United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-85-0030
July 1988
Air
Portland Cement
Plants - Background
Information
for Promulgated
Revisions to Standards

-------
                                       EPA-450/3-85-003b
               PORTLAND CEMENT-
   BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR PROMULGATED
            REVISIONS  TO  STANDARDS
         EMISSION  STANDARDS DIVISION
    U.  S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         OFFICE OF  AIR AND RADIATION
OFFICE OF AIR  QUALITY PLANNING  AND STANDARDS
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH  CAROINA  27711
                  JULY 1988
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
          77 West  Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Chicago,  IL 60604-3590

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of the
Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved for
publication.  Mention of trade names or commercial products 1s not
Intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.  Copies of
this report are available through the Library Services Office (MD-35),
U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
or from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1          SUMMARY	   1-1
1.1        Summary of Changes Since Proposal	    1-2

2          SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS	    2-1
2.1        General	    2-1
2.2        Costs and Economic Impact	    2-8
2.3        Environmental Impact	  2-27
2.4        Selection of Emission Limits	  2-31
2.5        Legal Considerations	  2-35
2.6        Testing and Monitoring	  2-37
2.7        Reporting and Recordkeeping	  2-53
2.8        Wording of Regulation	  2-58



                              LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                Page
2-1        List of Commenters	  2-2
2-2        Continuous Opacity Monitor Capital  and Annual Costs	  2-9

-------
                                1.  SUMMARY

     New source performance standards  (NSPS) for the Portland  cement
industry were proposed by EPA on August  17,  1971 (36 FR  15704),
promulgated on December 23, 1971  (36 FR  24876), and revised  in response  to
a court remand on November 12, 1974 (39  FR 39872).  As required by
Section lll(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Air Act, the standards were  reviewed in
1979.  No revisions to the standard were made as a result of that review
(44 FR 60761), although it was recommended that the use of continuous
opacity monitoring systems (COMS's) be required.  In 1983, EPA undertook a
second review of the standards of performance for portland cement
plants.  During this review, it was found that improper operation and
maintenance of control equipment is a significant cause of excess emission
episodes in the portland cement industry.  It was also found that kilns
controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESP's) deenergize the
precipitator during periods of carbon monoxide trips, and particulate
matter emissions are exhausted uncontrolled to the atmosphere.  As a
result of these findings, it was proposed that COMS's be installed on all
kilns, clinker coolers, and alkali bypass control device stacks for
facilities subject to the NSPS.  It was also proposed that all plants
subject to the NSPS submit semiannual  malfunction reports on the
frequency, duration, and cause of all  episodes leading to the bypass or
deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions.
     The amendments to the regulation  were proposed  on September 10, 1985
(50 FR 36956), with a request for public comment. A public hearing was
held on October 25, 1985,  and four speakers  representing  three portland
cement companies and two trade associations  presented  comments on  the
proposed amendments.  A total  of 18 letters  were  received from commenters
representing industry,  trade associations,  and  State and  local  air
                                    1-1

-------
pollution control agencies.  Their comments and EPA's responses  are
summarized 1n Chapter 2 of this document.  The summary of  comments  and
responses serves as the basis for the revisions that have  been made to  the
NSPS for portland cement plants between proposal and promulgation.
1.1  SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
     In response to the public comments and as a result of EPA
reevaluation, certain changes have been made in the proposed amendments
prior to promulgation.
     As a result of reevaluation, the COM3 excess emission reporting
frequency has been changed from quarterly to semiannually  in this
regulation.  Also, the separate requirement to submit semiannual reports
on the frequency, duration, and cause of any episodes leading to bypass or
deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions has been deleted
for sources using a COMS.  The EPA has determined that this information
can be obtained from the semiannual  excess emission reports.  However,
those sources that do not Install a COMS would be required to submit
semiannual reports on the frequency, duration, and cause of any incident
leading to bypass or deenergization of the kiln control  device.
     The regulation has been revised to allow owners or operators of
existing and new, multiple-stack, positive- or negative-pressure fabric
filters or ESP's the option of performing Method 9 observations daily in
lieu of installing COMS's.   The EPA has determined that multiple-stack
control devices may have some economic and environmental  advantages
compared to single-stack control  devices, and, therefore,  EPA does not
want to preclude the use of multiple-stack control  devices or require
installation of multiple COMS's.   Multiple-stack ESP's  have been included
as control devices that may be monitored by Reference Method 9 observa-
tions in lieu of installing COMS's because one company  informed the Agency
that it uses multiple-stack ESP's at one of its facilities.  Fabric
filters or ESP's that exhaust gases  through a  monovent must be monitored
by certified visible emission observers rather than monitoring with a
COMS.
     Section 60.63(c) has been revised to clarify  that where visible
emissions are observed for  a number  of emission sites on either multiple-
                                    1-2

-------
stack fabric filters or ESP's, Method 9 observations must be made for the
emission site with the highest opacity.
     For clarification, definitions of "bypass," "bypass stack," and
"monovent" have been added to the regulation.
                                   1-3

-------
                       2.   SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

     A  total of  18  letters  commenting on  the proposed  standard and the
background  Information  document  for the proposed  amendments were
received.   Comments from  the  public hearing on  the  proposed amendments
were recorded, and  a transcript  of the hearing  was  placed  1n the project
docket.  A  11st  of  commenters, their affiliations,  and  the EPA docket
number  assigned  to  their  correspondence 1s  given  in Table  2-1.
     For the purpose of orderly  presentation, the comments have been
categorized under the following  topics:
     2-1.  General;
     2-2.  Costs and Economic Impact;
     2-3.  Environmental  Impact;
     2-4.  Selection of Emission  Limits;
     2-5.  Legal Considerations;
     2-6.  Testing  and  Monitoring;
     2-7.  Reporting and Recordkeeping; and
     2-8.  Wording of Regulation.
     The comments and EPA's responses are presented in the following
sections of this chapter.  The docket reference is indicated in
parentheses in each  comment.
2.1  GENERAL
2.1.1  Comment:  One commenter (IV-D-1) questions the source and
reliability of the EPA-sponsored study on  excess visible emissions from
16 source categories that included Portland cement plants.   The commenter
contends that the study cited  in the preamble by EPA is probably an
unpublished report that received no critical review.  In addition, the
                                    2-1

-------
              TABLE 2-1.  LIST OF COMMENTERS ON  THE  PROPOSED
              AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE  FOR
                          PORTLAND CEMENT PLANTS
Docket
entry
No.                          Commenter/affiliation

IV-D-1                       R. F. Gebhardt
                             Lehlgh Portland Cement Company
                             718 Hamilton Mall
                             Allentown, Pennsylvania  18105
IV-D-2                       R. H. Berby
                             Kaiser Cement Corporation
                             300 Lakeside Drive
                             Oakland, California  94612
IV-D-3                       E. F. Young, Jr.
                             American Iron and Steel Institute
                             1000 16th Street, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C.  20036
IV-D-4                       J. K. Hambrlght
                             Pennsylvania Bureau of A1r Quality Control
                             200 N. Third Street
                             Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania  17120
IV-D-5                       D0 S. Cahn
                             CalMat Company
                             9300 Flair Drive
                             El Monte, California  91734-1210
IV-D-6                       R. F. Gebhardt
                             Lehlgh Portland Cement Company
                             718 Hamilton Mall
                             Allentown, Pennsylvania  18105
IV-D-75                      R. W. Crollus
                             Portland Cement Association
                             Suite 520
                             1620 I Street, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C.  20006
IV-D-8                       J. A. Paul
                             Regional  A1r Pollution Control  Agency
                             Post Office Box 972
                             Dayton,  Ohio  45422
                                                               (continued)
                                   2-2

-------
                          TABLE 2-1.   (continued)
Docket
entry
No.                          Commenter/aff111at1on


IV-D-9                       D. Y. Maclver
                             Southwestern Portland Cement Company
                             Post Office Box 937
                             Victorvllle, California  92392

IV-D-10                      F. W. Cohrs
                             Moore McCormack Cement, Inc.
                             605 West Broad Street
                             Brooksvllle, Florida  33512

IV-D-11                      J. A. Overton, Jr.
                             American Mining Congress
                             Suite 800
                             1920 N. Street, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C.  20036

IV-D-12                      W. L. Greer
                             Lone Star Industries, Inc.
                             515 West Greens Road, Suite 400
                             Houston, Texas  77067

IV-D-135                     R. W. Crollus
                             Portland Cement Association
                             Suite 520
                             1620 I Street, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C.  20006

IV-D-14                      J. WHlenberg
                             State of Washington
                             Department of Ecology
                             4530 150th Avenue N.E.
                             Redmond, Washington   98052-5301
IV-D-15                      J. S. Geier
                             Air Pollution Control  Division
                             Colorado Department  of  Health
                             4210 East llth Avenue
                             Denver,  Colorado  80220

IV-D-16                      W. H. Wulf, Jr.
                             The Monarch Cement Company
                             Humboldt, Kansas  66748
                                                               (continued)
                                   2-3

-------
                          TABLE 2-1.  (continued)
Docket
entry
No.                          Commenter/affiliation

IV-D-17                      J. F. Chadbourne
                             General Portland, Inc.
                             12700 Park Central Place
                             Suite 2100
                             Dallas, Texas  75221

IV-D-18                      E. J. Price
                             National Gypsum Company—Cement Division
                             Post Office Box 887
                             Southfleld, Michigan  48037
IV-D-19                      J. Francis
                             Department of Environmental Control
                             State of Nebraska
                             Post Office Box 94877
                             Lincoln, Nebraska  68509-4877

IV-F-1                       Transcript of Public Hearing,
                             Speakers were:

                               Walter Greer, Lone Star Industries, Inc.

                               Robert Crollus, Portland Cement Association

                               Douglas Maclver, American Mining Congress
                                 and Southwestern Portland Cement Company

                               David Cahn,  CalMat Company


aThese designations represent docket entry  numbers for Docket  No.  A-84-08;
 these documents are available for public  inspection  at:   U. S.  Environ-
 mental  Protection Agency,  Central  Docket Section, West Tower  Lobby,
.Gallery 1, Waterside Mall,  401 M Street, Washington,  D.C.  20460.
°Th1s comment letter was  inadvertently entered into the docket  twice
 (IV-0-7 and IV-D-13).
                                   2-4

-------
 commenter presents the following Information that appears to be
 Inconsistent with the EPA-sponsored study:
      1.   The study claimed that the kilns Investigated had uncontrolled
 emission  rates ranging from 721 to 182,000 megagrams (Mg) per year.  The
 AP-42 emission factors for kilns are about 12 percent of the production
 rate.   It 1s estimated that the kiln with uncontrolled emissions of 721 Mg
 would only produce 7,000 tons  of product per year,  but because no kilns
 that  small have been operated  for years, the source and reliability of the
 data  are  questioned.
      2.   It 1s claimed in the  same document that excess emissions from
 rotary kilns are 38 tons per year.   The  background  information document
 claims that there are 135 clinker producing plants.  If both claims are
 true,  the average "excess emissions"  per plant  is only 563 pounds.   (The
 commenter requests that the term "excess emissions" be defined.)   However,
 if  1t 1s  assumed that the 38 tons of  "excess emissions" is per kiln and
 that  the  average uncontrolled  emissions  are 56,000  tons (10 percent of
 product),  emissions would be 0.068  percent,  which represents  a control
 efficiency of 99.93 percent.   This  1s equivalent  to less  than  0.1 pound
 per ton or 0.004 percent of feed,  and control efficiency  would be better
 than 99.995 percent.
      Response:   The report  cited  (Docket  Item II-A-4)  is  entitled
 "Characterization of Air Pollution  Control  Equipment Operation  and
 Maintenance Problems,"  dated February 1981.  This is a  published report
 and is available  through  the National Technical Information Service  (NTIS
 No. 83189985);  it does  not  have an  assigned  EPA document number.  This
 study was  sponsored  by  EPA  in conjunction with the Council on
 Environmental  Quality  (CEQ) and involved six State and three local air
pollution  control  agencies.  The data were gathered by comprehensive
on-site inspections  at  seven cement manufacturing plants, which included
the collection of  operating and maintenance data for nine rotary kilns.
Four contractors were involved in the initial source inspections.  In
accordance with EPA policy, the results of these source inspections were
reviewed by the specific plants and by EPA and CEQ.   This report
summarizing the results was subsequently reviewed and approved for
publication by the EPA Office of Policy,  Planning, and Evaluation.
                                   2-5

-------
      In order to  ensure  the  cooperation of the participating sources, 1t
was  necessary to  maintain  their anonymity throughout  the study.   In
response to  this  comment,  it has been  determined  that the actual  cement
production rate at this  plant 1s 300,000 tons  per year,  not  7,000 tons per
year.   The 721 Mg of partlculate matter per year  cited 1n the report 1s an
estimate based on the average controlled emission rate obtained from stack
test data.   Also, the plant  may not  have been  operating  at full capacity
during  the Investigation.  In addition,  the AP-42 emission rate represents
an average of data obtained  from 9 dry-process  kilns  and 13  wet-process
kilnSe   The  uncontrolled emission rate  at  these plants actually ranged
from 1  to 25 percent of the  production  rate for dry-process  kilns and 1 to
33 percent of the production rate for wet-process kilns.   The EPA-
sponsored study was based on actual  data from  seven cement plants,  and the
Administrator has no reason  to  doubt the reliability of  the  data  and
results.
     As  defined in the report,  "excess emissions" 1s the  absolute quantity
of a given pollutant emitted  to  the atmosphere in excess  of  a defined
regulatory limit.  The 38 tons of "excess emissions" per year referred  to
is on a  per  kiln basis.  If  the  average uncontrolled emissions are
56,000  tons  per year as assumed  by the commenter and the design efficiency
of the control device is 99.9 percent, 56 tons of particulate matter would
be released  uncontrolled into the atmosphere.   This amount combined with
38 tons  of excess emissions per year results 1n an Increase of 68 percent
for a total  of 90 tons of uncontrolled partlculate matter per kiln per
year.  This  is equivalent to a control  device  efficiency of 99.8 percent
or 0.118  pound of partlculate matter per ton feed (dry process).
2.1.2  Comment:  After the last public hearing speaker (IV-F-1) had
concluded his oral presentation, Mr.  Jerry Winberry, a company
representative in the audience, noted that throughout  the proceedings no
cement industry representatives questioned the opacity standard.   He asked
whether the commenter or individual  plants were concerned about detached
plume problems and whether the issue  had been  considered during the review
of the standards.   He noted that the  issue had  been  addressed in the
background information document and  that no one had  responded to those
findings.
                                   2-6

