Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 34072-34092 [E8-12619]
Download as PDF
34072
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0877; FRL–8576–1]
RIN 2060–AO42
Standards of Performance for Portland
Cement Plants
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing
amendments to the current Standards of
Performance for Portland Cement
Plants. The proposed amendments
include revisions to the emission limits
for affected facilities which commence
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after June 16, 2008. The
proposed amendments also include
additional testing and monitoring
requirements for affected sources.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 15, 2008. If any one
contacts EPA by June 26, 2008
requesting to speak at a public hearing,
EPA will hold a public hearing on July
1, 2008. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, comments on the
information collection provisions must
be received by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on or
before July 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2007–0877, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send
comments to: EPA Docket Center
(6102T), Standards of Performance
(NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants
Docket, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2007–0877, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of two copies. In
addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection
provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
• Hand Delivery: In person or by
courier, deliver comments to: EPA
Docket Center (6102T), Standards of
Performance (NSPS) for Portland
Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0877, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Please include a total of two copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–
0877. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Standards of
Performance (NSPS) for Portland
Cement Plants Docket, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Keith Barnett, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Metals and
Minerals Group (D243–02),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541–5605; fax
number: (919) 541–5450; e-mail address:
barnett.keith@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information on Subpart F
A. What is the statutory authority for the
proposed amendments to subpart F?
B. What are the current Portland Cement
Plant (PCP) NSPS?
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
to Subpart F
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
to Subpart F
A. How is EPA proposing to change the
emission limits for future affected
facilities?
B. How is EPA proposing to amend the
testing requirements?
C. How is EPA proposing to amend the
monitoring requirements?
D. Why are we not proposing to revise the
other emission limits in the NSPS?
E. What other changes are being proposed?
F. What is EPA’s sector-based approach
and how is it relevant to this
rulemaking?
G. How is EPA addressing greenhouse gas
emissions from the portland cement
industry?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy,
and Economic Impacts of the Proposed
Amendments to Subpart F
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the water quality impacts?
C. What are the solid waste impacts?
D. What are the secondary impacts?
E. What are the energy impacts?
F. What are the cost impacts?
G. What are the economic impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
34073
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this proposed rule include:
Category
NAICS code 1
Examples of regulated
entities
Industry ....................................................................................................................................................
Federal government ................................................................................................................................
State/local/tribal government ...................................................................................................................
327310
........................
........................
Cement manufacturing.
Not affected.
Not affected.
1 North
American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility would be
regulated by this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 60.60 (subpart F). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this proposed action to a particular
entity, contact the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing
CBI to EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: Roberto
Morales, OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0877. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this
proposed action is available on the
World Wide Web (WWW) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
TTN’s policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
D. When would a public hearing occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to
speak at a public hearing by June 26,
2008, a public hearing will be held on
July 1, 2008. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring
as to whether a public hearing is to be
held should contact Mr. Keith Barnett,
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, at least 2 days in
advance of the hearing.
II. Background Information on
Subpart F
A. What is the statutory authority for the
proposed amendments to subpart F?
New source performance standards
(NSPS) implement Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 111(b) and are issued for
categories of sources which EPA has
listed because they cause, or contribute
significantly to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. The primary
purpose of the NSPS is to attain and
maintain ambient air quality by
ensuring that the best demonstrated
emission control technologies are
installed as industrial infrastructure is
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have
been successful in achieving long-term
emissions reductions in numerous
industries by assuring cost-effective
controls are installed on new,
reconstructed, or modified sources.
Section 111 of the CAA requires that
NSPS reflect the application of the best
system of emission reductions
achievable which, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reductions, and any non-air
quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements, the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated. See CAA
section 111(a)(1). This level of control is
commonly referred to as best
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demonstrated technology (BDT). In
assessing whether a standard is
achievable, EPA must account for
routine operating variability associated
with performance of the system on
whose performance the standard is
based. See National Lime Ass’n v. EPA,
627 F. 2d 416, 431–33 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Today’s proposal considers all of these
factors, including both short- and longterm operating variability associated
with potential control technologies.
Common sources of information as to
what constitutes a best demonstrated
technology, and for assessing that
technology’s level of performance,
include best available control
technology (BACT) determinations
made as part of new source review,
emissions limits that exist in State and
Federal permits for recently permitted
sources, and emissions test data for
demonstrated control technologies
collected for compliance demonstration
or other purposes. EPA compares permit
limitations and BACT determination
data with actual performance test data
to insure that permitting and BACT
limitations are representative of actual
performance and also to identify any
site specific factors that could influence
general applicability of the information
to the entire source category. EPA also
carefully examines test data to insure
that control devices were properly
designed and operated during the test.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires EPA to periodically review and
revise these standards of performance,
as necessary, to reflect improvements in
methods for reducing emissions. We
promulgated Standards of Performance
For Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR
part 60, subpart F) on December 23,
1971 (36 FR 24876). Since then, we have
conducted three reviews of the
standards (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974;
39 FR 39874, November 12, 1974; and
53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988).
B. What are the current Portland
Cement Plant (PCP) NSPS?
The PCP NSPS applies to new,
modified, and reconstructed affected
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
34074
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
facilities in the portland cement
manufacturing industry that
commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
August 17, 1971. Affected facilities at
PCP include the kiln, clinker cooler, raw
mill system, finish mill system, raw mill
dryer, raw material storage, clinker
storage, finished product storage,
conveyor transport points, bagging and
bulk loading and unloading systems.
Unless otherwise noted, the term ‘‘new’’
as used in this preamble includes newly
constructed, modified or reconstructed
units.
III. Summary of the Proposed
Amendments to Subpart F
The proposed amendments to subpart
F of 40 CFR part 60 are summarized in
Table 1 of this preamble.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Citation
Proposed change
60.62 .............................
Change the title of § 60.62 to standards. Revise paragraph (a)(1) to include paragraph (a)(1)(i) which specifies that
the current emission limit for particulate matter (PM) applies to kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008. Add a paragraph (a)(1)(ii) which limits PM emissions for kilns that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 16, 2008, emissions to 0.086 pounds of PM per
ton (lb/ton) of clinker.
Revise paragraph (a)(2) to clarify that the opacity limit does not apply to kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008 that use a bag leak detection system or PM continuous emission monitoring system.
Add paragraph (a)(3) which requires kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified after June 16, 2008 to meet a nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit of 1.50 lb/ton of clinker on a 30-day, 24-hour rolling average basis.
Add paragraph (a)(4) which requires kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified after June 16, 2008 to meet either a
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker on a 30-day, 24-hour rolling average basis or demonstrate a 90-percent reduction in SO2 emissions from the kiln.
Revise paragraph (b)(1) to include a paragraph (b)(1)(i) which specifies that the current PM limit applies to clinker
coolers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008. Add a paragraph (b)(1)(ii) which limits PM emissions from clinker coolers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after June 16,
2008 to 0.086 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of clinker.
Revise paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that the opacity limit does not apply to clinker coolers constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008 that use a bag leak detection system or PM continuous emission monitoring system.
Revise paragraph (a) to correct applicability term (‘‘subpart’’ instead of ‘‘part’’) and add the word ‘‘clinker’’ before the
phrase ‘‘production rate’’ to clarify that daily recordkeeping requirement is for clinker production rate.
Revise paragraph (b) to include paragraph (b)(1) which specifies monitoring requirements for kilns and clinker coolers
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008. Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
contains the current requirements for continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). Paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii)
allow the source to install a bag leak detection system or a PM CEMS in lieu of a COMS. Also revise paragraph (b)
to include paragraph (b)(2) which specifies monitoring requirements for kilns and clinker coolers constructed, modified, or reconstructed or after June 16, 2008. Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) require the source to install a bag leak
detection system or a PM continuous emission monitoring system.
Revise paragraph (c) to clarify that the alternative for visible emission monitoring applies to the requirement in paragraph (b)(1)(i) for a continuous opacity monitoring system.
Add paragraph (f) to which specifies installation and operation requirements for bag leak detection systems.
Add paragraph (g) which specifies the required installation, operation, and maintenance procedures for a PM continuous emission monitoring system.
Add paragraph (h) which specifies requirements for weight measurement system for clinker production from kilns constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after June 16, 2008.
Add paragraph (i) to require a NOX continuous emission monitoring system for each kiln subject to the NOX emission
limit.
Add paragraph (j) to require a SO2 continuous emission monitoring system for each kiln subject to the SO2 emission
limit.
Add paragraph (k) to require that NOX and SO2 continuous emission monitoring systems be installed, operated, and
maintained according to Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60 and that monitors comply with quality
assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60.
Add paragraph (l) to require that NOX and SO2 monitors record data during all periods of operation.
Add paragraph (m) to require a continuous exhaust flow rate monitoring system for each kiln subject to the NOX or
SO2 emissions limit.
Add paragraph (n) to require the use of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) predictive model to monitor the performance of ESPs controlling PM emissions from kilns or clinker coolers.
Revise paragraph (b)(1) to add definition of the term ‘‘P’’ in Equation 1 for new kilns subject to PM emission limit in lb/
ton of clinker production.
Add paragraph (b)(5) to require repeat PM performance tests (every 5 years) for kilns and clinker coolers.
Add paragraph (b)(6) to require visible emissions monitoring for sources other than kilns and clinker coolers.
Add paragraph (c) which specifies procedures for converting concentration of NOX and SO2 to pounds per ton of
clinker produced (30 day rolling average).
Update to specify authorities to be retained by the Administrator.
60.63 .............................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
60.64 .............................
60.66 .............................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
IV. Rationale for the Proposed
Amendments to Subpart F
A. How is EPA proposing to change the
emission limits for future affected
facilities?
For ‘‘new’’ affected facilities
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after June 16, 2008, we are proposing:
• To change the format of the PM
emission limits from lb/ton of dry feed
to lb/ton of clinker product;
• To reduce the PM emission limit for
kilns from 0.3 lb/ton of dry feed to 0.086
lb/ton of clinker;
• To set a limit on NOX emissions
from kilns of 1.50 lb/ton of clinker; and
• To set a limit on SO2 emissions
from kilns of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or,
in the alternative, demonstrate a
reduction in SO2 emissions from the
kiln of at least 90 percent;
• To reduce the PM emissions limit
for clinker coolers from 0.1 lb/ton dry
feed to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker; and
• To add new monitoring options of
a bag leak detector or PM continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
for kilns and clinker coolers to
demonstrate compliance with the PM
limits in lieu of the requirement for
continuous opacity monitoring systems
(COMS).
The emission limits for affected
facilities constructed, modified, or
reconstructed before June 16, 2008
remain unchanged.
In determining BDT we generally look
at the controls and control performance
of new sources. In the case of cement
kilns we reviewed recently issued
permits and BACT determinations
issued by States to identify emissions
limits more stringent than the current
subpart F (and to understand if limits
more stringent than those in subpart F
are commonplace or rare, or cover
additional air pollutants). We believe
that the use of State permit data and
BACT determination developed as part
of new source review is appropriate
because a BACT determination
evaluates available controls, their
performance, cost, and non-air
environmental impacts. The main
difference between those determinations
and a BDT determination for purposes
of a new source performance standard is
that a BACT determination is made on
a site-specific basis. Therefore, in
evaluating BACT determinations, we
have to account for any site-specific
factors that may not be applicable to the
source category as a whole. We have
also reviewed data gathered in support
of related rules involving the portland
cement industry, notably the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for portland
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
cement kilns issued pursuant to section
112 of the CAA, and the NESHAP for
hazardous waste-burning Portland
cement kilns, also implementing section
112 of the CAA.
We also collected emissions test data
from a number of sources. The emission
test data is used to verify the achievable
performance of the controls, and to
evaluate whether or not the permit
levels reviewed accurately reflect
control device performance.
Our review of permits and actual test
data from portland cement sources, and
discussions with industry
representatives and State environmental
agencies indicates that certain changes
have occurred since the 1988 review of
the NSPS, and that these changes are
still continuing. We found that older,
less energy efficient wet and long dry
kilns are being replaced with preheater/
precalciner kilns because preheater/
precalciner kilns have superior energy
efficiency and increased clinker
capacity. According to the industry, all
new kilns will be preheater/precalciner
kilns. We confirmed this by reviewing a
detailed listing of portland cement kilns
which indicates that since 2000 all kilns
constructed or modernized are of the
preheater/precalciner design.1
The information also revealed that
recently built kilns are subject to more
stringent limits on their emissions
through State permitting processes than
those currently in the PCP NSPS. In
addition, many State permits contain
emission limits for NOX and SO2,
pollutants that are not regulated under
the current NSPS. (See footnote 1)
Modern preheater/precalciner kilns and
improved combustion process designs
and add-on controls that greatly lower
NOX emissions are increasingly being
used to meet State permit limits. Our
review of permits, BACT
determinations, and emissions test data
show that SO2 emissions are typically
low as a result of the inherent scrubbing
action of alkaline raw materials in the
kiln and raw mill as well as the
typically low sulfur content of raw
materials and fuel. However, there are a
few locations where the raw materials
used in production of clinker contain
high levels of sulfur. In these few
situations, wet scrubbers or dry lime
sprayers have been used to reduce SO2
emissions in order to meet State SO2
limits.
Preheater/precalciner kilns have inline raw mills, which means that the
kiln exhaust gas is routed to the raw
mill and then to the final PM control
device. Therefore, the kiln and raw mill
1 Technical Support Document for Portland
Cement NSPS Review. May 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34075
exhaust through the same stack. In order
to maximize energy efficiency, facilities
route as much clinker cooler exhaust as
possible to the kiln (typically as tertiary
air), and sometimes to the raw mill to
recover heat from the clinker cooling
operation. However, typically some
portion of the clinker cooler gas flow
exhausts directly to atmosphere through
its own stack so that clinker coolers are
one of the enumerated units covered by
the NSPS, and one of the emission
points addressed by these proposed
amendments.
As previously mentioned, older kilns
are typically replaced with new
preheater/precalciner kilns rather than
being modified or reconstructed.
However, because modified and
reconstructed kilns are also subject to
NSPS, we evaluated the situation where
an existing kiln becomes subject to
NSPS through modification or
reconstruction. We identified only two
instances since 1990 where an existing
kiln was significantly modified rather
than replaced with a new kiln, so we do
not expect this to be a common
occurrence. Moreover, in one such case
a wet kiln was converted to a semi-dry
process that included a preheater/
precalciner. Performance data from this
kiln indicate that the emissions of SO2
and NOX are actually lower than would
have been expected if the kiln had been
replaced with a new preheater/
precalciner kiln.2 Therefore, we expect
that the emission limits proposed for
new preheater/precalciner kilns would
be applicable to this type of conversion.
In the second case, a long dry kiln was
shortened and a preheater/precalciner
added. A modification of this type
would be expected to use the same
technology in the precalciner/preheater
section as a new preheater/precalciner
kiln and the resulting modified kiln
would basically be the same as a new
kiln from the standpoint of criteria
pollutant emissions control.
Accordingly, EPA believes that the
limits proposed today are appropriate
for new, modified, and reconstructed
kilns since the preheater/precalciner
design will be utilized in each of these
instances.
1. Format of the Standard
The current NSPS limits for PM are
expressed on a pound of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of dry feed input format.
Emission limits are typically normalized
to some type of production or raw
material input value because this allows
2 Lone Star’s Unique Approach to Environmental
Challenges. O.P. Jepsen and B.P. Keefe, Fuller
Company, Cement Industry Technical Conference,
IEEE–IAS/PCA, 2001.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
34076
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
comparison (and ultimately the ability
to set a single standard) for different
sized facilities. (A common example of
normalization is expressing vehicle fuel
economy in terms of miles of gasoline
per vehicle mile traveled, e.g., miles per
gallon.) The 1971 NSPS uses a pound of
pollutant per ton dry feed basis as the
normalizing parameter. In these
proposed amendments we are adopting
a new normalizing parameter of lb/ton
of clinker—i.e., normalizing based on
kiln output rather than input for sources
constructed, reconstructed or modified
after June 16, 2008.
Adopting an output-based standard
avoids rewarding a source for becoming
less efficient, i.e., requiring more feed to
produce a unit of product, therefore
promoting the most efficient production
processes. As an example, assume a
cement kiln rated at 1.2 million tons per
year (tpy) has a NOX emission limit of
1.5 lb/ton of clinker (output). The
equivalent input-based limit would be
0.909 lb/ton of feed (on average 1.65
tons of feed produce one ton of clinker,
so a kiln rated at 1.2 million tpy clinker
uses 1.98 million tpy of feed). Under
either an input- or output-based
standard, the maximum allowed NOX
emissions would be 900 tpy (1.5 lb/ton
clinker × 1.2 million tons clinker ÷ 2000
= 900 tons = 0.909 lb/ton feed × 1.98
million tons feed ÷ 2000). However, if
a facility has a less efficient kiln, for
example it requires 1.7 tons of feed to
produce one ton of clinker (so the feed
input is now 2.04 million tons), this kiln
would be allowed to emit 927 tpy of
NOX (0.909 lb/ton feed × 2.04 million
tons feed ÷ 2000) under the input-based
standard of 0.909 lb/ton of feed, but still
only 900 lb per year of NOX under the
1.5 lb/ton of clinker output-based
standard.
Over the short term, the measurement
of kiln output is not as exact as the
measure of kiln input. For this reason,
we are basing compliance with the
proposed NOX and SO2 emission limits
on a 30 day rolling average. We believe
this will alleviate the issues related to
the inaccuracy of short-term output
measurements. However, industry has
requested the option to convert to an
input-based standard to accommodate
site-specific configurations and
operational limitations.3
In the following discussions,
emissions were typically reported as a
concentration or per ton of feed. The
BACT permit limits discussed were
typically based on output. We have
converted all the data to an output
based standard using a conversion factor
3 E-mail, H. Ybanez, Holcim, Inc to K. Barnett,
EPA, February 27, 2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
of 1.65 tons of input equals one ton of
clinker. More information on conversion
may be found in the technical support
document (see footnote 1).
