Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9629-9]

RIN 2060-AQ93

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rules on Reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland 

cement industry for Portland cement plants issued under sections 

112 (d) of the Clean Air Act. These amendments would promote 

flexibility, reduce costs, and ease compliance burdens, 

consistent with environmental goals, the Clean Air Act, and 

Executive Order 13563. More specifically, the amendments would 

address the remand of these standards by the D.C. Circuit on 

December 9, 2011. The EPA is also proposing amendments with 

respect to issues on which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 

2011. In addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to the new 

source performance standard for PM issued pursuant to section 

111 (b) of the Clean Air Act. Finally, the EPA is proposing to 

extend the date for compliance with the existing source national 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 2 of 242

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to September 9,

2015.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 30 

DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Any requests for 

a public hearing must be received by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS FROM

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If the EPA holds a public 

hearing, the EPA will keep the record of the hearing open for 

thirty days after completion of the hearing to provide an 

opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary 

information. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 

information collection provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management and Budget receives a 

copy of your comments on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, by one of the following methods:

 Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting comments.

 Agency Website: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and 

Radiation Docket website.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 3 of 242

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817 in 

the subject line of the message.

 Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817.

 Mail: Send your comments to: The EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket 

ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

Attn: Desk Officer for the EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

 Hand Delivery or Courier: In person or by courier, deliver 

comments to the EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays), and special arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. Please include two copies.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 4 of 242

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQOAR-2011-0817. The EPA policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD 

ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 5 of 242

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA public docket, visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking 

under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket 

Center is (202) 566-1742. Note that information pertinent to the 

previous Portland cement rulemakings discussed in this document 

is contained in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051 and EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0877.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 6 of 242

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 

10:00 a.m. on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and will be held at the EPA campus in 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate 

facility nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony 

or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should 

contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and 

Minerals Group (D243-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; email: 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov; telephone number: (919)541–7966. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 

whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 

Garrett at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the 

public hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243-04); 

Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Park, NC 

27111; telephone number: (919)541-2825; fax number: (919)541-

5450; email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 7 of 242

The information presented in this preamble is organized as 

follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

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

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 

amendments?

B. What actions preceded this proposed rule?

III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and 

Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

B. Mercury Standard 

C. THC Standard

D. Proposed Amendments to Existing Source and New Source 

Standards for PM under Section 112 (d) and 111 (b) 

E. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting from Reconsideration 

F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions from Clinker Storage Piles

G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedances 

Occurring During Malfunctions

H. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP 

Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter) 

I. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply With 

HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

J. Alternative PM Limit

K. Standards During Startup and Shutdown

L. Coal Mills

M. PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

O. Eligibility to be a New Source

IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions

V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment

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

of Proposed Amendments

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?

C. What are the air quality impacts?

D. What are the water quality impacts?

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

F. What are the secondary impacts?
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 8 of 242

G. What are the energy impacts?

H. What are the cost impacts?

I. What are the health effects of these pollutants?

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

The EPA is proposing amendments to the emissions standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and to the performance 

standards for Portland cement plants. These proposed amendments 

respond to petitions for reconsideration filed by the Portland 

cement industry and to a decision by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). 

These amendments, if adopted, will will provide less costly 

compliance options and compliance flexibilities, and thereby 

result in cost savings for the Portland cement industry, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 9 of 242

consistent with the Clean Air Act and Executive Order 13563. 

The proposed amendments include a new compliance date for the 

PM, mercury, HCl, and THC existing source standards. 

1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action

a. Need for the Regulatory Action. The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Portland cement source category and 

to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland 

cement plants issued under sections 112 (d) and 111 (b) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. After the EPA identifies categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, 

section 112(d) requires the EPA to promulgate technology-based 

NESHAP for those sources. Section 111 of the CAA requires that 

NSPS reflect the application of the best system of emission 

reductions achievable which, taking into consideration the cost 

of achieving such emission reductions, and any non-air quality 

health and environmental impact and energy requirements, the 

Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.

This proposal both addresses the remand by the D.C. Circuit 

in Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. Cir. 2011), 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 10 of 242

and provides additional compliance flexibilities. In that case, 

the court upheld all of the EPA’s methodology for establishing 

the Portland cement NESHAP, denied all petitions for review 

challenging the NSPS, but also held that the EPA had arbitrarily 

denied reconsideration of the NESHAP to take into account the 

effect of the EPA’s Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule 

on the standards. The NHSM rule, issued after the NESHAP was 

promulgated, had the effect of reclassifying some cement kilns 

as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI) 

and thus could have an effect on the standards. 

The proposal also addresses technical issues with respect 

to the standard for PM in both the NESHAP and the NSPS that have 

emerged since these rules’ promulgation. In addition, the 

proposal addresses the issues on which the EPA previously 

granted reconsideration.

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action. These 

proposed amendments implement sections 112 (d) and 111 (b) of 

the CAA.

2) Summary of Major Proposed Provisions

a. PM (PM) Emission Standards. The EPA is proposing changes 

to the emission standards for PM that will make it easier for 

cement plants to comply. The promulgated rule requires 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 11 of 242

compliance to be demonstrated using a Continuous Emission 

Monitoring System (CEMS) (see section 63.1348 (75 FR 55056)). 

Based on the information the EPA now has, we believe that it may 

be problematic for a PM CEMS to meet the mandated Performance 

Specification 11 (PS 11) correlation requirements complying with

the promulgated PM standards. (See Section III.D.) As a 

consequence, the EPA is proposing to amend the existing and new 

source PM standards in the NESHAP to require manual stack 

testing in lieu of PM CEMS for compliance determinations. An 

additional consequence of this proposed change of compliance 

measurement methods is that the EPA is proposing to change the 

averaging time and numeric emissions value of those standards. 

The EPA is proposing amended PM standards under the NESHAP for 

existing sources of 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based 

on manual stack testing, (from 0.04 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30-

day average with a PM CEMS) and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new 

sources based on stack testing (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2010 

rule, 30-day average with a PM CEMS). The EPA is proposing 

amended PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources of 0.07 

lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing, (from 0.01 lb/ton 

in the 2010 rule, 30-day average with a PM CEMS) and 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on stack testing
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 12 of 242

(from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2010 rule, 30-day average with a PM 

CEMS). The EPA is further proposing that a site-specific 

parametric operating limit be established, that there be 

continuous monitoring of that parametric limit using a PM CPMS, 

that an exceedance of that site-specific operating limit be 

reported as a deviation, triggering corrective action including 

conducting a Method 5 performance test within 45 days. Further,

multiple deviations from the parametric limit can constitute a 

violation of the emissions standard.

b. Response to Remand. Consistent with the court’s remand, 

the EPA has removed all the CISWI kilns from the database used 

to set the 2010 existing source standards for PM, mercury, 

hydrochloric acid and total hydrocarbons (THC). The EPA then 

recalculated existing source floors for each of these 

pollutants, and determined what standards to propose in light of 

that analysis. This analysis informed the level of the proposed 

standards for PM just discussed. The resulting standards are 

discussed immediately below. 

c. Other Emissions Standards. The EPA is not proposing any 

changes to the existing source standards for mercury, THC, or 

HCl. The reasons are set out in sections III A, B and C below. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 13 of 242

With respect to new source standards, under section 112 (d) 

(3) of the CAA, new source floors can be based on the 

performance of the “best controlled similar source”. A CISWI 

cement kiln is a similar source for purposes of this provision. 

The EPA, therefore, is not proposing to amend any of the new 

source floors or standards for mercury, THC or HCl where the 

best performing source in the database used to set the standards 

was a CISWI cement kiln. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard 

for organic HAP, whereby organic HAP are measured directly. To 

avoid a situation where the alternative organic standard level 

is lower than the practical quantitation limit of the relevant 

analytic methods, the EPA is proposing to increase the 

alternative organic HAP standard from 9 parts per million (ppm)

to 12 ppm. See additional discussion in section III.H below.

d. Standards during Startup and Shutdown. In the final 2010 

NESHAP, the EPA established specific numerical standards for 

startup and shutdown for each pollutant to be measured using a 

CEMS over an accumulative 7-day rolling average. Because raw 

materials (the source of most cement kiln air emissions) are not 

introduced into cement kilns during startup and shutdown, cement 

kilns’ emissions during these periods should be appreciably 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 14 of 242

lower than the level of the standards. The EPA is, therefore,

proposing that sources monitor compliance with these standards 

via recordkeeping.

e. Proposed Compliance Dates. The EPA is proposing that the 

compliance date for all existing source standards including 

standards for PM, mercury, HCl and THC, clinker piles and the 

standards for startup and shutdown be extended to September 9, 

2015. The EPA believes that the proposed change to the PM 

standard makes possible compliance alternatives unavailable 

under the promulgated existing source standards) and that an 

extension until September 9, 2015, is the period in which these 

new compliance strategies can be implemented most expeditiously. 

f. The EPA is also taking action on the remaining issues on 

which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.

3) Costs and Benefits

The following table 1 summarizes the costs and emissions 

reductions of this proposed action.

Table 1. Costs and emissions reductions of proposed 

amendments relative to the 2010 rulea,b

Proposed Amendment Capital Cost Annualized 

Cost

Emissions 

Reduction

Long term impacts (after 2015)
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 15 of 242

0

Revised PM standard -$18,640,106 -$4,200,000 -135 tons/yr

(emissions 

increase)

Replace PM CEMS with PM 

CPMS

0 -$7,980,000 0

Total -$18,640,106 -$12,180,000

Short term impacts associated with proposed new compliance date 

(through 2015)

c, d

Mercury

THC

HCl

PM

__ __ -16 13 tons

-18,700 tons

-7,100 tons

-17,800 tons

a See section III below for further discussion of impacts of the 

proposed amendments.

b Negative numbers indicate cost savings or emissions increase.

All costs are in 2005 dollars. 

c Emissions reductions are the total relative to the 2010 rule 

over the time period of September 9, 2013, until September 9, 

2015. We note that the proposed change in compliance date may 

also lower facilities’ compliance costs from 2013 to 2015 due to 

the increased flexibility in timing of installation of controls.

d Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015.

The cost information in Table 1 is in 2005 dollars at a discount 

rate of 7 percent. The net change in annualized costs is -

$12,180,000 million savings compared to the 2010 rule. The EPA 

did not have sufficient information to quantify the overall 

change in benefits and costs. The EPA estimated emission 

increases from 2015 on resulting from the revised PM standard. 

The EPA also presented the estimated emission increases for the
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 16 of 242

period of 2013 to 2015 due to the proposed change in the 

compliance date Note that these 2013 to 2015 estimates are an 

upper bound, assuming all facilities do not come into compliance 

with the standards until the proposed compliance date. EPA has 

estimated the effect of the proposed change in compliance date 

on compliance costs from 2015 on. There may be additional cost 

reductions from 2013 to 2015 due to increased flexibility in 

timing of installation of controls. We were unable, however, to 

estimate this latter effect.

4. Summary of Proposed Standards

The following Table 2 shows the proposed standards.

Table 2. Proposed Existing and New Source Standards

Pollutant

Existing source 

standard

New source 

standard

Mercury 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker

21 lb/MM tons 

clinker

THC 24 ppmvd 24 ppmvd

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

0.02 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

Organic HAP

(alternative to 

Total Hydrocarbon)

12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd

B. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final 

rule include: 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 17 of 242

Category NAICS 

code1

Examples of regulated entities

Industry.... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

Federal government... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility 

will be regulated by this action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart F) or in 40 CFR 

63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this final action to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

Submitting CBI. 

Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 

all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 18 of 242

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, 

a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain 

CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does 

not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included 

in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket 

without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 

CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only 

to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817.

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide 

Web (WWW) through the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this 

proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 19 of 242

page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 

amendments? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to 

address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. After the EPA 

has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the 

HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) requires 

us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. For “major sources” 

that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy)

or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of a combination of 

HAP, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum 

reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 

requirements and non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards.

The statute specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements for MACT standards, which are referred to as 

“floor” requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 20 of 242

for new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than 

the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing 

sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 

existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 

information) in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or subcategories with 

fewer than 30 sources.

In developing MACT, we must also consider control options 

that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor based on the 

consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, 

any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(2).1

 

1 Section 112 (d)(7) states that "[n]o other emission standard 

... under this section shall be interpreted, construed or 

applied to diminish or replace the requirements of a more 

stringent emission limitation or other applicable requirement 

established pursuant to section 7411 of this title, part C or D 

of this subchapter, or other authority of this chapter or a 

standard issued under State authority." This provision indicates 

that a section 112 (d) standard does not "trump" any standard 

established under other authority which is more stringent. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 21 of 242

Section 111(b) requires the EPA to set standards for 

emissions that “reflect the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of the best system of 

emission reduction.” See CAA section 111 (a)(1). In contrast to 

the NESHAP floor setting process, NSPS requires the EPA to take 

into account the “cost of achieving” emissions reductions, as 

well as health, environmental, and energy considerations. Id.

B. What actions preceded this proposed rule?

The history of this proposed rule, commencing with the 1999 

standards and proceeding through the amendments issued in 

September 2009, is set out in detail in 75 FR 54970 (Sept 9, 

2010). Various parties filed petitions for reconsideration of 

aspects of those amendments. On May 17, 2011, the EPA granted 

reconsideration of various issues, and denied the petitions to 

reconsider as to the remaining issues. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 

2011). On December 9, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion 

upholding the NESHAP itself (as well as the section 111 NSPS), 

but found that the EPA had arbitrarily failed to grant 

reconsideration to consider the effect of the EPA’s NHSM rule on 

 

Section 112 (d)(7) does not bar the EPA from amending section 

112 (d) standards to correct technical deficiencies. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 22 of 242

the standards (76 FR 15456 (March 21, 2011)), which rule had the 

effect of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and 

solid waste incinerators. See Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 

F. 3d 177, 186-189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). That court did not stay the 

standards for PM, mercury, HCl or THC, but did stay the standard

for clinker piles pending the conclusion of the reconsideration

process. See 665 F. 3d at 194.

In this action, the EPA is responding to the court’s 

remand. For existing sources, the EPA is doing so by removing 

all kilns classified as commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators from the data used to establish the 2010 NESHAP 

standards. The EPA is then recalculating each of the floors 

based on this revised dataset and making beyond-the-floor 

determinations based on the recalculated floors. The EPA 

believes that this approach is fully responsive to the court’s 

remand. See 665 F. 3d at 188 where the court referred favorably 

to this type of recalculation. For new sources, the EPA is 

basing floors on the performance of the best performing similar 

source.

III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and 

Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 23 of 242

As just noted, in Portland Cement Association v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit upheld all of the EPA’s methodology for 

establishing the Portland cement NESHAP, but remanded the 

standards so that the EPA could account for the effects of the

EPA’s NHSM rule. This rule, adopted after promulgation of the 

Portland cement NESHAP, had the effect of reclassifying certain 

cement kilns as commercial and industrial incinerators because 

they combust “solid waste” as defined by that rule. See 665 F. 

3d at 185-189. 

Applying that definition, the EPA has determined that there 

are 24 cement kilns which combust solid waste. See 76 FR 28322 

and Memorandum “Combustion in a Cement Kiln and Cement Kilns’ 

Use of Tires as Fuel” (April 25, 2011) (“April 25 memorandum”); 

see also 76 FR 80452 (Dec. 23, 2011) where the EPA identified 23 

of the 24 kilns as commercial incinerators as were identified in 

the April 25 memorandum. The 24th kiln was identified as a CISWI 

kiln after development of the April 25, 2011, memorandum, but 

the addition of this kiln did not affect the calculations 

contained in the May 17, 2011 notice (CISWI Data Revisions since 

Reconsideration Proposal, docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119). Although

the EPA has proposed to reconsider certain narrow aspects of the 

NHSM rule, see 76 FR 80598 (Dec. 23, 2011), this count remains 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 24 of 242

unchanged by any of the issues being considered in the 

reconsideration of the NHSM rule. This is because either the 

types of secondary materials being addressed in that 

reconsideration are not combusted by cement kilns or the EPA has 

already accounted for those materials in its April 25 memorandum 

analysis. See 76 FR 28319 (May 17, 2011). Specifically, in the 

NHSM reconsideration proposal, the EPA proposed to clarify that

clean cellulosic biomass and clean construction and demolition 

wood are not solid wastes when burned for energy recovery and 

that unused, off-specification tires are not wastes when burned 

for energy recovery. The EPA’s analysis underlying its April 25, 

2011, memorandum already reflects that these non-hazardous 

secondary materials are not wastes when burned by cement kilns 

for energy recovery. The EPA expects the reconsideration of the 

NHSM rule to be completed before taking final action on this 

proposed rule and the EPA will account for any changes resulting 

from the reconsidered final NHSM rule when it takes final action 

here.

2

 

2 The EPA has also conducted a bounding analysis of potential 

floors by removing from the data base all cement kilns that burn 

any type of secondary material for energy recovery (so that 

there is no possibility that any CISWI kiln is in the bounding 

analysis database). Under this analysis , the existing source 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 25 of 242

1. Existing Source Floors. We removed the 24 CISWI kilns 

from the database used to establish existing source standards 

and recalculated floors for existing sources. Under this 

analysis, the existing source floor for mercury increased from

55 lb/million (MM) tons clinker to 58 lb/MM tons clinker, the 

existing source floor for PM increased from 0.04 lb/ton clinker 

to 0.05 lb/ton clinker, the existing source floor for THC 

decreased to 15 parts per million by volume, dry (ppmvd), and 

the existing source floor for HCl stayed the same at 3 ppmvd.

As explained in section B below, the EPA is proposing to 

establish a beyond the floor standard for mercury of 55 lb/MM 

tons clinker. Moreover, for reasons independent of this 

analysis, the EPA is proposing to amend the existing and new 

 

section 112 floor for HCl was unchanged, the existing source 

floor for PM was essentially unchanged, the existing source 

floor for THC becomes more stringent (as in the April 25, 2011,

analysis), and the existing source mercury floor increases from 

55 lb/MM ton clinker to 66 lb/MM ton clinker. (However, even in 

this case, a beyond-the-floor mercury limit of 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker would be cost effective and the EPA would propose the 

same standards as under this proposal if this bounding analysis 

were used in place of the analysis described in the text. The

EPA, thus, does not believe that the precise count of CISWI 

kilns will affect the outcome of this rulemaking. See Bounding 

Analysis for Portland Cement MACT Floors, May 14, 2012.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 26 of 242

source NESHAP for PM. See section D below. The EPA is not 

proposing to amend the HCl standard or the THC standard.

2. New Source Standards. With respect to new source standards, 

the EPA does not believe that any reclassification and 

reanalysis is necessary under the court’s opinion. New source 

floors can be based on the performance of “the best controlled 

similar source”, as opposed to existing source floors which must 

reflect performance of sources “in the category or subcategory”. 

See CAA section 112 (d)(3) and (d)(3)(A). A CISWI cement kiln is 

similar to a non-CISWI cement kiln since the device is a cement 

kiln. Equally important, burning secondary materials for energy 

recovery does not significantly alter a cement kiln’s HAP 

emission profile. See 76 FR 28320 (May 17, 2011) (documenting 

both the basis for this conclusion and the cement industry’s 

agreement with it).

3,4

 

3 The EPA is thus not reopening the new source standards (with 

the exception of the PM standard, which the EPA is proposing to 

amend). We will take comment on whether CISWI cement kilns can 

be considered a “similar source” under section 112 (d)(3) and 

whether retention of the 2010 new source standards on this basis 

is consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. The EPA will not 

consider comments challenging the data and methodology for the 

new source standards since these are unchanged from the 2010 

rule and the EPA is not reexamining any of these issues.

4 If the EPA were to reconsider the new source standards by 

removing the 24 CISWI kilns from the database, then the mercury 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 27 of 242

B. Mercury Standard

1. New Source Standard. As explained above, the new source 

standard is based on the performance of the best performing 

similar source. 

2. Existing Source Standard. As noted above, the 

recalculated existing source floor is 58 lb/MM tons clinker 

produced. The EPA is proposing a beyond-the-floor standard of 55 

lb/MM ton clinker produced, the level of the 2010 final 

standard. As described below, the only difference in cost 

between the two levels is the incremental cost of removing 

slightly more mercury, which is estimated at $2,000/lb of 

mercury removed. This is because the control equipment needed 

for mercury would not alter, would not need to be sized 

differently, and would need to perform on average nearly

identically at either a 55 lb/MM tons clinker or a 58 lb/MM tons 

clinker level. That is, in planning compliance, kilns would 

 

new source floor increased from 21 to 24 lb/MM tons clinker, the 

THC new source floor decreased from 24 to 11 parts per million 

by volume dry (ppmvd), and the PM and HCl new source floor 

stayed the same at 0.01 lb/ton clinker and 3 ppmvd, respectively 

(see Memorandum, Revised Portland Cement NESHAP with CISWI kilns 

removed, March 21, 2011). However, as explained in the text, 

because CISWI cement kilns are “similar sources” for purposes of 

establishing NESHAP new source standards, the EPA is not relying 

on this analysis here.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 28 of 242

calibrate to achieve an average performance of 34.1 lb/MM tons 

clinker for a standard of 58 lb/MM tons clinker, and 31.7 for a 

standard of 55 lb/MM tons clinker, which translates to an 

additional reduction of 2.4 lb/MM tons of clinker per year. This 

equates to an estimated 180 pounds of nationwide mercury 

emissions per year, incremental to the recalculated floor. To 

achieve this additional reduction, we estimated an additional 

cost of approximately $355,000 for the industry, the cost of 

purchasing additional carbon injection materials. This equates 

to a cost-effectiveness of $2,000/lb of mercury reduction per 

year. This is the incremental cost of going from the 

recalculated floor of 58 lb/MM tons clinker to the proposed 55 

lb/MM tons clinker. Because this is the same level as the 2010 

rule, there are no incremental costs or emissions impacts when 

compared to the 2010 rule. See section 8.2, Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document. Moreover, this 

reduction is highly cost-effective. A cost effectiveness value 

of $2,000/lb. mercury is considerably less than values the EPA 

have found to be cost effective for removal of mercury in other 

air toxics rules. For example, in the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from 

Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, the cost effectiveness was 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 29 of 242

found to be between $13,000 to $31,000 per pound for the 

individual facilities (see Supplemental proposed rule, 76 FR 

13858 (March 14, 2011).) The EPA also does not see any adverse 

energy or non-air quality health or environmental consequences 

of a 55 lb/MM tons clinker beyond-the-floor standard.

We are not proposing a beyond the floor level below 55 

lb/MM tons clinker for the same reasons given in the 2010 final 

rule – in particular the possibility that a lower standard could 

force some kilns to find alternative sources of limestone, at 

enormous cost and disruption. See 75 FR 54980 (September 9, 

2010).

C. THC Standard

The THC data for the 2010 standard consist of CEMS data for 

15 kilns. After removing the four CISWI kilns, nine kilns 

remain. Thus, the MACT floor kilns consisted of 12 percent of 

these nine kilns, or two kilns. The top two kilns were Suwannee 

and Holcim. As explained above, when CISWI sources are removed 

from the database for the 2010 standards, the existing source

floor for THC becomes more stringent from 24 ppmvd to 15 ppmvd, 

and the new source standard would drop from 24 ppmvd to 11 

ppmvd. This change results from removing from the database a 

CISWI cement kiln (the Lehigh Union Bridge kiln) with the lowest 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 30 of 242

daily average performance but with more associated variability 

than the other kilns with the next highest daily average 

performance. See also 76 FR 28322 (May 17, 2011) n. 11 and 665 

F. 3d at 188. However, notwithstanding this calculation, the EPA 

is not proposing to reduce the level of either the new source or 

the existing source THC standard. 

1. New Source Standard. As just explained, the new source 

standard can be based on performance of a “best controlled 

similar source”, so there is no reason under the statute or the 

court’s remand to amend the new source THC standard. The 

standard is also technically appropriate. See 75 FR 54981

(September 9, 2010) (explaining basis for the THC new source 

standard, which discussion is summarized below for the readers’ 

convenience). Removing the CISWI Union Bridge kiln as the best 

performing new source would leave the Suwannee kiln as the 

lowest emitter based on its daily average THC emissions. See 

Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document

(TSD), Section 8.4, which is available in this rulemaking 

docket. This kiln has higher average emissions than the Union 

Bridge kiln (that is, its daily average emissions are higher 

than the Union Bridge kiln). This kiln thus emits more THC than 

the Union Bridge kiln, so the EPA identified the kiln emitting 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 31 of 242

less THC on average – the Union Bridge kiln - to be the best 

performer. The Suwannee kiln has less measured variability than 

the Union Bridge kiln, but also has hundreds of fewer 

observations. For this reason, the EPA considered the Union 

Bridge kiln to be more representative of variability, and used 

its 99th percentile performance as the measure of performance of 

the best performing similar source in establishing the new 

source standard. See 75 FR 54981(September 9, 2010).