-------
     In response to this question from Mr. Wlnberry,  the  hearing  speaker
(IV-F-1) stated that 1t was a problem but that his company  very seldom has
detached plumes; 1t 1s a phenomenon related to ammonium compounds 1n  the
exhaust gases when specialty clInker 1s produced.  Also,  the phenomenon
appeared to be more common with wet kilns; his company has  dry kilns  and,
therefore, 1t 1s not a big problem.  He added that continuous opacity
monitors (COM's) do not detect detached plumes.
     Response:  The 4-year review of the MSPS revealed that 27 out  of
30 kilns that have become subject to the NSPS since the last review are in
compliance with the particulate mass emission limit and the 20 percent
visible emission limit; 3 of the 30 kilns are not yet operational.
Several plants have had problems with detached plumes; however, no  single
cause appears to be responsible for their occurrence.  Two  plants  (one wet
and one dry process) have corrected detached plume problems caused  by
kerogen (a bituminous material) in the limestone feed material.  Another
plant had detached plumes on Its two oil-fired wet process  kilns.   The
plant now operates one coal-fired dry process kiln and has  had no further
problems with detached plumes.  Another plant with a detached plume
problem 1s in compliance with the mass standard and in continuous
compliance with the opacity standard as determined by a transmlssometer.
However, after much testing, the cause of the detached plume at this  plant
1s still unknown.  Detached plumes have been studied extensively at
several facilities by the industry and EPA (Docket Items I-D-48,  I-I-17,
I-I-22, II-A-3).  The raw materials, the feed, the blasting explosives
used in mining, and the ambient temperature are potential  contributing
factors.  In general, detached plumes do not prevent plants from meeting
the opacity standard.  If a detached plume is formed after the COMS and
the plume violates the opacity standard,  the Agency has determined that
the situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis  by the
appropriate enforcing agency to determine the cause of the detached plume
and to initiate corrective action.   The source owner or operator may
petition the Administrator for an adjusted opacity standard as  provided in
40 CFR 60.11(e).
                                   2-7

-------
2.2  COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
2.2.1  Comment;  Several commenters  (IV-F-1;  IV-0-1;  IV-D-11;  IV-D-12;
IV-D-18) were opposed to the Installation of  COMS's because  they  believe
that the cost of COMS's presented by EPA 1s too  low.   [EPA estimated  that
the capital cost of purchasing and Installing a  COMS would be  about
$31,500.]  Several different cost estimates given by the commenters for
the purchase and Installation of a COMS ranged as follows:   $50,000 to
$60,000 per COMS (Including calibration) plus the cost to Install
platforms and ladders; $60,000 per COMS plus  the cost of recordkeeping  and
reporting; $65,000 per COMS; $70,000 per COMS; and $80,000 per COMS.
     The commenters believe that the Installation cost of a  COMS will vary
from plant to plant; the cost may be $60,000  at one plant and as much as
$1.5 minion at another plant.  The commenters gave the following reasons
why they believe the cost will vary and, as a result, why EPA's estimate
is too low:
     1.  The EPA has underestimated ancillary costs such as  those for
tools for calibration and repair.  A more realistic estimate for COMS
installation should include costs for engineering, the COM,  a recorder, an
alignment tool, materials, labor, certification, contingencies, and the
cost associated with bringing access ladders up to safety standards;
     2.  The EPA did not consider the substantial costs of constructing
access to and platforms on installation sites that,  in many cases, could
surpass hardware costs; and
     3.  Costs for older plants may be substantially higher than for new
plants because of limited accessibility of the stacks.
     Response:  In response to these comments, EPA requested  additional
information from seven plants that have already installed COMS's,
generally in response to State or local requirements.   Five responses  for
six COMS Installations were received (see entries in Docket
Category IV-D).  The information request sent to the respondents
specifically asked for cost information on  tools for calibration  and
repair, engineering, a recorder,  certification,  contingencies,  etc.
Table 2-2 presents a summary of the capital  and  annual  COMS costs  reported
for the six installations.   For comparison,  all  cost  data were  updated to
                                   2-8

-------
     TABLE  2-2.    CONTINUOUS  OPACITY  MONITORING  SYSTEM  CAPITAL  AND  ANNUAL
                                           COSTS  (1984  Dollars)
Plant
Capital costs, S
CONS and equipment
cost
Installation cost
Certification cost
Total, S
Annual costs, S
Utilities and
operating labor
Maintenance
Capital recovery
Total, t
Plant A
(retrofit/
non-NSPS)
19.128

36,340
l.SOO
56,968
2,028

500
9,271J
11.799
Plant B
(retrofit/
non-NSPS)
27,274

8,648b
0"
3S,922e
2,260

4,503
5.850"
12.613*
Plant C
(retrofit/
NSPS)
18,488

13,150
5.142
36,780
NAh

1.450
5,986J
7,436"
Plant D
(retrofit/
NSPS)
21,782

10,055
NA
31,837f
885

2,213'
5.1814
8.279
Plant E
(new/NSPS)
55,179a

657,856°
1,500
714, 53S9
680

4.600
107,066J
112.3469
Plant 0
(new/NSPS)
21,632

10,055
NA
31.687f
885

429
5,157J'
6.471
EPA proposal
estimate
22.000

} 9,500

31,500
4,514

1,047
5,127
10,688
NA • not available.
*The cost reported by the plant Is for a conciliation opacity. SO , NO ,  and CO  monitor.   The vendor reports  that  the cost
 for just tht opacity monitor would be approximately S18.000 (1985 doflars).
''Cost undtrestlMted because the entire cost of wiring  and conduit could not be detemlned.
cThe CONS was installed during construction and was included in the installation cost sf  the stack.  Labor cost of $40,000
 was included in the response, but it  included building a 5 ft x 10 ft structure around the monitor.
dThe COMS has not been certified, and  there are no plans to have it certified.
eTotal cost underestinated because installation cost was underestimated.
 This is the estimated cost in 1985 dollars for COMS installation on their clinker coolers Based on their experience
 installing CONS's on their kilns.
'Cost overestimated because this includes cost of installing the stack.
^Jtilttles and labor for just the COMS could not be determined.
1 There fs no access or platform installed.  A high lift truck is used to reach the COM (21 feet above grade)  for
 maintenance.  This cost includes the  amount a plant would have to spend to rent a high lift truck if it  did  not already
 have one.
JA capital recovery charge was calculated (16.275 percent of capital costs) to allow comparison with EPA  and  Plant B
 costs.  Overhead was not included in  Plant 3 costs.
kTotal cost underestimated because utilities and labor  cost could not be determined.
                                                        2-9

-------
 1984 dollars.   The kilns at Plants C,  D, and E are subject to the NSPS;
 Plants A and B  are subject  to  State requirements only.   The COMS's on four
 of  the kilns at the plants  surveyed were Installed on existing stacks,
 while the COMS's on two  of  the kilns were Installed during Its
 construction.
      The cost for a COMS and associated  equipment ranged from $18,000 to
 $27,000.   Plant E reported  a cost  of $55,200,  but this was for a
 combination opacity,  S02, NOX,  and C02 monitor.   The vendor of the
 $55,200 combination monitor was contacted,  and he reported that the cost
 for just  an opacity monitor at  Plant E would be  about $18,000 (Docket
 Item IV-E-60).   These costs are consistent  with  EPA's previously estimated
 cost of $22,000.
      At Plant A,  which is not  subject to  the NSPS,  a new platform and
 access  had to be  Installed  because the existing  platform and  access were
 not  1n  a  location suitable  for  COMS  Installation.   The Installation and
 certification cost of the COMS  was  $37,800.  The largest cost components
 at  this plant were the costs for purchasing a  transformer  and for the
 labor to  install  the  COMS,  platform, and  access.  The costs at  this  plant
 have been determined  to  be  unusually high because if this  kiln  were
 subject to the  NSPS,  the platform  and access would  have  been  in a location
 suitable for stack testing  and, thus, for COMS installation and  would  not
 have required rebuilding.  Also, the installation cost of the COMS  is
 unusually high  because 1f the kiln had been subject to the NSPS,  the
 proper  voltage  and amperage would have been available to perform  EPA
 Method  5 during compliance testing.  Thus, for these reasons, EPA believes
 that the COMS installation costs at this plant are not representative of
 the  COMS installation costs for a plant subject to the NSPS.  At Plant B,
 the  existing platform and access were used, and the total installation
 cost was about $8,600.
     At Plant C, the existing stack testing platform and  access were used
with modifications at a reported installation and certification cost of
 $18,300.  At Plant D, the existing stack  testing platform and access were
 used for one kiln, and the plant estimated the  installation cost in 1985
 dollars at $10,100.  At this facility,  the 1985 capital and installation
 costs provided were the plant's estimated and budgeted costs to install
                                   2-10

-------
COMS's on Its clinker coolers based on Its experience and the  costs  of
Installing COMS's on Its kilns.  Thus, for Plants A, B, C,  and D,  COMS
Installation costs for existing kilns, Including certification costs where
available, ranged from $8,600 to $37,800.  The EPA had estimated a total
Installation cost of $9,500 Including operator training and certification,
which 1s at the lower end of the costs reported by the four facilities.
The high estimate, $37,800, includes the costs for Installation of a new
platform and access and for a transformer.  However, as discussed
previously, this cost would not be typical for a plant subject to  the NSPS
and, excluding the $37,800 estimate, the COMS installation and
certification costs range from $8,600 to $18,300.
     Plant E provided cost information for a COMS installed on the kiln
stack during construction of the kiln.  Because all of the construction
was done at once, the plant was not able to determine the cost for
installing only the COMS.  The reported Installation and certification
cost of $659,400 includes the cost of the stack and $40,000 for purchasing
the COMS.  The cost of the COMS is overstated because it is for a  combined
opacity, S02, NOX, and C02 monitor.  The platform and access and the
majority of the costs for engineering and supervision activities would
have been required for performance testing, and, thus, the associated
costs are not directly attributable to the COMS.  Therefore, it is not
possible to make a comparison between this plant's installation cost  and
EPA's estimated installation cost.
     One of the plants that installed a COMS on its existing kiln also
installed a COMS on another kiln during construction of that kiln and
estimated that the installation cost, $10,000,  was about the same  in both
cases.
     In conclusion, these responses show that capital  and  installation
costs are site-specific and the installation costs are generally higher
than costs previously estimated by EPA.  The total  capital  and  installa-
tion costs of COMS's ranged from $31,700 to $57,000 compared to EPA's
previous estimate of $31,500.   However, for the reasons  stated  previously,
it has been determined that the higher cost of  $57,000 is  not
representative of COMS capital  and installation costs  at plants subject  to
the NSPS because the plant not  subject to the NSPS  had  to  install  a new
                                   2-11

-------
platform and access.  Thus, based on these  responses,  EPA has  reevaluated
the COMS capital and  Installation costs and Increased  the estimate from
$31,500 to a range of $32,000 to $40,000.   However,  EPA does not  believe
that even the higher  cost of $40,000 will result  1n  an unreasonable burden
on the plants.
     The EPA does not consider 1t appropriate to  Include the cost of
contracting an access and a platform because these Items should have
already been Installed 1n order to perform  stack  testing to determine
compliance with the mass emission standard  as required under
40 CFR 60.8.  In fact, at Plants C and D, which are  subject to the NSPS
and which Installed COMS's on the existing  stacks, the existing platforms
and accesses were used.  Plant B, which 1s  not subject to the NSPS,  was
also able to use the  existing platform and  access.   At Plant C, the
platform required slight modifications to widen the  platform and
strengthen the handrails, and the Installation cost was  $13,150.   Plant A
was the only plant responding to this survey that was  unable to use  the
existing platform and access, and this plant 1s not  subject to the NSPS.
This plant did not have the platform and access 1n a suitable location  for
compliance testing and, thus, for COMS Installation.
     Certification costs reported were $1,500 at two plants and $5,000  at
another plant.  The EPA has Included the cost of certification with  an
Installation cost of  $9,500.  All the COMS's that were required to be
certified passed the certification test on the first  attempt.   One plant
was not required to certify its COMS.   The $5S000 cost seems high, and
further contact with this plant provided no information on the possible
reason.  However, the total  capital  cost at this plant was $36,000, which
Includes the certification cost,  and this  total  is consistent  with the
capital cost range of $32,800 to  40,000 that represents EPA's  revised
estimate.
     The EPA does not believe that COMS installation  costs will  be
substantially higher for older plants  with limited accessibility than for
new plants because all plants subject  to the NSPS should have  installed
and maintained an access for compliance stack testing.   At one  plant
responding to the survey, the kiln was  installed in 1963, and the  COMS was
installed in 1984; however,  the COMS installation cost  of $8,600 was
                                   2-12

-------
comparable to the other cost estimates.  At another plant,  the  platform
was widened and the handrails were strengthened when the COM3 was
Installed 3 years after construction of the kiln.  The costs of these
modifications and Installation of the COM3 totaled approximately $13,150,
which 1s also comparable to the other cost estimates.
2.2.2  Comment:  Several commenters (IV-F-1; IV-D-11; IV-D-12;  IV-D-18)
were also concerned that the annual 1zed cost presented by EPA 1s too
low.  [EPA estimated that the annualized cost of a COMS would be about
$10,700.]  The various cost estimates ranged as follows:  $12,500  per
COMS; $20,000 per COMS; $21,041 per COMS; and $45,000 to $65,000 per
plant, assuming two or three COMS's per kiln.
     The commenters gave the following reasons why they believe EPA's
annual1zed cost estimate Is too low:
     1.  The estimate of 22 hours of labor for maintenance  seems low  and
assumes few, 1f any, breakdowns; and
     2.  The annual1zed cost would also reflect the higher  cost for
Installation as discussed above.
     Response:  The annual costs for utilities, operating labor,
maintenance, and capital charges reported by four plants ranged  from
$6,500 to $12,600 compared to EPA's previous estimate of $10,700.  As
shown 1n Table 2-2, these figures Include a capital recovery charge
(16.275 percent of capital costs) that has been added to the annual costs
reported by Plants A, C, and 0 to allow comparison with those costs
reported by Plant B, which Included capital recovery charges.  The annual
cost for Plant E was not Included 1n the range because the capital
recovery factor includes the cost of installing the stack, but the other
components of the annual costs for Plant E were within the range of costs
reported by the other plants.
     The respondents indicated very little maintenance is required  for
their COMS's.  Normal activities performed weekly to monthly include
checking the calibration and cleaning the lens  and filter.   The  number  of
malfunctions/breakdowns of the COMS was also low and ranged  from zero to
three incidents per year.   No  estimates for maintenance  labor hours were
submitted.  Although the required maintenance activities  are limited, the
reported costs were $400 to $4,600 per year.  The EPA had previously
                                   2-13