We are specifically requesting
comment on the benefits of an outputbased standard, output measurement
methods and their associated errors,
provisions that would allow a site to
convert to an input-based standard, any
limitations we should impose on
conversion, and the appropriate
averaging times. Information on how
conversions from input-based emission
limits and test data and/or
concentration-based data to outputbased limits and test data may be found
in the Technical Support Document for
the Portland Cement NSPS review (see
footnote 1).
2. PM
The most effective control devices to
reduce PM emission from cement kilns
and clinker coolers identified in the
original NSPS were fabric filters and
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). These
continue to be the most effective PM
controls in use, capable of removing
over 99.9 percent of the PM from the
exhaust gas. At the time of the 1988
review, 17 new kilns that had become
subject to the NSPS since the 1979
review were controlled by fabric filters
and 13 by ESPs. Of the 21 clinker
coolers with a separate exhaust stack
that had become subject to the NSPS, 17
were controlled by fabric filters, and
four were controlled by gravel bed
filters. Gravel bed filters perform
similarly to fabric filters except they use
a moving bed of gravel to capture the
particulate rather then cloth or
membrane fabric. We do not expect new
facilities to install gravel bed filters.
Though ESPs and fabric filters have
comparable removal efficiencies based
on short-term tests, recently built new
kilns have fabric filters as PM controls,
and we expect this trend to continue.
ESPs applied to cement kilns must be
deenergized if the carbon monoxide
(CO) or excess air levels rise above a
preset critical level where an explosion
could occur, which results in short
periods of high emissions. The high
resistivities of PM from a cement kiln
require gas conditioning if an ESP is
used. In addition, resistivity can change
if the chemistry of the clinker changes.
ESP performance can also be affected by
the particle size distribution. Fabric
filters are not affected by these factors,
and fabric filters control generally to the
same concentration irrespective of the
PM loading at the filter inlet, though
some variability in PM emissions from
fabric filters does occur due to seepage
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and leakage.4 Therefore, we expect the
long-term performance of a fabric filter
to be superior to an ESP. For this reason,
we believe that well-operated and
maintained fabric filters are the best
technology for control of PM emissions
at portland cement kilns, and so are
basing this part of the proposal on use
of fabric filters for PM control.
In assessing the level of performance
constituting BDT (i.e. the level of
performance achievable by welloperated and maintained fabric filters in
this industry considering normal
operating variability) we reviewed data
on PM limits in eight recently issued
permits for new cement kilns, all of
which are equipped with fabric filters.
The permit limits for PM for these kilns
were in various units, but were
converted to a lb/ton output basis. (see
footnote 1) The PM limits ranged from
0.093 to 0.28 lb/ton of clinker, and the
average was 0.16 lb/ton. In order to
determine if the permitted PM
emissions limits were representative of
actual performance we reviewed two
data sets measured by EPA Reference
Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–
3). The first set was comprised of 21
emission tests of portland cement kilns
equipped with fabric filters at various
domestic locations which fabric filters
were (reportedly) equipped with
membrane bags. These PM emissions
ranged from 0.0023 up to 0.4724 lb/ton
of clinker with a median of 0.1360 lb/
ton. Fifteen of the 21 tests were below
0.16 lb/ton of clinker. All of the tests
where the emissions were above 0.16 lb/
ton of clinker, except one, were on kilns
that were not preheater/precalciner
kilns. The one test on a preheater/
precalciner that was above 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker was on a kiln built in 1981.
Therefore, we have reason to doubt that
the data above 0.16 lb/ton of clinker are
representative of the most current
designs. We also reviewed 37 emissions
tests for PM from Florida kilns equipped
with fabric filters where the bag type
was unknown. The range was 0.015 to
0.153 lb/ton of clinker, so all 31 tests
were below 0.16 lb/ton. Although these
are single test results, and so are
unlikely to reflect all the operating
variability associated with air pollution
control device performance, these data
still suggest that a limit of 0.16 lb/ton
of clinker is achievable by new cement
kilns equipped with a fabric filter.
We also evaluated the performance of
fabric filters using membrane bag
technology, generally considered the
4 Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards—Volume I: Description of Source
Categories, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
September 2005, Section 3.2.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
most efficient type of fabric filter.
Membrane bags have superior
performance to the cloth bags that are
part of the standard fabric filter design.
Cloth bags capture PM in the interstices
of the woven fabric and form a primary
dust cake. Until the primary dust cake
forms cloth bags are inefficient as filters.
Therefore, each time the bag is cleaned
emissions increase until the primary
dust cake reforms. Emissions also occur
when the pressure drop becomes so
high that the PM migrates completely
through the fabric. Membrane bags, in
contrast, operate under the principle of
surface filtration, i.e., the PM is
captured on the surface of the bag. This
results in more consistent performance
(no need to build up a primary dust
cake). In addition, at a constant airflow
membrane bags reduce the average
pressure drop across the fabric filter.
However, membrane bags are more
expensive than cloth bags.5
We reviewed 19 emission tests
conducted on four portland cement
kilns where we were able to establish
that the facilities used fabric filters with
membrane bags, and where the kilns
had been built in the last 10 years, so
we could be reasonably certain the
control device was representative of the
latest fabric filter design. Thirteen of
those tests were on a cement kiln that
burns hazardous waste. We believe
there is no difference in the
performance of a fabric filter for PM
applied to a kilns that burn hazardous
waste and those that do not because PM
emissions are largely contributed by
non-hazardous waste feed streams, and
because fabric filters control PM
emissions generally to the same
concentration irrespective of the PM
loading at the inlet (see 69 FR 21225
and 21233). The individual test results
converted to an output basis ranged
from 0.0023 to 0.10176 lb/ton of clinker
with an average of 0.0357 lb/ton. In
order to account for variability, we
analyzed the statistical variation by
calculating a standard deviation of the
test averages, multiplying the standard
deviation by the t value for the 95th or
99th percentile, and adding this value to
the average of all the tests. The result
was we determined that a level of
0.0830 lb/ton of clinker represented an
emissions limit that will not be
exceeded 95 percent of the time and a
level of 0.1025 lb/ton of clinker
represented an emissions limit that will
not be exceeded 99 percent of the time.
EPA has also performed a different
statistical analysis of the data from the
5 Cement Americas ‘‘Optimizing Kiln Operations
by Improving Baghouse Performance’’ November
2001, pp. 1–5.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
hazardous waste-burning cement kiln
equipped with a membrane fabric filter,
applying to the data a so-called
universal variability factor derived from
the performance of the best performing
(lowest emitting) PM performers
equipped with fabric filters across the
hazardous waste combustor source
category. This variability factor
quantifies both short-term and long-term
operating variability, i.e., variability
associated with the conditions of the
individual compliance test and
variability associated with the
performance of the control equipment
over time. See generally 72 FR 54878–
79, September 27, 2007. (This approach
is more sophisticated, since it accounts
for both short-term and long-term
variability, whereas variability in the
individual runs comprising the
compliance tests (i.e., the 95th or 99th
percentile of those data), is more a
measure of short-term variability alone,
see 72 FR 54878). The standard under
this analysis is 0.0069 gr/dscf corrected
to 7 percent oxygen. See 71 FR 14669,
March 23, 2006. Using a typical value of
54,000 dry standard cubic feet (dscf) of
exhaust produced per ton of kiln feed
and one ton of clinker producer per 1.65
tons of feed, 0.0069 gr/dscf converts to
0.086 lb/ton of clinker. (see footnote 1)
We are proposing this level as BDT for
PM emitted by new portland cement
kilns, as measured by EPA Reference
Method 5 in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix
A–3. Our analysis of individual stack
results from the newer kilns equipped
with membrane bag-equipped fabric
filters confirms that the level is
achievable, the level is between the 95th
or 99th percentile of those data, and as
just explained, this level accounts for all
of the potential operating variability
associated with operation of a
membrane-bag fabric filter.
We evaluated the costs of the different
control levels discussed above. This
evaluation, and all subsequent cost,
environment, and energy impacts on a
per kiln basis are based on a model
preheater/precalciner kiln with a rated
capacity of 1.2 million tpy of clinker.
The average capacity of kilns which
were constructed beginning in 2000 and
were operating in 2006 was
approximately 1.3 million tpy. We
choose a model kiln with a capacity
slightly lower than average to provide a
more conservative cost estimate (smaller
kilns tend to have a greater control cost
per ton of capacity). The other kiln
design specifications (flue gas flow
rates, temperatures, etc.) may be found
in the Technical Support Document
(See Footnote 1).
Based on our assessment that all new
fabric filters with standard cloth bag
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34077
will achieve a level of 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker, and that new kilns would at
least be equipped with this type of
fabric filter, there are no costs or other
impacts associated with meeting a PM
emissions limit to 0.16 lb/ton of clinker.
There are a variety of regulatory reasons
that new kilns, on average, currently
meet a 0.16 lb/ton of clinker PM limit,
and we believe it is appropriate to use
this level as the baseline in our cost
analysis. We considered using a
baseline of 0.5 lb/ton of clinker
(equivalent to the current NSPS).
However, not only is this level
inappropriate because it does not reflect
current operating performance, but
choosing 0.5 lb/ton of clinker as the
baseline would not have changed our
decision in any case.
To achieve a level of 0.086 lb/ton of
clinker, a new kiln with a capacity of
1.2 million tpy of clinker production
may have to equip the fabric filter with
more expensive membrane bags at an
estimated capital cost of $1.3 million
and at a total annualized cost of
$176,000 per year. This includes
additional operating and maintenance
costs, and amortized capital costs. The
estimated emission reduction over the
baseline would be 44 tpy for the model
kiln and the cost per ton of additional
PM control is $3,969. This cost appears
to be reasonable to EPA, given that it is
well within the range of costeffectiveness for total PM control
accepted as reasonable for other
stationary sources. See, e.g., 70 FR 9715,
February 28, 2005 (cost effectiveness of
$8,400 per ton of total PM considered
reasonable for proposed rule for electric
utility steam generating units) and 71
FR 9876, February 27, 2006,
promulgating the proposed rule.
We also analyzed the cost per ton of
fine PM (PM of 2.5 micrometers or less)
emissions reduction. Data from
development of the PM National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) indicate that the majority of
the adverse health effects from PM
exposure are from exposure to fine PM
(although exposure to coarse PM is
likewise associated with health effects,
see 71 FR 61184–85, October 17, 2006).
As a result, EPA established a NAAQS
for fine PM separate from the NAAQS
for coarse PM. Based on data from EPA’s
Compilation of Emission Factors (AP–
42), 45 percent of the PM from a cement
kiln fabric filter is fine PM. Therefore,
the estimated emissions reduction of
fine PM resulting from a total PM
standard of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker is
19.8 tpy for the model kiln and the cost
per ton of fine PM reduction is $8,819.
In most cases there would be no nonair impacts associated with the
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
34078
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
proposed standard because PM captured
in the control device for a preheater/
precalciner kiln is mainly raw materials
which are recycled back to the kiln,
rather then disposed of as solid waste.
In the case of a kiln equipped with an
alkali bypass, however, additional PM
captured in the alkali bypass fabric filter
would typically be disposed as a solid
waste. This PM is high in alkali
materials and cannot be recycled back to
the kiln or mixed with the product.
Based on data collected on amounts of
solids generated by the PM controls, the
solids from the alkali bypass are about
1 percent of total collected solids (i.e.,
99 percent is collected in the main
fabric filter and recycles to the kiln).
Therefore, the amount of additional
solid waste resulting from this proposed
PM emissions limit would be expected
to be minimal. We do not anticipate any
adverse energy impacts because
membrane bags reduce control device
pressure drop and thus reduce energy
use. Given the reasonable costs, and
minimal solid waste impacts we are
proposing a PM emissions level of 0.086
lb/ton of clinker as BDT.
As previously noted, fabric filters are
also the predominant control for another
emission point, clinker coolers.
Included in the 1988 review of the
NSPS were 12 PM emissions tests for
clinker coolers where the coolers had
separate stacks. One test was performed
under abnormal operating conditions
and so was not used in our analysis. The
remaining 11 tests showed a PM
emissions range of 0.008 to 0.05 lb/ton
of feed, which converts to 0.013 up to
0.083 lb/ton of clinker.6 Tests on three
clinker coolers associated with
preheater/precalciner kilns built in the
last 10 years using fabric filters for PM
control showed a range of 0.0038 to
0.0094 lb/ton of feed which converts to
0.0063 to 0.01551 lb/ton of clinker.
Based on these test data, we believe that
the current clinker cooler controls used
on new sources can meet the same level
of PM control as a kiln with membrane
bags, i.e., 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. Since
new facilities are already installing
controls (usually fabric filters) capable
of meeting the proposed clinker cooler
limit of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker, the
incremental costs of the proposed
emissions limit would be very low or
zero, as would any non-air
environmental and energy impacts.
We considered proposing a limit
below 0.086 lb/ton of clinker for clinker
coolers, based on the emissions shown
6 Portland Cement Plants—Background
Information for Proposed Revisions to Standards.
EPA–450/3–85–003a, May 1985. pp. 4–9 to 4–13
and C–2 to C–5.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
for the three newer facilities. Based on
these data a limit of 0.0245 lb/ton of
clinker (representing the 99th
confidence interval) would be
achievable for new sources. However,
we believe that these limited data are
not sufficient to support a lower PM
limit for clinker coolers, since these data
are unlikely to fully reflect control
device operating variability. We are
requesting comment, however, on the
achievability of a lower PM emission
limit for clinker coolers.
3. NOX 7
The current NSPS does not regulate
the emissions of NOX. Concurrent with
this 8-year review we are proposing an
NSPS for NOX that would apply to kilns
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after June 16, 2008. The high
temperatures and oxidizing atmospheres
required for cement manufacturing are
favorable for NOX formation. In cement
kilns, NOX emissions are formed during
fuel combustion primarily by the
oxidation of molecular nitrogen present
in combustion air (referred to as thermal
NOX) and the oxidation of nitrogen
compounds in fuel (referred to as fuel
NOX). Many States issuing construction
and operating permits for new kilns
have specified emission limits for NOX.
EPA’s BACT/RACT/LAER
Clearinghouse database shows that for
the period 2001 through 2007, 30
determinations for new, modified or
reconstructed kilns included NOX
limits. Emissions of NOX are typically
reduced through process controls such
as burner design (low-NOX burners) and
staged combustion in the calciner (SCC).
NOX emissions from kilns using process
designs such as low NOX burners and
SCC emit on average about 2.5 lb/ton of
clinker. The exclusive add-on control
used to reduce NOX emissions from
kilns operating in the U.S. is selective
noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). In recent
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
permits for portland cement kilns,
States have determined BACT emission
limits for NOX based on the use of SNCR
in combination with well-designed SCC
and other process designs such as low
NOX burners. In SNCR systems, a
reagent such as ammonia or urea is
injected into the flue gas at a suitable
temperature zone, typically in the range
7 Information on NO emissions from preheater/
X
precalciner kilns, factors affecting NOX emissions,
process controls that reduce NOX emissions, staged
combustion, selective noncatalytic reduction,
selective catalytic reduction and more can be found
in the EPA publication ‘‘Alternative Control
Techniques Document Update—NOX Emissions
from New Cement Kilns, EPA–453/R–07–006,
November 2007, and is available on EPA’s
Technology Transfer Network at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of 1,600 to 2,000 °F and at an
appropriate ratio of reagent to NOX.
SNCR system performance depends on
temperature, residence time, turbulence,
oxygen content, and other factors
specific to the given gas stream. On
average, SNCR achieves approximately a
35 percent reduction in NOX at a ratio
of ammonia-to-NOX of about 0.5 and a
reduction of 63 percent at an ammoniato-NOX ratio of 1.0. At the high ratios,
including ratios above 1, some ammonia
may not react with NOX and will be
emitted. The unreacted ammonia is
referred to as ammonia slip. It can also
produce a visible stack plume when the
ammonia forms ammonia chlorides.
Under certain atmospheric conditions
ammonia can also react with nitrates
and sulfates, both of which can be
available in cement kiln exhaust, to
form fine PM emissions, see 69 FR 4583,
January 30, 2004, and ammonia itself is
a pollutant under the CAA. Limits on
ammonia slip are often imposed by
permits or design requirements, which
in some instances constrain the NOX
reduction achievable by an SNCR
system.
Another NOX control technology,
SCR, is used in the electric utility
industry to reduce NOX emissions from
boilers and has been used worldwide on
three cement kilns in Europe. SCR is
capable of reducing NOX emissions by
about 80 percent. Though SCR is
demonstrated in Europe, SCR has never
been used on any cement kilns in the
U.S. Uncertainties exist as to its specific
performance level and catalyst plugging
and fouling, which affects operating
costs (see discussion below).
One control option considered was to
make to make no changes in the current
NSPS and thus not regulate NOX
emissions. However, we rejected that
option because NOX is emitted by
cement kilns, is currently controlled at
most new cement kilns, and, based on
our review of recently issued permits,
demonstrated technologies are available
to reduce NOX emissions considering
costs and other impacts.
