a CEM, at the time of a Method 320 test and that if
the Method 320 test indicates compliance with the alternative organic
HAP standard, then the THC emissions measured using a CEMS would become
that facility's THC limit. That THC limit would have to be met based on
a 30-day average, which (as noted) would be measured with a CEM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ We assume that sources would do so if they cannot meet the
(proposed) THC standard of 7 ppmvd for existing sources and 6 ppmvd
for new sources, but can demonstrate that their organic HAP
emissions are lower than the (alternative) MACT limit for organics
(or, put the other way, that their THC emissions contain more than
the normal amount of non-HAP organics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For demonstrating compliance with the proposed PM emissions limit,
we are proposing the installation and operation of a bag leak detection
(BLD) system, along with stack testing using EPA method 5 conducted at
a frequency of five years. If an ESP is used for PM control, an ESP
predictive model to monitor the performance of ESP controlling PM
emissions from kilns would be required, as well as a stack performance
test conducted at a frequency of five years. As an alternative a PM
CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-11 may be used. We are also
proposing to eliminate the current requirement of using an opacity
monitor to demonstrate continuous requirement with a PM standard for
kilns and clinker coolers as use of an opacity monitor would be
superfluous under the monitoring regimes we are proposing (an issue
discussed further in the following paragraph).
We previously proposed use of BLD systems for PM as part of our
review of the Portland Cement Standards for Performance under section
111 of the Act (73 FR 34072, June 16, 2008). Our rationale for
extending the requirement to existing kilns is that given the stringent
level of the proposed PM emissions limits, we do not believe that
opacity is an accurate indicator of compliance with the proposed PM
emissions limit. As just noted, were we to adopt this requirement, we
would also remove the opacity standard and opacity continuous
monitoring requirements for any source that uses a PM CEMS or bag leak
detector to determine compliance with a PM standard. (Some opacity
requirements, such as those for materials handling operations, would
remain in place.)
As also just noted, we are also proposing to allow the use of a PM
CEMS as an alternative to the BLD to determine compliance. However, we
are specifically soliciting comment on making the use of a PM CEMS a
requirement. We note that in the original 1999 rule we included a
requirement that kilns and clinker install and maintain a PM CEMS to
demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit, but we deferred
compliance with that requirement until EPA had developed the necessary
performance specification for a PM CEMS. See 64 FR at 31903-04. These
performance specifications are now available. In addition, continuous
monitors give a far better measure of sources' performance over time
than periodic stack tests. Moreover, as discussed below, we do not
believe that use of a PM CEMS would increase the stringency of the
standard. Therefore, we are soliciting comment on the option of
requiring use of PM CEMS to monitor compliance with a PM standard.
For demonstrating compliance with the HCl emissions limit we are
proposing the use of a CEMS that meets the requirements of PS-15 if the
source does not use a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control. As with
mercury and THC, HCl emissions can be significantly affected by inputs
to the kiln without any visible indications. For this reason we believe
that a continuous method of compliance is warranted, with one
exception. If the source uses a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control,
we believe that HCl emissions will be minimal even if kiln inputs
change because limestone wet scrubbers are highly efficient in removing
HCl. For this reason we are proposing to require sources using a
limestone wet scrubber to perform an initial compliance test using EPA
Test Method 321, and to test every 5 years thereafter. These EPA Test
Method 321 testing requirements would also apply to sources using CEMS.
In addition, for sources with in-line raw mills that are not using a
wet scrubber for HCl control, we are proposing to require testing with
raw mill on and raw mill off. Our review of the available data where a
kiln was tested with raw mill on/raw mill off indicated that the change
in raw mill operating conditions had a significant influence on HCl
emissions.\40\ We are specifically requesting comment on our assumption
that a wet scrubber will consistently maintain a low level of HCl
emissions, even if feed conditions change, and thus that it is
appropriate to use a short term performance test rather then a
continuous monitor for kilns that install wet scrubbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ E-mail and attachments from K. Barnett to J. Pew,
Earthjustice. September 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One option we considered would be to require SO2
monitoring in lieu of HCl monitoring. The reason to allow this option
would be that some kilns already have SO2 monitors, and this
monitoring technology is less expensive and more mature than HCl
monitors. If a source is using a wet scrubber for HCl control, then
indication that the scrubber is removing SO2 is also a
positive indication that HCl is being removed. However, we are not
proposing this because we have no data to demonstrate a direct link
between HCl emissions and SO2 emissions. For example, if a
source has a scrubber-equipped kiln and notes
[[Page 21158]]
an SO2 emissions increase, is the increase due to a drop-off
in scrubber performance or to an increase in sulfur compounds in the
raw materials? If it is simply a change in raw materials' sulfur
content, then the change may have no relevance to HCl emissions. If the
SO2 emission increase is due to a reduction in scrubber
efficiency, then the change in SO2 emission might mean that
HCl emissions have changed. We are requesting comment on the efficacy
of using SO2 as a surrogate for HCl for purposes of
monitoring compliance, and data demonstrating whether SO2 is
a good surrogate for HCl for this purpose.
One issue in using a CEMS to measure compliance with these proposed
standards is whether the use of a continuous monitor results in an
increase in the stringency of the standard, if that standard was
developed based on short term emissions tests or other data and is a
not-to-exceed standard. As explained earlier, EPA obtained mercury data
from thirty daily samples of fuel and raw materials and used
statistical techniques to account for further variability in inputs,
operation, and measurement. The proposed hydrogen chloride emissions
limits were derived using statistical techniques to account for
variability in components such as fuel and raw material, process
operation, and measurement procedures. The proposal would require
direct, continuous measurement of mercury and, for those facilities not
using a wet scrubber as a control device, hydrogen chloride. Compliance
with these emissions limits for these facilities is determined by
assessing the 30-day average emissions with the appropriate emissions
limit. With respect to mercury, as explained in section IV.B.1. above,
not only do continuous monitoring and 30-day averaging accord well with
the means used to gather these underlying data, but continuous
monitoring and 30-day averaging are needed because cement kilns do not
emit mercury in relatively equal amounts day-by-day but, due to the
mill-on/mill-off phenomenon, in varying small and large amounts. With
respect to hydrogen chloride, use of a 30-day average provides a way to
account for the potential short-term variability inherent in values
obtained from continuous data collection and analysis, so that CEM-
based compliance, in combination with 30-day averaging, does not make
the proposed standard more stringent than a not-to-exceed standard
based on stack testing. Therefore, subject to consideration of public
comment, we believe the use of continuous monitoring techniques for
mercury and HCl, in combination with 30-day averaging times, is
appropriate.
G. Selection of Compliance Dates
For existing sources we are proposing a compliance date of 3 years
after the promulgation of the new emission limits for mercury, THC, PM,
and HCl to take effect. This is the maximum period allowed by law. See
section 112(i)(3)(A). We believe a 3-year compliance period is
justified because most facilities will have to install emissions
control devices (and in some cases multiple devices) to comply with the
proposed emissions limits.
In the December 2006 rule amendments we included operating
requirements relating to the amount of cement kiln dust wasted versus
dust recycled, and also a requirement that the source certify that any
fly ash used as a raw material did not come from a boiler using sorbent
to remove mercury from the boiler's exhaust. These provisions are
unnecessary should EPA adopt the proposed standards, and EPA is
proposing to remove them. Removal of these requirements would take
effect once the affected source is required to comply with a numerical
mercury limit.
For new sources, the compliance date will be the date of
publication of the final rule or startup, whichever is later. In
determining the proposal date that determines if a source is existing
or new, we are retaining the date of December 5, 2005 for HCl, THC, and
mercury, i.e., any source that commenced construction after December 5,
2005, is a new source for purposes of the emission standards changed in
these amendments. For PM, we are proposing that the date that
determines if a source is existing or new will be May 6, 2009.
In proposing this determination, we considered three possible
dates, including March 24, 1998; December 5, 2005; and the proposal
date of these amendments. Section 112(a)(4) of the Act 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.'' ``First proposes'' could refer to
the date EPA first proposes standards for the source category as a
whole, or could refer to the date the agency first proposes standards
under a particular rulemaking record. The definition is also ambiguous
with regard to whether it refers to a standard for the source as a
whole, or to a HAP-specific standard (so that there could be different
new source standards for different HAP which are regulated at different
times).
We believe that the section 112(a)(4) definition can be read to
apply pollutant-by-pollutant, and can further be read to apply to the
rulemaking record under which a standard is developed. The evident
intent of the definition plus the substantive new source provisions is
that it is technically more challenging and potentially more costly to
retrofit a control system to an existing source than to incorporate
controls when a source is initially designed. See 71 FR at 76540-541.
If, for example, we were to choose March 24, 1998, as the date to
delineate existing versus new sources, then numerous kilns that would
be required to meet new source standards would have to retrofit
controls that they could not have reasonably anticipated at the time
the source was originally designed.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Two other provisions of the Act are pertinent here as well.
Section 112(i)(1) requires preconstruction review for, among other
sources, all new sources subject to a new source standard. Such
preconstruction review would be impossible if new sources included
sources which began operation pursuant to an historic new source
standard, which standard was later amended. Such a source would, of
course, have already been operating. In addition, section 111(a)(2)
defines ``new source'' as a stationary source ``the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced after the publication of
regulations (or, if earlier,) ``proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance under this section.'' Such standard must be
reviewed periodically at least every 8 years. EPA's longstanding
interpretation of this provision is that only sources commencing
construction (or which are reconstructed) after the date of a
revised new source performance standard would be subject to that
revised standard. There seems no evident reason to interpret the
section 112(a)(4) definition differently from the section 111(a)(2)
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also considered selecting the proposal date of these amendments
as the date that delineates new and existing sources but, for HAP other
than PM, rejected that option. The mercury and THC standards being
proposed here arise out of the rulemaking proposed on December 2, 2005.
This notice is issued in response to petitions for reconsideration of
the standards from that rulemaking. The proposed standard for HCl
likewise arises out of the rulemaking proposed in December 2, 2005 and
its reconsideration, where EPA proposed standards for HCl. See 70 FR at
72335-37. Thus, it is reasonable to view the December 2, 2005, proposal
as the date on which EPA first proposed standards for HCl as part of
this rulemaking. We are soliciting comment on the appropriate date to
regard the standards for THC and HCl as being ``first proposed.''
For PM, the choices are the 1998 date on which EPA proposed PM
standards, or the date of this proposal (the first
[[Page 21159]]
date EPA proposed revision to the PM standard, based on a new
rulemaking record). Subject to consideration of public comment, we
believe the appropriate date is the date of this proposal. See 71 FR at
76540-41 (applying new source standards to sources which began
operation many years in the past is inconsistent with idea that new
source standards may be more stringent because they can be implemented
at time of initial design of the source, thus avoiding retrofit
expense).
H. Discussion of EPA's Sector-Based Approach for Cement Manufacturing
What is a Sector-Based Approach?
Sector-based approaches are based on integrated assessments that
consider multiple pollutants in a comprehensive and coordinated manner
to manage emissions and CAA requirements. One of the many ways we can
address sector-based approaches is by reviewing multiple regulatory
programs together whenever possible. This approach essentially expands
the technical analyses on costs and benefits of particular
technologies, to consider the interactions of rules that regulate
sources. The benefit of multi-pollutant and sector-based analyses and
approaches include the ability to identify optimum strategies,
considering feasibility, costs, and benefits across the different
pollutant types while streamlining administrative and compliance
complexities and reducing conflicting and redundant requirements,
resulting in added certainty and easier implementation of control
strategies for the sector under consideration.
Portland Cement Sector-Based Approach
Multiple regulatory requirements currently apply to the cement
industry sector. In order to benefit from a sector-based approach for
the cement industry, EPA analyzed how the NESHAP under reconsideration
relates to other regulatory requirements currently under review for
portland cement facilities. The requirements analyzed affect HAP and/or
criteria pollutant emissions from cement kilns and cover the NESHAP
reconsideration, area source NESHAP, NESHAP technology review and
residual risk, and the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) revision.
The results of our analyses are described below.
The first relationship is the interaction between the NESHAP THC
standard and the co-benefits for VOC and carbon monoxide (CO) control.
The THC limit for new sources in the NESHAP will also control VOC and
CO to the limit of technical feasibility. For this reason the proposed
NSPS relies on the THC NESHAP limit for new sources to represent best
demonstrated technology (BDT) for VOC and CO for this source category.
See 73 FR 34082.
Another interaction relates to the more stringent PM emission limit
being proposed under the NESHAP reconsideration. As noted, there is a
legal requirement to regulate listed urban HAP metals from area source
cement kilns under section 112(c)(3), and we are proposing PM standards
for area source cement kilns pursuant to that obligation.\42\ In
addition, we are required under CAA section 112(f) to evaluate the
residual risk for toxic air pollutants emitted by this source category
and to perform a technology review for this source category under
section 112(d)(6). Revisions to the PM standard for new and existing
major sources under the NESHAP will maximize environmental benefits due
to the achievement of greater PM emission reductions and will also
reduce the possibility for additional control requirements as we
consider the implication these revisions have in developing future
requirements under residual risk and technology review increasing
certainty to this sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Memo from K. Barnett, EPA to Sharon Nizich, EPA. Extension
of Portland Cement NESHAP PM limits to Area Sources. May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reduce conflicting and redundant requirements for the cement
industry regarding the control of PM emissions, EPA is proposing to
place language in both the NESHAP and the NSPS making it clear that if
a particular source has two different requirements for the same
pollutant, they are to comply with the most stringent emission limit,
and are not subject to the less stringent limit.
Another issue being addressed as part of our cement sector strategy
is condensable PM. Particulate emissions consist of both a filterable
fraction and a condensable fraction. The condensable fraction exists as
a gas in an exhaust stream and condenses to form particulate once the
gas enters the ambient air. In this rulemaking, AP-42 emission factors
were used to calculate emission reductions of PM2.5
filterable due to the PM standard.\43\ There are insufficient data to
assess if the cement industry is a significant source of condensable
PM. The measurement of condensable PM is important to EPA's goal of
reducing ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. While the
Agency supports reducing condensable PM emissions, the amount of
condensable PM captured by Method 5 (the PM compliance test method
specified in the NSPS) is small relative to methods that specifically
target condensable PM, such as Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M).
Since promulgation of Method 202 in 1991, EPA has been working to
overcome problems associated with the accuracy of Method 202 and has
proposed improvements to Method 202 on March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12970).
EPA expects promulgation of these improvements within a year. Barring
promulgation of these improvements, EPA has identified already-approved
procedures to be conducted in conjunction with Method 202; these
procedures reduce the impact of potential problems in accounting for
the condensable portion of PM2.5.\44\ The condensable
portion of PM will become important as the PM2.5
implementation rule, which requires consideration of both the
filterable and condensable portions of PM2.5 for state
implementation plan, new source review, and prevention of significant
deterioration decisions, begins implementation on January 1, 2011. (see
72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007.) In order to assist in future sector
strategy development, we are considering any data available on the
levels of condensable PM emitted by the cement industry; any
condensable PM emission test data collected using EPA Conditional
Method 39, EPA Method 202 (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M), or their
equivalent, factors affecting those condensable PM emissions, and
potential controls. We welcome submission of these data, as well as
comments and suggestions on whether or how to include the condensable
portion of PM2.5 in the PM emissions limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 11: Mineral Products
Industry. Section 11.6 January 1995 p. 11.6-15.
\44\ See response to the third question of Frequently Asked
Questions for Method 202, available at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html#amb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another benefit of evaluating regulatory requirements across
pollutants in the context of a sector approach is addressing the
relationship between the regulatory requirements for SO2,
mercury, and HCl emissions. Although SO2 emission reductions
would be required in the proposed NSPS, mercury and HCl emissions
reduction are required in the Portland Cement NESHAP reconsideration.
The integrated analysis of these regulatory requirements showed that
alkaline wet scrubbers achieve emission reductions for SO2,
mercury, and HCl from cement kilns. This control technology maximizes
the co-benefits of emission
[[Page 21160]]
reductions while minimizing cost. For example, a new facility that
under the NSPS determines a moderate level of SO2 reduction
might consider using a lime injection system because it is lower cost.
However, if the same facility would have to use some type of add-on
control to meet the NESHAP new source mercury and/or HCl emission
limits, instead of considering each standard in isolation, would
determine that the most cost effective overall alternative might be to
use a wet scrubber for controlling SO2, mercury, and/or HCl.
By coordinating requirements at the same time, the facility can
determine which control technology minimizes the overall cost of air
pollution control and can avoid stranded costs associated with
piecemeal investments in individual control equipment for
SO2, mercury, and/or HCl.
The integrated sector-based analysis for the cement industry also
showed that SO2 emission reductions from existing sources
are possible as co-benefits if wet scrubbers are employed to control
either mercury and/or HCl from existing sources under the NESHAP. We
evaluated the co-benefits of the use of wet scrubbers in reducing
SO2 and the effects on PM2.5 and PM2.5
nonattainment areas (NAA), including the co-benefits of reducing
SO2 in mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are
those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Visibility has been
identified as an important value in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR
part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interaction addressed in the context of the sector approach
is monitoring requirements. To ensure that our sector strategy reduces
administrative and compliance complexities associated with complying
with multiple regulations, our rulemaking recognizes that where
monitoring is required, methods and reporting requirements should be
consistent in the NSPS and NESHAP where the pollutants and emission
sources have similar characteristics.
New Source Review and the Cement Sector-Based Approach
The proposed MACT requirements for cement facilities have a
potential to result in emissions reductions of air pollutants that are
regulated under the CAA's major new source review (NSR) program.
Specifically, operating a wet scrubber to meet MACT requirements for
mercury and/or HCl at a portland cement plant has the added
environmental benefit of reducing large amounts of SO2, a
regulated NSR pollutant. For a typical wet scrubber, with a 90 percent
removal efficiency for SO2, this could result in an annual
reduction of thousands of tons of SO2 from an uncontrolled
kiln (reduction will vary greatly depending on the type and age of the
kiln, sulfur content of feed materials, and fuel type). These
collateral SO2 and other criteria pollutant emissions
reductions resulting from the application of MACT may be considered for
``netting'' and ``offsets'' purposes under the major NSR program.
The term ``netting'' refers to the process of considering certain
previous and prospective emissions changes at an existing major source
over a contemporaneous period to determine if a ``net emissions
increase'' will result from a proposed modification. If the ``net
emissions increase'' is significant, then major NSR applies. Section
173(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires that a major source or major
modification planned in a nonattainment area obtain emissions offsets
as a condition for approval. These offsets are generally obtained from
existing sources located in the vicinity of the proposed source and
must offset the emissions increase from the new source or modification
and provide a net air quality benefit.
An emissions reduction must be ``surplus,'' among other things, to
be creditable for NSR netting and offset purposes. Typically emission
reduction required by the CAA are not considered surplus. For example,
emissions reductions already required by an NSPS, or those that are
relied upon in a State implementation plan (SIP) for criteria pollutant
attainment purposes (e.g., Reasonable Available Control Technology,
reasonable further progress, or an attainment demonstration), are not
creditable for NSR offsets (or netting) since this would be ``double
counting'' the reductions. Also, any emissions reductions already
counted in previous major modification ``netting'' may not be used as
offsets. However, emissions reductions that are in excess of, or
incidental to the MACT standards, are not precluded from being surplus
even though they result from compliance with a CAA requirement.
Therefore, provided such reductions are not being double counted, they
may qualify as surplus and can be used either as netting credits at the
source or be sold as emissions offsets to other sources in the same
non-attainment area provided the reductions meet all otherwise
applicable CAA requirements for being a creditable emission reduction
for use as an offset or for netting purposes.
Since SO2 is presumed a PM2.5 precursor in
all prevention of significant deterioration and nonattainment areas
unless a state specifically demonstrates that it is not a precursor,
SO2 may be used as a emission reduction credit for either
SO2 or PM2.5, at an offset ratio is 40-to-1 (40
tons of SO2 to 1 ton of PM2.5) See 72 FR 28321-
28350 (May 16, 2008).
Given that many states have concerns over a lack of direct
PM2.5 emissions offsets for areas that are designated
nonattainment for PM2.5, cement plants that generate
creditable reductions of SO2 from applying MACT controls may
realize a financial benefit if they can sell the emissions credits as
SO2 and/or PM2.5 offsets. It is difficult to
quantify the exact financial benefit, since offset prices are market
driven and vary widely in the U.S.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Portland cement kilns emit several pollutants regulated under the
NAAQS, including PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and
precursors to ozone. In addition, several pollutants emitted from
cement kilns are transformed in the atmosphere into PM2.5,
including SO2, NOX, and VOC. Emissions of
NOX and VOC are also precursors to ozone. Thus,
implementation of the Cement NESHAP, which could lead to substantial
reductions in criteria pollutants and precursor emissions as co-
benefits, could help areas around the country attain these NAAQS.