5

2. Under the calculation described above, the existing 

source floor would be reduced from 24 ppmvd to 15 ppmvd. Subject 

to any comments the EPA receives on this proposed action, the 

EPA believes that such a floor level would not be technically 

appropriate. It omits the variability of the similar source with 

the best average performance for THC (the Union Bridge kiln), 

and so may not be fully representative of variability of best 

performing sources. As noted above, cement kiln HAP emissions 

are not appreciably affected by burning secondary materials for 

 

5 For purposes of comparing the relative variability of the THC 

CEMS data for each of the kilns in our THC data set, we used the 

ratio of the 99th percentile for each kiln divided by its daily

average. A ratio of 1.0 indicates no variability. As the ratio 

increases, variability increases. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD, section 8.4, which is available in this 

rulemaking docket.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 32 of 242

energy recovery so the Union Bridge’s variability is 

representative of cement kiln variability. In addition, as noted 

above, the number of daily observations for the Union Bridge 

kiln is among the most robust in the database, containing over 3 

times the number of observations as the next best performing 

cement kiln. Thus, there is a “demonstrated relationship” 

between the variability of the Union Bridge kiln and the 

variability of the best performing sources in the existing 

source floor pool. Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875, 882 (D.C. 

Cir. 2007). The EPA consequently believes it is technically 

justified to consider the Union Bridge kiln's variability in 

estimating the variability of the best performing cement kilns 

for THC emissions.

If the variability of the Union Bridge kiln is included 

along with the variability of the two best performing cement 

kilns, and applied to the two best performing cement kilns’ 

performance, the floor would be 24 ppm, which the EPA is 

proposing as a floor. See Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD, 

Section 8.4. This is the level of the 2010 standard. 

3. Beyond the floor standards. The EPA is not proposing a 

beyond the floor THC standard for existing cement kiln sources. 

The reasons given in the rulemaking remain valid. See 75 54983
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 33 of 242

(September 9, 2010; 74 FR 21153 (May 6, 2009). We especially 

note that a more stringent standard for THC would force the 

increased use of energy-intense control technologies like 

regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) which have negative 

environmental implications, notably increased emission of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, as well as increased 

emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and PM10. See 74 FR 21153 (May 6, 2009).

6 These 

devices are also extremely costly and not cost-effective. See 74 

FR 21153 (May 6, 2009). For a description of the costs, energy 

requirements and environmental impacts of RTO, see Summary of 

Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement NESHAP

and NSPS, August 6, 2010, docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438. 

For all these reasons, the EPA does not consider a beyond-thefloor standard for THC to be justified under section 112(d)(2). 

 

6 The EPA estimates that each thermal oxidizer emits an added 

increment of 0.02 tons of CO2 for each ton of clinker produced. 

A typical kiln producing 1.2 million tons of clinker per year 

and controlled by an RTO would emit an additional 24,000 tons of 

CO2 per year. See RTO Secondary Impacts, May 16, 2012, in this 

rulemaking docket.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 34 of 242

Consequently, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor 

standard for THC for existing sources.7

D. Proposed Amendments to Existing Source and New Source 

Standards for PM under Section 112(d) and 111(b)

Based largely on developments which have occurred after the 

EPA granted reconsideration on certain aspects of the NESHAP8, 

the EPA is proposing revisions to the testing and monitoring 

 

7 The EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard for 

organic HAP under which organic HAP is measured directly. See 

section I below.

8 On November 15, 2011, Holcim (US) Inc., a domestic cement 

company, submitted a petition for reconsideration to the EPA 

requesting that the EPA reconsider and stay the NESHAP PM 

standard. The basis for the petition was CEMS data for PM from 

four of Holcim’s kilns (some of which are either waste-burning 

or hazardous waste burning). Petition pp. 5-6. This 

information was collected commencing in January 2011. Since the 

information in the petition was gathered outside the time period 

mandated by section 307 (d)(7)(B) of the Act – even assuming it 

was impractical to raise the objection during the public comment 

period, the grounds arose outside the time period for judicial 

review which ended in November 2010. Thus, the EPA believes 

that it is not compelled to grant this petition. Moreover, as 

discussed in the text below, because the EPA is proposing to no 

longer use a CEMS-based regime for the PM standard, the Holcim 

information is no longer of direct relevance in setting the 

level of the PM standard. A further issue with the data is that 

they were not obtained using CEMS calibrated according to PS-11, 

the protocol specified in the rule. Accordingly, the EPA is not 

basing its proposal of a revised PM standard on these data. The

EPA is not, however, taking final action on the Holcim petition 

at this time, but intends to do so in conjunction with the 

issuance of the final reconsideration rule.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 35 of 242

methods used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

existing and new source PM emissions standards and is proposing 

changes to the averaging time, level, and compliance 

demonstration for those standards. The EPA has also removed all 

CISWI kilns from the data base used to establish the standards 

for PM and used this revised data base in determining the level 

of the standard, consistent with the court’s remand. We explain 

these proposed changes below.

In comments to the 2009 proposal, industry commenters 

maintained that there were several problems with implementing 

the monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance using a PM 

CEMS and with the requirements to conduct a periodic audit of 

the PM CEMS in accordance with Performance Specification (PS) 11 

of appendix B and Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60. The EPA 

responded to these comments in the 2010 final rule. See 75 FR 

55007 (September 9, 2010); NESHAP Response to Comment Document 

pp. 163-166. Since that time, the Portland cement industry has 

identified further technical issues associated with the current 

 

On January 17 2012, LaFarge Cement submitted a petition for 

reconsideration containing no new data or information but 

arguing that the Holcim petition justified reconsideration of 

the standards. The EPA believes that this petition is subsumed 

by the Holcim petition.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 36 of 242

PM CEMS technology in satisfying PS 11 correlation requirements

that have emerged as the industry has attempted to develop a 

CEMS-based compliance strategy for PM pursuant to the 2010 

NESHAP.

1. PS 11. The EPA has continued to review the application 

of PM CEMS in relation to the procedures and acceptance criteria 

of PS 11, the protocol mandated by the promulgated rule. See 

section 63.1350 (b)(1). PS 11 is structured differently than 

other PS that apply to validating the performance of gaseous 

pollutant CEMS. This is primarily because the pollutant, PM, is 

defined entirely by the test method specified by regulation to 

measure it. As the industry commenters note, there are no 

independent standard reference materials for PM concentrations 

as there are for gaseous pollutants (e.g., NIST traceable 

compressed gases for validating SO2 or NOx instrumental 

measurements). The only reference standard for determining the 

PM concentration in an air or stack gas sample is the reference 

test method. In the case of the Portland cement NESHAP (and 

NSPS), the rule specifies the EPA Method 5 for measuring 

filterable PM concentration or mass rate (e.g., in mg/dscm or 

lb/hr).
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 37 of 242

PS 11 provides procedures and acceptance criteria for 

validating the performance of several types of PM CEMS 

technologies. Although there are multiple instrument and data 

reporting operational performance checks in PS 11 that are 

similar in concept to those for gaseous pollutant CEMS, there is 

the principal PM CEMS performance requirement that is distinctly 

different. That requirement is the development of a sitespecific PM CEMS correlation or mathematical response curve. 

There is a key procedural element to developing that 

correlation. That is, PS 11 requires that the source conduct 

multiple stack test runs using an EPA PM test method (e.g., 

Method 5) and simultaneously collect corresponding PM CEMS 

output data. PS 11, section 8.6, requires at least five test 

runs at each of three different operating (i.e., low, mid, and 

high PM concentration) conditions that range from 25 to 100 

percent of allowable emissions, if possible, for a total of 15 

or more test runs. Then the source must use the test method data 

and the corresponding PM CEMS output data to develop an equation 

(i.e., a calculated linear or nonlinear curve) that will be used 

to define the relationship between the PM CEMS output and the 

test method measured PM concentrations. Each site-specific 

correlation must meet several PS 11 acceptance criteria 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 38 of 242

including limits on confidence interval and tolerance interval 

equating to ±25 percent of the applicable emissions limit.

2. Discussion of Technical Issues. A particular challenge 

in applying PM CEMS to source emissions monitoring is in

measuring the very low PM concentrations associated with a low 

applicable emissions limits for PM precisely enough to meet the 

PS 11 correlation requirements. In addition to measurement 

uncertainty inherent in PM CEMS data, the measurement 

uncertainty associated with the reference test method (e.g., 

Method 5) is a significant contributor to successful development 

of a PM CEMS correlation regardless of the type of PM CEMS used. 

As noted above, PS 11 specifies acceptable criteria for a 

correlation directly related to the applicable emissions limit. 

The Portland cement NESHAP PM emissions limit for existing 

sources of 0.04 lb/ton of clinker equates to 5 to 8 mg/dscm, 

depending on production rate (assuming a typical total gas flow 

rate per clinker production rate). For a PM CEMS set up to 

measure compliance with a 5 to 8 mg/dscm equivalent limit, the 

inherent uncertainty associated with a 1 hour Method 5 

measurement (±0.6 to 1.2 mg/dscm) would constitute more than 

half of the ±25 percent of the applicable PS 11 acceptance 

threshold (i.e., ±1.2 to 2.0 mg/dscm) of the mid-level PS 11 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 39 of 242

correlation test (i.e. the correlation for the middle of the 

three PS 11 correlation points).

Although one can improve the method detection capabilities 

of the Method 5 or other filterable PM test method by increasing 

sampling volume and run time, uncertainties in measurement would 

remain. For example to achieve a practical quantitation limit of 

1 mg/dscm, one would need to conduct a test run of 6 hours or 

longer. The measurement uncertainty associated with a 6-hour 

Method 5 test runs at this concentration would be ±0.01 to 0.2 

mg/dscm. At this level, the uncertainty associated with the PM 

test method measurements alone would be about half of the 

correlation limit allowed in PS 11. The PS 11 correlation 

calculations would also have to account for any PM CEMS 

measurement uncertainty.

Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS response variability and 

the uncertainty associated with the representative sampling 

(e.g., PM and flow stratification), we agree with commenters 

that trying to satisfy PS 11 at such low concentrations using 1 

hour Method 5 test runs could be problematic. The same issue 

arises for the new source standard because of the lower limit of 

the new source standard.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 40 of 242

The industry also argued that the variable raw feed 

material and chemical additives used in cement production will 

lead to changes in particle size, refractive index, particle 

density, and other physical characteristics of the particulate 

in the exhaust stream. This is important, according to the 

comments, because correlations developed for the light scatter 

and scintillation PM CEMS technology may be adversely affected 

by these physical changes in particles irrespective of changes 

in mass emissions rates or concentrations.

In developing the 2010 final rule, the EPA assumed that 

cement kilns would be using light-scatter or scintillation PM 

CEMS.9 The output or response of these light based detectors is 

a function of the index of refraction or photoelectric effects 

and the size distribution of the particles in the exhaust 

stream. In addition to being more sensitive than opacity 

monitors, light based detectors provide several degrees of 

design freedom not applicable to opacity monitors. PM CEMS 

manufacturers account for characteristics such as light 

wavelength, scattering angle, and solid angle of detection in 

designing instruments with desired response features. These 

 

9 US EPA, CEMS Cost Model, July 2006.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 41 of 242

types of PM CEMS can be reliably calibrated per PS 11 where the 

relative characteristics (e.g., distribution of size, shape, and 

constituents) of the PM in the exhaust remain relatively 

constant. Such may be the case, for example, where the PM being 

measured is predominantly combustion ash from burning fossil 

fuels in a boiler or an electricity generating unit. 

The dominant sources of PM from a cement kiln are not from 

fuel combustion but from processing raw materials. Cement kilns 

process mostly limestone with naturally occurring variability in 

component percentages. See 74 FR 21142 (May 6, 2009); 75 FR 

54974 (September 9, 2010). Cement kiln operators also add other 

chemical additives in variable concentrations to produce certain 

product characteristics. See 74 FR 21142. As noted in the EPA’s 

technology background documents (e.g., 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf and 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/r4703-02-07.pdf), the 

correlations developed for light-scatter or scintillation PM 

CEMS devices may be adversely affected when there are changes in 

the particle structure, size, and other physical characteristics 

of the emissions. These changes in emissions characteristics can 

occur with the variability inherent in the composition of fuels 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 42 of 242

and raw feed materials, with use of mixed multiple fuels, or 

with addition of chemical additives in various proportions.

10

This is an issue of special import for cement kilns. One 

can expect significant variations in particle size distribution 

and other particle characteristics in Portland cement kiln 

exhaust because of the complicating effects of variable content 

feed materials and chemical additives. That means that 

correlations developed for one set of conditions may not apply 

with changes in feed materials or under other operating 

conditions (e.g., different chemical additives). 

The EPA has investigated whether PM CEMS that work on 

principles other than light scattering could effectively measure 

cement kiln PM and be calibrated per PS 11 requirements. There 

is at least one other PM CEMS technology, beta attenuation PM 

CEMS, also referred to as beta gauge technology that is much 

less sensitive to changes in particle characteristics than are 

light based detectors. The beta attenuation PM CEMS extracts a 

sample for the stack gas and collects the PM on a filter tape. 

The device periodically advances the tape from the sampling mode 

 

10 Memorandum, from C. Oldham to B. Schell, Particulate Matter 

Continuous Emission Monitoring System (PM CEMS) Capabilities, 

June 13, 2012.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 43 of 242

to an area where the sample is exposed to Beta radiation. The 

detector measures the amount of beta radiation emitted by the 

sample and that amount can be directly related to the mass of PM 

on the filter.

The majority of PM CEMS devices used to date by cement 

kilns are based on light scatter or scintillation detection. We 

understand that a few Portland cement operators have applied 

beta attenuation devices. Since the EPA premised the rule on use 

of a different type of PM CEMS, since there is minimal operating 

experience with beta gauge PM CEMS in this industry, and because 

we are not aware that the experience includes a beta gauge PM 

CEMS calibrated per PS 11, the EPA believes that some type of 

research effort involving testing would be needed before 

predicating a PM standard on use of a beta gauge PM CEMS. Such 

an effort is likely to take several years to implement.11 

These issues exacerbate the uncertainties of calibrating PM 

CEMS at the level of the 2010 PM standards noted above. Using 

 

11 We also note that PS 11 provides for means to minimize the 

effects of changing particle sizes, for example by developing 

multiple correlation curves, each of which requires 15 Method 5 

test runs. The EPA did not consider such an approach in 

promulgating the rule and again, further technical work is 

needed to ascertain if such an approach would yield reliable 

results. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 44 of 242

data from longer Method 5 test runs will improve the probability 

of a PM CEMS meeting PS 11 correlation requirements but will 

also raise practicality concerns potentially without completely 

resolving the problems. Given the combination of the low 

emissions concentrations PM CEMS measurement uncertainty factors 

discussed above, the variability in composition of cement PM,

and need for extraordinarily long test runs to reduce Method 5 

uncertainty to a level that compensates sufficiently for the PM 

CEMS measurement uncertainty, the EPA believes that this 

correlation will not be technically or practically achievable 

for a significant number of cement kiln sources.

3. A monitoring approach alternative to PM CEMS and PS 11. 

To address technical issues associated with PM CEMS meeting PS 

11 correlation requirements at low PM emissions concentrations

from cement kilns and the potentially variable PM emissions 

characteristics expected from Portland cement kilns, the EPA is 

proposing to change the compliance basis for the PM emissions 

limit from PM CEMS and the 30-day average emissions calculation. 

For monitoring continuous compliance, the rule would require PM 

CEMS equipment but, as explained below, that equipment would be 

used for continuous parametric monitoring rather than for direct 

measure of compliance with the numerical PM emissions limit. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 45 of 242

The EPA is proposing to change the means of demonstrating 

compliance from PM CEMS to Method 5 stack testing. In applying 

Method 5, PM is withdrawn isokinetically from the source and 

collected on a glass fiber filter maintained at a temperature of 

120 ± 14oC (248 ± 25oF). The PM mass, which includes any 

material that condenses at or above the filtration temperature, 

is determined gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined 

water. Compliance with the numerical emissions limit is then 

based on an average of three 2-hour test runs rather than a 30-

day average determined from PM CEMS data. The numerical level of 

the standard would change to reflect the different averaging 

period. See 75 FR 54988 (September 9, 2010) (explaining that 

more measurements of a properly designed and operated control 

device decreases measured variability since there are likely to 

be more measurements at the mean of performance); see also 75 FR 

54975 (September 9, 2010) (explaining how this phenomenon is 

reflected in the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) equation used to 

project variability, since the m term (i.e., the number of 

measurements) in the equation becomes larger with more 

observations resulting in a larger denominator and hence lower 

ultimate level). By changing from a 30-day average with 

potentially 720 hourly values to a three-run test average 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 46 of 242

producing three test run values, we reviewed and revised the 

calculation of the PM emissions floor and standard, and 

consistent with the court’s remand, removed all CISWI kilns from 

the database in doing so. In calculating the PM MACT floor, the 

best performing kilns used in the analysis changed as a result 

of removing the kilns identified as CISWI kilns. 

In addition, we realized that in the original analysis PM 

emissions data for a single kiln were inadvertently treated as 

test results for three different kilns. After making that 

correction and after eliminating kilns identified as CISWI, the 

number of kilns in the data set was reduced from 45 kilns to 28 

kilns. Therefore, the best performing 12 percent was represented 

by four kilns. As a result of removing the CISWI kilns, two 

kilns which were not best performers in the 2010 dataset are now 

best performers. See TSD section 8.3 and Appendices E and F.

As in the 2009 proposal, we used individual test run data 

from our best performing kilns and calculated the 99th confidence 

UPL. Rather than using m = 30 in the equation as we did in the 

2010 final rule where compliance was based on a 30 day rolling 

average, see 75 FR 54988 (September 9, 2010), we used m = 3 

consistent with the proposed requirement to determine compliance 

using a three run Method 5 test. Under this analysis, we 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 47 of 242

determined the revised proposed PM MACT floor to be 0.07 lb/ ton 

clinker produced when based on the three run Method 5 test.

Beyond-the-floor standards do not appear to be justified for the 

same reasons given in the 2010 final rule. See 75 FR 54988

(September 9, 2010). We are, therefore, proposing this emissions 

limit for the kiln and clinker cooler and an initial and annual 

compliance test using Method 5 to demonstrate compliance.

These issues affecting the existing source PM limit also 

apply to the new source PM limit. Based on this revised 

compliance regime, the new source floor would change from 0.01 

lb/ton clinker produced, to 0.02 lb/ton clinker produced, based 

on a three run average from a Method 5 stack test. See Portland 

Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 8.3. The best performing 

kiln used to set the MACT floor for new sources in the 2010 rule 

was a cement kiln, not a CISWI kiln, so the same kiln was used 

for this analysis. The difference is that because a 3-run test 

would be used to determine compliance rather than a 30-day 

rolling average, the calculation of the 99th confidence UPL used 

m = 3 rather than 30, which results in a floor of 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker. The EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard 

for the reasons given at 75 FR 54988 (September 9, 2010).
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 48 of 242

As indicated above, the EPA is further proposing to use PM 

CEMS technology for continuous parametric monitoring of the 

proposed PM standards. The EPA has developed requirements for 

continuously monitoring operating parameters in instances where 

compliance is based on non-continuous measurements, as would now 

be the case for PM. This implements section 114(a)(3) of the CAA

which requires major sources to use enhanced monitoring for 

compliance certifications. The EPA’s historic approach has been 

to require monitoring of a control device operating condition 

(e.g., electrical power, water flow rate, pH) the limit of which 

is based on a periodic compliance test with the compliance test 

method. The use of a continuous parametric monitoring system

(CPMS) based on PM CEMS technology (PM CPMS) is a significant 

step closer to direct measurement of emissions in units of the 

emissions limit and an improvement over less direct monitoring 

of a process control device conditions.

Specifically, this proposal recognizes the value of PM 

monitoring technology sensitive to changes in PM emissions 

concentrations and use of such a tool to assure continued good 

operation of PM control equipment. This approach avoids the PM 

CEMS calibration (i.e., PS 11 correlation) issues that can be 

exacerbated for Portland cement installations. PM CEMS 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 49 of 242

technology can be effective in monitoring control device 

performance (see, e.g., 77 FR 9371 (February 16, 2012)) where 

the EPA established PM CPMS parametric operating limits for 

electricity generating units).

As a result, this proposed rule would require the 

installation and operation of a PM CPMS for parametric 

monitoring associated with the proposed PM standard. The source 

owner would not have to meet PS 11 requirements but would have 

to prepare and submit for approval, if requested by a permitting 

authority, a site-specific monitoring plan to apply sound 

practices for installing, calibrating and operating the PM CPMS.

Current PM CPMS have an operating principle based on instack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation or beta 

attenuation. The source owner or operator would need to examine 

the fuel and process conditions of his stack as well as the 

capabilities of these devices before selecting a particular CPMS 

technology. The reportable measurement output from the PM CPMS 

may be expressed as milliamps, stack concentration or other raw 

data signal. For the purposes of this proposed rule, the source 

owner would establish an operating limit based on the highest PM 

CPMS hourly value collected during the most recent PM compliance 

test (or other stack tests accepted as a legitimate basis for 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 50 of 242

compliance, as explained below). The source would collect PM 

CPMS data continuously and calculate a 30 operating day rolling 

average PM CPMS output value from the hourly PM CPMS data 

collected during process operating hours and compare that 

average to the site specific operating limit. For these reasons 

(i.e., 30 days to mitigate the effects of measurement and 

emissions variability and using the highest hourly average from 

the stack testing), the EPA believes that use of the PM CPMS for 

parametric monitoring should not pose the same technical issues 

as those underlying the proposed decision to base compliance on 

PM CEMS measurements.

We are proposing a number of consequences if the kiln PM 

monitoring parameter is exceeded. First, the source owner will 

have 48 hours to conduct an inspection of the control device and 

to take action to restore the controls if necessary and 45 days 

to conduct a new PM Method 5 compliance test to verify ongoing 

compliance with the PM limit. Within 60 days complete the 

emissions sampling, sample analyses and verification that the 

source is in compliance with the emissions limit in accordance 

with the test procedures in either section 60.64 or 

63.1349(b)(1). Also, determine an operating limit based on the 

PM CPMS data collected during the performance test. Compare the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 51 of 242

recalculated operating limit with the existing operating limit

and, as appropriate, adjust the numerical operating limit to 

reflect compliance performance. Adjustments may include applying

the most recently established highest of the three test run 

hourly averages or combining the data collected over multiple 

performance tests to establish a more representative value. 

Apply the reverified or adjusted operating limit value from that 

time forward.

Second, the EPA is proposing that this proposed rule limit 

the number of deviations of the site-specific CPMS limit leading 

to follow up performance tests in any 12-month process operating 

period and an excess of this number be considered to be a 

violation of the standard. This presumption could be rebutted by 

the source, but would require more than a Method 5 test to do so

(e.g., results of physical inspections). This additional 

information is necessary since a Method 5 test could not be 

conducted following the discovery of deviations and would not 

necessarily represent conditions identical to those when the 

deviations occurred. The basis for this part of the proposal is 

that the site-specific CPMS limit could represent an emissions 

level higher than the proposed numerical emissions limit since 

the PM CPMS operating limit corresponds to the highest of the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 52 of 242

three runs collected during the Method 5 performance test. 

Second, the PM CPMS operating limit reflects a 30-day average 

that should represent an actual emissions level lower than the 

three test run numerical emissions limit since variability is 

mitigated over time. See 75 FR 54988 (September 9, 2010); 54975-

76. Consequently, we believe that there should be few if any 

deviations from the 30-day parametric limit and there is a 

reasonable basis for presuming that deviations that lead to 

multiple performance tests to represent poor control device 

performance and to be a violation of the standard. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing that PM CPMS deviations 

leading to more than four required performance tests in a 12-

month process operating period to be presumed a violation of 

this standard, subject to the source’s ability to rebut that 

presumption with information about process and control device 

operations in addition to the Method 5 performance test results.

Finally, the EPA is proposing that the NSPS for PM 

established pursuant to section 111(bb) also be revised so that 

these limits are no longer CEMS-based and reflect the resulting 

different numerical values and averaging times. Although the 

NSPS for PM rests on a justification independent of the NESHAP 

PM standard (see PCA v. EPA, 665 F. 3d at 192-93), the technical 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 53 of 242

issues associated with the use of PM CEMS in this industry are 

common to both standards and the proposed amendments, therefore,

appear appropriate for the NSPS as well. The EPA believes that 

these proposed requirements represent Best Demonstrated 

Available Technology for new cement kilns given that the 

standards remain predicated on the performance of the best 

industry performers and the costs remain those already found to 

be reasonable. See id. at 191-92 discussing and upholding the 

EPA’s NSPS for PM.

E. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting From Reconsideration.