In proposing a NOX emission limit,
we reviewed recently issued permits,
recent BACT determinations and recent
emissions data for preheater/precalciner
kilns to establish potential NOX control
levels for evaluation. Most of the
emission limits and test data are 30 day
averages based on data from continuous
emissions monitors. A first step in doing
so is to establish a baseline from which
control options can be evaluated. NOX
emissions from three recently permitted
preheater/precalciner kilns utilizing
well-designed and operated process
designs including SCC, averaged NOX
emissions of 1.62, 1.88 and 1.97 lb/ton
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of clinker. These levels are achieved at
kilns that are not equipped with
additional add-on controls. While
demonstrating the capabilities of kilns
utilizing well-designed process controls
including SCC but not add-on controls,
these emission levels are not necessarily
representative of what all new kilns
would achieve even with similar
process designs. Several factors can
influence NOX emissions. Changes in
the kiln feed rate, chemical
composition, or moisture content of raw
materials can cause kiln temperatures to
vary, resulting in variation in NOX
emissions. Raw materials from the same
quarry can vary in chemical
composition from day to day. Certain
raw materials require higher
temperatures and longer heating times
to properly calcine the materials
(referred to as burnability). For example,
raw materials that contain high alkali
content must be heated longer and at
higher temperatures to volatilize and
remove the alkali compounds. With
higher temperatures and longer
residence times, NOX emissions may
increase. Based on data from equipment
vendors and representatives from
facilities with more difficult-to-burn raw
materials, we believe that future welldesigned and operated cement kilns,
which will incorporate SCC and lowNOX burners, will meet a level of 2.5 lb/
ton of clinker on average, without
consideration of end-of-stack air
pollution control. Therefore, we are
using this level as the baseline level of
control that would occur with no
additional regulatory action. However,
we know that in some applications the
level achieved even when using lowNOX burners, indirect firing and welldesigned SCC may be as high as 3 lb/
ton of clinker due to the reasons, such
as burnability, discussed above.
We considered choosing as baseline of
a new preheater/precalciner kiln
designed without SCC or low NOX
burners, i.e., a completely uncontrolled
kiln. For a variety of regulatory reasons,
the newest kilns based on the most
current designs of which we are aware
all incorporate low NOX combustion
technologies. Therefore we have no data
to determine the appropriate NOX
emission level for a new preheater/
precalciner kiln that does not
incorporate low-NOX burners and SCC.
In addition, choosing 2.5 lb/ton of
clinker as our baseline versus a higher
number would not have changed our
decision on the proposed NOX level.
The second emissions level we
evaluated was 1.95 lb/ton of clinker,
which is the most common level
established as BACT in recent permits
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
for new cement kilns.8 As previously
noted, some new kilns meet this level of
control using low-NOX burners and
SCC. However, we expect that, on
average, new facilities would require
only a modest SNCR removal efficiency
of 22 percent SNCR to meet this level
from the uncontrolled industry average
2.5 lb NOX/ton of clinker, which is well
within the range demonstrated for SNCR
control efficiency in this industry.
The third control level we evaluated
was 1.5 lb/ton of clinker, and was
established based on our assessment of
the best demonstrated performance
utilizing optimal process design,
including SCC, and SNCR taking into
account variability of such factors as the
burnability of raw material inputs,
which can affect NOX emissions. Data
on SNCR show a performance that
ranges from approximately 20 to 80
percent NOX reduction. Since NOX
levels of 1.62 to 1.97 lb/ton of clinker
are demonstrated for kilns using welldesigned SCC, a level of 1.5 lb/ton of
clinker would be easily achievable even
with SNCR removal efficiencies in the
lower range of demonstrated SNCR
performance. Generally, SNCR
performance (i.e., percentage removed)
increases as uncontrolled NOX levels
increase. For example, SNCR
performance in which a reagent was
injected into a flue gas at a temperature
of 1,800 °F, a 41 percent NOX removal
efficiency was obtained at 70 parts per
million (ppm); at 200 ppm the NOX
removal efficiency increased to 54
percent. We estimate that for an SNCR
with optimal injection configuration
and reagent injection rate, a 50 percent
NOX emission reduction represents a
reasonable level of performance of
SNCR over the long term. Although, as
noted above, we are projecting that new
kilns on average will have emissions of
2.5 lb/ton of clinker prior to the
application of add-on controls, there
may be some situations where specific
raw materials properties, such as those
affecting burnability, will result in
higher uncontrolled NOX emissions. For
this reason we assumed a maximum
baseline of 3.0 lb/ton of clinker and 50
percent emission reduction by SNCR to
establish a 1.5 lb/ton of clinker control
level. And where uncontrolled NOX
emission levels achieved by process
design are lower than the assumed
maximum baseline of 0.3 lb/ton of
clinker, the removal efficiency of SNCR
can be lower and still achieve the 1.5 lb/
ton of clinker limit. The levels of
performance for SNCR are from single
8 Memorandum from M. Bahner, RTI, to M.
Laney, RTI, and K. Barnett, EPA, Review of Three
BACT Analyses, October 10, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34079
test results. By allowing compliance on
a 30 day average, we are allowing more
operating margin to assure we have
accounted for normal operating
variability.
The results of this analysis showed
that for both the 1.95 and 1.5 lb/ton of
clinker levels, the capital costs for the
installation are the same, about $2.3
million. Annualized costs for the 1.95
level are $0.7 million and for the 1.5
level, $1.3 million. The annualized cost,
including operating and maintenance
costs, of control for the 1.5 level is
higher than the annualized cost for the
1.95 level because a higher reagent
injection rate would be required to
reach the lower limit. Overall cost
effectiveness at the 1.95 lb/ton of clinker
level was approximately $2,000 per ton
of NOX reduction and at the 1.5 lb/ton
of clinker level was approximately
$2,100 per ton of NOX reduction. This
level of cost effectiveness for both
options compares favorably with the
reference range of NOX control cost
effectiveness ($200 to $2,800)
considered highly cost effective in the
Clean Air Interstate Rule. See 70 FR
25208, May 12, 2005. Neither control
option results in non-air environmental
impacts. The energy impacts due to
electrical demand of the SNCR system
are not significant. Given the similarity
of the cost effectiveness of both options,
we are proposing the 1.5 lb/ton of
clinker level as BDT.
We also evaluated a control level of
0.5 lb/ton of clinker based on the
performance of SCR. SCR is the process
of adding ammonia or urea in the
presence of a catalyst to selectively
reduce NOX emissions from exhaust
gases and has been used extensively on
gas turbines, internal combustion
engines, and fossil fired-fired utility
boilers. The desired chemical reactions
are identical with SNCR and SCR.
However, SCR uses a catalyst, which
allows the reactions to occur at a lower
temperature. In SCR systems, ammonia
is typically injected to produce an
ammonia-to-NOX ratio of about 1.05 or
1.1 to 1 to achieve a NOX reduction of
80 to 90 percent with an ammonia slip
of 10 ppm. At a cement kiln, SCR can
be installed either after the PM control
device (a low-dust system) or before the
PM control device (a high-dust system).
As noted earlier, three cement kilns
have used SCR, all in Europe. Despite
the use of SCR on three kilns in Europe,
there are several uncertainties as to
whether they represent BDT. Of the
three kilns in Europe using SCR, two are
preheater kilns, and one kiln is a
Polysius Lepol technology kiln, which
is a traveling grate preheater kiln. None
of the kilns using SCR are preheater/
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
34080
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
precalciner kilns which are the only
type of kiln that will be built in the U.S.
Also, one of the European cement plants
has switched back to using its SNCR
system to compare the operational costs
of the two systems to evaluate which
technology is better and more
economical. Because the experience
with SCR on cement kilns is so limited,
issues have been raised on SCR
applicability to cement kilns. Because
the optimum operating temperature for
most SCR systems is between 600 and
750 °F, the ideal location of the SCR
system would be downstream of the
preheater cyclones and prior to the
roller mill, which is also prior to the PM
control device. This location results in
the SCR system operating in a high-dust
environment. One of the concerns with
this location is catalyst plugging and
fouling where the accumulation of dust
blocks access to the catalyst pores
resulting in reduced effectiveness and
shortened life span. Because of the
problem of catalyst plugging with highdust SCR systems, a catalyst cleaning
mechanism such as pressurized air
nozzles or sonic horns is necessary. For
more thorough cleaning, it is necessary
to periodically remove each individual
catalyst bed for cleaning using water or
other solvent solutions. The resulting
wastewater and solids generated during
this cleaning process must be properly
managed and disposed (an adverse nonair impact associated with this
technology’s use). To move exhaust
gases past or through the catalyst, there
will be an additional pressure drop that
may require that existing air-handling
equipment, such as fans and blowers, be
scaled up. Other concerns include the
oxidation of SO2 to SO3 by the SCR
catalyst, catalyst masking by CaSO4
formation and the generation of sulfuric
acid mist, formation of ammonium
sulfate which can foul downstream
equipment, and alkali poisoning of
catalysts and deactivation of catalyst.
Eventually, a catalyst will reach the end
of its useful life and need to be replaced
with new catalyst elements. If not
physically damaged, a catalyst can often
be regenerated. If not, it must be
properly managed and disposed. To
avoid the issue of plugging and fouling
created by a high dust environment, an
SCR can be located downstream of the
PM control device as a low-dust system.
The disadvantage of a low-dust system
is that the SCR system is no longer
located in a suitable temperature range
and the flue gas must be reheated at a
significant cost in order for the injected
ammonia to properly react with NOX in
the gas stream. Reheating is typically
accomplished using a natural gas
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
burner. While the emissions impact of a
gas burner would likely be minimal, the
amount of energy use would be in the
range of 500 to 600 billion Btu for a 1.2
million tpy kiln. If other less expensive
fuels are used (such as coal), then
emissions of other pollutants such as
PM and SO2 may increase.
EPA estimates the costs of installing
an SCR system to be $5.7 million in
capital cost and $3.1 million annualized
cost. The resulting average NOX
emissions reduction would be 1,200 tpy
over baseline, and the incremental NOX
reduction over the 1.5 lb/ton of clinker
control level would be 600 tpy. The
average cost effectiveness is
approximately $2,500 per ton and the
incremental cost effectiveness is
approximately $3,000 per ton of NOX
reduction. To determine the
reasonableness of this cost effectiveness,
we turned to the CAIR rule. Reference
cost effectiveness for NOX controls
ranged from $200 to $2,800 and, for
marginal cost effectiveness, $1,400 to
$3,000. Highly cost effective controls are
considered to be those whose cost
effectiveness tends toward the lower
ends of the reference range. A cost
effectiveness of $3,000 for SCR systems
on a cement kiln is at or just above the
range of average cost effectiveness. It
should also be noted that there is
considerable uncertainty in the SCR cost
estimates due to the technical issues
discussed above. If site specific factors
relating to the raw materials do cause
significant plugging and fouling, the
costs calculated above may be biased
low. In addition, SCR increases energy
use due to the pressure drop across the
catalyst, and as noted above, produces
liquid and solid wastes that must be
managed.
Considering these potential technical
operating difficulties with SCR in this
industry, somewhat high cost
effectiveness, the uncertainty of the
costs estimates, and adverse non-air and
energy implications, EPA is not
proposing SCR as BDT for portland
cement kilns. EPA solicits comment on
this issue.
We expect that all new kilns will be
required to install SNCR systems to
meet the 1.5 lb/ton of clinker NOX limit.
One concern with the use of SNCR is
the potential for condensable PM
emissions. As explained above, under
certain conditions the injected ammonia
reacts to form condensable fine PM that
is not captured by the fabric filter
because it is emitted as a gas. We are
requesting comments on the effect that
ammonia slip from use of SNCR might
have in the generation of condensable
PM emissions, and what actions, if any,
are available to mitigate those impacts.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4. SO2
In the previous NSPS review, we
declined to set SO2 standards because
there were no demonstrated add-on SO2
control technologies applied to cement
kilns (53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988).
Since that time at least two SO2 control
technologies have been applied to
cement kilns, wet scrubbers and lime
injection. The proposed emission limit
is based on a review of recent BACT
determinations and emissions test data
and takes into account the inherent
scrubbing ability of the naturally
alkaline raw materials used in the
cement-manufacturing process (70 FR
72337, December 2, 2005).
In a cement kiln, SO2 comes from two
sources. The first is sulfur in the coal
fuel (fuel SO2). Most fuel SO2 mixes
with lime in the kiln and preheater and
is not emitted into the atmosphere. The
other and potentially more important
source of SO2 is the raw materials (raw
materials SO2). Sulfides or elemental
sulfur in the raw materials may be
oxidized to SO2 in the kiln system
where sufficient oxygen is present.
Through the inherent scrubbing ability
of the alkaline raw materials, this SO2
is partially removed in the raw mill (50
to 70 percent removal). Raw mills
typically operate about 90 percent of the
time when the kiln is operating.
For most portland cement plants, the
levels of sulfur in raw materials are low
enough that most of the SO2 generated
is removed by the natural scrubbing
action of the kiln raw feed. However, in
those instances where the sulfur content
of raw materials is great due to the
presence of pyritic sulfur, uncontrolled
SO2 emissions can be significant. Addon controls may be necessary in those
situations.
Cement kilns faced with high SO2
emissions due to high sulfur levels in
raw materials have used either wet
scrubbers or lime injection for SO2
emission control. Wet scrubbers applied
to cement kilns typically achieve at least
a 90 percent or more reduction in SO2
emissions.9 A recently installed
scrubber on a cement plant with high
uncontrolled SO2 emissions due to highsulfur raw materials was designed to
achieve a 95 reduction in SO2
emissions.10 A 95 percent SO2 reduction
is consistent with other information on
the performance of scrubbers for SO2
removal.11 Assuming the wet scrubber is
correctly sized (typically a liquid-to-gas
9 Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and
Lime Injection Design and Performance Data, May
2, 2008.
10 PSD Application for Lehigh Mason City, 9/02.
11 Assessment of Control Technology Options for
BART-Eligible Sources, March 2005.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
ratio of 30 gallons per 1,000 actual cubic
feet per minute), the percent removal
can vary based on inlet concentration
(higher inlet concentrations result in a
higher percent reduction) and scrubber
pH.
Lime injection consists of injecting
lime into a duct downstream of the
preheater, or in some cases injecting
lime into the first two preheater stages
to remove SO2. At some facilities lime
injection is only used when increases on
SO2 emission above a specified level are
detected, such as when the raw mill is
down. The percent reduction in SO2
emissions is a function of the inlet SO2
concentrations and lime injection rates.
Increasing either increases the percent
reduction in SO2 emissions. Dry lime
systems can reportedly achieve an SO2
emissions reduction of up to
approximately 70 to 75 percent, though
one vendor claims potential reductions
of up to 90 percent.12 We evaluated
three control options using three levels
of uncontrolled SO2 emissions: low,
moderate and high uncontrolled SO2
emissions. For examples of kilns with
low uncontrolled sulfur emissions, we
considered kilns operating in the State
of Florida. Low uncontrolled sulfur
emissions are typical of preheater/
precalciner kilns operating in Florida
due to the very low amounts of sulfur
in most of the available limestone.13
While making a determination that SO2
emissions of 0.20 lb/ton of clinker is
BACT, Florida State officials expect
actual emission levels of 0.01 to 0.05 lb/
ton of clinker as a result of the use of
these low sulfur raw materials and self
scrubbing of fuel SO2 by finely divided
lime in the kiln and calciner.14
As noted above, high uncontrolled
SO2 emissions can occur when pyritic
sulfur is present in the raw materials
and SO2 emissions are left uncontrolled.
Where such cases have occurred, add-on
controls have been used to reduce SO2
emissions. Uncontrolled SO2 emissions
of about 5,000 tpy were reported from
a preheater/precalciner kiln where a wet
scrubber was recently being added.15 At
a reported production capacity of
800,000 tpy,16 uncontrolled SO2
12 Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and
Lime Injection Design and Performance Data, May
2, 2008.
13 Technical Evaluation, Preliminary
Determination, Draft BACT Determination, Sumter
Cement Company. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, December 21, 2005.
14 Technical Evaluation, Preliminary
Determination, Draft BACT Determination, Sumter
Cement Company. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, December 21, 2005.
15 PSD Application for Lehigh Mason City, 9/02.
16 PCA, U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement
Industry, Plant Information Summary, December
31, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
emissions would be about 13 lb/ton of
clinker. This is considered
representative of a high uncontrolled
SO2 emission level. A moderate
uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of 1.3
lb/ton of clinker was selected and was
based on the average of 18 data points
for tested NSPS facilities.17
All of the SO2 emission levels
discussed above are based on long term
average performance, typically 30 days.
New cement kilns with SO2 emission
limits typically have continuous SO2
monitors. In reviewing CEM data we
noted that the averaging period affects
the achievable SO2 emission level.
Longer averaging periods result in lower
average SO2 levels (since variability
tends to be averaged out with multiple
measurements over time).
The first control option we considered
was no additional control of SO2 other
than the inherent control achieved by
the kiln and the raw mill. State BACT
determinations usually identify inherent
SO2 removal as BACT (reflecting that
most of these kilns are located in areas
with low sulfur raw materials).
Although many kilns have low sulfur
emissions, the obvious deficiency of this
option is that some kilns would have
moderate or high uncontrolled
emissions of SO2, due to the presence of
pyritic sulfur in their raw materials,
which emissions would be readily
controllable with air pollution control
equipment which in fact is usually
required in such instances.
The second option considered was
1.33 lb/ton of clinker based on a recent
BACT determination level for a kiln
where uncontrolled SO2 emission levels
were sufficiently high that an alkaline
wet scrubber was installed to reduce
SO2 emissions. This option, and the
additional numerical limits discussed
below are based on continuous
compliance with a 30-day rolling
average as measured using an SO2
continuous emissions monitor. The
third option of 0.4 lb/ton of clinker
represents the performance of a lime
injection system applied to a kiln with
a moderate level of sulfur in its raw
materials. The fourth level evaluated
was 0.2 lb/ton of clinker which was
based on the lowest uncontrolled SO2
permit levels from recent BACT
determinations, and represents a level
where moderate and high sulfur kilns
will require the use of a wet scrubber for
SO2 control. Several kilns in Florida are
permitted at this level where very small
17 Memorandum, E. Heath, RTI, to J. Wood,
EPA:OAQPS:ESD:MICG, April 9, 1996, Summary of
impacts of control options on model kilns and
clinker coolers. Item no. II–B–67, Docket no. A–92–
53.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34081
amounts of sulfur are present in the raw
materials.
We are proposing a limit for new kilns
of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or alternatively,
a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction
measured across the control device,
such as an alkaline scrubber.18 The
alternative of 90 percent reduction is to
account of situation where the sulfur
content of the raw materials is so high
that, even with the most efficient SO2
control, a kiln cannot meet the 1.33 lb/
ton of clinker emissions limit. Design
and performance data indicate the 90
percent control is continuously
achievable for a well designed and
operated wet scrubber.19 Compliance
with the 90 percent reduction would be
determined by continuously monitoring
SO2 at the control device inlet and
outlet. Continuous monitoring of SO2 at
the inlet and outlet is a positive
demonstration that the standard is being
continuously met.