Screening analyses showed that 23 cement facilities were located in
24hr PM2.5 NAA and 39 facilities in Ozone NAA. Control
strategies for reducing emissions of THC, mercury, HCl, and PM from
cement plants under the Cement NESHAP have the co-benefits of reducing
SO2 and direct PM2.5 emissions. These co-benefits
could provide states with emission reductions for areas required to
have attainment plans.
Regional Haze, Reasonable Progress, and the Cement Sector-Based
Strategy
The Cement NESHAP can also have an impact on regional haze. Under
section 169A of the CAA, States must develop SIPs to address regional
haze. The purpose of the regional haze program is the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air
pollution under the regional haze regulations, the first Regional Haze
SIPs were due in December 2007 (40 CFR 51.308(b)); these SIP submittals
must address several key elements, including Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART),
[[Page 21161]]
Reasonable Progress, and long-term strategies. Screening analyses
showed that there are 14 cement facilities within a distance of 50 km
Class 1 Areas.
A potential benefit for cement facilities utilizing wet scrubbers
to comply with this rule is a level of certainty for satisfying a
facility's BART requirements for SO2 under the regional haze
program. This rule may establish a framework for States to include
certain control measures or other requirements in their regional haze
SIPs where such a program would be ``better than BART.'' A facility
must comply with BART as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
5 years after the regional haze SIP is approved. A state may be able to
rely on this rule to satisfy the BART requirements for a NESHAP
affected source utilizing a wet scrubber if (1) the compliance date for
a source subject to this NESHAP falls within the BART compliance
timeframe, (2) the proposed controls are more cost effective than the
controls that would constitute BART, and (3) the visibility benefits of
the controls are at least as effective as BART.
States may also allow sources to ``average'' emissions across any
set of BART-eligible emissions units within a fence-line, provided the
emissions reductions from each pollutant being controlled for BART are
equal to those reductions that would be obtained by simply controlling
each of the BART-eligible units that constitute the BART-eligible
source (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). This averaging technique may also be
advantageous to cement facilities subject to this NESHAP that also have
BART-subject sources.
Under the regional haze rule, States may develop an alternative
``better than BART'' program in lieu of source-by-source BART. The
alternative program must achieve greater reasonable progress than BART
would toward the national visibility goal. The alternative program may
allow more time for compliance than source-by-source BART would have
allowed. Any reductions relied on for a better than BART analysis must
be surplus as of the baseline year the State relies on for purposes of
developing its regional haze SIP (i.e., 2002) and can include
reductions from non-BART and BART sources.\46\ Visibility analyses must
verify that the alternative program, on average, gets greater
visibility improvement than BART and that no degradation in visibility
on the best days occurs (40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ November 18, 2002 memo from EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards entitled ``2002 Base Year Emission Inventory
SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
Programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that emissions units at cement sources found to be
subject to BART and that will be required to install controls or
otherwise achieve emissions reductions per the regional haze
regulations can benefit from this Cement NESHAP to potentially satisfy
the regional haze requirements. EPA will need to demonstrate that the
implementation of the cement NESHAP will result in SO2
emissions reductions and related visibility improvements that are
greater than reductions achieved through the application of BART
controls. If EPA demonstrates that the SO2 emissions
reductions and visibility and air quality improvements resulting from
the rule are better than BART, this demonstration, when incorporated
into the Regional Haze SIP, may be anticipated to fulfill federal
regulatory requirements associated with SO2 BART
requirements for cement facilities.
Additionally, the level of control achieved through the Cement
NESHAP may contribute toward, and possibly achieve, the visibility
improvements needed to satisfy the reasonable progress requirements of
the regional haze rule for cement facilities through the first Regional
Haze planning period. States can submit the relevant regional haze SIP
amendments once this rule becomes final.
Health Benefits of Reducing Emissions From Portland Cement Kilns
Implementation of the Cement NESHAP, which could lead to
substantial reductions in PM2.5, SO2, and toxic
air pollutants, could reduce numerous health effects.
Section VI.G of this preamble provides a summary of the monetized
human health benefits of this proposed regulation based on the
Regulatory Impact Analysis available in this docket that includes more
detail regarding the costs and benefits of this proposed regulation.
As mentioned before, Portland cement kilns emit several criteria
pollutants with known human health effects, including PM2.5,
SO2, NOX, and precursors to ozone. Exposure to
PM2.5 is associated with significant respiratory and cardiac
health effects, such as premature mortality, chronic bronchitis,
nonfatal heart attacks, hospital admissions, emergency department
visits, asthma attacks, and work loss days.\47\ Exposure to
SO2 and NOX is associated with increased
respiratory effects, including asthma attacks, hospital admissions, and
emergency department visits. Exposure to ozone is associated with
significant respiratory health effects, such as premature mortality,
hospital admissions, emergency department visits, acute respiratory
symptoms, school loss days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ USEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate matter, chapter
9.2 (October 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Portland cement kilns emit toxic air pollutants,
including mercury and HCl. Potential exposure routes to mercury
emissions include both inhalation and subsequent ingestion through the
consumption of fish containing methylmercury. Mercury in the air
eventually settles into water or onto land where it can be washed into
water. Once deposited, certain microorganisms can change it into
methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish, shellfish
and animals that eat fish. Fish and shellfish are the main sources of
methylmercury exposure to humans. Methylmercury builds up more in some
types of fish and shellfish than others. The levels of methylmercury in
fish and shellfish depend on what they eat, how long they live and how
high they are in the food chain. Mercury exposure at high levels can
harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of people of
all ages. Research shows that most people's fish consumption does not
cause a health concern. However, it has been demonstrated that high
levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young
children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less
able to think and learn.\48\ HCl is an upper respiratory irritant at
relatively low concentrations and may cause damage to the lower
respiratory tract at higher concentrations.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ For more information see http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm.
\49\ For more information see http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/tsd52.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Other Changes and Areas Where We are Requesting Comment
Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
The cement kiln source category is presently exempt from compliance
with the generally applicable section 112 standards during periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction. See Table 1 to subpart LLL of Part
63, which cross-references the exemption found in the General
Provisions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) (exemption from non-opacity
emission standards) and (h)(1) (exemption from opacity and visible
emission standards)). With respect to those exemptions, we note that on
December 19, 2008, in a decision addressing a challenge to the 2002,
2004, and 2006 amendments to those
[[Page 21162]]
provisions, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated the SSM exemption. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). Industry petitioners have filed petitions for re-hearing,
asking the Court to re-consider its decision. The Court has not yet
acted on these petitions.
EPA recognizes that there are different modes of operation for any
stationary source, and those modes generally include start-up, normal
operations and shut-down. EPA also recognizes that malfunctions may
occur. EPA further recognizes that the Clean Air Act does not require
EPA to set a single emission standard under section 112(d) that applies
during all operating periods. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d at
1027. In light of this decision, EPA is proposing not to apply the SSM
exemption to the emission standards proposed in this rule. Rather, EPA
is proposing that the proposed standards described above apply during
both normal operations and periods of startup, shut-down, and
malfunction. For the same reason, EPA is further proposing that the SSM
exemption not apply to the other section 112 standard applicable to
cement kilns, for dioxins (see sections 63.1343(b)(3) and (c)(3)),
which standard is not otherwise addressed or reopened in this proposed
rule.
We base this proposal on the emissions information available to us
at this time. See CAA 112(d)(3)(A) (standards are based on the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
sources ``for which the Administrator has emissions information'').
Specifically, our emissions database has no data showing that emissions
during periods of startup, shut-down, and malfunction are different
than during normal operation.
We believe that startup and shutdown are both somewhat controlled
operating modes for cement kilns (although occurring over different
time periods) so that emissions during these operating modes may not be
significantly different from those during normal operation. However, we
recognize that shutdowns can vary (planned or emergency) and that
startups can occur from a cold or a hot kiln, but we currently lack
data on HAP emissions that occur during these modes of operation. We
further recognize that malfunction conditions are largely unanticipated
occurrences for which control strategies are mainly reactive.
EPA requests comment on the proposed approach to addressing
emissions during start-up, shutdown and malfunction and the proposed
standards that would apply during these periods. EPA specifically
requests that commenters provide data and any supporting documentation
addressing emissions during start-up, shut-down and malfunctions. If
based on the data and information received in response to comments, EPA
were to set different standards for periods of start-up, shutdown or
malfunction, EPA asks for comment on the level of specificity needed to
define these periods to assure clarity regarding when standards for
those periods apply.
Data used to set existing source floors. The emissions standards
included in the proposed rule were calculated using the emissions
information available to the Administrator, in accordance with EPA's
interpretation of the requirements of section 112(d)(3) of the Act. In
developing this proposed rule, we specifically sought data from as many
kilns as possible, given the time constraints when we began our data
collection process. Given that there are 152 kilns in this source
category, the 12 percent representing the best performing kilns would
be 19 kilns. However, in some cases we have emission data from as few
as 12 cement kilns, which means that existing source floors were
proposed using as few as 2 kilns (although we are soliciting comment on
an alternative interpretation that would allow EPA to base floors on a
minimum of five sources' performance in all instances where those data
exist). EPA expects that more emissions information from other kilns,
both with and without similar process and control characteristics,
would lead to a better characterization of emissions from the entire
population of cement kilns, as well as a better description of intra-
source, inter-source, and test method variability, and that statistical
techniques can be employed to provide the expected distribution of
emissions for the cement kiln population. EPA thus requests commenters
to provide additional emissions information on cement kilns'
performance.
HCl Test Data and Methods. In some instances, the emissions
standards included in the proposed rule were calculated using emissions
information provided to EPA that appears to be below detection levels
established more than 15 years ago. More specifically, Method 321 as it
currently exists identifies a practical lower quantification range for
hydrogen chloride from 1000 to 5000 parts per billion for a specific
path length and test conditions. Many of the best performing sources
with respect to HCl emissions report both values and detection levels
below 1000 parts per billion. It is not surprising that detection
levels should decrease as improvements in analytical methods occur over
time, and EPA is proposing to revise the detection limits in Method 321
to reflect these improvements. While EPA believes lower detection
levels are achievable, EPA did not receive the emissions information
and other data necessary to assess independently the detection levels,
some as low as 20 parts per billion, achieved and reported by sources.
Without additional data or detection limit calculations, EPA could
maintain the old detection limit, accept the source-provided limit, or
modify the source-provided limit to an expected new acceptable level.
Selection of an appropriate detection limit is no trivial matter, as
the detection limit could impact how the available data would be used
in average emissions calculations. EPA could choose not to use any data
below the detection limit in calculations. EPA could also choose to set
all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to one-half
the detection limit for average calculation purposes, reasoning that
any amount of emissions between zero and the detection limit could
occur when the detection limit is recorded. Indeed, this approach,
setting all data below the detection limit at a value corresponding to
one-half the detection limit, was chosen by the sources that provided
emissions information to EPA. EPA could also set all data below the
detection limit at a value corresponding to the detection limit, or to
zero, for average calculation purposes. Finally, EPA could apply
statistical techniques to available emissions information both above
and below the detection limit to provide the expected distribution of
HCl emissions for the cement kiln population. A further issue, with any
of these possible approaches, would be to assess sources' operating
variability.
EPA based the HCl emissions limitations contained in the proposal
using the source-provided detection limits and setting all data below
the detection limit at a value corresponding to the detection limit for
average calculation purposes. Should EPA receive additional emissions
information sufficient to calculate detection limits from already-
received data or emissions information including detection limit
calculations from other sources, EPA would be able to ascertain and
revise, if necessary, the new detection limits and to calculate a
different HCl standard.
EPA requests additional HCl emissions information, including such
information as needed to calculate detection limits, as well as
detection
[[Page 21163]]
limit calculations. Moreover, EPA requests comments on which way, if
any, to set the emission detection limit and to handle emissions
information below the detection limit for use in this rule. For those
commenters who believe EPA's proposed emission detection limit may not
be suitable, EPA requests commenters to provide their views of
acceptable detection limits and processes to calculate averages from
data that are below the detection limit, as well as examples of sample
calculations using those processes. We are also requesting comment on
the same issues relating to the use of a CEMS meeting the requirements
of PS-15 to measure HCl emissions.
Potential Regulation of Open Clinker Piles
In the current rule, we regulate enclosed clinker storage
facilities, but not open clinker piles. We are aware of two facilities
where a facility has stored clinker in open piles, and fugitive
emissions from those piles have reportedly resulted in measurable
emissions of hexavalent chromium.\50\ However, we do not have
information to evaluate the extent of emission potential from
unenclosed clinker storage facilities. We are requesting comment and
information as to how common the practice of open clinker storage is,
appropriate ways to detect or measure fugitive emissions (ranging from
open-path techniques to continuous digital or intermittent manual
visible emissions techniques), any measurements of emissions of
hexavalent chromium (or other HAP) from these open storage piles,
potential controls to reduce emissions, or any other factors we should
consider. Based on comments received, we may (or may not) take action
to regulate these open piles in the final action on this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ \\ Information on the study of hexavalent chromium
emissions believed to result from clinker piles and the rules
adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District may be
found at http://www.aqmd.gov/RiversideCement/RiversideCement.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Emissions Test Results to EPA. Compliance test data
are necessary for many purposes including compliance determinations,
development of emission factors, and determining annual emission rates.
EPA has found it burdensome and time consuming to collect emission test
data because of varied locations for data storage and varied data
storage methods.
One improvement that has occurred in recent years is the
availability of stack test reports in electronic format as a
replacement for bulky paper copies.
In this action, we are taking a step to improve data accessibility
for stack tests (and in the future continuous monitoring data).
Portland cement sources will have the option of submitting to WebFIRE
(an EPA electronic data base), an electronic copy of stack test reports
as well as process data. Data entry requires only access to the
Internet and is expected to be completed by the stack testing company
as part of the work that it is contracted to perform. This option would
become available as of December 31, 2011.
Please note that the proposed option to submit source test data
electronically to EPA would not require any additional performance
testing. In addition, when a facility elects to submit performance test
data to WebFIRE, there would be no additional requirements for data
compilation; instead, we believe industry would greatly benefit from
improved emissions factors, fewer information requests, and better
regulation development as discussed below. Because the information that
would be reported is already required in the existing test methods and
is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test methods,
facilities would already be collecting and compiling these data. One
major advantage of electing to submit source test data through the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which was developed with input from
stack testing companies (who already collect and compile performance
test data electronically), is that it would provide a standardized
method to compile and store all the documentation required by this
proposed rule. Another important benefit of submitting these data to
EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that these data will
substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection activities
in the future. This results in a reduced burden on both affected
facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection
requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data
collection requests). Finally, another benefit of electing to submit
these data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data will greatly
improve the overall quality of the existing and new emissions factors
by supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which emissions
factors are based and by ensuring that data are more representative of
current industry operational procedures. A common complaint we hear
from industry and regulators is that emissions factors are out-dated or
not representative of a particular source category. Receiving recent
performance test results would ensure that emissions factors are
updated and more accurate. In summary, receiving these test data
already collected for other purposes and using them in the emissions
factors development program will save industry, State/local/tribal
agencies, and EPA time and money.
As mentioned earlier, the electronic data base that will be used is
EPA's WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through EPA's technology
transfer network (TTN). The WebFIRE website was constructed to store
emissions test data for use in developing emission factors. A
description of the WebFIRE data base can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. The ERT will be able
to transmit the electronic report through EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE data base. Although ERT is not
the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source test
data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data very
straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. The ERT can be used to
document the conduct of stack tests data for various pollutants
including PM, mercury, and HCl. Presently, the ERT does not handle
dioxin/furan stack test data, but the tool is being upgraded to handle
dioxin/furan stack test data. The ERT does not currently accept opacity
data or CEMS data.
EPA specifically requests comment on the utility of this electronic
reporting option and the burden that owners and operators of portland
cement facilities estimate would be associated with this option.
Definition of affected source. In the final amendments published on
December 20, 2006, we indicated that we were changing paragraph (c) in
Sec. 63.1340 to clarify that crushers were part of the affected source
for this rule (71 FR 76532). However, we omitted the rule language
changes to that paragraph. This language has been added to this
proposed rule.
V. Comments on Notice of Reconsideration and EPA Final Action in
Response To Remand
As previously noted, EPA received comments on the notice of
reconsideration and the final action taken in December 2006. A summary
of
[[Page 21164]]
these comments is available in the docket for this rulemaking.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Summary of Comments on December 20, 2006 Final Rule and
Notice of Reconsideration. April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not responding to these comments in this proposed action. We
will provide responses to these comments, and other comments received
on these proposed amendments, when we take final action on this
proposal.
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
Proposed Amendments
A. What are the affected sources?
There are currently 93 portland cement manufacturing facilities
located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that we expect to be affected by
these proposed amendments. In 2005, these facilities operated 163
cement kilns and associated clinker coolers. We have no estimate of the
number of raw material dryers that are separate from the kilns.
Based on capacity expansion data provided by the Portland Cement
Association, we anticipate that 20 new kilns and associated clinker
coolers will be built in the five years after the promulgation of final
standards representing 24 million tpy of clinker capacity. Some of
these new kilns will be built at existing facilities and some at new
greenfield facilities. The location of the kiln (greenfield or
currently existing facility) has no bearing on our estimated cost and
environmental impacts. We based new kiln impacts on a 1.2 million tpy
clinker kiln. This kiln is the smallest size anticipated for new kilns
based on kilns built in the last five years or currently under
construction. Using the smallest anticipated kiln size provides a
conservative estimate of costs because control costs per unit of
capacity tend to be higher for smaller kilns.
B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
For these proposed Portland Cement NESHAP amendments, the EPA
utilized three models to evaluate the impacts of the regulation on the
industry and the economy. Typically in a regulatory analysis, EPA
determines the regulatory options suitable to meet statutory
obligations under the CAA. Based on the stringency of those options,
EPA then determines the control technologies and monitoring
requirements that may be selected to comply with the regulation. This
is conducted in an Engineering Analysis. The selected control
technologies and monitoring requirements are then evaluated in a cost
model to determine the total annualized control costs. The annualized
control costs serve as inputs to an Economic Impact Analysis model that
evaluates the impacts of those costs on the industry and society as a
whole.
The Economic Impact Analysis model uses a single-period static
partial-equilibrium model to compare a pre-policy cement market
baseline with expected post-policy outcomes in cement markets. This
model was used in previous EPA analyses of the portland cement industry
(EPA, 1998; EPA, 1999b). The benchmark time horizon for the analysis is
assumed to be short and producers have some constraints on their
flexibility to adjust factors of production. This time horizon allows
us to capture important transitory impacts of the program on existing
producers. The model uses traditional engineering costs analysis as
``exogenous'' inputs (i.e., determined outside of the economic model)
and computes the associated economic impacts of the proposed
regulation.
For the Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA also employs the Industrial
Sector Integrated Solutions (ISIS) model which conducts both the
engineering cost analysis and the economic analysis in a single
modeling system. The ISIS model is a dynamic and integrated model that
simulates potential decisions made in the cement industry to meet an
environmental policy under a regulatory scenario. ISIS simultaneously
estimates (1) optimal industry operation to meet the demand and
emission reduction requirements, (2) the suite of control technologies
needed to meet the emission limit, (3) the engineering cost of
controls, and (4) economic impacts of demand response of the policy, in
an iterative loop until the system achieves the optimal solution. The
peer review of the ISIS model can be found in the docket.\52\ This
model will be revised based on peer review comments and comments on
this proposed rule and will be used to develop the cost and economic
impacts of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Industrial Sector Integrated Solutions Model dated
December 23, 2008 and Review of ISIS Documentation Package dated
April 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Technical Memo to the docket, we provide a comparison of these
models to provide an evaluation of how the differences between the
models may impact the resulting estimates of the impacts of the
regulation. For example, the Engineering Analysis and Economic Impact
Analysis evaluate a snapshot of implementation of the proposed rule in
a given year (i.e., 2018, based on 2005 dollars) while ISIS evaluates
impacts of compliance dynamically over time (i.e., 2013-2018). In
general, given the optimization nature of ISIS, ISIS accounts for more
flexibility when estimating the impacts of the regulation. For example,
when optimizing to meet an emission limit, ISIS allows for the addition
of new kilns, as well as kiln retirements, replacements, and expansions
and the installation of controls. In the Engineering Analysis the
existing kiln population is assumed to be constant even though normal
kiln retirements occur. Overall, we anticipate the total control costs
from the Engineering Analysis to be higher than that of ISIS. With
higher cost estimates serving as the basis for the Economic Impact
Analysis along with other modeling differences, we expect the results
presented from the EIA model will be higher in impact than those
presented by ISIS.
In addition, we have not yet developed ISIS modules to calculate
non-air environmental impacts and energy impacts. Therefore, these
sections only contain impacts calculated by the traditional engineering
methods
C. What are the air quality impacts?
For the proposed Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA estimated the emission
reductions that would occur due to the implementation of the proposed
emission limits. EPA estimated emission reductions based on the control
technologies selected by the engineering analysis. These emission
reductions are based on 2005 emission baselines.
