From: Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov

To: Higgins, Cortney

Cc: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov; Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov; Laney, Michael N.; Gillis.Thomas@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Thu 12/20/2012 10:25 AM

Subject: Re: Portland Cement NSPS/NESHAP -- Comments under EO 13563

Hello Cortney- Here are answers to your questions:

• There’s new language stating “Requiring that sources retest once a year to 

reset the PM CPMS operating limit” – can you explain why this 

change was made? Was it something raised in comments? And for 

clarity, is this a new stack test? 

This is not new language. We were simply listing all the items that have changed since 

the 2010 rule: we did not have PM CPMS in the 2010 rule so this item is needed now 

that we don't have PM CEMS, which did not require yearly testing.

• Can you use a plain English substitute for “prima facie”? 

We don't think there is a plain English substitute that has the same legal meaning. 

Steve S. developed that language and it speaks directly to that case he's referring to, 

and that court opinion.

Can you address these comments and make changes to the preamble, 

if necessary? 

Finally, do you anticipate making any other changes to the 

preamble? If not, can you send the updated clean version and we 

can get it uploaded into ROCIS.

Yes I have made several small edits for consistency due to proofreading done by 

several staffers, and cleaned up the rule text a bit for the same reason. No content was 

changed (but we corrected the number of total cement kilns from 158 to 156) in the 

impacts section. Here's a clean version and a redline. THANK YOU!

(See attached file: EO 12866_PortlandCement 2060-AQ93_2012 12 20 REDLINE 10_00 

am.docx)

(See attached file: EO 12866_PortlandCement 2060-AQ93_2012 12 20 CLEAN 10_05 am.docx)

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825
"Higgins, Cortney" ---12/20/2012 01:20:57 AM---Hi Keith, Looking through the latest draft (6 pm 

timestamp), I had only a couple of questions:

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/20/2012 01:20 AM

Subject: Portland Cement NSPS/NESHAP -- Comments under EO 13563

Hi Keith,

Looking through the latest draft (6 pm timestamp), I had only a couple of questions:

• There’s new language stating “Requiring that sources retest once a year to 

reset the PM CPMS operating limit” – can you explain why this 

change was made? Was it something raised in comments? And for 

clarity, is this a new stack test? 

• Can you use a plain English substitute for “prima facie”? 

Can you address these comments and make changes to the preamble, 

if necessary? 

Finally, do you anticipate making any other changes to the 

preamble? If not, can you send the updated clean version and we 

can get it uploaded into ROCIS.

Please give me a call if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 1 of 257

EO 12866_PortlandCement 2060-AQ93 Final_2012121920121220

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: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2012, the EPA proposed amendments to the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and the Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants. This final action amends 

the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for 

the Portland cement industry. The EPA is also promulgating 

amendments with respect to issues on which it granted 

reconsideration on May 17, 2011. In addition, the EPA is 

amending the new source performance standard for particulate 

matter. These amendments promote flexibility, reduce costs, ease 

compliance and preserve health benefits. The amendments also 

address the remand of the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants for the Portland cement industry by the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 2 of 257

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit on December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is setting the 

date for compliance with the existing source national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants to be September 9, 2015.

The EPA is setting the compliance date for existing open clinker 

storage piles to be [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION].

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE PUBLICATION 

OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All documents in the 

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

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, for example, confidential business information 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Building, 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-
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 3 of 257

1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 

566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 

action, 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. For information about the applicability 

of the NESHAP or NSPS contact Mr. Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, 

Assistance and Media Programs Division (2227A), Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, 

20460; telephone number (202)654-2970; email address 

yellin.patrick@paepa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document.

APCD air pollution control devices

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI confidential business information

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CISWI commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 4 of 257

CMS continuous monitoring system

COMS continuous opacity monitoring system 

CO2 carbon dioxide

CPMS continuous parametric monitoring system

D/F dioxins and furans

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

FR Federal Register

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot

HAP hazardous air pollutants

Hg mercury

HCl hydrogen chloride

ICR information collection request

Lb/ton pound per ton

MACT maximum achievable control technology

meHg methylmercury 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAS National Academy of Science 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants

NHSM Nonhazardous Secondary Materials 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NRC National Research Council 

NSPS new source performance standards

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

oHAP Non-dioxin organic hazardous air pollutants

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PCA Portland Cement Association 

PM particulate matter

ppm(v)(d,w) parts per million (by volume) (dry,wet)

RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit

RfD reference dose 

RIA regulatory impact analysis 

RTC Response to Comment 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers 

SIP state implementation plan

SO2 Sulphur Dioxide

THC total hydrocarbons

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0",

Tab stops: 0", Left

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 5 of 257

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

WWW worldwide web

Background Information Document. On July 18, 2012 (77 FR 42368), 

the EPA proposed to amend the Portland cement manufacturing 

industry NESHAP and the Portland cement plant new source 

performance standards (NSPS). In this action, we are taking 

final action on this proposal. A summary of the public comments 

on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is 

available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. 

Organization of this Document. The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

D. Judicial Review

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these amendments?

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic 

HAP Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)

C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply With 

HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

D. Alternative PM Limit

E. Coal Mills

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

G. Section 112 Eligibility to be a New Source

H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown 

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for 

Violation of Emission Standards During Malfunctions

L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 6 of 257

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for 

Alternative OHAP Standard

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions 

Limits for Periods of Startup and Shutdown

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for 

PM Under CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

B. Mercury Standard

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions from Open Clinker Storage 

Piles

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing 

Source Standards 

E. Eligibility to be a New Source Under NESHAP

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

A. What are the affected sources?

B. How did EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments? 

C. What are the air quality impacts?

D. What are the water quality impacts?

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

F. What are the secondary impacts?

G. What are the energy impacts?

H. What are the cost impacts?

I. What are the 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 LowIncome Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 7 of 257

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

In this action the EPA is finalizing amendments to the 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Portland cement plants and to the NSPS for Portland 

cement plants. These 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). The EPA is retaining the 

stack emission standards for mercury, hydrogen chloride (HCl), 

and total hydrocarbons (THC) under the NESHAP, amending the 

stack emission standard for particulate matter (PM) under the 

NESHAP, and making a conforming amendment to the NSPS for PM. 

The amendments also include provisions which account for 

commingled HAP emissions from coal mills that are an integral 

part of the kiln, establish a continuous monitoring regime for 

parametric monitoring of PM, set work practice standards for 

startup and shutdown, and revise the compliance date for the PM, 

mercury, HCl, THC and clinker storage pile existing source 

standards under the NESHAP. The EPA is also retaining the 

affirmative defense for civil penalties for violations of 

emission limits occurring as a result of a malfunction.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 8 of 257

These amendments are based on sound technical and legal 

justifications, and result in cost savings and compliance 

flexibility for the Portland cement industry. This result is

consistent with Executive Order 13563.

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

a. Need for the Regulatory Action

The EPA is amending the NESHAP for the Portland cement 

source category and the NSPS for Portland cement plants issued 

under sections 112(d) and 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

most significant amendment is to the NESHAP and NSPS for PM, to 

correct monitoring issues with the PM compliance regime as 

promulgated in the 2010 final rule. As a result of this 

amendment, the EPA is also setting a compliance date of 

September 9, 2015, for meeting the PM, mercury, HCl and THC

existing source NESHAP. 

This final action also addresses the remand by the D.C. 

Circuit in Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. 

Cir. 2011). 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 9 of 257

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 court also stayed the open storage clinker 

pile standards.

We are also amending various implementation requirements to 

provide more compliance flexibility for affected sources. In 

addition, the amendments address the issues on which the EPA 

previously granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 

2011).

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action

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

the CAA. Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process 

to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (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 112(i)(3)(A) 

requires that the compliance date for existing sources shall be 

“as expeditiou[s] as practicable,” but not more than 3 years 

after a standard’s effective date. Section 111 of the CAA 

requires that NSPS reflect the application of the best system of 

emission reductions achievable which, taking into consideration 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 10 of 257

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. 

2. Summary of Major Provisions

a. PM Emission Standards

As proposed, the EPA is amending the existing and new 

source PM standards in the NESHAP to require manual stack 

testing in lieu of PM continuous emission monitoring systems 

(CEMS) for compliance determinations and requiring that a sitespecific parametric operating level be established using a PM 

continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS). We are changing 

the numeric emissions value of those standards for existing 

sources to 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based on manual 

stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed

sources based on manual stack testing. The PM standards under 

the NSPS for modified sources are likewise amended to 0.07 

lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on manual stack 

testing.

b. Response to Remand

Consistent with the court’s remand, the EPA has removed all 

of the CISWI kilns from the database used to set the 2010 

existing source standards for PM, mercury, HCl and THC. This 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 11 of 257

analysis informed the level of the final standards discussed 

immediately below.

c. Other Emissions Standards

As proposed, the EPA is changing the alternative organic 

HAP (oHAP) standard from 9 parts per million (ppm) to 12 ppm. 

The EPA is not changing the existing or new source standards for 

mercury, THC or HCl.

d. Standards during Startup and Shutdown

The EPA is amending the emission standards applicable 

during periods of startup and shutdown from numerical standards

to work practice standards. 

e. Compliance Dates for NESHAP

As proposed, the EPA is establishing a compliance date of 

September 9, 2015, for existing source standards for PM, 

mercury, HCl and THC. The EPA is establishing [INSERT DATE 1 

YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] as the compliance date for the standards for 

existing open clinker storage piles. New source standards 

continue to apply to all sources which commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 6, 2009. 

f. Final Action on Reconsideration

The EPA is also taking final action on the remaining issues 

on which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 12 of 257

3. Cost impacts of these Amendments

We estimate that revising the means of demonstrating 

compliance for the PM, alternative organic HAP standards and 

requiring work practices for open clinker storage piles will 

save industry $52 million annually. 

4. Summary of Final Standards

Table 1 shows the final standards for the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry NESHAP and the Portland Cement Plants 

NSPS. 

TABLE 1. 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/tona 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

0.02 lb/tonb

clinker (3-run 

test average)

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

Organic HAP 

(alternative to 

Total Hydrocarbons)

12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd

a Also applies to NSPS modified sources. b Also applies to NSPS new and reconstructed sources.

B. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final 

rule include: 

TABLE 2. INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS NESHAP AND NSPS

FINAL ACTION

Category

NAICS 

codea Examples of regulated entities
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 13 of 257

Industry.... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

Federal government... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

Portland cement manufacturing 

plants. a North American Industry Classification System.

Table 2 of this preamble 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 appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final action 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 final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance 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. In addition, more information can be 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 14 of 257

obtained at the following address: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cement.

D. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this 

final action is available only by filing a petition for review 

in the court by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final 

rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that 

“[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial 

review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to 

convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person 

raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for 

public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after 

the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 

judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance 

to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a 

demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 15 of 257

to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General 

Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 16 of 257

“floor” requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, 

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).