-------
estimated the cost of maintenance  at  $1,000.   Although some of the
reported maintenance costs were  higher  than EPA's  estimate, the reported
utilities and operating costs were lower  than  those  estimated by EPA.
Thus, the total annual costs reported by  industry  are  consistent with the
EPA estimate.  Because of EPA's  decision  to increase the estimated range
of capital costs to $32,000 to $40,000, the annual cost estimate has been
increased to reflect the capital recovery charge ($6,510)  associated with
the $40,000 capital cost.  Thus, it is  estimated that  the  annual  cost for
COMS's would be approximately $12,800 (Docket  Item IV-B-4).   This results
in a maximum increase in total annual control  costs  of 3.8 percent,  which
is still considered reasonable.
     In most cases only one COM3 will be  required per  kiln.   However, in
cases where a separate bypass stack is  installed through which  emissions
are sometimes vented to the atmosphere, a COMS will  be required on the
bypass stack in addition to the main control device  stack.  No  situations
have been identified where more than two COMS's will  be required  per kiln
as suggested by one of the commenters.
     Of the 64 plants subject to the NSPS, 5 plants may be required  to
Install 4 COMS's each, the most that any plant would  be required  to
install.  Assuming the estimated annual  cost of $12,800 per COMS, the
total annual cost at each of these five plants will be $51,200.  Thus, the
$45,000 to $65,000 mentioned by one of the commenters  1s likely to be
incurred only by those five plants; costs  for the remaining 59 plants will
be substantially lower.
2.2.3  Comment;   A portland cement company (IV-0-6) contracted with an
independent engineering  firm to estimate the capital  cost of installing
one COMS.   The engineering firm estimated  the  cost  at $125,000, which
includes a self-supporting stair tower around  the existing stack and a new
platform.   The existing  platforms and  ladders  would be  removed.  The cost
for a self-supporting stair tower with access  walkway and a new platform
would be $130,000 with the existing ladder and  platform left intact.   The
commenter emphasized  that the capital  cost of  an  opacity monitor must also
include certain  installation costs  in  addition  to the cost of the monitor
itself, and almost all kilns subject to  the  NSPS  will require two or three
opacity monitors.   The commenter states  that it is  probable that not even
                                   2-14

-------
one pound of additional particulate matter will  be collected  as  a  result
of a COMS; therefore, the cost effectiveness  1s  "astronomical."
     Response:  The Agency has reviewed the cost estimates provided  by the
Independent engineering firm and has determined  that the capital cost
estimates of $125,000 to $130,000 for Installation of a COMS  are
overstated.  The EPA does not agree that 1t 1s necessary to build  a  new
platform and staircase at this plant.  The type  of staircase  costed  is
unnecessarily expensive for its intended purpose.  The EPA has evaluated
these costs and determined that if the costs  of  building the  stairs  and
platforms and the associated engineering costs are excluded,  the resulting
capital cost is about $33,500 including Installation, which is consistent
with the range of costs ($32,000 to $40,000)  estimated by EPA and
supported by responses from the plant survey  (Docket Item IV-B-4).
     As discussed 1n the previous response, EPA  has determined that  at the
most only two COMS's per kiln will be required,  one for the main kiln
control device stack and, if necessary, one for  the separate control
device stack on the alkali bypass.
     It is not the purpose of COM's in themselves to reduce emissions.   As
mentioned in the response to Comment 2.1.8.,  the EPA-sponsored study
determined that excess emissions are caused primarily by operation and
maintenance problems.  Thus, the use of COMS's to ensure proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment, as would be required by the
promulgated amendments, is appropriate.
2.2.4  Comment:  One commenter (IV-D-1) stated that the EPA-proposed
requirement to retrofit COMS's would require the installation of COMS's  on
equipment that has been in service for up to 15 years and that was not
designed for opacity monitors or the frequent traffic required for their
maintenance.  The commenter does not believe that existing ports and
platforms could be used to mount COMS's because they must be available for
mass emissions testing, the platforms are narrow, and they are normally
accessible only by an exposed vertical  ladder.  Another commenter (IV-F-1;
IV-D-5) noted that many stacks have ladders that are not  in  compliance
with OSHA regulations, and,  thus,  replacement would  be  required.   Guard
rails, platforms, transformers,  electric wiring,  and  conduits  would be
needed on the stack, especially  on older stacks.
                                   2-15

-------
     The first commenter states that  at  the minimum,  the  existing platform
would  have to be widened and reinforced  at an estimated cost of $10,000 to
$20,000 for a short steel stack and more for a tall steel,  concrete,  or
masonry stack.  If replacing the stack 1s required, the cost would be
about  $100,000 Including the platform.   In addition,  safe access to the
platform would be required to allow for  frequent servicing  and  repair of
the COMS.  The commenter estimates that  the cost of the access  structure
would  be $200,000 for either a free-standing structure or replacement of
the existing stack with a short steel stack designed  to support all-
weather access, the access Itself, and new platforms.  Consequently,  the
cost to retrofit a stack would be $270,000, with a total  cost per kiln of
$540,000 to $810,000 (assuming at least  two or three monitors would be
required per kiln).  The commenter believes that an expenditure this  great
1s clearly excessive even 1f one assumes that it would result in
collection of the maximum of 38 tons of  partlculate matter per  year as
claimed by EPA.
     The second commenter estimated an "almost worst-case" capital  cost  of
$101,070 including the COMS ($22,000), transportation and taxes  ($2,462),
certification ($4,500 1f they pass the first time), platform  installation,
contingencies, and engineering supervision.  This cost does not  involve
replacing the entire stack 1n cases where it would not hold the  extra
weight or where the stack would vibrate too much  because of the  fan.
Averaging this figure ($101,070)  and the cost presented in the preamble
($31,500) equals $65,000, which,  when multiplied  by 100 COMS's,  yields an
industry wide cost of $6.5 million.  The commenter believes this amount  is
excessive and unwarranted in view of the minimal  reduction in particulate
emissions that might result.
     Response:  The Agency has reviewed the cost  estimates provided by the
commenters and has determined that the capital cost estimates of $101,079
and $270,000 for installation of  a COMS are overstated.  The EPA does not
agree that it is necessary to build a new platform and staircase because
these items should have been installed to conduct the  performance test to
determine compliance with the standard.   Several  of the  plants surveyed
did not have any problems using the existing  platform  and  access for the
installation of COMS's.   At one plant (10 years old),  the  platform was
                                   2-16

-------
widened and handrails strengthened at a cost of approximately  $13,150
including installation of the COMS.  At one plant that  1s  not  subject to
the NSPS and that installed a new platform and access,  the total
installation cost was only $36,300, which would not result in  an
unreasonable burden.
     Existing stacks must be equipped with a platform,  access,  and  testing
ports to allow for compliance testing as required by 40 CFR 60.8:
          (e)  The owner or operator of an affected facility shall
     provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing facilities as
     follows:
          (1)  Sampling ports adequate for test methods applicable  to such
     facility.
          (2)  Safe sampling platform(s).
          (3)  Safe access to sampling platform(s).
          (4)  Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
As previously discussed in the response to Comment 2.2.1,  the existing
platform and access should be adequate as is, or with only minor
modifications, to accept the installation of a COMS.  Therefore, the
Agency believes that replacement of an existing stack would not be
required.  In addition, as stated previously, at the most  only two  COMS's
would be required per kiln or four COMS's per plant, for a  total cost of
$160,000 per plant, which EPA has determined to be reasonable in view of
information to be obtained by the monitors that will help ensure proper
operation and maintenance of control  equipment.
     The cost of conduit reported by the second commenter  is overstated at
$65 per foot.  If the costs to install  the platform and stairs are
excluded and the cost of conduit is estimated at $6 per foot (Richardson
Engineering Services, Docket Item IV-J-6), the resulting capital cost is
about $36,500, which is consistent with EPA's revised estimate of $32,000
to $40,000 and with costs reported by the five plants discussed in the
response to Comment 2.2.1.
     The EPA has determined that for  the 118 kilns,  clinker coolers, and
alkali bypass stacks at the 64 plants subject to the NSPS,  more than
29 COMS's have been installed, in most  cases in response to State
requirements.  Using EPA's  higher estimated  capital  and  installation cost
of $40,000 and multiplying  by  the 89  COMS's  projected  to be installed
                                   2-17

-------
results  1n  an Industry wide cost of approximately $3.6 milHon.   The EPA
does not believe this estimated Industry wide cost  1s excessive.
2.2.5  Comment:  One commenter (IV-F-1) states that substitution  of a
certified visible emissions observer Instead of a COMS to determine the
opacity  of  visible emissions from certain types of fabric filters would be
more expensive than EPA anticipates.  One company foresees a need for two,
full-time,  trained employees at a cost of approximately $80,000 per
year.  It was suggested that industry resources could be better used for
maintenance and enhancement of existing control systems rather than for
complying with unnecessary and unwarranted new requirements.  Another
commenter (IV-0-11) noted that the costs of visual observations are
understated due to the costs to train, certify, and employ qualified
personnel.
     Response:  The EPA has estimated that a company would need to  train
two employees to read visible emissions at a cost of $1,949, including
fees, mileage, per diem, hotelB and wages (Docket Item II-B-9).   However,
two plants  surveyed by EPA reported that their costs to train observers
only ranged from $50 to $300 dollars.   In addition,  EPA believes that only
one person "would be required to perform visible observations for a  short
period each day and that the remainder of the reader's day would be  used
to perform  other tasks.  The EPA estimates the time  required to take three
6-minute readings and reduce the data would be about 40 minutes per day at
an annual cost of $6,821.   The two plants responding to this question in
the survey  estimated 1 hour would  be required, and one plant estimated an
annual  cost of $4,400.  The EPA has concluded that its estimated costs of
visual  observations are still  appropriate;  in fact,  the cost may be
overstated.  Therefore, EPA does  not believe the  requirement to read
visible emissions using certified  observers will  result in an unreasonable
burden on personnel, time, or  financial  resources.
2.2.6  Comment:   One commenter (IV-F-1)  estimates  that his company would
need five certified readers and a  production foreman to  read  visible
emissions on open-top baghouses on a daily  basis.  One plant  has  a
baghouse with 20 compartments  and  an open vent at  the  top.   Reading the
opacity of emissions coming from every compartment,  including those with
an opacity of less  than 20 percent,  would require  a  lot of time.   The
                                   2-18

-------
commenter's company cannot afford to hire additional personnel  for  visible
emissions reading because of economic difficulties.
     Response;  It will not be necessary to read emissions  from every
single compartment of a multiple-stack control device.  The regulation has
been revised to require that visible emission observations  be recorded
only for the emission site with the highest opacity.  Thus,  in  most cases,
the time to perform observations should not exceed 40 to 60 minutes per
day.  Also, the Method 9 alternative for multiple-stack control  devices is
expected to be used infrequently.  Only one certified reader at each plant
would be necessary to read visible emissions.  The annual cost  estimated
by EPA Includes the cost of certifying two visual emission  observers.
Therefore, the personnel, time, and costs resulting from the amended
regulation are reasonable as discussed 1n the response to the previous
comment.
2.2.7  Comment:  It is stated 1n the proposal preamble that  COMS's  would
increase total annualized control costs by about 3 percent,  which EPA
considered reasonable.  However, the commenters (IV-D-11; IV-F-1) note
that Individual companies/plants do not assess the reasonableness of costs
by comparing the annual 1zed costs of COMS's to the total cost incurred by
the portland cement industry.  The commenters do not believe all of  the
costs are reasonable when compared to the questionable benefits to  be
achieved.  Another commenter (IV-F-1) added that, although 3 percent of
existing compliance costs may seem small  by itself, when it  is added to
the cost of all the various government requirements, the impact of
government regulation is substantial.
     Response:  The benefits and necessity of continuous monitoring  are
discussed in other sections of this chapter.   The estimate in the proposal
preamble of about a 3 percent increase in annualized control costs to
which the commenters referred was obtained by comparing the estimated
annual  cost to operate a COMS to the annual  cost  of complying with the
existing NSPS at a single affected facility.   In  this analysis,  a worst-
case cost was used, that is,  installation of  a COMS on a small  clinker
cooler (300,000 tons of clinker produced  per  year)  controlled by a fabric
filter was assumed.  For this clinker cooler,  the cost to  comply with the
existing NSPS would be about  $321,000.  Based  on  EPA's estimate  at
                                   2-19

-------
proposal of the annuallzed COMS cost, which  was  $10,700,  there was a
3.3 percent Increase  1n annuallzed control cost.   Using EPA's revised
estimate of $12,800,  the estimated compliance  cost Increase ranges from
0.6 percent for a  large kiln (1,200,000 tons of clInker produced  per year)
controlled by a fabric filter (control cost  of $2,288,000)  to 3.8 percent
for a small clinker cooler controlled by a fabric  filter  (i.e., worst
case).  The amendments will not Increase the cost  of controlling
facilities that are subject to the NSPS but  are not required  to install
COMS's (I.e., the  raw mill system, finish mill system, storage  facilities,
transfer points, and  loading/unloading systems).   Thus, 1n  most cases,  the
effect of the COMS requirement will be a cost  increase that is  less  than
3.8 percent of existing overall particulate  control costs.  For the  few
facilities that always must install a COMS on  the  bypass stack, the  cost
Increase would double.  However, the resulting impact is stm
reasonable.
     The EPA agrees that comparing the cost  of the monitor  to the  cost of
the control device does not necessarily indicate the reasonableness  of
these costs.  However, 1n this case, EPA believes that COMS costs  that are
1n the range of 0.6 to 3.8 percent of the total particulate control  system
costs are not unreasonable, especially considering that no other means are
available for effective continuously monitoring control system performance
and ensuring proper operation and maintenance.
     As discussed above,  assuming an annual  cost of $12,800, the increase
in total  annuallzed control costs 1s 3.8 percent, which is slightly  higher
than the impact of 3.3 percent presented at  proposal.   The Agency used
this annuallzed particulate control  cost and  a  product price of
$56.78/megagram (Mg)  ($51.62/ton)  (Docket Item  IV-J-9)  to  assess the
impact of the regulation  on product price for a medium-size model  plant
(544,000 Mg/yr [600,000 tons/yr])  with a 76.3 percent  clinker capacity
utilization rate.   This assessment [$12,800+(544,000 Mg/yrxO.763)]
resulted in a product price increase of  $0.03/Mg  (0.03/ton)  for one COMS,
which represents an increase  of  0.05 percent  ($0.03/Mg+$56.78/Mg)  in the
product price.  The EPA has determined that for the 118 kilns, clinker
coolers,  and bypass stacks  at the  64 plants subject to  the NSPS, more than
29 COMS's have been installed,  in  most cases  in response to  State
                                   2-20