Under the proposed limit for mercury, we have estimated that the
emissions reductions would be 13,800 lb/yr for existing kilns. Based on
our 1.2 million tpy model kiln, mercury emissions would be reduced by
120 lb/yr for each new kiln, or about 2,400 lb/yr 5 years after
promulgation of the final standards.
Under the proposed limits for THC, we have estimated that the
emissions reductions would be 13,000 tpy for existing kilns, which
represent an organic HAP reduction of 3,100 tpy. For new kilns, THC
emissions would be reduced by 50 tpy per kiln or about 920 tpy 5 years
after promulgation of the final standard. This represents an organic
HAP reduction of 192 tpy.
Under the proposed limit for HCl, we have estimated that emissions
would be reduced by 2,700 tpy for existing kilns. Emissions of HCl from
new kilns would be 45 tpy per kiln or 900 tpy 5 years after
promulgation of the final standards.
The proposed emission limits for PM represent a lowering of the PM
limit from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker to 0.085 lb/ton
[[Page 21165]]
of clinker for existing kilns and for new kilns, a lowering to 0.080
lb/ton of clinker. We have estimated that PM emissions would be reduced
by 10,600 tpy for existing kilns. For new kilns, emission reductions
would be 150 tpy per kiln, or about 3,100 tpy 5 years after
promulgation of the final standards.
The proposed standards for mercury, THC and HCl will also result in
concurrent control of SO2 emissions. For kilns that use an
RTO to comply with the THC emissions limit it is necessary to install
an alkaline scrubber upstream of the RTO to control acid gas and to
provide additional control of PM and to avoid plugging and fouling of
the RTO. Scrubbers will also be used to control HCl and mercury
emissions. Reductions in SO2 emissions associated with
controls for mercury, THC and HCl are estimated at 1,600 tpy, 7,300
tpy, and 107,000 tpy, respectively. Total reduction in SO2
emissions from existing kilns would be an estimated 116,000 tpy. A new
1.2 million tpy kiln equipped with a scrubber will reduce
SO2 emissions by 1,000 tpy on average or about 20,000 tpy in
the fifth year after promulgation of the final standards.
These controls will also reduce emissions of secondary
PM2.5 (and coarse PM (PM10-2.5) as well). This is
PM that results from atmospheric transformation processes of precursor
gases, including SO2.
In addition to this traditional estimation of emission reductions,
EPA employed the ISIS model to estimate emission reductions. The
estimation of emission reductions in the ISIS model accounts for the
optimization of the industry and includes the addition of new kilns,
kiln retirements, replacements, and expansions as well as installation
of controls. Using the ISIS model, in 2013 we estimate reductions of
11,400 lbs of mercury, 11,670 tons of THC, 2,780 tons of HCl, 10,530
tons of PM and 160,000 tons of SO2 compared to total
emissions in 2005. More information on the ISIS model and results can
be found in the ISIS TSD and in a Technical Memo to the docket.
D. What are the water quality impacts?
We estimated no water quality impacts for the proposed amendments.
The requirements that might result in the use of alkaline scrubbers
will produce a scrubber slurry liquid waste stream. However, we assume
the scrubber slurry produced will be dewatered and added back into the
cement-making process as gypsum. Water from the dewatering process will
be recycled back to the scrubber. The four facilities that currently
use wet scrubbers in this industry report no water releases at any
time. However, the use of scrubbers could create potential for water
release due to system purges. We are requesting comment and data on
water quality impacts, on what, if any, regulations might apply, and if
we should add any requirements to this rule to prevent or control these
purges. The addition of scrubbers will increase water usage by about
2,700 million gallons per year. For a new 1.2 million tpy kiln, water
usage will be 36 million gallons per year or 720 million gallons per
year 5 years after promulgation of the final standards.
We note that some preproposal commenters have stated that some new
and existing facilities may be located in areas where there is not
sufficient water to operate a wet scrubber. However, we are not
mandating the use of wet scrubber technology in these regulations, and
we believe that sufficient alternative controls exist for mercury and
acid gas controls that this issue would not preclude a facility from
meeting these proposed emissions limits. However, we are also
soliciting comment on this issue.
E. What are the solid waste impacts?
The potential for solid waste impacts are associated with greater
PM control for kilns, waste generated by ACI systems and solids
resulting from solids in scrubber slurry water. As explained above, we
have assumed little or no solid waste is expected from the generation
of scrubber slurry because the solids from the slurry are used in the
finish mill as a raw material. The PM captured in the kiln fabric
filter (cement kiln dust) is essentially recaptured raw material,
intermediate materials, or product. Based on the available information,
it appears that most captured PM is typically recycled back to the
kilns to the maximum extent possible. Therefore we estimate that any
additional PM captured would also be recycled to the kiln to the extent
possible.
Where equipped with an alkali bypass, the bypass will have a
separate PM control device and that PM is typically disposed of as
solid waste. An alkali bypass is not required on all kilns. Where one
is present, the amount of solid waste generated from the alkali bypass
is minimal, usually about 1 percent of total CKD in control devices,
because the bypass gas stream is a small percentage of total kiln
exhaust gas flow and the bypass gas stream does not contact the feed
stream in the raw mill.
Waste collected in the polishing baghouse associated with ACI that
might be added for mercury or THC control cannot be recycled to the
kiln and would be disposed of as solid waste. An estimated 120,000 tpy
of solid waste would be generated from the use of ACI systems on
existing kilns. Each new kiln equipped with an ACI system would be
expected to generate 1,800 tons of solid waste per kiln or, assuming 14
of the 20 new kilns would add ACI systems, about 25,000 tpy in the
fifth year after promulgation of the final standards.
In addition to the solid waste impacts described above, there is a
potential for an increase in solid waste if a facility elects to
control mercury emission by increasing the amount of CKD wasted rather
than returned to process. This will be a site-specific decision, and we
have no data to estimate the potential solid waste that may be
generated by this practice. However, we expect the total amount to be
small for two reasons. First, wasting cement kiln dust for mercury
control represents a significant expense to a facility because it would
be essentially wasting either raw materials or product. So we
anticipate this option will not be used if the amount of CKD wasted
would be large. Second, we believe that cement manufacturers will add
the additional CKD to the finish mill to the maximum extent possible
rather than waste the material.
We are requesting comment on the potential for increases in solid
waste generation, on what, if any regulations might apply, and if we
should add any requirements to this rule to prevent or control the
potential additional solid waste requirements.
F. What are the secondary impacts?
Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that
would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices as well as water quality and solid waste
impacts (which were just discussed) that would occur as a result of
these proposed revisions. We estimate these proposed revisions would
increase emissions of criteria pollutants from utility boilers that
supply electricity to the portland cement facilities. We estimate
increased energy demand associated with the installation of scrubbers,
ACI systems, and RTO. The increases for existing kilns are estimated to
be 1,600 tpy of NOX, 800 tpy of CO, 2,700 tpy of
SO2 and about 80 tpy of PM. For new kilns (assuming that of
the 20 new kilns to start up in the 5 years following promulgation of
the final standard 20 will add alkaline scrubbers, 2 will add an RTO,
14 will install ACI systems, and 20 will install membrane bags instead
of cloth bags in their baghouses), increases in secondary air
pollutants are
[[Page 21166]]
estimated to be 410 tpy of NOX, 210 tpy of CO, 690 tpy of
SO2 and 20 tpy of PM. We also estimated increases of
CO2 to be 775,000 tpy (existing kilns) and 200,000 tpy (new
kilns).
G. What are the energy impacts?
The addition of alkaline scrubbers, ACI systems, and RTO added to
comply with the proposed amendments will result in increased energy use
due to the electrical requirements for the scrubber and ACI systems and
increased fan pressure drops, and natural gas to fuel the RTO. We
estimate the additional national electrical demand to be 705 million
kWhr per year and the natural gas use to be 600,000 MMBtu per year for
existing kilns. For new kilns, assuming of the 20 new kilns to start up
in the 5 years following promulgation of the final standard that 20
will add alkaline scrubbers, 2 will add an RTO, and 14 will install ACI
systems, the electrical demand is estimated to be 180 million kWhr per
year and the natural gas use to be 160,000 MMBtu per year.
H. What are the cost impacts?
Under the proposed amendments, existing kilns are expected to add
one or more control devices to comply with the proposed emission
limits. In addition, each kiln would be required to install CEMS to
monitor mercury, THC and HCl while bag leak detectors (BLDs) would be
required to monitor performance of all baghouses.
We performed two separate cost analyses for this proposed rule. In
the engineering cost analysis, we estimated the cost of the proposed
amendments based on the type of control device that was assumed to be
necessary to comply with the proposed emission standards. Based on
baseline emissions of mercury, THC, HCl and PM for each kiln and the
removal efficiency necessary to comply with the proposed emission limit
for each HAP, an appropriate control device was identified. In
assigning control devices to each kiln where more than one control
device would be capable of reducing emissions of a particular HAP below
the limit, we assumed that the least costly control would be installed.
For example, if a kiln could use either a scrubber or ACI to comply
with the proposed limit for mercury, it was assumed that ACI would be
selected over a scrubber because an ACI system would be less costly.
ACI also is expected to achieve a higher removal efficiency than a
scrubber for mercury. In some instances, a more expensive technology
was considered appropriate because the selected control reduced
emissions of multiple pollutants. For example, even though ACI would be
less costly than a scrubber for controlling mercury, if the kiln also
had to reduce HCl emissions, we assumed that a scrubber would be
applied to control HCl as well as mercury because ACI would not control
HCl. However, for many kilns, our analysis assumes that multiple
controls will have to be added because more than one control will be
needed to control all HAP. For example, ACI may be considered necessary
to meet the limits for THC and/or mercury. For the same kiln, a
scrubber would also be required to reduce HCl emissions. In this case
we would allocate the cost of the control to controlling HCl emissions,
not to the cost of controlling mercury emissions. In addition, once we
assigned a particular control device, in most cases we assumed mercury
and THC emissions reductions would equal the control device efficiency,
and not the minimum reduction necessary to meet the emissions limit. We
believe this assumption is warranted because it matches costs with
actual emissions reductions. In the case of PM and HCl, we assumed the
controlled facility would emit at the average level necessary to meet
the standard (i.e., we assumed for PM that the controlled facility
would emit at 0.01 lb/ton clinker, the average emission level, not
0.085 lb/ton clinker, the actual emissions limit), because the proposed
emissions levels are extremely low.
In a separate analysis performed using the ISIS model, we input
into ISIS the baseline and controlled emissions rates for each
pollutant, along with the maximum percent reduction achievable for a
particular control technology, and allowed ISIS to base the control
required on optimizing total production costs. In addition, the ISIS
model accounts for normal kiln retirements that would occur even in the
absence of any regulatory action (i.e., as new kilns come on-line,
older, less efficient and more costly to operate kilns are retired). In
the first cost analysis, total national annual costs assume that all
kilns currently operating continue to operate while 20 new kilns come
on-line.
Table 8 presents the resulting add-on controls each approach
estimated was necessary to meet the proposed emissions limits.
Table 8--Control Installation Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSW ACI LWS+ACI RTO MB FF WS+RTO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Analysis............................. 5 36 111 0 35 5 12
ISIS Model....................................... 7 34 107 10 17 0 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the engineering analysis we estimated the total capital cost of
installing alkaline scrubbers and ACI systems for mercury control,
including monitoring systems, would be $72 million with an annualized
cost of $28 million. The estimated capital cost of installing ACI
systems and RTO/scrubbers to reduce THC emissions would be $322 million
with annualized cost of $103 million. The capital cost of adding
scrubbers for the control of HCl is estimated to be $692 million with
an annualized cost of $109 million. The capital cost of adding membrane
bags to existing baghouse and the replacement of ESP's with baghouses
would be $54 million with annualized cost of $17 million. The total
capital cost for the proposed amendments would be an estimated $1.14
billion with an annualized cost of $256 million.
The estimated emission control capital cost per new 1.2 million tpy
kiln is $17.6 million and the annualized costs are estimated at $1.25
million for mercury control, $1.3 million for THC control, $1.8 million
for HCl control and $270,000 for PM control. National annualized cost
by the end of the fifth year will be an estimated $92.4 million.
In the ISIS results, we are not able to separate costs by pollutant
because the model does an overall optimization of the production and
air pollution control costs. The total annual costs of the ISIS model
are $222 million in 2013. These impacts assume that in 2013 nine new
kilns are installed and net four kilns are retired. These retirements
include two kilns that we have determined may close due to not being
able to meet the mercury emission limits due to unusually high mercury
contents in their proprietary quarries (i.e., the mercury content of
the raw material at limestone quarries).
I. What are the economic impacts?
EPA employed both a partial-equilibrium economic model and the
[[Page 21167]]
ISIS model to analyze the impact on the industry and the economy.
The Economic Impact Analysis model estimates the average national
price for portland cement could be 4 percent higher with the NESHAP, or
$3.30 per metric ton, while annual domestic production may fall by 8
percent, or 7 million tons per year. Because of higher domestic prices,
imports are expected to rise by 2 million metric tons per year.
As domestic production falls, cement industry revenues are
projected to decline by 4 percent, or $340 million. Overall, net
production costs also fall by $140 million with compliance cost
increases ($240 million) offset by cost reductions associated with
lower cement production. Operating profits fall by $200 million, or 16
percent. Other projected impacts include reduced demand for labor.
Employment falls by approximately 8 percent, or 1,200 employees. EPA
identified six domestic plants with negative operating profits and
significant utilization changes that could temporarily idle until
market demand conditions improve. The plants are small capacity plants
with unit compliance costs close to $5 per ton and $50 million total
change in operating profits. Since these plants account for
approximately 2.5 percent of domestic capacity, a decision to
permanently shut down these plants would reduce domestic supply and
lead to additional projected market price increases.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ In addition to the six plants identified that could
temporarily idle or permanently shut down, there are two plants that
are at risk of closure because they may not be able to meet the
existing source mercury emissions limit, even if they apply the best
controls. We did not assume they would close in this analysis
because there may be site-specific mercury control alternative that
would allow them to remain open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated domestic social cost of the proposed amendments is
$684 million. There is an estimated $89 million surplus gain for other
countries producing cement. The social cost estimates are significantly
higher than the engineering analysis estimates, which estimated
annualized costs of $370 million. This is a direct consequence of EPA's
assumptions about existing domestic plants' pricing behavior. Under
baseline conditions without regulation, the existing domestic cement
plants are assumed to choose a production level that is less than the
level produced under perfect competition. The imposition of additional
regulatory costs tends to widen the gap between price and marginal cost
in these markets and contributes to additional social costs. For more
detail see the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
Using the ISIS model, we estimate cement demand to drop 1.9 percent
in 2013 or 2.5 million tons with an average annual drop in demand at
1.5 percent or 2.2 million tons per year during the 2013-2018 time
period. The drop in demand will affect the level of imports, and
imports are likely to rise slightly over the policy horizon. In 2013,
imports rise 1.39 percent or 0.44 million tons with an annual average
of 0.39 percent or 0.13 million tons per year throughout 2013-2018.
ISIS estimates the average national price for portland cement in the
2013-2018 time period to be 1.2 percent higher with the NESHAP, or
$0.96 per metric ton. However, some markets could see an increase by up
to 6.7 percent. Total annualized control cost for the proposed NESHAP
amendments is projected to be $222 million in 2013.
With respect to the baseline case in 2013, ISIS identified a net
retirement of 2.4 million tons of capacity. The retirements affect 4
kilns at 4 facilities. As a result of the proposed NESHAP amendments,
the cost to produce a ton of cement (production, imports,
transportation and control technology) increases from $56.11 per ton at
baseline to $57.47 per ton as a result of these proposed amendments
($1.36/ton), resulting in an increase of about 2.7 percent over the
analysis period of 2013 to 2018. With respect to baseline in 2013 ISIS
projects the revenue of the cement industry to fall by 1.2 percent or
about $91 million. More information on this model can be found in the
ISIS TSD and in a Technical Memo to the docket.
J. What are the benefits?
We estimate the monetized co-benefits of this proposed NESHAP to be
$4.4 billion to $11 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) in the
year of full implementation (2013); using alternate relationships
between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts,
higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates.\54\ The
benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $4.0 billion to $9.7 billion
(2005$) \55\. A summary of the monetized benefits estimates at discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.
\55\ Using alternate emission reductions generated by the ISIS
model, the benefits results are similar to those shown here.
Although the ISIS model estimates different emission reductions, the
increased SO2 reductions offset the fewer
PM2.5 reductions. More information on the health benefits
estimated for the ISIS results can be found in the ISIS TSD.
Table 9--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the Proposed Portland Cement NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Total monetized benefits Total monetized benefits
Pollutant reductions (millions of 2005 dollars, (millions of 2005 dollars,
(tons) 3% discount) \1\ 7 percent discount) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5............................. 6,300 $1,200 to $2,800........... $1,000 to $2,500.
PM2.5 precursors......................... 140,000 $3,300 to $8,000........... $3,000 to $7,200.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total....................................... $4,400 to $11,000.......... $4,000 to $9,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the analysis year (full implementation, 2013), and are rounded to two significant
figures so numbers may not sum across rows. PM2.5 precursors reflect emission reductions of SOX. All fine
particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, and the monetized benefits incorporate the conversion
from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles.
These benefits estimates are the monetized human health co-benefits
of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among
populations exposed to PM2.5 from installing controls to
limit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), such as mercury, hydrochloric
acid, and hydrocarbons. We generated estimates that represent the total
monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and
morbidity) of reducing PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions. We base the estimate of human health benefits derived from
the PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emission reductions
on the approach and methodology laid out in the TSD that accompanied
the RIA for
[[Page 21168]]
the revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-
level Ozone (NAAQS), March 2008 with three changes explained below.
For context, it is important to note that in quantifying PM
benefits the magnitude of the results is largely driven by the
concentration response function for premature mortality. Experts have
advised EPA to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates
based both on empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments
elicited from scientific experts, to characterize the uncertainty in
the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and premature
mortality. For this proposed NESHAP we cite two key empirical studies,
one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study \56\ and the
extended Six Cities cohort study.\57\ Alternate models identified by
experts describing the relationship between PM2.5 and
premature mortality would yield higher and lower estimates depending
upon the assumptions that they made, but most of the expert-based
estimates fall between the two epidemiology-based estimates (Roman et
al. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Pope et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary
Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-
1141.
\57\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA strives to use the best available science to support our
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. One of the
key differences between the method used in this analysis of PM-
cobenefits and the methods used in recent RIAs is that, in addition to
technical updates, we removed the assumption regarding thresholds in
the health impact function. Based on our review of the body of
scientific literature, we prefer the no-threshold model. EPA's draft
Integrated Science Assessment (2008), which is currently being reviewed
by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, concluded that the
scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold log-linear
model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response
relationship while recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact
shape of the concentration-response function. It is important to note
that while CASAC provides advice regarding the science associated with
setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, typically other
scientific advisory bodies provide specific advice regarding benefits
analysis.
Using the threshold model at 10 [mu]g/m\3\ without the two
technical updates, we estimate the monetized benefits to be $3.1
billion to $6.5 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) and $2.8
billion to $5.9 billion (2005$, 7 percent discount rate) in the year of
full implementation. Approximately 75 percent of the difference between
the old methodology and the new methodology for this rule is due to
removing thresholds with 25 percent due to the two technical updates,
but this percentage would vary depending on the combination of emission
reductions from different sources and PM2.5 precursor
pollutants. For more information on the updates to the benefit-per-ton
estimates, please refer to the RIA for this proposed rule that is
available in the docket.
The question of whether or not to assume a threshold in calculating
the co-benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 is an
issue that affects the benefits calculations not only for this rule but
for many future EPA rulemakings and analyses. Due to these
implications, we solicit comment on appropriateness of both the no-
threshold and threshold model for PM benefits analysis.
To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in PM2.5 air quality and another
model to estimate the changes in human health based on that change in
air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were divided by the
emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. Even
though all fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because
each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. For example, SOX has a lower benefit-per-
ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not form as
much PM2.5, thus the exposure would be lower, and the
monetized health benefits would be lower.
This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits
model. However, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of
alternative concentration response functions, including those derived
from the PM expert elicitation study.
The social costs of this rulemaking are estimated at $694 million
(2005$) in the year of full implementation, and the benefits are
estimated at $4.4 billion to $11 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount
rate) for that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are
$4.0 billion to $9.7 billion (2005$). Thus, net benefits of this
rulemaking are estimated at $3.7 billion to $11 billion (2005$, 3
percent discount rate); using alternate relationships between
PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher
and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-
based estimates fall between the two estimates we present above. The
net benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $3.3 billion to $9.0
billion (2005$). EPA believes that the benefits are likely to exceed
the costs by a significant margin even when taking into account the
uncertainties in the cost and benefit estimates.