Under section 112(i)(3)(A), compliance dates for existing 

sources shall “be as expeditiou[s] as practicable”, but in no 

event later than 3 years after the date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register. The EPA may set a revised 

compliance date of a MACT standard when amending that standard, 

see NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007), but 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 17 of 257

any such amended compliance date must still establish 

“compliance as expeditiously as practicable.”

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 final rule?

The history of this final 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). The Portland Cement Association (PCA) and several cement 

companies filed petitions for reconsideration of aspects of 

those amendments (copies of the petitions are in the Portland 

Cement Reconsideration docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817). 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 finding that the EPA had 

arbitrarily failed to grant reconsideration to consider the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 18 of 257

effect of the EPA’s NHSM rule on the standards (76 FR 15456 

(March 21, 2011)), The NHSM 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). The court did not stay any of the numerical emission

standards, but did stay the work practice standards for open 

clinker storage 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 had done so by removing 

all kilns classified as CISWI units from the data used to 

establish the 2010 NESHAP standards. The EPA then recalculated 

each of the floors based on this dataset (the 2010 dataset minus 

CISWI units) and made beyond-the-floor determinations based on 

the recalculated floors. The EPA believes that this approach is 

properly 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, EPA used the same data as used 

to establish the 2010 floors – namely the performance of the 

best controlled similar sources as required by section 112 

(d)(3).

III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 19 of 257

As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, 77 FR 

42368, in this final action the EPA is finalizing several 

amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F. These amendments are 

summarized below.

A. Reconsideration of Standards

As noted above, EPA has responded to the action of the D.C. 

Circuit by removing all CISWI cement kilns from the database 

used to establish the existing source standards, and 

recalculating existing source floors and standards from that 

revised database. As described in the preamble of the proposal, 

the EPA had determined based on the final NHSM rule that there 

are 24 cement kilns which combust solid waste. 77 FR 42372. 

During the comment period, one company provided reliable 

information in its comments regarding the materials it processes 

indicating that one of these kilns is, in fact, a cement kiln 

(meaning that the EPA had properly classified it as a cement 

kiln in the 2010 rulemaking).1 After reviewing the information 

provided, the EPA agrees that this source should not be 

classified as a CISWI kiln and, therefore, should not be removed 

from the Portland cement kiln database. We received no other 

 

1 The company burns dried biosolids as a fuel which are not 

classified as solid wastes. Refer to the Docket, No. EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0482.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 20 of 257

comments concerning the identification of cement kilns and CISWI 

units. There are thus now 23 kilns identified as combusting 

solid waste and therefore classified as CISWI units. As directed 

by the Court’s decision, we removed these 23 kilns from the 

database and recalculated the floors. This calculation resulted 

in the same floors as proposed in the July 2012 proposal. 

Consistent with this analysis, the EPA is finalizing 

amendments to the emission standards as follows:

1. PM Emission Standards 

The EPA is revising several provisions of the emission 

standards for PM as follows:

• Changing the compliance basis for the PM standards from 

continuous monitoring with a PM CEMS to a manual three run stack 

test, amending the level and averaging time of the standard, and 

requiring a continuous parametric monitoring system using a

CPMS. As a consequence, the EPA is also:

• Amending PM standards under the NESHAP for existing sources 

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing, and 0.02 

lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on manual 

stack testing; 

• Amending PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources 

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 21 of 257

lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed sources likewise based 

on manual stack testing; 

• Requiring that sources establish a site-specific parametric 

operating limit for PM, and requiring that the parametric limit 

be continuously monitored using a PM CPMS;

• Requiring that sources retest once a year to reset the PM 

CPMS operating limit;

• Adding a provision that, if a source exceeds that sitespecific parametric operating limit, it must conduct corrective 

action including performing a Method 5 or 5I performance test 

within 45 days; in addition, if the source exceeds that 

parametric limit four times in a calendar year, the source is

presumed to be in violation of the PM emissions standard itself, 

subject to rebuttal by the source.

2. Mercury Standard 

As proposed, the EPA is establishing a standard for mercury 

of 55 pounds per million (lb/MM) tons clinker for existing 

sources and is not changing the emission standard (21 lb/MM tons 

clinker) for new sources. The emission standard for existing 

sources is the same as the 2010 standard but is a beyond the 

floor standard.

3. Other Emissions Standards 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 22 of 257

As the Court requested, the EPA removed the CISWI units 

from the database and re-calculated the standards for THC and 

HCl. The standards remain the same as they were in the final 

2010 rule. See also 76 FR 21149, 21152, and 21154 explaining why 

beyond the floor standards for THC and HCl are not justified. 

The 2010 rules provide an alternative to the THC standard 

whereby sources can meet a limit for non-dioxin organic HAP by 

measuring those HAP directly rather than meeting the standard 

for THC (a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP). As proposed, 

the EPA is changing the level of the alternative non-dioxin

organic HAP standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. Table 3 summarizes 

the Final Existing and New Source Standards

TABLE 3. EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE 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 HAPb 12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd a Standards 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. b If the source opts to comply with the THC emission limit, this 

standard does not apply.

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP 

Standard (with THC Monitoring Parameter)
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 23 of 257

In addition to amending the level of the alternative oHAP 

standard (i.e., the standard whereby sources meet a standard for 

oHAP rather than for THC), the EPA is amending the provisions 

for the site-specific THC operating parameter for that 

alternative standard (where THC is a site-specific parameter 

monitored continuously to show compliance with the oHAP 

standard). The THC operating parameter is established based on 

THC levels measured during the successful stack test where oHAP 

are measured directly to demonstrate compliance. As amended, if 

compliance source testing of oHAP averages a value that is 75 

percent or less of the emission limit for oHAP, the facility is 

allowed to establish a THC parametric operating level 

corresponding to 75 percent of the oHAP emission limit. We are 

adopting this provision to avoid penalizing lower-emitting 

sources by burdening them with the most stringent parametric 

operating levels. The EPA is adopting a similar provision for 

continuous PM parametric monitoring, for the same reason (see 

Section IV.A below). Sources which show oHAP emissions in 

compliance, but greater than 75 percent of the standard, must 

establish the average THC concentration measured during the 3-

hour organic HAP test and use that as the site-specific THC 

operating level. Thus, the parametric monitoring level for THC 

will be the level corresponding to oHAP levels of 75 percent of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 24 of 257

the standard or the THC level of the oHAP performance test, 

whichever is higher.2

 Compliance with the oHAP standard will be 

shown as a ratio of three test runs during mill-on conditions 

and three test runs during mill-off conditions, with the 

percentage of operating time spent in each condition determining 

the ratio. The parametric operating level will be set according 

to average THC values measured during these same test runs, or 

to the default value of 75 percent of the standard, as just 

explained. In addition, the EPA will allow facilities to extend 

the testing time of the oHAP performance test if they believe 

extended testing is required to adequately capture THC 

variability over time. This final rule further requires that the 

stack test for oHAP be repeated every 30 months to establish a 

new site-specific THC parameter.

C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply With 

HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

The 2010 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. 

 

2 If a source believes that monitoring non-methane THC rather 

than total THC is a more reliable indicator of its oHAP

emissions, it can submit an alternative monitoring request 

pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 25 of 257

Sources electing to comply by means of stack tests must 

establish continuously monitored parameters including liquid 

flow rate, pressure, and pH. Under this final rule, kilns with 

dry scrubbers may also demonstrate compliance with the HCl 

emissions limit by means of an initial and periodic stack test 

rather than with continuous compliance monitoring with an HCl 

CEMS. If a kiln equipped with a dry scrubber chooses this 

alternative, this final rule requires that the sorbent injection 

rate used during a successful performance test be recorded and 

then continuously monitored to show that the injection rate 

remains at or above the rate used during the performance test.

Where either wet or dry scrubbers are used, owners and 

operators may also establish sulfur dioxide (SO2) as an operating 

parameter, rather than, for example, sorbent injection rate, 

liquid injection rate or pressure drop. If the owner or operator 

of a scrubber-equipped kiln makes this choice, it must establish 

the SO2 operating limit equal to the average of the HCl levels 

recorded during the HCl performance test, and meet that 

operating limit on a 30 day rolling average basis. If a source 

exceeds any established parameter level, it must retest for HCl 

in order to verify compliance with the HCl emissions standard 

and must verify or re-establish the parametric monitoring levels

as well. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 26 of 257

At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm 

compliance with the HCl emissions limit is required every 30 

months. 

D. Alternative PM Limit

The 2010 final rule established an alternative PM limit to 

accommodate situations where kilns combine exhaust gas from 

various operations. 77 FR 42382. The equation establishing the 

alternative limit contained certain technical errors which the 

EPA proposed to correct. As proposed, this final rule revises

the alternative PM equation so that it includes exhaust gas 

flows from all 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 

thus finalizing 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. 

0.0060 = The PM exhaust concentration (grains per dry standard

cubic feet (gr/dscf)) equivalent to 0.07 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 27 of 257

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton 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 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to 

the new source PM limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker.

E. Coal Mills

The EPA discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed 

rule a potential regulatory regime to cover situations where a 

portion of the kiln exhaust is ducted to the coal mill. See 77 

FR 42383-85; see also the regulatory text at 77 FR 42398, 42402-

06, 42408-09. To assure that cement kilns do not exhaust 

untreated HAP through coal mills, and to assure accurate 

accounting of commingled emissions so that cement kilns are not 

penalized for commingling emissions where it makes sense to do 

so, the EPA is finalizing rules applicable to kiln/coal mill 

emissions for two configurations. In one, a portion of the kiln 

exhaust is ducted to a coal mill, and then the coal mill exhaust 

is commingled with remaining kiln exhaust and discharged through 

the main kiln stack. In the other, a portion of the kiln exhaust
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 28 of 257

is routed through the coal mill and discharged through the coal 

mill stack. 

In the case of a coal mill that receives and discharges a 

portion of the cement kiln exhaust, this final rule requires 

that the sum of the mercury, THC and HCl in the kiln exhaust 

diverted to the coal mill, and the kiln exhaust exhausted from

the main kiln stack, must not exceed the subpart LLL emission 

limits for each respective HAP or HAP surrogate. The facility 

must document the contribution of the emissions diverted to the 

coal mill. For mercury, the rule allows tests to be performed

downstream of the coal mill to take advantage of any mercury 

removal that occurs in the coal mill air pollution control 

device, and to avoid double counting emissions from mercury that 

becomes re-entrained in the coal. For THC and HCl, the rule 

allows tests to be performed upstream of the coal mill to avoid 

any THC or HCl that might be emitted by the coal. For owners and 

operators who believe that the impact of the testing location 

(upstream or downstream of the coal mill) would not result in 

their exceeding the kiln mercury, THC or HCl emissions limits 

and wish to conduct all their THC, HCl and mercury testing at a 

single location, this final rule allows testing either upstream 

or downstream of the coal mill. For sources complying with the 

alternate organic HAP limit, the facility would not be required 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 29 of 257

to test for THC emissions, but would test for the organic HAP 

and add that concentration to the remaining emission points to 

estimate their total emissions for organic HAP.