We estimate that reducing high
uncontrolled SO2 emissions to a level of
1.33 lb/ton of clinker results in a $28
million capital cost, an annual cost of $5
million, and a cost effectiveness of less
than $1,000 per ton of SO2 removal.20
We consider this level of cost
effectiveness to be reasonable as it falls
at the lower end of the range of
reference cost effectiveness for SO2
emission controls considered to be
‘‘highly cost effective’’ (for purposes of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) in the CAIR
rule). See 70 FR 25204 (May 12, 2005).
Under this option, only kilns with
moderate or high uncontrolled SO2
emission levels would likely need to
install add-on controls. There are
currently only five kilns out of 178 kilns
in the U.S. where uncontrolled SO2
emission levels required the addition of
a wet scrubber. We estimate
conservatively in costing this option
that over the 5-year period following
promulgation of these amendments, one
out of every five new kilns would have
uncontrolled SO2 emission levels
sufficient to warrant the use of a
scrubber to reduce SO2 emissions to the
level of 1.33 lb/ton of clinker or,
alternatively, demonstrate a 90 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions.
We rejected Options 3 and 4 because
they would have resulted in cement
kilns with moderate uncontrolled SO2
emission levels having to apply add-on
18 Section 111(b) specifically indicates that
standards may be expressed as numerical limits or
as percent reductions.
19 Summary of Cement Kiln Wet Scrubber and
Lime Injection Design and Performance Data, May
29, 2008.
20 Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts
of Proposed Revisions to Portland Cement New
Source Performance Standards, May 29, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
34082
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
controls, either dry lime sprayers at a
cost of approximately $6,000 per ton of
SO2 reduction under Option 3 or a wet
scrubber at a cost of approximately
$6,700 per ton of SO2 reduction under
Option 4. (see footnote 20) Not only do
these options result in a higher cost per
ton of SO2 reduction than Option 2, but
Options 3 and 4 would not be likely to
achieve any significant additional SO2
emission reductions over Option 2 for
kilns emitting high uncontrolled levels
of SO2 because Option 2 already
represents a 90 percent emission
reduction control for high sulfur raw
materials.
The proposed SO2 emissions limit of
1.33 lb/ton of clinker should not result
in any non-air environmental impacts.
Liquid waste from the scrubber can be
dewatered and returned to the process.
The resulting solids (gypsum) can be
added to the clinker to produce cement.
In cases where lime injection is used,
the lime solids will be mixed in with
the collected PM and returned to the
process. There will be an energy impact
as a result of increased electrical
requirements to operate the control
devices and, in the case of a wet
scrubber, increased energy to operate
the induced draft fans to overcome the
wet scrubber pressure drop. These
increases in energy use will be minimal
compared to total kiln electrical energy
demands.
Currently only five kilns, or less than
3 percent of all kilns, are using wet
scrubbers to control SO2 emissions.
Since most new kilns will undoubtedly
be located at existing cement plants
where the amount of sulfur in limestone
raw materials currently being used is
low resulting in low uncontrolled SO2
emissions, they will likely achieve the
proposed standard without the need for
add-on air pollution controls. For the
few new greenfield kilns that will be
built, the presence or absence of pyritic
sulfur limestone, which can result in
high uncontrolled SO2 emissions, can be
factored into any site selection
decisions. The effect of the proposed
limit will ensure that the typical
performance of BDT control systems
today is achieved for future affected
kilns in those situations where the
presence of pyritic sulfur raw materials
would otherwise result in high
uncontrolled SO2 emissions.
5. VOC/CO
We are not proposing to establish
limits for CO or volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from
cement kilns. VOC emissions from new
cement kilns will mainly result from
organics in the raw materials. Organic
constituents in the raw materials can be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
driven off in the kiln preheater prior to
reaching temperature zone that would
result in combustion. All new cement
kilns are currently subject to a
continuous 20 parts per million volume
(ppmv) total hydrocarbon (THC)
emissions limit—THC serving as a
surrogate for non-dioxin HAP—by the
Portland Cement NESHAP. See 71 FR
76530, December 20, 2006. Because
most of the THC are also VOC, the THC
limit also limits VOC, and serves as the
baseline for the NSPS analysis. This
limit is based on the best performance
of the regenerative thermal oxidizer
add-on control, which is the most
effective VOC emission control available
for this source category. Therefore we
determined that no additional
regulation of VOC emissions is feasible.
EPA is currently reconsidering the
Portland Cement NESHAP THC limit
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
CAA. See 71 FR 76553, December 20,
2006. However, based on the
information currently available to us,
there is no reason to assume that the
THC limit after reconsideration will not
still represent BDT for this source
category.
Emissions of CO can come from two
sources, unburned fuel from the
precalciner and CO evolved from the
raw materials by the same mechanism
as the THC emissions. Unburned fuel
represents an economic loss to the
facility. Therefore, new precalciners are
designed to combust fuel as efficiently
as possible, and CO emissions from fuel
combustion are minimized, regardless of
any potential emission limit.
Emissions of CO evolved from raw
materials can be significant if there are
substantial levels of organics in the raw
material. The only control technology
identified to reduce CO emissions is a
regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO)
(which also would concurrently reduce
any VOC emissions, as just discussed).
However, as is the case for VOC,
facilities with moderate or high levels of
organic materials in the feed would emit
THC at levels high enough that THC
control would be required under the
Portland Cement NESHAP. Therefore,
the THC limit in the Portland Cement
NESHAP also serves as the baseline of
the CO analysis. As previously noted,
the THC limit is based on the best
performance of the regenerative thermal
oxidizer add-on control, which is also
the most effective CO emission control
available for this source category.
Therefore we determined that no
additional regulation of CO emissions is
feasible.
We also noted that in no cases had
add-on controls for CO (or VOC) been
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
required as BACT under new source
review.
B. How is EPA proposing to amend the
testing requirements?
Subpart F currently requires PCP to
conduct an initial performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the PM
emission limits. There is no requirement
for repeat performance tests. Under the
proposed amendments, new kilns
would be required to conduct repeat
performance tests every 5 years
following the initial performance test, as
is done for compliance with the MACT
standard for PM for kilns at major
sources (64 FR 31903, June 14, 1999),
and existing kilns subject to the NSPS
would be required to begin testing every
five years. We are also requiring existing
kilns subject to the NSPS to begin
testing every 5 years. We do not see this
as a substantive change because the
majority of kilns already have a similar
testing requirement under the Portland
Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR 63, subpart
LLL.
There are no NOX or SO2 compliance
testing requirements; compliance is
based on the use of a continuous
emissions monitor (see below).
C. How is EPA proposing to amend the
monitoring requirements?
We are proposing the use of a bag leak
detection (BLD) system on fabric filters
used to control PM emissions from new
kilns and clinker coolers. We believe the
use of BLD systems would be more
effective in ensuring ongoing
compliance with the PM limit than the
current stack opacity limit in the current
NSPS. Consequently, affected facilities
under this rule would not be subject to
an opacity standard to monitor
compliance with the proposed PM
standard. Bag leak detection systems
must be installed and operated
according to the proposed § 60.63(f)
requirements. If a new facility installs
an ESP we are proposing to require use
of an ESP predictive model to determine
compliance. As with use of a bag leak
detector, no opacity standard would
apply.
As an option, we are allowing a
facility to install a PM CEMS in lieu of
using a BDL or using an ESP predictive
model. If a facility elects this option, the
PM CEMS should be installed and
operated in accordance with proposed
§ 60.63(g).
For existing sources that are currently
subject to the NSPS, we are also
providing an option to install a BLD to
monitor compliance with the PM
standard. We are also providing an
option for any source subject to the
NSPS PM limit to install a PM
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
continuous monitoring system (PM
CEMS). For any source that installs a
BLD or PM CEMS, the opacity standard
would no longer apply.21
For all emission sources other than
the kiln and clinker cooler that are
subject to the 10 percent opacity
standard, we are requiring that they
meet the monitoring requirements for
these sources contained in the Portland
Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLL.
Under the proposed amendments,
compliance with the emission limits for
NOX and SO2 would be determined
using continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS). This requirement is
consistent with recent State permit
requirements that require continuous
monitoring for NOX and SO2.
Requirements for the installation,
operation, and calibration of each CEM,
including minimum data requirements
are specified in proposed § 60.63(k) and
(l). Kilns meeting the alternative SO2
emission limit of 90 percent reduction
would also be required to continuously
monitor SO2 emissions at the scrubber
inlet. The cost impacts shown in the
preamble include all monitoring costs.
(see footnote 20)
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
D. Why are we not proposing to revise
the other emission limits in the NSPS?
The proposed revisions to the
emission limits cover only the cement
kiln and clinker cooler. The current
NSPS also limits emissions from
materials handling operations. These
operations are potential emitters of PM,
but do not emit other criteria pollutants.
Emissions from materials handling
points are typically fugitive emissions,
though in some cases emissions are
captured and exhausted through a stack.
The current opacity limit for these
operations is 10 percent. We considered
the possibility of setting a lower limit,
but we do not have data to indicate that
a lower limit is achievable or whether
costs associated with a lower opacity
limit are reasonable. We currently have
no data to indicate that the current level
is not what is being achieved in
practice. We are requesting comment
and any available data addressing
capability, if any, to further reduce
opacity and, if lower limits are feasible,
what the associated costs would be.
E. What other changes are being
proposed?
As previously noted, cement kilns are
potentially subject to both the NSPS and
the Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR
21 Note that we are not proposing to change the
requirements in paragraph § 60.63(b). These
requirements are in the proposed § 60.63(b)(1)(i)
and are reprinted as a convenience to the reader.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
part 63, subpart LLL). In § 63.1356 of
subpart LLL, we exempt any source
subject to that subpart from applicable
standards under the NSPS and the
Metallic Minerals Processing NSPS
(subpart OOO). That language was
appropriate because the NSPS only
regulated PM, and the PM limits in the
NSPS and NESHAP were identical. This
is no longer the case. As a result, we are
proposing to insert language in both the
NSPS and the NESHAP to state that
when there are emissions standards for
a specific pollutant that apply to an
affected sources in both the NESHAP
and the NSPS, the source should
comply with the most stringent limit,
and is not subject to the less stringent
limit.
F. What is EPA’s sector-based approach
and how is it relevant to this
rulemaking?
In the National Academy of Science’s
2004 report, ‘‘Air Quality Management
in the United States,’’ the National
Research Council (NRC) recommended
to EPA that standard setting, planning
and control strategy development be
based on integrated assessments that
consider multiple pollutants and those
integrated assessments be conducted in
a comprehensive and coordinated
manner. With these recommendations,
EPA began to move towards establishing
multi-pollutant and sector-based
approaches to managing emissions and
air quality. These sector-based
approaches essentially expand technical
analyses on costs and benefits of
particular technologies, and interactions
of rules that regulate sources within
facilities. The benefit of multi-pollutant
and sector-based analyses and
approaches include the ability to
identify optimum strategies, considering
feasibility, costs, and benefits across all
pollutant types—criteria, toxics and
others—while streamlining
administrative and compliance
complexities and reducing conflicting
and redundant requirements. With these
recommendations, EPA’s intent is to
move toward multi-pollutant and sectorbased approaches in managing
emissions and air quality. One of the
many ways we can address sector-based
approaches is by reviewing multiple
regulatory programs together when ever
possible. This approach should result in
added certainty and easier
implementation of control strategies for
the sector under consideration.
Multiple regulatory requirements
currently apply to the cement industry
sector. In an effort to facilitate sectorbased approaches for the cement
industry, EPA analyzed the interactions
between the NSPS under review here
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34083
and other regulatory requirements for
portland cement facilities currently
under review and/or reconsideration.
The requirements analyzed would affect
HAP and/or criteria pollutant emissions
from cement kilns and comprise the
NSPS, NESHAP reconsideration for
mercury (Hg) and THC, area source
NESHAP, and NESHAP technology
review and residual risk. The results of
our analyses are described below.
The first interaction is the
relationship between the NSPS VOC–
CO standard and the NESHAP THC
standard discussed above. As explained
there, the 20 ppmv THC limit for new
sources in the NESHAP will also control
VOC and CO to the limit of technical
feasibility.
Another interaction relates to the
more stringent PM emission limit under
NSPS and the PM emissions limit for
new sources under the NESHAP. We are
proposing a limit of 0.086 lb/ton of
clinker as compared to the current new
source PM limit in the NESHAP of 0.5
lb/ton of clinker (0.3 lb/ton of feed).
This results in a situation where the
MACT PM emissions limit for new
sources is higher (less stringent) than
the NSPS emissions limit. As a result,
EPA will consider whether or not we
should address the PM standard in the
NESHAP as part of the ongoing
reconsideration. At a minimum, and as
just explained, we are proposing to
place language in both the NESHAP and
the NSPS making it clear that if a
particular source has two different
requirements for the same pollutant,
they should comply with the most
stringent emission limit, and are not
subject to the less stringent limit.
The proposed NSPS PM limit also has
implications for the PM limit for area
sources under the NESHAP. We
currently have a requirement to extend
the PM limit in the NESHAP to kilns
located at area sources in order to meet
our requirements to subject to regulation
area sources accounting for 90 percent
of the emissions of the HAP identified
in our Urban Air Toxics Strategy.22
Having a different limit for kilns under
NESHAP and NSPS has implications for
the appropriate PM level to apply to
new kilns located at area sources under
the NESHAP.
Another issue being addressed as part
of our cement sector strategy is
condensable PM. There are insufficient
data to assess if the cement industry is
a significant source of condensable PM.
The measurement of condensable PM is
important to EPA’s goal of reducing
22 Memo from K. Barnett, EPA to Sharon Nizich,
EPA. Extension of Portland Cement NESHAP PM
limits to Area Sources. May 2008.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
34084
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ambient air concentrations of fine PM.
While the Agency supports reducing
condensable PM emissions, the amount
of condensable PM captured by Method
5 (the PM compliance test method
specified in the NSPS) is small relative
to methods that specifically target
condensable PM, such as Method 202
(40 CFR part 51, Appendix M). (It
should be noted that all of the PM data
previously discussed is based on the
front half of the Method 5 train, so it
does not include any condensable PM).
Since promulgation of Method 202 in
1991, EPA has been working to
overcome problems associated with the
accuracy of Method 202 and will
promulgate improvements to the
method in the future. In order to assist
in future sector strategy development,
we are specifically requesting comment
on the levels of condensable PM emitted
by the cement industry; any
condensable PM emission test data
collected using EPA Conditional
Method 39, EPA Method 202 (40 CFR
part 51, Appendix M), or their
equivalent, factors affecting those
condensable PM emissions, and
potential controls.
In addition to the current regulatory
efforts, we are required under CAA
section 112(f) to evaluate the residual
risk for toxic air pollutants emitted by
this source category and to perform a
technology review for this source
category under section 112(d)(6). As we
consider any changes in the PM limits
under MACT and generally available
control technology (GACT), we will also
consider the implication these may have
in developing future requirements
under residual risk and technology
review.
Another interaction with implications
for the co-control of mercury is the
proposed SO2 standard under the NSPS.
As described above, the proposed
standard for SO2 control is 1.33 lb/ton
of clinker, or in the alternative,
demonstration of a 90 percent SO2
emissions reduction measured across
the control device, such as an alkaline
scrubber. Under the NESHAP
reconsideration, EPA may amend the
MACT standard for Hg for new and
existing sources. A facility that is
considering adding a new source that
may be subject to SO2 add-on control
requirements will have to consider the
interaction of their choice of SO2 and
mercury controls. For example, a facility
that determines a moderate level of SO2
reduction would meet the SO2 emission
limit (i.e. 70 percent or less) might
consider using a lime injection system
because it is lower cost. However, if the
same facility would have to use some
type of add-on control to meet the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
current new source Hg emission limit of
41 micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter (ug/dscm), then the cheapest
overall alternative might be to use a wet
scrubber for control of both SO2 and
mercury.
In general, we will ensure that our
rulemaking recognizes that where
monitoring is required, methods and
reporting requirements should be
consistent in the NSPS and NESHAP
where the pollutants and emission
sources have similar characteristics. As
an example, we are proposing to add a
requirement to the NSPS that a PM
emissions compliance test on the kiln
and clinker cooler be done every five
years, as is currently required in the
Portland Cement NESHAP for major
sources, and we are incorporating the
Portland Cement NESHAP monitoring
requirements for sources other than
kilns and clinker coolers into the NSPS.
In order to better analyze future
sector-based approaches for the U.S.
cement industry, EPA is developing a
dynamic techno-economic model of this
industry. Using this model, EPA will be
able to analyze emission reduction
strategies for multiple pollutants, while
taking into account plant-level
economic and technical factors such as
the type of kiln, associated capacity,
location, cost of production, applicable
controls and costs. For each of the
emission reduction strategies under
consideration, the model will be able to
provide information on optimal (least
cost) industry operation and costeffective controls, to meet the demand
for cement and the emission reduction
requirements over the time period of
interest. More information on the model
can be found in the rulemaking docket.
We welcome comments and
suggestions related to the potential uses
of our techno-economic model as well
in the interaction of this proposed NSPS
and other regulatory requirements in the
context of the sector-based
considerations described above.
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
announced by the Administrator on
March 27, 2008.
G. How is EPA addressing greenhouse
gas emissions from the portland cement
industry?
While CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
permits EPA, under appropriate
circumstances, to add new standards of
performance for additional pollutants
concurrent with the 8-year review of
existing standards, we are not at this
time proposing performance standards
for greenhouse gases (GHG) from cement
kilns. Rather, for the reasons recently
explained in the petroleum refineries
NSPS final rule signed on April 30,
2008, we believe that it is appropriate to
consider issues related to the regulation
of GHGs under the CAA through the
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The proposed PM emission limit
represents a lowering of the PM
emission limit from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker
production to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker.