-------
requirements.  The remaining 89 units will require an average of  less  than
2 COMS's per facility.  The product price impacts just stated could  double
for facilities that must install two COMS's; however, the impacts  are
stm reasonable.
     The 4-year review of this NSPS revealed that no plants closed as  a
result of the NSPS, and none are expected to close as a result of  the
requirement to Install COMS's.  Data from the Bureau of Mines and  the
Portland Cement Association (Docket Items IV-J-9 and IV-J-8) show  that
production is increasing currently in the U.S. after the decline
experienced by the industry in the last 1970's and early 1980's.   The  EPA
acknowledges that Mexican cement plants compete with U.S. plants located
in areas near the Mexican border.  However, the product price increase
($0.03/Mg [0.03/ton]) estimated for one COMS at a medium-size model  plant
is negligible compared to the $18 per megagram ($20/ton) difference
between U.S. and foreign prices and will not have a significant adverse
impact on the industry.
2.2.8  Comment:  The commenter (IV-D-1) calculated a theoretical cost
effectiveness of $1,185 per ton assuming that all of the excess emissions
mentioned in the EPA-sponsored study are prevented by COMS's.  The cost
effectiveness would be $4,740 per ton assuming.that half of the excess
emissions are caused by improper operation and maintenance and only  half
of these emissions could be prevented by COMS's.   Another commenter
(IV-F-1) does not believe that the potential benefits derived from these
expenditures are cost effective because plant personnel  do not require an
opacity monitor to anticipate the need for maintenance or to demonstrate
that particular emission control equipment is operating  properly.
     Response:  It is not the purpose of COMS's in themselves to reduce
emissions; therefore, EPA does not need to determine the cost effec-
tiveness of COMS's.  The Agency has found that excess emissions in the
Portland cement industry are caused primarily by  operation and maintenance
problems and has determined that COMS's represent an effective method to
ensure that control devices are properly operated and maintained.  The
commenter did not provide any data, and the Agency is not aware of other
procedures as effective as COMS's that can be used to monitor the gradual
deterioration of a control device.
                                   2-21

-------
2.2.9  Comment:  Several commenters  (IV-F-1)  stated that the cement
Industry 1s having severe economic problems because of strong competition
fro« foreign Imports; some plants are reducing  their work force,  and some
plants may be forced to close.  One commenter (IV-F-1)  noted that
competition from Imports has already resulted 1n one plant closing and
asked EPA to consider only requirements that  are absolutely necessary.
Two commenters (IV-0-9; IV-D-10) stated that  additional  surveillance will
cost 1n excess of $100,000 per year per kiln  (which  would Impose  too much
of an additional burden at a time when U.S. cement  plants are struggling
to survive against low-cost imports), would only worsen  the Industry's
competitive position in the cement market, and would  not  reduce
partlculate emissions any further.  Another commenter (IV-F-1) added that
the cement industry 1s not in good shape economically.  There is  strong
competition from imports, primarily from Mexico, which undercut U.S.
prices by approximately $20 per ton.  Because cement  plants  are already  in
compliance with the NSPS, the commenter believes additional  requirements
are not necessary.  Another commenter (IV-D-11)  stated that  the COMS  and
visual observation costs Incurred to comply with the  amendments should be
viewed 1n the overall context of the cement industry's ability to thrive
and compete worldwide.
     Response;   The 4-year review of this NSPS revealed that  no plants
closed as a result of the NSPS, and none are expected to close as a result
of the requirement to Install  COMS's.  Data from the Bureau of Mines and
the Portland Cement Association (Docket Items  IV-J-9 and 8) show that
production is increasing currently in the U.S. after the decline
experienced by  the Industry in the late 1970's and  early 1980's.   The EPA
acknowledges that Mexican competition is putting pressure on plants
located in areas near Mexico.   However,  the product price increase (for
one COMS)  ($0.03/Mg [$0.03/ton])  cited  in the  response to Comment 2.2.7  is
negligible compared to the  $18/Mg ($20/ton) difference between U.S. and
foreign prices  and will  not have  a significant adverse impact on  the
industry.
     The commenters'  estimated  costs  of  monitoring  are considerably higher
than those supported  by  data from plants  that  have  installed COMS's, as
explained  in the previous responses.
                                   2-22

-------
2.2.10  Comment:  The commenter  (IV-D-16)  estimates  that the cost for
installation of COMS's at his facility  (annual  production is 500,000 to
600,000 tons per year) will exceed $250,000 with  no  benefit to the company
and no benefit to air quality.  The commenter  is  concerned about the
proposed amendments and notes that if they produce 500,000 tons of product
per year, approximately $0.50 per ton either must be added to the cost of
the product to recover the COMS  installation costs or be absorbed by the
company, which would result in decreased profits.
     Response:  The commenter who estimated the cost increase at $0.50 per
ton provided no information on the basis of the estimate.   However,  EPA
visited the commenter1s facility 1n 1985 and observed that the facility
has two kilns and two clinker coolers subject to  the NSPS.   There are also
alkali bypasses on the kilns, but the exhaust gases  from the separate
control devices appear to be directed to the kiln control  device stack.
Thus, it is assumed that four COMS's are needed to comply  with the
proposed amendments at this facility.   (As noted earlier,  four 1s the
greatest number of COMS's required by the  amendments^at  any  plants.)   The
EPA estimates the maximum capital cost of  installing  a COMS  to be $40,000
with annualized costs of $12,800.  Therefore, the maximum  capital  cost at
the commenter's facility would be about $160,000, and the  annual1zed  costs
would be about $51,200.  The EPA was provided with annual  production
figures of 453,600 to 544,300 Mg (500,000 to 600,000  tons) for this
plant.  Thus, the product cost increase at this facility would  be  $0.11/Mg
($0.10 per ton) (assuming 453,600 Mg [500,000 tons]  per year
production).  This increase is 0.19 percent of $56.78 ($51.62),  the 1984
average price per Mg (ton) of cement and is considered a reasonable impact
by the Agency.   The increase would be even less if the higher  rate of
production provided by the commenter 544,300 Mg/yr ([600,000 tons/yrj)
were achieved.
2.2.11  Comment:   One commenter (IV-0-12)  stated that the estimated cost
of $1.5 million for retroactive installation of COMS's at their company
represents 2.8  percent of the corporation's net profits for 1984.  The
commenter believes that an expenditure of  this  magnitude should accomplish
more than to indicate,  redundantly,  the need for maintenance.  The
commenter also  claims that EPA has not considered the total economic
                                   2-23

-------
 Impact on the cement Industry of  the proposal  to require retroactive
 Installation of COMS's.  The commenter states  that  his company has
 19 COMS's and added that 1n the background  information document,  EPA
 estimated that this company's production represented  11.9 percent of the
 total industry clinker production.  The commenter estimated the total
 number of opacity monitor installations at  160  (19+0.119)  and  concludes
 that the total cost for industry  to comply with  the COMS installation
 proposal will be $12.8 million ($80,000x160).  Because of this high cost,
 the commenter does not believe that any benefits  obtained  from the opacity
 monitor proposal are cost effective.  The commenter believes that the
 proposed changes are without merit and are not cost effective,  and
 recommends that EPA maintain the  NSPS as they currently exist.
     Response:  Based on information received by  EPA and on the
 commenter's belief that a total of 19 COMS's will be needed in  his
 company's 17 plants (Docket Item  IV-J-8)  and on the results of  the
 analysis of the information obtained 1n the survey discussed previously,
 this company would experience capital costs, of $760,000 and annualized
 costs of $243,200.  (This company submitted information in response to  a
 Section 114 request for costs of COMS installation at one of Its  plants;
 the capital cost at the facility presented was $36,900, and the annualized
 cost was $12,600.   For 19 installations,  the capital costs would  be
 $701,100 and the annual1zed costs would be $239,400; these costs  are
 consistent with the EPA estimates presented above.)   The annual production
 for the U.S. cement industry in 1984 according to the Bureau of Mines was
 74.4 million tons.  If this company produces 11.9 percent of industry
 production, this company would  have produced 8,853,600 tons in 1984.  This
production level would result in a product cost Increase of $0.03/Mg
 ($0.04/ton).  Using the information provided by the  commenter,  this
company's 1984 net profit is calculated to be $53,571,429
 ($1.5 million/2.8  percent).   This estimate is corroborated by Moody's
 Industrial  Manual, which reports profits  for this company of
$53,436,000.  Thus, based on the EPA cost  estimates  presented previously,
the annualized costs represent  0.4 percent of the annual profit, and the
capital  costs represent 1.4 percent of  annual  profit.   The Agency
considers these impacts to  be reasonable.
                                   2-24

-------
      As  stated  previously,  EPA  has  determined that there are 118 kilns,
 bypasses,  and clInker coolers subject  to the NSPS and that at least 29 of
 these units are equipped with COMS's.   Thus, about 89 additional COMS's
 will  be  needed  by  the Industry  to comply with the proposed revisions.
 Using the  estimated maximum capital cost per COMS of $40,000 that was
 discussed  above, the  Industry-wide  capital  costs are expected to be
 $3,560,000 (1984 dollars),  which Is one-fourth to one-third the cost
 estimated  by the commenter.  As discussed 1n previous responses, the
 Agency believes that  these  costs are reasonable and that the use of
 monitors 1s effective.
 2.2.12  Comment:   The commenter (IV-0-17)  states that the cost to install
 and maintain a  COMS and to  evaluate the monitoring data  1s substantial.
 According  to the commenter, mandatory  installation of COMS's on new or
 modified sources (especially those  in  remote areas)  1s not justified.
 Another  commenter  (IV-F-1)  stated that neither his corporation nor the
 Portland cement  Industry has the financial  and human resources available
 to satisfy the  transmlssometer  Installation and reporting requirements
 that  provide unnecessary or redundant  information.   Therefore,  it was
 requested  that  EPA withdraw the proposed  amendments.   The first commenter
 also  stated that if the manpower and administrative  support  required  to
 comply with the proposed visible emission monitoring  requirements  are not
 provided,  a source may be guilty of a  "technical  violation"  and  be  subject
 to administrative or  legal penalties.  This may subject an operator to
 enforcement action that has "no basis with  regard  to  effects on
 environmental  quality."  Therefore,  the commenter  is  opposed to  the
 provisions in the proposed amendments.
      Response;   The necessity and  cost to install, maintain, and to
 utilize COMS data are discussed  in other sections of  this chapter.  The
 EPA anticipates that very little manpower and administrative support will
 be needed to comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements  in
 the majority of cases where a COMS  is used because COMS's can be purchased
with recorders  that produce hard-copy records.   (A recorder was  included
 in the EPA cost estimate.)   Virtually all new COMS's being installed are
equipped with  recorders.  For monitors  not equipped with  data reduction
 systems,  an estimated 84 hours/plant/year would be required for data
reduction.

                                   2-25

-------
     Based on data received from five plants presently using  COMS's,  EPA
has determined that very little maintenance 1s required for COMS's.
Continuous opacity monitors experience few malfunctions, and  weekly to
monthly cleaning and calibration are the only maintenance that  1s
required.  Respondents reported spending from $400 to $4,600  per year for
calibration, cleaning, and general inspections performed on weekly to
monthly schedules.  In addition, the personnel requirement for  maintaining
the COMS and collecting the data is minimal.  Therefore, the  Agency has
determined that Installation of COMS's will not Impose an unreasonable
burden on personnel requirements or finances.
     The frequency of submitting excess emission reports was  revised  from
quarterly to semiannual.  Also, as discussed 1n Section 2.7,  the separate
requirement to submit semiannual malfunction reports has been withdrawn
for facilities installing COMS's because malfunction data will  be included
in the excess emission reports.  Thus, the estimated cost of  reporting has
been reduced to about 2,332 hours per year, and, as a result, the manpower
requirements will  also decrease.
     In regard to  the daily visible emission monitoring alternative, which
is allowed for all multiple-stack fabric filters and multiple-stack ESP's,
the manpower and administrative support necessary will be minimal because
only two plants that have become subject to the NSPS since 1979 are known
to use negative-pressure fabric filters with multiple stacks.    In
addition, the 4-year review indicated that less than 20 percent of the
fabric filters Installed since 1971 are the positive-pressure type, and
none of these currently have multiple stacks.   Therefore,  use of the
Method 9 alternative for these sources 1s expected to occur Infrequently
and should not result in unreasonable manpower requirements for any plant.
2.3  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
2.3.1  Comment; The commenter (IV-0-1)  believes that Agency resources
could be better and more effectively expended  on what he  believes are  the
major, serious environmental  problems.  According to the  commenter, the
Portland cement industry presently controls over 99 percent of potential
emissions, which are mostly nuisance dust.   This level  of  control  has  been
achieved at high cost during  a period when  the industry has  been in severe
                                   2-26

-------
financial distress and  1s now  seriously  affected  by cheap foreign
Imports.  Pollution control costs approach  or  exceed 25 percent of the
total capital cost of a cement plant.  The  Industry also absorbs the high
cost for operating and  maintaining hundreds of pollution control devices
at each plant while other Industries have been allowed to release into the
environment vast quantities of hazardous pollutants.
     Response:  New source performance standards  (NSPS)  developed under
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act were promulgated  for portland  cement
plants on December 23,  1971 (36 FR 24876),  because the EPA determined that
partlculate emissions from the portland cement industry caused,  or
contributed significantly to,  air pollution that may reasonably  be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.   Section lll(b)(l)(B)  of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (as mandated  by Congress) requires
that the EPA review and, 1f appropriate, revise NSPS every 4 years.
     The purpose of the proposed amendments to the monitoring,
recordkeeplng, and reporting requirements 1s to ensure that pollution
control devices are properly operated and maintained on  a continuous
basis.  No changes to the existing emission limits  are recommended.   The
Agency has reviewed data from  27 kilns and  21  clinker coolers that have
become subject to the NSPS since the last review and  has  determined that
the existing standards  are still achievable using  best demonstrated
technology, considering costs.  We have interpreted  the commenter's
statement concerning control costs to mean that the  total cost of all
pollution control devices at a typical  plant approach  or  exceed 25 percent
of the total capital  cost of the plant.  The Agency  has no data to confirm
or refute this statement.  However,  the proposed amendments to this NSPS
apply only to air pollution control  equipment on kilns and clinker
coolers.  Appropriate pollution control cost information was included in
the original NSPS background information document and Federal  Register
notice.  The current  4-year review did  not include any information that
indicated reexamination of the original costs  was appropriate.   Informa-
tion obtained from five plants that  have already installed COMS's
indicates that the use of COMS's would  increase total annualized control
costs by a maximum of 3.8 percent, which is  considered a reasonable impact
by the Agency, as are the product price impacts presented in response to
previous comments.