A cement kiln that commingles emissions from its coal mill 

with all other kiln exhaust emissions and discharges through a 

single stack could simply meet the kiln emission limits. 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 D above. In this 

configuration, the source would also have the option of 

monitoring and/or testing kiln exhaust gases prior to the 

introduction of the coal mill exhaust gas, and testing the kiln 

gas diverted to the coal mill. In this case this final rule 

requires that the sum of the mercury, THC (or organic HAP if the 

source chooses the alternative organic HAP limit), and HCl in 

the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill plus the kiln exhaust 

measured in the main kiln exhaust must not exceed the subpart 

LLL emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP surrogate. 

The same provisions for coal mills also apply to kilns 

equipped with an alkali bypass. The one minor exception is that

for PM, the summed PM emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass 

must be equal to or less than the PM limit in subpart LLL. Tests 

for PM from the alkali bypass must be conducted downstream of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 30 of 257

the alkali bypass APCDair pollution control devices (APCD) to 

account for those emission reductions.

With regard to PM, the EPA stated at proposal that where a 

coal mill receives and discharges a portion of the cement kiln 

exhaust, the kiln owner operator would have to demonstrate 

compliance with the 40 CFR 60 subpart Y standard for PM. 

Although the subpart Y standard is numerically higher than the 

subpart LLL PM standard, EPA assumed that control would be to 

the same level because the subpart Y PM standard is predicated 

on use of fabric filer control technology. 77 FR 42383/2.

However, a commenter pointed out accurately that this proposal 

contravened the basic principle EPA indicated it was adopting 

here of not allowing diverted kiln emissions to meet a more 

lenient standard than required by the NESHAP, and further 

indicated that EPA had failed to show that these diverted PM 

emissions were controlled as required by section 112(d)(2) and 

(3) of the Act. EPA agrees with this comment, and accordingly is 

indicating in the final rule that commingled emissions in this

situation would be required to meet the subpart LLL NESHAP for 

PM. Because coal mill stacks are controlled with fabric 

filters, we project that they can meet the subpart LLL numeric 

standard without further controls. See 77 FR 42383. Coal mill 

stacks will be required to meet annual PM performance testing 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 31 of 257

and combine the measured emissions with PM emissions from the 

separated alkali stack, bypass stack, and/or main kiln as 

required in sections 60.62 (b)(3), 63.1349 and 63.1350 of this

rule.

This final rule also states that sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or sources that exhaust kiln gases to a coal 

mill that exhausts through a separate stack are not required to 

install CEMS on these stacks. Instead of installing a CEMS, such 

sources may use the results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate compliance with the PM, THC, HCl 

and mercury emissions limits. Note that for the main kiln 

exhaust, the CEMS requirements remain.

We expand on these monitoring provisions below.

1. Mercury 

Although mercury from the kiln stack is monitored using a 

CEMS, mercury emissions from the coal mill are based on a 

periodic performance test and use of the gas flow rate to the 

coal mill. Performance tests for mercury must be conducted 

annually unless and until the tested mercury levels are below 

the method detection limits for two consecutive years, after 

which tests may be conducted every 30 months. The performance 

test results must be summed with the emissions from the kiln 

stack to determine compliance. The coal mill exhaust mercury 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 32 of 257

emissions are calculated on a mass basis using the measured 

mercury concentration and the coal mill exhaust gas flow. The 

coal mill exhaust flow is established using a continuous 

monitoring system (CMS), or the design maximum flow rate. Mass 

mercury emissions from the coal mill would be summed with the

hourly mercury emissions from the kiln measured by the mercury 

CEMS. Hourly mercury emissions are then summed to calculate the 

rolling 30 -day mass mercury emissions. This number is then 

divided by the corresponding 30 days of clinker production to

determine the 30-day rolling average. This final rule provides 

equations for summing emissions from the coal mill with the 

mercury emissions from the kiln to determine continuous

compliance. To see an example calculation, see Section 4 of the 

Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document

(developed for the proposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0225.

2. THC and HCl 

In this case, site specific kiln stack emission limits (to 

be continuously monitored) are to 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. In order to 

determine the flow rates and concentrations of THC and HCl in 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 33 of 257

the coal mill and alkali bypass streams, the source must test 

every 30 months using the appropriate test method. For HCl, the 

performance test must 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 is required. With these data, the 

concentration of THC and HCl that must be monitored by the kiln 

CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the kiln MACT limit

can be calculated using the equations in this final rule. As 

with mercury, the coal mill flow rate used to calculate the 

allowable main kiln stack THC and HCl concentrations can be 

based on a CMS, or on the maximum design flow rate. The sum of 

the kiln CEMS and the maximum emissions from the coal mill or 

alkali bypass must be at or below the subpart LLL limits for THC 

and HCl. See Section 4 of Portland Cement Reconsideration 

Technical Support Document (developed for the proposal), docket 

item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225, for an example calculation.

Also, as a result of these revisions, the EPA is revising 

the definition of kiln to include inline coal mills and adding a 

definition of inline coal mill.

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

This final rule establishes that the compliance date for 

the amended PM standard, and for the THC, mercury and HCl 

standards, for existing sources for kilns, clinker coolers and 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 34 of 257

raw material dryers is September 9, 2015. This final rule also 

establishes [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM THE PUBLICATION OF THESE 

AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] as the compliance date for 

the existing open clinker storage pile work practice standards. 

A detailed discussion of these compliance dates can be found in 

Section V.D. below.

G. Section 112 Eligibility to be a New Source 

The EPA is not changing the date for new source eligibility

under the NESHAP. Thus, a source that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the 

section 112 new source standards. A more detailed discussion of 

this topic can be found below in Section V.E.

H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions

In this action we are finalizing the proposed corrections 

and clarifications to the 2010 rule including changes to:

equations for calculating rolling operating day emissions rates; 

procedures that include extraneous wording; and cross references 

and typographical errors in the rule.3

 

3 We note that these changes required the agency to reprint 

sections of regulatory text. See e.g. 63.1348(a)(3)(i). In 

reprinting these passages, EPA has not reopened, reconsidered, 

or otherwise reevaluated the substance of these provisions but 

rather is only making the needed technical alteration.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 35 of 257

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 performance specification (PS)

15. This final rule also removes from the standard the oxygen

correction factors for raw material dryers and makes minor, nonsubstantive changes to the sections and paragraphs below:

• Section 60.62(d).

• 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)(1) and (6) through (8). 

• 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)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and (e).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 36 of 257

• Section 63.1350(d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and 

(iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), l(2), (m)(3), 

(m)(10) and (11), (o) and (p).

• Section 63.1352(b).

• Section 63.1356.

• In addition, we are adding requirements in section 

63.1348(a), that a cement kiln that becomes subject to the rule 

after having been subject to the CISWI regulations, must meet 

all the initial compliance testing requirements even if they 

were previously subject to Subpart LLL.

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

We are also finalizing amendments to clarify various 

requirements in this final rule including issues of 

applicability, treatment of multiple sources that vent to a 

single stack, third party certification, definitions and use of 

bag leak detection systems when PM CPMS are in use. 

For raw material, clinker or finished product storage bins, 

we have clarified that the requirements of this final rule apply 

only at facilities that are a major source (see section 

63.1340(b)(6)) and that affected sources that are subject to 

subpart OOO (standards for nonmetallic mineral processing) are 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 37 of 257

not subject to the requirements of subpart LLL (see section 

63.1340(c)). 

With regard to the NSPS, to clarify the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirement in section 60.65(a) to submit excess 

emission reports, we have added to section 60.61 of the NSPS a 

definition of “excess emissions” to mean “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.” To 

clarify what data are used in the calculation of emissions, or 

used in the calculation of parametric levels that are used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance, we added to this section a 

definition of “operating day” to mean “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.” The definition for “operating day” in 

section 63.1341 of the NESHAP is revised to be consistent with 

the above definition. We also became aware that some raw 

material dryers may be used to dry materials other than kiln 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 38 of 257

feed and we have revised the definition of “raw material dryer” 

in recognition of that fact.

J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown 

In the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA established separate 

standards for periods of startup and shutdown which differ from 

the main standards that apply during steady state operations. In 

this action, based on comments received and the EPA’s 

reconsideration of several technical issues related to startup 

and shutdown, the EPA is adopting work practices in place of 

these numerical standards. The rationale and provisions for the 

work practice standards are discussed in detail in section IV.C.

The EPA is also clarifying the operating conditions during 

which these standards apply, including a definition of “startup” 

and “shutdown”. Under the amended definition, startup begins 

when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and fuel combustion is 

occurring in the main burner of the kiln. Startup ends when feed 

has been continuously fed to the kiln for at least 120 minutes 

or when the kiln feed rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design 

limitation rate. Shutdown begins when continuous feed to the 

kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation ceases.

The startup and shutdown-related changes include:

• Adding a definition of startup and shutdown in section 

63.1341, as described;
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 39 of 257

• Adding section 63.1346(f) describing work practice 

standards to be met during periods of startup and shutdown;

• Revising section 63.1347 to require that startup and 

shutdown procedures be included in the facility’s operation and 

maintenance plan;

• Adding section 63.1355(f) requiring records of each startup 

and shutdown including the date, time and duration and the 

quantity of feed and fuel added to the kiln during startup and 

shutdown.;

• Adding section 63.1348(b)(9) requiring continuous 

compliance by operating all air pollution control devices during

periods of startup and shutdown.

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for 

Violation of Emission Standards During Malfunctions

The EPA added to the September 9, 2010, final NESHAP rule 

an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 

emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various 

environmental advocacy groups, as well as the PCA, indicated 

that there had been insufficient notice of this provision. The 

EPA agreed and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 

2011). This action finalizes the EPA’s decision to retain the 

affirmative defense on reconsideration. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 40 of 257

The EPA is retaining in the final NESHAP rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 

emission standards that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 

63.1341 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the context 

of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We are 

also revising some of the regulatory provisions that specify the 

elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative 

defense as proposed with minor changes from proposal described 

later in this section. The source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 

section 63.1344. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria are designed 

in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes a violation of the emission standard 

meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance or careless operation). For example, to 

successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation 

“[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure 

of air pollution control, process equipment, or a process to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 41 of 257

operate in a normal or usual manner....” The criteria also are 

designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with section 

63.1344 and to prevent future malfunctions. 