The EPA is proposing the following revised MACT standards:

Table 3. – Proposed Existing and New Source Floors and Standardsa

Pollutant Existing source 

standard

New source 

standard 

Mercury 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker

21 lb/MM tons 

clinker

THC 24 ppmvd 24 ppmvd

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

0.02 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

Organic HAP 12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd

aStandards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling 

average. The standard for PM is based on a three run test. If 

using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl standard, the 

floor is also a 30-day rolling average. Organic HAP standards 

are discussed in Section H below.

F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Clinker Storage Piles
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 54 of 242

In the September 2010 rule, the agency established work 

practice requirements to reduce fugitive emissions from outdoor 

clinker storage piles. The agency had information that these 

storage piles emit HAP in the form of fugitive PM containing HAP 

metals, so that regulation of these sources was necessary. 

Because the emissions in question were fugitive dusts for which 

measurement was not feasible, the agency adopted work practices

as the standard, specifically the work practice standards and 

opacity emissions limits contained in California’s South Coast 

Air Quality Management District Rule 1156 as amended on March 6, 

2009. Because there were only two plants which we could state 

definitively had open storage piles and both were complying with 

Rule 1156, we believed that the regulatory standards under Rule 

1156 constituted the floor level of control. The current 

promulgated work practices consist of providing varying degrees 

of enclosures or barriers to prevent wind erosion of the storage 

piles. See generally 75 FR 54989 (September 9, 2010).

In their reconsideration petition, the cement industry 

maintained that the EPA did not provide sufficient notice of the 

standards it might adopt for clinker storage piles. We agreed 

and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). The 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 55 of 242

D.C. Circuit stayed the standard pending the conclusion of the 

EPA’s reconsideration. See 665 F. 3d at 189. 

Industry also noted, correctly, that more than two plants 

are potentially affected by clinker pile standards, so that the 

California rule is not necessarily a floor level of control. To 

evaluate which work practices are currently used in the 

industry, we requested data from the industry on currently used 

work practices. We also undertook a review of state permits to 

determine the level of controls to which open clinker piles are 

currently subject. Based on this information, the EPA is 

proposing to amend the work practices for clinker storage piles.

1. What is a clinker pile?

Clinker storage is necessary to allow near continuous kiln 

operation and intermittent grinding and processing of the 

clinker. Clinker storage is also necessary in the event of

unplanned or planned kiln shutdowns. Cement plants use silos, 

domes or other enclosure for clinker storage. Additional clinker 

storage may also be necessary to accommodate extended shutdown 

periods for kiln maintenance and/or market conditions. When the 

conventional enclosed storage is not adequate, clinker may be 

stored in outdoor piles. Unlike automated systems for drawing 

down clinker from enclosed silos, these temporary outdoor 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 56 of 242

storage piles are drawn down using equipment such as front end 

loaders or other reclaiming equipment. Outdoor clinker storage 

may be temporary, lasting a few days or weeks and up to several 

months. There are also open clinker piles that have been in 

existence for years and are essentially permanent. 

2. What are the proposed standards?

We are proposing amended standards that will control HAP 

metal emissions from open clinker piles. Because the emissions 

are fugitive, we are proposing work practices instead of an 

emissions limit since it is “not feasible to prescribe or 

enforce an emission standard” for these emissions because, as 

fugitive emissions, they are not “emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant”. See 

CAA section 112 (h)(2)(A). The work practices would apply to any 

open clinker piles regardless of the quantity of clinker or the 

length of time that the clinker pile is in existence. 

According to industry stakeholders, virtually all Title V 

permits oblige cement plant operators to “minimize” fugitive 

emissions including those from open clinker piles. See Portland 

Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 2, which is available in 

this rulemaking docket. Our examination of relevant permits 

indicates that some permits establish an opacity limit not to be 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 57 of 242

exceeded in conjunction with materials management. Others 

contain a “no visible emissions” limitation at the fence line of 

the facility. Industry stakeholders state that to minimize 

fugitive emissions from open clinker piles, plants employ a 

number of practices, the most common being to use water sprays 

to form a concrete-like crust on the exposed surface of the 

clinker pile. Clinker has cement like properties and when 

exposed to water will hydrate and harden. The crust formed by 

this practice is very effective at reducing fugitive emissions 

as long as the pile is not disturbed. Another common practice is 

to cover clinker piles with tarps, which may be held down with 

tires, which effectively minimizes fugitive emissions. Some 

plants also use foam sprays on the exposed surface of the pile, 

forming a coating which reduces or prevents fugitive emissions.

Based on our review of 88 state Title V permits, all but 

one permit required one or a combination of the following 

control measures to reduce fugitive emissions generally: work 

practices, opacity or visible emission limits, prohibitions 

against open clinker piles and some type of general duty 

requirements to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Eight of the 

permits contained requirements specific to open or outdoor 

clinker piles. Eighteen permits contained standards that 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 58 of 242

restricted emissions more generally from outdoor storage piles 

including opacity and visible emissions limits and general duty 

requirements to not produce PM or dust emissions at the property 

line. Seventy-seven permits contained facility-wide restrictions 

that applied to a variety of fugitive sources at the cement 

facilities (e.g. roads, storage, raw materials). In only one 

permit was it not clear that there were requirements to minimize 

fugitive dust emissions. 

With the exception of total enclosure of all open clinker 

piles, the EPA believes that the control measures in the permits 

are equally effective in reducing fugitive emissions. These

measures are, therefore, consistent with section 112 (d) 

controls and reflect a level of performance analogous to a MACT 

floor. See CAA section 112(h)(1) (in promulgating work 

practices, the EPA is to adopt standards “which in the 

Administrator’s judgment [are] consistent with section (d) or 

(f) of this section.”) The option of full enclosures, somewhat 

analogous to a beyond-the-floor standard under section 

112(d)(2), would be extremely costly with minimum associated 

emissions reductions incremental to the measures already 

undertaken (which already reduce most or all of the fugitive 

emissions from these piles). The EPA, therefore, is not 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 59 of 242

proposing to mandate such a practice. Industry cost estimates 

for a full enclosure with a capacity of 50,000 tons of clinker 

range from $10 - $25 million in capital cost and $400,000 -

$500,000 annual operating cost (See Portland Cement Association, 

Clinker Piles, September 7, 2011, available in the rulemaking 

docket). We also are not proposing opacity or visible emission 

standards, for several reasons. If work practices are properly 

implemented, we believe fugitive emissions, including visible 

emissions, from clinker piles will be effectively controlled. 

Such emission limits would also be redundant with work practice 

requirements. Moreover, in many cases, the temporary, short-term 

nature of clinker piles would make it impractical to implement 

an emissions monitoring program that would be more effective 

than the proposed work practices.

We are proposing that one or more of the following control 

measures be used when adding clinker to a pile, during on-going 

clinker storage, and when reclaiming the clinker for processing, 

to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive dust 

emissions from open clinker storage piles: locating the source 

inside a partial enclosure (such as a three sided structure with 

tarp), installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, 

applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents on the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 60 of 242

pile, use of a wind barrier or use of a tarp. The owner or 

operator must select, from the list provided, the control 

measure or combination of control measures that are most 

appropriate for the site conditions. We are allowing the owner 

or operator to select the most appropriate control measure or 

combination of measures for their situation. 

We are proposing that the owner or operator must include as 

part of their operations and maintenance plan (required in 

§63.1347) the fugitive dust control measures that they will 

implement to control fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 

piles. These control measures would apply to the addition of 

clinker to the pile, on-going clinker storage and reclaiming the 

clinker for processing. 

We are proposing the same standards for new sources as 

existing sources. In the case of a clinker storage pile, there 

is no essential difference between ‘new’ and ‘existing’. These 

piles generally reflect temporary storage situations, and are 

not analogous to building a one-time stationary structure where 

there are opportunities for newly-constructed entities that do 

not exist for existing entities. The EPA consequently is 

proposing the same standards for both. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 61 of 242

G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedances 

Occurring During Malfunctions

In response to comments, the EPA added to the September 9, 

2010, final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. 

Various environmental advocacy groups, as well as the Portland 

Cement Association (PCA), indicated that there had been 

insufficient notice of this provision. The EPA agreed and 

granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). We are 

proposing to retain the affirmative defense on reconsideration. 

This provision seeks to balance a tension, inherent in many 

types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

basis.” See 42 U.S.C. §7602(k) (defining “emission limitation 

and emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to 

ensure that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. 

The affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 62 of 242

requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, 

the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. Although “continuous” limitations, on the one hand, are 

required, there is also case law indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the 

practical realities of control technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA 

section 111 “variant provisions” such as provisions allowing for 

upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction 

“appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the 

standards as a whole and that the record does not support the 

‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also, 

Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. 

EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these 

cases today, they support the EPA’s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the 

control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, 

the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 63 of 242

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 

formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control 

of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 

1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977); see also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. 

United States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 

2012)(rejecting industry argument that reliance on the 

affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that 

an informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense 

provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its 

emission limitations are “continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. 

§7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a whole.

Petitions filed by environmental advocacy groups question 

the EPA’s authority to promulgate the affirmative defense 

arguing, among other things, that the affirmative defense is 

inconsistent with the provisions of CAA sections 113(e) and 

304(b) governing penalty assessment and citizen suits, 

respectively. The EPA’s view is that the affirmative defense is 

not inconsistent with CAA section 113(e) or 304. Section 304 

gives district courts’ jurisdiction “to apply appropriate civil 

penalties.” Section 113(e)(1) identifies the factors that the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 64 of 242

Administrator or a court shall take into consideration in 

determining the amount of a penalty to be assessed, once it has 

been determined that a penalty is appropriate. The affirmative 

defense regulatory provision is not relevant to the amount of 

any penalty to be assessed. If a court determines that the 

affirmative defense elements have been established, then a 

penalty is not appropriate and penalty assessment pursuant to 

the section 113(e)(1) factors does not occur.

In exercising its authority under section 112 to establish 

emission standards (at a level that meets the stringency 

requirements of section 112), the EPA necessarily defines 

conduct that constitutes a violation. The EPA view is that the 

affirmative defense is part of the emission standard and defines 

two categories of violation. If there is a violation of the 

emission standard and the source demonstrates that all the 

elements of the affirmative defense are met, only injunctive 

relief is available. All other violations of the emission 

standard are subject to injunctive relief and penalties. A 

citizen suit claim under section 304 allows citizens to commence 

a civil action against any person alleged to be in violation of 

“an emission standard or limitation under this chapter.” The 

CAA, however, allows the EPA to establish such “enforceable 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 65 of 242

emission limitations.” Thus, the citizen suit provision clearly 

contemplates enforcement of the standards that are defined by 

the EPA. As a result, where the EPA defines its emissions 

limitations and enforcement measures to allow a source the 

opportunity to prove its entitlement to a lesser degree of 

violation (not subject to penalties) in narrow, specified 

circumstances, as the EPA did here, penalties are not 

“appropriate” under section 304. 

The EPA solicits comments on this issue of the EPA’s 

authority to promulgate an affirmative defense. The EPA’s view 

is that an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of applicable emission standards during periods of 

malfunction appropriately balances competing concerns. On the 

one hand, citizen enforcers are concerned about additional 

complications in their enforcement actions. On the other hand, 

industrial sources are concerned about being penalized for 

violations caused by malfunctions that they could not have 

prevented and were otherwise appropriately handled (as reflected 

in the affirmative defense criteria). The EPA has used its 

Section 301(a)(1) authority to issue regulations necessary to 

carry out the Act in a manner that appropriately balances these 

competing concerns. However, the EPA also solicits comment on 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 66 of 242

alternatives to, or variations on, the affirmative defense 

provisions promulgated in the 2010 final rule. 

In its petition for reconsideration, the PCA expressed 

support for the affirmative defense, but maintains that “the 

affirmative defense process that EPA codified in the final rules 

is cumbersome and will be exceedingly difficult for facilities 

to employ.” The EPA is soliciting comment on the terms and 

condition of the affirmative defense. In recent rules 

promulgated under section 112 and 129, the EPA has revised 

certain terms and conditions of the affirmative defense in 

response to concerns raised by various commenters. The EPA is 

proposing to adopt those same revisions in this proposed rule. 

The EPA is proposing to revise the affirmative defense language 

to delete “short” from section 63.1344(a)(1)(i), because other 

criteria in the affirmative defense require that the source 

assure that the duration of the excess emissions “were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable.” The EPA is also proposing to 

delete the term “severe” in the phrase “severe personal injury” 

in 63.1344(a)(4) because we do not think it is appropriate to 

make the affirmative defense available only when bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent severe personal injury. In addition, the 

EPA is proposing to revise section 63.1344(a)(8) to add 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 67 of 242

“consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions.” The EPA is also proposing to revise the 

language of 63.1344(a)(9) to clarify that the purpose of the 

root cause analysis is to determine, correct and eliminate the 

primary cause of the malfunction. The root cause analysis itself 

does not necessarily require that the cause be determined, 

corrected or eliminated. However, in most cases, the EPA 

believes that a properly conducted root cause analysis will have 

such results. Further, the EPA is proposing to revise 63.1344(b) 

to state that “[t]he owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator in a semiannual report with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set 

forth in section 63.1354(c) of this subpart.” This report must 

be included in the first semiannual report, required by section 

63.1354(b)(9), after the initial occurrence of the violation of 

the relevant standard. If the semiannual report is due less than 

45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be included in the second 

semiannual report due after the initial occurrence of the 

violation of the relevant standard. See proposed regulatory text 

for other proposed minor wording changes to improve clarity. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 68 of 242

H. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP 

Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)

In the September 2010 final rule, the EPA promulgated an 

alternative standard for non-dioxin organic HAP, based on 

measuring the organic HAP itself rather than the THC surrogate. 

Section 63.1343(b)(1) provides two options for meeting a 

standard for organic HAP. One is to meet a THC standard of 24 

ppmvd; the other is to meet a limit of 9 ppmvd of total organic 

HAP. This equivalent alternative standard is intended to provide 

additional flexibility in determining compliance, and it would 

be appropriate for those cases in which methane and ethane 

comprise a disproportionately high amount of the organic 

compounds in the feed because these non-HAP compounds could be 

emitted and would be measured as THC. The specific organic 

compounds that are to be measured to determine compliance with 

the equivalent alternative standard are benzene, toluene, 

styrene, xylene (ortho-, meta-, and para-), acetaldehyde, 

formaldehyde and naphthalene. Compliance with the equivalent 

alternative standard under the September 2010 standard will be 

determined through organic HAP emissions testing using EPA 

Method 18 or 320, as appropriate for the compound of interest. 

The 2010 rule further requires that each source complying with 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 69 of 242

the alternative standard establish a site-specific THC limit to

be met continuously. The site-specific THC limit will be 

measured as a 30 day rolling average, with an annual compliance 

test requirement. It would be correlated with the organic HAP 

limit and is therefore not tied to the THC standard of 24 ppmvd.

We granted reconsideration on the level of this site-specific 

THC limit used as a continuously monitored parameter for those 

sources selecting the alternative HAP compliance method. See 76 

FR 28318 (May 17, 2011).

Since THC includes compounds that are not considered to be 

hazardous, either of the two standards are considered to be 

reasonable.

While the September 2010 final rule required an organic HAP 

limit of 9 ppmvd, a recent review of the method detection limits 

used to measure organic HAP revealed that three times the 

representative method detection level (3*RMDL)is actually 12 

ppmvd, therefore, we propose to revise the alternative organic 

HAP limit to 12 ppmvd. As discussed in the final rule, the 

expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value at or 

near the method detection level is about 40 to 50 percent and 

decreases to a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values that are 

three times the method detection level. See 75 FR 54984
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 70 of 242

(September 9, 2010); see also section D above. Thus, measured 

values less than three times the representative method detection 

level are highly uncertain and therefore not reasonable for 

compliance determinations. The 3*RMDL of 12 ppmvd was determined 

as follows: we determined method detection capabilities for 

Method 320 and Method 18 as appropriate for the various 

compounds (e.g., Method 320 for aldehydes, Method 18 for 

aromatic hydrocarbons (arenes)). This approach is consistent 

with procedures practiced by the better performing testing 

companies and laboratories using sensitive analytical 

procedures. We determined for each of the organic HAP the 

expected method detection level for the respective method based 

on internal experience and method capabilities reported by 

testing companies. With these reported values, we identified the 

resulting mean of the method detection levels, adjusted them for 

dilution and moisture, summed them, and then multiplied the sum 

by three to determine the representative detection level (RDL). 

The resulting RDL value was found to be 11.2 ppmvd @ 7 percent 

oxygen (O2), dry. This value is greater than the final 9 ppmvd @ 

7 percent O2, dry, in the final rule. We are, therefore,

proposing to adjust the total organic HAP limit to 12 ppmvd @ 7 

percent O2, dry (rounded up from the 11.2 ppm RDL). At this 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 71 of 242

level, we believe that currently available emissions testing 

procedures and technologies can be used to provide measurements 

of sufficient certainty for sources to demonstrate compliance. A 

detailed discussion of the use of the RDL to arrive at the 

proposed organic HAP limit is found in the Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD, section 3, which can be found in the docket 

for this rulemaking.

A consequence of this analysis is that the accuracy of the 

analytic methods for organic HAP appear to be insufficient to 

allow sources to scale up their site-specific THC limit based on 

the degree to which the measured organic HAP levels were below 

the organic HAP limit -- the organic HAP limit, even as proposed 

to be revised, is at the reliable limit of detection as just 

explained. Therefore, this proposed rule retains the provision 

whereby the site-specific THC operating parameter is established 

at the same time the performance test is conducted for organic 

HAP. If the site-specific THC operating parameter is exceeded, 

then the kiln would have to be retested to determine compliance 

with the organic HAP limit. This proposed rule would further 

require that the tests for organic HAP and THC be repeated 

annually to establish a new annual site-specific THC parameter 

reflecting the organic HAP level. We also are proposing, similar 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 72 of 242

to the PM compliance test procedure, that the highest 1-hour 

average THC concentration measured during the 3-hour organic HAP 

test, be used as the site-specific THC parameter, and are 

allowing facilities to extend the testing time (or number of 

tests) if they believe extended testing is required to 

adequately capture THC variability over time. The EPA 

specifically solicits comment on the changes on the organic HAP 

limit. In addition, we solicit comment on if it would it be 

appropriate to allow sources to scale up their site-specific THC 

limit based on the degree to which the measured organic HAP 

levels are below the organic HAP limit.

I. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply With 

HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

To demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit, the 

September 2010 final rule allows sources equipped with wet 

scrubbers to comply with the HCl standard by means of periodic 

performance tests rather than with continuous monitoring of HCl 

with a CEMS (see §63.1349(b)(6)). We reasoned that a source that 

uses a limestone wet scrubber for HCl control will have minimal 

HCl emissions even if kiln inputs change because limestone wet 

scrubbers are more efficient in removing HCl than they are 

required to be, to meet the standard. Sources electing to comply 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 73 of 242

by means of stack tests must establish continuously monitored 

parameters including liquid flow rate, pressure and pH. Sources 

using a limestone wet scrubber are required to perform an 

initial compliance test using Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 63 and to test every 30 months thereafter.

In their petition, industry stakeholders indicated that 

this compliance option should not be limited to wet scrubber 

equipped units, but should also be available for units equipped 

with caustic scrubbers, in part because some sources will be 

equipped with dry scrubbers (due to water shortages) and should 

have the same operating flexibilities as wet scrubber equipped 

kilns. 

A recent review of data from a vendor of acid gas controls 

using a standard hydrated lime and a high performance hydrated 

lime at a US cement manufacturing plant, revealed that HCl 

removal from dry scrubbers on kilns ranged from 90 to 95 percent 

HCl removal, depending on lime injection rates (Lhoist North 

America, Cement Industry Experience, DSI for Acid Gas Control, 

October 5, 2011). The results also showed the plant could meet 

the 3 ppm HCl limit. The EPA also evaluated HCl removal 

efficiency using dry sprayer absorber with a fabric filter as 

part of the electric utility generating MACT rulemaking. Removal 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 74 of 242

efficiencies ranged from 95 percent to nearly 100 percent with 

an average of about 99.8 percent (Hutson to Nizich, HCl control 

using SDA/FF, November 29, 2011). In addition, information from 

the National Lime Association 

(http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.asp) 

and the Institute for Clean Air Companies 

(http://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401)report HCl 

emissions reductions using dry lime injection technology of 95 

to 99 percent from coal-fired boilers in the electric utility 

industry, from municipal waste-to-energy facilities and from 

other industries. In the secondary aluminum industry, reductions 

in HCl emissions greater than 99 percent have been achieved

(National Lime Association, Flue Gas Desulfurization, 

http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.asp). 

Given these high reported removal efficiencies, we propose

to extend the same option provided to kilns equipped with wet 

scrubbers to dry scrubber-equipped kilns. Thus, kilns with 

either type of scrubber could demonstrate compliance with the 

HCl limit by means of an initial and periodic stack test rather 

than with continuous compliance monitoring with a CEMS. In order 

to assure that the dry lime injection equipment is operated 

effectively between tests, the proposed amendment would require 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 75 of 242

that the lime injection rate used during the performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the HCl limit be recorded and then 

continuously monitored between performance tests to show that 

the injection rate remains at or above the rate used during the 

performance test.

We are also proposing an additional alternative for all 

kilns equipped with a dry or wet scrubber (and, under this 

proposal, could therefore do periodic HCl performance testing 

and parametric monitoring). Where either wet or dry scrubbers 

are used, we are proposing that an owner or operator would have 

the option of using SO2 monitoring as a continuously monitored 

parameter for purposes of compliance monitoring. Because HCl is 

a water-soluble compound and because it has a large acid 

dissociation constant (i.e., HCl is a strong acid), it will be 

more rapidly and readily removed than SO2 from a gas stream 

treated with either caustic sorbents (e.g., lime, limestone) or 

plain water. We acknowledge that at proposal (see 74 FR 21154, 

May 6, 2009)) we rejected setting a standard (as opposed to a 

continuously monitored parameter) that used SO2 as a surrogate 

for HCl because we had no data that demonstrated a direct link 

between HCl emissions and SO2 emissions. However, pilot-scale 

tests by the EPA at its Multi-pollutant Control Research 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 76 of 242

Facility support the use of the more easily measured SO2 as a 

surrogate for HCl where either wet or dry scrubbers are used. 

See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3893. Further, we are aware 

that there are existing kilns equipped with SO2 CEMS and that 

this monitoring technology is less expensive and more mature 

than HCl CEMS. Thus, we are proposing that SO2 is an indicator 

for HCl compliance, and that monitoring the emissions of SO2 will 

provide a reliable indication of HCl removal, making SO2 

monitoring an appropriate parameter for monitoring continuing 

compliance.

Owners or operators of kilns equipped with dry or wet 

scrubbers that choose to use SO2 monitoring would need to conduct 

an initial performance test for HCl and establish the SO2

operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average recorded 

during the HCl performance test, so that there is an indication 

of proper operation of the HCl control device. The owner or 

operator of a kiln controlled using either a dry or wet scrubber 

that chooses to monitor SO2 would not be required to also 

establish continuously monitored parameters reflecting the 

performance test results, such as lime injection rate for a dry 

scrubber and liquid flow rate, pressure and pH for a wet 

scrubber. Deviation from any established parameter level or 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 77 of 242

established SO2 operating level would trigger a requirement to 

retest for HCl in order to verify compliance with the HCl limits 

and to verify or re-establish the parameter levels. 

At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm 

compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to reset the SO2

limit and monitoring parameters is required every 5 years. We 

are requesting comment on the efficacy of continuously 

monitoring SO2 as a continuously monitored parameter in lieu of 

continuously monitoring HCl control device parameters, and also 

solicit comment on testing every 30 months for HCl for purposes 

of monitoring compliance with the HCl emissions limit. 

J. Alternative PM Limit

Some kilns combine kiln exhaust gas with exhaust gas from 

other unit operations, such as the clinker cooler, as an energy 

saving practice. The September 2010 final rule sought to 

accommodate commingled flows from the kiln and clinker cooler by 

providing a site specific PM limit. See section 63.1343(b)(2). 

In its reconsideration petition, the PCA pointed out, however, 

that other flows besides the exhaust gas flow from the clinker 

cooler can be commingled as well. The petitioner provided the 

example of coal mill exhaust and exhaust from an alkali by-pass 

as instances of additional flows that can be commingled with the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 78 of 242

exhaust gas flow from the kiln. The petitioner observed that 

without an allowance for these additional flows, the site 

specific PM limit is stricter than the EPA intended (since the 

PM concentration will be divided by a lower number in the 

implementing equation), and penalizes the energy-saving practice 

of commingling these flows.

The agency agreed with the petitioner that the alternative 

PM equations for existing and new sources contained in the final 

rule do not adequately account for commingled exhaust gas flows 

from sources other than the clinker cooler, and granted 

reconsideration for this reason. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). 