It should be noted that the benefits estimates provided above do
not include benefits from improved visibility, coarse PM emission
reductions, or other hazardous air pollutants such as mercury and
hydrochloric acid, additional emission reductions that would occur if
cement facilities temporarily idle or reduce capacity utilization as a
result of this regulation, or the unquantifiable amount of reductions
in condensable PM. We do not have sufficient information or modeling
available to provide such estimates for this rulemaking.
For more information, please refer to the RIA for this proposed
rule that is available in the docket.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed 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
[[Page 21169]]
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1801.07.
In most cases, new and existing kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills at
major and area sources that are not already subject to emission limits
for THC, mercury, and PM would become subject to the limits and
associated compliance provisions in the current rule. New compliance
provisions for mercury would remove the current requirement for an
initial performance test coupled with monitoring of the carbon
injection rate. Instead, plants would measure mercury emissions by
calculating a 30-day average from continuous or integrated monitors.
Records of all calculations and data would be required. New compliance
procedures would also apply to area sources subject to a PM limit in a
format of lbs/ton of clinker. The owner or operator would be required
to install and operate a weight measurement system and keep daily
records of clinker production instead of the current requirement to
install and operate a PM CEMS. The owner or operator would be required
to conduct an initial PM performance test and repeat performance tests
every 5 years. Cement plants also would be subject to new limits for
HCl and associated compliance provisions which include compliance tests
using EPA Method 321 and continuous monitoring for HCl for facilities
that do not use a wet scrubber for HCl control. These requirements are
based on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to
EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which
a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 44,656 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $4.1 million per year. The average annualized capital
costs are estimated at $53.7 million per year and average operation and
maintenance costs are estimated at $174,000 per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency's
need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
EPA has established a public docket for this proposed rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051. Submit
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after May 6, 2009, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 5, 2009.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent
company has no more than 750 employees (as defined by Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards for the portland cement industry,
NAICS 327310); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate
that up to 4 of the 44 existing portland cement plants are small
entities. One of the entities burns hazardous waste in its kiln and is
not impacted by this proposed rule.
EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on the three
affected small entities by comparing compliance costs to entity
revenues. EPA's analysis found that the ratio of compliance cost to
company revenue for two small entities (including a tribal government)
would have an annualized cost of between 1 percent and 3 percent of
sales. One small business would have an annualized cost of 4.8 percent
of sales. All three affected facilities are projected to continue to
operate under with-regulation conditions.
EPA also evaluated small business impacts using the ISIS model.
There are a total of 7 kilns identified to be associated with small
business facilities affected by this proposal. ISIS identified one of
these kilns to retire in 2013 as a result of the proposed NESHAP. A
second kiln reduces its utilization by 56 percent in 2013 but recovers
later in the 2013 to 2018 time frame as the demand increases. All the
remaining small business kilns operate at full capacity throughout the
2013 to 2018 time frame.
Although this proposed rule will not impact a substantial number of
small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this
proposed rule on small entities by setting the proposed emissions
limits at the MACT floor, the least stringent level allowed by law. In
the case where there are overlapping standards between this NESHAP and
the Portland Cement NSPS, we have exempted sources from the least
stringent requirement, thereby eliminating the overlapping monitoring,
testing and reporting requirements by proposing that the source comply
with only the more stringent of the standards. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C 1531-
1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also
develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be
significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The
plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must
inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
[[Page 21170]]
This rule contains 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.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written
statement which is summarized below.
Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA has already initiated consultations with
the governmental entities affected by this rule. In developing this
rule, EPA consulted with small governments under a plan developed
pursuant to section 203 of UMRA concerning the regulatory requirements
in the rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. EPA has determined that this proposed action contains
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because one of the facilities affected by the
proposed rule is tribally owned. EPA consulted with tribal officials
early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to
have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA directly
contacted the facility in question to insure it was apprised of this
rulemaking and potential implications. This facility indicated it was
aware of the rulemaking and was participating in meetings with the
industry trade association concerning this rulemaking. The facility did
not indicate any specific concern, and we are assuming that they have
the same concerns as those expressed by the other non-tribally owned
facilities during the development of this proposed rule.
Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. EPA carefully examined
regulatory alternatives, and selected the lowest cost/least burdensome
alternative that EPA deems adequate to address Congressional concerns
and to effectively reduce emissions of mercury, THC and PM. EPA has
considered the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, and has
concluded that the costs will fall mainly on the private sector
(approximately $273 million). EPA estimates that an additional facility
owned by a tribal government will incur approximately $2.1 million in
costs per year. Furthermore, we think it is unlikely that State, local
and Tribal governments would begin operating large industrial
facilities, similar to those affected by this rulemaking operated by
the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal implications,
because it will impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, and the Federal government will not provide the funds
necessary to pay those costs. One of the facilities affected by this
proposed rule is tribally owned. We estimate this facility will incur
direct compliance costs that are between 1 to 3 percent of sales.
Accordingly, EPA provides the following tribal summary impact statement
as required by section 5(b).
EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. EPA directly contacted the facility in
question to insure it was apprised of this rulemaking and potential
implications. This facility indicated that it was aware of the
rulemaking and was participating in meetings with the industry trade
association concerning this rulemaking. The facility did not indicate
any specific concern, and we are assuming that they have the same
concerns as those expressed by the other non-tribally owned facilities
during the development of this proposed rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comments on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed 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 proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects. This proposal will result in the addition of
control equipment and monitoring systems for existing and new sources.
We estimate the additional electrical demand to be 784 million kWhr per
year and the natural gas use to be 672 million cubic feet for existing
sources. At the end of the fifth year following promulgation,
electrical demand from new sources will be 180 million kWhr per year
and natural gas use will be 171 million cubic feet.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
[[Page 21171]]
104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 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 EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches through the
Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations, and accessed and
searched their databases.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use ASTM D6348-03, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'', as
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 providing the following
conditions are met.
(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
(2) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R
must be 70 <=%R <=130. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for
a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound
and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/
or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R
value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all
field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for
that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result =
Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100) / %R.
While the Agency has identified eight other VCS as being
potentially applicable to this rule, we have decided not to use these
VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been
impractical because they do not meet the objectives of the standards
cited in this rule. See the docket for this rule for the reasons for
these determinations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule
and amendments.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that these
proposed amendments will not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because they would increase the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. These proposed standards would reduce emissions of mercury,
THC, HCl, and PM from portland cement plants located at major and area
sources, decreasing the amount of such emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 21, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Appendix B--[Amended]
2. Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 is amended to read as follows:
a. Revise Performance Specification 12A.
b. Add Performance Specification 12B.
Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications
* * * * *
Performance Specification 12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in
Stationary Sources
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 Analyte. The analyte measured by these procedures and
specifications is total vapor phase Hg in the flue gas, which
represents the sum of elemental Hg (Hg[deg], CAS Number 7439-97-6)
and oxidized forms of gaseous Hg (Hg\+2\), in mass concentration
units of micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm).
1.2 Applicability.
1.2.1 This specification is for evaluating the acceptability of
total vapor phase Hg continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
installed at stationary sources at the time of or soon after
installation and whenever specified in the regulations. The Hg CEMS
must be capable of measuring the total mass concentration in
[micro]g/dscm (regardless of speciation) of vapor phase Hg, and
recording that concentration on a wet or dry basis. Particle bound
Hg is not included in the measurements.
1.2.2 This specification is not designed to evaluate an
installed CEMS's performance over an extended period of time nor
does it identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary
procedures to assess the CEMS's performance. The source owner or
operator, however, is responsible to calibrate, maintain, and
operate the CEMS properly. The Administrator may require, under
Clean Air Act section 114, the operator to conduct CEMS performance
evaluations at other times besides the initial test to evaluate the
CEMS performance. See Sec. 60.13(c).
2.0 Summary of Performance Specification
Procedures for measuring CEMS relative accuracy, linearity, and
calibration errors are outlined. CEMS installation and measurement
location specifications, and data reduction procedures are included.
Conformance of the CEMS with the Performance Specification is
determined.
3.0 Definitions
3.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total
equipment required for the determination of a pollutant
concentration. The system consists of the following major
subsystems:
3.2 Sample Interface means that portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport,
sample conditioning, and protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
3.3 Hg Analyzer means that portion of the Hg CEMS that measures
the total vapor phase
[[Page 21172]]
Hg mass concentration and generates a proportional output.
3.4 Data Recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent electronic record of the analyzer output. The data
recorder may provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control
capabilities.
3.5 Span Value means the upper limit of the intended Hg
concentration measurement range. The span value is a value equal to
two times the emission standard.
3.6 Linearity means the absolute value of the difference between
the concentration indicated by the Hg analyzer and the known
concentration of a reference gas, expressed as a percentage of the
span value, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling interface,
is challenged. A linearity test procedure is performed to document
the linearity of the Hg CEMS at three or more points over the
measurement range.
3.7 Calibration Drift (CD) means the absolute value of the
difference between the CEMS output response and either the upscale
Hg reference gas or the zero-level Hg reference gas, expressed as a
percentage of the span value, when the entire CEMS, including the
sampling interface, is challenged after a stated period of operation
during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took
place.
3.8 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference
between the pollutant concentration(s) determined by the CEMS and
the value determined by the reference method (RM) plus the 2.5
percent error confidence coefficient of a series of tests divided by
the mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, for sources with an average
RM concentration less than 5.0 [mu]g/dscm, the RA may be expressed
as the absolute value of the difference between the mean CEMS and RM
values.
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 Safety
The procedures required under this performance specification may
involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This
performance specification may not address all of the safety problems
associated with these procedures. It is the responsibility of the
user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and
determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing
these procedures. The CEMS user's manual and materials recommended
by the RM should be consulted for specific precautions to be taken.
6.0 Equipment and Supplies
6.1 CEMS Equipment Specifications.
6.1.1 Data Recorder Scale. The Hg CEMS data recorder output
range must include zero and a high level value. The high level value
must be approximately two times the Hg concentration corresponding
to the emission standard level for the stack gas under the
circumstances existing as the stack gas is sampled. A lower high
level value may be used, provided that the measured values do not
exceed 95 percent of the high level value.
6.1.2 The CEMS design should also provide for the determination
of CE at a zero value (zero to 20 percent of the span value) and at
an upscale value (between 50 and 100 percent of the high-level
value).
6.2 Reference Gas Delivery System. The reference gas delivery
system must be designed so that the flowrate of reference gas
introduced to the CEMS is the same at all three challenge levels
specified in Section 7.1, and at all times exceeds the flow
requirements of the CEMS.
6.3 Other equipment and supplies, as needed by the applicable
reference method used. See Section 8.6.2.
7.0 Reagents and Standards
7.1 Reference Gases. Reference gas standards are required for
both elemental and oxidized Hg (Hg and mercuric chloride,
HgCl2). The use of National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)-certified or NIST-traceable standards and reagents
is required. The following gas concentrations are required.
7.1.1 Zero-level. 0 to 20 percent of the span value.
7.1.2 Mid-level. 50 to 60 percent of the span value.
7.1.3 High-level. 80 to 100 percent of the span value.
7.2 Reference gas standards may also be required for the
reference methods. See Section 8.6.2.
8.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure
8.1 Installation and Measurement Location Specifications.
8.1.1 CEMS Installation. Install the CEMS at an accessible
location downstream of all pollution control equipment. Since the Hg
CEMS sample system normally extracts gas from a single point in the
stack, use a location that has been shown to be free of
stratification for Hg or alternatively, SO2 and
NOX through concentration measurement traverses for those
gases. If the cause of failure to meet the RA test requirement is
determined to be the measurement location and a satisfactory
correction technique cannot be established, the Administrator may
require the CEMS to be relocated. Measurement locations and points
or paths that are most likely to provide data that will meet the RA
requirements are listed below.
8.1.2 Measurement Location. The measurement location should be
(1) at least two equivalent diameters downstream of the nearest
control device, point of pollutant generation or other point at
which a change of pollutant concentration may occur, and (2) at
least half an equivalent diameter upstream from the effluent
exhaust. The equivalent duct diameter is calculated as per 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, Method 1.
8.1.3 Hg CEMS Sample Extraction Point. Use a sample extraction
point either (1) no less than 1.0 meter from the stack or duct wall,
or (2) within the centroidal velocity traverse area of the stack or
duct cross section.
8.2 RM Measurement Location and Traverse Points. Refer to
Performance Specification 2 (PS 2) of this appendix. The RM and CEMS
locations need not be immediately adjacent.
8.3 Linearity Test Procedure. The Hg CEMS must be constructed to
permit the introduction of known concentrations of Hg and
HgCl2 separately into the sampling system of the CEMS
immediately preceding the sample extraction filtration system such
that the entire CEMS can be challenged. Sequentially inject each of
at least three reference gases (zero, mid-level, and high level) for
each Hg species. Record the CEMS response and subtract the reference
value from the CEMS value, and express the absolute value of the
difference as a percentage of the span value (see example data sheet
in Figure 12A-1). For each reference gas, the absolute value of the
difference between the CEMS response and the reference value shall
not exceed 5 percent of the span value. If this specification is not
met, identify and correct the problem before proceeding.
8.4 7-Day CD Test Procedure.
8.4.1 CD Test Period. While the affected facility is operating
at more than 50 percent of normal load, or as specified in an
applicable regulation, determine the magnitude of the CD once each
day (at 24-hour intervals, to the extent practicable) for 7
consecutive unit operating days according to the procedure given in
Sections 8.4.2 through 8.4.3. The 7 consecutive unit operating days
need not be 7 consecutive calendar days. Use either Hg[deg] or
HgCl2 standards for this test.
8.4.2 The purpose of the CD measurement is to verify the ability
of the CEMS to conform to the established CEMS response used for
determining emission concentrations or emission rates. Therefore, if
periodic automatic or manual adjustments are made to the CEMS zero
and upscale response settings, conduct the CD test immediately
before these adjustments, or conduct it in such a way that the CD
can be determined.
8.4.3 Conduct the CD test using the zero gas specified and
either the mid-level or high-level point specified in Section 7.1.
Introduce the reference gas to the CEMS. Record the CEMS response
and subtract the reference value from the CEMS value, and express
the absolute value of the difference as a percentage of the span
value (see example data sheet in Figure 12A-1). For the reference
gas, the absolute value of the difference between the CEMS response
and the reference value shall not exceed 5 percent of the span
value. If this specification is not met, identify and correct the
problem before proceeding.
8.5 RA Test Procedure.
8.5.1 RA Test Period. Conduct the RA test according to the
procedure given in Sections 8.5.2 through 8.6.6 while the affected
facility is operating at normal full load, or as specified in an
applicable subpart. The RA test may be conducted during the CD test
period.
8.5.2 RM. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable subpart of
the regulations, use Method 29, Method 30A, or Method 30B in
appendix A to this part or American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Method D6784-02 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17)
as the RM for Hg concentration. The filterable portion of the sample
need not be included when making comparisons to the CEMS results.
When Method 29, Method
[[Page 21173]]
30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used, conduct the RM test runs with paired
or duplicate sampling systems. When Method 30A is used, paired
sampling systems are not required. If the RM and CEMS measure on a
different moisture basis, data derived with Method 4 in appendix A
to this part shall also be obtained during the RA test.
8.5.3 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests. Conduct the RM tests in
such a way that they will yield results representative of the
emissions from the source and can be compared to the CEMS data. It
is preferable to conduct moisture measurements (if needed) and Hg
measurements simultaneously, although moisture measurements that are
taken within an hour of the Hg measurements may be used to adjust
the Hg concentrations to a consistent moisture basis. In order to
correlate the CEMS and RM data properly, note the beginning and end
of each RM test period for each paired RM run (including the exact
time of day) on the CEMS chart recordings or other permanent record
of output.
8.5.4 Number and Length of RM and Tests. Conduct a minimum of
nine RM test runs. When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is
used, only test runs for which the paired RM trains meet the
relative deviation criteria (RD) of this PS shall be used in the RA
calculations. In addition, for Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02, use a
minimum sample time of 2 hours and for Method 30A use a minimum
sample time of 30 minutes.
Note: More than nine sets of RM tests may be performed. If this
option is chosen, paired RM test results may be excluded so long as
the total number of paired RM test results used to determine the
CEMS RA is greater than or equal to nine. However, all data must be
reported including the excluded data.
8.5.5 Correlation of RM and CEMS Data. Correlate the CEMS and
the RM test data as to the time and duration by first determining
from the CEMS final output (the one used for reporting) the
integrated average pollutant concentration for each RM test period.
Consider system response time, if important, and confirm that the
results are on a consistent moisture basis with the RM test. Then,
compare each integrated CEMS value against the corresponding RM
value. When Method 29, Method 30A, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is
used, compare each CEMS value against the corresponding average of
the paired RM values.
8.5.6 Paired RM Outliers.
8.5.6.1 When Method 29, Method 30B, or ASTM D6784-02 is used,
outliers are identified through the determination of relative
deviation (RD) of the paired RM tests. Data that do not meet the
criteria should be flagged as a data quality problem. The primary
reason for performing paired RM sampling is to ensure the quality of
the RM data. The percent RD of paired data is the parameter used to
quantify data quality. Determine RD for two paired data points as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.054
Where: Ca and Cb are concentration values
determined from each of the two samples, respectively.
8.5.6.2 A minimum performance criteria for RM Hg data is that RD
for any data pair must be <=10 percent as long as the mean Hg
concentration is greater than 1.0 [micro]gm/m\3\. If the mean Hg
concentration is less than or equal to 1.0 [micro]gm/m\3\, the RD
must be <=20 percent. Pairs of RM data exceeding these RD criteria
should be eliminated from the data set used to develop a Hg CEMS
correlation or to assess CEMS RA.
8.5.7 Calculate the mean difference between the RM and CEMS
values in the units of micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]gm/m\3\),
the standard deviation, the confidence coefficient, and the RA
according to the procedures in Section 12.0.
8.6 Reporting. At a minimum (check with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office, State or local Agency for additional requirements,
if any), summarize in tabular form the results of the RD tests and
the RA tests or alternative RA procedure, as appropriate. Include
all data sheets, calculations, charts (records of CEMS responses),
reference gas concentration certifications, and any other
information necessary to confirm that the performance of the CEMS
meets the performance criteria.
9.0 Quality Control [Reserved]
10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]
11.0 Analytical Procedure
Sample collection and analysis are concurrent (see Section 8.0).
Refer to the RM employed for specific analytical procedures.
12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis
Summarize the results on a data sheet similar to Figure 2-2 for
PS 2.
12.1 Consistent Basis. All data from the RM and CEMS must be
compared in units of [micro]gm/m\3\, on a consistent and identified
moisture basis. The values must be standardized to 20 [deg]C, 760 mm
Hg.
12.1.1 Moisture Correction (as applicable). If the RM and CEMS
measure Hg on a different moisture basis, use Equation 12A-2 to make
the appropriate corrections to the Hg concentrations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.055
Where: Bws is the moisture content of the flue gas from
Method 4, expressed as a decimal fraction (e.g., for 8.0 percent
H2O, Bws = 0.08).
12.2 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
difference, d, of a data set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.056
Where: n = Number of data points.
12.3 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation,
Sd, as follows:
[[Page 21174]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.057
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.082
12.3 Confidence Coefficient (CC). Calculate the 2.5 percent
error confidence coefficient (one-tailed), CC, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.058
12.4 RA. Calculate the RA of a set of data as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.059
Where:
[bond]d [bond] = Absolute value of the mean differences (from
Equation 12A-3).
[bond]CC [bond] = Absolute value of the confidence coefficient (from
Equation 12A-5).
RM = Average RM value.
13.0 Method Performance
13.1 Linearity. Linearity is assessed at zero-level, mid-level
and high-level values as given below using standards for both Hg \0\
and HgCl2. The mean difference between the indicated CEMS
concentration and the reference concentration value for each
standard shall be no greater than 5 percent of the span value.
13.2 CD. The CD shall not exceed 5 percent of the span value on
any of the 7 days of the CD test.
13.3 RA. The RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 10 percent
of the mean value of the RM test data in terms of units of [micro]g/
dscm. Alternatively, (1) if the mean RM is less than 10.0 [micro]g/
dscm, then the RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 20 percent, or
(2) if the mean RM is less than 5.0 [micro]gm/m\3\, the results are
acceptable if the absolute value of the difference between the mean
RM and CEMS values does not exceed 1.0 [micro]g/dscm.
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]
16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved]
17.0 Bibliography
17.1 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and
NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources.''
17.2 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 29--Determination of
Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources.''
17.3 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 30A--Determination of
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Stationary Sources
(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure).
17.4 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 30B--Determination of
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Combustion
Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Traps.''