Similar to actions taken in several other recent NESHAP 

amendments (see National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting, 77 FR 556, January 5, 

2012, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating),

and National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations, 76 FR 72050, November 21, 2011), the EPA included an 

affirmative defense in the 2010 final rule and is retaining it 

in this rule (see section 63.1344). The affirmative defense 

provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its 

emission standards 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. In addition to the 

authority cited in support of the affirmative defense in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA notes that a recent court 

decision further supports the EPA’s authority to promulgate an 

affirmative defense. The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA’s view that an affirmative 

defense provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 42 of 257

Clean Air Act. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 

2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21223 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2012) (upholding

the EPA’s approval of affirmative defense provisions in a CAA 

State Implementation Plan). As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (77 FR 42379), the EPA’s view is that an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 

applicable emission standards during periods of malfunction 

appropriately resolves an underlying tension inherent in many 

types of air regulation, to ensure continuous compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. See generally, Virginia v. 

Browner, 80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir. 1996) (the EPA's 

interpretation that resolved a tension within the CAA is 

reasonable). 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.

We are promulgating revisions to the affirmative defense 

provisions in section 40 CFR 63.1344 as described at proposal 

(77 FR 42380) and making some minor additional revisions. The 

phrase “emission limit” was changed to “emission standards” to 

reflect that the affirmative defense could be applicable to 

certain work practice standards. The phrase, "Off-shift and 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 43 of 257

overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make 

these repairs" was removed. The term “notification” to 

“reporting” was changed to reflect that the root cause analysis 

required under affirmative defense would be submitted with other 

periodic reporting. The term “and monitoring” was deleted 

because monitoring malfunctions are defined differently than 

malfunctions of process and control units and the affirmative 

defense is intended to apply to malfunctions to affected units 

that cause a failure to meet an emission standard. The word 

“however” was removed to incorporate more plain language into 

the regulation. The phrase “the respondent fails” was removed 

and replaced with “you fail” to incorporate more plain language 

into the regulation. The word “its” was replaced with “your” to 

incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase 

“all of the” was replaced with “your” also to incorporate more 

plain language into the regulation. The phrase “air pollution 

control practice” was shortened to “good practices” to 

incorporate more plain language into the regulation. In 

addition, the written report required when asserting an 

affirmative defense was changed from a separate “semiannual” 

report to a report that is submitted with the first periodic 

compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after 

the event. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 44 of 257

We are finalizing the reporting and recordkeeping 

associated with violations due to malfunctions as described at 

proposal (77 FR 42388) and making some minor additional 

revisions as described below.

• Revising section 63.1354(b)(vii) for reporting and 

recordkeeping violations due to malfunctions. The phrase 

“failure to meet a standard” was used to replace “deviation” in 

the requirement to report violations of the standard. This was 

changed because the EPA is not finalizing a definition of 

deviation in this subpart and the term is not defined in the 

general provisions. 

• Revising section 63.1354(c) for reporting a failure to meet 

a standard due to a malfunction. In addition, the phrase 

“failure to meet a standard” was used to replace “deviation” in 

the requirement to report violations of the standard. This was 

changed because the EPA is not finalizing a definition of 

deviation in this subpart and the term is not defined in the 

general provisions. 

• Revising section 63.1355(f) addressing recordkeeping during 

startup and shutdown. The proposed recordkeeping requirement 

applicable to startup and shutdown assumed that a numerical 

emission standard was applicable during startup and shutdown. In 

finalizing the work practice standards in 63.1346(f) there will 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 45 of 257

no longer be a numerical emission standard applicable during 

startup and shutdown. As such the recordkeeping requirement must 

change to reflect the content of the work practice standard. 

Records must be kept of the date, time and duration of the 

periods when the work practice is applicable, as well as the 

fuel and feed data to demonstrate compliance with the work 

practice standard.

L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?

During the comment period, comments were received that 

confirmed the need for additional compliance time, since the 

revised standards can result in different compliance strategies 

relative to the 2010 final rule. Thus, as proposed, this final 

rule establishes the compliance date for the amended existing 

source standards including standards for PM, mercury, HCl and 

THC to be September 9, 2015. The existing source compliance date 

for the requirements for open clinker storage piles is [INSERT 

DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. New sources which commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the 

new source standards and a compliance date of [INSERT DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or 

startup, whichever is later. 

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 46 of 257

The EPA has added work practice requirements for open 

clinker storage piles that will reduce fugitive dust emissions 

from these sources. This final rule also contains a definition 

of open clinker storage piles and requires that a source’s 

operation and maintenance plan include the steps the facility 

will take to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 

storage piles. A detailed discussion of these requirements can 

be found in section V.C below. 

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

Changes to PM Parametric Monitoring. The EPA proposed the 

use of PM CPMS for continuous monitoring of PM emissions as a 

30-day rolling average established by identifying the average PM 

CPMS response corresponding to the highest 1-hour PM compliance 

test. Failure to meet this 30-day rolling average would result 

in retesting, and more than four exceedances from the parametric 

limit in a year would be presumed (subject to possibility of 

rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of the emission 

standard itself. See 77 FR 42377. Industry commented that this 

requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many 

facilities, especially for the lower-emitting sources. The 

issue of increased compliance burden falling on the lower 

emitting sources is legitimate. Sources with especially low PM 

Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.5"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 47 of 257

limits in their performance test would be most at risk of 

exceeding a parametric limit due to a few emission spikes, even 

though they would still be operating well under the actual PM 

compliance limit. We also received comment that the highest PM 

performance test run may represent, in some circumstances, a 

number higher than the PM emissions standard. To avoid this 

eventuality we have changed the final rule to require setting 

the PM operating limit equivalent to the average of the three PM 

performance tests, which constitutes the demonstration of 

compliance with the standard. To avoid penalizing lower emitting 

facilities, the EPA has modified the way PM CPMS operating 

limits are established. Sources whose compliance with the PM 

emission standard are shown to be 75 percent or below the 

emission limit in the PM method 5 compliance test will set their 

PM parametric operating limit to be a 30-day rolling average 

equivalent to that 75 percent level. In a recent rule (76 FR 

15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA established 75 percent of the 

limit as a number that allows for compliance flexibility and is 

simultaneously protective of the emission standard, and the same 

technical basis is applicable here as well. Sources whose 

compliance with the PM emission standard are above 75 percent of 

the emission limit will establish their operating limit as a 30-

day rolling average equal to the average PM CPMS values recorded 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 48 of 257

during the PM compliance test. It should be noted that this 

provision affects the allowable level of the parametric limit,

but does not change the PM emission limit that must be met.

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for

Alternative OHAP Standard

As explained in section III.B above, the EPA is adopting a 

scaling approach for parametric monitoring of THC under the 

alternative organic HAP standard which is conceptually similar 

to the one just discussed for parametric monitoring of PM. This 

provision affects the allowable level of the THC parametric 

limit, but does not change the oHAP emission limit that must be 

met.

The EPA proposed the use of THC monitoring in conjunction 

with organic HAP compliance testing to determine a parametric 

operating limit option for monitoring continuous compliance with 

the alternative organic HAP standard. In the proposed rule the 

organic HAP parametric operating limit was established by 

correlating the highest of three organic HAP test results with 

the corresponding average THC concentration recorded by a 

parametric THC monitor. Industry commented that this requirement 

would trigger unnecessary retests for many facilities, 

especially for the best performing sources. Not wishing to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 49 of 257

penalize those sources showing good performance, and 

simultaneously wanting to be protective of the emission 

standard, the EPA is changing the way parametric THC operating 

levels are established. Sources whose compliance with the 

organic HAP emission standard are shown to be below 75 percent

of the emission limit will set their operating limit to be a 30-

day rolling average equivalent to that 75 percent level. Sources 

whose compliance with the organic HAP emission standard are at 

or above 75 percent of the emission limit will establish their 

operating limit as a 30-day rolling average equal to the average 

parametric THC values recorded during the organic HAP compliance 

test. Sources with an in-line kiln/raw mill will use the 

fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time 

that the raw mill is off, and calculate this limit as a weighted 

average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw 

mill off testing.

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions Limits 

for Periods of Startup and Shutdown

Under section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA may adopt a work 

practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only 

if it is “not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to 

prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a 

hazardous air pollutant”. This phrase is defined in the Act to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 50 of 257

apply to any situation “in which the Administrator determines 

that ... the application of measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations.” CAA section 112(h)(1) 

and (2). In adopting numerical limits for startup and shutdown 

in the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA rejected comments that it 

should adopt work practices as a standard during startup and 

shutdown. This was largely because the commenters had not 

addressed the issue of whether the requirements of section 

112(h) had been met. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3464, 

pp. 183-84. The EPA later denied petitions to reconsider this 

issue on the grounds that the agency had already provided ample 

opportunity for comment on the issue, which petitioners had 

used. See 76 FR at 28323. The D.C. Circuit dismissed all 

challenges to the startup and shutdown provisions in the NESHAP 

(665 F 3d at 189). The EPA granted reconsideration on several 

technical issues related to startup and shutdown – specifically, 

monitoring of mercury and PM during startup and shutdown and 

having an HCl limit of zero for kilns not equipped with CEMS 

(see 76 FR at 28325), but these issues are no longer relevant 

based on the approach adopted in this final rule. 

In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to 

retain the numerical standards, but to use recordkeeping rather 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 51 of 257

than measurements to document compliance with the numerical 

standard. 77 FR 42382-83. EPA further solicited comment “on 

whether the numeric standards during startup and shutdown should 

be amended to provide work practices”, and suggested what 

potential work practices might be. Id. at 42383. Some commenters 

supported retention of numerical standards, stating that nothing 

in the record supports a decision by the EPA that numeric 

standards are not feasible to measure. However, these commenters 

provided no supporting technical data. We also received comments 

opposing numeric limits and supporting work practices in their 

stead. Commenters stated that any numeric limit should be based 

on actual data gathered during startup and shutdown, which the 

proposed limits are not, and that measurement of emissions 

during startup and shutdown poses significant technical 

problems, mainly based on CEMS calibration issues, and the 

duration of startups and shutdowns.

Industry has presented information specific to the cement 

industry to the EPA on technical issues associated with cement 

kilns measuring PM, mercury, THC and HCl during periods of 

startup and shutdown. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0237[1] and PCA Meeting 9-15-11 monitoring presentation in the 

docket for this rulemaking, as well as their public comments. 

EPA has continued to evaluate these data. In light of all of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 52 of 257

these public comments and further evaluation of the data, the 

EPA has decided to establish work practice standards in lieu of 

numeric standards during startup and shutdown periods. The EPA 

is doing so because the application of measurement methodology 

is not practicable for technological and economic reasons. See 

CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). 