                                   2-27

-------
     Standards have been developed under  Section 112 of the  Clean  A1r Act
 (CAA) for several hazardous air pollutants, which are contained  1n
 40 CFR Part 61.  Pursuant to Section 112  of the CAA, the following
 substances have been designated as hazardous air pollutants:  coke oven
 emissions, Inorganic arsenic, and radlonucHdes.  The following  list
 presents other substances for which a Federal Register notice has  been
 published that included consideration of  the serious health effects,
 including cancer, from ambient air exposure to the substances:
 acrolonitrile, chromium, carbon tetrachloride, ethylene oxide, chloroform,
 ethylene dichloride, cadmium, 1,3 butadienne, methylene chloride,
 perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, chlorinated benzenes,
 chlorofluorocarbon, epichlorohydrin, manganese, methyl  chloroform,
 polycyclic organic matter, toluene, and vinylidene chloride.  In addition,
 EPA is planning to publish an intent to list for substances that the
Agency has determined can impose an "immediate threat to Hfe and health"
 in the event of an accident at a chemical facility.   These substances can
be widely categorized as adds, cyanides, industrial  gases,
Pharmaceuticals, chemical intermediates, pesticide compounds, metals and
compounds, solvents, chemical  warfare agents, flavors and  fragrances, and
catalysts and reagents (Docket Items IV-J-7).
2.3.2  Comment;  The commenter (IV-D-1)  believes that use  of opacity
monitors will  lead to an increase in emissions.   Presently, operators try
to keep emissions near zero because of  the unreliability of "smoke
reading."  With a monitor used as the primary measurement  of compliance,
there will be a tendency to operate the  control  device  such that  the
opacity of emissions is near the allowable limit rather  than near zero.
The monitor would be used to determine when maintenance  or  operational
changes are needed.   Therefore,  maintenance on  fabric filters and ESP's
will  be postponed until opacity approaches or exceeds the  allowable
limit.   The requirement to install  opacity monitors has  not been
justified, and there would be  no positive effects on the environment.   In
fact, COMS's represent a significant  cost in time, attention,  and funds
and would have a negative environmental  impact because the  overall
emissions are  likely to increase as  a result of  monitors.
                                   2-28

-------
      Response;   Excess  emissions data are used as an Indicator of a source's
 compliance status  and may be used to target Inspections, performance
 tests, or other  enforcement  activities,  but they are not used as the sole
 evidence of a violation of the standards.   Visible emission observations,
 either by a trained observer or a continuous opacity monitor, are intended
 to  ensure that control  equipment is  being  properly operated and maintained
 on  a  continuous  basis.   Any  abrupt increase in visible emissions should
 alert the operator that the  air pollution  control  device 1s malfunc-
 tioning.  If visible emissions increase  gradually over time and approach
 the visible emission standard, the operator is alerted that the control
 device needs maintenance or  is being improperly operated.
      It is not Intended  that the operator  wait until  the opacity nears  or
 exceeds the limit  before resolving any problem with  a control  device.   The
 Agency received  no data  to show that plants  that already have COMS's use
 this  procedure.  Also,  because emission  control  equipment  does represent a
 substantial investment for the source owner,  the Administrator does  not
 believe that maintenance on  control  equipment  will be postponed until
 opacity approaches or exceeds  the  allowable  limit.
 2.3.3  Comment;  Several  commenters  (IV-D-11;  IV-F-1)  do not  believe that
 the monitoring or observation  requirements would protect the  public  health
 and welfare as directed  by Section lll(b)(l)(a) of the Clean Air Act
 because neither opacity monitors nor visual observations are emission
 control technologies that limit particulate emissions.   According to the
 commenter (IV-D-11), the preamble does not make the connection between
 COMS or visual  emission observations  and the protection of public health
 and welfare.
     Response;   New source performance standards for Portland cement
 plants were proposed and promulgated  under Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, which  requires control of emissions from industrial sources that
cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated  to endanger public health or welfare.   However, the
monitoring  requirements  published on  September 10, 1985, were proposed
under the authority of  Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, not
Section 111.  The purpose of  the monitoring requirements, as discussed  1n
the proposal preamble,  is to  ensure proper operation  and maintenance of
                                   2-29

-------
control equipment.   Section  114 allows the  Administrator to require an
owner or operator of an emission  source  subject to the requirements of the
Clean A1r Act to "... Install,  use, and maintain such monitoring
equipment or methods ... as he  may reasonably require .  .  .  ."
2.3.4  Comment:  Several commenters (IV-F-1;  IV-D-18)  state that  the costs
associated with Installation of COMS's cannot be justified  because their
affected facilities  are meeting the visible emission standard,  and COMS's
would not Improve air quality.  Another  commenter (IV-D-10)  requests that
the proposed amendments to the NSPS be withdrawn because he  believes the
proposed continuous  monitoring requirement  on kiln and  clinker  cooler
stacks will add nothing to improve the environment.
     Response:  Substantial partlculate  emissions  occur in excess  of those
expected following initial Installation  of  control  equipment at cement
plants.  Major causes of these excess emissions  are control equipment
downtime, malfunctions, and deterioration over time because of  inadequate
design or inadequate operation and maintenance practices  (Docket
Item II-A-4).  In the EPA-sponsored study referred to 1n the response to
Comment 2.1.1., it was concluded that annual  excess emissions from cement
plants, specifically rotary kilns, were high  relative to other sources and
were caused primarily by operation and maintenance problems.  The Agency
has determined that  COMS's represent an effective means for ensuring
proper operation and maintenance of air pollution control equipment.  In
addition, COMS's help to ensure effective enforcement of the standards
because data from COMS's can indicate that a compliance test is needed at
a plant.
2.4  SELECTION OF EMISSION LIMITS
2.4.1  Comment:  The commenter (IV-0-17)  believes that "opacity" is a poor
technical standard,  and visible emissions should only be used to identify
sources that may require more frequent evaluation with  regard to actual
mass emissions.  The proposed standard does  not address the reliability of
opacity observations.  The commenter states  that it is  possible for two
stacks with identical mass emissions to have significantly different
visible emissions,  e.g.,  a 16-ft-diameter stack would  have an opacity
twice as great as an 8-ft-diameter stack. Visible emissions observed
                                   2-30

-------
using EPA Method 9 will also vary significantly with the time  of  day,
position of the observer, season of the year, and geographical  location of
the source.  There Is also a problem with uncomblned water that may  form
1n a stack and that results In false, high, in-stack visible emissions
that may dissipate through evaporation when exhausted to the atmosphere.
The commenter states that these factors and the geometry of affected point
sources were not addressed in the proposed standards.  The commenter
believes there is sufficient technical evidence available at this time,
which was not available in 1971, that should be considered in  EPA's
proposal to confirm visible emission limits of 10 percent opacity for
clinker coolers and 20 percent opacity for cement kilns.  The  commenter
recommends that 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F, be revised to delete all
references to visible emission limitation including 60.62(a)(2),
60.62(b)(2), and 60.62(c).  In addition, proposed additions to  60.63(b),
(c), (d), (e), and (f); associated recordkeeping requirements;  and
references to EPA Method 9 for measuring opacity should be deleted.  The
commenter states that the technical bases for establishing visible
emission standards are Inadequate and erroneous.
     Response:  Visible emission observation data will be used  to ensure
effective enforcement of the standards because the data can indicate that
a compliance test is needed at a plant.
     The visible emission standards for the portland cement industry have
been tested by time, experience, and litigation.  The response to the
Portland cement plant remand (EPA Response to Remand ordered by U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia 1n Portland Cement Association v.
Ruckelshaus. 486 F. 2d 375, June 29, 1973) discusses in great detail the
reliability and accuracy of Reference Method 9.   On the basis of this
response, the visible emission standard was affirmed by the Court on
appeal (Portland Cement Association v.  Train,  513 F. 2d 506,  May 22,
1975).
     Stack diameter affects opacity directly because it governs the length
of the path through which the light is  attenuated before it reaches the
observer viewing the plume.  The larger the diameter of the stack, and
therefore the plume, the more light will  be attenuated  as  it  passes
through the plume, and the greater will  be the opacity  of  the plume.  An
                                   2-31

-------
 extremely  large  diameter stack  could  theoretically be Installed at a
 cement plant,  even  though Its cost  would  be much greater than normal.
 During the Industry survey that EPA performed  1n response to the remand of
 the Portland cement NSPS, the largest stack found was 15 feet 1n
 diameter.   During the  present survey, we  found only one stack that was
 larger than 15 feet 1n diameter, and  this stack has been modified to
 reduce Its diameter from 16 feet to 8 feet at  the outlet.  Therefore, the
 Agency knows of  no  stacks 1n the Industry that are larger than the
 !5-foot-d1ameter stack discovered during  the NSPS remand survey.   In the
 unlikely event that larger stacks were used or other abnormal  conditions
 of design  or operation were encountered that could cause a violation of an
 applicable visible  emission standard,  EPA provides a means through which
 the source owner may petition the Administrator for an  adjusted  visible
 emission standard.   The  EPA concludes, on the  basis of  the actual  stack
 diameters  employed  by  the industry, that  stack  diameter will  not  cause  a
 plant meeting  the mass emission standard  to exceed  the  visible emission
 standard.
     The commenter  mentions several variables that  may  have an effect on
 visible emission observations.  In 40  CFR  Part  60,  Appendix A, it  is
 stated that variables  that  can be controlled to the  extent that they no
 longer exert a significant  Influence upon  plume appearance include the
 angle of observer with respect to the plume, angle of observer with
 respect to the sun,  and angle of the observer with respect to a plume
 emitted from a rectangular  stack with a large,   length-to-width ratio.
 Included in this section  are specific criteria applicable to these
 variables.  Formation of water droplets in a stack that result in high,
 in-stack opacity can be a problem.   However, this situation is mainly
 associated with the operation of wet scrubbers  and not with dry control
 devices.   Although exhaust gases from wet process kilns may have more
moisture than exhaust gases from dry process kilns, the conditions that
 exist in the stack  in either case (pressure, temperature, and humidity)
 should not normally result in the water condensing at this point.  In
 situations where condensed water is  present within the plume as it emerges
from the stack outlet,  i.e., a steam plume, Method 9 requires that opacity
observations be made beyond the  point  in the plume at which condensed
                                   2-32

-------
water  1s  no  longer visible.   The  visible emission standards are based on
data collected from kilns representative of the  Industry,  and data
gathered  during this 4-year review  indicate that the  visible emission
standard  1s  being met.
     The  commenter has not provided any data to  support comments that
sufficient technical evidence now exists to question  the reliability and
usefulness of opacity as a technical  standard or that the  technical  basis
for the visible emission standard is  inadequate  and erroneous.   Data on
visible emissions were obtained for the original  Portland  cement NSPS and
in response  to the remand.  The data  were gathered at various locations,
at different times of the year, and,  1n the longest case,  over  a 9-hour
time span.   In all cases, the opacities observed  were lower than the
visible emission standard if  the  facility was in  compliance with the mass
emission  standard.  The visible emission standards are based on  data
obtained  by  certified visible emission  observers  during normal operation
of plants representative of the industry.   Mass emission and visible
emission  data were obtained from  six  plants,  and  visible emission data
were also obtained from four  additional  plants.   The  use of  visible
emission  standards 1s technically sound  and provides  the most practical
and inexpensive means to monitor the  performance  of control  equipment.
2.4.2  Comment:  The commenter (IV-D-14) proposes that  the NSPS
requirements be modified to include a sulfur dioxide  (S02)   limit and
monitoring requirement.  While the commenter agrees that there are no
demonstrated add-on S02 controls, there  have been many  reports of
successful programs using operating parameters to control S02 emissions.
The commenter suggests that these programs could serve as the basis for
including an S02 limit and monitoring requirement.
     Response;   The Agency's 4-year review Indicated that many factors
affect S02 emissions including sulfur content of the fuel and raw feed,
the point in the process at which S02 removal occurs (e.g., clinker,  raw
mill,  control device,  and exhaust gases), and the relative  importance of
process variables  (e.g.,  temperature, moisture,  and feed chemical
composition).  Data on the amount by which operating parameters,
particulate control  devices,  or  add-on S02 control technology reduce  S02
emissions from  cement  kilns  are  incomplete and inconclusive.
                                   2-33

-------
     Several plants have  successfully  used S02  and NOX monitors as an
 Indication of proper process  operations.   Sulfur dioxide emissions have
 been found to be an indication  of  efficient combustion in the kiln, while
 NOX emissions are related to  the flame temperature 1n the kiln.
 Individual plants use these monitors to warn the operator 1f an adjustment
 needs to be made in the process to improve the  operation of the kiln and
 cement quality.  Because of the many factors that affect S02 and NOY
                                                                    A
 emissions, such adjustments are plant  specific  and cannot be used as a
 basis for a nationwide emission limit  or monitoring requirement for S02 or
 NOX at this time.  Therefore, development  of S02  emission limits at this
 time 1s not possible.  The Agency  will review demonstrated control
 technologies 1n use at Portland cement plants during  the next 4-year
 review.
 2.5  LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
 2.5.1  Comment:  Several commenters (IV-F-1;  IV-0-2;  IV-D-3;  IV-D-9;
 IV-D-11; IV-D-12; IV-D-16; IV-D-17; IV-D-18)  state  that  requiring
 Installation of COMS's on existing facilities is  Illegal.   These
 commenters believe that EPA has Incorrectly  Interpreted  the language and
 Intent of the Clean Air Act as permitting  such a requirement  and that  EPA
 is setting a dangerous precedent.
     Three commenters (IV-F-1;  IV-0-12; IV-D-18) believe  that the
 statutory language of Section 111 and the  legislative history of the
 1977 amendments to the Clean A1r Act expressly state that all NSPS,
 including revisions, are effective only prospectively and not
 retroactively.   The commenters cite the House of Representatives
 Conference Report on H.R.  6161:   "Any revised requirement under
 Section lll(b)  would of course be effective only prospectively and would
 not apply to any source which actually commenced construction or
modification before such revised standards  became effective."  Another
commenter (IV-D-2)  states  that it is contrary to the intent of the Clean
Air Act to use  Section 114 (inspections,  monitoring, and entry) to adopt
retroactively NSPS  that circumvent  the  prospective provisions of
Section 111 (standards of  performance  for new stationary sources).  The
commenter (1) contends that  only sources  for which construction commenced
                                   2-34

-------
or that are modified after the date of proposal of the revisions are
subject to the amendments, which are effective at promulgation, (2) the
prospective applicability of NSPS has been uniformly recognized by the
Agency both 1n Its promulgation of NSPS and Its enforcement of them, and
(3) most of the recently promulgated NSPS have required some form of
opacity monitoring; however, the Agency is not free to apply Its new
source regulations retroactively.  The commenter cites cases where courts
uniformly have recognized that NSPS are effective only prospectively.
     One commenter (IV-D-17) states that the technology for reliably
determining optical density and relating it to opacity was not
demonstrated and not available in 1971.  According to the commenter, EPA
is now suggesting that it has the authority to require sources that have
been in operation for many years to employ a technology that was not
available when the sources were constructed.
     Response:  The Administrator disagrees with these commenters.  The
authority for these requirements is not Section 111 but Section 114 of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, which provides:
         (a)  For the purpose (1) of developing or assisting in the
     development of ... any standard of performance under Section 7411
     of this title . . . [or] (11) of determining whether any person is in
     violation of any such standard . . .
         (1)  The Administrator may require any person who owns or
     operates any emission source ... to (A) establish and maintain such
     records, (B) make such reports, (C) install, use and maintain such
     monitoring equipment or methods, (D) sample such emissions (in
     accordance with such methods, at such locations, at such intervals,
     and in such manner as the Administrator shall  prescribe),  and
     (E) provide such other information as he may reasonably
     require . . . [emphasis added].
"[SJection 114(a)(l) identifies a certain composite class of persons--
those who own or operate emission sources or who are subject to any
requirement of the Act—and authorizes the Administrator to require any
person in that class to do any or all of the five things enumerated."
Ced's Inc. v. EPA, 745 F.2d 1092, 1098 (7th Cir.  1984)  (emphasis  added).
"[T]he agency is authorized to request the owner or operator ...  to
supply the agency with whatever information it 'may reasonably  require'  to
carry out its statutory responsibilities."  U.S.  v.  Tivian Laboratories,
Inc., 589 F.2d 49, 53 (1st Cir.  1978).