Out review of the performance of
recently installed fabric filters indicates
that typical new kiln PM emissions are
approximately 0.16 lb/ton of clinker
rather than 0.5 lb/ton of clinker, the
current NSPS limit. We estimate that the
PM reduction per kiln as a result of the
proposed PM emissions limits will be
44 tpy based on our 1.2 million tpy
model kiln, and 888 tpy nationally in
the fifth year after promulgation of the
standard. We estimate 45 percent (400
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
In setting standards, the CAA requires
us to consider alternative emission
control approaches, taking into account
the estimated costs as well as impacts
on energy, solid waste, and other effects.
We request comment on whether we
have identified the appropriate
alternatives and whether the proposed
standards adequately take into
consideration the incremental effects in
terms of emission reductions, energy,
and other effects. We will consider the
available information in developing the
final rule.
We are presenting estimates of the
impacts for the proposed amendments
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart F that change
the performance standards. The cost,
environmental, and economic impacts
presented in this section are expressed
as incremental differences between the
impacts of PCP complying with the
proposed subpart F revisions and the
baseline. The impacts are presented for
new PCP affected facilities that
commence construction, reconstruction,
or modification over the 5 years
following promulgation of the revised
NSPS. The analyses and the documents
referenced below can be found in
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–
0877.
In order to determine the incremental
impacts of this proposed rule, we first
estimated the number of new kilns that
will begin operation over the 5-year
period following promulgation of the
final amendments. We estimate that 20
new kilns will be subject to the
proposed amendments by the end of the
5th year after promulgation of the
amendments representing
approximately 24 million tpy of clinker
capacity. (see footnote 20)
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
tpy) of the estimated PM reduction is
PM fine.
Under the proposed limit for NOX, we
have estimated that the emission
reduction for our 1.2 million tpy model
kiln would be 600 tpy. The projected
national emissions reduction 5 years
after promulgation of the final standards
will be 12,000 tpy.
Under the proposed limit for SO2, we
estimated that a new kiln processing
raw materials containing high levels of
sulfur would be required to install an
alkaline scrubber in order to comply
with the proposed limit. For our model
kiln, emissions of SO2 would be
reduced by 7,410 tpy where high sulfur
raw materials are being processed. We
estimated that during the 5 years
following promulgation of the final
standard, four new kilns are expected to
be required to install an alkaline
scrubber to meet the proposed SO2
emission limit. The national emissions
reduction 5 years after promulgation of
the final standards will be 29,640 tpy.
This national emissions reduction may
be less than estimated above if some
kilns that would have to control SO2 as
a result of this proposed rule are
required to apply wet scrubbers as a
result of the current mercury emission
requirements in the Portland Cement
NESHAP (see further discussion in the
cost impacts section).
Under the proposed standards, new
monitoring requirements would be
added. Bag leak detectors would be
required on fabric filters used to control
new kilns and clinker coolers, and NOX
and SO2 CEMS would be installed to
monitor compliance of new kilns with
the new NOX and SO2 emission limits.
As a result of the shortened duration of
excess emissions with the improved
monitoring requirements we estimate
potential excess emission reductions of
12.38 tpy for PM, 5.57 tpy for PM2.5, 108
tpy for NOX, and 9.36 tpy for SO2. For
further detail on the methodology of
these estimates, see Docket ID no. EPA–
HQ–OAR–07–0877.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
B. What are the water quality impacts?
No water quality impacts for the
proposed amendments are anticipated.
The requirements for new sources that
might result in the use of alkaline
scrubber to control SO2 will produce a
scrubber slurry liquid waste stream.
However, as noted above, we assume
the scrubber slurry produced will be
dewatered and added back into the
cement-making process as gypsum.
Water from the dewatering process will
be recycled back to the scrubber.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
C. What are the solid waste impacts?
The potential for solid waste impacts
are associated with greater PM control
for new kilns and solids resulting from
solids in scrubber slurry water. Little or
no solid waste is expected from the
generation of scrubber slurry because (as
just explained for the scrubber water) it
is assumed that the slurry will be
dewatered and the solids added back to
the process as gypsum to make cement.
The PM captured in the kiln fabric filter
(cement kiln dust) is essentially recaptured raw material and is recycled
back to the kiln. Where equipped with
an alkali bypass, captured PM is
typically disposed of as solid waste. An
alkali bypass is not required on all kilns.
Where one is present, the amount of
solid waste generated from the alkali
bypass is minimal, usually about 1
percent of total cement kiln dust
captured in control devices, because the
bypass gas stream is a small percentage
of total kiln exhaust gas flow and the
bypass gas stream does not contact the
feed stream in the raw mill. (see
footnote 1)
D. What are the secondary impacts?
Indirect or secondary air quality
impacts include impacts that would
result from the increased electricity
usage associated with the operation of
control devices (e.g., increased
secondary emissions of criteria
pollutants from power plants) as well as
water quality and solid waste impacts
that would occur as a result of these
proposed revisions (which are minimal,
as just discussed). We estimate that
these proposed revisions would increase
emissions of pollutants from utility
boilers that supply electricity to the
portland cement facilities. We estimate
increase energy demand associated with
the installation of scrubbers to control
SO2 emissions. These increases are
estimated to be 108 tpy of NOX, 56 tpy
of CO, 185 tpy of SO2 and about 5 tpy
of PM at the end of the 5th year after
promulgation. The increase in
electricity usage for the pumps used in
the SNCR system to deliver reagent to
the kiln are negligible.
E. What are the energy impacts?
Energy impacts consist of the
electricity needed to operate control
devices and other equipment that would
likely be utilized to comply with the
proposed standards. This proposal will
likely result in the addition of alkaline
scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce SO2
emissions. We estimate the additional
national electrical demand to be 48
million kWhr per year by the end of the
5th year.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34085
F. What are the cost impacts?
Under the proposed amendments, the
cost for new kilns are based on the use
of NOX and SO2 continuous emissions
monitors, bag leak detectors, SNCR for
NOX control, and membrane bags in
fabric filters. We estimate that four of
the twenty new kilns will also need to
install a wet scrubber to meet the
proposed SO2 emissions limits (based
on our estimates of where the plants
will be located and the sulfur content of
the limestone in those areas). The total
capital cost per kiln is estimated to be
$3,900,000 kilns that are not required to
install wet scrubbers and $32,000,000
for kilns that are required to install wet
scrubbers. The cumulative capital cost
in the fifth year is estimated to be
$190,000,000. The estimated total
annualized cost per new kiln will be
$1,500,000 for kilns that do not install
wet scrubbers and $6,400,000 for those
that do install wet scrubbers. National
annualized costs will be $50,000,000.
The national costs shown above are
considered to be a conservative estimate
because they do not include the
potential impact of requirements for
new sources in the Portland Cement
NESHAP, which limits mercury
emission form new kilns to 41
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter (See 71 FR 76518). In this final
rule we estimated that seven of the new
cement kilns expected in the next five
years will need to install a wet scrubber
to meet the mercury emissions limit,
and we assessed the costs of those
scrubbers as part of our analysis of the
NESHAP. There are no data to
positively determine if the four cement
kilns we project here as needing wet
scrubbers to meet the proposed SO2
emissions limit are among the seven
kilns we projected as needing wet
scrubbers to meet the mercury limit in
the NESHAP. However, the available
mercury test data for cement kilns that
currently have wet scrubbers indicate
that all five of these kilns, if they were
new sources, would have to apply
mercury controls to meet the current
mercury limit in the Portland Cement
NESHAP. These kilns are also located in
areas where the raw materials sulfur
content is high enough that, if they were
new sources, they would also have to
apply controls to meet the proposed
NSPS SO2 emissions limit. Based on
this, we believe it is reasonable to
assume there will be some overlap, and
the national costs for the proposed
NSPS, emissions reductions, and energy
impacts will be reduced.
We are requesting comment on the
size of model kiln used to assess the
cost impacts shown above, our growth
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
34086
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
estimates, and the control cost
estimates, including any appropriate
cost credits for replacement of
purchased gypsum with synthetic
gypsum produced by wet scrubbers.
G. What are the economic impacts?
This proposal affects certain new and
reconstructed/ modified affected
facilities found at PCP as defined earlier
in this preamble. We performed an
economic impact analysis that estimates
changes in prices and output for
portland cement manufacturing
nationally using the annual compliance
costs estimated for this proposal. All
estimates are for the fifth year after
promulgation since this is the year for
which the compliance cost impacts are
estimated.
Existing data on planned capacity
expansions suggests 20 new kilns will
be constructed in the next 5 years. (see
footnote 1) EPA estimates up to four of
these kilns may use high sulfur raw
materials while the remaining 16 will
likely use moderate or low sulfur raw
materials.
The engineering cost analysis suggests
new kiln using high sulfur raw materials
could potentially spend up to $6.4
million dollars per year to meet the
selected control options for NOX, SO2,
and PM (see Table 2 of this preamble).
The average cost per ton of capacity is
approximately $5. In contrast, new kilns
using moderate or low sulfur raw
materials could potentially spend $1.5
million dollars per year. The average
cost per ton of capacity is approximately
$1.
TABLE 2.—MODEL PLANT COSTS
[Clinker Capacity = 1.1 million metric tons per year]
Number of kilns
(5-year period)
Kiln type
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
High sulfur raw materials ...........................................................................................
Moderate or low sulfur raw materials ........................................................................
The USGS reports that the real price
of cement per metric ton (2005 dollars)
has typically ranged between $75 and
$100 since 1990. For high sulfur raw
material kilns, this implies a sales test
ratio between 5 to 7 percent. For
moderate/low sulfur raw material kilns,
the sales test ratio is one to two percent.
From 2000 to 2006, the Portland Cement
Association (PCA, 2007) reports that the
average operating profit rates for the
industry ranged from 17 to 21 percent.
If this profit data is representative of
operating profit rates for new kilns, new
kilns using high sulfur content raw
materials could potentially have
significantly reduced operating profits.
As a result, companies may have the
incentive to look for less expensive
alternatives to meet the SO2 emission
standards (e.g. lower sulfur content
materials or technologies other than wet
scrubbers). Although anecdotal
evidence suggests these opportunities
exist, EPA does not currently have
sufficient information to do a formal
evaluation of these alternatives.
We also considered potential marketlevel changes in prices and
consumption for multiple geographic
markets anticipating entry of new kilns.
The sales tests suggest long run cement
price changes could range from one to
seven percent, depending on the actual
baseline market cement price and the
type of kiln entering the market.
Applying EPA’s econometric estimate of
the cement demand elasticity (-0.88) to
these price changes, cement
consumption could potentially fall
between one to six percent.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
4
16
For more information, please refer to
the economic impact analysis report
that is in the docket for this proposed
rule.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because
it may raise novel legal or policy issues.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to OMB for review under Executive
Order 12866, and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information requirements in the
proposed amendments have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by
EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number
2307.01.
The proposed amendments to the
NSPS for portland cement plants apply
to affected facilities constructed,
modified, or reconstructed after June 16,
2008. The owner or operator of a new
kiln would be required to keep daily
records of clinker production, conduct
an initial performance test and repeat
performance tests (PM), install and
operate bag leak detection systems or
PM CEMS for fabric filters used to meet
the PM emission limit, and operate NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Total annualized
costs
($ million)
$6.4
1.5
New source
unit cost
($/metric ton
of capacity)
$5
1
and SO2 CEMS. These requirements are
based on the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the NSPS
General Provisions (40 CFR part 60,
subpart A) which are mandatory for all
operators subject to new source
performance standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized
by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to EPA policies
set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The annual burden for this
information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to
total 4,428 labor-hours per year at a cost
of $416,179 per year. The annualized
capital costs are estimated at $59,035
per year and operation and maintenance
costs are estimated at $73,852 per year.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established
a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0877.
Submit any comments related to the ICR
for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to
OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after June 16, 2008, a comment to
OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by July 16,
2008. The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact
of this rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
whose parent company has no more
than 750 employees (as defined by
Small Business Administration (SBA)
size standards); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impact of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
We estimate that up to 7 of the 44
existing PCP are small entities which
would not incur any impacts under
these proposed amendments unless an
affected facility is constructed,
modified, or reconstructed. Based on
our economic analysis, 20 new kilns
may be constructed during the next five
years. One of these kilns may be
operated by a PCP that is classified as
small entities according to the SBA
small business size standards. Of these
20 kilns, this small entity is expected to
incur an annualized compliance cost of
between 1.0 and 2.0 percent of sales to
comply with the proposed action.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
Although this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities by
selection proposed emission level based
on highly cost effective controls and
specifying monitoring requirements that
are the minimum to insure compliance.
In the case where there are overlapping
standards between this NSPS and the
Portland Cement NESHAP, we have
exempted source from the least stringent
requirement thereby eliminating
overlapping monitoring, testing and
reporting requirements by proposing
that the source comply with only the
more stringent of the standards. We
continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34087
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. As
discussed earlier in this preamble, the
estimated expenditures for the private
sector in the fifth year after
promulgation are $50 million. Thus, this
rule is not subject to the requirements
of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, EPA has determined that this
proposed action contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
rule contains no requirements that
apply to such governments, imposes no
obligations upon them, and would not
result in expenditures by them of $100
million or more in any one year or any
disproportionate impacts on them.
Therefore, this proposed action is not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. None of the
affected facilities are owned or operated
by State governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local
officials.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
34088
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes,
as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The proposed rule imposes
requirements on owners and operators
of specified industrial facilities and not
tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed
rule from tribal officials.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
as applying to those regulatory actions
that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section
5–501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is based solely on technology
performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Further, we have concluded that this
proposed rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects. This proposal
will result in the addition of alkaline
scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce SO2
emissions. We estimate the additional
electrical demand to be 6.9 million
kWhr per year by the end of the 5th
year.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking involves
technical standards. EPA proposes to
use the VCS ASME PTC 19.10–1981,
‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for
its manual methods of measuring the
content of the exhaust gas. These parts
of ASME PTC 19.10–1981 are acceptable
alternatives to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A,
7, and 7C. This standard is available
from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–
5990.
While the Agency has identified 12
other VCS as being potentially
applicable to this rule, we have decided
not to use these VCS in this rulemaking.
The use of these VCS would have been
impractical because they do not meet
the objectives of the standards cited in
this rule. See the docket for this rule for
the reasons for these determinations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS
General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures in the final
rule and amendments.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of this proposed rulemaking and
specifically invites the public to identify
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this
regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA
has determined that the proposed
amendments will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because they would increase the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
These proposed standards would reduce
emissions of PM, NOX, and SO2 from all
new, reconstructed, or modified affected
facilities at PCP, decreasing the amount
of such emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Dated: May 30, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 60—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 60.17 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 60.17
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981,
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus], IBR
approved for § 60.63(i)(2) and (i)(4) of
subpart F, Tables 1 and 3 of subpart
EEEE, Tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF,
Table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and
§§ 60.4415(a)(2) and 60.4415(a)(3) of
subpart KKKK of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Subpart F—[Amended]
3. Section 60.62 is amended as
follows:
a. Revising the section heading.
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2)
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4);
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2); and
e. Adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.62
Standards.
(a) * * *
(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in
excess of:
(i) 0.15 kg per metric ton of feed (dry
basis) to the kiln (0.30 lb per ton) if
construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the kiln commences
after August 17, 1971 but on or before
June 16, 2008.
(ii) 0.086 pound per ton of clinker if
construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the kiln commences
after June 16, 2008.
(2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent
opacity, except that this opacity limit
does not apply to a kiln subject to the
PM limit in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section that uses a bag leak detection
system, ESP predictive model, or a PM
continuous emission monitoring system.
(3) Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen
oxide (NOX) per ton of clinker on a 30day rolling average if construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the
kiln commences after June 16, 2008.
(4) For sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
from a kiln for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification
commences after June 16, 2008:
(i) Exceed 1.33 pounds per ton of
clinker on a 30-day rolling average; or
(ii) The owner or operator must
reduce SO2 emissions exiting the kiln by
90 percent or greater.
(b) * * *
(1) Contain PM in excess of:
(i) 0.050 kg per metric ton of feed (dry
basis) to the kiln (0.10 lb per ton) if
construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the clinker cooler
commenced after August 17, 1971 but
on or before June 16, 2008.
(ii) 0.086 pound per ton of clinker if
construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the clinker cooler
commences after June 16, 2008.
(2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or
greater, except that this opacity limit
does not apply to a clinker cooler
subject to the PM limit in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section that uses a bag
leak detection system, ESP predictive
model or PM continuous emission
monitoring system.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
(d) If an affected facility subject to this
subpart has a different emission limit or
requirement for the same pollutant
under another regulation in title 40 of
this chapter, the owner or operator of
the affected facility must comply with
the most stringent emission limit or
requirement and is not subject to the
less stringent requirement.
4. Section 60.63 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b);
c. Revising the first sentence in
paragraph (c);
d. Adding paragraphs (f) through (n)
to read as follows:
§ 60.63
Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any
portland cement plant subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall record
the daily clinker production rates and
kiln feed rates.
(b) The owner or operator of a kiln or
clinker cooler must monitor PM
emissions according to the applicable
requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2)
of this section.