We believe that although the form of the equation is correct, 

the equation is not written to accommodate sources other than 

exhaust gases from the clinker cooler. We are proposing to 

revise the equation so that it includes exhaust gas flows for 

all potential sources that would potentially be combined, 

including exhausts from the kiln, the alkali bypass, the coal 

mill, and the clinker cooler, for an existing kiln, the EPA is 

proposing the following equation:

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

Where: 

PMalt = The alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 79 of 242

0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 

0.07 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 

gas are not combined12. 

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed)

Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 

raw feed).

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton raw feed).

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton raw feed).

7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

If exhaust gases for any of the sources contained in the 

equation are not commingled and are exhausted through a separate 

stack, their value in the equation would be zero. The 

alternative PM equation for new sources is identical to the 

existing source equation except the PM exhaust concentration 

used in the equation is 0.002 grains per dry standard cubic 

foot, which is equivalent to the new source PM limit of 0.02

lb/ton clinker.

K. Standards During Startup and Shutdown

In the final NESHAP, the EPA established separate standards 

for startup and shutdown which differ from the main standards.

 

12 Note that this figure would change correspondingly if the EPA 

were to amend the existing source PM standard. The same is true 

of the PM term in the new source equation.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 80 of 242

These standards require kilns to meet numerical limits for each 

pollutant regulated by the rule, each standard to be measured 

using a CEMS over an accumulative 7-day rolling average. 75 FR 

54991 (September 9, 2010). Industry petitioned the EPA to 

reconsider these standards claiming lack of notice, but the EPA 

denied these petitions because the agency had already provided 

ample opportunity for comment which petitioners had used. See 76 

FR 28323 (May 17, 2011). The D.C. Circuit dismissed all 

challenges to these startup and shutdown provisions (see 665 F 

3d at 189). The EPA did grant reconsideration on several 

technical issues related to startup and shutdown – certain 

aspects of CEM-based monitoring of mercury and PM during startup 

and shutdown – issues which would be moot if the EPA adopts the 

approach proposed below - and having an HCl limit of zero for 

kilns not equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011)).

The EPA is proposing to retain the startup and shutdown 

standards for mercury and THC, to amend the startup and shutdown 

standards for PM to be consistent with the proposed numeric 

levels in this proposal, and to amend the level of the startup 

and shutdown standard for HCl to be 3 ppm in all circumstances.

The EPA is further proposing to clarify that startup begins 

when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and continues until 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 81 of 242

continuous raw material feed is introduced into the kiln. 

Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted. Thus, during 

startup and shutdown, as defined, a kiln would not be firing 

coal or coke and would not be introducing feed material into the 

kiln continuously. HAP emissions from cement kilns are 

attributable almost entirely to one or the other of these feeds, 

with raw materials contributing the great preponderance. In 

addition, kilns burn fuels during startup and shutdown which are 

cleaner than coal and coke (natural gas is used for the most of 

the startup). Thus, HAP emissions during startup and shutdown 

necessarily should be far less than the numerical limits in the 

standards since the kiln will not be introducing raw materials, 

and will be burning fuels which are cleaner than its normal 

fuels. 

Accordingly, the EPA is further proposing to change the 

means of monitoring for compliance with the startup and shutdown 

standards. Rather than require monitoring by a CEM or by stack 

testing, the EPA is proposing that a source keep records of the 

volumes of fuels introduced into the kiln during startup and 

shutdown to verify that raw materials are not introduced into 

the kiln, although, by definition, if raw materials are 

introduced continuously into the kiln, the kiln is not operating 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 82 of 242

in startup and shutdown and the monitoring requirements of the 

main standards would therefore apply. Kiln owners and operators 

would then make conservative assumptions as to the combustion 

efficiency of the kiln so as to reasonably estimate destruction 

of organics, and include mass balance calculations showing that 

the startup/shutdown standards would not be exceeded.

These proposed recordkeeping requirements would serve as 

the basis for compliance monitoring. The EPA believes that these 

proposed recordkeeping requirements are both sufficient to yield 

reliable information for the startup and shutdown periods, and

to establish a source’s compliance or non-compliance with the 

startup and shutdown standards. The EPA also believes that this 

proposed requirement would satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 

section 70.6(c) (1) which requires that Title V permits shall 

contain “monitoring ... requirements sufficient to assure 

compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.” 

The EPA is further proposing that the standard for HCl 

during startup and shutdown be 3 ppmvd under all circumstances, 

and thus is proposing to eliminate the current provision that 

the startup and shutdown standard be zero for kilns measuring 

compliance by means other than a CEM. As shown in the petitions 

for reconsideration, HCl can be formed even when normal fuels 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 83 of 242

and raw materials are not being introduced into the kiln (for 

example, from residual chlorides in the kiln refractory). See 

PCA Petition for Reconsideration Exh.1. Consequently, the 

promulgated limit of zero is technically inappropriate, and the 

EPA is proposing to amend it to 3 ppmvd, the same standard which 

applies in all other operating modes. Monitoring during startup 

and shutdown would be accomplished by recordkeeping, as 

explained above.

The EPA also solicits comment on whether the numeric 

standards during startup and shutdown should be amended to 

provide work practices, rather than numeric standards. Work 

practices could require operation of emission control devices 

during startup and shutdown, minimizing the time periods of 

startup/shutdown, and following manufacturers best practices. We 

rejected work practices for startup and shutdown periods in the 

2010 final rule because the commenters requesting such standard 

failed to demonstrate why it is “not feasible ... to prescribe or 

enforce an emission standard” for mercury, THC, PM and HCl 

during startup and shutdown at cement kilns, within the meaning 

of section 112 (h) of the Act. See NESHAP from the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry Response to Comments Received on 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 84 of 242

Proposed Rule Published on May 06, 2009, 74FR 21135, August 6, 

2010 at p. 184.

L. Coal Mills 

Cement kilns burn coal as their main fuel, and mill the 

coal before firing it. From the standpoint of air emissions, 

these coal mills are sometimes physically distinct from the 

cement kiln, generating emissions solely attributable to the 

coal mill and emitting exhaust through a dedicated stack. 

However, some kilns are configured so that coal mill emissions 

are commingled with kiln exhaust and the emissions are 

discharged through the main kiln stack. Finally, there are some 

configurations whereby kiln emissions are routed to the coal 

mill and discharged through the coal mill stack. This part of 

the preamble discusses the regulatory treatment of these 

different scenarios.

First, the EPA has promulgated new source performance 

standards (40 CFR Part 60 subpart Y) for coal mills. See 74 FR 

51952 (October 8, 2009). These standards apply to coal mills, 

including coal mills at cement manufacturing facilities, which 

emit through a dedicated stack. Subpart Y standards do not apply 

to coal mills at cement facilities whose only heat source is 

kiln exhaust. See section 60.251(j) (definition of indirect 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 85 of 242

thermal dryer). This leaves ambiguous, or partially ambiguous, 

the regulatory treatment of the second and third situations 

mentioned above: a kiln whose coal emissions are discharged 

through the main kiln stack, and the coal mill which receives 

some exhaust from the cement kiln so that some portion of the 

coal mill exhaust can reflect cement kiln emissions. Because we 

did not address these issues in the 2010 final NESHAP for 

Portland cement kilns, we granted reconsideration in order to do 

so. See 76 FR 28326 (May 17, 2011).

A cement kiln which commingles emissions from its coal mill 

with all other emissions and discharges through kiln emission 

points would have to meet all of the NESHAP. In the case of PM, 

the additional flow from the coal mill would be accounted for in 

the equation used to determine PM contributions from commingled 

flows. See section K above.

In the case of a coal mill which receives and discharges 

some of the cement kiln exhaust, the regulatory concern is that 

this re-routing of kiln exhaust not result in uncontrolled HAP 

emissions.

Our basic principle for this situation would be that the 

kiln demonstrate that it is meeting all of the NESHAP standards 

for pollutants not regulated under the subpart Y coal mill 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 86 of 242

standard, that is mercury, THC and HCl. Because the subpart Y 

standards contain a PM standard predicated on use of fabric 

filter control technology, we do not believe it necessary to 

account for diverted PM emissions.

We are soliciting comment on the following compliance 

mechanism for the mercury, THC and HCl standards in this 

situation: t the sum of the kiln emissions and diverted kiln 

emissions (i.e. the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill) must 

not exceed the subpart LLL NESHAP emission limits for each 

respective HAP or HAP surrogate. Under this approach, the rule 

would contain requirements to document the contribution of the 

emissions diverted to the coal mill. With respect to THC and 

HCl, because coal may be a source of these emissions, we are 

soliticing comment on a requirement that performance tests for 

THC and HCl be performed upstream of the coal mill. For mercury, 

we are soliciting comment on a requirement that tests be 

required downstream to account for any mercury removal in the 

coal mill air pollution control device (APCD), and to avoid 

double counting emissions of mercury from mercury that becomes 

re-entrained in the coal, which is then burned by the cement 

kiln (which emissions are otherwise accounted for in the 

NESHAP). 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 87 of 242

We note further that an analogous situation is when a 

cement kiln has an alkali bypass which receives and exhausts 

emissions from the kiln. We are proposing that these emissions 

be subject to controls reflecting the same principle – the total 

emissions of the kiln and alkali bypass must meet the subpart 

LLL NESHAP. We are also proposing to use the same monitoring 

procedures to document compliance. The one (slight) exception is 

for PM. Because there is no independent PM standard for an 

alkali bypass (unlike the situation for coal mills, where 

subpart Y regulates PM emissions), the summed PM emissions from 

the kiln and alkali bypass would have to be equal to or less 

than the PM limit in the subpart LLL NESHAP. Tests for PM from 

the alkali bypass would be downstream of the alkali bypass APCD 

to account for those emission reductions. Though we are not 

proposing the coal mill requirements in this action, we have 

placed the appropriate regulatory text in the proposed rule 

language to allow comment on actual rule language.

We expand on these proposed monitoring requirements below.

1. Mercury. Although mercury from the main stack is 

monitored using a CEMS, there is no need for such monitoring for 

the gas streams from the coal mill. The gas stream to the coal 

mill is small in comparison to the kiln exhaust, operation of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 88 of 242

the coal mill is intermittent, and the cost of requiring 

additional CEMS for coal mills would be overly burdensome. 

Instead, the performance tests for mercury would be conducted at 

such a coal mill once per year, and, as explained above, that 

the tests be conducted downstream of the coal mill. Performance 

tests for mercury would be conducted using either Methods 29 or 

30B in Appendix A-8 to 40 CFR Part 60. These performance tests 

would be required annually until the tested mercury levels are 

below the method detection limits for two consecutive years, 

after which tests may be conducted every 30 months. If test 

results at any time exceed the method detection limit, annual 

performance testing would again be required until mercury levels 

are below the method detection limit for two consecutive years. 

The results of the performance test would then be summed with 

the emissions from the kiln stack to determine compliance with 

the mercury emissions limit. Since kiln stack emissions are 

measured continuously with a CEMS, the coal gas emissions would 

need to be normalized on both a CEMS and production basis (lb/MM 

ton clinker) in order to be summed with the kiln stack 

emissions. To do so, the flow rate to the coal mill would be 

continuously monitored. Using the results of the annual 

performance test and the continuous flow rate from the coal 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 89 of 242

mill, the owner or operator would develop a mercury hourly mass 

emission rate for the coal mill. Hourly mercury emissions from 

the coal mill would be summed with the mercury emissions from 

the kiln to determine continuous compliance as follows:

((Qab×Cab)+(Qcm×Ccm)+(Qks×Cks))/P ≤ MACT Limit

Where:

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (lb/dscf)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (lb/dscf)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (lb/dscf)

P = Kiln production rate (million tons clinker/hr)

MACT Limit = Limit for mercury (55 lb mercury/MM tons clinker)

This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 

7 percent O2.

Thus, if the normalized test results at the coal mill 

control device outlet shows mercury emissions of 10 lb/MM tons 

clinker, emissions from the kiln would have to be less than 45 

lb/MM tons of clinker to be in compliance with the proposed kiln 

mercury emissions limit. See section 63.1350(k)(5).

For kilns also equipped with an alkali bypass, the same 

procedure as that for the coal mill would apply. Where a portion 

of kiln gases are diverted to a coal mill and to an alkali 

bypass, emissions from the coal mill and alkali bypass would be 

tested, normalized and summed and with the mercury emissions 

from the kiln to determine compliance with the emissions limit.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 90 of 242

2. THC and HCl. Because THC and HCl are concentration-based 

limits, the compliance demonstration would differ in certain 

details from the procedure described above for the production 

based limits for mercury. Kiln stack emission limits (to be 

continuously monitored) would be calculated taking into 

consideration the volumetric exhaust gas flow rates and 

concentrations of all applicable effluent streams (kiln stack, 

coal mill, and alkali bypass) for the kiln unit as follows: 

(Qab × Cab) + (Qcm × Ccm) + (Qks × Cks)

(Qab + Qcm + Qks)

≤ MACT Limit

( × ) + ( × ) + ( × )

( +  + )

≤  

Where:

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)e

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

MACT Limit = Limit for THC or HCl (ppmvd)

This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 7 

percent O2.

13

 

13 The proposed approach is conceptually similar to that for PM 

from multiple sources discussed in K. above—an equation which 

accounts for the flow-weighted concentration of PM from all 

sources.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 91 of 242

In order to determine the flow rates and concentrations of 

THC and HCl in the coal mill and alkali bypass streams, the 

source would need to test annually using the appropriate test 

method and would need to monitor the flow rate of the kiln stack 

with CMS. For HCl, the performance test would be performed using 

Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For measurement of 

THC, Method 25A in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60 would be 

required. With these data, the concentration of THC and HCl that 

must be monitored in the CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance 

with the kiln MACT limit under this proposal can be calculated 

by solving for Cks (kiln stack concentration) from the equation 

above, as shown: 

Cks ≤

(MACT Limit × (Qab + Qcm + Qks)) − (Qab × Cab) − (Qcm × Ccm)

Qks

This equation is based on the following: 

 The total allowable mass emissions of THC and HCl for the kiln 

unit can be determined with the sum of all flow rates (coal 

mill, alkali bypass and kiln stack) and the applicable NESHAP 

limit (THC or HCl) concentration. This yields the total 

allowable mass emissions per unit of time for the kiln unit 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 92 of 242

according to the MACT limits and the site specific flow rates 

for the coal mill, alkali bypass and kiln stack.

 By testing the coal mill and alkali bypass streams for 

concentration and flow rate, the actual mass of THC and HCl 

emitted per unit of time can be determined.

 Subtracting the actual mass emissions of THC and HCl leaving the 

coal mill and alkali by pass from the total allowable mass 

emissions for the kiln unit determines the remainder of 

allowable mass emissions that can be emitted through the kiln 

stack.

 With knowledge of the flow rate at the kiln stack (measured by 

CMS) and the allowable mass emissions (i.e. remainder) that can 

be emitted through the kiln stack, a site specific concentration 

can be determined. The equation above provides a simplified 

approach to determining this value. 

The following example indicates how compliance would be 

demonstrated. In this example, we assume a kiln stack, coal mill 

and alkali bypass with the following volumetric flow rates and 

THC concentrations:

Effluent Flow Rate 

THC 

Concentration Notes MACT LIMIT

Stream (dscm/hr) (ppmvd) (ppmvd)

(@ 7% O2) (@ 7% O2)

Alkali Qab 38,233 Cab 56 Determined 24
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 93 of 242

Bypass through test

Coal 

Mill Qcm 57,349 Ccm 56

Determined 

through test

Kiln 

Stack Qks 286,746 Cks ?

Flow rate

monitored by CMS

With the simplified equation provided above, the THC value 

that must not be exceeded in the kiln stack (verified with CEMS) 

is determined as follows: 

Cks ≤

24 x (38,233 + 57,349 + 286,746) − (38,233 x 56) − (57,349 x 56)

286,746

Using the equation above, Cks is less than or equal to 13.3 

ppmvd @ 7 percent O2. This value would be monitored by a CEMS in 

order to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit – i.e to 

demonstrate that the summed values are less than or equal to the 

standard of 24 ppmvd. 

The requirements for THC and HCl are thus essentially the 

same as that for mercury (except that limits are concentration

based as opposed to production-normalized mass based): the flowweighted averages of THC and HCl must be less than or equal to 

the subpart LLL NESHAP. The kiln stack emissions are measured by 

a CEMS (for THC) or by other applicable means (for HCl). The 

flow-weighted contributions from other sources (the alkali 

bypass and the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill) are 

assessed by annual testing and applied continuously with flow 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 94 of 242

being measured continuously (explained further in the next 

paragraph). As noted above, testing of the kiln exhaust diverted 

to the coal mill would be conducted upstream of the coal mill 

for THC and HCl so that only the kiln exhaust contribution is 

assessed.

To monitor compliance continuously, the gas flow rate from 

the coal mill would be monitored continuously. This flow rate 

measured during the annual performance test would be the maximum 

flow rate allowed during the year. If a higher flow rate is 

observed, the owner/operator would have to retest THC and HCl to 

obtain a new flow-weighted concentration which would be summed 

with the kiln main stack THC or HCl concentration to determine 

whether the kiln is still in compliance. Because of this 

requirement, the owner/operator should perform their test at a 

flow rate that would cover the range of conditions expected.

3. PM. As explained above, in the situation where a cement 

kiln diverts some exhaust to an integrated coal mill, the coal 

mill would have to meet the subpart Y standards, and the kiln 

would have to meet the subpart LLL NESHAP standard but would not 

have to account for the diverted exhaust in doing so. In all 

other situations, PM contribution from a coal mill (or from an 

alkali bypass) would be accounted for via the equation discussed 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 95 of 242

in section J above. If the alkali bypass discharges separately, 

it would have to sum its PM emissions with those from the main 

stack and the summed emissions would have to be less than or 

equal to the subpart LLL NESHAP standard for PM. 

As a result of this revision, we would also include a 

revised definition of “kiln” to clarify that coal mills using 

kiln exhaust gases in their operation are considered to be an 

integral part of the kiln (and hence subject to these 

standards). We would also include a definition for “in-line coal 

mill” for those coal mills using kiln exhaust gases in their 

process. The definition would exclude coal mills with a heat 

source other than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases 

from the clinker cooler.

M. PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

The EPA adopted the level of the new source standard under 

the NESHAP as the NSPS for both new and modified kilns and 

clinker coolers. See 75 FR 54996 (September 9, 2010). As the PCA 

noted in its reconsideration petition, there need not be 

functional equivalence between the NESHAP and NSPS PM limits for 

modified kilns and clinker coolers. The PCA also noted that the 

NSPS for modified kilns and clinker coolers could have 

associated costs which need to be accounted for pursuant to CAA 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 96 of 242

section 111(a)(1). Since such kilns and clinker coolers would 

not be subject to the section 112(d) new source standard, any 

costs for such modified kilns and clinker coolers to control PM 

to the new source limit could not be attributed to the section 

112(d) new source limit. In addition, the PCA noted that 

existing Portland cement kilns cannot be assumed to find ways to 

avoid triggering the NSPS modification criteria when making 

physical or operational changes due to the stringency of the 

newly adopted standards for PM.

The EPA believes that the PCA’s arguments on this point 

have merit. Under the September 2010 final NESHAP, existing 

kilns and clinker coolers are subject to the PM limit of 0.04 

lb/ton clinker. If the kiln or clinker cooler undergoes 

modification, it would continue to be subject to 0.04 lb/ton 

limit, but would now be subject as well to the NSPS limit of 

0.01 lb/ton clinker. Notwithstanding that there are independent 

justifications under section 111 that could justify this result 

(see PCA v. EPA, 665 F 3d at 190-91), the EPA believes, subject 

to consideration of comment, that it is more appropriate for 

modified kilns and clinker coolers to meet the NESHAP PM limit 

for existing sources. We are proposing that existing kilns and 

clinker coolers that are subject to the NESHAP existing source 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 97 of 242

emissions limit would continue to be subject to that limit and 

not to the more stringent limit for new sources under the NSPS. 

This would be a limit of 0.07 lb per ton clinker, three-run 

average based on Method 5 stack testing as explained in section 

D above. The parametric monitoring using a CPMS would likewise 

apply, as would the requirement of annual stack tests. We have 

justified the PM standard for modified kilns and clinker coolers

under section 111 and need not repeat that rationale here. See 

PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 190-91. This analysis continues to 

apply when the standards are based on stack tests rather than 

CEMS and no longer use a 30-day averaging period. The EPA also 

finds that the costs of meeting the incrementally more stringent 

proposed new source limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (three-run 

average) are not justified for modified kilns and clinker 

coolers. For an existing kiln to reduce emissions from 0.07 to 

0.02 lb/ton clinker would result in a modest reduction in PM 

emissions at a cost of more than $21,000 per ton of PM reduced 

(the extra cost being attributable to more frequent replacement 

of bags) and greater still if sources are able to comply with 

the proposed limit by using controls other than a fabric filter 

or different types of fabric filters. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 98 of 242

N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing 

Sources

Under section 112 (i)(a)(3) of the Act, the EPA may reset 

compliance dates for section 112 (d) emission standards if the 

EPA amends the standards themselves (as opposed to amending some 

ancillary feature of the standards relating to implementation). 

See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Such 

a resetting would be appropriate if the standards are changed in 

such a way as to warrant more time for compliance, either to 

develop necessary controls or to otherwise significantly alter 

control strategy. Cf. PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189. (Staying 

NESHAP standards for clinker piles because “the standards could 

likely change substantially. Thus, industry should not have to 

build expensive new containment structures until the standard is 

finally determined”). The EPA believes that may be the case 

here. Subject to consideration of public comment, the proposed 

amendments to the PM standard could significantly alter 

compliance strategies for all of the regulated HAP. The EPA is 

accordingly proposing that the compliance date for the PM, THC, 

mercury and HCl standards for existing sources for kilns, 

clinker coolers and raw material dryers be extended until 

September 10, 2015, a 2-year extension of the current compliance 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 99 of 242

date.14 We believe that this date would require compliance “as 

expeditiously as practicable” as required by section 112 

(i)(3)(A) of the Act.

15

The EPA is proposing to amend the standards for PM, 

changing the compliance regime from CEMS-based to stack-test 

based, changing the averaging time for compliance, and changing 

the level of the standard. These proposed changes, in and of 

themselves, may occasion the need for additional time to study 

the possibility of different control strategies than are 

available under the 2010 final rule. 

The EPA believes that different compliance strategies may 

now be available. The 2010 PM standard is achievable but 

requires the most advanced fabric filters, membrane bags, 

frequent bag replacement and maintenance. See Docket item EPA-

 

14 This date would be approximately 2 years and 10 months from 

the December 20, 2012, signature date for final action called for 

in the draft settlement agreement between EPA and PCA. See 77 

FR 27055 (May 8, 2012).

15 If the EPA were to adopt a THC standard of 15 ppmvd (see 

section III.C.2 above), an extension of 3 years from the date of 

final action would be needed since many kilns' control 

strategies for organics controlled would be fundamentally 

altered.

 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 100 of 242

HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438. The proposed standard of 0.07 lb/ton of 

clinker (3-run stack test) may be achievable by other means. 

Potential compliance strategies include use of electrostatic 

precipitators (ESP) (or an ESP with a polishing baghouse or 

cyclone), or using a different type of baghouse. Baghouses 

could, for example, be sized smaller, could use cloth rather 

than membrane bags, or could use other variants The proposed 

change in the PM limit may also allow some sources to comply 

using their existing PM control device. As a result, they may be 

able to cancel a planned upgrade to membrane fabric filters or a 

replacement of their existing device with a new one. The PM 

standard also applies to clinker coolers, and sources may be 

able to meet the 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard with an existing 

control device for a clinker cooler. See PCA, The Impact of a 

Change in the Cement NESHAP PM limit on Compliance Strategies 

and Schedules, April 9, 2012; and PCA letter, Implications of 

Altered PM Limit on PCA Technology Analysis, May 24, 2012. We 

note that in the database for the 2010 standards, six cement 

kilns with ESP already were meeting the 0.07 lb/ton clinker 

standard for PM which we are proposing here. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD, Section 9. The proposal to amend the 

standard for PM has implications for all of the standards, not 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 101 of 242

just those for PM. The standards for mercury, HCl and THC all 

rely (or may rely) on control strategies involving injection and 

removal of added particulates, whether in the form of activated 

carbon, or dry or wet sorbent injectant. See Docket item EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051-3438, section 2. A change in the PM standard thus 

affects these collateral PM control strategies as well. For 

example, it may be possible for a single PM control device to 

meet the proposed 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard and also control 

the auxiliary PM collected from control of the other HAP, making 

polishing filters unnecessary.16 Conversely, a central baghouse 

to meet a 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard may be sized smaller, but 

this may necessitate adding polishing filters to capture PM from 

control of the other HAP. 