The operation of kilns at cement manufacturing plants is 

different from many other sources. Kiln startups can last days,

during which time fuels are switched and temperatures and 

moisture conditions fluctuate substantially. Also, cement kilns 

have two types of inputs – raw feed that is changed into clinker 

in the kiln, and kiln fuel. The cement kiln is sized to 

accommodate not just exhaust gas flow from combustion, but the 

gases evolved from the calcination of limestone and moisture 

that evaporates from the kiln feed. As a result of these 

factors, the difference in gas flow characteristics of a cement 

kiln during steady state operation and startup/shutdown is more 

pronounced than that for other combustion source categories. In 

addition, cement kilns begin introducing feed as part of the 

startup process which further exacerbates the transient and 

fluctuating nature of these operations not only because of the 

impact of this feed on the exhaust gases, but because raw 

materials and fuels are introduced at opposite ends of the kiln, 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 53 of 257

which results in countercurrent flow of the solid material in 

the kiln and kiln exhaust gas, increasing the turbulence, 

transience and fluctuating conditions. The result is that 

conditions change constantly when cement kilns are in startup or 

shutdown mode. These conditions make stack measurements, both 

manual and continuous, for this source category unreliable 

because the constant shifting in conditions prevents any stack 

measurement from being representative of anything but conditions 

at that precise moment. For that reason manual stack tests, 

which take place over a period of a few hours, would not be 

presenting accurate information, since they would not be 

reliably measuring conditions across the duration of the test.

There is no way to craft a testing regime to compensate for 

these testing issues at each kiln in a manner that can produce 

reliable and replicable results. Such modifications would be 

specific to that individual startup event – i.e. ad hoc and 

therefore not of general applicability or utility in showing 

compliance. Continuous measurements conducted during these 

periods for cement kilns are also subject to inaccuracies 

resulting from these rapidly changing conditions. The 

temperature changes of greater than one thousand degrees

Fahrenheit, flue gas moisture changes greater than 20 percent, 

and gas flow changes over several thousand cubic feet per 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 54 of 257

minute, as well as other factors such as flue gas molecular 

weight swings, combine to create a complex matrix of measurement 

variables not accounted for in a cement kiln CEMS installation. 

That is, CEMS for PM, HCl, Hg, and THC are not able to reliably 

accommodate all of these transient shifting variables when 

measuring cement kiln startup and shutdown emissions.

As noted above, these issues are further exacerbated by the fact 

that cement kilns have multiple inputs (fuel and feed), and the 

clinker production process generates higher gas flows than would 

be expected based on just the fuel inputs. This fact also means 

that flue gas flow rates cannot be accurately calculated from 

fuel inputs alone. 

The EPA regards situations where a measurement may yield a 

value which is analytically suspect, which is the case for 

cement kilns during startup and shutdown for the reasons just 

described, as being a situation where measurement is not 

“technologically practicable” within the meaning of section 112 

(h)(2)(B) of the Act. Unreliable measurements raise issues of 

practicability and of feasibility and enforceability (see 

section 112 (h)(1)).4

 

4 The application of measurement methodology during cement kiln 

startup and shutdown would also not be “practicable due to ... 

Formatted: Superscript
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 55 of 257

The EPA is not finalizing its proposed approach of setting 

numerical emission limits for startup and shutdown and requiring 

that sources certify compliance with those limits by keeping 

certain records certifying that they used certain fuels and did 

not introduce feed into the kiln. Under the proposal, sources 

would have had to certify compliance with the standards for the 

various organics based on assumed combustion conditions. As 

pointed out persuasively in the public comments, combustion 

conditions during startup and shutdown are too widely varying to 

either reliably measure or calculate emissions because 

combustion conditions change widely during startup and shutdown, 

sources indicated that they could not certify compliance based 

on an assumed combustion condition. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0506, p. 11 (“Until ideal combustion conditions can be 

met in the combustion chamber (adequate temperature and 

turbulence), the combustion process will be incomplete. While 

this should not impact fuel-derived hazardous air pollutants 

(chlorine and mercury), it will impact the emissions of organics 

and possibly PM”). In light of the measurement issues noted 

 

economic limitation” within the meaning of section 112 (h)(2) 

(B) since it would just result in cost expended to produce 

analytically suspect measurements.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 56 of 257

above and the fact that sources could not certify compliance 

under the proposed approach, the EPA is not finalizing the 

proposed approach of setting numerical limits for startup and 

shutdown and allowing sources to certify compliance with the 

limits by maintaining certain records. 

Instead, for the reasons explained above, the EPA is 

establishing work practice standards to demonstrate compliance 

with startup and shutdown. The work practices that apply during 

startup and shutdown are as follows:

• During startup the kiln must initially use any one or 

combination of the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic 

natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas, and ultralow sulfur diesel until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 

degrees Fahrenheit.

• Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the 

kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

• All air pollution control devices must be turned on and 

operating prior to combusting any fuel. 

• You must keep records as specified in §63.1355 during 

periods of startup and shutdown.

For the purpose of identifying when the kiln is in a 

startup/shutdown mode and subject to work practices and when the 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 57 of 257

kiln is subject to numerical emission limits, we are defining

the beginning and ending of startup and shutdown. At proposal we 

defined startup as when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and 

shutdown was defined as beginning when feed to the kiln is 

halted. Commenters noted that a kiln may have the induced draft 

(ID) fan operating even when the kiln is completely shutdown, no 

fuel is being burned, and there is no potential for emissions. 

Therefore, we changed the startup definition to be when a 

shutdown kiln turns on the induced draftID fan and begins firing 

fuel in the main burner, because this is the point where the 

potential for emissions to occur begins. Startup ends when feed 

is being continuously introduced into the kiln for at least 120 

minutes or until the feed rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln 

design limitation rate. We added the duration/load element to 

the definition of startup because during startup a kiln must 

begin adding feed material to achieve steady state operation. 

After feed is first introduced it requires up to two hours or 

sufficient feed to achieve 60 percent of maximum operation to 

achieve a representative steady-state condition. (See meeting 

notes, PCA November 28, 2012, in the docket for this 

rulemaking). Shutdown begins when continuous feed to the kiln is 

halted and ends when the kiln rotation ceases. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 58 of 257

We believe these work practices, which include the 

requirement that all air pollution control devices be operating, 

will ensure that emissions during startup and shutdown will be 

lower than the standards that apply during steady state 

operations, given use of cleaner fuels, minimal raw material 

inputs, and operation of all control devices during these 

periods. See 77 FR 42382 (noting that emissions during startup 

and shutdown would be expected to be lower than during steady 

state operations for these reasons).

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for PM 

Under CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

1. Changes to Level and Averaging Time of Existing Source NESHAP 

The EPA proposed to amend the existing and new source 

standards for PM. The floor for the existing source standards 

increased from 0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.05 lb/ton clinker as a 

result of removing CISWI kilns from the database. See Section 

8.3, Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, 

June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225; see also 

77 FR 42372/3. Second, the EPA proposed to change the compliance 

regime for the standard from use of PM CEMS to stack testing, a 

consequence being that the standard would no longer be expressed 

as a 30-day average but rather as the average of three test 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 59 of 257

runs. The EPA thus proposed to express the recalculated floor 

(i.e. 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average resulting from the 

reanalysis) as .07 lb/ton of clinker (average of three test 

runs). The 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard expresses the 

recalculated floor (i.e. 0.05 lb/ton clinker) as a not-to-exceed 

value based on stack testing, using the Upper Prediction Limit 

equation to do so. See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical 

Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0817-0225.5

The EPA further proposed to use CPMS for continuous 

parametric monitoring. This system responds to changes in PM 

concentration and generates a corresponding milliamp output 

signal. 77 FR 42376-77. The proposed PM parametric level was 

correlated to the highest recorded value during three test runs. 

A source would meet this site-specific level on a 30-day rolling 

average. Failure to meet this 30-day rolling average would 

result in retesting, and more than four deviations from the 

 

5 One commenter inaccurately stated that the proposed rule would 

essentially double the PM standard. As just explained, the 

existing source floor (and standard) increased from 0.04 30-day

average to 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average as a result of 

removing CISWI kilns. As a not-to-exceed standard, that same 

level is expressed as 0.07 lb/ton clinker, the higher level 

reflecting the greater variability involved when basing the 

standard on the average of the three test runs rather than on 30 

days of measurements. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 60 of 257

parametric level in a year would be presumed (subject to 

possibility of rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of the 

emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377.

Our proposal to change the compliance regime from use of 

CEMS to stack tests reflected technical issues related to a PM 

CEMS’ reliability with measuring the Portland cement PM 

standard. Specifically, the EPA discussed the reliability of 

measurements, obtained using PM CEMS calibrated as required by 

the mandated PS 11, below the level of the 2010 standard or the 

level of the recalculated PM floor. See 77 FR 42374-76. The 

EPA’s judgment at proposal was that as a result of PM 

measurement uncertainties, “this correlation will not be 

technically or practically achievable for a significant number 

of cement kiln sources.” Id. at 42376.

One commenter challenged the necessity of amending the 

standard to a stack test regime (apparently not realizing that 

the existing source standard also changed as a result of 

removing CISWI kilns from the database). First, the commenter 

maintained that the EPA has no authority to voluntarily change a 

promulgated MACT standard to make the standard less stringent,

based on the language of section 112(d)(7). The commenter

further maintained that the EPA had not definitively shown that 

PM CEMS calibrated pursuant to PS 11 could not be used to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 61 of 257

reliably measure the Portland cement PM standard. Specifically, 

the commenter stated that the various problems identified by the 

EPA at proposal are amenable to resolution by testing longer and 

more often, and argued that the EPA essentially admitted as much 

at proposal. The commenter noted that other technical problems, 

like the difficulty of accounting for varied particle sizes, 

could be resolved by using a beta gauge CEMS. The commenter 

dismissed the EPA’s technical reservations on these issues as 

arbitrary speculation. The commenter also stated that PM CEMS 

are already in successful use by cement plants both in this 

country and overseas. The commenter further believed that the 

EPA could resolve these technical issues by amending the PM 

CEMS Performance Specification rather than by amending the 

averaging time of the PM standard and changing its compliance 

basis. 

In response, we note first that we do not accept the 

commenter’s legal argument based on section 112(d)(7). 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 111 of this title, part C or D of this subchapter, or 

other authority of this chapter or a standard issued under State 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 62 of 257

authority.” Although the commenter maintained that this 

provision unambiguously bars the EPA from amending the 

promulgated NESHAP to make it less stringent, we disagree. 

Indeed, it is hard to read the statutory language in such a way. 