17.5 ASTM Method D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method).''
18.0 Tables and Figures
Table 12A-1--T-Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
n\a\ t0.975
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................ 12.706
3............................................................ 4.303
4............................................................ 3.182
5............................................................ 2.776
6............................................................ 2.571
7............................................................ 2.447
8............................................................ 2.365
9............................................................ 2.306
10........................................................... 2.262
11........................................................... 2.228
12........................................................... 2.201
13........................................................... 2.179
14........................................................... 2.160
15........................................................... 2.145
16........................................................... 2.131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The values in this table are already corrected for n-1 degrees of
freedom. Use n equal to the number of individual values.
Figure 12A-1--Linearity and CE Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Gas value CEMS measured value
Date Time [mu]gm/m\3\ [mu]gm/m\3\ Absolute difference CE (% of span value)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero level ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
Mid level ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
[[Page 21175]]
High level ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Specification 12B--Specifications and Test Procedures for
Monitoring Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Stationary Sources
Using a Sorbent Trap Monitoring System
1.0 Scope and Application
The purpose of Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) is to
evaluate the acceptability of sorbent trap monitoring systems used
to monitor total vapor-phase mercury (Hg) emissions in stationary
source flue gas streams. These monitoring systems involve continuous
repetitive in-stack sampling using paired sorbent media traps with
periodic analysis of the time-integrated samples. Persons using PS
12B should have a thorough working knowledge of Methods 1, 2, 3, 4,
5 and 30B in appendices A-1 through A-3 and A-8 to this part.
1.1 Analyte.
The analyte measured by these procedures and specifications is
total vapor phase Hg in the flue gas, which represents the sum of
elemental Hg (Hg0, CAS Number 7439-97-6) and gaseous
forms of oxidized Hg (Hg\+2\) in mass concentration units of
micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm).
1.2 Applicability.
1.2.1 These procedures are only intended for use under
relatively low particulate conditions (e.g., monitoring after all
pollution control devices). This specification is for evaluating the
acceptability of total vapor phase Hg sorbent trap monitoring
systems installed at stationary sources at the time of, or soon
after, installation and whenever specified in the regulations. The
Hg monitoring system must be capable of measuring the total mass
concentration in [micro]g/dscm (regardless of speciation) of vapor
phase Hg.
1.2.2 This specification is not designed to evaluate an
installed sorbent trap monitoring system's performance over an
extended period of time nor does it identify specific techniques and
auxiliary procedures to assess the system's performance. The source
owner or operator, however, is responsible to calibrate, maintain,
and operate the monitoring system properly. The Administrator may
require, under Clean Air Act section 114, the operator to conduct
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial test to
evaluate the CEMS performance. See Sec. 60.13(c).
2.0 Principle
Known volumes of flue gas are continuously extracted from a
stack or duct through paired, in-stack, pre-spiked sorbent media
traps at appropriate nominal flow rates. The sorbent traps in the
sampling system are periodically exchanged with new ones, prepared
for analysis as needed, and analyzed by any technique that can meet
the performance criteria. For quality-assurance purposes, a section
of each sorbent trap is spiked with Hg\0\ prior to sampling.
Following sampling, this section is analyzed separately and a
specified percentage of the spike must be recovered. Paired train
sampling is required to determine method precision.
3.0 Definitions
3.1 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System (STMS) means the total
equipment required for the collection of paired trap gaseous Hg
samples using paired three-partition sorbent traps. Refer to Method
30B in this subpart for a complete description of the needed
equipment.
3.2 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference
between the pollutant concentration(s) determined by the CMS and the
value determined by the reference method (RM) plus the 2.5 percent
error confidence coefficient of a series of tests divided by the
mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, for low concentration sources,
the RA may be expressed as the absolute value of the difference
between the mean STMS and RM values. It is used to assess the bias
of the STMS.
3.3 Relative Deviation (RD) means the absolute difference of the
analyses of a paired set of traps divided by the sum of those
analyses, expressed as a percentage. It is used to assess the
precision of the STMS.
3.4 Spike Recovery means the amount of Hg mass measured from the
spiked trap section as a percentage of the amount spiked. It is used
to assess sample matrix interference.
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 Safety
The procedures required under this performance specification may
involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This
performance specification may not address all of the safety problems
associated with these procedures. It is the responsibility of the
user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and
determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing
these procedures.
6.0 Equipment and Supplies
6.1 STMS Equipment Specifications.
6.1.1 Sampling System. The equipment described in Method 30B in
appendix A-8 to this subpart shall be used to continuously sample
for Hg emissions, with the substitution of three-section traps in
place of two-section traps, as described below. A typical sorbent
trap sampling system is shown in Figure 12B-1.
6.1.2 Three-Section Sorbent Traps. The sorbent media used to
collect Hg must be configured in traps with three distinct and
identical segments or sections, connected in series, to be
separately analyzed. Section 1 is designated for primary capture of
gaseous Hg. Section 2 is designated as a backup section for
determination of vapor-phase Hg breakthrough. Section 3 is
designated for QA/QC purposes where this section shall be spiked
with a known amount of gaseous Hg\0\ prior to sampling and later
analyzed to determine recovery efficiency.
[[Page 21176]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.053
6.1.3 Gaseous Hg0 Sorbent Trap Spiking System. A
known mass of gaseous Hg\0\ must be spiked onto section 3 of each
sorbent trap prior to sampling. Any approach capable of
quantitatively delivering known masses of Hg\0\ onto sorbent traps
is acceptable. Several technologies or devices are available to meet
this objective. Their practicality is a function of Hg mass spike
levels. For low levels, NIST-certified or NIST-traceable gas
generators or tanks may be suitable, but will likely require long
preparation times. A more practical, alternative system, capable of
delivering almost any mass required, makes use of NIST-certified or
NIST-traceable Hg salt solutions (e.g.,
Hg(NO3)2). With this system, an aliquot of
known volume and concentration is added to a reaction vessel
containing a reducing agent (e.g., stannous chloride); the Hg salt
solution is reduced to Hg\0\ and purged onto section 3 of the
sorbent trap using an impinger sparging system.
6.1.4 Sample Analysis Equipment. Any analytical system capable
of quantitatively recovering and quantifying total gaseous Hg from
sorbent media is acceptable provided that the analysis can meet the
performance criteria in Table 12B-1 in section 9 of this performance
specification. Candidate recovery techniques include leaching,
digestion, and thermal desorption. Candidate analytical techniques
include ultraviolet atomic fluorescence (UV AF); ultraviolet atomic
absorption (UV AA), with and without gold trapping; and in-situ X-
ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis.
7.0 Reagents and Standards
Only NIST-certified or NIST-traceable calibration gas standards
and reagents shall be used for the tests and procedures required
under this performance specification. The sorbent media may be any
collection material (e.g., carbon, chemically-treated filter, etc.)
capable of quantitatively capturing and recovering for subsequent
analysis, all gaseous forms of Hg in the emissions from the intended
application. Selection of the sorbent media shall be based on the
material's ability to achieve the performance criteria contained in
this method as well as the sorbent's vapor phase Hg capture
efficiency for the emissions matrix and the expected sampling
duration at the test site.
8.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure
8.1 Installation and Measurement Location Specifications.
8.1.1 Selection of Sampling Site. Sampling site information
should be obtained in accordance with Method 1 in appendix A-1 to
this part. Identify a monitoring location representative of source
Hg emissions. Locations shown to be free of stratification through
measurement traverses for Hg or other gases such as SO2
and NOx may be one such approach. An estimation of the
expected stack Hg concentration is required to establish a target
sample flow rate, total gas sample volume, and the mass of Hg\0\ to
be spiked onto section 3 of each sorbent trap.
8.1.2 Pre-sampling Spiking of Sorbent Traps. Based on the
estimated Hg concentration in the stack, the target sample rate and
the target sampling duration, calculate the expected mass loading
for section 1 of each sorbent trap (for an example calculation, see
Section 12.1 of this performance specification). The pre-sampling
spike to be added to section 3 of each sorbent trap shall be within
50 percent of the expected section 1 mass loading.
Spike section 3 of each sorbent trap at this level, as described in
Section 6.1.3 of this performance specification. For each sorbent
trap, keep a record of the mass of Hg0 added to section
3. This record shall include, at a minimum, the identification
number of the trap, the date and time of the spike, the name of the
analyst performing the procedure, the method of spiking, the mass of
Hg0 added to section 3 of the trap ([mu]g), and the
supporting calculations.
8.1.3 Pre-test Leak Check. Perform a leak check with the sorbent
traps in place in the sampling system. Draw a vacuum in each sample
train. Adjust the vacuum in each sample train to ~15'' Hg. Use the
gas flow meter to determine leak rate. The leakage rate must not
exceed 4 percent of the target sampling rate. Once the leak check
passes this criterion, carefully release the vacuum in the sample
train, then seal the sorbent trap inlet until the probe is ready for
insertion into the stack or duct.
8.1.4 Determination of Flue Gas Characteristics. Determine or
measure the flue gas measurement environment characteristics (gas
temperature, static pressure, gas velocity, stack moisture, etc.) in
order to determine ancillary requirements such as probe heating
requirements (if any), sampling rate, proportional sampling
conditions, moisture management, etc.
8.2 Sample Collection.
8.2.1 Prepare to Sample. Remove the plug from the end of each
sorbent trap and store each plug in a clean sorbent trap storage
container. Remove the stack or duct port cap and insert the
probe(s). Secure the probe(s) and ensure that no leakage occurs
between the duct and environment. Record initial data including the
sorbent trap ID, start time, starting gas flow meter readings,
initial temperatures, set points, and any other appropriate
information.
8.2.2 Flow Rate Control. Set the initial sample flow rate at the
target value from section 8.1.1 of this performance specification.
Then, for every operating hour
[[Page 21177]]
during the sampling period, record the date and time, the sample
flow rate, the gas flow meter reading, the stack temperature (if
needed), the flow meter temperatures (if needed), temperatures of
heated equipment such as the vacuum lines and the probes (if
heated), and the sampling system vacuum readings. Also, record the
stack gas flow rate, as measured by the certified flow monitor, and
the ratio of the stack gas flow rate to the sample flow rate. Adjust
the sampling flow rate to maintain proportional sampling, i.e., keep
the ratio of the stack gas flow rate to sample flow rate within
25 percent of the reference ratio from the first hour of
the data collection period (see section 12.2 of this performance
specification). The sample flow rate through a sorbent trap
monitoring system during any hour (or portion of an hour) that the
unit is not operating shall be zero.
8.2.3 Stack Gas Moisture Determination. If data from the sorbent
trap monitoring system will be used to calculate Hg mass emissions,
determine the stack gas moisture content using a certified
continuous moisture monitoring system.
8.2.4 Essential Operating Data. Obtain and record any essential
operating data for the facility during the test period, e.g., the
barometric pressure for correcting the sample volume measured by a
dry gas meter to standard conditions. At the end of the data
collection period, record the final gas flow meter reading and the
final values of all other essential parameters.
8.2.5 Post-test Leak Check. When sampling is completed, turn off
the sample pump, remove the probe/sorbent trap from the port and
carefully re-plug the end of each sorbent trap. Perform a leak check
with the sorbent traps in place, at the maximum vacuum reached
during the sampling period. Use the same general approach described
in section 8.1.3 of this performance specification. Record the
leakage rate and vacuum. The leakage rate must not exceed 4 percent
of the average sampling rate for the data collection period.
Following the leak check, carefully release the vacuum in the sample
train.
8.2.6 Sample Recovery. Recover each sampled sorbent trap by
removing it from the probe and seal both ends. Wipe any deposited
material from the outside of the sorbent trap. Place the sorbent
trap into an appropriate sample storage container and store/preserve
it in an appropriate manner.
8.2.7 Sample Preservation, Storage, and Transport. While the
performance criteria of this approach provide for verification of
appropriate sample handling, it is still important that the user
consider, determine, and plan for suitable sample preservation,
storage, transport, and holding times for these measurements.
Therefore, procedures such as those in ASTM D6911B03 ``Standard
Guide for Packaging and Shipping Environmental Samples for
Laboratory Analysis'' should be followed for all samples.
8.2.8 Sample Custody. Proper procedures and documentation for
sample chain of custody are critical to ensuring data integrity.
Chain of custody procedures such as in ASTM D4840B99 (reapproved
2004) ``Standard Guide for Sample Chain-of- Custody Procedures''
should be followed for all samples (including field samples and
blanks).
8.3 Sorbent Trap Monitoring System RATA Procedures
For the initial certification of a sorbent trap monitoring
system, a RATA is required. For ongoing QA purposes, the RATA must
be repeated annually. To the extent practicable, the annual RATAs
should be performed in the same quarter of the calendar year.
8.3.1 Reference Methods. Acceptable Hg reference methods for the
RATA of a sorbent trap system include ASTM D6784-02 (the Ontario
Hydro Method), Method 29 in appendix A-8 to this part, Method 30A in
appendix A-8 to this part, and Method 30B in appendix A-8 to this
part. When the Ontario Hydro Method or Method 29 is used, paired
sampling trains are required. To validate an Ontario Hydro or Method
29 test run, the relative deviation (RD), calculated according to
Section 11.6 of this performance specification, must not exceed 10
percent, when the average concentration is greater than 1.0 [mu]g/
m\3\. If the average concentration is <= 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\,
the RD must not exceed 20 percent. The RD results are also
acceptable if the absolute difference between the Hg concentrations
measured by the paired trains does not exceed 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\. If
the RD criterion is met, the run is valid. For each valid run,
average the Hg concentrations measured by the two trains (vapor
phase Hg, only).
8.3.2 Special Considerations. A minimum of 9 valid runs are
required for each RATA. If more than 9 runs are performed, a maximum
of three runs may be discarded. The time per run must be long enough
to collect a sufficient mass of Hg to analyze. The type of sorbent
material used by the traps must be the same as for daily operation
of the monitoring system; however, the size of the traps used for
the RATA may be smaller than the traps used for daily operation of
the system. Spike the third section of each sorbent trap with
elemental Hg, as described in section 8.1.2 of this performance
specification. Install a new pair of sorbent traps prior to each
test run. For each run, the sorbent trap data shall be validated
according to the quality assurance criteria in Table 12B-1 in
section 9.0. Calculate the relative accuracy (RA) of the STMS, on a
[mu]g/dscm basis, according to sections 12.2 through 12.5 of
Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to this part. The RA of
the STMS must be no greater than 10 percent of the mean value of the
RM test data in terms of units of [mu]g/dscm. Alternatively, (1) if
the mean RM is less than 10.0 [mu]g/dscm, then the RA of the STMS
must be no greater than 20 percent, or (2) if the RM is less than
2.0 [mu]g/dscm, then the RA results are acceptable if the absolute
difference between the means of the RM and STMS values does not
exceed 0.5 [mu]g/dscm.
9.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
Table 12B-1 summarizes the QA/QC performance criteria that are
used to validate the Hg emissions data from sorbent trap monitoring
systems. Failure to achieve these performance criteria will result
in invalidation of Hg emissions data, except where otherwise noted.
Table 12B-1--QA/QC Criteria for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QA/QC test or specification Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequences if not met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-test leak check.................. <=4% of target sampling Prior to sampling...... Sampling shall not
rate. commence until the
leak check is passed.
Post-test leak check. <=4% of average After sampling......... Invalidate the data
sampling rate. from the paired traps
or, if certain
conditions are met,
report adjusted data
from a single trap.
(see Section 12.7.1.3)
Ratio of stack gas flow rate to No more than 5% of the Every hour throughout Invalidate the data
sample flow rate. hourly ratios or 5 data collection period. from the paired traps
hourly ratios or, if certain
(whichever is less conditions are met,
restrictive) may report adjusted data
deviate from the from a single trap.
reference ratio by (see Section 12.7.1.3)
more than
25%.
Sorbent trap section 2 breakthrough.. <=5% of Section 1 Hg Every sample........... Invalidate the data
mass. from the paired traps
or, if certain
conditions are met,
report adjusted data
from a single trap.
(see Section 12.7.1.3)
[[Page 21178]]
Paired sorbent trap agreement........ <=10% Relative Every sample........... Either invalidate the
Deviation (RD) if the data from the paired
average concentration traps or report the
is > 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\. results from the trap
<=20% RD if the average with the higher Hg
concentration is <=1.0 concentration.
[mu]g/m\3\.
Results also acceptable
if absolute difference
between concentrations
from paired traps is
<=0.03 [mu]g/m\3\.
Spike Recovery Study. Average recovery Prior to analyzing Field samples shall not
between 85% and 115% field samples and be analyzed until the
for each of the 3 prior to use of new percent recovery
spike concentration sorbent media. criteria has been met.
levels.
Multipoint analyzer calibration...... Each analyzer reading On the day of analysis, Recalibrate until
within 10% before analyzing any successful.
of true value and samples.
r\2\>=0.99.
Analysis of independent calibration Within 10% Following daily Recalibrate and repeat
standard. of true value. calibration, prior to independent standard
analyzing field analysis until
samples. successful.
Spike recovery from section 3 of 75-125% of spike amount Every sample........... Invalidate the data
sorbent trap. from the paired traps
or, if certain
conditions are met,
report adjusted data
from a single trap.
(see Section 12.7.1.3)
RATA................................. RA <=10.0% of RM mean For initial Data from the system
value; or (1) RA certification and are invalidated until
<=20.0% if RM mean annually thereafter. a RATA is passed.
value <=10.0 [mu]g/
dscm; or (2) if RM
mean value <=2.0 [mu]g/
dscm, then absolute
difference between RM
mean value and STMS
<=0.5 [mu]g/dscm.
Gas flow meter calibration........... Calibration factor (Y) At three settings prior Recalibrate the meter
within 5% to initial use and at at three orfice
of average value from least quarterly at one settings to determine
the most recent 3- setting thereafter. a new value of Y.
point calibration. For mass flow meters,
initial calibration
with stack gas is
required.
Temperature sensor calibration....... Absolute temperature Prior to initial use Recalibrate. Sensor may
measured by sensor and at least quarterly not be used until
within 1.5% of a
reference sensor.
Barometer calibration................ Absolute pressure Prior to initial use Recalibrate. Instrument
measured by instrument and at least quarterly may not be used until
within 10 thereafter. specification is met.
mm Hg of reading with
a NIST-traceable
barometer..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
10.1 Gaseous and Liquid Standards. Only NIST certified or NIST-
traceable calibration standards (i.e., calibration gases, solutions,
etc.) shall be used for the spiking and analytical procedures in
this performance specification.
10.2 Gas Flow Meter Calibration. The manufacturer or supplier of
the gas flow meter should perform all necessary set-up, testing,
programming, etc., and should provide the end user with any
necessary instructions, to ensure that the meter will give an
accurate readout of dry gas volume in standard cubic meters for the
particular field application.
10.2.1 Initial Calibration. Prior to its initial use, a
calibration of the flow meter shall be performed. The initial
calibration may be done by the manufacturer, by the equipment
supplier, or by the end user. If the flow meter is volumetric in
nature (e.g., a dry gas meter), the manufacturer, equipment
supplier, or end user may perform a direct volumetric calibration
using any gas. For a mass flow meter, the manufacturer, equipment
supplier, or end user may calibrate the meter using a bottled gas
mixture containing 12 0.5% CO2, 7 0.5% O2, and balance N2, or these same
gases in proportions more representative of the expected stack gas
composition. Mass flow meters may also be initially calibrated on-
site, using actual stack gas.
10.2.1.1 Initial Calibration Procedures. Determine an average
calibration factor (Y) for the gas flow meter, by calibrating it at
three sample flow rate settings covering the range of sample flow
rates at which the sorbent trap monitoring system typically
operates. You may either follow the procedures in section 10.3.1 of
Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part or the procedures in section
16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part. If a dry gas meter is
being calibrated, use at least five revolutions of the meter at each
flow rate.
10.2.1.2 Alternative Initial Calibration Procedures.
Alternatively, you may perform the initial calibration of the gas
flow meter using a reference gas flow meter (RGFM). The RGFM may be
either: (1) A wet test meter calibrated according to section 10.3.1
of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part; (2) A gas flow metering
device calibrated at multiple flow rates using the procedures in
section 16 of Method 5 in appendix A-3 to this part; or (3) A NIST-
traceable calibration device capable of measuring volumetric flow to
an accuracy of 1 percent. To calibrate the gas flow meter using the
RGFM, proceed as follows: While the sorbent trap monitoring system
is sampling the actual stack gas or a compressed gas mixture that
simulates the stack gas composition (as applicable), connect the
RGFM to the discharge of the system. Care should be taken to
minimize the dead volume between the sample flow meter being tested
and the RGFM. Concurrently measure dry gas volume with the RGFM and
the flow meter being calibrated for a minimum of 10 minutes at each
of three flow rates covering the typical range of operation of the
sorbent trap monitoring system. For each 10-minute (or longer) data
collection period, record the total sample volume, in units of dry
standard cubic meters (dscm), measured by the RGFM and the gas flow
meter being tested.