New compliance strategies require time to implement. New 

engineering studies are needed, potential suppliers identified,

and a new bidding/procurement process undertaken. Significant 

plant redesign, in the form of new ductwork and new fan design, 

and changes in the main control equipment may be needed. See US 

EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation 

 

16 The EPA did not believe this possible under the 2010 PM 

standard, and costed polishing filters in all instances. See 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 102 of 242

of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies, October 

2002. Depending on the type of control, this normally requires 

15-27 months. Multiple control systems will take longer. Id. 

Installation of controls at cement kilns normally occurs during 

winter months (to coincide with kiln outages during low 

production seasons). Putting this together, it tentatively

appears that summer of 2015 would be an expeditious compliance 

date, and the EPA is proposing to extend the existing source 

compliance date until September 9, 2015.

The EPA also solicits comment on a shorter extension. The 

industry here is not starting from scratch. There should be ongoing planning to meet the standards promulgated in 2010 which 

could shorten the time needed to come into compliance with these 

proposed revised standards (should the EPA adopt them). 

Moreover, as explained below, we calculate that sources will 

need to design controls to meet virtually the same average 

performance for PM under the proposed standard of 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker (Method 5) as they would under the promulgated standard 

of 0.04 lb/ton clinker (30-day average). Again, this could 

dovetail with on-going compliance efforts and shorten the time 

needed to come into compliance with a revised standard.

Consequently, the EPA solicits comment on a compliance extension 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 103 of 242

until September 2014 (1 year from the current compliance date). 

This type of extension would recognize that additional time for 

compliance is needed, and accommodate cement kilns’ operating 

cycle (leaving winter months for control equipment deployment), 

but recognize that the industry is not starting from scratch. 

Commenters should take into account that individual sources 

could still apply to permit writers for an additional extension 

of one year under section 112 (i)(3)(B) in instances where it is 

not possible to install control equipment within the specified 

period.

Notwithstanding that we believe that the proposed PM 

standard may create new and lower cost opportunities for 

compliance, we believe the overall emission reductions from the 

standard to be roughly the same (except that full compliance 

will not occur until September 9, 2015 as noted below). We

believe that sources will still need to design to meet 

essentially the same daily average as they would under the 2010 

standard. That is, sources do not design to meet a standard, but 

rather to meet a level comfortably lower. They do so in order to

provide a compliance margin on those days where emissions rise 

due to inherent and uncontrollable variability. See Docket item 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438, section 2. The difference is too 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 104 of 242

small to be reliably quantified. We have recalculated a design 

value (i.e. the level to which kilns would design to meet the 

existing source standard) under the proposal. The calculated 

design value, which reflects the average PM emissions from the 

sources used to establish the floor in this proposed rule, would 

be 0.02655 lb/ton clinker vs. a calculated design value of 

0.02296 lb/ton clinker under the final rule. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD section 9. These calculations are not so 

precise as to reliably predict to the third decimal point to the 

right of zero, so this difference should be viewed as suggesting 

a directional difference in the standards. Viewed as a type of 

bounding, directional difference, the difference in design 

values would be approximately 1.7 percent. 

Table 4. Comparison of nationwide PM emissions from 2010 rule to 

this proposed rule (TSD, section 9)

2010 rule Proposed rule Increment

Emissions limit 

(lb/ton clinker

0.04 30-

day 

average

0.07 average of 

three one-hour 

stack tests

NA

MACT average 

emissions for 

compliance (lb/ton 

clinker

0.02296 0.02655 0.00359

2010 baseline 

emissions (tons/yr)

10,326 10,326 NA

Nationwide emissions 

reduction (tons/yr)

9,489 9,354 -135
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 105 of 242

Under the proposed revisions, full compliance would occur 

in September, 2015, along with the costs and benefits associated 

with full compliance. However, because facilities will begin 

installing or retrofitting controls prior to the full compliance 

date, the full benefits and costs would be phased-in over 2 

years with the full benefits and costs realized by 2015.

O. Eligibility to be a New Source 

The EPA is not proposing a new date for new source 

eligibility. Thus, a source which commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain 

subject to the new source standard. Section 112 (a) (4) of the 

Act defines a new source as a stationary source “the 

construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the 

Administrator first proposes regulations under this section 

establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source.” 

The EPA views the new source compliance date trigger (the date 

the EPA “first proposes regulations ....”) to be the date the 

rulemaking record under which a standard is developed is 

proposed. See 74 FR 21158 (May 6, 2009). (This interpretation 

was not challenged in the underlying rulemaking and the EPA is 

not reopening it here, but rather is applying it.) Here the key 

record information is what new sources would need to do to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 106 of 242

comply and whether there is any change. It is the EPA’s initial 

technical judgment that new sources would have to adopt the same 

control strategy – use of the same size fabric filter with 

membrane bags -- under an amended standard of 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker (stack test) as they would under the promulgated 

standard of 0.01 lb/ton clinker (30-day average). A standard of 

0.02 lb/ton clinker (stack test) remains very stringent and 

cannot be met (in the EPA’s view) without using appropriately 

optimized baghouses and membrane bags. If this is correct (and

the EPA solicits comment on the issue), then new sources would 

not need additional time and would follow through on their 

present control strategies. We also have performed the same type 

of analysis regarding the design value to which new sources 

would need to design under this proposal, reflecting the average 

performance of the best performing similar source. We believe 

that there would be no change, corroborating our engineering 

judgment that new sources will adopt the same control strategy 

under the proposed standard as under the promulgated standard. 

See Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD section 9. Consequently,

the EPA is not proposing to alter the new source eligibility 

date of May 6, 2009.

IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 107 of 242

Following the September 2010 promulgation of the final 

rule, we found the following errors and omissions in the testing 

and monitoring provisions and are proposing to correct them.

 Equations for calculating rolling operating day emissions 

rates.

 Definition or procedures that include extraneous wording.

 Incorrect units in equations.

 Cross references and typographical errors in the rule.

We are proposing revisions that will clarify that data collected 

as part of relative accuracy test audits and performance tests 

are to be submitted to the EPA using their Electronic Reporting 

Tool. For sources that are required to monitor HCl emissions 

with a CEMS, we are revising the requirements for using HCl CEMS 

to define the span value for this source category, to include

quality assurance measures for data collected under "mill off" 

conditions, and to clarify use of PS 15. 

In the September 9, 2010, final rule we noted that raw 

material dryers have high 02 contents due to their inherent 

operation characteristics (and not due to the addition of 

dilution air). Referencing the raw material dryer standard to 7 

percent O2 would actually result in a more stringent standard 

than for cement kilns. For example, given the typical O2 contents 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 108 of 242

of kiln exhaust (7 to 12 percent), a kiln just meeting the THC 

limit of 24 ppmvd would have an actual stack measurement of 

approximately 16 to 24 ppmvd. If the raw material dryer standard 

is referenced to the same O2 level, they would have to meet a 

measured THC limit of approximately 3 ppmvd. For this reason, we 

referenced the O2 level of the standard for raw materials dryers 

to 19 percent O2, which is the typical O2 level found in the 

exhaust of these devices. However industry commented that, due 

to these high O2 contents, the inherit measurement errors present 

in O2 monitors causes high variability in the correction factor, 

even with a 19 percent reference value, and in some cases 

results in a negative factor. Given these errors and the fact 

that raw materials dryers operate at such high O2 concentrations 

during normal operation we are removing the O2 correction factors 

for raw material dryers.

The EPA is also proposing minor, non-substantive changes to 

the provisions listed below. These changes are largely for ease 

of readability or clarity, and do not reopen, reassess or 

otherwise reconsider these provisions’ substance. The minor 

editorial and clarifying changes were made in the following 

sections and paragraphs:

 Section 60.62(a)(3) and (4), and (d).
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 109 of 242

Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), (f)(1), (2) (4), (5) , 

(h)(1) and (6) through (9), (i).

 Section 60.64(b)(2).

 Section 60.66. 

 Section 63.1340(b)(6) through (8). 

 Section 63.1344 and 63.1344(a).

 Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through (e). 

 Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through (iii), (a)(4)(i)(A), 

(a)(4)(ii) and (iv).

 Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii) and (iv). 

 Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) and (c)(2)(iv).

 Section 63.1349(a), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and 

(e).

 Section 63.1350(a), (d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and 

(iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), (k)(4) and (5), 

(m)(10) and (11), (o) and (p).

 Section 63.1352(b).

 Section 63.1354(c).

 Section 63.1356.

V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 110 of 242

We are also proposing amendments to clarify various 

requirements in this proposed rule including issues of 

applicability, treatment of multiple sources that vent to a 

single stack, third party certification, definitions, 

startup/shutdown reporting requirements, malfunctions and use of 

bag leak detection systems when PM CPMS are in use. We are also 

proposing to revise the definition of raw material dryer to 

clarify that they may be used for removing the moisture from 

materials other than kiln feed.

The EPA is proposing to amend 63.1354 (c) for reporting 

startup, shutdown and malfunctions when sources fail to meet a 

standard. We are proposing language that requires sources that 

deviate from a standard during startup, shutdown or malfunction 

to report the information concerning such events in semi-annual 

compliance reports. We are proposing that the report must 

contain the number, duration and cause of such events (including 

unknown cause, if applicable), list the affected source or 

equipment, the date and time that each event started and 

stopped, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to 

meet a standard, and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 111 of 242

We note that while malfunction events may also be reported 

under provisions related to assertion of an affirmative defense, 

this separate malfunction reporting requirement is not redundant 

of the affirmative defense reporting requirement because 

reporting of malfunctions under the affirmative defense is not 

mandatory and would occur only if a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Changes to recordkeeping requirements. The EPA is also 

proposing to amend section 63.1355 (f) for recordkeeping for 

events of startup and shutdown. Currently (f) requires a record 

of the occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown. The 

EPA is proposing to refine this requirement based on the 

requirements applicable during periods of startup and shutdown. 

Given that some affected sources under subpart LLL are subject 

to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be 

important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin 

and end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate 

standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to require that affected 

sources subject to emission standards during startup or shutdown 

that differs from the emission standard that applies at all 

other times (i.e., mercury and PM) must record the occurrence 

and duration of such periods. The EPA is also proposing to add a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 112 of 242

requirement that sources record an estimate of the volume of 

emissions over the standard if the affected source fails to meet 

a standard during either startup or shutdown, and record the 

estimating technique.

The EPA is also proposing to amend (g)(1) to obtain similar 

information on malfunction events. Currently this paragraph 

requires the creation and retention of a record of the 

occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing 

that this requirement apply only to malfunctions that cause a 

failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the 

source record date and time of the malfunction rather than 

“occurrence.” The EPA is also proposing to add to (g) the 

requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the 

affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the 

source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. The EPA is proposing to 

require that sources keep records of this information to ensure 

that there is adequate information to determine compliance 

during malfunction events, to allow the EPA to determine the 

severity of the failure to meet the standard, and to provide 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 113 of 242

data that may document how the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions during recorded malfunction events. 

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

of Proposed Amendments

A. What are the affected sources? 

As noted in the promulgated rule, the EPA estimates that by 

2013 there will be 100 Portland cement manufacturing facilities 

located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that are expected to be 

affected by that rule, and, that approximately 5 of those 

facilities are complete new greenfield facilities. All these 

facilities will operate 158 cement kilns and associated clinker 

coolers. Of these kilns, 24 are CISWI kilns and have been 

removed from our data set used to establish existing source 

floors. Based on capacity expansion data provided by the PCA, by 

2013 there will be 16 kilns and their associated clinker coolers 

subject to NESHAP new source emission limits for mercury, HCl 

and THC, and seven kilns and clinker coolers subject to the 

amended NSPS for NOx and SO2. Some of these new kilns will be 

built at existing facilities and some at new greenfield 

facilities. 

B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 114 of 242

For these proposed amendments, we determined whether 

additional control measures, work practices and monitoring 

requirements would be required by cement manufacturing 

facilities to comply with the proposed amendments. For any 

additional control measure, work practice or monitoring 

requirement we determined the associated capital and annualized 

cost that would be incurred by facilities required to implement 

the measures. Finally, we considered the extent to which any 

facility in the industry would find it necessary to implement 

the additional measures in order to comply with the proposed 

amendments. Using this approach, we assessed potential impacts 

from the proposed revisions.

These proposed amendments affect the 2010 rule and are 

expected to result in lower costs for the Portland cement 

industry. We are evaluating the impacts of these proposed 

amendments relative to the impacts estimated for the 2010 final 

rule. As explained in section N above, the proposed amendment to 

the PM standard affords alternative compliance opportunities for 

existing sources which are less costly. These could be utilizing 

existing PM control devices rather than replacing them (for 

example, retaining an ESP or a smaller baghouse), or 

supplementing existing PM control rather than replacing it 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 115 of 242

(putting polishing controls ahead of the primary PM control 

device). Compliance strategies for the other HAP, all of which 

involve some element of PM control, also may be affected. Cost 

savings from these alternatives could be significant. For 

example, we have performed a case study from the data set used 

in the 2010 impacts analysis. Under this proposed rule, an 

estimated 21 ESP-equipped kilns no longer need to install 

membrane bags on a downstream polishing fabric filter(FF), and 

one FF retain their standard fabric bags rather than replacing 

them with membrane bags. The difference in annual cost for PM 

control under the proposal scenario and the more stringent 2010 

scenario is $4.2 million per year. That is, under this proposed 

rule, the annual cost of compliance will be $4.2 million less 

than under the 2010 rule under this scenario (see Portland 

Cement Reconsideration TSD, section 9). The EPA is not presently 

able to further quantify potential costs of the proposed changes 

to the emission standards. This is because the agency lacks the 

site-specific information necessary to make the engineering 

determinations as to how individual sources may choose to 

comply. There are also certain costs, and cost savings, 

associated with other aspects of the proposal. There may be a 

minor difference in costs of stack testing for PM and use of a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 116 of 242

CPMS, rather than use of a PM CEMS. However, since the PM CEMS 

would be calibrated based on stack testing, and the CPMS is the 

same type of device as a PM CEMS, the EPA does not believe there 

is any significant cost difference between these provisions.

The proposed revisions to the alternative organic HAP 

standard (from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic method 

practical quantitation limit) would not require additional 

controls or monitoring. The EPA accordingly does not estimate 

that there would be any cost (or emission reduction benefit) 

associated with this proposal.

The proposed revisions for open clinker storage piles 

codify current fugitive dust control measures already required 

by most states, thus no impacts are expected. These proposed

standards would be significantly less expensive than the 

controls for open piles in the 2010 final rule, which required 

enclosures.

Although we are reproposing the affirmative defense 

provisions, impacts were not accounted for in the 2010 

rulemaking. Thus, we have estimated the additional industry 

burden associated with the affirmative defense provisions. We 

estimate the additional cost is $3,142 per year for the entire 

industry. See Supporting Statement in the docket. One of the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 117 of 242

proposed revisions would allow sources that control acid gases, 

including HCl, with dry caustic scrubbers to use periodic 

performance testing and parameter monitoring rather than with 

HCl CEMS. This will provide those sources with additional 

flexibility in complying with the HCl standards. The proposed 

revision to the alternative PM emissions limit provisions merely 

recognizes that sources other than the clinker cooler may 

combine their exhaust with the kiln exhaust gas and corrects the 

equation for calculating the alternative limit. Therefore, there 

should be no impacts from this proposed revision. The proposal 

to use recordkeeping as the monitoring mechanism for the startup 

and shutdown standards should also result in cost savings 

because facilities in the industry already keep records on feed 

and fuel usage and they will not have to install and operate 

CEMS for these periods. CEMS for monitoring all HAP or HAP 

surrogates could cost each facility $569,000 in capital cost and 

annualized costs of $198,000. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438.

The proposed revisions for new testing and monitoring of 

coal mills that use kiln exhaust gases to dry coal and exhaust 

through a separate stack are not expected to have significant 

impacts. The proposed revision would make existing kilns that 

undergo a modification, as defined by NSPS, subject to the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 118 of 242

NESHAP PM standard for existing source rather than the PM limit 

for new sources. This proposed revision is correcting an 

inadvertent conflict between the two rules and will not result 

in any impacts. 

C. What are the air quality impacts?

In these proposed amendments, emission limits for mercury, 

THC and HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus, we expect no 

change in emissions from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP 

surrogates. The alternative HAP organic standard would be 

amended to 12 ppm, but as this reflects the practical 

quantitative limit of detection, it is not clear if additional 

emissions are associated with the proposed standard since a 

lower standard would not be measured reliably.

For PM, the limit for existing sources would change from 

0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.07 lb/ton clinker. The PM limit for new 

sources also would be changed to 0.02 lb/ton clinker from 0.01 

lb/ton clinker. The standard would be measured on a 3-run basis 

rather than on a 30-day basis with a CEMS. The proposed changes 

in the PM standards, while not considered significant in 

absolute terms, may result in a small increase in total 

nationwide emissions by allowing slightly more variability, 

although we estimate that design values will be essentially 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 119 of 242

identical under the 2010 and proposed standard. See section 

III.N above. As explained in the impacts analysis for the 2010 

rule (see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), emission 

reductions were estimated by comparing baseline emissions to the 

long-term average emissions of the MACT floor kilns. The average 

emissions, rather than the emissions limit, must be used because 

to comply with the limit all or most of the time, emissions need 

to be reduced to the average of the MACT floor kilns. Under the 

2010 rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor 

kilns were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the reconsideration, 

the average PM emissions of the existing floor kilns is

calculated to be 0.02655 lb/ton clinker although, as noted, this 

difference is less than the normal analytic variability in PM 

measurement methods and so must be viewed as directional rather 

than precisely quantitative. The average emissions for new kilns 

did not change and we believe new sources will have to adopt 

identical control strategies as under the promulgated standards. 

We, therefore, are not estimating an emission increase from new 

kilns. For existing kilns, with an increase in PM emissions 

under the proposed rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to 

the 2010 rule, nationwide emissions of PM would increase by 135

tons per year (0.00359 X 75,355,116/2000). Thus, the EPA 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 120 of 242

estimates that the main effect of this proposed rule for PM will 

be to provide flexibility for those days when emissions increase 

as a result of normal operating variability, but would not 

significantly alter long-term average performance for PM.

Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and the proposed 

rule are compared in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparison of nationwide PM emissions from 2010 

rule to proposed rule

Kiln 

type

2010 

rule

Proposed 

rule

Increment

Emissions limit (lb/ton 

clinker

Existing 0.04

(30-day 

average 

with a 

CEMS)

0.07

(3-run 

stack 

test)

NA

MACT average emissions 

for compliance (lb/ton 

clinker

Existing 0.02296 0.02655 0.00359

2010 baseline emissions 

(tons/yr)

10,326 10,326 NA

Nationwide emissions 

reduction (tons/yr)

Total 9,489 9,354 -135

D. What are the water quality impacts?

None of the amendments being proposed will have significant 

impacts on water quality. To the extent that the proposed 

revision affecting dry caustic scrubbers encourages their use, 

some reduction in water consumption may occur although we have 

no information upon which to base an estimate. 

E. What are the solid waste impacts?
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 121 of 242

None of the amendments being proposed today are expected to 

have any solid waste impacts.

F. What are the secondary impacts?

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts 

that will result from the increased electricity usage associated 

with the operation of control devices as well as water quality 

and solid waste impacts (which were just discussed) that will 

occur as a result of these proposed revisions. Because we are 

proposing revisions that reduce the stringency of the existing 

source emission limits PM from the promulgated 2010 limits, we 

believe that some facilities may be able to alter their strategy 

for complying with the standards for the four pollutants to 

achieve compliance at a lower cost than possible under the 

original standard. These types of determinations will be made 

for each facility based on site-specific characteristics such as 

process type, equipment age, existing air pollution controls, 

raw material and fuel characteristics, economic factors and 

others. Therefore, we are not able to reliably predict secondary 

impacts for individual facilities or for the industry as a 

whole. 

G. What are the energy impacts?
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 122 of 242

As discussed in the preceding section, because of the 

proposed revisions to the PM emission limits, some facilities 

may be able to develop more cost effective compliance 

strategies. However, we cannot accurately predict the extent to 

which these site-specific compliance strategies may increase or 

decrease energy demands. 

H. What are the cost impacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that 

there could be savings in the millions of dollars associated 

with alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM 

standards and making corresponding adjustments in compliance 

strategies for the other HAP. The proposed revisions would 

require sources with integral coal mills that exhaust through a 

separate exhaust to install a continuous flow meter as part of 

the proposed requirement to monitor mercury emissions. The 

capital cost of flow meters are $36,000. The annualized cost of 

a flow meter is $11,000. We do not have information on the 

number of such coal mills in the industry that would allow us to 

calculate nationwide costs. We also estimate that there will be 

a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to develop the 

calculation that will allow them to demonstrate compliance 

during periods of startup and shutdown. With the proposed change 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 123 of 242

to PM CPMS instead of CEMS, it is estimated that the elimination 

of the PS correlation tests will result in a savings of $60,000 

per kiln.

I. What are the health effects of these pollutants??

In this section, we provide a qualitative description of 

benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5, HCl and 

mercury. Controls installed to reduce HAP would also reduce 

ambient concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. Reducing exposure 

to PM2.5 is associated with significant human health benefits, 

including avoiding mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular 

and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated PM2.5 

exposure with adverse health effects in numerous toxicological, 

clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2009)

17. When 

adequate data and resources are available and an RIA is 

required, the EPA generally quantifies several health effects 

associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011)

18. These 

 

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 

Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 

Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. 

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans 

to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 124 of 242

health effects include premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, 

hospital admissions, and respiratory morbidities such as asthma 

attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital and emergency 

department visits, work loss days, restricted activity days, and 

respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA has not quantified 

certain outcomes including adverse effects on birth weight, preterm births, pulmonary function and other cardiovascular and 

respiratory effects, the scientific literature suggests that 

exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with these impacts (U.S. EPA, 

2009). PM2.5 also increases light extinction, which is an 

important aspect of visibility (U.S. EPA, 2009).

Hydrogen chloride (HCl) is a corrosive gas that can cause 

irritation of the mucous membranes of the nose, throat and 

respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat 

irritation, and levels of 50 to 

100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour.19 The greatest impact is 

on the upper respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations 

 

Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf>.

19 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 

Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 125 of 242

can rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the throat and 

suffocation. Most seriously exposed persons have immediate onset 

of rapid breathing, blue coloring of the skin and narrowing of 

the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can lead to RADS, a chemicallyor irritant-induced type of asthma. Children may be more 

vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the 

relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also 

be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute 

ventilation per kilograms and failure to evacuate an area 

promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified 

for carcinogenic effects.20

Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic 

form, methylmercury (MeHg). Because mercury is a persistent 

pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially the 

tissue of fish. When people consume these fish, they consume 

MeHg. In 2000, the NAS Study was issued which provides a 

thorough review of the effects of MeHg on human health (NRC, 

 

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available 

online at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. 

Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen Chloride. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 

electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 126 of 242

2000)21. Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited in this section 

are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In 

addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain 

other related and more recent publications to complement the 

material summarized by the NRC in 2000.

In its review of the literature, the National Academy of 

Science (NAS) found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most 

sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for 

establishing an oral reference dose (RfD) (National Research 

Council (NRC), 2000); in particular NAS supported the use of 

results from neurobehavioral or neuropsychological tests. The 

NAS report noted that studies in animals reported sensory 

effects as well as effects on brain development and memory 

functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology 

studies. The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an 

RfD are associated with the ability of children to learn and to 

succeed in school. They concluded the following: “The population 

at highest risk is the children of women who consumed large 

amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy. The committee 

concludes that the risk to that population is likely to be 

 

21 National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects 

of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 127 of 242

sufficient to result in an increase in the number of children 

who have to struggle to keep up in school.”

The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available 

up to 2000. Based on these and other studies, the NRC concluded 

that “Although the data base is not as extensive for 

cardiovascular effects as it is for other end points (i.e. 

neurologic effects) the cardiovascular system appears to be a 

target for MeHg toxicity in humans and animals.” The NRC also 

stated that “additional studies are needed to better 

characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on blood 

pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life.”

Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 

2000. The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose-response 

assessment for cardiovascular effects associated with MeHg 

exposures, as there is no consensus among scientists on the 

dose-response functions for these effects. In addition, there is 

inconsistency among available studies as to the association 

between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular system effects. 