On its face, the provision indicates that a section 112(d) 

standard does not supplant more stringent standards issued under

some authority other than section 112(d). Nor does the 

commenter’s interpretation make sense. It would bar the EPA from 

amending a section 112(d) standard that was technically 

deficient or incorrect. This cannot have been Congress’ intent 

when adopting the technology-based section 112(d) MACT regime.6

Moreover, when Congress adopted anti-backsliding provisions in 

the CAA, it did so explicitly. See CAA sections 172(e); 110(l); 

and 193. There is no such explicit language in section 

112(d)(7). Thus, the EPA does not read section 112(d)(7) as 

precluding amendments to MACT standards which result in 

numerically less stringent standards, provided of course, that 

such standards are technically justified and otherwise 

consistent with the requirements of the Act. 

 

6 The commenter cites no legislative history to support its 

reading, nor is EPA aware of any.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 63 of 257

The commenter is also mistaken in asserting that sources 

can simply utilize PM CEMS not correlated to PS 11. The PS 11 

requirements apply to all PM CEMS used by a cement kiln. See 

sections 63.1349(b)(1)(A) and 1350 (b)(1) from the 2010 final 

rule (75 FR 55057, 55059).7

With regard to the technical issues raised by this 

commenter, the EPA explained in detail at proposal the problems 

of correlating PM CEMS under PS 11 at cement plants (see 77 FR

42374-42377). These obstacles are not resolvable simply by 

measuring more often and longer, as the commenter maintains. 

Extending the duration of the Method 5 test gives this reference 

method additional opportunity to collect more sample mass, but 

this is no guarantee that the time added to the test will 

collect enough particulate mass to resolve detection issues, 

especially when testing is conducted at the better performing 

(lower emitting) sources. Longer test runs inherently increase

the variability of the PM CEMS data collected during the test, 

which may cause further difficulties with the correlation 

between instrument and reference method. Nor does conducting a 

higher number of reference method tests resolve the difficulties 

 

7 It also makes no sense to use PM CEMS not subject to a uniform 

calibration protocol. The results obtained would not be 

comparable.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 64 of 257

with PS 11 correlation created by greater uncertainty in the 

reference method at low levels. Put another way, more tests with 

high uncertainty and poor correlation do not improve the 

likelihood of passing PS 11 as there is no expectation of 

improving the mathematical relationship between the reference 

test and the instrument. Furthermore, PS 11 section 8.6 requires 

a minimum number of fifteen tests to develop a correlation 

curve, with no limit to the maximum number. Considering more 

than 15 tests when developing the correlation creates much 

difficulty in developing a precise mathematical relationship.

Sources are allowed to discard 5 runs for any reason they wish, 

but must present at least 15 test runs for the correlation 

calculation. Id. As a source increases the number of test runs 

beyond 20, any additional runs must be included in the 

correlation equation and at that point the ability of a source 

to satisfy PS 11 becomes more hampered with every test run. 

The EPA noted that special problems are posed by the size 

and variability of cement kiln-generated particulate. The EPA 

also noted that the standard light-scintillation type of PM CEMS 

would likely encounter higher variability for the same PM 

concentration, and have difficulty satisfying correlation 

protocols as a result. The EPA noted that beta gauge CEMS could 

potentially resolve at least some issues related to cement 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 65 of 257

particle variability but noted further that these devices were 

largely untested in the cement industry, and none (so far as the 

EPA is aware) has successfully completed a PS 11 certification. 

See 77 FR 42375/3. The commenter maintains that the existence of 

beta gauge CEMS resolves all questions as to their reliability 

in the cement industry, but the EPA reiterates, as it did at 

proposal, that there needs to be some assurance of the 

reliability of that methodology to certify with PS 11 at low 

levels (as required by this final rule). That information does 

not presently exist. The commenter states that the EPA is being 

speculative as to potential difficulties with a different CEMS 

technology, but relative to Portland cement sources, it would be 

speculative to assume that beta gauge CEMS would successfully 

pass a PS 11 certification to reliably and quantifiably measure 

compliance with the NESHAP, especially at the very low PM levels 

at some of the sources in the cement source category.

The commenter also maintains that Tapered Element 

Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) devices could be used in place 

of light scintillation PM CEMS. A TEOM is a device that uses a

very thin, tapered, element vibrating at a known frequency that 

has a first principle relationship to the measurement of mass. 

Particles that impact the element also impact the harmonic 

vibration of the sensor which can be translated to a measurement 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 66 of 257

of the particle mass. This is a more direct approach to 

measuring the actual mass of PM in stack gas, and has shown 

promise to operate very consistently at low levels in laboratory 

conditions. Several TEOMs are currently used for monitoring 

ambient PM levels at several non-cement, non-domestic industry 

installations. TEOMs that are capable of measuring stack gas are 

not currently available for sale in the U.S., though this may 

change in future years. Even so, with a monitor capable of more 

direct mass measurement of PM in stack gas, using PS 11 to 

certify one against Method 5 may be problematic at low PM 

concentrations. The EPA currently has no data to assess TEOM 

capabilities versus Method 5 at very low PM concentrations such 

as those presented by the better performing sources in this 

category. Were TEOM instrumentation commercially available, the 

EPA would need to conduct a re-evaluation of PM CEMS technology 

that included TEOM data to determine if this instrument could 

overcome the challenges posed by calibration with Method 5 at 

the very low PM levels emitted by some of the sources in the 

cement source category. As just explained, it is not 

speculation, but rather legitimate engineering caution that 

makes it appropriate not to require compliance with a rule based 

on an untested measurement methodology. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 67 of 257

The commenter further maintains that rather than amend the 

standard to change the compliance test methodology and averaging 

time, the EPA should revise PS 11 instead, evidently assuming 

that a revision can be done rapidly. The commenter’s assumption 

is mistaken. Performance specification development is a process 

that takes multiple years and involves data collection on types 

of technologies, field testing, comparison to reference 

measurement methodology, workgroup and stakeholder meetings, 

peer review, rule proposal and public comment period, as well as 

comment response and final promulgation of the Performance 

Specification. With the development of PA 12A for Mercury CEMS, 

the EPA invested a budget in excess of one million dollars to 

conduct technology and field studies, as well as to refine the 

analytical techniques and work through stakeholder concerns 

prior to proposal of the Performance Specification. The process 

from inception to final promulgation took over 5 years to 

complete. PS 11, at issue here, was over 3 years in development, 

from concept to final promulgation, and involved a budget of 

$250,000. Based on this past history, it is likely to result in 

a delay of 3 years or more were the EPA to delay promulgation of 

this final rule until we could undertake the process to 

research, propose and finalize solutions to PS 11 that may 

ameliorate some of the issues vis-a-vis the cement industry now 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 68 of 257

present. Furthermore, such a process would not address the 

issues relating to measurement uncertainties using Method 5 at 

low PM concentration levels near its detection limit (i.e. below 

its practical quantitation limit of 3 mg), and so there would 

remain significant technological hurdles to clear before the EPA 

could require the use of PM CEMS in respect to this final rule. 

The commenter points to PM CEMS use by European cement 

kilns. This is a misplaced comparison. The European calibration 

and certification of this instrumentation is completely 

different than PS 11 requirements developed by the EPA. European 

monitoring is certified in a laboratory environment, and 

calibrated on site by the instrument vendor when installed. The 

EPA has a long history of requiring CEMS installations in the 

USA to meet more rigorous calibration and performance 

specification certification through a series of comparisons to 

reference Method 5 test measurements conducted on the stack with 

the flue gas matrix at the facility, not in a controlled 

laboratory. For a PM CEMS, this would be a correlation developed 

with Method 5 as described in PS 11. The two certification 

regimes differ greatly in approach and simply adapting European 

certification standards to USA facilities does nothing to 

mitigate this difference.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 69 of 257

In summary, the EPA has carefully considered the issue and 

it is our engineering judgment that the PS 11 correlation will 

not be technically or practically achievable for a significant 

number of cement kiln sources. This is due to the combination of 

the low emissions concentrations, PM CEMS measurement 

uncertainty factors, the variability in composition of cement 

PM, and need for extraordinarily long test runs to reduce Method 

5 uncertainty to a level that provides normal measurement 

confidence (i.e. greater than the 3 mg practical quantitation 

level of Method 5), plus the compounding uncertainties 

associated with source operational variability. The EPA further 

recognizes that these problems in developing PS 11 correlations 

are most likely to adversely affect the lowest emitting sources 

in the category and are more likely to result in violations of 

the rule more often for these sources than for sources operating 

with higher PM emissions. This result would obviously be 

environmentally counterproductive. We are therefore amending the 

standard to be based on stack testing, and expressing the 

standard as a not-to-exceed (i.e., stack test Method 5 or 5I) 

standard of 0.07 lb/ton clinker.8

 

8 Because the EPA believes that these same issues pertain to 

measurements of the section 111(b) new source performance 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 70 of 257

Additional responses regarding these issues, including 

responses to issues raised in the comments from industry, are 

found in sections 3 and 4 of the Response to Comment document, 

which is found in the docket for this rulemaking.

2. Issues Related to Use of CPMS for Parametric Monitoring

To document continuous compliance with the Method 5 

standard (i.e., parametric monitoring designed to monitor proper 

operation of PM controls), the EPA proposed that PM be monitored 

continuously using a CPMS. See 77 FR 42376-77. The parametric 

limit was to reflect the highest of the three method 5 test runs 

from the stack test, and would be averaged over 30-days. The 

EPA further proposed corrective action requirements in the event 

of exceeding the 30-day rolling average parametric limit, and a 

rebuttable presumption that four such exceedances in a calendar 

year showed a violation of the emission standard itself. 

With respect to the use of CPMS technology, the EPA has 

recognized that PM CEMS technology cannot meet PS 11 

requirements in all Portland cement installations, yet the EPA 

has also recognized that PM CEMS sensors are more sensitive and 

 

standard for modified sources, and because further controls 

would be both costly and not cost effective (see section V.A.3 

below), the EPA is adopting the same amendment for modified new 

sources under the NSPS.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 71 of 257

better at detecting small differences in PM concentration than 

other technologies such as opacity monitors 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf.)) In 

considering the use of PM CEMS at Portland cement facilities we 

find that while using PM CEMS technology for continuous 

quantitative measurement of PM concentration as correlated to 

Method 5 with PS 11 is frequently not achievable (as stated in 

the preceding subsection of this preamble), using the same 

technology for continuous qualitative measurement of PM 

emissions is practicable in every instance. Given the 

information we have that shows PM CEMS technology to be more 

sensitive to in-stack PM concentration differences than opacity 

monitors and nepheolmeters, the EPA sees a distinct advantage in 

using these technologies for continuous parametric PM 

monitoring, rather than measuring some other parameter.