10.2.1.3 Initial Calibration Factor. Calculate an individual
calibration factor Yi at each tested flow rate from section 10.2.1.1
or 10.2.1.2 of this performance specification (as applicable), by
taking the ratio of the
[[Page 21179]]
reference sample volume to the sample volume recorded by the gas
flow meter. Average the three Yi values, to determine Y, the
calibration factor for the flow meter. Each of the three individual
values of Yi must be within 0.02 of Y. Except as
otherwise provided in sections 10.2.1.4 and 10.2.1.5 of this
performance specification, use the average Y value from the three
level calibration to adjust all subsequent gas volume measurements
made with the gas flow meter.
10.2.1.4 Initial On-Site Calibration Check. For a mass flow
meter that was initially calibrated using a compressed gas mixture,
an on-site calibration check shall be performed before using the
flow meter to provide data for this part. While sampling stack gas,
check the calibration of the flow meter at one intermediate flow
rate typical of normal operation of the monitoring system. Follow
the basic procedures in section 10.2.1.1 or 10.2.1.2 of this
performance specification. If the onsite calibration check shows
that the value of Yi, the calibration factor at the tested flow
rate, differs by more than 5 percent from the value of Y obtained in
the initial calibration of the meter, repeat the full 3-level
calibration of the meter using stack gas to determine a new value of
Y, and apply the new Y value to all subsequent gas volume
measurements made with the gas flow meter.
10.2.1.5 Ongoing Quality Assurance. Recalibrate the gas flow
meter quarterly at one intermediate flow rate setting representative
of normal operation of the monitoring system. Follow the basic
procedures in section 10.2.1.1 or 10.2.1.2 of this performance
specification. If a quarterly recalibration shows that the value of
Yi, the calibration factor at the tested flow rate, differs from the
current value of Y by more than 5 percent, repeat the full 3-level
calibration of the meter to determine a new value of Y, and apply
the new Y value to all subsequent gas volume measurements made with
the gas flow meter.
10.3 Thermocouples and Other Temperature Sensors. Use the
procedures and criteria in section 10.3 of Method 2 in appendix A-1
to this part to calibrate in-stack temperature sensors and
thermocouples. Calibrations must be performed prior to initial use
and at least quarterly thereafter. At each calibration point, the
absolute temperature measured by the temperature sensor must agree
to within 1.5 percent of the temperature measured with
the reference sensor, otherwise the sensor may not continue to be
used.
10.4 Barometer. Calibrate against a NIST-traceable barometer.
Calibration must be performed prior to initial use and at least
quarterly thereafter. At each calibration point, the absolute
pressure measured by the barometer must agree to within 10 mm Hg of the pressure measured by the NIST-traceable
barometer, otherwise the barometer may not continue to be used.
10.5 Other Sensors and Gauges. Calibrate all other sensors and
gauges according to the procedures specified by the instrument
manufacturer(s).
10.6 Analytical System Calibration. See section 11.1 of this
performance specification.
11.0 Analytical Procedures
The analysis of the Hg samples may be conducted using any
instrument or technology capable of quantifying total Hg from the
sorbent media and meeting the performance criteria in section 9 of
this performance specification.
11.1 Analyzer System Calibration. Perform a multipoint
calibration of the analyzer at three or more upscale points over the
desired quantitative range (multiple calibration ranges shall be
calibrated, if necessary). The field samples analyzed must fall
within a calibrated, quantitative range and meet the necessary
performance criteria. For samples that are suitable for aliquotting,
a series of dilutions may be needed to ensure that the samples fall
within a calibrated range. However, for sorbent media samples that
are consumed during analysis (e.g., thermal desorption techniques),
extra care must be taken to ensure that the analytical system is
appropriately calibrated prior to sample analysis. The calibration
curve range(s) should be determined based on the anticipated level
of Hg mass on the sorbent media. Knowledge of estimated stack Hg
concentrations and total sample volume may be required prior to
analysis. The calibration curve for use with the various analytical
techniques (e.g., UV AA, UV AF, and XRF) can be generated by
directly introducing standard solutions into the analyzer or by
spiking the standards onto the sorbent media and then introducing
into the analyzer after preparing the sorbent/standard according to
the particular analytical technique. For each calibration curve, the
value of the square of the linear correlation coefficient, i.e., r
\2\, must be >= 0.99, and the analyzer response must be within
10 percent of reference value at each upscale
calibration point. Calibrations must be performed on the day of the
analysis, before analyzing any of the samples. Following
calibration, an independently prepared standard (not from same
calibration stock solution) shall be analyzed. The measured value of
the independently prepared standard must be within 10
percent of the expected value.
11.2 Sample Preparation. Carefully separate the three sections
of each sorbent trap. Combine for analysis all materials associated
with each section, i.e., any supporting substrate that the sample
gas passes through prior to entering a media section (e.g., glass
wool, polyurethane foam, etc.) must be analyzed with that segment.
11.3 Spike Recovery Study. Before analyzing any field samples,
the laboratory must demonstrate the ability to recover and quantify
Hg from the sorbent media by performing the following spike recovery
study for sorbent media traps spiked with elemental mercury. Using
the procedures described in sections 6.2 and 12.1 of this
performance specification, spike the third section of nine sorbent
traps with gaseous Hg\0\, i.e., three traps at each of three
different mass loadings, representing the range of masses
anticipated in the field samples. This will yield a 3 x 3 sample
matrix. Prepare and analyze the third section of each spiked trap,
using the techniques that will be used to prepare and analyze the
field samples. The average recovery for each spike concentration
must be between 85 and 115 percent. If multiple types of sorbent
media are to be analyzed, a separate spike recovery study is
required for each sorbent material. If multiple ranges are
calibrated, a separate spike recovery study is required for each
range.
11.4 Field Sample Analyses. Analyze the sorbent trap samples
following the same procedures that were used for conducting the
spike recovery study. The three sections of each sorbent trap must
be analyzed separately (i.e., section 1, then section 2, then
section 3). Quantify the total mass of Hg for each section based on
analytical system response and the calibration curve from section
10.1 of this performance specification. Determine the spike recovery
from sorbent trap section 3. The spike recovery must be no less than
75 percent and no greater than 125 percent. To report the final Hg
mass for each trap, add together the Hg masses collected in trap
sections 1 and 2.
12.0 Calculations, Data Reduction, and Data Analysis
12.1 Calculation of Pre-Sampling Spiking Level. Determine
sorbent trap section 3 spiking level using estimates of the stack Hg
concentration, the target sample flow rate, and the expected sample
duration. First, calculate the expected Hg mass that will be
collected in section 1 of the trap. The pre-sampling spike must be
within 50 percent of this mass.
Example calculation: For an estimated stack Hg concentration of
5 [micro]g/m\3\, a target sample rate of 0.30 L/min, and a sample
duration of 5 days:
(0.30 L/min) (1440 min/day) (5 days) (10-\3\ m\3\/
liter) (5 [micro]g/m\3\) = 10.8 [micro]g
A pre-sampling spike of 10.8 [micro]g 50 percent
is, therefore, appropriate.
12.2 Calculations for Flow-Proportional Sampling. For the first
hour of the data collection period, determine the reference ratio of
the stack gas volumetric flow rate to the sample flow rate, as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.060
Where:
Rref = Reference ratio of hourly stack gas flow rate to
hourly sample flow rate
Qref = Average stack gas volumetric flow rate for first
hour of collection period (scfh)
Fref = Average sample flow rate for first hour of the
collection period, in appropriate units (e.g., liters/min, cc/min,
dscm/min)
K = Power of ten multiplier, to keep the value of Rref
between 1 and 100. The appropriate K value will depend on the
selected units of measure for the sample flow rate.
Then, for each subsequent hour of the data collection period,
calculate ratio of the stack gas flow rate to the sample flow rate
using Equation 12B-2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.061
Where:
Rh = Ratio of hourly stack gas flow rate to hourly sample
flow rate
[[Page 21180]]
Qh = Average stack gas volumetric flow rate for the hour
(scfh)
Fh = Average sample flow rate for the hour, in
appropriate units (e.g., liters/min, cc/min, dscm/min)
K = Power of ten multiplier, to keep the value of Rh
between 1 and 100. The appropriate K value will depend on the
selected units of measure for the sample flow rate and the range of
expected stack gas flow rates.
Maintain the value of Rh within 25
percent of Rref throughout the data collection period.
12.3 Calculation of Spike Recovery. Calculate the percent
recovery of each section 3 spike, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.062
Where:
%R = Percentage recovery of the pre-sampling spike
M3 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 3 of the sorbent
trap, ([micro]g)
Ms = Calculated Hg mass of the pre-sampling spike, from
section 8.1.2 of this performance specification, ([micro]g)
12.4 Calculation of Breakthrough. Calculate the percent
breakthrough to the second section of the sorbent trap, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.063
Where:
%B = Percent breakthrough
M2 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 2 of the sorbent
trap, ([micro]g)
M1 = Mass of Hg recovered from section 1 of the sorbent
trap, ([micro]g)
12.5 Calculation of Hg Concentration. Calculate the Hg
concentration for each sorbent trap, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.064
Where:
C = Concentration of Hg for the collection period, ([micro]g/dscm)
M* = Total mass of Hg recovered from sections 1 and 2 of the sorbent
trap, ([micro]g)
Vt = Total volume of dry gas metered during the
collection period, (dscm). For the purposes of this performance
specification, standard temperature and pressure are defined as 20
[deg]C and 760 mm Hg, respectively.
12.6 Calculation of Paired Trap Agreement. Calculate the
relative deviation (RD) between the Hg concentrations measured with
the paired sorbent traps:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.065
Where:
RD = Relative deviation between the Hg concentrations from traps
``a'' and ``b'' (percent)
Ca = Concentration of Hg for the collection period, for
sorbent trap ``a'' ([mu]g/dscm)
Cb = Concentration of Hg for the collection period, for
sorbent trap ``b'' ([mu]g/dscm)
12.7 Data Reduction.
12.7.1 Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems. Typical data collection
periods for normal, day-to-day operation of a sorbent trap
monitoring system range from about 24 hours to 168 hours. For the
required RATAs of the system, smaller sorbent traps are often used,
and the data collection time per run is considerably shorter (e.g.,
1 hour or less). Generally speaking, the acceptance criteria for the
following five QA specifications in Table 1 above must be met to
validate a data collection period: (a) The post-test leak check; (b)
the ratio of stack gas flow rate to sample flow rate; (c) section 2
breakthrough; (d) paired trap agreement; and (e) section 3 spike
recovery.
12.7.1.1 When both traps meet the acceptance criteria for all
five QA specifications, the two measured Hg concentrations shall be
averaged arithmetically and the average value shall be applied to
each hour of the data collection period.
12.7.1.2 To validate a RATA run, both traps must meet the
acceptance criteria for all five QA specifications. However, as
discussed in Section 12.7.1.3 below, for normal day-to-day operation
of the monitoring system, a data collection period may, in certain
instances, be validated based on the results from one trap.
12.7.1.3 For the routine, day-to-day operation of the monitoring
system, when one of the traps either: (a) Fails the post-test leak
check; or (b) has excessive section 2 breakthrough; or (c) fails to
maintain the proper stack flow-to-sample flow ratio; or (d) fails to
achieve the required section 3 spike recovery, provided that the
other trap meets the acceptance criteria for all four of these QA
specifications, the Hg concentration measured by the valid trap may
be multiplied by a factor of 1.111 and used for reporting purposes.
Further, if both traps meet the acceptance criteria for all four of
these QA specifications, but the acceptance criterion for paired
trap agreement is not met, the owner or operator may report the
higher of the two Hg concentrations measured by the traps, in lieu
of invalidating the data from the paired traps.
12.7.1.4 Whenever the data from a pair of sorbent traps must be
invalidated and no quality-assured data from a certified backup Hg
monitoring system or Hg reference method are available to cover the
hours in the data collection period, treat those hours in the manner
specified in the applicable regulation (i.e., use missing data
substitution or count the hours as monitoring system down time, as
appropriate).
13.0 Monitoring System Performance
These monitoring criteria and procedures have been successfully
applied to coal-fired utility boilers (including units with post-
combustion emission controls), having vapor-phase Hg concentrations
ranging from 0.03 [mu]g/dscm to 100 [mu]g/dscm.
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]
16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved]
17.0 Bibliography
17.1 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, ``Performance Specification 2--
Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and
NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources.''
17.2 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 29--Determination of
Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources.''
17.3 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 30A--Determination of
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Stationary Sources
(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure).
17.4 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ``Method 30B--Determination of
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Combustion
Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Traps.''
17.5 ASTM Method D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method).''
Appendix F--[Amended]
2a. Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60 is amended to add Procedure 5 to
read as follows:
Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures
* * * * *
Procedure 5. Quality Assurance Requirements for Vapor Phase Mercury
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance
Determination at Stationary Sources
1.0 Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. The purpose of Procedure 5 is to establish
the minimum requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of quality
control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures and the quality
of data produced by vapor phase mercury (Hg) continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS). Procedure 5 applies to Hg CEMS used for
continuously determining compliance with emission standards or
operating permit limits as specified in an applicable regulation or
permit. Other QC
[[Page 21181]]
procedures may apply to diluent (e.g., O2) monitors and
other auxiliary monitoring equipment included with your CEMS to
facilitate Hg measurement or determination of Hg concentration in
units specified in an applicable regulation (e.g., Procedure 1 of
this appendix for O2 CEMS).
Procedure 5 covers the instrumental measurement of Hg as defined
in Performance Specification 12A of appendix B to this part which is
total vapor phase Hg representing the sum of elemental Hg (Hg\0\,
CAS Number 7439B97B6) and oxidized forms of gaseous Hg (Hg\+2\).
Procedure 5 specifies the minimum requirements for controlling
and assessing the quality of Hg CEMS data submitted to EPA or a
delegated permitting authority. You must meet these minimum
requirements if you are responsible for one or more Hg CEMS used for
compliance monitoring. We encourage you to develop and implement a
more extensive QA program or to continue such programs where they
already exist.
You must comply with the basic requirements of Procedure 5
immediately following successful completion of the initial
performance test of PS-12A.
1.2 Principle. The QA procedures consist of two distinct and
equally important functions. One function is the assessment of the
quality of the CEMS data by estimating accuracy. The other function
is the control and improvement of the quality of the CEMS data by
implementing QC policies and corrective actions. These two functions
form a control loop: When the assessment function indicates that the
data quality is inadequate, the quality control effort must be
increased until the data quality is acceptable. In order to provide
uniformity in the assessment and reporting of data quality, this
procedure explicitly specifies the assessment methods for response
drift, system integrity, and accuracy. Several of the procedures are
based on those of Performance Specification 12A (PS-12A) in appendix
B of this part. Procedure 5 also requires the analysis of audit
samples concurrent with certain reference method (RM) analyses as
specified in the applicable RMs.
Because the control and corrective action function encompasses a
variety of policies, specifications, standards, and corrective
measures, this procedure treats QC requirements in general terms to
allow each source owner or operator to develop a QC system that is
most effective and efficient for the circumstances.
2.0 Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total
equipment required for the determination of a pollutant
concentration.
2.2 Span Value means the upper limit of the intended Hg
concentration measurement range that is specified for the affected
source categories in the applicable monitoring PS and/or regulatory
subpart.
2.3 Zero, Mid-Level, and High Level Values means the CEMS
response values related to the source specific span value.
Determination of zero, mid-level, and high level values is defined
in the appropriate PS in appendix B to this part (e.g., PS-12A).
2.4 Calibration Drift (CD) means the absolute value of the
difference between the CEMS output response and either the upscale
Hg reference gas or the zero-level Hg reference gas, expressed as a
percentage of the span value, when the entire CEMS, including the
sampling interface, is challenged after a stated period of operation
during which no unscheduled maintenance, repair, or adjustment took
place.
2.5 System Integrity (SI) Check means the absolute value of the
difference between the CEMS output response and the reference value
of either a mid-level or high-level mercuric chloride
(HgCl2) reference gas, expressed as a percentage of the
reference value, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling
interface, is challenged.
2.6 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference
between the pollutant concentration(s) determined by the CEMS and
the value determined by the reference method (RM) plus the 2.5
percent error confidence coefficient of a series of tests divided by
the mean of the RM tests. Alternatively, for sources with an average
RM concentration less than 5.0 [mu]g/dscm, the RA may be expressed
as the absolute value of the difference between the mean CEMS and RM
values.
3.0 QC Requirements
Each source owner or operator must develop and implement a QC
program. At a minimum, each QC program must include written
procedures which should describe in detail, complete, step-by-step
procedures and operations for each of the following activities:
1. Calibration of Hg CEMS.
2. CD determination and adjustment of Hg CEMS.
3. SI Check procedures for Hg CEMS.
3. Preventive maintenance of Hg CEMS (including spare parts
inventory).
4. Data recording, calculations, and reporting.
5. Accuracy audit procedures including sampling and analysis
methods.
6. Program of corrective action for malfunctioning Hg CEMS.
As described in Section 5.2, whenever excessive inaccuracies
occur for two consecutive quarters, the source owner or operator
must revise the current written procedures or modify or replace the
Hg CEMS to correct the deficiency causing the excessive
inaccuracies.
These written procedures must be kept on record and available
for inspection by the responsible enforcement agency.
4. CD Assessment
4.1 CD Requirement. As described in 40 CFR 60.13(d) and 63.8(c),
source owners and operators of CEMS must check, record, and quantify
the CD at two concentration values at least once daily
(approximately 24 hours) in accordance with the method prescribed by
the manufacturer. The CEMS calibration must, at minimum, be adjusted
whenever the daily zero (or low-level) CD or the daily high-level CD
exceeds two times the limits of the applicable PS in appendix B of
this part.
4.2 Recording Requirement for Automatic CD Adjusting Monitors.
Monitors that automatically adjust the data to the corrected
calibration values (e.g., microprocessor control) must be programmed
to record the unadjusted concentration measured in the CD prior to
resetting the calibration, if performed, or record the amount of
adjustment.
4.3 Criteria for Excessive CD. If either the zero (or low-level)
or high-level CD result exceeds twice the applicable drift
specification in the applicable PS in appendix B for five
consecutive daily periods, the CEMS is out-of-control. If either the
zero (or low-level) or high-level CD result exceeds four times the
applicable drift specification in the PS in appendix B during any CD
check, the CEMS is out-of-control. If the CEMS is out-of-control,
take necessary corrective action. Following corrective action,
repeat the CD checks.
4.3.1 Out-Of-Control Period Definition. The beginning of the
out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of
the fifth consecutive daily CD check with a CD in excess of two
times the allowable limit, or the time corresponding to the
completion of the daily CD check preceding the daily CD check that
results in a CD in excess of four times the allowable limit. The end
of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the
completion of the CD check following corrective action that results
in the CDs at both the zero (or low-level) and high-level
measurement points being within the corresponding allowable CD limit
(i.e., either two times or four times the allowable limit in the
applicable PS in appendix B).
4.3.2 CEMS Data Status During Out-of-Control Period. During the
period the CEMS is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used in
calculating emission compliance nor be counted towards meeting
minimum data availability as required and described in the
applicable subpart.
4.4 Data Recording and Reporting. As required in 40 CFR 60.7(d)
and 63.10----, all measurements from the CEMS must be retained on
file by the source owner for at least 2 years. However, emission
data obtained on each successive day while the CEMS is out-of-
control may not be included as part of the minimum daily data
requirement of the applicable subpart nor be used in the calculation
of reported emissions for that period.
5. Data Accuracy Assessment
5.1 Auditing Requirements. Each CEMS must be audited at least
once each calendar quarter. Successive quarterly audits shall occur
no closer than 2 months. The audits shall be conducted as follows:
5.1.1 Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA). The RATA must be
conducted at least once every four calendar quarters, except as
otherwise noted in section 5.1.4 of this appendix. Conduct the RATA
as described for the RA test procedure in the applicable PS in
appendix B (e.g., PS 12A). In addition, analyze the appropriate
performance audit samples as described in the applicable reference
methods.
5.1.2 Gas Audit (GA). If applicable, a GA may be conducted in
three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three quarters
in succession.
[[Page 21182]]
To conduct a GA: (1) Challenge the CEMS with an audit gas of
known concentration at two points within the following ranges:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audit point Audit range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. 20 to 30% of span value.
2................................. 50 to 60% of span value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenge the Hg CEMS three times at each audit point, and use
the average of the three responses in determining accuracy. If using
audit gas cylinders, do not dilute gas from audit cylinder when
challenging the Hg CEMS.
The monitor should be challenged at each audit point for a
sufficient period of time to assure adsorption-desorption of the Hg
CEMS sample transport surfaces has stabilized.