                                   2-35

-------
      There  1s  no  exemption  1n  Section 114 for sources that have already
 been  constructed.   Indeed,  1t  1s  hard to  Imagine how any such exemption
 could be consistent with the broad purposes  of Section 114 to provide the
 Administrator  with  Information necessary  to  adopt and enforce standards
 under the Act.
      The amendments require monitoring, recordkeeping,  and reporting of
 emissions from kilns and clInker  coolers  that are subject to the NSPS.
 These requirements  will ensure proper operation and  maintenance of  control
 equipment.  Continuous opacity monitors help  to ensure  effective
 enforcement of the  standards because  data from a COMS are used  as an
 indicator of the compliance status of the source and may  be used to
 Identify the need for Inspections, performance tests, or  other  enforcement
 activities.  Thus,  the proposed requirements,  imposed for the purposes  of
 determining whether persons are 1n violation  of the  NSPS  and  of developing
 future standards of performance,  fall  squarely within the grant of
 authority in Section 114.
 2.5.2  Comment:  The commenter  (IV-D-1) believes  that self-monitoring and
 reports of violations and excess  emissions would  be  self-Incriminating
 and, thus, unconstitutional if they are used  in criminal  proceedings.
     Response;  The Administrator disagrees.   Information gathering  that  .
 is reasonably  related to administration of a  lawful regulatory  program
 does not run afoul  of the privilege against self-incriminatlon.  Shapiro
 v. United States. 335 U.S.  1, 32-35 (1948).  Moreover, virtually all the
 persons subject to  the monitoring  and reporting requirements are
 corporations, which do not  have any privilege against self-incrimination.
 United States v.  Kordel. 397 U.S.  1, 7 (1970).
 2.6  TESTING AND  MONITORING
 2.6.1  Comment:  An air pollution control  agency official (IV-D-8) agrees
with the Agency that 180 days after initial startup of a facility is
 sufficient time in which to conduct a performance test and states further
that the 180-day  limit is probably too long.   However, in response to the
 announcement at the public  hearing, two Portland cement companies (IV-F-1;
 IV-D-12) do not believe that 180 days is enough time for manufacturers to
 supply all  the COMS's  that  will be required to comply with the regulation
                                   2-36

-------
and requested that the 180-day period be verified.  Based on  Information
provided 1n the background Information document, one cement company
estimates that at least 100 COMS's will have to be  Installed  Industry wide
assuming that COMS's already on pre-1979 kilns will have to be  replaced.
This does not Include those also required on bypass stacks.   Every
installation is different, and 180 days may not be  a realistic  time period
for the engineering, delivery, installation by contractors, and
certification of COMS's.  One commenter estimates that  it would require up
to 2 years for his company just to prepare and approve  capital  budgets,
engineer the installation, order the equipment, and install the total of
19 COMS's that would be required.
     Response:  Several COMS vendors and one consultant were  contacted to
determine if the 180-day requirement for Installation of COMS's could be
reasonably met (Docket Items IV-B-3 and IV-E-11, 12, 13, and  14), and they
agreed that 6 months 1s a reasonable time period.  The  primary  factor
affecting whether the 6-month deadline can be met is delivery time.
Estimates of delivery time ranged from 1 week (a rush order)  to 2 months
with an average delivery time of 1 month.  Time for placing the order
ranged from 1 to 8 weeks depending on whether the facility orders directly
from a catalog or requests vendors to submit bids, provide a  11st of
references, or perform demonstrations.  The COMS's are  fairly standard in
design and do not have to be custom-made, and it is not expected that
companies will invest a substantial amount of time in ordering.
     Installation 1s expected to require 1 to 2 weeks if the existing
platform is used.  If the platform (or other means of access)  also
requires modifications, up to 2 months could be needed for installation.
However, the platform could be modified before delivery of the  COMS.
Testing and certification are relatively simple procedures and would
require approximately 1 week.  Writing and submitting a report to the
State agency or EPA regional  office would take between 2 and 4 weeks.   In
the worst case, a period of 6 months would be required for a COMS to be on
line.  In most cases, however, startup of a COMS will  require  only 3 to
4 months.
     The vendors contacted also confirmed that they would be able to
supply the projected number of COMS's that will  be required  for plants in
                                   2-37

-------
 this  industry to comply with  the regulation.  Therefore, the Administrator
 believes  that 180 days provides  sufficient time to order, install, and
 test  the  COMS's  required on affected facilities at Portland cement plants.
 2.6.2  Comment:   Several commenters  (IV-F-1; IV-D-9;  IV-D-12; IV-D-17)
 questioned  the necessity and  fairness of the requirement to retrofit
 COMS's  on existing kilns and  clinker coolers.  The commenters claim that
 EPA has not demonstrated that COMS's improve operation  and  maintenance
 beyond  that provided  by existing equipment and current  operating
 practices.   The  commenters gave  the  following reasons why they believe
 COMS's  are  not necessary:
      1.   The EPA acknowledged that present standards are being met,  and,
 therefore,  neither monitoring nor visual  observations are technically
 justified;
      2.   The EPA has  not supported or documented the statement that  COMS's
 or Method 9  observations will necessarily improve  proper operation and
 maintenance  of control  equipment;
      3.   The COMS's do  not prevent malfunctions and are  not  required for
 determining  whether controls are  functioning  properly;
   .   4.   The COMS's 1n  themselves do  not  reduce emissions and  EPA has  not
 demonstrated that  the magnitude of particulate emissions  from  portland
 cement  plants  warrants  Installations  of COMS's;
      5.   Information froa COMS's would only be redundant  because methods
 other than COMS's  are available for monitoring proper operation and
 maintenance.   For  example, pressure drop  and temperature alarms give
 adequate  notice  to the operator of sudden  and total failure of fabric
 filters,  failures  of electrostatic precipitators are identified by alarm
 systems,  and gradual deterioration in performance of these devices is
 easily detected  by visual observations by personnel and by monitoring
 electrical parameters.   In modern plants, electrical parameters are
monitored by computers that are interfaced with alarm systems.  Existing
controls  to  ensure product quality are an additional safeguard against
deviations from normal operation.  Process parameters are closely
monitored, and additional monitoring is redundant.
      In addition,  in many plants, maintenance scheduling systems (MSS)  are
 in use that  include additional periodic monitoring  of particulate matter
                                   2-38

-------
 control  systems  by maintenance personnel.  In some cases, records of these
 Inspections  are  required under the operating permit; and
      6.   Portland cement plants are already subject to frequent monitoring
 by  State and local  agencies and by EPA.  A representative of the Portland
 Cement Association asked a public hearing speaker (IV-F-1) representing a
 cement company to state  the kinds of ongoing Inspections or reporting
 requirements his company presently meets that might demonstrate redundancy
 to  those areas in the  proposed amendments.  The cement company
 representative responded that its three plants have ongoing EPA and State
 inspections  and  that the proposed requirements are redundant.   In
 Region 9,  there  is  an  inspection every 4 to 5 years by EPA contractors who
 also  perform Method 9  observations.   In California and Arizona, permits
 require  that plants conduct compliance tests once per  year,  and some
 plants occasionally test as often as every 3 months.   These  tests are also
 observed by  State and  local  representatives.   Several  commenters (IV-D-7;
 IV-D-10; IV-0-13;  IV-D-16;  IV-D-17)  contend that  sufficient  reporting and
 Inspection procedures  are already 1n place to make the additional  require-
 ments unnecessary.  Many States  already conduct"spot checks  or annual  on-
 slte  Inspections  or require annual compliance tests that  Include source
 tests and  Method  9  observations.  One commenter states  that  his  company's
 cement plants are already monitored  frequently by  county  or  State
 regulatory agencies, and  frequent written  reports  as well  as verbal
 notifications on  specific problems are required.   Plant personnel  usually
 make daily (or more often)  visual inspections.
     Response;  The EPA disagrees with  the commenters1  assertion that
 COMS's are not necessary  and responds  to each point made  by the commenters
 as follows:
     1.  The Agency agrees that the  standards are being met as determined
 by the initial performance tests using Reference Methods  5 and 9.
 However,  compliance tests can only demonstrate that a source is meeting
 the applicable standards at the time the tests are conducted.  Without
 continuous opacity monitoring via either a COMS or visual observation,
 neither the plant operator nor enforcement personnel can determine whether
 control  equipment is properly operated and maintained on a continuous
 basis and whether there is reason to believe that the standards are being
exceeded.

                                   2-39

-------
     2.  The Agency  believes  that  the  benefits of continuous  monitoring in
ensuring proper operation and maintenance  are considerable.   The
effectiveness of  COMS's  1n accomplishing this goal  has  long been
recognized by the Agency (see 49 FR  18076,  April  26,  1984; 44 FR 33580,
June 11, 1979; 36 FR 24876, December 23, 1971.)   Furthermore,  the need for
COMS's for the Portland  cement  Industry has been  recognized since the
first 4-year review, and the  use of  COMS's  was recommended in  the Federal
Register notice summarizing the results of  that review  (44 FR  60761).
Such monitoring will alert the operator to  the gradual  deterioration  1n
control device efficiency that may occur over time  as the result of
inadequate maintenance and improper  operation,  thus, allowing  the owner or
operator to take  the necessary action, either a change  1n operation or
increased maintenance, to minimize the increase in  emissions.  Therefore,
a COMS will result 1n improvements in the operation and maintenance of the
control device.
     3.  The COMS's  are  not intended to prevent malfunctions;  they are
required to ensure that  control equipment has  not deteriorated over time
and 1s being properly operated and maintained.  This may aid in  preventing
malfunctions by alerting the operator to potential  problems that  could
cause malfunctions.
     4.  It 1s not the purpose of COMS's 1n themselves to reduce
emissions.  In an EPA-sponsored study on operation  and maintenance
problems, the total annual  excess emissions from cement kilns were
approximately 35 Mg  (38  tons) per kiln per year.  The Agency has
determined that COMS's represent an effective means for ensuring proper
operation and maintenance of particulate matter control  equipment, which
should, in turn,  reduce excess emissions.   Thus, indirectly,  emissions are
reduced by the use of COMS's.  The Agency has discovered no other means as
effective as requiring the  use of COMS's to ensure proper operation and
maintenance of control  equipment.
     5.  Monitoring of pressure and temperature for facilities with fabric
filters and monitoring of electrical  parameters for facilities with
electrostatic precipitators  may alert the  operator to sudden  and total
failure of the control  device; however, there is no evidence  that these
indicators are sensitive to  the subtle and  gradual deterioration of the
                                   2-40

-------
control device that may occur over a period of time.  In fact, one utility
company has found that COMS's represent a feasible method of optimizing
ESP performance (Docket Item IV-J-10).  In contrast to stack testing,
COMS's allow real-time observations of the effects of fuel changes and
control system changes (e.g., excess air levels, precipltator voltage, and
rapping) on process operation and control device performance.
     Furthermore, the Agency has found that excess emissions at cement
plants are caused primarily by improper operation and maintenance.
Although the MSS may be used in some plants to ensure proper maintenance,
the Agency believes that use of COMS's 1s the most effective means to
ensure that the control equipment is properly operated.  The Agency has no
information to show whether visual observations are routinely performed at
all cement plants; however, where use of a COMS is practicable, a COMS can
provide continuous data.  Therefore, the Agency believes that a COMS
(where use 1s feasible) is the most effective means to ensure proper
operation and maintenance.  There are no data to show how monitoring of
process parameters will ensure that pollution control equipment is
properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis.  For these
reasons, the Agency has determined that COMS's are appropriate and
necessary as Indicators of proper control device operation and maintenance
and that their use will significantly reduce the quantity of excess
emissions from portland cement plants.
     6.  The commenter does not provide any information about the type
and/or frequency of monitoring by State, local, and EPA personnel.
Arizona does not have any plants subject to the NSPS, but two plants are
subject to State regulations.  In California, 8 of 13 plants have
facilities subject to the NSPS.  The Agency has found that at least four
of the plants 1n California have already installed COMS's on their
kilns.  The EPA does not consider inspections that are sporadic rather
than continuous to be redundant with the monitoring requirements of the
proposed amendments.  Based on conversations by EPA with several  State and
local agency representatives including the States  mentioned by the
commenters, some plants are subject to annual walk-through inspections,
but few plants (if any) are subject to annual compliance stack testing.
(See entries in Docket Category IV-E).  Annual and periodic inspections
                                   2-41

-------
performed by State  and  local  agencies  are intended to determine compliance
with the standards  and  are  not  Intended  to ensure continuous proper
operation and maintenance of  particulate matter control  equipment.   About
one-half of the kilns subject to the NSPS are  already using COMS's.
Excess emission reports submitted pursuant to  State or local requirements
can be copied and submitted to  the Administrator to fulfill the NSPS
reporting requirement if such reports  satisfy  EPA's information
requirements.
2.6.3  Comment:  The commenter  (IV-D-1)  believes that EPA  should address
the fact that there are fundamental process differences  in the  cement
industry that will affect the utility  of  COMS's  as  compliance verification
devices.  The commenter notes that transmissometer  readings are unreliable
in the presence of high moisture.  High moisture content at certain
temperatures, 1n conjunction  with dust particles  that serve as
condensation nuclei, can cause  condensation that  may  result 1n  false high
opacity readings.  The  commenter states that a thorough  evaluation of the
fundamentally different factors among various kilns is required  prior to
any proposal to install  opacity monitors on all  kilns.
     Response:  Installation of COMS's is  intended to evaluate operation
and maintenance of control equipment routinely.   Such COMS's are presently
being used effectively  on wet and dry kilns controlled by  fabric filters
and electrostatic precipitators by about one-half of the kilns in the
industry subject to the  NSPS.  The data base supporting the visible
emission standard covers a wide range of processes.  There  are no obvious
factors that would preclude the use of COMS's with any process, and no
additional  data were supplied that support the statement that fundamental
process differences will affect the utility of COMS's as compliance
verification devices.  As discussed in the response to Comment 2.4.1, high
moisture content stack gases are not generally a problem in the cement
industry.  However, if a source has a peculiarity that precludes achieving
the visible emission standard, the provisions of 40 CFR Section 60.11(e)
allow the owner or operator to petition for establishment of an individual
visible emission limit provided that certain conditions are met.  The
Agency did  evaluate process variations  prior to its proposal to require
COMS's on all  kilns and concluded  that  there were no known factors that
would adversely affect the use of  COMS's  with any kiln process.