In using a PM CEMS as a CPMS to conduct continuous 

qualitative monitoring of PM concentration in the stack, we are 

not interested in specific output information from the 

instrument (e.g. lbs/ton clinker). We only need to know that PM 

concentration increases or decreases. The signal output from the 

instrument need not be correlated to PM concentration through PS

11 trials to achieve this, but rather we can accept the native 

signal output from the instrument, as is, in milliamps, and 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 72 of 257

track that signal to determine trends in PM emissions. In this

final rule we are requiring PM CPMS instruments to employ a 4-20 

milliamp output, which is a standard electronic signal output 

common to many CEMS.9 With a PM CPMS the milliamp output would 

not represent an opacity value, but like an opacity analyzer,

the milliamps would increase as PM concentration increases and 

decrease as PM concentration decreases. We can then monitor the 

milliamp signal while conducting a Method 5 performance test and 

correlate the average milliamp signal to the average PM 

concentration during the testing. This relationship is notably 

coarser in terms of understanding the precise PM concentration 

in the stack, but the instruments’instrument’s sensitivity to 

changing PM concentration in the stack, and its changing 

milliamp signal output, does not deteriorate and may still be 

employed to qualitatively monitor PM emissions.

The EPA received numerous comments about our proposed PM 

CPMS parametric monitoring approach. Industry commenters 

 

9 For example, an opacity instrument uses a series of filters to 

calibrate the analyzer and produce a “percent opacity” output. 

Twenty five percent opacity likely correlates to a milliamp 

value near eight milliamps, or 4 milliamps plus 25 percent of 

the difference between 4 and 20 milliamps (again, 4 milliamps). 

Fifty percent opacity would represent a signal near 12 

milliamps, and so on, with 20 milliamps representing a signal of 

100 percent opacity. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 73 of 257

maintained that sources would have to continually retest 

unnecessarily, since CPMS measure an increase in PM CPMS values. 

This increase in PM CPMS values would (or at least, could) 

denote a modest rise in PM emissions, but actual stack emissions 

of PM could still be well below the limit. The EPA recognizes 

this concern as creating additional burden for facilities 

exhibiting good control of their PM emissions (see section IV.A 

above), and, therefore, we have modified the process by which a 

source would establish and comply with their PM CPMS operating 

limit in this final rule. In doing so we considered scaling 

options for PM CPMS signals, as they correspond with PM 

emissions, that were proposed by industry but found the options 

presented were not protective enough of the emission standard. 

After extensive analysis (see S. Johnson, memo to docket number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, ”Establishing an Operating Limit for PM 

CPMS”, November 2012), we are promulgating a scaling factor of

75 percent of the emission limit as a benchmark. See section 

IV.A above. As in the proposed rule, every source will need to 

conduct an annual Method 5 test to determine compliance with the 

PM emissions limit, and during this testing will also monitor 

their PM CPMS milliamp output. Sources which emit PM less than 

75 percent of their emission limit will be able to scale their 

PM CPMS milliamp output to determine where their PM CPMS would 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 74 of 257

intersect 75 percent of their allowed PM emissions, and set 

their operating level at that milliamp output. This alleviates 

many re-testing concerns for sources that operate well below the 

emission limit and provides them with greater operational 

flexibility while still assuring continuous compliance with the 

PM stack emission standard. It also creates an incentive for 

sourcesources to select high efficiency PM controls when sources 

are evaluating potential compliance strategies.

For sources whose Method 5 compliance tests place them at 

or above 75 percent of the emission standard, their operating 

level will be the average PM CPMS milliamp output during the 

three Method 5 test runs. This means their operating level is 

the milliamp output that correlates to their PM compliance 

determination, and not the highest average 1 hour run value that 

was in the proposed rule. Now that we are adopting a scaling 

factor, we no longer believe that it is also appropriate to 

establish the parametric limit based on the highest of the three 

runs (which moreover, could reflect a level higher than the 

level of the standard). Moreover, as noted below, we believe 

that on balance the 30 days of averaged CPMS measurements 

provides ample operating cushion. 

In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA 

established 75 percent of the limit as a number that allows for 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 75 of 257

compliance flexibility and is simultaneously protective of the 

emission standard. In this final rule we are utilizing that 

value so as not to impose unintended and costly retest 

requirements for the lowest emitting sources and to provide for 

more cost effective, continuous, PM parametric monitoring across 

the Portland cement sector. This approach was selected from 

among many considered as it provides the greatest amount of 

flexibility while demonstrating continuous compliance for 

sources which are the lower emitters in the category and is also 

effective in holding higher emitters to the emission standard. 

With this parametric monitoring approach in place we expect 

sources to evaluate control options that provide excellent PM 

emissions control and provide them greater operational 

flexibility below the standard. 

One commenter maintained that the use of a CPMS for 

parametric monitoring would be “egregious” since the milliamp 

output of the CPMS allowed a source to select operational 

parameters of tangential relation to PM emissions and would 

therefore not provide useful information as to proper PM 

control. The commenter also stated that monitoring of opacity 

would be preferable. An industry commenter likewise requested 

that continuous opacity monitors or bag leak detectors be used 

rather than CPMS.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 76 of 257

The EPA does not agree with these comments. First, the 

milliamp output of the CPMS reliably and sensitively indicates 

increasing or decreasing PM concentration in the stack. Where PM 

controls are failing, the PM CPMS signal will indicate the 

increasing concentration of PM in the stack. A source will need 

to monitor the trend from the PM CPMS daily reading to maintain 

compliance with the 30-day emission standard. Indeed, the EPA

has sufficient confidence that four exceedances of the CPMS 

continuous measurements is a presumptive violation of the 

emission standard itself. Moreover, the CPMS is considerably 

more sensitive than an opacity monitor or bag leak detector at 

detecting fluctuations in PM level. An opacity monitor 

determines the percent of a light signal that is occluded across 

the stack diameter. Opacity analyzers operate on a zero to 100

percent scale, meaning they are capable of registering PM that 

completely occludes the far stack wall from the instrument light 

source. This amount of PM is roughly equivalent to a complete 

failure of the emission control device. A properly operating 

control device will emit five percent opacity or less, which is 

barely visible to the naked eye and on the low end of the 

opacity monitor capability. PM emissions that increase opacity 

two percent at this level may well exceed the emission standard, 

yet they only mildly deflect the opacity monitor output. This 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 77 of 257

same 2 percent opacity increase is capable of registering 

changes of several milliamps on a PM CPMS when operating on the 

scale provided in this final rule. With several decimal 

fractions available between each milliamp to track signal 

output, and three or four milliamps representing 1 percent 

opacity, the PM CPMS has a clear advantage in low PM 

concentration measurement over continuous opacity monitoring

systems. Regarding baghouse leak detectors, the EPA has no 

information that shows them operating on the same sensitivity 

level as PM CPMS technology, and we do not require baghouse leak 

detection systems on sources where PM CPMS are in use for this 

reason.

Industry commenters objected to the proposal that 4

calendar year exceedances10 from the parametric limit would be a 

presumptive violation of the emission standard. Again, the EPA 

 

10 In the proposed rule, the EPA referred to a measurement higher 

than the parametric limit as a “deviation” and proposed a 

definition of deviation. See 77 FR 42398. The EPA is not 

including this terminology in this final rule. The term 

“deviation” is not in the Portland cement NESHAP rules (which 

date back to 1998), and has not proved necessary in practice. 

More important, the rule itself states what the consequences of 

measurements which exceed a parametric limit are (i.e. 

retesting, and in some instances, a presumptive violation of the 

emission standard itself), so that no further general regulatory 

provision (i.e. a generalized definition of ‘deviation’ or 

similar term) is necessary.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 78 of 257

does not agree. First, the EPA may permissibly establish such a 

presumption by rule, assuming there is a reasonable factual 

basis to do so. See Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 

886 F. 2d 355, 367-68 (D.C. Cir. 1989) explaining that such 

presumptions can legitimately establish the elements of the 

agency’s prima facie case in an enforcement action. Second, 

there is a reasonable basis here for the presumption that four 

exceedances (i.e. increases over the parametric operating limit) 

in a calendar year are a violation of the emission standard. The 

parametric monitoring limit is established as a 30-day average 

of the averaged test value in the performance test, or the 75th

percentile value if that is higher. In either instance, the 30-

day averaging feature provides significant leeway to the owner 

operator not to deviate from the parametric operating level 

since the 30 measurements will significantly dampen variability 

in the single measurement (average of three test runs) that 

produced the parametric value. See 77 FR 42377/2 and sources 

there cited. The EPA acknowledges that the difference was even 

greater between the parametric level and the emission standard

in the proposed rule (which was based on the highest measured 

test run). The EPA believes that the 30-day averaging feature 

plus the 75-percent scaling feature for the lower emitting 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 79 of 257

sources now provides a sufficient operating cushion. See 77 FR 

42377.

3. Existing Source Beyond the Floor Determination 

The EPA proposed to use the floor levels for PM as the 

standard, rejecting more stringent standards on the grounds of 

poor cost effectiveness (after considering non-air environmental 

impacts and energy implications of a more stringent standard as 

well). See 77 FR 42376. One commenter argued that the EPA should 

adopt a beyond the floor standard for PM, maintaining that such 

a standard was justified under the factors set out in section 

112 (d)(2).

The EPA disagrees, and is not adopting a beyond the floor 

standard. After considering the cost of the emission reductions 

attributable to such a standard, and the associated non-air and 

energy impacts of such a standard, the EPA determines that the 

standard is not “achievable” within the meaning of section 112 

(d)(2). Specifically, the EPA estimates that a beyond the floor 

standard set at the level of the original (2010 final rule) 

standard would only result in 138 tpy – nationwide – of PM 

reduction (a value not questioned by any of the commenters). See 

Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document, December 20, 2012. We further estimate that the cost 

of achieving this modest incremental reduction would be 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 80 of 257

approximately $37 million (the estimated cost savings 

attributable to the amended PM standard (including savings 

attributable to ancillary PM controls related to collection of 

PM from the control of Hg, THC, and HCl). See Final Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 

2012, included in the rule docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. These 

total costs are high compared to the small nationwide emission 

reductions, and the cost effectiveness of these reductions is 

correspondingly high: approximately $268,000 per ton of PM 

removed. This is significantly higher cost effectiveness for PM 

than the EPA has accepted in other NESHAP standards. See 76 FR 

15704 (March 21, 2011)(rejecting $48,501 per ton of PM as not 

cost effective for PM emitted by CISWI energy recovery units); 

see also 72 FR 53814, 53826 (Sept. 20, 2007) (proposing (and 

later accepting) cost effectiveness of $10,000 per ton for PM as 

reasonable in determining Generally Available Control 

Technology, and noting that the EPA had viewed cost 

effectiveness only as high as approximately $31,000 per ton as 

reasonable under its Title II program for mobile sources). A 

beyond the floor standard at the level of the 2010 standard 

would also involve slightly higher energy use, although this is 

not a major factor in EPA’s decision. EPA is therefore not 

adopting a beyond the floor standard for PM at the level of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 81 of 257

2010 standard. A standard even more stringent would likewise not 

be justified. See 76 FR 54988.11

4. New Source PM Standard Under Section 112(d)(3)

One commenter challenged the methodology the EPA used in 

the 2010 rulemaking to establish the new source floor and 

standard, maintaining that for new plants, the EPA’s floors must 

reflect the emission level achieved by the single best 

performing kiln in the category, not the best performing kiln 

for which the EPA happens to have emissions information. See 

section 112(d)(3). The EPA did not reopen the methodology by

which new source floors for this industry are determined. See 77 

FR 42373 n. 3 (“The EPA will not consider comments challenging 

 

11 The commenter’s argument that section 112 (d)(2)’s requirement 

that the EPA consider “the cost of achieving such emission 

reduction” limits the EPA to considerations of economic 

achievability, and not cost effectiveness, is misplaced. See 

Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (cost 

effectiveness properly considered in evaluating cost of 

compliance under CAA section 213, a technology-based provision 

similar to section 112 (d)(2)). The commenter’s further argument 

that the requirement in section 112 (d)(2) for standards to 

result in “the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants... achievable” considering cost and other 

factors constrains the EPA’s ability to consider costeffectiveness or otherwise balance the statutory factors has 

likewise been rejected. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 

378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (the EPA was left with great discretion in 

determining how to balance such factors when considering 

technology-based standards which are to result in maximum 

reductions achievable). 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 82 of 257

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.”) In any case, if the issue is 

(against the EPA’s view) deemed to be reopened, CAA section 

112(d)(3) indicates that new source floors are to be based on 

“the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator” 

(emphasis supplied). This language affords considerable 

discretion for the agency to base the NESHAP new source floors

on performance of sources for which the agency has emissions 

information.