(2) Operate each monitor in its normal sampling mode, i.e., pass
the audit gas through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and
other monitor components used during normal sampling, and as much of
the sampling probe as is practical. At a minimum, the audit gas
should be introduced at the connection between the probe and the
sample line.
(3) Use elemental Hg and oxidized Hg (mercuric chloride,
HgCl2) audit gases that are National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)-certified or NIST-traceable
following an EPA Traceability Protocol.
The difference between the actual concentration of the audit gas
and the concentration indicated by the monitor is used to assess the
accuracy of the CEMS.
5.1.3 Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA). The RAA may be conducted
three of four calendar quarters, but in no more than three quarters
in succession. To conduct a RAA, follow the procedure described in
the applicable PS in appendix B for the relative accuracy test,
except that only three sets of measurement data are required.
Analyses of performance audit samples are also required.
The relative difference between the mean of the RM values and
the mean of the CEMS responses will be used to assess the accuracy
of the CEMS.
5.1.4 Other Alternative Audits. Other alternative audit
procedures may be used as approved by the Administrator for three of
four calendar quarters. One RATA is required at least every four
calendar quarters, except in the case where the affected facility is
off-line (does not operate) in the fourth calendar quarter since the
quarter of the previous RATA. In that case, the RATA shall be
performed in the quarter in which the unit recommences operation.
Also, gas audits are not required for calendar quarters in which the
affected facility does not operate.
5.2 Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. If the RA, using the RATA, GA,
or RAA exceeds the criteria in section 5.2.3, the Hg CEMS is out-of-
control. If the Hg CEMS is out-of-control, take necessary corrective
action to eliminate the problem. Following corrective action, the
source owner or operator must audit the CEMS with a RATA, GA, or RAA
to determine if the CEMS is operating within the specifications. A
RATA must always be used following an out-of-control period
resulting from a RATA. The audit following corrective action does
not require analysis of performance audit samples. If audit results
show the CEMS to be out-of-control, the CEMS operator shall report
both the audit showing the CEMS to be out-of-control and the results
of the audit following corrective action showing the CEMS to be
operating within specifications.
5.2.1 Out-Of-Control Period Definition. The beginning of the
out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion of
the sampling for the RATA, RAA, or GA. The end of the out-of-control
period is the time corresponding to the completion of the sampling
of the subsequent successful audit.
5.2.2 CEMS Data Status During Out-Of-Control Period. During the
period the monitor is out-of-control, the CEMS data may not be used
in calculating emission compliance nor be counted towards meeting
minimum data availability as required and described in the
applicable subpart.
5.2.3 Criteria for Excessive Audit Inaccuracy. Unless specified
otherwise in the applicable subpart, the criteria for excessive
inaccuracy are:
(1) For the RATA, the allowable RA in the applicable PS in
appendix B.
(2) For the GA, 15 percent of the average audit
value or 5 ppm, whichever is greater.
(3) For the RAA, 15 percent of the three run average
or 7.5 percent of the applicable standard, whichever is
greater.
5.3 Criteria for Acceptable QC Procedure. Repeated excessive
inaccuracies (i.e., out-of-control conditions resulting from the
quarterly audits) indicates the QC procedures are inadequate or that
the Hg CEMS is incapable of providing quality data. Therefore,
whenever excessive inaccuracies occur for two consecutive quarters,
the source owner or operator must revise the QC procedures (see
Section 3) or modify or replace the Hg CEMS.
6. Calculations for Hg CEMS Data Accuracy
6.1 RATA RA Calculation. Follow the equations described in
Section 12 of appendix B, PS 12A to calculate the RA for the RATA.
The RATA must be calculated in units of concentration or the
applicable emission standard.
6.2 RAA Accuracy Calculation. Use Equation 1-1 to calculate the
accuracy for the RAA. The RAA must be calculated in units of
concentration or the applicable emission standard.
6.3 GA Accuracy Calculation. Use Equation 1-1 to calculate the
accuracy for the GA, which is calculated in units of the appropriate
concentration (e.g., [mu]g/m \3\). Each component of the CEMS must
meet the acceptable accuracy requirement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.066
Where:
A=Accuracy of the CEMS, percent.
Cm=Average CEMS response during audit in units of
applicable standard or appropriate concentration.
Ca=Average audit value (GA certified value or three-run
average for RAA) in units of applicable standard or appropriate
concentration.
6.4 Example Accuracy Calculations. Example calculations for the
RATA, RAA, and GA are available in Citation 1.
7. Reporting Requirements
At the reporting interval specified in the applicable
regulation, report for each Hg CEMS the accuracy results from
Section 6 and the CD assessment results from Section 4. Report the
drift and accuracy information as a Data Assessment Report (DAR),
and include one copy of this DAR for each quarterly audit with the
report of emissions required under the applicable subparts of this
part.
As a minimum, the DAR must contain the following information:
1. Source owner or operator name and address.
2. Identification and location of each Hg CEMS.
3. Manufacturer and model number of each Hg CEMS.
4. Assessment of Hg CEMS data accuracy and date of assessment as
determined by a RATA, RAA, or GA described in Section 5, including
the RA for the RATA, the A for the RAA or GA, the RM results, the
audit gas certified values, the CEMS responses, and the calculations
results as defined in Section 6. If the accuracy audit results show
the CEMS to be out-of-control, the CEMS operator shall report both
the audit results showing the CEMS to be out-of-control and the
results of the audit following corrective action showing the CEMS to
be operating within specifications.
5. Results from performance audit samples described in Section 5
and the applicable RM's.
6. Summary of all corrective actions taken when CEMS was
determined out-of-control, as described in Sections 4 and 5.
An example of a DAR format is shown in Figure 1.
8. Bibliography
1. Calculation and Interpretation of Accuracy for Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS). Section 3.0.7 of the Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume
III, Stationary Source Specific Methods. EPA-600/4-77-027b. August
1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and
Development Publications, 26 West St. Clair Street, Cincinnati, OH
45268.
Figure 1--Example Format for Data Assessment Report
Period ending date-----------------------------------------------------
Year-------------------------------------------------------------------
Company name-----------------------------------------------------------
Plant name-------------------------------------------------------------
Source unit no.--------------------------------------------------------
CEMS manufacturer------------------------------------------------------
Model no.--------------------------------------------------------------
CEMS serial no.--------------------------------------------------------
CEMS type (e.g., extractive)-------------------------------------------
CEMS sampling location (e.g., control device outlet)-------------------
CEMS span values as per the applicable regulation:
I. Accuracy assessment results (complete A, B, or C below for
each Hg CEMS). If the
[[Page 21183]]
quarterly audit results show the Hg CEMS to be out-of-control,
report the results of both the quarterly audit and the audit
following corrective action showing the Hg CEMS to be operating
properly.
A. Relative accuracy test audit (RATA) for ---- (e.g., Hg in
[mu]g/m\3\).
1. Date of audit ----.
2. Reference methods (RM) used ---- (e.g., Method 30B).
3. Average RM value ---- (e.g., [mu]g/m\3\).
4. Average CEMS value ----.
5. Absolute value of mean difference [d] ----.
6. Confidence coefficient [CC] ----.
7. Percent relative accuracy (RA) ---- percent.
8. Performance audit sample results:
a. Audit lot number (1) ---- (2) ----.
b. Audit sample number (1) ---- (2) ----.
c. Results ([mu]g/m\3\) (1) ---- (2) ----.
d. Actual value ([mu]g/m\3\)* (1) ---- (2) ----.
e. Relative error* (1) ---- (2) ----.
B. Cylinder gas audit (GA) for ---- (e.g., Hg in [mu]g/m\3\).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audit point Audit point
1 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Date of audit............. ........... ........... ...............
2. Mercury gas generator or ........... ........... ...............
cylinder ID number.
3. Date of certification..... ........... ........... ...............
4. Type of certification..... ........... ........... (e.g., Interim
EPA
Traceability
Protocol for
Elemental or
Oxidized
Mercury Gas
Generators).
5. Audit gas value........... ........... ........... (e.g., [mu]g/
m\3\).
6. CEMS response value....... ........... ........... (e.g., [mu]g/
m\3\).
7. Accuracy.................. ........... ........... Percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Relative accuracy audit (RAA) for ---- (e.g., Hg in [mu]g/
m\3\).
1. Date of audit ----.
2. Reference methods (RM) used ---- (e.g., Method 30B).
3. Average RM value ---- (e.g., [mu]g/m\3\).
4. Average CEMS value ----.
5. Accuracy ---- percent.
6. EPA performance audit results:
a. Audit lot number (1) ---- (2) ----.
b. Audit sample number (1) ---- (2) ----.
c. Results (Hg in [mu]g/m\3\) (1) ---- (2) ----.
d. Actual value ([mu]g/m\3\) *(1) ---- (2) ----.
e. Relative error * (1) ---- (2) ----.
* To be completed by the Agency.
D. Corrective action for excessive inaccuracy.
1. Out-of-control periods.
a. Date(s) ----.
b. Number of days ----.
2. Corrective action taken ----.
3. Results of audit following corrective action. (Use format of
A, B, or C above, as applicable.)
II. Calibration drift assessment.
A. Out-of-control periods.
1. Date(s) ----.
2. Number of days ----.
B. Corrective action taken ----.
PART 63--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart LLL--[Amended]
4. Section 63.1340 is amended to read as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8); and
c. By revising paragraph (c).
Sec. 63.1340 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing
portland cement plant which is a major source or an area source as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(b) * * *
(1) Each kiln and each in-line kiln/raw mill, including alkali
bypasses, except for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills that burn
hazardous waste and are subject to and regulated under subpart EEE of
this part;
(2) Each clinker cooler at any portland cement plant;
(3) Each raw mill at any portland cement plant;
(4) Each finish mill at any portland cement plant;
(5) Each raw material dryer at any portland cement plant;
(6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin at
any portland cement plant;
(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; and
(8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any
portland cement plant.
(c) Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of their
location.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1341 is amended by adding definitions for
``Clinker,'' ``Crusher,'' ``New source'' and ``Total organic HAP'' in
alphabetic order to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1341 Definitions.
* * * * *
Clinker means the product of the process in which limestone and
other materials are heated in the kiln and is then ground with gypsum
and other materials to form cement.
* * * * *
Crusher means a machine designed to reduce large rocks from the
quarry into materials approximately the size of gravel.
* * * * *
New source means any source that commences construction after
December 2, 2005, for purposes of determining the applicability of the
kiln in-line raw mill/kiln, clinker cooler and raw material dryer
emissions limits for mercury, THC, and HCl. New source means any source
that commences construction after May 6, 2009 for purposes of
determining the applicability of the kiln in-line raw mill/kiln AND
clinker cooler emissions limits for PM.
* * * * *
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 of appendix A to this part or ASTM
D6348-03. Only the measured concentration of the listed analytes that
are present at concentrations exceeding one-half the quantitation limit
of the analytical method are to be used in the sum. If any of the
analytes are not detected or are detected at concentrations less than
one-half the quantitation limit of the analytical method, the
concentration of those analytes will be assumed to be zero for the
purposes of calculating the total organic HAP for this subpart.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1343 is amended to read as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
c. By revising paragraph (b)(1);
d. By adding paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6);
[[Page 21184]]
e. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
f. By revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(4) and (c)(5);
g. By adding paragraph (c)(6); and
h. By removing paragraphs (d) and (e).
Sec. 63.1343 Standards for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.
(a) General. The provisions in this section apply to each kiln,
each in-line kiln/raw mill, and any alkali bypass associated with that
kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill. All dioxin furan (D/F) and total
hydrocarbon (THC) emission limits are on a dry basis, corrected to 7
percent oxygen. The owner/operator shall ensure appropriate corrections
for moisture are made when measuring flowrates used to calculate D/F
and THC emissions. All (THC) emission limits are measured as propane.
Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling average. If
using a CEM to determine compliance with the HCl standard, this
standard is based on a 30-day rolling average.
(b) Existing kilns located at major or area sources. No owner or
operator of an existing kiln or an existing in-line kiln/raw mill
located at a facility that is subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected
sources, any gases which:
(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of 0.085 pounds per
ton of clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln
or in-line kiln/raw mill, the combined PM emissions from the kiln or
in-line kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass stack are subject to this
emission limit. Kiln, or in-line kiln/raw mills that combine the
clinker cooler exhaust with the kiln exhaust for energy efficiency
purposes 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 the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.067
Where: 0.0067 is the PM exhaust concentration equivalent to 0.085 lb
per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not
combined.
Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed)
Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton
raw feed)
* * * * *
(4) Contain THC in excess of 7 ppmv or total organic HAP in excess
of 2 ppmv from the main exhaust of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill.
If a source elects to demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP
limit in lieu of the THC limit, then they may meet a site specific THC
limit based on a 30-day average and on the level of THC measured during
the performance test demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP
limit.
(5) Contain mercury (Hg) in excess of 43 lb per million tons of
clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill, the combined Hg emissions from the kiln or in-line
kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass are subject to this emission limit.
(6) Contain hydrogen chloride (HCl) in excess of 2 ppmv from the
main exhaust of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill if the kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
(c) New or reconstructed kilns located at major or area sources. No
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed kiln or new or
reconstructed inline kiln/raw mill located at a facility subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from these affected sources any gases which:
(1) Contain PM in excess of 0.080 pounds per ton of clinker. When
there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in-line kiln/raw
mill, the combined PM emissions from the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill
and the alkali bypass stack are subject to this emission limit. Kiln,
or in-line kiln/raw mills that combine the clinker cooler exhaust with
the kiln exhaust for energy efficiency purposes 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 the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.068
Where: 0.0063 is the PM exhaust concentration equivalent to 0.080 lb
per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not
combined.
Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed)
Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton
raw feed)
* * * * *
(4) Contain THC in excess of 6 ppmv, or total organic HAP in excess
of 1 ppmv, from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust of the
in-line kiln/raw mill. If a source elects to demonstrate compliance
with the total organic HAP limit in lieu of the THC limit, then they
may meet a site specific THC limit based a 30-day average and the on
the level of THC measured during the performance test demonstrating
compliance with the organic HAP limit.
(5) Contain Hg from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust
of the in-line kiln/raw mill, in excess of 14 lb/million tons of
clinker. When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, or in-
line kiln/raw mill, the combined Hg emissions from the kiln or in-line
kiln/raw mill and the alkali bypass are subject to this emission limit.
(6) Contain HCl in excess of 0.1 ppmv from the main exhaust of the
kiln, or main exhaust of the in-line kiln/raw mill if the kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill is located at a major source of HAP emissions.
7. Section 63.1344 is amended to read as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (c) introductory text,
b. By revising paragraphs (d) and (e); and
c. By removing paragraphs (f), (g), (h) and (i).
Sec. 63.1344 Operating limits for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.
* * * * *
(c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F
emission limitation under Sec. 63.1343 that employs carbon injection
as an emission control technique must operate the carbon injection
system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner
or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F emission limitation
under Sec. 63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission
control technique must specify and use
[[Page 21185]]
the brand and type of activated carbon 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) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F
emission limitation under Sec. 63.1343 that employs carbon injection
as an emission control technique may substitute, at any time, a
different brand or type of activated carbon provided that the
replacement has equivalent or improved properties compared to the
activated carbon specified in the site-specific performance test plan
and used in the performance test. The owner or operator must maintain
documentation that the substitute activated carbon will provide the
same or better level of control as the original activated carbon.
8. Section 63.1345 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1345 Standards for clinker coolers.
(a) No owner or operator of a new or existing clinker cooler at a
facility which is a major source or an area source subject to the
provision of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from the clinker cooler any gases which:
(1) Contain PM in excess of 0.085 lb per ton of clinker for
existing sources or 0.080 lb per ton of clinker for new sources.
* * * * *
9. Section 63.1346 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1346 Standards for raw material dryers.
(a) Raw material dryers that are located at facilities that are
major sources can not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which:
(1) Exhibit opacity greater then 10 percent; or
(2) Contain THC in excess of 7 ppmv (existing sources) or 6 ppmv
(new sources), on a dry basis as propane corrected to 7 percent oxygen
based on a 30-day rolling average
(b) Raw Material dryers located at a facility that is an area
source must not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which contain THC
in excess of 7 ppmv (existing sources) or 6 ppmv (new sources), on a
dry basis as propane corrected to 7 percent oxygen based on a 30-day
rolling average. If a source elects to demonstrate compliance with the
total organic HAP limit in lieu of the THC limit, then they may meet a
site specific THC limit based on a 30-day average and on the level of
THC measured during the performance test demonstrating compliance with
the organic HAP limit.
10. Section 63.1349 is amended to read as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(1)(ii),
(iii), (iv) and (vi);
c. By revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (v), (b)(4) and (b)(5);
d. By adding paragraph (b)(6);
e. By revising paragraph (c); and
f. By adding paragraphs (f) and (g).
Sec. 63.1349 Performance testing requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with this
subpart shall be conducted as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(6) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations on PM
emissions that is not equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial
compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) of this section. The owner or operator of
an in-line kiln/raw mill subject to limitations on PM emissions that is
not equipped with a PM CEMS shall demonstrate initial compliance by
conducting separate performance tests as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) of this section while the raw mill of the
in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while
the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating. The owner
or operator of a clinker cooler subject to limitations on PM emissions
shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test
as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this
section. The owner or operator shall determine the opacity of PM
emissions exhibited during the period of the Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-3) performance tests required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section as required in paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through (vi) of this
section. The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill
subject to limitations on PM emissions that is equipped with a PM CEMS
shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test
as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a permanent weigh scale system, or use another method approved
by the Administrator, to measure and record weight rates in tons-mass
per hour of the amount of clinker produced. The system of measuring
hourly clinker production must be maintained within 5
percent accuracy. The owner or operator shall determine, record, and
maintain a record of the accuracy of the system of measuring hourly
clinker production before initial use (for new sources) or within 30
days of the effective date of this rule (for existing sources). During
each quarter of source operation, the owner or operator shall
determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing accuracy of the
system of measuring hourly clinker production. The use of a system that
directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a conversion factor to
determine the clinker production rate is an acceptable method.
(iii) The emission rate, E, of PM (lb/ton of clinker) shall be
computed for each run using equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.069
Where:
E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/metric ton (lb/ton) of
clinker production;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (gr/
dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).
(iv) Where there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln or in-
line kiln/raw mill, the main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln or
in-line kiln/raw mill shall be tested simultaneously and the combined
emission rate of particulate matter from the kiln or in-line raw mill
and alkali bypass shall be computed for each run using equation 4 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.070
[[Page 21186]]
Where:
Ec = combined emission rate of particulate matter from
the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill and bypass stack, kg/metric ton
(lb/ton) of kiln clinker production;
Csk = concentration of particulate matter in the kiln or
in-line kiln/raw mill effluent gas, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Qsdk = volumetric flow rate of kiln or in-line kiln/raw
mill effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
Csb = concentration of particulate matter in the alkali
bypass gas, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Qsdb = volumetric flow rate of alkali bypass effluent
gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).
* * * * *
(vi) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill
subject to limitations on emissions of PM that is equipped with a PM
CEMS shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the PM CEMS in
accordance with Performance Specification 11 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). Compliance with the PM emissions standard shall be determined by
calculating the average of 3 hourly average PM emission rates in lb/ton
of clinker using Equation 3 or 4 of this section. The owner or operator
of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall conduct separate performance tests
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is not operating. The owner or operator shall continuously measure
kiln feed rate, volumetric flow rate, and clinker production during the
period of the test. The owner or operator shall determine, record, and
maintain a record of the accuracy of the volumetric flow rate
monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75
of this chapter.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Hourly average temperatures must be calculated for each run
of the test.
* * * * *
(v) If activated carbon injection is used for D/F control, the rate
of activated carbon injection to the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill
exhaust, and where applicable, the rate of activated carbon injection
to the alkali bypass exhaust, must be continuously recorded during the
period of the Method 23 test, and the continuous injection rate
record(s) must be included in the performance test report. In addition,
the performance test report must include the brand and type of
activated carbon used during the performance test and a continuous
record of either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier gas pressure
drop for the duration of the test. The system of measuring carrier gas
flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop must be maintained within +/- 5
percent accuracy. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, the owner or
operator shall 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, the owner or operator shall determine, record,
and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas pressure drop
monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75
of this chapter. Activated carbon injection rate parameters must be
determined in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) of this section.
* * * * *
(4)(i) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
limitations on emissions of THC shall demonstrate initial compliance
with the THC limit by operating a continuous emission monitor in
accordance with Performance Specification 8A (40 CFR part 60, appendix
B). The duration of the performance test shall be 24 hours. The owner
or operator shall calculate the daily average THC concentration (as
calculated from the hourly averages obtained during the performance
test). The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is not operating.