(1) For a kiln or clinker cooler that
that was constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after August 17, 1971 but on
or before June 16, 2008, the owner or
operator must:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate in accordance with § 60.13 a
continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) to measure the opacity of
emissions discharged into the
atmosphere from any kiln or clinker
cooler except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section. Each owner or
operator of an affected kiln or clinker
cooler for which the performance test
required under § 60.8 has been
completed on or prior to December 14,
1988, must install the COMS within 180
days after December 14, 1988. The
COMS must be installed on each stack
of any multiple stack control device for
emissions from any kiln or clinker
cooler. If there is a separate bypass stack
installed, the owner or operator also
must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a COMS on each bypass stack in
addition to the main control device
stack; or
(ii) Install, operate, and maintain a
bag leak detection system on each fabric
filter used to control PM emissions
according to the procedures in
paragraph (f) of this section; or
(iii) Install, operate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously monitoring
and recording the concentration of PM
emissions into the atmosphere
according to the requirements in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(2) For a kiln or clinker cooler that is
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34089
or after June 16, 2008, the owner or
operator must:
(i) Install, operate, and maintain a bag
leak detection system on each fabric
filter used to control PM emissions
according to the requirements in
paragraph (f) of this section; and
(ii) Monitor the performance of any
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to
control PM emissions according to the
requirements in paragraph (o) of this
section; or
(iii) Install, operate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously monitoring
and recording the concentration of PM
emissions into the atmosphere
according to the requirements in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(c) Each owner or operator of a kiln
or clinker cooler that was constructed,
reconstructed, or modified on or before
June 16, 2008 using a positive-pressure
fabric filter with multiple stacks, or a
negative-pressure fabric filter with
multiple stacks, or an electrostatic
precipitator with multiple stacks may,
instead of installing the COMS required
by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section,
monitor visible emissions at least once
per day by using a certified visible
emissions observer.* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The owner or operator must install,
operate, and maintain the bag leak
detection system according to
paragraphs (f) (1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Each bag leak detection system
must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) (i)
through (viii) of this section.
(i) The bag leak detection system must
be certified by the manufacturer to be
capable of detecting PM emissions at
concentrations of 1 milligram per dry
standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains
per actual cubic foot) or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system
sensor must provide output of relative
PM loadings. The owner or operator
shall continuously record the output
from the bag leak detection system using
electronic or other means (e.g., using a
strip chart recorder or a data logger).
(iii) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with an alarm system
that will sound when the system detects
an increase in relative particulate
loading over the alarm set point
established according to paragraph
(f)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm
must be located such that it can be
heard by the appropriate plant
personnel.
(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag
leak detection system, you must
establish, at a minimum, the baseline
output by adjusting the sensitivity
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
34090
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(range) and the averaging period of the
device, the alarm set points, and the
alarm delay time.
(v) Following initial adjustment, you
shall not adjust the averaging period,
alarm set point, or alarm delay time
without approval from the
Administrator or delegated authority
except as provided in paragraph
(f)(1)(vi) of this section.
(vi) Once per quarter, you may adjust
the sensitivity of the bag leak detection
system to account for seasonal effects,
including temperature and humidity,
according to the procedures identified
in the site-specific monitoring plan
required by paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(vii) You must install the bag leak
detection sensor downstream of the
fabric filter.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are
required, the system’s instrumentation
and alarm may be shared among
detectors.
(2) You must develop and submit to
the Administrator or delegated authority
for approval a site-specific monitoring
plan for each bag leak detection system.
You must operate and maintain the bag
leak detection system according to the
site-specific monitoring plan at all
times. Each monitoring plan must
describe the items in paragraphs (f)(2) (i)
through (vi) of this section.
(i) Installation of the bag leak
detection system;
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of
the bag leak detection system, including
how the alarm set-point will be
established;
(iii) Operation of the bag leak
detection system, including quality
assurance procedures;
(iv) How the bag leak detection
system will be maintained, including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare
parts inventory list;
(v) How the bag leak detection system
output will be recorded and stored; and
(vi) Corrective action procedures as
specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this
section. In approving the site-specific
monitoring plan, the Administrator or
delegated authority may allow owners
and operators more than 3 hours to
alleviate a specific condition that causes
an alarm if the owner or operator
identifies in the monitoring plan this
specific condition as one that could lead
to an alarm, adequately explains why it
is not feasible to alleviate this condition
within 3 hours of the time the alarm
occurs, and demonstrates that the
requested time will ensure alleviation of
this condition as expeditiously as
practicable.
(3) For each bag leak detection
system, you must initiate procedures to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
determine the cause of every alarm
within 1 hour of the alarm. Except as
provided in paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of this
section, you must alleviate the cause of
the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by
taking whatever corrective action(s) are
necessary. Corrective actions may
include, but are not limited to the
following:
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air
leaks, torn or broken bags or filter
media, or any other condition that may
cause an increase in PM emissions;
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter
media;
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter
media or otherwise repairing the control
device;
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter
compartment;
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection
system probe or otherwise repairing the
bag leak detection system; or
(vi) Shutting down the process
producing the PM emissions.
(g) The owner or operator of a kiln or
clinker cooler using a PM continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit in § 60.62 (a) or (b) must
install, certify, operate, and maintain
the CEMS as specified in paragraphs (g)
(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must
conduct a performance evaluation of the
PM CEMS according to the applicable
requirements of § 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 30to 60-minute period) during operation of
the CEMS and when conducting
performance tests using the following
test methods:
(i) For PM, Method 5 or 5B of
Appendix A–5 to part 60 or Method 17
of Appendix A–6 to part 60.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
Method 3, 3A, or 3B of Appendix A–2
to part 60, as applicable.
(3) Procedure 2 of Appendix F to part
60 for quarterly accuracy determinations
and daily calibration drift tests. The
owner or operator must perform
Relative Response Audit’s annually and
Response Correlation Audits every 3
years.
(h) The owner or operator of a kiln
constructed, modified or reconstructed
on or after June 16, 2008 must install,
calibrate, maintain and operate a
permanent weigh scale system, or use
another method approved by the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Administrator, to measure and record
weight rates in tons-mass per hour of
the amount of clinker produced. The
system of measuring hourly clinker
production must be maintained within
±5 percent accuracy.
(i) Each owner or operator subject to
the NOX emissions limit for a kiln in
§ 60.62(a)(3) shall install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain an instrument
for continuously monitoring and
recording the concentration by volume
of NOX emissions into the atmosphere.
(j) Each owner or operator subject to
the SO2 emissions limit in § 60.62(a)(4)
for a kiln shall install, operate, calibrate,
and maintain an instrument for
continuously monitoring and recording
the concentration by volume of SO2
emissions into the atmosphere. If
complying with the alternative 90
percent SO2 emissions reduction
emission limit, you must also for
continuously monitor and record the
concentration by volume of SO2
emissions at the wet scrubber inlet.
(k) The owner or operator of each
CEMS required under paragraphs (i) and
(j) of this section, shall install, operate,
and maintain each monitoring system
according to Performance Specification
2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) and the
requirements in paragraphs (k) (1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) The span value of each NOX
monitor shall be set at 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly
potential NOX emission concentration
that translates to the applicable
emission limit at full clinker production
capacity.
(2) The owner or operator shall
conduct performance evaluations of
each NOX monitor according to the
requirements in § 60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 of
Appendix B to part 60. The owner or
operator shall use Methods 7, 7A, 7C,
7D, or 7E of appendix A–4 to part 60 for
conducting the relative accuracy
evaluations. The method ASME PTC
19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,’’ (incorporated by reference—
see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 7 or 7C of Appendix A–
4 to part 60.
(3) The span value for the SO2
monitor must be set at 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly
potential SO2 emission concentration
that translates to the applicable
emission limit at full clinker production
capacity.
(4) The owner or operator must
conduct performance evaluations of
each SO2 monitor according to the
requirements in § 60.13(c) and
Performance Specification 2 of
Appendix B to part 60. The owner or
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
34091
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
operator shall use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C
of Appendix A–4 to part 60 for
conducting the relative accuracy
evaluations. The method ASME PTC
19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,’’ (incorporated by reference—
see § 60.17) is an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 6 or 6A of Appendix A–
4 to part 60.
(5) The owner or operator must
comply with the quality assurance
requirements in Procedure 1 of
Appendix F to part 60 for each monitor,
including quarterly accuracy
determinations for monitors, and daily
calibration drift tests.
(l) The owner or operator of each
CEMS required under paragraphs (i) and
(j) of this section must operate the
monitoring system and record data
during all periods of operation of the
affected facility including periods of
startup, shutdown, malfunction, except
for continuous monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero and span adjustments.
(1) The owner or operator must obtain
emission data for at least 18 hours in at
least 22 out of 30 successive kiln
operating days. For each valid hour, the
owner or operator also must obtain valid
exhaust flow rate data, as specified in
paragraph (m)(6) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator must meet
the requirements of § 60.13(h) when
determining the 1-hour averages of
emissions data needed to meet the
minimum data requirements specified
in paragraph (l)(1) of this section.
(m) Each owner or operator of a kiln
subject to the NOX emissions limit in
§ 60.62(a)(3) or the SO2 emissions limit
in § 60.62(a)(4)(i) or (ii) must install,
operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring
and recording the exhaust flow rate to
the atmosphere according to the
requirements in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (9) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must install
each sensor of the flow rate monitoring
system in a location that provides
representative measurement of the
exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling
location of the NOX and SO2 CEMS,
taking into account the manufacturer’s
recommendations.
(2) The flow rate monitoring system
must be designed to measure the
exhaust flow rate over a range that
extends from a value of at least 20
percent less than the lowest expected
exhaust flow rate to a value of at least
20 percent greater than the highest
expected exhaust flow rate.
(3) The flow rate monitoring system
must have a minimum accuracy of 5
percent of the flow rate or greater.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
(4) The flow rate monitoring system
must be equipped with a data
acquisition and recording system that is
capable of recording values over the
entire range specified in paragraph (l)(2)
of this section.
(5) The signal conditioner, wiring,
power supply, and data acquisition and
recording system for the flow rate
monitoring system must be compatible
with the output signal of the flow rate
sensors used in the monitoring system.
(6) The flow rate monitoring system
must be designed to complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. To
have a valid hour of data, the flow rate
monitoring system must measure and
record at least three of four equallyspaced data values (or at least 75
percent of the total number of values)
for each hour (not including startup,
shutdown, malfunction, or out-ofcontrol periods).
(7) The owner or operator must
perform an initial calibration of the flow
rate monitoring system according to
manufacturer’s recommendations.
(8) The owner or operator must check
the accuracy of the monitoring system at
least once per year according to
manufacturer’s recommendations.
(9) The owner or operator must
operate the flow rate monitoring system
and record data during all periods of
operation of the affected facility
including periods of startup, shutdown,
malfunction, except for monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, and
calibration checks.
(n) You must monitor the
performance of any ESP specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section in
accordance with the requirements in
paragraph (o)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You must calibrate the ESP
predictive model with each PM control
device used to comply with the
applicable PM emissions limit in
§ 60.62(a)(ii) or (b)(ii) operating under
normal conditions. In cases when a wet
scrubber is used in combination with an
ESP to comply with the PM emissions
limit, the daily average liquid-to-gas
flow rate for the wet scrubber must be
maintained at 90 percent of average
ratio measured during all test run
intervals for the performance test
conducted according to paragraph (o)(1)
of this section.
(2) You must develop a site-specific
monitoring plan that includes a
description of the ESP predictive model
used, the model input parameters, and
the procedures and criteria for
establishing monitoring parameter
baseline levels indicative of compliance
with the PM emissions limit. You must
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submit the site-specific monitoring plan
for approval by the permitting authority.
For reference purposes in preparing the
monitoring plan, see the OAQPS
‘‘Compliance Assurance Monitoring
(CAM) Protocol for an Electrostatic
Precipitator (ESP) Controlling
Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions from
a Coal-Fired Boiler.’’ This document is
available from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards;
Sector Policies and Programs Division;
Measurement Policy Group (D243–02),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This
document is also available on the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
under Emission Measurement Center
Continuous Emission Monitoring.
(3) You must run the ESP predictive
model using the applicable input data
each boiler operating day and evaluate
the model output for the preceding
boiler operating day excluding periods
of affected source startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. If the values for one or
more of the model parameters exceed
the applicable baseline levels
determined according to your approved
site-specific monitoring plan, you must
initiate investigation of the relevant
equipment and control systems within
24 hours of the first discovery of a
model parameter deviation and take the
appropriate corrective action as soon as
practicable to adjust control settings or
repair equipment to return the model
output to within the applicable baseline
levels.
(4) You must record the ESP
predictive model inputs and outputs
and any corrective actions taken. The
record of corrective action taken must
include the date and time during which
the model output values exceeded the
applicable baseline levels, and the date,
time, and description of the corrective
action.
(5) If after 7 consecutive days a model
parameter continues to exceed the
applicable baseline level, then you must
conduct a new PM performance test
according to paragraph (o)(1) of this
section. This new performance test must
be conducted within 60 days of the date
that the model parameter was first
determined to exceed its baseline level
unless a wavier is granted by the
permitting authority.
5. Section 60.64 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and paragraph (b)(1); and
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6);
and
c. Adding paragraph (c).
§ 60.64
*
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
*
Test methods and procedures.
*
16JNP2
*
*
34092
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(b) The owner or operator must
determine compliance with the PM
standard in § 60.62(a)(1) as follows:
(1) The emission rate (E) of PM must
be computed for each run using the
Equation 1 of this section:
E = ( cs Qsd ) ( PK )
(Eq. 1)
Where:
E = emission rate of particulate matter, kg/
metric ton (lb/ton) of kiln feed;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, g/
dscm (gr/dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas,
dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
P = total kiln feed (dry basis) rate, metric ton/
hr (ton/hr). For kilns constructed,
modified or reconstructed on or after
June 16, 2008, p = total kiln clinker
production rate; and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).
E = ( cs Qsd ) ( PK )
(Eq. 2)
Where:
E = emission rate of NOX or SO2, kg/metric
ton (lb/ton) of clinker production;
Cs = concentration of NOX or SO2, g/dscm
(gr/dscf);
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas,
dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
P = total kiln clinker production rate, metric
ton/hr (ton/hr); and
K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 gr/lb).
6. Section 60.66 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.66
Delegation of authority.
(a) This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a
delegated authority such as a State,
local, or tribal agency. You should
contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office
to find out if this subpart is delegated
to a State, local, or tribal agency within
your State.
(b) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority to a State, local,
or tribal agency, the approval authorities
contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(4) of this section are retained by the
Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are
not transferred to the State, local, or
tribal agency.
(1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emission standard.
(2) Approval of a major change to test
methods under § 60.8(b). A ‘‘major
change to test method’’ is defined in 40
CFR 63.90.
(3) Approval of a major change to
monitoring under § 60.13(i). A ‘‘major
change to monitoring’’ is defined in 40
CFR 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to
recordkeeping/reporting under § 60.7(b)
through (f). A ‘‘major change to
recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in
40 CFR 63.90.
PART 63—[AMENDED]
7. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart LLL—[Amended]
8. Section 63.1356 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.1356
limits.
Sources with multiple emission
If an affected facility subject to this
subpart has a different emission limit or
requirement for the same pollutant
under another regulation in title 40 of
this chapter, the owner or operator of
the affected facility must comply with
the most stringent emission limit or
requirement and is exempt from the less
stringent requirement.
[FR Doc. E8–12619 Filed 6–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JNP2.SGM
16JNP2
EP16JN08.000
EP16JN08.001
*
*
*
*
(5) The owner or operator of a kiln
(including any associated alkali bypass
and clinker cooler) that is constructed,
modified or reconstructed on or after
June 16, 2008, must conduct a
performance test every 5 years following
the initial performance test. Kilns
(including any associated alkali bypass
and clinker cooler) constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after August
17, 1971, but on or before June 16, 2008,
must conduct a performance test every
5 years.
(6) Any sources other than kilns
(including associated alkali bypass and
cooler) subject to the 10 percent opacity
limit must follow the appropriate
monitoring procedures in § 63.1350 of
this chapter.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
*
(c) The owner or operator must
calculate and record the 30-day rolling
emission rate of NOX and SO2 as the
total of all hourly emissions data for a
cement kiln in the preceding 30 days,
divided by the total tons of clinker
produced in that kiln during the same
30-day period using Equation 2 of this
section:
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 116 (Monday, June 16, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34072-34092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12619]
[[Page 34071]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34072]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877; FRL-8576-1]
RIN 2060-AO42
Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the current Standards of
Performance for Portland Cement Plants. The proposed amendments include
revisions to the emission limits for affected facilities which commence
construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 16, 2008. The
proposed amendments also include additional testing and monitoring
requirements for affected sources.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2008. If any
one contacts EPA by June 26, 2008 requesting to speak at a public
hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on July 1, 2008. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before July 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0877, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement
Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for
Portland Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0877. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants Docket, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket
Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5605; fax
number: (919) 541-5450; e-mail address: barnett.keith@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information on Subpart F
A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments
to subpart F?
B. What are the current Portland Cement Plant (PCP) NSPS?
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
A. How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future
affected facilities?
B. How is EPA proposing to amend the testing requirements?
C. How is EPA proposing to amend the monitoring requirements?
D. Why are we not proposing to revise the other emission limits
in the NSPS?
E. What other changes are being proposed?
F. What is EPA's sector-based approach and how is it relevant to
this rulemaking?
G. How is EPA addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the
portland cement industry?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the water quality impacts?
C. What are the solid waste impacts?
D. What are the secondary impacts?
E. What are the energy impacts?
F. What are the cost impacts?
G. What are the economic impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
[[Page 34073]]
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................... 327310 Cement manufacturing.
Federal government............................ .............. Not affected.
State/local/tribal government................. .............. Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60
(subpart F). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action is available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control.
D. When would a public hearing occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by
June 26, 2008, a public hearing will be held on July 1, 2008. Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a
public hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Keith Barnett, listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least 2 days in
advance of the hearing.
II. Background Information on Subpart F
A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed amendments to
subpart F?
New source performance standards (NSPS) implement Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which EPA
has listed because they cause, or contribute significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain
ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission
control technologies are installed as industrial infrastructure is
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified
sources.
Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application
of the best system of emission reductions achievable which, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, and any
non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements, the Administrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated. See CAA section 111(a)(1). This level of control is
commonly referred to as best demonstrated technology (BDT). In
assessing whether a standard is achievable, EPA must account for
routine operating variability associated with performance of the system
on whose performance the standard is based. See National Lime Ass'n v.
EPA, 627 F. 2d 416, 431-33 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Today's proposal considers
all of these factors, including both short- and long-term operating
variability associated with potential control technologies.