The pharmacokinetics of some of the exposure measures (such as 

toenail mercury levels) are not well understood. The studies 

have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more wellestablished neurotoxicity data base. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 128 of 242

The Mercury Study22 noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen 

but is capable of causing chromosomal damage in a number of 

experimental systems. The NAS concluded that evidence that human 

exposure to MeHg caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they 

note that some earlier studies showing chromosomal damage in 

lymphocytes may not have controlled sufficiently for potential 

confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapajós River 

region in Brazil (Amorim et al., 2000) reported a direct 

relationship between MeHg concentration in hair and DNA damage 

in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes23. Long-term 

MeHg exposures in this population were believed to occur through 

consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely 

chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg 

exposures similar to and above those seen in the Faroes and 

Seychelles populations.

Although exposure to some forms of mercury can result in a 

decrease in immune activity or an autoimmune response (ATSDR, 

 

22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. Mercury 

Study Report to Congress, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–3054. December. 

Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm>.

23 Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, 

J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic damage 

related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the 

Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Science. 72(4): 497-507.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 129 of 242

1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 

2000)

24.

Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified 

as a “possible” human carcinogen by the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002)25,26.

The existing evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic 

effects in humans from low-dose chronic exposures is tenuous. 

Multiple human epidemiological studies have found no significant 

association between mercury exposure and overall cancer 

incidence, although a few studies have shown an association 

between mercury exposure and specific types of cancer incidence 

(e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000).

 

24 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 

1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.

25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and 

Development. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm

26 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC 

Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and 

their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in 

the Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and 

A.H. Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene 

sulphonanilide. Br. J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited 

in NRC 2000).
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 130 of 242

There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal 

toxicity in humans from MeHg exposure. However, overall, human 

data regarding reproductive, renal, and hematological toxicity 

from MeHg are very limited and are based on either studies of 

the two high-dose poisoning episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal 

data, rather than epidemiological studies of chronic exposures 

at the levels of interest in this analysis.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a "significant regulatory action" because it 

raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA 

submitted this action to the OMB for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action. A RIA was prepared for 

the September 2010 final rule and can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Portlandcementfinalria.

pdf.http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Portlandcementfinal

ria.pdf. The benefits, cost and economic analysis for the first 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 131 of 242

year of full compliance for the 2010 final rule are expected to 

be little changed for the first year of full compliance for this 

action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been 

assigned the EPA ICR number 1801.10 for the NESHAP and 1051.12 

for the NSPS. The information requirements are based on 

notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality 

is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

We are proposing new paperwork requirements for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing source category in the form of a 

requirement to incorporate fugitive dust control measures for 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 132 of 242

clinker piles into their existing operations and maintenance 

plan. We are also proposing to use recordkeeping as the means of 

monitoring compliance with the startup and shutdown standards.

For this proposed rule, the EPA is also proposing to add an 

affirmative defense to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To 

provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of 

the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative 

defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what the 

notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might 

entail. The EPA’s estimate for the required notification, 

reports and records for any individual incident, including the 

root cause analysis, totals $3,142 and is based on the time and 

effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview 

plant employees, and document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emissions limit. 

The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record 

and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this 

illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are 

only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses 

to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 133 of 242

Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions 

could occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and 

maintenance practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related excess emissions events for 

a particular source. It is important to note that the EPA has no 

basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions that 

would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical 

records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners or 

operators previously operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 

emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 

emissions events reported by source operators, only a small 

number would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on 

the definition above), and only a subset of excess emissions 

caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to 

assert the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators might be expected to avail 

themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small.

With respect to the Portland Cement Manufacturing source 

category, the emissions controls are operational before the 

associated emission source(s) commence operation and remain 

operational until after the associated emission source(s) cease 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 134 of 242

operation. Also, production operations would not proceed or 

continue if there is a malfunction of a control device and the 

time required to shut down production operations (i.e., on the 

order of a few hours or a day) is small compared to the 

averaging time of the emission standards (i.e., monthly 

averages). Thus, we believe it is unlikely that a control device 

malfunction would cause an exceedance of any emission limit. 

Therefore, sources within this source category are not expected 

to have any need or use for the affirmative defense and we 

believe that there is no burden to the industry for the 

affirmative defense provisions in this proposed rule.

We expect to gather information on such events in the 

future and will revise this estimate as better information 

becomes available. We estimate 86 regulated entities are 

currently subject to subpart LLL and will be subject to all 

proposed standards. The annual monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) for 

these amendments to subpart LLL is estimated to be $352,814 per 

year. This includes 496 labor hours per year at a total labor 

cost of $47,806 per year, and total non-labor capital and 

operation and maintenance costs of $305,008 per year. This 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 135 of 242

estimate includes reporting and recordkeeping associated with 

the proposed requirements for startup and shutdown and outdoor 

clinker piles. The total burden for the federal government 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standard) is estimated to be 263 hours per year at a total labor 

cost of $11,885 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

To comment on the agency's need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this proposed rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where 

to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 136 of 242

to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 

after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if 

OMB receives it by [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 

to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business whose 

parent company has no more than 750 employees depending on the 

size definition for the affected NAICS code, as defined by the 

Small Business Administration size standards; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 137 of 242

county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement 

entities are small entities. After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that 

this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Of the three affected 

small entities, all are expected to incur an annual compliance 

cost of less than 1.0 percent of sales to comply with this 

proposed rule (reflecting potential controls on piles, which are 

likely to have lower cost when compared to the 2010 rule 

requirements because these plants already have requirements for 

control of piles in their Title V permits). 

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed 

rule on small entities. For example, we are proposing to expand

the provision that allows periodic HCl performance tests as an 

alternative to CEMS for sources equipped with wet scrubbers to 

also apply to those sources that use dry sorbent injection. This
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 138 of 242

proposed rule would add an option for sources using wet or dry 

scrubbers for HCl control that also use a CEMS for SO2. These 

sources would now have the option of using their SO2 CEMS in 

conjunction with a periodic stack test to demonstrate compliance 

with the HCl standard. We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action does not contain a federal mandate under the 

provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The action imposes no 

enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Thus, this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements 

of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because it contains no requirements that apply to 

such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 139 of 242

This proposed action does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 

the relationship between the national government and the states 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by 

State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with 

the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Under 

the provisions of this proposed rule, there may be an increase 

in mercury emissions and metal HAP emissions although any 

increase will be minimal because the same control technology 

that is necessary under the current NESHAP will be needed to 

meet the proposed emissions limits. The more stringent 

limitations of fugitive dust emissions from open clinker piles 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 140 of 242

may result in decreased risk to Indian tribal populations. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 

performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This proposed action is not a “significant energy action” 

as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,

2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The 

proposed amendments do not require the use of additional 

controls as compared to the 2010 rule and may allow the industry 

to reduce its cost of compliance by increasing the industry’s 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 141 of 242

flexibility to institute different and less costly control 

strategies than under the 2010 rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629)(February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 142 of 242

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States.

An analysis of demographic data was prepared for the 2010 

final rule and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking 

(EPA-docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3415). The impacts of the 

2010 rule, which assumed full compliance, are expected to be 

unchanged as a result of this action. Therefore, beginning from 

the date of full compliance, the EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the environment. The full benefits 

of this proposed rule will not result until 2015 due to the 

proposed amended compliance date. The EPA has determined that 

the proposed amended compliance date will not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because the demographic analysis showed that the average of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 143 of 242

populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus most 

likely to be affected by the sources, were similar in 

demographic composition to national averages.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 144 of 242

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

____________________________

Dated: 

____________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 145 of 242

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 

I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 60 – [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows:

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

Subpart A—[Amended]

2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph 

(h)(4) to read as follows:

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4) of subpart Ec, §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4) of 

subpart F, §60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, §§60.104a(d)(3), 

(d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), 

(i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), 

(g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), 

(a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and 

60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), 

(d)(2), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(2)(ii) of subpart Ja, tables 1 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 146 of 242

and 3 of subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, 

table 2 of subpart JJJJ, §60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3) of 

subpart KKKK, 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 

60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, tables 2 

and 3 to subpart MMMM, §§60.5406(c)(4)(iii) and 

60.5413(b)(4)(iii)(A).

* * * * *

Subpart F--[AMENDED]

3. Section 60.61 is amended by adding a definition for 

“Excess emissions” and “Operating day,” to read as follows:

§60.61 Definitions.

* * * * *

Excess emissions means, with respect to this subpart, 

results of any required measurements outside the applicable 

range (e.g., emissions limitations, parametric operating 

limits) that is permitted by this subpart. The values of 

measurements will be in the same units and averaging time 

as the values specified in this subpart for the 

limitations.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 147 of 242

* * * * *

Operating day means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 

midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For 

calculating rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating 

day does not include the hours of operation during startup 

or shutdown. 

 * * * * *

4. Section 60.62 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2);and 

d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§60.62 Standards.

(a) On and after the date on which the performance 

test required to be conducted by §60.8 is completed, you 

may not discharge into the atmosphere from any kiln any 

gases which: 

(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 

reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 148 of 242

(iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in 

excess of 0.07 pound per ton of clinker.

(2) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(b) On and after the date on which the performance 

test required to be conducted by §60.8 is completed, you 

may not discharge into the atmosphere from any clinker 

cooler any gases which: 

(1) Contain PM in excess of:

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 

reconstruction of the clinker cooler commences after June 

16, 2008. 

(iii) Clinker coolers that have undergone a 

modification may not discharge into the atmosphere any 

gases which contain PM in excess of 0.070 pound per ton of 

clinker.

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * *

(d) If you have an affected source subject to this 

subpart with a different emissions limit or requirement for 

the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 149 of 242

this chapter, you must comply with the most stringent 

emissions limit or requirement and are not subject to the 

less stringent requirement. 

5. Section 60.63 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)and (b)(1)(ii);

b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4);

d. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);

e. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;

f. Revising paragraph (g)(2);

g. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(6);

i. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text;

j. Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text;

k. Revising paragraph (h)(9);

l. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and

m. Revising paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(1)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§60.63 Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 150 of 242

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight 

rates of the amount of clinker produced in tons of mass per 

hour. The system of measuring hourly clinker production 

must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy or 

(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight 

rates of the amount of feed to the kiln in tons of mass per 

hour. The system of measuring feed must be maintained 

within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly clinker 

production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker ratio 

based on reconciled clinker production rates determined for 

accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio 

should be updated monthly. Note that if this ratio changes 

at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going 

forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 

clinker production rates previously estimated. 

(iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do 

not have data on clinker production or the amount of feed 

to the kiln, use the value from the most recent previous 

hour for which valid data are available.

(2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the 

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 151 of 242

production rates or feed rates before initial use (for new 

sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule 

(for existing sources). During each quarter of source 

operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring 

hourly clinker production rates or feed rates. 

(3) If you measure clinker production directly, record 

the daily clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln 

feed rates and calculate clinker production, record the 

daily kiln feed and clinker production rates.

(4) [Reserved]

(c) PM Emissions Monitoring Requirements. (1) For 

each kiln or clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions limit 

in §60.62, you must demonstrate compliance through an 

initial performance test and you must monitor continuous 

performance through use of a PM continuous parametric 

monitoring system (PM CPMS).

(2) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a sitespecific operating limit corresponding to the highest 1-

hour average PM CPMS output value recorded during the 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM 

limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 

5 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 152 of 242

the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with your 

operating limit. You must repeat the performance test 

annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific 

operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test. 

(3) [Reserved]

(d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 

a CEMS continuously monitoring and recording the 

concentration by volume of NOx emissions into the atmosphere 

for any kiln subject to the NOx emissions limit in 

§60.62(a)(3). If the kiln has an alkali bypass, NOx

emissions from the alkali bypass do not need to be 

monitored, and NOx emission monitoring of the kiln exhaust 

may be done upstream of any commingled alkali bypass gases. 

(e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 

a CEMS for continuously monitoring and recording the 

concentration by volume of SO2 emissions into the atmosphere 

for any kiln subject to the SO2 emissions limit in 

§60.62(a)(4). If you are complying with the alternative 90 

percent SO2 emissions reduction emissions limit, you must 

also continuously monitor and record the concentration by 

volume of SO2 present at the wet scrubber inlet.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 153 of 242

(f) The NOx and SO2 CEMS required under paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this section must be installed, operated and 

maintained according to Performance Specification 2 of 

appendix B of this part and the requirements in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The span value of each NOx CEMS monitor must be 

set at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly 

potential NOx emission concentration that translates to the 

applicable emissions limit at full clinker production 

capacity.

(2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each 

NOx CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) 

and Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. 

You must use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 

to this part for conducting the relative accuracy 

evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see 

§60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 7 or 7C of 

appendix A-4 to this part.

(3) The span value for the SO2 CEMS monitor is the SO2

emission concentration that corresponds to 125 percent of 

the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production 

capacity and the expected maximum fuel sulfur content.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 154 of 242

(4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each 

SO2 CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) 

and Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. 

You must use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A-4 to this 

part for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The 

method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an 

acceptable alternative to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A-4 to 

this part.

(5) You must comply with the quality assurance 

requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to this part for 

each NOx and SO2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy 

determinations for monitors, and daily calibration drift 

tests.

(g) For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs 

(c) through (e) of this section:

* * * * *

(2) You may not use data recorded during the 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 155 of 242

not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system 

to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods in reporting 

emissions or operating levels.

* * * * *

(h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 

instruments for continuously measuring and recording the 

stack gas flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant 

mass emissions rate to the atmosphere for each kiln subject 

to the PM emissions limits in §60.62(a)(1) (ii) and 

(b)(1)(ii), the NOx emissions limit in §60.62(a)(3), or the 

SO2 emissions limit in §60.62(a)(4) according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (10), where 

appropriate, of this section.

(1) The owner or operator must install each sensor of 

the flow rate monitoring system in a location that provides 

representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at 

the sampling location of the NOx and/or SO2 CEMS, taking 

into account the manufacturer’s recommendations. The flow

rate sensor is that portion of the system that senses the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 156 of 242

volumetric flow rate and generates an output proportional 

to that flow rate.

* * * * *

(6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed 

to measure a minimum of one cycle of operational flow for 

each successive 15-minute period.

(7) The flow rate sensor must be able to determine the 

daily zero and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 

3.1 and 8.3 of Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to 

this part for a discussion of CD).

* * * * *

(8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test 

of the flow rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 

of Performance Specification 6 of appendix B to this part, 

with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii) 

of this section.

* * * * *

(9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate 

monitoring system at least once per year by repeating the 

relative accuracy test specified in paragraph (h)(8) of 

this section.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 157 of 242

(i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of

Monitoring Plans. If you demonstrate compliance with any 

applicable emissions limit through performance stack 

testing or other emissions monitoring (including PM CPMS), 

you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of 

this section. This requirement also applies to you if you 

petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under paragraph (h) of this section and 

§63.8(f). If you use a bag leak detector system (BLDS), you 

must also meet the requirements specified in paragraph 

§63.1350(m)(10) of this chapter.

(1) For each continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

required in this section, you must develop, and submit to 

the permitting authority for approval upon request, a sitespecific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs 

(i)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit 

this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 

30 days before the initial performance evaluation of your 

CMS.

(i) Installation of the CMS sampling probe or other 

interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 158 of 242

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control device);

* * * * *

6. Section 60.64 is amended to read as follows:

§60.64 Test methods and procedures

(a) In conducting the performance tests and relative 

accuracy tests required in §60.8, you must use reference 

methods and procedures and the test methods in appendix A 

of this part or other methods and procedures as specified 

in this section, except as provided in §60.8(b).

(b) You must demonstrate compliance with the PM 

standards in §60.62 according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section.

(1)(i) In using a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, 

you must establish your PM CPMS operating limit and 

determine compliance with it according to paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section.

(ii) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance 

with the PM limit, record all hourly average output values 

(e.g., milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data 

signal) from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 159 of 242

the test runs (e.g., three 1-hour average PM CPMS output 

values for three 1-hour test runs).

(iii) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1-

hour average PM CPMS output value recorded during the 

performance test. You must verify an existing or establish 

a new operating limit after each repeated performance test.

(iv) To determine continuous compliance, you must 

record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the 

process is operating and the PM CPMS is not out-of-control. 

You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all 

quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM 

CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 

average operating parameter in units of the operating limit 

(e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal) on a 

30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end 

of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 2 to determine 

the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

 i



1

30kiln operatingday Eq. 2

where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i and
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 160 of 242

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values 

collected over 30 kiln operating days.

(2) Use Method 9 and the procedures in §60.11 to 

determine opacity.

(3) Any sources other than kilns (including associated 

alkali bypass and clinker cooler) that are major sources as 

defined in §63.2 of this chapter and that are subject to 

the 10 percent opacity limit must follow the appropriate 

monitoring procedures in §63.1350(f), (m)(1)through(m)(4), 

(m)(10) through (11), (o), and (p) of this chapter.

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) [Reserved]

(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating 

day average emission rate daily of NOx and SO2 according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (i) through (iv) of this 

section.

(i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day 

average emissions according to equation 3:





n

i

D CiQi Pi

n

E k

1

/

( )

1

Eq. 3

Where: 

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of NOX or SO2, 

lb/ton of clinker; 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 161 of 242

Ci = Concentration of NOX or SO2 for hour i, ppm; 

Qi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i, where 

Ci and Qi are on the same basis (either wet or dry), scf/hr;

Pi = total kiln clinker produced during production hour i, 

ton/hr; and

k = conversion factor, 1.194 x 10-7 for NOX and 1.660 x 10-7

for SO2.

n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating

days, n = 1 to 720.

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do 

not have at least one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, use 

the average emissions rate (lb/hr) from the most recent 

previous hour for which valid data are available. 

(d)(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test(see §60.8) as required by this 

subpart you must submit the results of the performance 

tests conducted to demonstrate compliance under this 

subpart to the EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) 

that is accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX)(www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be 

submitted in the file format generated through use of the

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 162 of 242

collected using test methods on the ERT website are subject 

to this requirement for submitting reports electronically 

to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the 

information being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) must submit a 

complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage 

media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to the

EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 

Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted 

must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier 

in this paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated 

authority, you must also submit these reports, including 

the confidential business information, to the delegated 

authority in the format specified by the delegated 

authority.

(2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

CEMS performance evaluation test (see §60.13), you must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit data electronically 

into the EPA’s Central Data Exchange by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool as mentioned in paragraph (d)(1) 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 163 of 242

of this section. Only data collected using test methods 

compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be 

submitted electronically to the EPA’s CDX.

(3) All reports required by this subpart not subject 

to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section must be sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or 

the delegated authority may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used 

electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard 

copy). The Administrator retains the right to require 

submittal of reports subject to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section in paper format.

7. Section 60.65 is revised to read as follows:

§60.65 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS 

or CEMS under sections §60.63(c)-(e) shall submit reports 

of excess emissions. The content of these reports must 

comply with the requirements in §60.7(c). Notwithstanding 

the provisions of §60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted 

semiannually.

(b) [Reserved]
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 164 of 242

(c) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to 

the provisions of §60.63(c)-(e) shall submit semiannual 

reports of the malfunction information required to be 

recorded by §60.7(b). These reports shall include the 

frequency, duration, and cause of any incident resulting in 

deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions or 

in the venting of emissions directly to the atmosphere.

(d) The requirements of this section remain in force 

until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement 

authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Clean Air 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting requirements or an 

alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by 

such States. In that event, affected sources within the 

State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with 

this section, provided that they comply with the 

requirements established by the State.

8. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follows:

§60.66 Delegation of authority. 

* * * * *

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval 

authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 165 of 242

EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

9. The authority citation for part 63 continues to 

read as follows:

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

10. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph 

(b)(54) to read as follows:

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

approved 2003, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved 

for §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) of subpart LLL, table 4 to subpart 

DDDD, and table 8 of subpart HHHHHHH of this part.

* * * * *

Subpart LLL—[Amended]

11. Section 63.1340 is amended by

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(9); and 

b. Revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 166 of 242

§63.1340 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product 

storage bin at any Portland cement plant that is a major 

source;

(7) Each conveying system transfer point including 

those associated with coal preparation used to convey coal 

from the mill to the kiln at any Portland cement plant that 

is a major source; 

(8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system 

at any Portland cement plant that is a major source; and 

(9) Each open clinker storage pile at any Portland

cement plant.

(c) Onsite sources that are subject to standards for 

nonmetallic mineral processing plants in subpart OOO, part 

60 of this chapter are not subject to this subpart. 

Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of 

their location.

* * * * *

12. Section 63.1341 is amended by: 

a. Deleting definitions of “Enclosed storage pile,” 

and “Inactive clinker pile;” 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 167 of 242

b. Adding a definition for “Deviation,” “In-line coal 

mill,” “Open clinker storage pile,” and “Startup and 

shutdown;” and 

c. Revising definitions for “Kiln,” “New source,” 

“Operating day,” “Raw material dryer,” and “Total organic 

HAP,” in alphabetic order to read as follows:

§63.1341 Definitions.

* * * * *

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source 

subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 

source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart including, but not limited to, 

any emission limit, operating limit, work practice 

standard, or monitoring requirement; or (ii) Fails to meet 

any term or condition that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included 

in the operating permit for any affected source required to 

obtain such a permit. A deviation is not always a 

violation. 

* * * * *

In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust 

gases in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 168 of 242

than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases from the 

clinker cooler are not an in-line coal mill.

* * * * *

Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or 

precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or 

alkali bypasses that produces clinker by heating limestone 

and other materials for subsequent production of Portland

cement. Because the inline raw mill and inline coal mill 

are considered an integral part of the kiln, for purposes 

of determining the appropriate emissions limit, the term 

kiln also applies to the exhaust of the inline raw mill and 

the inline coal mill.

* * * * *

New source means any source that commenced construction 

after May 6, 2009, for purposes of determining the 

applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler and raw material 

dryer emissions limits for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl.

* * * * *

Open clinker storage pile means any clinker storage pile 

that is not completely enclosed in a building or structure.

Operating day means any 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 

midnight during which the kiln operates for any time. For 

calculating the rolling 30-day average emissions, kiln 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 169 of 242

operating days do not include the hours of operation during 

startup or shutdown. 

* * * * *

Raw material dryer means an impact dryer, drum dryer, 

paddle-equipped rapid dryer, air separator, or other 

equipment used to reduce the moisture content of feed or 

other materials.

* * * * *

Startup and shutdown means the periods of kiln operation 

that do not include normal operations. Startup begins when 

the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and continues until 

continuous feed is introduced into the kiln. Shutdown 

begins when feed to the kiln is halted.

* * * * *

Total organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, 

the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, 

benzene, toluene, styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, 

acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test 

Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or ASTM 

D6348-0327 or a combination of these methods, as 

 

27 When using ASTM D6348-03, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM 

D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; (2) For ASTM D6348-03 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

reported as below the method detection level (e.g., 

laboratory analytical results for one or more sample 

components are below the method defined analytical 

detection level), you must use the method detection level 

as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

result for a multiple component analysis (e.g.,

values for multiple Method 18 fractions

combination of method detection level data and analytical 

data reported above the method detection level. The owner 

or operator of an affected source may request the use of 

other test methods to make this determination under 

paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part.

* * * * *

13. Section 63.1343 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(a) through (e) to read as follows:

 

Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be 

determined for each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the 

ASTM D6348-03 test data to be acceptable for a target analyte, %R must 

be 70 % ≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The %R value for each comp

reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with 

the calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation:

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 170 of 242

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

reported as below the method detection level (e.g., 

laboratory analytical results for one or more sample 

ts are below the method defined analytical 

detection level), you must use the method detection level 

as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical 

values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may include a 

combination of method detection level data and analytical 

data reported above the method detection level. The owner 

or operator of an affected source may request the use of 

ds to make this determination under 

paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part.

Section 63.1343 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(a) through (e) to read as follows:

 

nnex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be 

determined for each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the 

03 test data to be acceptable for a target analyte, %R must 

≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The %R value for each compound must be 

reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with 

the calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation:

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

reported as below the method detection level (e.g., 

laboratory analytical results for one or more sample 

detection level), you must use the method detection level 

as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

analytical 

may include a 

combination of method detection level data and analytical 

data reported above the method detection level. The owner 

or operator of an affected source may request the use of 

ds to make this determination under 

Section 63.1343 is amended by revising paragraphs 

 

nnex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be 

determined for each target analyte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the 

03 test data to be acceptable for a target analyte, %R must 

ound must be 

reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with 

the calculated %R value for that compound using the following equation:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 171 of 242

§63.1343 What Standards Apply to my Kilns, Clinker 

Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, and Open Clinker Piles?

(a) General. The provisions in this section apply to 

each kiln and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, 

clinker cooler, and raw material dryer. All D/F, HCl, and 

total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit are on a dry basis. 