                                   2-42

-------
 2.6.4  Comment:  The commenter (IV-F-1) believes EPA will use COMS's for
 enforcement purposes rather than for operation and maintenance purposes
 and does not understand why EPA will not clearly state the enforcement
 aspects of the transmlssometer requirement.  In addition, EPA has not
 shown that Method 9 observations are Inadequate for detection of
 violations of the opacity standard and has not resolved the Incon-
 sistencies 1n the results of COM3 and Method 9 readings.  For example, it
 has been the commenter's experience that when there is a difference
 between Method 9  results and COMS results, the Method 9 opacity is the
 higher of the two.   It  is possible that COMS readings will  be used only as
 an  enforcement tool  to  prove violations of the visible emission standard
 but not to prove  compliance.   The commenter requested that  EPA deal  with
 the enforcement aspect  of the proposal  now rather  than later.
      Response:  The  continuous monitoring results  are not used as  the sole
 evidence 1n determining violations of the NSPS.  Opacity data on excess
 emissions are used as an Indicator of the compliance  status of the source
 and may be used to target inspections,  performance tests, or  other
 enforcement activities.   Another purpose  of the continuous monitoring
 requirement 1s  to provide plant operators and  enforcement personnel  with
 Information about whether a control  device 1s  properly  operated  and
 maintained.   As stated  in Section  60.11 of the General  Provisions,  "the
 results of continuous monitoring  by  [a] transmissometer  ...  are
 probative  but not conclusive  evidence of  the actual opacity of an
 emission  .  .  .  ."
     The Agency has never  indicated  in any way that Method 9 observations
 are  Inadequate  for detecting  violations of the visible emission
 standard.   Indeed, Method 9 has been the method for determining opacity
 compliance  for  many years.
 2.6.5   Comment;  An air pollution control agency (IV-D-19) noted that for
 one plant  located in its State, the value of COMS's on kiln stacks to
 provide a  record of compliance with the State's visible emission standard
 has been questionable because the kiln often emits  a condensing plume.
The COMS opacity readings are, conservatively, 20 to 25 percent below
 simultaneous visible emission readings.  The commenter requests that
before promulgation EPA determine a procedure to follow when COMS's and
                                   2-43

-------
certified visible emission readers are 1n disagreement.   A related problem
concerns the discrepancy which would exist between sources subject to  the
same regulation.  If similar sources (with condensing plumes)  choose to
meet monitoring requirements by the two different methods—visible
emission readings and COMS's—the source with the COMS's  will  be less
likely to violate visible emission standards than the source using
certified visible emission readings, although mass emissions would be
about equal.  The commenter foresees no problem with the  proposed
regulations and their application on clInker cooler control equipment.
     Response:  Opacity data used to support the standard  were obtained
from plants representative of the Industry.  In obtaining  the data used to
support the visible emission standard, certified observers read the
opacity of emissions at the top of the stack, not 1n the condensed
plume.  Therefore, to compare Method 9 observations to COMS readings, the
opacity should be read at the top of the stack before condensation
occurs.  The Method 9 observation taken in this manner should agree with
the COMS reading within error limits.  If, in some cases, there 1s a
significant difference between the COMS results and Method 9 readings, the
Administrator has determined that these situations should be evaluated on
case-by-case basis by the appropriate enforcing agency.   The procedures to
be followed would be case specific, depending on the magnitude of the
differences, the level of the Method 9 opacity data in relation to the
emission standard, and whether the difference is consistent or variable
with time.  In any case, Method 9 observations would be  used as conclusive
evidence of a source's compliance with the opacity standard.  As stated in
the previous response, the COMS data would be used as an indicator of the
source's compliance status and would highlight situations where additional
surveillance by enforcement officials may be  necessary.
2.6.6  Comment;  The commenter (IV-D-17)  is opposed to provisions  of  the
proposed amendments that would require installation of COMS's  on all  new
or modified kilns and coolers, including  sources constructed after
August 17, 1971.  The commenter owns a facility in Alabama that would be
adversely affected (financially)  by such  a requirement.   Virtually  all
State agencies currently have the authority to require continuous emission
monitoring.  By including the COMS requirement in the NSPS, EPA would be
                                   2-44

-------
preempting the authority of State agencies  to  determine when  1t  Is
appropriate to require  Installation of transmlssometers.  There  are  some
circumstances where the cost of  Installing  and operating COMS's  1n remote
areas would not be justified.  The mandatory requirement to Install  COMS's
as part of the NSPS 1s  unnecessary and Inappropriate.  He believes the
discretion to require COMS's should remain  with State agencies.
     Response;  Section 114 grants the Administrator the authority to
require an owner or operator of  an emission source to "...  install, use,
and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods ... as he may
reasonably require. . . ."  The  necessity and  cost of Installing,
maintaining, and utilizing COMS  data are discussed in other sections of
this chapter.  Several  State and local agencies require COMS's and find
that they perform well.  (Docket Item IV-D-14  and entries in Docket
Category IV-E.)  Because excess  emissions from cement plants are
relatively high and are caused primarily by operation and maintenance
problems, EPA has concluded that COMS's are necessary to ensure the intent
of the NSPS 1s being met even when plants are  located in remote areas.
Authority to enforce NSPS is delegated to States, but EPA sets the minimum
criteria.  States can still have requirements  that are more stringent than
the NSPS.
2.6.7  Comment:  A State agency official  (IV-D-14) believes the
requirement to take three visual observations  per day may not be
enforceable much of the time because of weather conditions  (overcast skies
and gray backgrounds), especially in the Pacific Northwest.   The commenter
questioned whether the source would be violating the monitoring
requirements if observations could not be made and whether  the plant would
require a full-time observer to be available when the weather conditions
permit visible emission readings to be made.  The commenter  believes  that
these and other problems related to enforcing the visual  observation
requirement would be significant and unfair and, thus,  recommends that all
plants be required to install  COMS's.
     Response;  The proposed requirement  allows Method  9  observations to
be made 1n Heu of installing COMS's at plants  with multiple  stacks on
either positive-pressure or negative-pressure fabric  filters  and  on
ESP's.  Observations in these cases  would be conducted  for three  6-minute
                                   2-45

-------
periods each day.  If a plant has the option to use COMS's or Method  9  and
elects to use Method 9, the plant would need to take whatever steps are
necessary to obtain at least three 6-m1nute observations of visible
emissions once per day 1n accordance with Method 9.  If, due to  Inclement
weather, certified observers were unable to perform visual observations,
enforcement officials will not consider the plant 1n violation of  the
monitoring requirement as long as these occasions are documented.  In
addition, the Method 9 alternative is expected to be used infrequently  as
discussed in the response to Comment 2.2.13.  For these reasons, the
Agency does not believe that the visual observation alternative will
result 1n an enforcement problem.
2.6.8  Comment:  The commenter (IV-D-2) states that the visible emission
observation requirements for negative-pressure fabric filters with
multiple stacks are unclear as to whether Method 9 observations are to  be
made for each emission point or whether the Method 9 observations should
be made only for malfunctioning units.  If 1t 1s intended that each
emission point be observed, the requirement is unnecessarily cumbersome.
The commenter estimates that observation of each emission point by
Method 9 would require 4 hours per day and would result in little
environmental benefit.  If it is Intended that Method 9 observation be
used only for malfunctioning units, the commenter suggests that the
observer's time might be better spent turning the malfunctioning unit off.
     Response:  The regulation has been revised to clarify that, where
visible emissions are observed at a number of emission  sites on either
multiple-stack fabric filters or ESP's, Reference Method 9 observations
must be made for the emission site with the highest opacity.   This is
applicable to owners and operators of existing and new,  multiple-stack,
positive-pressure or negative-pressure fabric filters and multiple-stack
ESP's that elect to perform visible emission observations in  lieu of
installing COMS's.
2.6.9  Comment:  The commenter (IV-0-4)  requests that the visible emission
observations either be dropped or changed  to require observations for  a
longer predetermined time period  each day.   It  is  unlikely  that
observations conducted for three  6-minute  periods  each day  would  identify
any excess emissions since the source could easily select a time  period  to
conduct observations during which the opacity  of emissions  was  low.

                                   2-46

-------
     Response;  Visible  emission observations  are  Intended to ensure that
control equipment  1s  being  properly operated and maintained where use of a
single COM3 1s not feasible.  A gradual  deterioration of the control
device performance would tend to be noticed over time as an Increase 1n
visible emissions.  In this case,  1t  1s  unlikely that an operator could
choose a time of day  when this deterioration would  not be obvious.   The
Agency believes that  any longer period of observation, e.g.,  six  6-minute
periods, would not provide  any better Information on  control  device
performance than is provided by three 6-minute periods.   The  Administrator
believes that three 6-minute observation periods each day are useful  in
situations where multiple stacks are  used and, therefore,  has not dropped
this requirement.   Moreover, it 1s expected that this alternative will  be
used Infrequently  for the reasons discussed in the  response to
Comment 2.2.13.
2.6.10  Comment:   Although  the commenter (IV-D-16)  does  not agree that  the
proposed amendments are  necessary, it was suggested that  the  Agency
require that plants document the occasional opacity exceedances that occur
as a result of equipment  malfunction  rather than require  visible  emission
observations during periods of normal operation.  Reports of  occasional
opacity exceedances are  already provided to the State  agency  by the
commenter.
     Response:  The General Provisions (Section 60.7) do require  that
records be kept on malfunctions of an affected facility or the air
pollution control equipment.  The purpose of the continuous monitoring
requirement is to provide plant operators and enforcement personnel with
information to assess whether a control  device is being properly operated
and maintained on a continuous basis.   A plant operator may not be aware
of the deterioration of the control device over a period of time  if
opacity exceedances that occur only as a result of  equipment malfunctions
are documented.   Thus, it is necessary to perform visible emissions
observations during periods representative of normal process operations.
     Certain reports required by State or local  agencies may duplicate
information required by this standard.  In such cases, the General
Provisions [Section 60.7(e)] provide  that a copy  of the report submitted
to the State or  local  agency can be provided  to the Administrator  in lieu
of the report required by the standard.

                                   2-47

-------
2.6.11  Comment:  Two commenters (IV-F-1;  IV-0-2) believe that multiple
stacks are environmentally superior to single stacks and that the  proposed
regulation would provide a strong disincentive to the use of multiple
stacks.  One comnenter states that at one  time multiple-section fabric
filters were vented to a single stack, but the system impeded the  rapid
detection and correction of a malfunctioning baghouse section.  It may
take an observer an hour to find the cause of a subtle change in plume
opacity.  With multiple stacks, a malfunctioning baghouse section  is
easily identifiable by virtue of its contrasting plume opacity relative to
the opacity of the plumes of adjacent stacks, and that compartment can  be
taken off-line right away.  One commenter  (IV-0-2) suggests that EPA
reevaluate its position on open-top baghouses if EPA is in favor of good
maintenance.  The commenter also requests  that owners or operators using
electrostatic precipltators with multiple  stacks be afforded the
alternative to use visible emission observations in lieu of 1n-stack
monitoring, as 1s permitted for fabric filters with multiple stacks.
     Response:  The EPA has reevaluated its position on multiple-stack
fabric filters and ESP's.  The Administrator agrees that multiple-stack
control devices nay have some economic and environmental advantages, as
described 1n the comment.  Therefore, the Administrator does not want to
discourage the use of multiple-stack control  devices by requiring
Installation of multiple COMS's.  Also, at the time of proposal,  EPA was
not aware that any portland cement plants use ESP's with multiple
stacks.  Because one plant is now known to use multiple-stack ESP's, the
Agency will allow the alternative of performing visible emission
observations using a certified observer in lieu of installing COMS's.
Thus, the regulation has been revised to allow owners or operators  of
existing and new, multiple-stack, positive- or negative-pressure  fabric
filters or multiple-stack ESP's the option of performing Method 9
observations daily in lieu of installing COMS's.
2.6.12  Comment;  One regional air pollution  control  agency  and two State
agencies (IV-D-8; IV-D-14; IV-D-15)  agree with the requirements to  install
COMS's and to report excess emissions quarterly.   Based  on one commenter's
experience with two plants that are required  to  install,  operate, and
maintain COMS's, the commenter supports the requirement  for  sources to
                                   2-48

-------
monitor opacity.  Monitors at  the two plants  have  been Installed for some
time and, with minimal maintenance, have performed well  as shown by audits
performed by the State.  The comnenters do not  favor  the option to allow
certified observers to determine the opacity  of visible  emissions from
control devices with multiple  stacks.  Observer bias,  poor visible
emission reading conditions, lack of night readings,  and only  three
readings per day preclude accurate data on continuous  compliance.   At the
same time, a COMS 1s more reliable and continually operates under all
conditions such as at night and during inclement weather when  visible
emission observations are impractical or Impossible.
     Multiple stacks and monovents can be vented Into  a  single or small
number of stacks, and, then, an opacity monitor or monitors can be
installed.  Plants can circumvent the monitoring requirement as written  by
adding a small vent or stack.  Other sources with  multiple stacks  such as
power plants (two or three stacks) are required to Install  monitors on the
multiple stacks.  In addition, because the monitoring results  are  likely
to be used for some type of enforcement action, the commenter  (IV-D-14)
believes it would be unfair to require monitoring of only  some  of the new
cement plants.  A plant without a COMS would be less likely  to  be subject
to enforcement action than a plant with a COMS.
     Response;  The EPA agrees that use of a well-operated  and  -maintained
COMS 1s a better monitoring option than using certified observers to read
opacity because the COMS operates continuously.  However, EPA determined
that the cost to install COMS's on multiple stacks was unreasonable.  As  a
result of comments received since proposal  of the  amendments, EPA has
reevaluated its position on multiple-stack  fabric  filters and ESP's.  The
EPA believes that there may be situations where control devices with
multiple stacks are economically and  environmentally superior to control
devices with single stacks.   As stated  1n  Comment  2.6.11, multiple stacks
can expedite rapid detection and correction of a malfunctioning section of
the control  device.   In addition,  because multiple-stack  control devices
generally have separate compartments  each with its  own fan, it  is easier
and less costly to isolate  one  section  of the  control  device and replace  a
small  fan,  while still  running  the  other sections of the  control device
than it is  to shut down the  entire  control  system and,  thus, the process,
                                   2-49

-------
1n order to replace a large fan on a single-stack unit.  Therefore, EPA
has decided to allow plants the option of using certified observers to
deternrfne the opacity of visible emissions from control devices with
multiple stacks 1n 11eu of Installing CONS's.
     Almost all portland cement plants Installing fabric filters are
expected to use negative-pressure fabric filters with single stacks.  It
1s reported that less than 20 percent of the fabric filters Installed 1n
this Industry since 1971 are the positive-pressure type.  One kiln and one
clinker cooler that have become subject to the NSPS since 1979 are
controlled by positive-pressure fabric filters.  In both cases, however,
the fabric filters are vented to a single stack.  One company 1n this
industry 1s known to use negative-pressure fabric filters with multiple
stacks at two of its plants that have become subject to the NSPS since
1979.  One company is known to use multiple-stack electrostatic
predpltators.  Thus, for this Industry, the use of the EPA Reference
Method 9 alternative for new sources is expected to occur Infrequently.
     There is no clear Incentive for plants to circumvent the monitoring
requirements by adding a small vent or stack.  To install another stack on
an existing negative-pressure fabric filter would not be possible because
of the extensive structural modifications of the existing fabric filter's
internal components, ductwork, and fan that would be required to maintain
an air-tight system.  The cost to make these modifications would dwarf the
cost to Install, utilize, and maintain a COMS.  Therefore, the monitoring
requirement is not likely to be circumvented by the addition of a small
vent or stack.
2.6.13  Comment:  One commenter (IV-D-16) requests that his facility be
allowed to comply with the proposed amendments by monitoring visible
emissions in lieu of installing the more costly COMS's  on its single-
stack, negative-pressure fabric filter.
     Response:  The proposed regulation requires that plants install
COMS's on kiln and clinker cooler control device stacks.   The EPA has
determined the costs of COMS's to be reasonable.  Therefore, the only
exceptions are for plants with multiple-stack, positive-pressure or
negative-pressure fabric filters or multiple-stack ESP's.
                                   2-50