Common sources of information as to what constitutes a best
demonstrated technology, and for assessing that technology's level of
performance, include best available control technology (BACT)
determinations made as part of new source review, emissions limits that
exist in State and Federal permits for recently permitted sources, and
emissions test data for demonstrated control technologies collected for
compliance demonstration or other purposes. EPA compares permit
limitations and BACT determination data with actual performance test
data to insure that permitting and BACT limitations are representative
of actual performance and also to identify any site specific factors
that could influence general applicability of the information to the
entire source category. EPA also carefully examines test data to insure
that control devices were properly designed and operated during the
test.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review
and revise these standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect
improvements in methods for reducing emissions. We promulgated
Standards of Performance For Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR part 60,
subpart F) on December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24876). Since then, we have
conducted three reviews of the standards (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974;
39 FR 39874, November 12, 1974; and 53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988).
B. What are the current Portland Cement Plant (PCP) NSPS?
The PCP NSPS applies to new, modified, and reconstructed affected
[[Page 34074]]
facilities in the portland cement manufacturing industry that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after August 17, 1971.
Affected facilities at PCP include the kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill
system, finish mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage,
clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor transport points,
bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems. Unless otherwise noted,
the term ``new'' as used in this preamble includes newly constructed,
modified or reconstructed units.
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
The proposed amendments to subpart F of 40 CFR part 60 are
summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Proposed change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.62........................ Change the title of Sec. 60.62 to
standards. Revise paragraph (a)(1) to
include paragraph (a)(1)(i) which
specifies that the current emission
limit for particulate matter (PM)
applies to kilns constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after August
17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
Add a paragraph (a)(1)(ii) which limits
PM emissions for kilns that commence
construction, reconstruction, or
modification after June 16, 2008,
emissions to 0.086 pounds of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of clinker.
Revise paragraph (a)(2) to clarify that
the opacity limit does not apply to
kilns constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after August 17, 1971 but on or
before June 16, 2008 that use a bag leak
detection system or PM continuous
emission monitoring system.
Add paragraph (a)(3) which requires kilns
constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after June 16, 2008 to meet a nitrogen
oxides (NOX) emission limit of 1.50 lb/
ton of clinker on a 30-day, 24-hour
rolling average basis.
Add paragraph (a)(4) which requires kilns
constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after June 16, 2008 to meet either a
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit of
1.33 lb/ton of clinker on a 30-day, 24-
hour rolling average basis or
demonstrate a 90-percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from the kiln.
Revise paragraph (b)(1) to include a
paragraph (b)(1)(i) which specifies that
the current PM limit applies to clinker
coolers constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after August 17, 1971 but on or
before June 16, 2008. Add a paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) which limits PM emissions
from clinker coolers constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after June
16, 2008 to 0.086 pounds of PM per ton
(lb/ton) of clinker.
Revise paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that
the opacity limit does not apply to
clinker coolers constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after August
17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008
that use a bag leak detection system or
PM continuous emission monitoring
system.
60.63........................ Revise paragraph (a) to correct
applicability term (``subpart'' instead
of ``part'') and add the word
``clinker'' before the phrase
``production rate'' to clarify that
daily recordkeeping requirement is for
clinker production rate.
Revise paragraph (b) to include paragraph
(b)(1) which specifies monitoring
requirements for kilns and clinker
coolers constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after August 17, 1971 but
on or before June 16, 2008. Paragraph
(b)(1)(i) contains the current
requirements for continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS). Paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) allow the source to
install a bag leak detection system or a
PM CEMS in lieu of a COMS. Also revise
paragraph (b) to include paragraph
(b)(2) which specifies monitoring
requirements for kilns and clinker
coolers constructed, modified, or
reconstructed or after June 16, 2008.
Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) require
the source to install a bag leak
detection system or a PM continuous
emission monitoring system.
Revise paragraph (c) to clarify that the
alternative for visible emission
monitoring applies to the requirement in
paragraph (b)(1)(i) for a continuous
opacity monitoring system.
Add paragraph (f) to which specifies
installation and operation requirements
for bag leak detection systems.
Add paragraph (g) which specifies the
required installation, operation, and
maintenance procedures for a PM
continuous emission monitoring system.
Add paragraph (h) which specifies
requirements for weight measurement
system for clinker production from kilns
constructed, modified or reconstructed
on or after June 16, 2008.
Add paragraph (i) to require a NOX
continuous emission monitoring system
for each kiln subject to the NOX
emission limit.
Add paragraph (j) to require a SO2
continuous emission monitoring system
for each kiln subject to the SO2
emission limit.
Add paragraph (k) to require that NOX and
SO2 continuous emission monitoring
systems be installed, operated, and
maintained according to Performance
Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60
and that monitors comply with quality
assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of
Appendix F to part 60.
Add paragraph (l) to require that NOX and
SO2 monitors record data during all
periods of operation.
Add paragraph (m) to require a continuous
exhaust flow rate monitoring system for
each kiln subject to the NOX or SO2
emissions limit.
Add paragraph (n) to require the use of
an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
predictive model to monitor the
performance of ESPs controlling PM
emissions from kilns or clinker coolers.
60.64........................ Revise paragraph (b)(1) to add definition
of the term ``P'' in Equation 1 for new
kilns subject to PM emission limit in lb/
ton of clinker production.
Add paragraph (b)(5) to require repeat PM
performance tests (every 5 years) for
kilns and clinker coolers.
Add paragraph (b)(6) to require visible
emissions monitoring for sources other
than kilns and clinker coolers.
Add paragraph (c) which specifies
procedures for converting concentration
of NOX and SO2 to pounds per ton of
clinker produced (30 day rolling
average).
60.66........................ Update to specify authorities to be
retained by the Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34075]]
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments to Subpart F
A. How is EPA proposing to change the emission limits for future
affected facilities?
For ``new'' affected facilities constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after June 16, 2008, we are proposing:
To change the format of the PM emission limits from lb/ton
of dry feed to lb/ton of clinker product;
To reduce the PM emission limit for kilns from 0.3 lb/ton
of dry feed to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker;
To set a limit on NOX emissions from kilns of
1.50 lb/ton of clinker; and
To set a limit on SO2 emissions from kilns of
1.33 lb/ton of clinker, or, in the alternative, demonstrate a reduction
in SO2 emissions from the kiln of at least 90 percent;
To reduce the PM emissions limit for clinker coolers from
0.1 lb/ton dry feed to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker; and
To add new monitoring options of a bag leak detector or PM
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for kilns and clinker
coolers to demonstrate compliance with the PM limits in lieu of the
requirement for continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS).
The emission limits for affected facilities constructed, modified,
or reconstructed before June 16, 2008 remain unchanged.
In determining BDT we generally look at the controls and control
performance of new sources. In the case of cement kilns we reviewed
recently issued permits and BACT determinations issued by States to
identify emissions limits more stringent than the current subpart F
(and to understand if limits more stringent than those in subpart F are
commonplace or rare, or cover additional air pollutants). We believe
that the use of State permit data and BACT determination developed as
part of new source review is appropriate because a BACT determination
evaluates available controls, their performance, cost, and non-air
environmental impacts. The main difference between those determinations
and a BDT determination for purposes of a new source performance
standard is that a BACT determination is made on a site-specific basis.
Therefore, in evaluating BACT determinations, we have to account for
any site-specific factors that may not be applicable to the source
category as a whole. We have also reviewed data gathered in support of
related rules involving the portland cement industry, notably the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
portland cement kilns issued pursuant to section 112 of the CAA, and
the NESHAP for hazardous waste-burning Portland cement kilns, also
implementing section 112 of the CAA.
We also collected emissions test data from a number of sources. The
emission test data is used to verify the achievable performance of the
controls, and to evaluate whether or not the permit levels reviewed
accurately reflect control device performance.
Our review of permits and actual test data from portland cement
sources, and discussions with industry representatives and State
environmental agencies indicates that certain changes have occurred
since the 1988 review of the NSPS, and that these changes are still
continuing. We found that older, less energy efficient wet and long dry
kilns are being replaced with preheater/precalciner kilns because
preheater/precalciner kilns have superior energy efficiency and
increased clinker capacity. According to the industry, all new kilns
will be preheater/precalciner kilns. We confirmed this by reviewing a
detailed listing of portland cement kilns which indicates that since
2000 all kilns constructed or modernized are of the preheater/
precalciner design.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Technical Support Document for Portland Cement NSPS Review.
May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information also revealed that recently built kilns are subject
to more stringent limits on their emissions through State permitting
processes than those currently in the PCP NSPS. In addition, many State
permits contain emission limits for NOX and SO2,
pollutants that are not regulated under the current NSPS. (See footnote
1) Modern preheater/precalciner kilns and improved combustion process
designs and add-on controls that greatly lower NOX emissions
are increasingly being used to meet State permit limits. Our review of
permits, BACT determinations, and emissions test data show that
SO2 emissions are typically low as a result of the inherent
scrubbing action of alkaline raw materials in the kiln and raw mill as
well as the typically low sulfur content of raw materials and fuel.
However, there are a few locations where the raw materials used in
production of clinker contain high levels of sulfur. In these few
situations, wet scrubbers or dry lime sprayers have been used to reduce
SO2 emissions in order to meet State SO2 limits.
Preheater/precalciner kilns have in-line raw mills, which means
that the kiln exhaust gas is routed to the raw mill and then to the
final PM control device. Therefore, the kiln and raw mill exhaust
through the same stack. In order to maximize energy efficiency,
facilities route as much clinker cooler exhaust as possible to the kiln
(typically as tertiary air), and sometimes to the raw mill to recover
heat from the clinker cooling operation. However, typically some
portion of the clinker cooler gas flow exhausts directly to atmosphere
through its own stack so that clinker coolers are one of the enumerated
units covered by the NSPS, and one of the emission points addressed by
these proposed amendments.
As previously mentioned, older kilns are typically replaced with
new preheater/precalciner kilns rather than being modified or
reconstructed. However, because modified and reconstructed kilns are
also subject to NSPS, we evaluated the situation where an existing kiln
becomes subject to NSPS through modification or reconstruction. We
identified only two instances since 1990 where an existing kiln was
significantly modified rather than replaced with a new kiln, so we do
not expect this to be a common occurrence. Moreover, in one such case a
wet kiln was converted to a semi-dry process that included a preheater/
precalciner. Performance data from this kiln indicate that the
emissions of SO2 and NOX are actually lower than
would have been expected if the kiln had been replaced with a new
preheater/precalciner kiln.\2\ Therefore, we expect that the emission
limits proposed for new preheater/precalciner kilns would be applicable
to this type of conversion. In the second case, a long dry kiln was
shortened and a preheater/precalciner added. A modification of this
type would be expected to use the same technology in the precalciner/
preheater section as a new preheater/precalciner kiln and the resulting
modified kiln would basically be the same as a new kiln from the
standpoint of criteria pollutant emissions control. Accordingly, EPA
believes that the limits proposed today are appropriate for new,
modified, and reconstructed kilns since the preheater/precalciner
design will be utilized in each of these instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Lone Star's Unique Approach to Environmental Challenges.
O.P. Jepsen and B.P. Keefe, Fuller Company, Cement Industry
Technical Conference, IEEE-IAS/PCA, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Format of the Standard
The current NSPS limits for PM are expressed on a pound of PM per
ton (lb/ton) of dry feed input format. Emission limits are typically
normalized to some type of production or raw material input value
because this allows
[[Page 34076]]
comparison (and ultimately the ability to set a single standard) for
different sized facilities. (A common example of normalization is
expressing vehicle fuel economy in terms of miles of gasoline per
vehicle mile traveled, e.g., miles per gallon.) The 1971 NSPS uses a
pound of pollutant per ton dry feed basis as the normalizing parameter.
In these proposed amendments we are adopting a new normalizing
parameter of lb/ton of clinker--i.e., normalizing based on kiln output
rather than input for sources constructed, reconstructed or modified
after June 16, 2008.
Adopting an output-based standard avoids rewarding a source for
becoming less efficient, i.e., requiring more feed to produce a unit of
product, therefore promoting the most efficient production processes.
As an example, assume a cement kiln rated at 1.2 million tons per year
(tpy) has a NOX emission limit of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker
(output). The equivalent input-based limit would be 0.909 lb/ton of
feed (on average 1.65 tons of feed produce one ton of clinker, so a
kiln rated at 1.2 million tpy clinker uses 1.98 million tpy of feed).
Under either an input- or output-based standard, the maximum allowed
NOX emissions would be 900 tpy (1.5 lb/ton clinker x 1.2
million tons clinker / 2000 = 900 tons = 0.909 lb/ton feed x 1.98
million tons feed / 2000). However, if a facility has a less efficient
kiln, for example it requires 1.7 tons of feed to produce one ton of
clinker (so the feed input is now 2.04 million tons), this kiln would
be allowed to emit 927 tpy of NOX (0.909 lb/ton feed x 2.04
million tons feed / 2000) under the input-based standard of 0.909 lb/
ton of feed, but still only 900 lb per year of NOX under the
1.5 lb/ton of clinker output-based standard.
Over the short term, the measurement of kiln output is not as exact
as the measure of kiln input. For this reason, we are basing compliance
with the proposed NOX and SO2 emission limits on
a 30 day rolling average. We believe this will alleviate the issues
related to the inaccuracy of short-term output measurements. However,
industry has requested the option to convert to an input-based standard
to accommodate site-specific configurations and operational
limitations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ E-mail, H. Ybanez, Holcim, Inc to K. Barnett, EPA, February
27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following discussions, emissions were typically reported as
a concentration or per ton of feed. The BACT permit limits discussed
were typically based on output. We have converted all the data to an
output based standard using a conversion factor of 1.65 tons of input
equals one ton of clinker. More information on conversion may be found
in the technical support document (see footnote 1).
We are specifically requesting comment on the benefits of an
output-based standard, output measurement methods and their associated
errors, provisions that would allow a site to convert to an input-based
standard, any limitations we should impose on conversion, and the
appropriate averaging times. Information on how conversions from input-
based emission limits and test data and/or concentration-based data to
output-based limits and test data may be found in the Technical Support
Document for the Portland Cement NSPS review (see footnote 1).
2. PM
The most effective control devices to reduce PM emission from
cement kilns and clinker coolers identified in the original NSPS were
fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). These continue
to be the most effective PM controls in use, capable of removing over
99.9 percent of the PM from the exhaust gas. At the time of the 1988
review, 17 new kilns that had become subject to the NSPS since the 1979
review were controlled by fabric filters and 13 by ESPs. Of the 21
clinker coolers with a separate exhaust stack that had become subject
to the NSPS, 17 were controlled by fabric filters, and four were
controlled by gravel bed filters. Gravel bed filters perform similarly
to fabric filters except they use a moving bed of gravel to capture the
particulate rather then cloth or membrane fabric. We do not expect new
facilities to install gravel bed filters.
Though ESPs and fabric filters have comparable removal efficiencies
based on short-term tests, recently built new kilns have fabric filters
as PM controls, and we expect this trend to continue. ESPs applied to
cement kilns must be deenergized if the carbon monoxide (CO) or excess
air levels rise above a preset critical level where an explosion could
occur, which results in short periods of high emissions. The high
resistivities of PM from a cement kiln require gas conditioning if an
ESP is used. In addition, resistivity can change if the chemistry of
the clinker changes. ESP performance can also be affected by the
particle size distribution. Fabric filters are not affected by these
factors, and fabric filters control generally to the same concentration
irrespective of the PM loading at the filter inlet, though some
variability in PM emissions from fabric filters does occur due to
seepage and leakage.\4\ Therefore, we expect the long-term performance
of a fabric filter to be superior to an ESP. For this reason, we
believe that well-operated and maintained fabric filters are the best
technology for control of PM emissions at portland cement kilns, and so
are basing this part of the proposal on use of fabric filters for PM
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards--Volume I:
Description of Source Categories, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. September 2005, Section 3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing the level of performance constituting BDT (i.e. the
level of performance achievable by well-operated and maintained fabric
filters in this industry considering normal operating variability) we
reviewed data on PM limits in eight recently issued permits for new
cement kilns, all of which are equipped with fabric filters. The permit
limits for PM for these kilns were in various units, but were converted
to a lb/ton output basis. (see footnote 1) The PM limits ranged from
0.093 to 0.28 lb/ton of clinker, and the average was 0.16 lb/ton. In
order to determine if the permitted PM emissions limits were
representative of actual performance we reviewed two data sets measured
by EPA Reference Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3). The first set
was comprised of 21 emission tests of portland cement kilns equipped
with fabric filters at various domestic locations which fabric filters
were (reportedly) equipped with membrane bags. These PM emissions
ranged from 0.0023 up to 0.4724 lb/ton of clinker with a median of
0.1360 lb/ton. Fifteen of the 21 tests were below 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker. All of the tests where the emissions were above 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker, except one, were on kilns that were not preheater/precalciner
kilns. The one test on a preheater/precalciner that was above 0.16 lb/
ton of clinker was on a kiln built in 1981. Therefore, we have reason
to doubt that the data above 0.16 lb/ton of clinker are representative
of the most current designs. We also reviewed 37 emissions tests for PM
from Florida kilns equipped with fabric filters where the bag type was
unknown. The range was 0.015 to 0.153 lb/ton of clinker, so all 31
tests were below 0.16 lb/ton. Although these are single test results,
and so are unlikely to reflect all the operating variability associated
with air pollution control device performance, these data still suggest
that a limit of 0.16 lb/ton of clinker is achievable by new cement
kilns equipped with a fabric filter.
We also evaluated the performance of fabric filters using membrane
bag technology, generally considered the
[[Page 34077]]
most efficient type of fabric filter. Membrane bags have superior
performance to the cloth bags that are part of the standard fabric
filter design. Cloth bags capture PM in the interstices of the woven
fabric and form a primary dust cake. Until the primary dust cake forms
cloth bags are inefficient as filters. Therefore, each time the bag is
cleaned emissions increase until the primary dust cake reforms.