The D/F, HCl, and THC limits for kilns are corrected to 7 

percent oxygen. All THC emissions limits are measured as 

propane. Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 

rolling 30-day average. If using a CEMS to determine 

compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based on 

a rolling 30-day average. You must ensure appropriate 

corrections for moisture are made when measuring flow rates 

used to calculate mercury emissions. The 30-day period 

means 30 consecutive kiln operating days excluding periods 

of startup and shutdown. All emissions limits for kilns, 

clinker coolers, and raw material dryers currently in 

effect that are superseded by the limits below continue to 

apply until the compliance date of the limits below, or 

until the source certifies compliance with the limits 

below, whichever is earlier.

(b) Kilns, clinker coolers, raw material dryers, raw 

mills, and finish mills. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 172 of 242

(1) The emissions limits for these sources are shown 

in Table 1 below. PM limits for existing kilns also apply 

to kilns that have undergone a modification as defined in 

subpart A of part 60 of title 40.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE – 1/6/14/12

Page 173 of 242

Table 1. Emissions Limits for Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw 

Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills

If your 

source is 

a (an):

And the 

operating 

mode is:

And if 

is 

located 

at a:

Your 

emissions 

limits are:

And the 

units of 

the 

emissions 

limit are:

The oxygen 

correction 

factor is:

1. Existing 

kiln 

Normal 

operation 

Major 

or area 

source

PM1 0.07 

D/F2 0.2

Mercury 55

THC3,4 24

lb/ton 

clinker

ng/dscm

lb/MM tons 

clinker

ppmvd

NA

7 percent

NA

7 percent

2. Existing 

kiln 

Normal 

operation 

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd 7 percent

3. Existing 

kiln

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or area 

source

PM 0.04

D/F 0.2

Mercury 10

THC 24

gr/dscf

ng/dscm 

(TEQ)

ug/dscm

ppmvd

NA

NA

NA

NA

4. Existing 

kiln

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd NA

5. New kiln Normal 

operation 

Major 

or area 

source

PM 0.02 

D/F1 0.2

Mercury 21

THC3,4 24

lb/ton 

clinker

ng/dscm

lb/MM tons 

clinker

ppmvd

NA

7 percent

NA

7 percent

6. New kiln Normal 

operation 

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd 7 percent

7. New kiln Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or area 

source

PM 0.0008

D/F 0.2

Mercury 4

THC 24 

gr/dscf

ng/dscm 

(TEQ)

ug/dscm

ppmvd

NA

NA

NA

NA

8. New kiln Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd NA

9. Existing 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operation 

Major 

or area 

source

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

10. Existing 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or area 

source

PM 0.004 gr/dscf NA

11. New 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operation 

Major 

or area 

source

PM 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

12. New 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or area 

source

PM 0.0008 gr/dscf NA

13. Existing Normal Major THC3,4 24 ppmvd NA
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 174 of 242

or new 

raw 

material 

dryer

operation or area 

source

14. Existing 

or new 

raw 

material 

dryer

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major

or area

source

THC 24 ppmvd NA

15. Existing 

or new 

raw or 

finish 

mill

All 

operating 

modes

Major 

source

Opacity 10 percent NA

11. Open 

clinker 

storage 

piles

All 

operating 

modes

Major 

or area 

source

Work 

practices 

(63.1343(c))

NA NA

1 The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 

and consists of three 1-hr tests. 

2 If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device 

(fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test 

is 400 oF or less this limit is changed to 0.040 ng/dscm.

3 Measured as propane.

4 Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an 

alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP.

(2) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, 

the combined PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass 

stack are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that 

combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill with the 

kiln exhaust for energy efficiency purposes and send the 

combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single stream may 

meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is calculated 

using equation 1 of this section: 

PM alt = (0.0060 x 1.65)(Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000) (Eq. 1)

Where:

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 175 of 242

0.006 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 

0.070 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 

gas are not combined.

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw feed)

Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 

feed).

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton feed).

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).

7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust and clinker cooler gas 

the limit is calculated using the equation 2 of this section:

PMalt = (0.0020 x 1.65)(Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000) (Eq. 2)

Where: 

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources.

0.002 = The PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 

0.020 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 

gas are not combined

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed)

Qc = The exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 

feed).

Qab = The exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton feed).

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).

7000 = The conversion factor for gr per lb.

(c) Open Clinker Piles. The owner or operator of an open 

clinker pile must prepare and operate in accordance with the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 176 of 242

fugitive dust emissions control measures, described in their 

operation and maintenance plan (see §63.1347 of this subpart), 

that is appropriate for the site conditions as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this paragraph. 

(1) The operations and maintenance plan must identify and 

describe the fugitive dust emissions control measures the owner 

or operator will use to minimize fugitive dust emissions from 

each open clinker storage pile. 

(2) For open clinker storage piles, the operations and 

maintenance plan must specify that one or more of the following 

control measures will be used to minimize to the greatest extent 

practicable fugitive dust from open clinker storage piles: 

Locating the source inside a partial enclosure, installing and 

operating a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriate 

chemical dust suppression agents on the source, use of a wind 

barrier, compaction, or use of a vegetative cover. The owner or 

operator must select, for inclusion in the operations and 

maintenance plan, the fugitive dust control measure or measures 

listed in this paragraph that are most appropriate for site 

conditions. The plan must also explain how the measure or 

measures selected are applicable and appropriate for site 

conditions. In addition, the plan must be revised as needed to 

reflect any changing conditions at the source. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 177 of 242

(d) [Reserved]

(e) Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. 

Any source defined as an existing source in §63.1351, and that 

was subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions 

limit prior to September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the 

limits shown in Table 2 to this section until September 9, 2015.

* * * * *

14. Section 63.1344 is amended by revising the section 

heading and revising the section to read as follows:

§63.1344 Affirmative defense for violation of emissions limit 

during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

in paragraph §63.1343(b) you may assert an affirmative defense 

to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards 

that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the 

respondent fails to meet its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense 

shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the notification 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 178 of 242

(1) The violation: 

(i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could 

have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and

(iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to 

the extent practicable to make these repairs; and

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation 

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable; and

(4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control 

equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to 

prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 179 of 242

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 

the violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human 

health; and

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices; and

(7) Your actions in response to the violation were 

documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; 

and 

(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a 

manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions; and

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and the violation resulting 

from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 

specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 

the amount of any emissions that were the result of the 

malfunction.

(b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 180 of 242

section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in 

the semiannual report required by section 63.1354(b)(9). The 

affirmative defense report shall be included in the first 

semiannual, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise 

required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable 

averaging period). If such compliance, deviation report or 

excess the semiannual report is due less than 45 days after the 

initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense 

report may be included in the second semiannual compliance, 

deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard. 

15. Section 63.1345 is amended by revising the section 

heading and revising the section to read as follows:

§63.1345 Emissions limits for affected sources other than 

kilns; clinker coolers; new and reconstructed raw material 

dryers; and open clinker piles.

The owner or operator of each new or existing raw material, 

clinker, or finished product storage bin; conveying system 

transfer point; bagging system; bulk loading or unloading 

system; raw and finish mills; and each existing raw material 

dryer, at a facility which is a major source subject to the 

provisions of this subpart must not cause to be discharged any 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 181 of 242

gases from these affected sources which exhibit opacity in 

excess of 10 percent.

16. Section 63.1346 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and

c. Revising paragraphs (c)through (f) to read as follows:

§63.1346 Operating limits for kilns.

(a) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to a D/F 

emissions limitation under §63.1343 must operate the kiln such 

that the temperature of the gas at the inlet to the kiln PM

control device (PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if applicable, 

does not exceed the applicable temperature limit specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. The owner or operator of an inline kiln/raw mill subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

§63.1343 must operate the in-line kiln/raw mill, such that:

(1) When the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

operating, the applicable temperature limit for the main in-line 

kiln/raw mill exhaust, specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section and established during the performance test when the raw 

mill was operating, is not exceeded, except during periods of 

startup/shutdown when the temperature limit may be exceeded by 

no more than 10 percent.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 182 of 242

(c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an 

emission control technique you must operate the sorbent 

injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 

of this section.

(1) The rolling three-hour average activated sorbent 

injection rate must be equal to or greater than the sorbent 

injection rate determined in accordance with §63.1349(b)(3)(vi).

(2) You must either:

(i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier 

gas flow rate, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the 

manufacturer's specifications. These specifications must be 

documented in the test plan developed in accordance with 

§63.7(c), or

(ii) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection 

carrier gas pressure drop, as a rolling three-hour average, 

based on the manufacturer's specifications. These specifications 

must be documented in the test plan developed in accordance with 

§63.7(c).

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, 

for an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation 

under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission 

control technique you must specify and use the brand and type of 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 183 of 242

sorbent used during the performance test until a subsequent 

performance test is conducted, unless the site-specific 

performance test plan contains documentation of key parameters 

that affect adsorption and the owner or operator establishes 

limits based on those parameters, and the limits on these 

parameters are maintained.

(e) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an 

emission control technique you may substitute, at any time, a 

different brand or type of sorbent provided that the replacement 

has equivalent or improved properties compared to the sorbent 

specified in the site-specific performance test plan and used in 

the performance test. The owner or operator must maintain 

documentation that the substitute sorbent will provide the same 

or better level of control as the original sorbent.

(f) No kiln may use as a raw material or fuel any fly ash 

where the mercury content of the fly ash has been increased 

through the use of activated carbon, or any other sorbent, 

unless the facility can demonstrate that the use of that fly ash 

will not result in an increase in mercury emissions over 

baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not using the fly ash). The 

facility has the burden of proving there has been no emissions 

increase over baseline. Once the kiln must comply with a mercury 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 184 of 242

emissions limit specified in §63.1343, this paragraph no longer 

applies. 

17. Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows:

§63.1347 Operation and Maintenance Plan Requirements.

(a) * * * 

(1) Procedures for proper operation and maintenance of the 

affected source and air pollution control devices in order to 

meet the emissions limits and operating limits, including 

fugitive dust control measures for open clinker piles, of 

§§63.1343 through 63.1348. Your operation and maintenance plan 

must address periods of startup and shutdown; 

* * * * *

18. Section 63.1348 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

e. Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii);

c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6);

d. Revising paragraph (b); and

e. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

§63.1348 Compliance Requirements.

(a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. For an affected 

source subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 185 of 242

with the emissions standards and operating limits by using the 

test methods and procedures in §§63.1349 and 63.7.

NOTE: The first day of the 30 operating day performance 

test is the first day following completion of the field testing 

and data collection that demonstrates that the CPMS or CEMS has 

satisfied the relevant CPMS performance evaluation or CEMS 

performance specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 12B) acceptance 

criteria. The performance test period is complete at the end of 

the 30th consecutive operating day. See §63.1341 for definition 

of operating day and §63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating 

requirements.

(1) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 

emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emissions standards by using the test methods and 

procedures in §63.1349(b)(1). 

(2) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the 

limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity emissions standards by using the 

performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(2). Use 

the maximum 6-minute average opacity exhibited during the 

performance test period to determine whether the affected source 

is in compliance with the standard.

(3) D/F Compliance. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 186 of 242

(i) If you are subject to limitations on D/F emissions 

under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the D/F 

emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 

procedures in §63.1349(b)(3). The owner or operator of a kiln 

with an in-line raw mill must demonstrate compliance by 

conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating and while the raw mill is not operating. Determine the 

D/F concentration for each run and calculate the arithmetic 

average of the concentrations measured for the three runs to 

determine continuous compliance.

(ii) If you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

§63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the 

temperature operating limits specified in §63.1346 by using the 

performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3)(ii) 

through (b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of the 

temperatures measured during the three runs to determine the 

applicable temperature limit.

(iii) If activated carbon injection is used and you are 

subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you 

must demonstrate compliance with the activated carbon injection 

rate operating limits specified in §63.1346 by using the 

performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3)(v). 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 187 of 242

The average of the run injection rates will determine the 

applicable injection rate limit.

(iv) If activated carbon injection is used, you must also 

develop a carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow 

rate or the carrier gas pressure drop) during the initial and 

updated during any subsequent performance test conducted under 

§63.1349(b)(3) that meets the requirements of 

§63.1349(b)(3)(vi). Compliance is demonstrated if the system is 

maintained within +/- 5 percent accuracy during the performance 

test determined in accordance with the procedures and criteria 

submitted for review in your monitoring plan required in section 

63.1350(p). 

(4)(i) THC Compliance. 

(A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions 

under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the THC 

emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 

procedures in §63.1349(b)(4)(i). You must use the average THC 

concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days 

after the compliance date of this rule to determine initial 

compliance. 

(B) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 188 of 242

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. 

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. If you elect to 

demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions 

limit under §63.1343(b) in lieu of the THC emissions limit, you 

must demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions 

standards by using the performance test methods and procedures 

in §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(iv). 

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must 

conduct the separate performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(4)(iii) while the raw mill kiln is operating and 

while the raw mill of the kiln is not operating.

(iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured 

during the separate initial performance test specified by 

§63.1349(b)(4)(iii) must be used to determine initial 

compliance.

(v) The average THC concentration measured during the 

initial performance test specified by §63.1349(b)(4)(iv) must be 

used to determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the 

fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time 

that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted 

average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw 

mill off testing.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 189 of 242

(5) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations 

on mercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance with the mercury standards by using the performance 

test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(5). You must 

demonstrate compliance by operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent 

trap based CEMS. Compliance with the mercury emissions standard 

must be determined based on the first 30 operating days you 

operate a mercury CEMS after the compliance date of this rule.

In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an 

integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions 

concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day 

sorbent trap sample) to each relevant hour of the kiln operating 

days spanned by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln 

operating day emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg 

emissions concentrations and the respective flow and production 

rate values collected during the 30 kiln operating day 

performance test period. Depending on the duration of each 

integrated sampling period, you may not be able to calculate the 

30 kiln operating day emissions value until several days after 

the end of the 30 kiln operating day performance test period. 

For example, a sorbent trap CEMS producing an integrated 7-

day sample will provide Hg concentration data for each hour of 

the first 28 kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 190 of 242

days each) of a 30 operating day period. The Hg concentration 

values for the hours of the last 2 days of the 30 operating day 

period will not be available for calculating the emissions for 

the performance test period until at least five days after the 

end of the subject period.

(6) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 

HCl emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the HCl standards by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified 

in §63.1349(b)(6)(i). You must determine the HCl concentration 

for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the 

concentrations measured for the three runs to determine 

compliance. You must also have established appropriate sitespecific operational parameter limits.

(ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance by operating a CEMS as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(6)(ii). You must use the average of the hourly HCl 

concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 191 of 242

that occur after the compliance date of this rule to determine 

initial compliance.

(iii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit.

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (i), you may use an SO2

CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level during your initial and 

repeat HCl performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(6)(iii).

(b) Continuous Monitoring Requirements. You must 

demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and 

operating limits by using the performance test methods and 

procedures in §§63.1350 and 63.8 for each affected source.

(1) General Requirements. 

(i) You must monitor and collect data according to §63.1350 

and the site-specific monitoring plan required by §63.1350(p).

(ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 192 of 242

monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at 

all times the affected source is operating. 

(iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that 

are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are 

not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all 

other periods in assessing the operation of the control device 

and associated control system.

(iv) Clinker Production. If you are subject to limitations 

on PM emissions (lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM tons of 

clinker) under §63.1343(b), you must determine the hourly 

production rate of clinker according to the requirements of 

§63.1350(d).

(2) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 

emissions under §63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods 

and procedures in §63.1350(b) and (d). 

(3) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the 

limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 193 of 242

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 

§63.1350(f) based on the maximum 6-minute average opacity 

exhibited during the performance test period. You must initiate 

corrective actions d within one hour of detecting visible 

emissions above the applicable limit.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) COMS. If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the 

daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance 

using a COMS such that it is installed, operated, and maintained 

in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(i).

(iii) Bag leak determination system (BLDS). If you install 

a BLDS on a raw mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting the 

daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance 

using a BLDS that is installed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(ii).

(4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 

using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to record 

the temperature of specified gas streams in accordance with the 

requirements of §63.1350(g). 

(5)(i) Activated Carbon Injection Compliance. If you use 

activated carbon injection to comply with the a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 194 of 242

using a CMS that is installed, operated, and maintained to 

record the rate of activated carbon injection in accordance with 

the requirements §63.1350(h)(1). 

(ii) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with 

the D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated 

and maintained to record the activated carbon injection system 

gas parameter in accordance with the requirements 

§63.1350(h)(2). 

(6) THC Compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations 

on THC emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 

§63.1350 (i) and (j). 

(ii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

measured upstream of the coal mill.

(7) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations 

on mercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 

§63.1350(k). 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 195 of 242

If you use an integrated sorbent trap Hg CEMS to determine 

ongoing compliance, use the procedures described in 

§63.1348(a)(5) to assign hourly mercury concentration values and 

to calculate rolling 30 operating data emissions rates. Since 

you assign the mercury concentration measured with the sorbent 

trap to each relevant hour respectively for each operating day 

of the integrated period, you may schedule the sorbent change

periods to any time of the day (i.e., the sorbent trap 

replacement need not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight nor must the 

sorbent trap replacements occur only at integral 24-hour 

intervals).

(8) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 

HCl emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 

using the performance test methods and procedures in 

§63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(1). 

(ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(2). 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 196 of 242

(iii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit.

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (ii), you may use an SO2

CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level during your initial and 

repeat HCl performance tests and monitor the SO2 level using the 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(3).

(c) * * * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) The performance test must be completed within 360 

hours after the planned operational change period begins.

* * * * *

19. Section 63.1349 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);

c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text;

d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and (b)(3)(vi);

e. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6); and

f. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) to read as follows:

§63.1349 Performance testing requirements.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 197 of 242

(a) You must document performance test results in complete 

test reports that contain the information required by paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section, as well as all other 

relevant information. As described in §63.7(c)(2)(i), you must 

make available to the Administrator prior to testing, if 

requested, the site-specific test plan to be followed during 

performance testing.

* * * * *

(b)(1) PM Emissions Tests. 

(i) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations 

on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by 

conducting a performance test as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section.

(A) In using a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, you must 

establish your PM CPMS operating limit and determine compliance 

with it according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) through (D) and 

(b)(1)(ii) and (iv) of this section.

(B) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with 

the PM limit, record all hourly average output values (e.g., 

milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal) from 

the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the test runs 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 198 of 242

(e.g., three 1-hour average PM OK CPMS output values for three 

1-hour test runs).

(C) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1-hour 

average PM CPMS output value recorded during the performance 

test. You must verify an existing or establish a new operating 

limit after each repeated performance test. You must repeat the 

performance test annually and reassess and adjust the sitespecific operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test.

(D) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the 

PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is 

operating and the PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured 

hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating 

hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in 

units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, 

raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 

3 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

 i



1

30kiln operatingday (Eq. 3)

where:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 199 of 242

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i and n is the 

number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 kiln 

operating days.

(ii) Use EPA Method 5 of appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter to determine PM emissions. For each performance test, 

conduct three separate runs under the conditions that exist when 

the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity 

level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to 

collect a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining 

compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for determining 

compliance with a existing source limit. Calculate the average 

of the results from three runs to determine compliance. You need 

not determine the PM collected in the impingers (‘‘back half’’)

of the Method 5 particulate sampling train to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This shall not 

preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination 

of the ‘‘back half’’ for other purposes.

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, 

the main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln must be tested 

simultaneously and the combined emission rate of PM from the 

kiln and alkali bypass must be computed for each run using 

equation 4 of this section. For purposes of calculating the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 200 of 242

combined kiln and alkali bypass emissions, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent Method 5 performance test 

for the alkali bypass, instead of installing a CEMS, to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit.

P

E E

E

K B

c



 

(Eq. 4)

Where:

EC = Combined hourly emission rate of PM from the kiln and 

bypass stack, lb/ton of kiln clinker production;

EK = Hourly emissions of PM emissions from the kiln, lb;

EB = Hourly PM emissions from the alkali bypass stack, lb

P = Hourly clinker production, tons.

(v) The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw 

mill and subject to limitations on PM emissions shall 

demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate

performance tests while the raw mill is under normal operating 

conditions and while the raw mill is not operating.

* * * * *

(3) D/F Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations 

on D/F emissions under this subpart, you must conduct a 

performance test using Method 23 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of 

this chapter. If your kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped 

with an alkali bypass, you must conduct simultaneous performance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 201 of 242

tests of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust and the 

alkali bypass. You may conduct a performance test of the alkali 

bypass exhaust when the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

operating or not operating.

* * * * * 

(v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, you 

must record the rate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, 

and where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the 

alkali bypass exhaust, continuously during the period of the 

Method 23 test in accordance with the conditions in 

§63.1350(m)(9), and include the continuous injection rate 

record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the sorbent 

injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(3)(vi) of this section.

(B) Include the brand and type of sorbent used during the 

performance test in the performance test report.

(C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas 

flow rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration of 

the performance test. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, 

determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 

carrier gas flow rate monitoring system according to the 

procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. If the 

carrier gas pressure drop is used, determine, record, and 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 202 of 242

maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas pressure 

drop monitoring system according to the procedures in 

§63.1350(m)(6). 

(vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for 

each run and determine and include the average of the run 

average injection rates in the performance test report and 

determine the applicable injection rate limit in accordance with 

§63.1346(c)(1).

(4)(i) THC Emissions Test. 

(A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you 

must operate a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) in 

accordance with the requirements in §63.1350(i). For the 

purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance 

evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 50 

ppmvd and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A 

to part 60 of this chapter.

(B) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test 

for the first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the 

compliance date of the rule. See 63.1348(a). 

(C) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must 

calculate a kiln-specific THC limit using equation 5:

 =

( ×())(×)(×)



((Eq. 5)
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 203 of 242

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

(D) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

measured upstream of the coal mill.

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of 

conducting the performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

of this section, you may conduct a performance test to determine 

emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) through (b)(4)(iv) of this section.

(iii) Use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, Method 18

of Appendix A of part 60, ASTM D6348-03 or a combination to 

determine emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance test 

must consist of three separate runs under the conditions that 

exist when the affected source is operating at the 

representative performance conditions in accordance with 

§63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least 1 hour. You 

must conduct the performance test while the raw mill of the kiln 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 204 of 242

is operating and while the raw mill of the kiln is not 

operating.

(iv) At the same time that you are conducting the 

performance test for total organic HAP, you must also determine 

a site-specific THC emissions limit by operating a CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(j). The duration of 

the performance test must be 3 hours and the highest 1-hour 

average THC concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute 

averages) during the 3-hour test must be calculated. Using the 

fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time 

that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted 

average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw 

mill off testing.

(v) You must repeat the performance test for organic HAP 

according to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section no 

later than 12 months after your last test to confirm compliance 

with the organic HAP emissions limit and to re-establish your 

site-specific THC emissions limit.

(vi) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your 

site-specific THC emissions limit, you must 

(A) as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the 

exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 205 of 242

return the THC CEMS measurements to within the established 

value; and

(B) within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the 

annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another 

performance test to determine compliance with the organic HAP 

limit and to verify or re-establish your site-specific THC 

emissions limit. 

(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to 

limitations on mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury 

CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(k). The 

initial compliance test must be based on the first 30 kiln 

operating days in which the affected source operates using a 

mercury CEMS after the compliance date of the rule. See 

§63.1348(a). 

(i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap 

monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 

requirements in §63.1350(k)(5).

(ii) Calculate the emission rate using the equations 6 of 

this section:





n

i

D CiQi K

n

E

1

30 /

1

(Eq. 6)
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 206 of 242

Where: 

E30D = 30-day rolling emission rate of mercury, lb/MM tons clinker; 

Ci = Concentration of mercury for operating hour i, μg/scm; 

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating hour i, 

where Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or dry), 

scm/hr;

K = Conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 μg; 

n = Number of kiln operating hours in a 30 kiln operating day 

period, n = 1 to 720.

(6) HCl Emissions Tests. For a source subject to 

limitations on HCl emissions you must conduct performance 

testing by one of the following methods:

(i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray 

tower or dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing 

using Method 321 of appendix A to this part unless you have 

installed a CEMS that meets the requirements §63.1350(l)(1) 

(B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by 

using the CPMS required in §63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or 

tray tower, measure and record the pressure drop across the 

scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH in intervals of no more 

than 15 minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-

hour average pressure drop, pH, and average scrubber water flow 

rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions 

limit is met. For a dry scrubber, measure and record the sorbent 

injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 207 of 242

the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-hour average sorbent 

injection rate and average sorbent injection rate for each 

sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.

(ii)(A) If the source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, 

tray tower or dry sorbent injection system, you must operate a 

CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(l)(1). See 

§63.1348(a).

(B) The initial compliance test must be based on the 30 

kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date of this 

rule in which the affected source operates using a HCl CEMS. 

Hourly HCl concentration data must be obtained according to 

§63.1350(l).