-------
 2.6.14  Comment:  The  commenter (IV-F-1)  asked that EPA verify the means
 by which Its  staff  can become  certified.   "Smoke schools" for certifying
 visible  emission observers  are becoming harder to find.  According to the
 commenter, California  has some budget  problems and does not like to
 conduct  classes.  This company has  certified  smoke readers in all three of
 its  plants, and the commenter  stated that it  was getting difficult to find
 a school  to train his  people.
      Response:  Several States were contacted to obtain information on how
 often "smoke  schools"  are offered for  certifying visible emissions
 observers (Docket Items IV-E-1,  2,  3,  4,  5, and  8).   In Colorado, the
 smoke school  is offered at  least four  times a year.   In California,
 recertification classes are held monthly  in Sacramento,  and  the  class is
 held quarterly for  3 days at different locations  around  the  State.   In
 Missouri, smoke school certification is held  every 6 months.   In Oklahoma,
 smoke school  is held in two different  areas every  6 months.   In
 Washington, smoke school is held every other  Friday, if  the weather
 permits.  Based on  this sample  information, EPA believes  sufficient
 opportunities are available for  plant  staff to become certified  visible
 emissions observers.
 2.7   REPORTING AND  RECORDKEEPING
 2.7.1  Comment;  Several commenters (IV-F-1;  IV-D-18) do not believe
 additional, costly  recordkeeping of either opacity monitoring data or
 visual emission data is needed.  One commenter states that reporting
 requirements will  be a burden to the Portland cement industry and will not
 contribute significantly to  attaining the  goals of the Clean Air Act.
 Recordkeeping does not affect emissions and merely adds an additional
 financial burden to portland cement companies that have spent "millions of
 dollars" on pollution control  equipment.   One commenter concludes that
 there is insufficient justification for the proposed requirements and
requests that EPA  reconsider the recordkeeping amendments and withdraw
them.
     Response;  The Administrator has  reevaluated the proposed
recordkeeping and  reporting  requirements and has decided to withdraw the
separate requirement for semiannual  reports on the frequency,  duration,
                                   2-51

-------
and cause of any Incident or malfunction leading to bypass or
deenerglzatlon of the kiln control device for sources using a COM3.
Section 60.7(c) of the General Provisions requires that excess emission
reports Include the frequency, duration, cause, and corrective action
taken for each period of excess emissions that occur during
malfunctions.  Therefore, the Administrator has determined that excess
emission reports would provide an accurate record of periods of bypass or
deenerglzatlon.  If such periods did not cause excess emissions, a report
on the Incidents 1s not necessary.  However, those sources not equipped
with opacity monitors will be required to submit semiannual reports on the
frequency, duration, and cause of any Incident or malfunction leading to
bypass or deenerglzatlon of the kiln control device.
     In addition to this change, the Administrator has reevaluated the
required frequency of reporting COMS excess emission data.  Under NSPS,
reporting frequencies of data, other than direct compliance Information
are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and semiannual reporting of these
data is required unless evidence 1s produced that supports more frequent
reporting (50 FR 46467, November 8, 1985).   Therefore, the regulation has
been revised to require semiannual reporting of COMS excess emission
data.
     The Administrator has determined that  the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with Method 9 observations and with the use of
COMS's that are being promulgated by publication of this notice are
essential for effective enforcement and will not impose an excessive
burden on the Industry.  A maximum of 0.1 person per year at a cost of
approximately $7,200 per affected facility  (based on $30.45/h,  which
includes labor and overhead) will be necessary to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements described herein.  (Docket
Item IV-H-2).  This cost represents a worst case situation because it
assumes that two excess emission periods will  be recorded and reported
annually for an affected facility, and this case would not be typical.
2.7.2  Comment:  Two commenters (IV-0-11; IV-D-12)  referred to  the
statement in the preamble that 41.6 person-years per year will  be required
by industry to maintain records and to collect,  prepare,  and  use  the
reports.  One commenter (IV-D-11) objects to the additional  personnel
                                   2-52

-------
 requirements that will be necessary to  comply with  the  proposed amendments
 because portland cement companies are making personnel  reductions and
 Instituting cash conservation programs.  One commenter  (IV-F-1)  reports
 that one plant presently estimates that  Us annual  cost to  report COM3
 compliance to the State 1s about $20,000, which the commenter  considers a
 lot of money.  Another commenter (IV-D-12) estimates that this would
 result 1n an annual cost to the Industry of $1.83 million.  This  assumes
 that the work 1s performed by persons earning $44,000 per year In salary
 and benefits (41.6x$44,000*$1.83 million).  The commenter states  that this
 money could be spent on more important needs 1n the cement  Industry.
     Response:  As stated in the previous response, the  recordkeeping and
 reporting requirements have been reduced.  A recalculation  of  the burden
 hours associated with these requirements Indicates that  approximately
 21 person-years per year will be required by industry to maintain records
 and to collect, prepare, and use the reports.  The Agency also considers
 the $20,000 spent by one plant to report COMS compliance to be excessive
 and unusual.  The responses to EPA information requests discussed  earlier
 Indicated that quarterly COMS compliance reporting ranged in cost  from
 $300 to $1,500 annually.  Using the 21 person-years per year estimated  by
 EPA and salary and benefits of $30.45 per hour, the industry wide  cost
 would be approximately $1,329,000,  which the Agency considers reasonable
 given the information obtained from these reports.
 2.7.3  Comment:  Several  commenters (IV-F-1; IV-0-1; IV-0-15)  noted that
 the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements  appear to be
 redundant.  One commenter stated that the proposed requirements apply to
 the same upset/breakdown information required  by State and local
 agencies.  If the information is to be used for a data base  or other
 purposes, one commenter recommended that EPA obtain the  information from
 the appropriate State and  local  agencies and not by placing  an additional
 burden on the Portland cement industry.   One commenter believes the
 requirement to submit semiannual  reports of the  bypass or deenergization
of emission control  devices  on  kilns  is  redundant  because EPA  requires
quarterly reports of excess  emissions.   Another  commenter believes that
the requirement to  submit  semiannual  reports of  control  device  bypass
 incidents is  less stringent  and  redundant when compared  to existing upset
                                   2-53

-------
reporting requirements.  Thus, semiannual reports would  be  unreasonable,
unnecessary, and an unwarranted burden on the Industry.
     Response;  As stated 1n the response to Comment 2.7.1.,  EPA  has
reevaluated Its position on semiannual malfunction reports  and  has  decided
to delete the separate requirement for semiannual reports on  the
frequency, duration, and cause of any Incident leading to bypass  or
deenerglzatlon of the kiln control device.  The regulation  has  been
revised to require that this information be obtained from the excess
emission reports.  If existing upset reports required by State  or local
agencies duplicate Information required by the standard, a  copy of  the
report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the
Administrator 1n Heu of the report required by the standard.
2.7.4  Comment;  One commenter (IV-F-1) states that it would appear to be
a waste of time and resources for EPA to collect, store, and analyze all
the additional data it has proposed to require because the data would
probably never be used.  The EPA's resources could be better spent.  A
commenter (IV-F-1) questioned what EPA will  do with Information gathered
by the additional reporting requirements.  The commenter has contributed
data (compliance tests) for AP-42, which has not been revised yet.
     Response;  Excess emission reports for COMS's are required under the
General Provisions [Section 60.7(c)].  These reports are necessary  to
enable EPA to identify plants that may not be 1n compliance with the
standard.  Based on report information, the  Agency can decide how many
plant Inspections will be needed,  which plants should be Inspected,  what
records and processes should be inspected at each plant,  and whether a
compliance test 1s warranted.   The records that  plants maintain would
Indicate whether plants are properly operating and maintaining control
equipment.  Information on malfunctions leading  to bypass or
deenergization of the control  device (contained  in the excess emission
reports) will  be used to assess design,  operating,  and maintenance
practices that minimize CO trips and to provide  a data base  by which to
evaluate the issue in the next 4-year review.
     As a part of this 4-year review, EPA has  reviewed  and  analyzed  the
compliance test data on plants subject to the  NSPS.   These  data were used
in developing  the revised regulation and  were  used  in updating the AP-42
                                   2-54

-------
 section on port!and cement plants.  The revised  AP-42 section will  be sent
 to owners and operators of portland cement  plants  for their review  and
 comment before  1t  1s finalized.
 2.7.5  Comment:  The commenter  (IV-F-1; IV-D-11) states  that the only
 purpose of this rulemaklng 1s to collect  Information  for enforcement
 purposes and to address the question of CO  trips.  All this Information
 will be gathered at the expense of the portland  cement Industry.  Since
 EPA concedes that  CO trips will be dealt with on a case-by-case  basis and
 because emissions  during CO trips are not considered  representative for
 the purpose of demonstrating compliance, the commenter questions  the need
 for monitoring or  observations and the associated  recordkeeping  and
 reporting requirements.  The commenter requested that EPA withdraw  the
 amendments as proposed.
     Response:  The need for monitoring, either by a COMS or  visual
 observations, and  the associated revised recordkeeping and  reporting
 requirements have  been discussed in previous responses.
     It 1s true that one purpose of the proposed rulemaklng  is to obtain
 information regarding CO trips so that this Issue can be addressed  during
 the next 4-year review and to enable enforcement personnel to evaluate  the
 need to take action.  During the last 4-year review, the deenerglzatlon of
 ESP's during periods of increased combustibles in the kiln exhaust gases
was examined.  It was learned that annual, uncontrolled,  participate
matter emissions are significant 1f the ESP 1s deenergized frequently or
for long periods.  However, ESP vendors and plant personnel  state that, if
a kiln 1s properly designed,  operated,  and maintained, deenergization of
the ESP will be infrequent.  As stated  previously,  EPA has decided to
withdraw the separate proposed requirement for owners  or  operators to
submit semiannual  reports on  the frequency,  duration,  and cause of
malfunctions leading to the bypass or deenerglzatlon of the  kiln control
device.  The EPA has determined that this  information  can be obtained from
the excess emission reports,  which will  be submitted under 40 CFR 60.7(c).
2.7.6  Comment;   Two regional  air pollution  control agencies (IV-D-4;
IV-D-8) support  the amendment  to require COMS's on  all  kilns and  clinker
coolers subject  to the  NSPS because of  the potential for  substantial
particulate emissions from the  portland cement  industry.   However, based
                                   2-55

-------
on extensive experience with Portland cement plants, one commenter
believes a 6-month period 1s too long a time before a company reports  any
downtime of Its control device.  The commenter believes that Immediate
reporting of downtime would be best but recognizes that the burden to
Industry might be too great.  The commenter requests that EPA require  at
least monthly or quarterly reports of frequency, duration, and cause of
any malfunction resulting 1n bypass or deenerglzatlon of any device
controlling kiln emissions.  The commenter also requests that these
reports Include the clInker cooler.  Furthermore, the commenter believes
that companies should be required to notify the enforcement authority
verbally, as soon as possible, of all control device malfunctions.  The
commenter also approves of quarterly excess emission reports but believes
1t would be more appropriate to require monthly excess emission reports so
that enforcement personnel may use the Information 1n a more timely
manner.
     Another commenter requests that, for consistency, all reporting of
excess emissions and process malfunctions be on a quarterly basis.  This
would simplify comparisons with data from other sources required to report
quarterly.
     Response:  As stated previously, the Agency has determined that
semiannual reports of excess emissions and bypass or deenerglzatlon
incidents would be adequate.  Therefore, the regulation is being revised
to require each owner or operator required to install  a COMS to submit a
written report of this information semiannually.   This would include
malfunction Information for clinker coolers also.  However,  it is not
possible that a "CO-trip" malfunction resulting in deenergization of the
control device would be reported for clinker coolers because conditions
that might cause high levels of CO to be an explosion  hazard cannot occur
in clInker coolers.  Reports of excess emissions  as determined by Method 9
observation will also be submitted semiannually as required  in the amended
regulation.
     If a State or local agency determines that more frequent  reporting
will enable enforcement personnel  to monitor a  plant more  effectively,  the
State has the authority to require such reporting.
                                   2-56

-------
2.8  WORDING OF REGULATION
2.8.1  Comment:  The commenter (IV-D-11) requests that the term  "bypass"
be defined 1f EPA promulgates final amendments.  The commenter noted that
this term 1s not defined 1n the preamble or 1n the proposed amendments.
     Response;  The following definition of "bypass" has been included in
the amended regulation:
     "Bypass" means any system that prevents all or a portion of the kiln
or clinker cooler exhaust gases from entering the main control device and
ducts the gases through a separate control  device.  This does not include
emergency systems designed to duct exhaust  gases directly to the
atmosphere in the event of a malfunction of any control device controlling
kiln or clinker cooler emissions.
     "Bypass stack" means the stack that vents exhaust gases to the
atmosphere from the bypass control device.
                                  2-57

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
     EPA-450/3-85-003b
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Portland Cement Plants—Background Information for
  Promulgated  Revisions to Standards
                5. REPORT DATE
                  July 1988
                6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
  PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Office of Air  Quality Planning  and Standards
  U. S. Environmental  Protection  Agency
  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
                                                             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                               68-02-3817
12-SPPNSORING.AGENCX NAME AND ADDRESS
  DAA for Air  Quality Planning and  Standards
  Office of Air  and Radiation
                 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                   Final
  U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
                 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
27711
                   EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
  Revisions to  the  monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements  associated
  with standards  of performance for  port!and cement  plants (40 CFR 60.60) were
  proposed in the Federal Register on  September 10,  1985 (50 FR 36956).   These
  requirements  are  being promulgated under the authority of Section  114 of the
  Clean Air Act.  This document contains a summary of  the comments on  the proposed
  revisions to  the  standards, the Agency's response  to the comments, and  a summary
  of the changes  to the revised standards since proposal.
17.
                                 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                              c.  COSATI Field/Group
  Air pollution
  Pollution control
  Standards of performance
  Portland cement  plants
  Kilns
  Clinker coolers
  Particulates
    Air Pollution Control
  13 B
 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Unlimited
   19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
     Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
     64
   20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
     Unclassified
                               22. PRICE
 EPA Form 2270-1 (R«v. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------

-------