Emissions also occur when the pressure drop becomes so high that the PM
migrates completely through the fabric. Membrane bags, in contrast,
operate under the principle of surface filtration, i.e., the PM is
captured on the surface of the bag. This results in more consistent
performance (no need to build up a primary dust cake). In addition, at
a constant airflow membrane bags reduce the average pressure drop
across the fabric filter. However, membrane bags are more expensive
than cloth bags.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cement Americas ``Optimizing Kiln Operations by Improving
Baghouse Performance'' November 2001, pp. 1-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reviewed 19 emission tests conducted on four portland cement
kilns where we were able to establish that the facilities used fabric
filters with membrane bags, and where the kilns had been built in the
last 10 years, so we could be reasonably certain the control device was
representative of the latest fabric filter design. Thirteen of those
tests were on a cement kiln that burns hazardous waste. We believe
there is no difference in the performance of a fabric filter for PM
applied to a kilns that burn hazardous waste and those that do not
because PM emissions are largely contributed by non-hazardous waste
feed streams, and because fabric filters control PM emissions generally
to the same concentration irrespective of the PM loading at the inlet
(see 69 FR 21225 and 21233). The individual test results converted to
an output basis ranged from 0.0023 to 0.10176 lb/ton of clinker with an
average of 0.0357 lb/ton. In order to account for variability, we
analyzed the statistical variation by calculating a standard deviation
of the test averages, multiplying the standard deviation by the t value
for the 95th or 99th percentile, and adding this value to the average
of all the tests. The result was we determined that a level of 0.0830
lb/ton of clinker represented an emissions limit that will not be
exceeded 95 percent of the time and a level of 0.1025 lb/ton of clinker
represented an emissions limit that will not be exceeded 99 percent of
the time. EPA has also performed a different statistical analysis of
the data from the hazardous waste-burning cement kiln equipped with a
membrane fabric filter, applying to the data a so-called universal
variability factor derived from the performance of the best performing
(lowest emitting) PM performers equipped with fabric filters across the
hazardous waste combustor source category. This variability factor
quantifies both short-term and long-term operating variability, i.e.,
variability associated with the conditions of the individual compliance
test and variability associated with the performance of the control
equipment over time. See generally 72 FR 54878-79, September 27, 2007.
(This approach is more sophisticated, since it accounts for both short-
term and long-term variability, whereas variability in the individual
runs comprising the compliance tests (i.e., the 95th or 99th percentile
of those data), is more a measure of short-term variability alone, see
72 FR 54878). The standard under this analysis is 0.0069 gr/dscf
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. See 71 FR 14669, March 23, 2006. Using a
typical value of 54,000 dry standard cubic feet (dscf) of exhaust
produced per ton of kiln feed and one ton of clinker producer per 1.65
tons of feed, 0.0069 gr/dscf converts to 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. (see
footnote 1)
We are proposing this level as BDT for PM emitted by new portland
cement kilns, as measured by EPA Reference Method 5 in 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-3. Our analysis of individual stack results from the newer
kilns equipped with membrane bag-equipped fabric filters confirms that
the level is achievable, the level is between the 95th or 99th
percentile of those data, and as just explained, this level accounts
for all of the potential operating variability associated with
operation of a membrane-bag fabric filter.
We evaluated the costs of the different control levels discussed
above. This evaluation, and all subsequent cost, environment, and
energy impacts on a per kiln basis are based on a model preheater/
precalciner kiln with a rated capacity of 1.2 million tpy of clinker.
The average capacity of kilns which were constructed beginning in 2000
and were operating in 2006 was approximately 1.3 million tpy. We choose
a model kiln with a capacity slightly lower than average to provide a
more conservative cost estimate (smaller kilns tend to have a greater
control cost per ton of capacity). The other kiln design specifications
(flue gas flow rates, temperatures, etc.) may be found in the Technical
Support Document (See Footnote 1).
Based on our assessment that all new fabric filters with standard
cloth bag will achieve a level of 0.16 lb/ton of clinker, and that new
kilns would at least be equipped with this type of fabric filter, there
are no costs or other impacts associated with meeting a PM emissions
limit to 0.16 lb/ton of clinker. There are a variety of regulatory
reasons that new kilns, on average, currently meet a 0.16 lb/ton of
clinker PM limit, and we believe it is appropriate to use this level as
the baseline in our cost analysis. We considered using a baseline of
0.5 lb/ton of clinker (equivalent to the current NSPS). However, not
only is this level inappropriate because it does not reflect current
operating performance, but choosing 0.5 lb/ton of clinker as the
baseline would not have changed our decision in any case.
To achieve a level of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker, a new kiln with a
capacity of 1.2 million tpy of clinker production may have to equip the
fabric filter with more expensive membrane bags at an estimated capital
cost of $1.3 million and at a total annualized cost of $176,000 per
year. This includes additional operating and maintenance costs, and
amortized capital costs. The estimated emission reduction over the
baseline would be 44 tpy for the model kiln and the cost per ton of
additional PM control is $3,969. This cost appears to be reasonable to
EPA, given that it is well within the range of cost-effectiveness for
total PM control accepted as reasonable for other stationary sources.
See, e.g., 70 FR 9715, February 28, 2005 (cost effectiveness of $8,400
per ton of total PM considered reasonable for proposed rule for
electric utility steam generating units) and 71 FR 9876, February 27,
2006, promulgating the proposed rule.
We also analyzed the cost per ton of fine PM (PM of 2.5 micrometers
or less) emissions reduction. Data from development of the PM National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) indicate that the majority of the
adverse health effects from PM exposure are from exposure to fine PM
(although exposure to coarse PM is likewise associated with health
effects, see 71 FR 61184-85, October 17, 2006). As a result, EPA
established a NAAQS for fine PM separate from the NAAQS for coarse PM.
Based on data from EPA's Compilation of Emission Factors (AP-42), 45
percent of the PM from a cement kiln fabric filter is fine PM.
Therefore, the estimated emissions reduction of fine PM resulting from
a total PM standard of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker is 19.8 tpy for the
model kiln and the cost per ton of fine PM reduction is $8,819.
In most cases there would be no non-air impacts associated with the
[[Page 34078]]
proposed standard because PM captured in the control device for a
preheater/precalciner kiln is mainly raw materials which are recycled
back to the kiln, rather then disposed of as solid waste. In the case
of a kiln equipped with an alkali bypass, however, additional PM
captured in the alkali bypass fabric filter would typically be disposed
as a solid waste. This PM is high in alkali materials and cannot be
recycled back to the kiln or mixed with the product. Based on data
collected on amounts of solids generated by the PM controls, the solids
from the alkali bypass are about 1 percent of total collected solids
(i.e., 99 percent is collected in the main fabric filter and recycles
to the kiln). Therefore, the amount of additional solid waste resulting
from this proposed PM emissions limit would be expected to be minimal.
We do not anticipate any adverse energy impacts because membrane bags
reduce control device pressure drop and thus reduce energy use. Given
the reasonable costs, and minimal solid waste impacts we are proposing
a PM emissions level of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker as BDT.
As previously noted, fabric filters are also the predominant
control for another emission point, clinker coolers. Included in the
1988 review of the NSPS were 12 PM emissions tests for clinker coolers
where the coolers had separate stacks. One test was performed under
abnormal operating conditions and so was not used in our analysis. The
remaining 11 tests showed a PM emissions range of 0.008 to 0.05 lb/ton
of feed, which converts to 0.013 up to 0.083 lb/ton of clinker.\6\
Tests on three clinker coolers associated with preheater/precalciner
kilns built in the last 10 years using fabric filters for PM control
showed a range of 0.0038 to 0.0094 lb/ton of feed which converts to
0.0063 to 0.01551 lb/ton of clinker. Based on these test data, we
believe that the current clinker cooler controls used on new sources
can meet the same level of PM control as a kiln with membrane bags,
i.e., 0.086 lb/ton of clinker. Since new facilities are already
installing controls (usually fabric filters) capable of meeting the
proposed clinker cooler limit of 0.086 lb/ton of clinker, the
incremental costs of the proposed emissions limit would be very low or
zero, as would any non-air environmental and energy impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Portland Cement Plants--Background Information for Proposed
Revisions to Standards. EPA-450/3-85-003a, May 1985. pp. 4-9 to 4-13
and C-2 to C-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We considered proposing a limit below 0.086 lb/ton of clinker for
clinker coolers, based on the emissions shown for the three newer
facilities. Based on these data a limit of 0.0245 lb/ton of clinker
(representing the 99th confidence interval) would be achievable for new
sources. However, we believe that these limited data are not sufficient
to support a lower PM limit for clinker coolers, since these data are
unlikely to fully reflect control device operating variability. We are
requesting comment, however, on the achievability of a lower PM
emission limit for clinker coolers.
3. NOX \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Information on NOX emissions from preheater/
precalciner kilns, factors affecting NOX emissions,
process controls that reduce NOX emissions, staged
combustion, selective noncatalytic reduction, selective catalytic
reduction and more can be found in the EPA publication ``Alternative
Control Techniques Document Update--NOX Emissions from
New Cement Kilns, EPA-453/R-07-006, November 2007, and is available
on EPA's Technology Transfer Network at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current NSPS does not regulate the emissions of NOX.
Concurrent with this 8-year review we are proposing an NSPS for
NOX that would apply to kilns constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after June 16, 2008. The high temperatures and oxidizing
atmospheres required for cement manufacturing are favorable for
NOX formation. In cement kilns, NOX emissions are
formed during fuel combustion primarily by the oxidation of molecular
nitrogen present in combustion air (referred to as thermal
NOX) and the oxidation of nitrogen compounds in fuel
(referred to as fuel NOX). Many States issuing construction
and operating permits for new kilns have specified emission limits for
NOX. EPA's BACT/RACT/LAER Clearinghouse database shows that
for the period 2001 through 2007, 30 determinations for new, modified
or reconstructed kilns included NOX limits. Emissions of
NOX are typically reduced through process controls such as
burner design (low-NOX burners) and staged combustion in the
calciner (SCC). NOX emissions from kilns using process
designs such as low NOX burners and SCC emit on average
about 2.5 lb/ton of clinker. The exclusive add-on control used to
reduce NOX emissions from kilns operating in the U.S. is
selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). In recent Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permits for portland cement kilns, States
have determined BACT emission limits for NOX based on the
use of SNCR in combination with well-designed SCC and other process
designs such as low NOX burners. In SNCR systems, a reagent
such as ammonia or urea is injected into the flue gas at a suitable
temperature zone, typically in the range of 1,600 to 2,000 [deg]F and
at an appropriate ratio of reagent to NOX. SNCR system
performance depends on temperature, residence time, turbulence, oxygen
content, and other factors specific to the given gas stream. On
average, SNCR achieves approximately a 35 percent reduction in
NOX at a ratio of ammonia-to-NOX of about 0.5 and
a reduction of 63 percent at an ammonia-to-NOX ratio of 1.0.
At the high ratios, including ratios above 1, some ammonia may not
react with NOX and will be emitted. The unreacted ammonia is
referred to as ammonia slip. It can also produce a visible stack plume
when the ammonia forms ammonia chlorides. Under certain atmospheric
conditions ammonia can also react with nitrates and sulfates, both of
which can be available in cement kiln exhaust, to form fine PM
emissions, see 69 FR 4583, January 30, 2004, and ammonia itself is a
pollutant under the CAA. Limits on ammonia slip are often imposed by
permits or design requirements, which in some instances constrain the
NOX reduction achievable by an SNCR system.
Another NOX control technology, SCR, is used in the
electric utility industry to reduce NOX emissions from
boilers and has been used worldwide on three cement kilns in Europe.
SCR is capable of reducing NOX emissions by about 80
percent. Though SCR is demonstrated in Europe, SCR has never been used
on any cement kilns in the U.S. Uncertainties exist as to its specific
performance level and catalyst plugging and fouling, which affects
operating costs (see discussion below).
One control option considered was to make to make no changes in the
current NSPS and thus not regulate NOX emissions. However,
we rejected that option because NOX is emitted by cement
kilns, is currently controlled at most new cement kilns, and, based on
our review of recently issued permits, demonstrated technologies are
available to reduce NOX emissions considering costs and
other impacts.
In proposing a NOX emission limit, we reviewed recently
issued permits, recent BACT determinations and recent emissions data
for preheater/precalciner kilns to establish potential NOX
control levels for evaluation. Most of the emission limits and test
data are 30 day averages based on data from continuous emissions
monitors. A first step in doing so is to establish a baseline from
which control options can be evaluated. NOX emissions from
three recently permitted preheater/precalciner kilns utilizing well-
designed and operated process designs including SCC, averaged
NOX emissions of 1.62, 1.88 and 1.97 lb/ton
[[Page 34079]]
of clinker. These levels are achieved at kilns that are not equipped
with additional add-on controls. While demonstrating the capabilities
of kilns utilizing well-designed process controls including SCC but not
add-on controls, these emission levels are not necessarily
representative of what all new kilns would achieve even with similar
process designs. Several factors can influence NOX
emissions. Changes in the kiln feed rate, chemical composition, or
moisture content of raw materials can cause kiln temperatures to vary,
resulting in variation in NOX emissions. Raw materials from
the same quarry can vary in chemical composition from day to day.
Certain raw materials require higher temperatures and longer heating
times to properly calcine the materials (referred to as burnability).
For example, raw materials that contain high alkali content must be
heated longer and at higher temperatures to volatilize and remove the
alkali compounds. With higher temperatures and longer residence times,
NOX emissions may increase. Based on data from equipment
vendors and representatives from facilities with more difficult-to-burn
raw materials, we believe that future well-designed and operated cement
kilns, which will incorporate SCC and low-NOX burners, will
meet a level of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker on average, without consideration
of end-of-stack air pollution control. Therefore, we are using this
level as the baseline level of control that would occur with no
additional regulatory action. However, we know that in some
applications the level achieved even when using low-NOX
burners, indirect firing and well-designed SCC may be as high as 3 lb/
ton of clinker due to the reasons, such as burnability, discussed
above.
We considered choosing as baseline of a new preheater/precalciner
kiln designed without SCC or low NOX burners, i.e., a
completely uncontrolled kiln. For a variety of regulatory reasons, the
newest kilns based on the most current designs of which we are aware
all incorporate low NOX combustion technologies. Therefore
we have no data to determine the appropriate NOX emission
level for a new preheater/precalciner kiln that does not incorporate
low-NOX burners and SCC. In addition, choosing 2.5 lb/ton of
clinker as our baseline versus a higher number would not have changed
our decision on the proposed NOX level.
The second emissions level we evaluated was 1.95 lb/ton of clinker,
which is the most common level established as BACT in recent permits
for new cement kilns.\8\ As previously noted, some new kilns meet this
level of control using low-NOX burners and SCC. However, we
expect that, on average, new facilities would require only a modest
SNCR removal efficiency of 22 percent SNCR to meet this level from the
uncontrolled industry average 2.5 lb NOX/ton of clinker,
which is well within the range demonstrated for SNCR control efficiency
in this industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Memorandum from M. Bahner, RTI, to M. Laney, RTI, and K.
Barnett, EPA, Review of Three BACT Analyses, October 10, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third control level we evaluated was 1.5 lb/ton of clinker, and
was established based on our assessment of the best demonstrated
performance utilizing optimal process design, including SCC, and SNCR
taking into account variability of such factors as the burnability of
raw material inputs, which can affect NOX emissions. Data on
SNCR show a performance that ranges from approximately 20 to 80 percent
NOX reduction. Since NOX levels of 1.62 to 1.97
lb/ton of clinker are demonstrated for kilns using well-designed SCC, a
level of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker would be easily achievable even with
SNCR removal efficiencies in the lower range of demonstrated SNCR
performance. Generally, SNCR performance (i.e., percentage removed)
increases as uncontrolled NOX levels increase. For example,
SNCR performance in which a reagent was injected into a flue gas at a
temperature of 1,800 [deg]F, a 41 percent NOX removal
efficiency was obtained at 70 parts per million (ppm); at 200 ppm the
NOX removal efficiency increased to 54 percent. We estimate
that for an SNCR with optimal injection configuration and reagent
injection rate, a 50 percent NOX emission reduction
represents a reasonable level of performance of SNCR over the long
term. Although, as noted above, we are projecting that new kilns on
average will have emissions of 2.5 lb/ton of clinker prior to the
application of add-on controls, there may be some situations where
specific raw materials properties, such as those affecting burnability,
will result in higher uncontrolled NOX emissions. For this
reason we assumed a maximum baseline of 3.0 lb/ton of clinker and 50
percent emission reduction by SNCR to establish a 1.5 lb/ton of clinker
control level. And where uncontrolled NOX emission levels
achieved by process design are lower than the assumed maximum baseline
of 0.3 lb/ton of clinker, the removal efficiency of SNCR can be lower
and still achieve the 1.5 lb/ton of clinker limit. The levels of
performance for SNCR are from single test results. By allowing
compliance on a 30 day average, we are allowing more operating margin
to assure we have accounted for normal operating variability.
The results of this analysis showed that for both the 1.95 and 1.5
lb/ton of clinker levels, the capital costs for the installation are
the same, about $2.3 million. Annualized costs for the 1.95 level are
$0.7 million and for the 1.5 level, $1.3 million. The annualized cost,
including operating and maintenance costs, of control for the 1.5 level
is higher than the annualized cost for the 1.95 level because a higher
reagent injection rate would be required to reach the lower limit.
Overall cost effectiveness at the 1.95 lb/ton of clinker level was
approximately $2,000 per ton of NOX reduction and at the 1.5
lb/ton of clinker level was approximately $2,100 per ton of
NOX reduction. This level of cost effectiveness for both
options compares favorably with the reference range of NOX
control cost effectiveness ($200 to $2,800) considered highly cost
effective in the Clean Air Interstate Rule. See 70 FR 25208, May 12,
2005. Neither control option results in non-air environmental impacts.
The energy impacts due to electrical demand of the SNCR system ar