(iii) As an alternative to paragraph (i), you may choose to 

monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS in accordance with the 

requirements of §63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an SO2

operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average recorded 

during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will apply only 

for demonstrating HCl compliance.

(iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must 

calculate a kiln-specific HCl limit using equation 7:

 =

( ×())(×)(×)



((Eq. 7)

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 208 of 242

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

(c) Performance Test Frequency. Except as provided in 

§63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals 

for affected sources that are subject to a dioxin or HCl

emissions limit and must be repeated every 30 months except for 

pollutants where that specific pollutant is monitored using

CEMS. Tests for PM and total organic HAP are repeated every 12 

months.

(d) Performance Test Reporting Requirements. 

(1) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section no later than 60 days 

following the initial performance test. All reports must be 

signed by a responsible official.

(i) The initial performance test data as recorded under 

paragraph (b) of this section.

(ii) The values for the site-specific operating limits or 

parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3), 

(b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of this section, as 

applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of 

how the operating parameters were established during the initial 

performance test. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 209 of 242

(2) As of December 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance evaluation or test, as 

defined in §63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any 

standard covered by this subpart, you must submit the relative 

accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except 

opacity data, to the EPA by successfully submitting the data 

electronically to the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using 

the Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).

(e) Conditions of performance tests. Conduct performance 

tests under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to 

the owner or operator based on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you 

must make available to the Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.

20. Section 63.1350 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);

b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;

c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) through (f)(1)(vi);

d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);

e. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4); 

f. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text; 

g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(4);
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 210 of 242

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);

i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2);

j. Adding paragraph (i)(3);

k. Revising paragraph (k) introductory text;

l. Revising paragraph (k)(1)

m. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4) as 

paragraphs (k)(3), (k)(4), and (k)(5), respectively;

n. Adding new paragraph (k)(2) text;

o. Revising newly designated paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(5);

p. Adding new paragraph (k)(6);

q. Revising paragraph (l) introductory text;

r. Revising paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2);

s. Adding paragraph (l)(3);

t. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;

u. Revising paragraph (m)(7)(i);

v. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9) and 

(m)(10);

w. Revising paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and 

paragraph (m)(11)(v);

x. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and 

(p); 

y. Revising paragraph (n)(3); and
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 211 of 242

z. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), 

(p)(2), and (p)(5), to read as follows:

§63.1350 Monitoring requirements. 

(a)(1) Following the compliance date, the owner or operator 

must demonstrate compliance with this subpart on a continuous 

basis by meeting the requirements of this section.

(2) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup 

and shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data 

gathered during other operating periods. 

(3) For each existing unit that is equipped with a CMS, 

maintain the average emissions or the operating parameter values 

within the operating parameter limits established through 

performance tests.

(4) Any instance where the owner or operator fails to 

comply with the continuous monitoring requirements of 

this section is a deviation.

(b) PM Monitoring Requirements. 

(1)(i) PM CPMS. You will use a PM CPMS to establish a sitespecific operating limit corresponding to the results of the 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit. You 

will conduct your performance test using Method 5 at appendix A3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM CPMS to 

demonstrate continuous compliance with this operating limit. You 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 212 of 242

must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and 

adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the 

results of the performance test. 

(ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must record 

the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is 

operating and the PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured 

hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating 

hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in 

units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, 

raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day.

(iii) For any deviation of the 30 process operating day PM 

CPMS average value from the established operating parameter 

limit, you must

(A) Within 48 hours of the deviation, visually inspect the 

APCD;

(B) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the 

deviation, take corrective action as soon as possible., and 

return the PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; 

and

(C) Within 45 days of the deviation or at the time of the 

annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 213 of 242

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the PM 

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the CPMS operating 

limit. You are not required to conduct additional testing for 

any deviations that occur between the time of the original 

deviation and the PM emissions compliance test required under 

this paragraph.

(iv) PM CPMS deviations from the operating limit leading 

to more than four required performance tests in a 12-month 

process operating period (rolling monthly) constitute a separate

violation of this subpart.

(2) [Reserved]

(3) Kilns equipped with an alkali bypass. If kiln gases are 

diverted through an alkali bypass, you must account for the PM

emitted from the alkali bypass stack by following the procedures 

in (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section:

(i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 

instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust 

gas flow rate to the atmosphere from the alkali bypass stack 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through 

(n)(10) of this section.

(ii) Develop a PM emissions factor by conducting annual 

performance tests using Method 5 to measure the concentration of 

PM in the gases exhausted from the alkali bypass stack.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 214 of 242

(iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions 

of PM in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass exhaust by using 

the PM emissions factor and the continuously measured exhaust 

gas flow rates.

(iv) Sum the hourly PM emissions from the kiln and alkali 

bypass to determine total hourly PM emissions. Using hourly 

clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in 

pounds per ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling 

average.

(v) If you monitor compliance using a PM CPMS, you must 

determine compliance according to paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(A) 

through (C) of this section:

(A) Conduct an annual performance test using Method 5 to 

determine total PM emissions from the alkali bypass and kiln. 

(B) To determine continuous compliance, you must establish 

your PM CPMS operating limit according to paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(C) You must establish the maximum exhaust gas flow rate 

for the alkali bypass during your annual performance test. You 

must continuously monitor the flow rate until the next 

performance test. If there is a deviation of the monitored flow 

rate from the maximum established during your last performance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 215 of 242

test by more than 10 percent, you must retest the kiln and 

alkali bypass to determine compliance. 

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Clinker Production Monitoring Requirements. If you are 

subject to an emissions limitation on PM or mercury emissions 

(lb/ton of clinker), you must:

(1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two 

methods:

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent 

weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in tonsmass per hour of the amount of clinker produced. The system of 

measuring hourly clinker production must be maintained within ±5 

percent accuracy, or 

(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent 

weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in tonsmass per hour of the amount of feed to the kiln. The system of 

measuring feed must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy. 

Calculate your hourly clinker production rate using a kiln 

specific feed to clinker ratio based on reconciled clinker 

production determined for accounting purposes and recorded feed 

rates. Update this ratio monthly. Note that if this ratio 

changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 216 of 242

going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 

clinker production rates previously estimated. 

(iii) [Reserved]

(2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the 

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 

(or feed mass flow if applicable) before initial use (for new 

sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule (for 

existing sources). During each quarter of source operation, you 

must determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing 

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 

(or feed mass flow). 

(3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the 

daily clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed 

rates and calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln 

feed and clinker production rates.

(4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 

paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.

(e) [Reserved]

(f) Opacity Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to 

a limitation on opacity under §63.1345, you must conduct 

required opacity monitoring in accordance with the provisions of 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of this section and in 

accordance with your monitoring plan developed under 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 217 of 242

§63.1350(p). You must also develop an opacity monitoring plan in 

accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) and paragraph 

(o)(5), if applicable, of this section.

(1) * * *

(iv) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 

performance test, of appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter, 

you must conduct 30 opacity observations in accordance with 

Method 9 of appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 

9 performance test, of appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter, 

must begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible 

emissions.

(v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions 

monitoring under this paragraph do not apply to any totally 

enclosed conveying system transfer point, regardless of the 

location of the transfer point. The enclosures for these 

transfer points must be operated and maintained as total 

enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance with the facility 

operations and maintenance plan.

(vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying 

system transfer point is located in a building, you must conduct 

a Method 22 performance test, of appendix A–7 to part 60 of this 

chapter, according to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

through (f)(1)(iv) of this section for each such conveying 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 218 of 242

system transfer point located within the building, or for the 

building itself, according to paragraph (f)(1)(vii) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor 

opacity by conducting daily visible emissions observations of 

the mill sweep and air separator PM control devices (PMCD) of 

these affected sources in accordance with the procedures of 

Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. The 

duration of the Method 22 performance test must be 6 minutes. 

* * * * *

(iii) If visible emissions are observed during the followup Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) 

of this section from any stack from which visible emissions were 

observed during the previous Method 22 performance test required 

by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the section, you must then conduct an 

opacity test of each stack from which emissions were observed 

during the follow up Method 22 performance test in accordance 

with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. The 

duration of the Method 9 test must be 30 minutes.

(3) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 

visible emissions test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) or 

(f)(2) of this section, you must initiate, within one-hour, the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 219 of 242

corrective actions specified in your operation and maintenance 

plan as required in §63.1347.

(4) The requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section 

to conduct daily Method 22 testing do not apply to any specific 

raw mill or finish mill equipped with a COMS or BLDS. 

(i) If the owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in 

lieu of conducting the daily visible emissions testing required 

under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, then the COMS must be 

installed at the outlet of the PM control device of the raw mill 

or finish mill and the COMS must be installed, maintained,

calibrated, and operated as required by the general provisions 

in subpart A of this part and according to PS–1 of appendix B to 

part 60 of this chapter. 

(ii) If you choose to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting 

the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (m)(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section apply. 

(g) * * *

(1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously 

operate a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases 

from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, 

or upstream of, the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCDs.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 220 of 242

(2) You must monitor and continuously record the 

temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali 

bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to the kiln and/or alkali 

bypass PMCD.

* * * * *

(4) Calculate the rolling three-hour average temperature 

using the average of 180 successive one-minute average 

temperatures. See §63.1349(b)(3).

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) * * * 

(ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average 

activated carbon injection rate for the previous 3 hours of 

process operation. See §63.1349(b)(3).

* * * * *

(i) * * * 

(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC 

continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with 

Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this 

chapter and comply with all of the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems found in the general provisions, subpart A of 

this part. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 221 of 242

CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in 

Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.

(2) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit.

(3) Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks 

must be conducted using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 

60 and repeated annually.

* * * * *

(k) Mercury Monitoring Requirements. If you have a kiln 

subject to an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you 

must install and operate a mercury continuous emissions 

monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in accordance with Performance 

Specification 12A (PS 12A) of appendix B to part 60 of this 

chapter or a sorbent trap-based integrated monitoring system in 

accordance with Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. You must monitor mercury 

continuously according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) of 

this section. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan 

in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this 

section.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 222 of 242

(1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that 

represents the mercury concentration corresponding to 

approximately two times the emissions standard rounded up to the 

nearest multiple of 5 μg/m3 of total mercury. As specified in PS 

12A, Section 6.1.1, the data recorder output range must include 

the full range of expected Hg concentration values which would 

include those expected during “mill off” conditions.

(2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span 

value, you must use one of the options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) 

through (k)(2)(iii) below.

(i) Include a second span that encompasses the Hg emission 

concentrations expected to be encountered during “mill off” 

conditions. This second span may be rounded to a multiple of 5 

μg/m3 of total mercury. The requirements of PS-12A, shall be 

followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA 

with the mill off is not required.

(ii) Conduct an additional ‘above span’ daily calibration 

using a Hg reference gas standard at a concentration level 

between 50 and 85 percent of the highest hourly Hg concentration 

expected during “mill off” conditions. The ‘above span’ 

reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 

and be introduced at the probe. The ‘above span’ calibration is 

successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 223 of 242

percent of the certified value of the reference gas. Record and 

report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily 

calibration.

(iii) If you choose not to conduct an additional daily 

calibration, then quality assure any data above the span value 

established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the 

following procedure. Any time the one hour average measured 

concentration of Hg exceeds the span value you must, within 24 

hours, introduce a higher, ‘above span’ Hg reference gas 

standard to the Hg CEMS. The ‘above span’ reference gas must 

meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1, must be of a 

concentration level greater than 80 percent of the highest 

hourly concentration measured during the period of measurements 

above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and 

report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily 

calibration. The ‘above span’ calibration is successful if the 

value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of the 

certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by 

the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified value of the 

reference gas, then you must normalize the one-hour average 

stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour 

period preceding the ‘above span’ calibration for reporting 

based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as follows:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 224 of 242

   

    

×    

=    

(3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or sorbent 

trap-based integrated monitoring system according to the quality 

assurance requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 

of this chapter. 

(4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems 

under PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal 

operating conditions with the raw mill on.

(5) If you use a Hg CEMS or a sorbent trap-based integrated 

monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this 

section. If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through separate stacks, you must 

account for the mercury emitted from those stacks by following 

the procedures in (k)(5)(i) through (v) of this section:

(i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 

instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust 

gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 225 of 242

(ii) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by 

conducting annual performance tests using Method 29 to measure 

the concentration of mercury in the gases exhausted from the 

alkali bypass and coal mill.

(iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions 

of mercury in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass and coal 

mill exhausts by using the mercury hourly emissions rate and the 

continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates.

(iv) Sum the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln, alkali 

bypass and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. Using 

hourly clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate 

in pounds per ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling 

average.

(v) If mercury emissions from the coal mill are below the 

method detection limit for two consecutive annual performance 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of the performance tests of 

coal mills to once every 30 months. If the measured mercury 

concentration exceeds the method detection limit, you must 

revert to testing annually until two consecutive annual tests 

are below the method detection limit.

(6) If you operate an integrated sampling Hg CEMS 

conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period from 24 

hours to 168 hours in length. You should use a monitoring period 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 226 of 242

that is a multiple of 24 hours (except during relative accuracy 

testing as allowed in PS 12B).

(l) HCl Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to an 

emissions limitation on HCl emissions in §63.1343, you must 

monitor HCl emissions continuously according to paragraph (l)(1) 

or (2) and paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this section or, 

if your kiln is controlled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray 

tower, you alternatively may monitor SO2 emissions continuously

according to paragraph (l)(3) of this section. You must also 

develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 

paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.

(1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit 

by operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with 

Performance Specification 15 (PS 15) of appendix B to part 60 of 

this chapter, or, upon promulgation, in accordance with any 

other performance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to 

part 60 of this chapter. You must operate, maintain, and quality 

assure a HCl CEMS installed and certified under PS 15 according 

to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix 

F to part 60 of this chapter except that the Relative Accuracy 

Test Audit requirements of Procedure 1 must be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 

of PS 15. If you install and operate an HCl CEMS in accordance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 227 of 242

with any other performance specification for HCl CEMS in 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, you must operate, 

maintain and quality assure the HCl CEMS using the procedure of 

appendix F to part 60 of this chapter applicable to the 

performance specification. You must use Method 321 of appendix A 

to part 63 of this chapter as the reference test method for 

conducting relative accuracy testing. The span value and 

calibration requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) 

below apply to HCl CEMS other than those installed and certified 

under PS 15.

(i) You must use a span value for any HCl CEMS that 

represents the intended upper limit of the HCl concentration 

measurement range during normal “mill on” operation. The span 

value should be equivalent to approximately two times the 

emissions standard and it may be rounded to the nearest multiple 

of 5 ppm of HCl. The HCl CEMS data recorder output range must 

include the full range of expected HCl concentration values 

which would include those expected during “mill off” conditions. 

(ii) In order to quality assure data measured above the 

span value, you must use one of the two options in paragraphs 

(l)(1)(ii)(A) and (l)(1)(ii)(B) below.

(A) Conduct an additional ‘above span’ daily calibration 

using a HCl reference gas standard at a concentration level 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 228 of 242

between 50 and 85 percent of the highest hourly HCl

concentration expected during “mill off” conditions. The ‘above 

span’ reference gas must meet the requirements of the applicable 

performance specification and be introduced at the probe. The 

‘above span’ calibration is successful if the value measured by 

the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the 

reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl CEMS is not 

within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, 

then you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span 

as described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. Record and report 

the results of this procedure as you would for a daily 

calibration.

(B) If you choose not to conduct an additional calibration 

on a daily basis, then quality assure any data above the span 

value established in paragraph (1)(1)(i) of this section using 

the following procedure. Any time the average measured 

concentration of HCl exceeds or is expected to exceed the span 

value for greater than two hours you must, within a period 24 

hours before or after the ‘above span’ period, introduce a 

higher, ‘above span’ HCl reference gas standard to the HCl CEMS. 

The ‘above span’ reference gas must meet the requirements of the 

applicable performance specification and be of a concentration 

level greater than or equal to 80 percent of the highest hourly 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 229 of 242

concentration measured during the period of measurements above 

span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and report the 

results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. 

The ‘above span’ calibration is successful if the value measured 

by the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of 

the reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl CEMS is not 

within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, 

then you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span 

as described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. If the ‘above 

span’ calibration is conducted during the period when measured 

emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect the 

required minimum number of data points in an hour due to the 

calibration duration, then you must determine the emissions 

average for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages 

for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following 

the missed hour.

(C) In the event that the ‘above span’ calibration is not 

successful (i.e., the HCl CEMS measured value is not within 20 

percent of the certified value of the reference gas), then you 

must normalize the one-hour average stack gas values measured 

above the span during the 24-hour period preceding or following 

the ‘above span’ calibration for reporting based on the HCl CEMS 

response to the reference gas as follows:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 230 of 242

   

    

×    

=    

(2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet 

scrubber or tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs 

(m)(5) and (m)(7) of this section, and dry scrubber, as 

specified in paragraph (m)(8) of this section. 

(3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or 

tray tower, and you choose to monitor SO2 emissions, monitor SO2

emissions continuously according to the requirements of 

§60.63(e) through (f) of part 60 subpart F of this chapter. If 

SO2 levels increase above the 1 hour average SO2 operating limit

established during your performance test, you must

(i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after 

you deviate from the established SO2 value conduct an inspection 

and take corrective action to return the SO2 emissions to within 

the operating limit; and

(ii) Within 60 days of the deviation or at the time of the 

next compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl 

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl 

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the SO2 CEMS 

operating limit. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 231 of 242

(m) Parameter Monitoring Requirements. If you have an 

operating limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must 

install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CMS) according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by the compliance 

date specified in §63.1351. You must also meet the applicable 

specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs (m)(5) 

through (m)(11) that are applicable to you.

* * * * *

(7) * * * 

(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of wet scrubber or tray tower 

effluent pH.

* * * * *

(9) Mass Flow Rate (for Sorbent Injection) Monitoring 

Requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh 

belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. These requirements also apply to the sorbent 

injection equipment of a dry scrubber.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 232 of 242

(10) Bag leak detection monitoring requirements. If you 

elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply 

with the requirements of this subpart, you must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a BLDS as 

specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (viii) of this 

section.

(i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust 

stack of the fabric filter.

(ii) Each BLDS must be installed, operated, calibrated, and 

maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's 

written specifications and recommendations and in accordance 

with the guidance provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997.

(iii) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 or 

fewer milligrams per actual cubic meter.

(iv) The BLDS sensor must provide output of relative or 

absolute PM loadings.

(v) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor.

(vi) The BLDS must be equipped with an alarm system that 

will alert an operator automatically when an increase in 

relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 233 of 242

must be located such that the alert is detected and recognized 

easily by an operator.

(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do 

not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a BLDS 

must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

* * * * *

(11) * * * 

(v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the 

BLDS; or 

* * * * *

(n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System. You must 

install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according 

to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this 

section, for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas 

flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions 

rate to the atmosphere from sources subject to an emissions 

limitation that has a pounds per ton of clinker unit.

* * * * *

(3) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval. You may 

submit an application to the Administrator for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 234 of 242

the emission standards of this subpart, except for emission 

standards for THC, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(o)(1) through (o)(6) of this section.

* * * * *

(p) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring 

Plans. If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable 

emissions limit through performance stack testing or other 

emissions monitoring, you must develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs 

(p)(1) through (4) of this section. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this 

section and §63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the 

requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this section.

(1) For each CMS required in this section, you must 

develop, and submit to the permitting authority for approval 

upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses 

paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must 

submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at 

least 30 days before your initial performance evaluation of your 

CMS.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 235 of 242

(2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also 

address paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.

* * * * *

(5) BLDS Monitoring Plan. Each monitoring plan must 

describe the items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this 

section. At a minimum, you must retain records related to the 

site-specific monitoring plan and information discussed in 

paragraphs (m)(1) through (4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this 

section for a period of 5 years, with at least the first 2 years 

on-site;

* * * * *

21. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 

and (d), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§63.1351 Compliance dates.

* * * * *

(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the 

requirements that became effective on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] will be 

September 9, 2015.].

(d) The compliance date for new sources is May 6, 2009 or 

startup, whichever is later.

(e) The compliance date for existing and new sources with 

the requirements for open clinker storage piles in §63.1343(c) 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 236 of 242

is [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or startup, whichever is later. 

22. Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows:

§63.1352 Additional test methods.

* * * * *

(a) If you are conducting tests to determine the rates of 

emission of HCl from kilns and associated bypass stacks at 

portlandportland cement manufacturing facilities, for use in 

applicability determinations under §63.1340 you may use Method 

320 or Method 321 of appendix A of this part.

(b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the 

rates of emission of specific organic HAP from raw material 

dryers, and kilns at Portland cement manufacturing facilities, 

solely for use in applicability determinations under §63.1340 of 

this subpart are permitted to use Method 320 of appendix A to 

this part, or Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter. 

23. Section 63.1353 is amended by inserting paragraph 

(b)(6) to read as follows:

§63.1353 Notification Requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 237 of 242

(6) Within 48 hours of a deviation that triggers retesting 

to establish compliance and new operating limits, notify the 

appropriate permitting agency of the planned performance tests.

The notification requirements of §63.7(e) and 63.9(e) do not 

apply to retesting required for deviations under this subpart.

* * * * *

24. Section 63.1354 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);

b. R revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi);

c. Adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii); and

d. Revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§63.1354 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(4) [Reserved]

(5) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(9) * * *

(vi) For each PM, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS or Hg sorbent trap 

monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, 

you must submit reports to EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that 

is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 238 of 242

(www.epa.gov/cdx). You must use the appropriate electronic 

reporting form in CEDRI or provide an alternate electronic file 

consistent with EPA’s reporting form output format. For each 

reporting period, the reports must include all of the calculated 

30-operating day rolling average values derived from the CEMS or 

Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems. 

(vii) In response to each deviation from an emissions 

standard or established operating parameter limit, the date, 

duration and description of each deviation and the specific 

actions taken for each deviation including inspections, 

corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results 

of those actions.

* * * * *

(c) Reporting deviations due to startup, shutdown or 

malfunctions. For each deviation from a standard or emission 

limit caused by a startup, shutdown, or malfunction at an 

affected source, you must report the deviation in the semiannual compliance report required by 63.1354(b)(9). The report 

must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each 

event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the 

number of events in the reporting period. The report must list 

for each event the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 

the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 239 of 242

limit for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a 

description of the method used to estimate the emissions. The 

report must also include a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.1348(d), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction.

* * * * *

25. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) 

and (g) and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *

(f) The date, time and duration of each startup or shutdown 

which causes the source to exceed any applicable emission 

limitation, and (f)(i) through (iii) of this section;

(i) The date, time, and duration of each startup or 

shutdown period, for any affected source that is subject to an 

emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from 

the emission standard applicable at other times.

(ii) The quantity and type of raw feed and fuel used during 

the startup or shutdown period.

(iii) An estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during startup or shutdown, with 

a description of the method used to estimate emissions.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 240 of 242

(g)(1) The date, time and duration of each malfunction that 

causes an affected source to fail to meet an applicable 

standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the date, 

time and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the record must 

list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume 

of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which 

the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions.

* * * * *

(h) For each deviation from an emissions standard or 

established operating parameter limit, you must keep records of

the date, duration and description of each deviation and the 

specific actions taken for each deviation including inspections, 

corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results 

of those actions.

* * * * *

26. Section 63.1356 is amended by revising the section 

heading and the section text to read as follows: 

§63.1356 Sources with multiple emissions limit or monitoring 

requirements. 

If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a 

different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant 

under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 241 of 242

or operator of the affected facility must comply with the most 

stringent emissions limit or requirement and is exempt from the 

less stringent requirement. 

27. Section 63.1357 is amended by:

(a). Revising paragraph (a)(1); and

(b). Revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from PM and opacity 

standards.

(a) * * *

(1) Any PM and opacity standards of part 60 or part 63 of 

this chapter that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker 

coolers. 

(2) Any permit or other emissions or operating parameter or 

other limitation on workplace practices that are applicable to 

cement kilns and clinker coolers to ensure compliance with any 

PM and opacity standards of this part or part 60 of this 

chapter.

* * * * *

28. Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised to read as 

follows:

Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63—Applicability of General 

Provisions

Citation Requirement

Applies to 

Subpart 

LLL Explanation
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –6/20/12

Page 242 of 242

 * * * * * * *

63.6(e)(3)Startup, 

Shutdown 

Malfunction Plan

No Startup and shutdown plans 

addressed in §63.1347. 

* * * * * * *

63.7(b) Notification 

period

Yes Except for repeat 

performance test caused by 

a deviation. See 

§63.1353(b)(6)

* * * * * * *

63.9(e) Notification of 

performance test

Yes Except for repeat 

performance test caused by 

a deviation. See 

§63.1353(b)(6)

 * * * * * * *