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
-------
------- |