(ii) As an alternative to complying with the THC limit, the owner
or operator may comply with the limits for total organic HAP, as
defined in Sec. 63.1341, by following the procedures in (b)(4)(ii)
through (b)(4)(vi) of this section.
(iii) The owner or operator of a kiln complying with the
alternative emissions limits for total organic HAP in Sec. 63.1343
shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test
as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this
section. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill complying
with the emissions limits for total organic HAP in Sec. 63.1343 shall
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests
as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (b)(4)(vi) of this
section while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is not operating.
(iv) Method 320 of appendix A to this part or ASTM D6348-03 shall
be used to determine emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance
test shall 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 shall
be conducted for at least 1 hour. The average of the three runs shall
be used to determine initial compliance. The owner or operator shall
determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the
volumetric flow rate monitoring system according to the procedures in
appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
(v) At the same time that the owner or operator is determining
compliance with the emissions limits for total organic HAP, the owner
or operator shall also determine THC emissions by operating a
continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance
Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. The duration
of the test shall be 3 hours, and the average THC concentration (as
calculated from the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour test shall be
calculated. The THC concentration measured during the initial
performance test for total organic HAP will be used to monitor
compliance subsequent to the initial performance test.
(vi) Emissions tests to determine compliance with total inorganic
HAP limits shall be repeated annually, beginning 1 year from the date
of the initial performance tests.
(5) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill
subject to an emission limitation for mercury in Sec. 63.1343 shall
demonstrate initial compliance with the mercury limit by complying with
the requirements of (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(vi) of this section.
(i) Operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with
Performance Specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a
sorbent trap based integrated monitor in accordance with Performance
Specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the
performance test shall be a calendar month. For each calendar month in
which the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill operates, hourly mercury
concentration data, stack gas volumetric flow rate data shall be
obtained. The owner or operator shall determine, record, and maintain a
record of the accuracy of the volumetric flow rate monitoring system
according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate
initial compliance by
[[Page 21187]]
operating a continuous emission monitor while the raw mill of the in-
line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while the
raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating.
(ii) Owners or operators using a mercury CEMS 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. 60.63(m) of this chapter.
(iii) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
mercury limitations by dividing the average mercury concentration by
the clinker production rate during the same calendar month using the
Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY09.071
Where:
E = emission rate of mercury, kg/metric ton (lb/million tons) of
clinker production;
Cs = concentration of mercury, g/dscm (g/dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr
(dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric ton/hr (million ton/
hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (454 g/lb).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
limitations on emissions of HCl shall demonstrate initial compliance
with the HCl limit by one of the following methods:
(i) If your source is equipped with a wet scrubber such as a spray
tower, packed bed, or tray tower, use Method 321 of appendix A to this
part. A repeat test must be performed every 5 years to demonstrate
continued compliance.
(ii) If your source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, you must
operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance
Specification 15 of appendix B of part 60. The duration of the
performance test shall be 24 hours. The owner or operator shall
calculate the daily average HCl concentration (as calculated from the
hourly averages obtained during the performance test). The owner or
operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate initial
compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill
of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating conditions and
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
performance tests are required for existing kilns or in-line kiln/raw
mills that are subject to a PM, THC, HCl or mercury emissions limit and
must be repeated every 5 years except for pollutants where that
specific pollutant is monitored using a CEMS.
* * * * *
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this
section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test.
All reports shall be signed by the facilities manager.
(1) The initial performance test data as recorded under Sec.
60.56c(b)(1) through (b)(14), as applicable.
(2) The values for the site-specific operating parameters
established pursuant to Sec. 60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as applicable,
and a description, including sample calculations, of how the operating
parameters were established during the initial performance test.
(3) For each affected facility as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3).
(4) That uses a bag leak detection system, analysis and supporting
documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and
specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec. 60.57c(h).
(g) For affected facilities, as defined in Sec. 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), that choose to submit an electronic copy of stack test reports to
EPA's WebFIRE data base, as of December 31, 2011, the owner or operator
of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA's data base
using the Electronic Reporting Tool located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
11. Section 63.1350 is amended to read as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(vi) and
(vii);
b. By revising paragraph (c)(1) and (2) introductory text;
c. By revising paragraph (d)(1) and (2) introductory text;
d. By revising paragraph (e) introductory text;
e. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
f. By revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
g. By revising paragraph (h)(2) through (h)(4);
h. By revising paragraph (k);
i. By revising paragraphs (m) introductory text;
j. By revising paragraphs (n),(o) and (p); and
k. By adding paragraphs (q) and (r).
Sec. 63.1350 Monitoring requirements.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The owner or operator must conduct a monthly 20-minute visible
emissions test of each affected source in accordance with Method 22 of
appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. The test must be conducted
while the affected source is in operation.
* * * * *
(iv) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 test,
of appendix A-7 to part 60, the owner or operator must conduct five 6-
minute averages of opacity in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4
to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test, of appendix A-4 to part
60, must begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions.
* * * * *
(vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system
transfer point is located in a building, the owner or operator of the
portland cement plant shall have the option to conduct a Method 22
test, of appendix A-7 to part 60, according to the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(4)(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 (a)(4)(vii) of this section.
(vii) If visible emissions from a building are monitored, the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section apply
to the monitoring of the building, and you must also test visible
emissions from each side, roof and vent of the building for at least 20
minutes. The test must be conducted under normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the
owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously
operate a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) located at the
outlet of the PM control device to continuously monitor the opacity.
The COMS shall be installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as
required by subpart A, general provisions of this part, and according
to PS-1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
[[Page 21188]]
(2) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill
subject to the provisions of this subpart using a fabric filter with
multiple stacks or an electrostatic precipitator with multiple stacks
may, in lieu of installing the continuous opacity monitoring system
required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, monitor opacity in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section. If
the control device exhausts through a monovent, or if the use of a COMS
in accordance with the installation specifications of PS-1 of appendix
B to part 60 of this chapter is not feasible, the owner or operator
must monitor opacity in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the
owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously
operate a COMS located at the outlet of the clinker cooler PM control
device to continuously monitor the opacity. The COMS shall be
installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as required by subpart
A, general provisions of this part, and according to PS-1 of appendix B
to part 60 of this chapter.
(2) The owner or operator of a clinker cooler subject to the
provisions of this subpart using a fabric filter with multiple stacks
or an electrostatic precipitator with multiple stacks may, in lieu of
installing the continuous opacity monitoring system required by
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, monitor opacity in accordance with
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section. If the control
device exhausts through a monovent, or if the use of a COMS in
accordance with the installation specifications of PS-1 of appendix B
to part 60 of this chapter is not feasible, the owner or operator must
monitor opacity in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (ii) of
this section.
* * * * *
(e) The owner or operator of a raw mill or finish mill shall
monitor opacity by conducting daily visual emissions observations of
the mill sweep and air separator PMCD of these affected sources in
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60
of this chapter. The Method 22 test, of appendix A-7 to part 60, shall
be conducted while the affected source is operating at the
representative performance conditions. The duration of the Method 22
test, of appendix A-7 to part 60, shall be 6 minutes. If visible
emissions are observed during any Method 22 test, of appendix A-7 to
part 60, the owner or operator must:
* * * * *
(g) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to an
emissions limitation on D/F emissions that employs carbon injection as
an emission control technique shall comply with the monitoring
requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) and (g)(1) through
(g)(6) of this section to demonstrate continuous compliance with the D/
F emissions standard.
* * * * *
(h) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a
limitation on THC emissions under this subpart shall comply with the
monitoring requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this
section to demonstrate continuous compliance with the THC emission
standard:
* * * * *
(2) For existing facilities complying with the THC emissions limits
of Sec. 63.1343, the 30-day average THC concentration in any gas
discharged from the main exhaust of a kiln, or in-line kiln/raw mill,
must not exceed their THC emissions limit, reported as propane,
corrected to seven percent oxygen.
(3) For new or reconstructed facilities complying with the THC
emission limits of Sec. 63.1343, the 30-day average THC concentration
in any gas discharged from the main exhaust of a kiln or in-line kiln/
raw mill must not exceed their THC emission limit, reported as propane,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(4) For new or reconstructed facilities complying with the THC
emission limits of Sec. 63.1346, any daily average THC concentration
in any gas discharged from a raw material dryer must not exceed their
THC emission limit, reported as propane, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
(k) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a
particulate matter standard under Sec. 63.1343 using a fabric filter
for PM control must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection
system according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3) of this section.
(1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(viii) of this
section.
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual
cubic foot) or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to
paragraph (k)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system,
you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm
set points, and the alarm delay time.
(v) Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the
averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval
from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in
paragraph (k)(1)(vi) of this section.
(vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the
site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (k)(2) of this
section.
(vii) You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of
the fabric filter.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(2) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak
detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all
times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs
(k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(vi) of this section. At a minimum you must
retain records related to the site-specific monitoring plan and
information discussed in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(vi) of
this section for a period of 2 years on-site and 3 years off-site;
(i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
[[Page 21189]]
(iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures;
(iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained,
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory
list;
(v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored; and
(vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (k)(3)
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as
practicable.
(3) For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate
procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the
alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2)(vi) of this section, you
must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by
taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions
may include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
PM emissions;
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device;
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
(4) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance
with the particulate matter emission limit in Sec. 63.1343 must
install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS as specified in
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(m) The requirements under paragraph (e) of this section to conduct
daily Method 22 testing shall not apply to any specific raw mill or
finish mill equipped with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS)
or bag leak detection system (BLDS). If the owner or operator chooses
to install a COMS in lieu of conducting the daily visual emissions
testing required under paragraph (e) 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. The 6-minute average opacity for any 6-minute block
period must not exceed 10 percent. If the owner or operator chooses to
install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the daily visual emissions testing
required under paragraph (e) of this section, the requirements in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3) of this section apply to each BLDS.
* * * * *
(n) The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln raw mill shall
install and operate a continuous emissions monitor in accordance with
Performance Specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a
sorbent trap-based integrated monitor in accordance with Performance
Specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator
shall operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance
requirements in Procedure 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(o) The owner or operator of any portland cement plant subject to
the PM limit (lb/ton of clinker) for new or existing sources in Sec.
63.1343(b) or (c) shall:
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a permanent weigh
scale system, or use another method approved by the Administrator, to
measure and record weight rates in tons-mass per hour of the amount of
clinker produced. The system of measuring hourly clinker production
must be maintained within 5 percent accuracy. The owner or
operator shall determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy
of the system of measuring hourly clinker production before initial use
(for new sources) or within 30 days of the effective date of this rule
(for existing sources). During each quarter of source operation, the
owner or operator shall determine, record, and maintain a record of the
ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production.
The use of a system that directly measures kiln feed rate and uses a
conversion factor to determine the clinker production rate is an
acceptable method.
(2) Record the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates.
(p) The owner or operator of a kiln or clinker cooler using a PM
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance
with the particulate matter emission limit in Sec. 63.1343 or Sec.
63.1345 must install, certify, operate, and maintain the CEMS as
specified in paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(3) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation of
the PM CEMS according to the applicable requirements of Sec. 60.13,
Performance Specification 11 of appendix B of part 60, and Procedure 2
of appendix F to part 60.
(2) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
Performance Specification 11 of appendix B to part 60, PM and oxygen
(or carbon dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a
30- to 60-minute period) during operation of the CEMS and when
conducting performance tests using the following test methods:
(i) For PM, Method 5 or 5B of appendix A-5 to part 60 or Method 17
of appendix A-6 to part 60.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), Method 3, 3A, or 3B of
appendix A-2 to part 60, as applicable.
(3) Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60 for quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration drift tests. The owner or operator
must perform Relative Response Audits annually and Response Correlation
Audits every 3 years.
(q) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
limitations on emissions of HCl shall:
(1) Continuously monitor compliance with the HCl limit by operating
a continuous emission monitor in accordance with Performance
Specification 15 of part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall
operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance
requirements in Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, or
(2) Monitor your wet scrubber parameters as specified in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS.
(r) The owner or operator complying with the total organic HAP
emissions limits of Sec. 63.1343 shall continuously monitor THC
according to paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(2) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for total
organic HAP.
(1) Install, operate and maintain a THC continuous emission
monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 8A, of
appendix B to part
[[Page 21190]]
60 of this chapter and comply with all of the requirements for
continuous monitoring found in the general provisions, subpart A of the
part. The owner or operator shall operate and maintain each CEMS
according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix F.
(2) Calculate the 3-hour average THC concentration as the average
of three successive 1-hour average THC readings. The 3-hour average THC
concentration shall not exceed the average THC concentration
established during the initial performance tests for total organic HAP.
12. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1351 Compliance dates.
* * * * *
(d) The compliance date for a new source which commenced
construction after December 2, 2005, and before December 20, 2006 to
meet the THC emission limit of 6 ppmvd or the mercury standard of 14
lb/MM tons clinker will be December 21, 2009, or the effective date of
these amendments, whichever is later.
(e) The compliance data for existing sources with the revised PM,
mercury, THC, and HCl emissions limits will be 3 years from the
effective data of these amendments.
(f) The compliance date for new sources not subject to paragraph
(d) of this section will be the effective date of the final rule or
startup, whichever is later.
13. Section 63.1354 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(9)(vi) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1354 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(b)(9) * * *
(vi) Monthly rolling average mercury concentration for each kiln
and in-line kiln/raw mill.
* * * * *
14. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1355 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates and
kiln feed rates for area sources.
* * * * *
15. Section 63.1356 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1356 Sources with multiple emission limits or monitoring
requirements.
If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a different
emission limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another
regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or operator of the
affected facility must comply with the most stringent emission limit or
requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement.
16. Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart LLL Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(4)....................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.1(a)(5)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-(8)....................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.1(a)(9)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(14)..................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.1(b)(1)........................... Initial Applicability No..................... Sec. 63.1340
Determination. specifies
applicability.
63.1(b)(2)-(3)....................... Initial Applicability Yes....................
Determination.
63.1(c)(1)........................... Applicability After Yes....................
Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2)........................... Permit Requirements.... Yes.................... Area sources must
obtain Title V
permits.
63.1(c)(3)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-(5)....................... Extensions, Yes....................
Notifications.
63.1(d).............................. ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.1(e).............................. Applicability of Permit Yes....................
Program.
63.2................................. Definitions............ Yes.................... Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.1341.
63.3(a)-(c).......................... Units and Abbreviations Yes....................
63.4(a)(1)-(3)....................... Prohibited Activities.. Yes....................
63.4(a)(4)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5)........................... Compliance date........ Yes....................
63.4(b)-(c).......................... Circumvention, Yes....................
Severability.
63.5(a)(1)-(2)....................... Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
63.5(b)(1)........................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
63.5(b)(2)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(6)....................... Construction Approval, Yes....................
Applicability.
63.5(c).............................. ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.5(d)(1)-(4)....................... Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.5(e).............................. Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.5(f)(1)-(2)....................... Approval of Yes....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.6(a).............................. Compliance for Yes....................
Standards and
Maintenance.
63.6(b)(1)-(5)....................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
63.6(b)(6)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)........................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
63.6(c)(1)-(2)....................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
63.6(c)(3)-(4)....................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)........................... Compliance Dates....... Yes....................
63.6(d).............................. ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
[[Page 21191]]
63.6(e)(1)-(2)....................... Operation & Maintenance Yes....................
63.6(e)(3)........................... Startup, Shutdown Yes....................
Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)........................... Compliance with No.....................
Emission Standards.
63.6(f)(2)-(3)....................... Compliance with Yes....................
Emission Standards.
63.6(g)(1)-(3)....................... Alternative Standard... Yes....................
63.6(h)(1)........................... Opacity/VE Standards... No.....................
63.6(h)(2)........................... Opacity/VE Standards... Yes....................
63.6(h)(3)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i)................. Opacity/VE Standards... Yes....................
63.6(h)(5)(ii)-(iv).................. Opacity/VE Standards... No..................... Test duration specified
in subpart LLL.
63.6(h)(6)........................... Opacity/VE Standards... Yes....................
63.6(h)(7)........................... Opacity/VE Standards... Yes....................
63.6(i)(1)-(14)...................... Extension of Compliance Yes....................
63.6(i)(15).......................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16).......................... Extension of Compliance Yes....................
63.6(j).............................. Exemption from Yes....................
Compliance.
63.7(a)(1)-(3)....................... Performance Testing Yes.................... Sec. 63.1349 has
Requirements. specific requirements.
63.7(b).............................. Notification........... Yes....................
63.7(c).............................. Quality Assurance/Test Yes....................
Plan.
63.7(d).............................. Testing Facilities..... Yes....................
63.7(e)(1)-(4)....................... Conduct of Tests....... Yes....................
63.7(f).............................. Alternative Test Method Yes....................
63.7(g).............................. Data Analysis.......... Yes....................
63.7(h).............................. Waiver of Tests........ Yes....................
63.8(a)(1)........................... Monitoring Requirements Yes....................
63.8(a)(2)........................... Monitoring............. No..................... Sec. 63.1350 includes
CEMS requirements.
63.8(a)(3)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)........................... Monitoring............. No..................... Flares not applicable.
63.8(b)(1)-(3)....................... Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes....................
63.8(c)(1)-(8)....................... CMS Operation/ Yes.................... Temperature and
Maintenance. activated carbon
injection monitoring
data reduction
requirements given in
subpart LLL.
63.8(d).............................. Quality Control........ Yes....................
63.8(e).............................. Performance Evaluation Yes....................
for CMS.
63.8(f)(1)-(5)....................... Alternative Monitoring Yes.................... Additional requirements
Method. in Sec. 63.1350(l).
63.8(f)(6)........................... Alternative to RATA Yes....................
Test.
63.8(g).............................. Data Reduction......... Yes....................
63.9(a).............................. Notification Yes....................
Requirements.
63.9(b)(1)-(5)....................... Initial Notifications.. Yes....................
63.9(c).............................. Request for Compliance Yes....................
Extension.
63.9(d).............................. New Source Notification Yes....................
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
63.9(e).............................. Notification of Yes....................
Performance Test.
63.9(f).............................. Notification of VE/ Yes.................... Notification not
Opacity Test. required for VE/
opacity test under
Sec. 63.1350(e) and
(j).
63.9(g).............................. Additional CMS Yes....................
Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-(3)....................... Notification of Yes....................
Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)........................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(6)....................... Notification of Yes....................
Compliance Status.
63.9(i).............................. Adjustment of Deadlines Yes....................
63.9(j).............................. Change in Previous Yes....................
Information.
63.10(a)............................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes....................
63.10(b)............................. General Requirements... Yes....................
63.10(c)(1).......................... Additional CMS Yes.................... PS-8A supersedes
Recordkeeping. requirements for THC
CEMS.
63.10(c)(2)-(4)...................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)-(8)...................... Additional CMS Yes.................... PS-8A supersedes
Recordkeeping. requirements for THC
CEMS.
63.10(c)(9).......................... ....................... No..................... [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(15).................... Additional CMS Yes.................... PS-8A supersedes
Recordkeeping. requirements for THC
CEMS.
63.10(d)(1).......................... General Reporting Yes....................
Requirements.
63.10(d)(2).......................... Performance Test Yes....................
Results.
63.10(d)(3).......................... Opacity or VE Yes....................
Observations.
63.10(d)(4).......................... Progress Reports....... Yes....................
63.10(d)(5).......................... Startup, Shutdown, Yes....................
Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-(2)...................... Additional CMS Reports. Yes....................
[[Page 21192]]
63.10(e)(3).......................... Excess Emissions and Yes.................... Exceedances are defined
CMS Performance in subpart LLL.
Reports.
63.10(f)............................. Waiver for Yes....................
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
63.11(a)-(b)......................... Control Device No..................... Flares not applicable.
Requirements.
63.12(a)-(c)......................... State Authority and Yes....................
Delegations.
63.13(a)-(c)......................... State/Regional Yes....................
Addresses.
63.14(a)-(b)......................... Incorporation by Yes....................
Reference.
63.15(a)-(b)......................... Availability of Yes....................
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix to Part 63--[Amended]
17. Section 1.3.2 of Method 321 of Appendix A to Part 63--Test
Methods is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods
* * * * *
Test Method 321--Measurement of Gaseous Hydrogen Chloride Emissions at
Portland Cement Kilns by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy
* * * * *
1.3.2 The practical lower quantification range is usually higher
than that indicated by the instrument performance in the laboratory,
and is dependent upon (1) the presence of interfering species in the
exhaust gas (notably H2O), (2) the optical alignment of
the gas cell and transfer optics, and (3) the quality of the
reflective surfaces in the cell (cell throughput). Under typical
test conditions (moisture content of up to 30 percent, 10 meter
absorption pathlength, liquid nitrogen-cooled IR detector, 0.5
cm-1 resolution, and an interferometer sampling time of
60 seconds) a typical lower quantification range for HCl is 0.1 to
1.0 ppm.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-10206 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P