B. Mercury Standard

The EPA explained at proposal that reanalysis of the 

mercury floor, after removing CISWI kilns, resulted in a floor 

of 58 lb/MM tons clinker produced – slightly higher than the 

previously calculated floor and standard of 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker produced. The EPA further proposed to adopt 55 lb/MM 

tons clinker produced as a beyond-the-floor standard. See 77 FR 

42373. The new source standard was unchanged since the standard 

was based on the performance of the best performing similar 

source. 

The EPA is adopting the standards as proposed. One 

commenter challenged the appropriateness of adopting a beyond-
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 83 of 257

the-floor standard, not for the industry as a whole, but for 

itself. As to this individual plant (Ash Grove, Durkee), the 

commenter maintained that the cost of attaining the three 

additional lb/MM ton clinker produced reduction (i.e., the 

difference between 58 and 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced) was 

greater than the EPA estimated because it would require more 

than just additional carbon in an activated carbon injection 

system to achieve the incremental difference. According to the 

commenter, they have performed extensive testing and the 

addition of activated carbon per million actual cubic feet per 

minute of exhaust gas has little or no impact on mercury 

emissions. The commenter states that for plants such as Ash 

Grove’s Durkee plant, there is no known add-on control 

technology at this time that will assure achievement of the 

standard on a continuous basis.

We note first that the commenter is somewhat overestimating the incremental reduction of mercury actually needed. 

To achieve the emission standard, sources will need to operate 

their processes and controls so that they can achieve the 

average emissions level used in setting the existing source 

limit of 55 lb/MM ton - the so-called design level. See e.g. 77 

FR 42389/3 (estimating emissions attributable to this final rule 

based on design levels); see also discussion of design values in 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 84 of 257

section VI.B below. That level is 31.7 lb/MM ton for the 

standard of 55 lb/MM ton. See 75 FR 54976/3. The average for the 

58 lb/MM ton is 34.1 lb/MM ton. The additional reduction needed 

is therefore 2.4 lb/MM tons, not 3 lb/MM tons as stated by the 

commenter.

As the EPA has acknowledged repeatedly, due to the high 

levels of mercury in their limestone, mercury emissions from the 

Ash Grove Durkee plant are not typical of other plants in the 

industry. See, e.g. 75 FR 54978-79. As a result, this plant 

faces a particularly great challenge in meeting the mercury 

standard, whether the standard is 55 or 58 lb/MM tons. Because 

of their unique situation, we do not believe that the 

difficulties this facility is having in meeting the mercury 

standards can be generalized to the rest of the industry. 

Section 112(d)(2) of the Act posits an industry-wide standard. 

Having said this, our cost analysis conducted for the 2009 

proposal and 2010 final rule assumed that this plant would have 

to install multiple control systems in order to meet the limit 

for mercury. See EPA Docket item 2002-0051-3438. Therefore, if 

in this particular case the activated carbon injection (ACI)

system cannot achieve the small additional reductions required, 

then the facility has other mercury control options available 

such as further dust shuttling, or treating cement kiln dust to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 85 of 257

remove mercury. Dust shuttling entails moving dust from within 

the kiln to other parts of the process and is considered a 

closed loop process, thereby not causing any waste impacts. In 

addition, any costs associated with dust shuttling have already 

been accounted for in the cost estimates the EPA has developed 

for this particular facility.

The commenter alluded to control performance data that it 

shared with the EPA. We note that the commenter has provided 

pilot scale data as part of the 2010 rulemaking (see Docket item 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-2073), but has not provided data on the 

effects of increasing carbon injection on mercury emissions for 

a full scale facility. We note that in the electric utility 

industry, where there is significantly more experience with ACI, 

it is well established that higher carbon injection rates 

increase mercury removal (Sjostrom, S.; Durham, M.; Bustard, J. 

Martin, C.; "Activated Carbon Injection for Mercury Control: 

Overview", FUEL, 89, 6, 1320 (2010)). There is no data to 

indicate that ACI systems in the cement industry would behave 

differently than those in the utility industry. Given the lack 

of data on the efficacy of increasing carbon injection rates on 

mercury removal for full scale cement operations, we cannot 

conclude that increasing carbon injection is not a reasonable 

approach for increasing mercury removal efficiency. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 86 of 257

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions from Open Clinker Storage 

Piles

The EPA proposed that cement kilns control fugitive 

emissions from open clinker storage piles, defined at proposal 

as “any clinker storage pile that is not completely enclosed in 

a building or structure”. These piles would be controlled 

through the use of work practices which minimized emissions by 

means of (among others) partial enclosure, damping down the pile 

by chemical or physical means or shielding piles from wind. 

These work practices were drawn from permits for existing cement 

kilns, and every cement kiln appears to already be utilizing 

some type of work practice to minimize fugitive emissions from 

open clinker storage piles. See 77 FR 42378. Cement kiln sources 

were allowed to select from among the specified work practices 

toand choose those most suitable for its operations. 

For both new and existing sources, the NESHAP is amended to 

require that one or more of the control measures identified in 

the rule be used to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open 

clinker storage piles. The work practices would apply to open 

clinker storage piles regardless of the quantity of clinker or 

the length of time that the clinker pile is in existence. 

In addition, the owner or operator must include as part of 

their operations and maintenance plan (required in §63.1347) the
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 87 of 257

location of their open clinker storage piles and the fugitive 

dust control measures as specified in this rule that will be 

implemented to control fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 

piles. We agree with comments received that the list of allowed 

work practices reflects all of the available practices 

documented in cement kiln facility operating permits to control 

clinker storage pile fugitive emissions. The size, type and 

duration of a clinker pile may warrant different types of work 

practices. The final rule requires that one or more of a variety 

of work practices need to be employed, recognizing that the 

source will use the work practices that will be effective for 

the particular piles. Thus, the EPA has revised the list of work 

practices to be consistent with those listed in the proposal 

preamble. These are: use of partial enclosures, using a water 

spray or fogging system, applying appropriate dust suppression 

agents, using a wind barrier and using a tarp. Commenters also 

requested that the EPA allow other work practices if approved by 

the delegated authority. Our regulations already provide 

procedures for sources to seek approval of alternative work

practices. See section 112(h)(3) as implemented by 40 CFR 

63.8(f).

Several industry commenters stated that the definition of 

clinker pile is problematic as proposed because it was not 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 88 of 257

limited by size or duration. Commenters note that it is not 

uncommon for small amounts of clinker to be dropped, or to fall 

off a front-loader onto the ground when being moved from a kiln 

to a storage location or from such a location to the grinding 

mill. Because these are small amounts of clinker, it is also not 

uncommon that these small quantities of clinker will remain 

where they were dropped and may not be picked up or removed 

until the necessary manpower becomes available; in some cases 

this could be multiple days. Another industry commenter noted 

that because of the short-term duration of temporary clinker 

stockpiles, the use of work practices similar to those proposed 

for clinker storage piles is not feasible. The industry trade 

association suggested the following definition: “Open clinker 

storage pile means an outdoor, unenclosed accumulation of 

clinker on the ground, which contains in excess of 50,000 tons 

of clinker, and is utilized for a continuous period in excess of 

180 days.” Under this suggested approach, only a clinker storage 

pile meeting this definition would be subject to the work 

practice standards.

We are not adopting this approach. We believe that the 

potential to emit may be different at different sites for a 

variety of reasons such as weather and traffic conditions. Nor 

did the commenter provide information indicating that open 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 89 of 257

clinker storage piles of less than 50,000 tons or stored for 

less than 180 days are unlikely to produce fugitive emissions. 

Indeed, as a result of weather, traffic or other conditions, 

smaller piles stored for shorter periods have the evident 

potential to emit substantial levels of fugitive emissions. Nor 

is any such uniformly applicable distinction based on duration 

evident. Clinker piles can be temporary but be replaced by a new 

pile at the same (or nearby) location a few days later, with no 

essential difference in fugitive emissions. 

Nonetheless, we believe that the commenter is correct that 

spills are unavoidable, and that work practices designed for 

non-temporary piles cannot feasibly be applied in such 

circumstances. The commenter is also correct that work practices 

used for non-temporary piles would be misapplied to temporary 

piles attributable to cleaning storage structures. For these 

reasons, the definition of “open storage pile” excludes these 

types of piles. Specifically, the definition of open clinker 

storage pile does not include temporary piles of clinker that 

are the result of accidental spillage or temporary use of 

outdoor storage while clinker storage buildings are being 

cleaned. This final rule defines “temporary” to mean piles that 

remain in place for 3 days or less from their generation (3 days 

accommodating weekend scheduling). This is sufficient time to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 90 of 257

either pick these spills up (the applicable work practice for 

these spills) or to cover them to prevent fugitive emissions.

These final amendments will result in a cost savings to the 

industry as compared to the 2010 rule. As a result of requiring 

work practices instead of enclosures, we estimate that there 

will be a savings of $8.25 million annually. See Final Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 

2012, in this rulemaking docket.

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing 

Source Standards

The EPA proposed to establish September 9, 2015, as the 

compliance date for the amended existing source NESHAP 

standards. The basic reason for the proposed compliance date was 

that the proposed change in the PM standard made possible 

different compliance alternatives for all of the stack emission 

standards, and that it could legitimately take two years from 

the original compliance date to implement these new compliance 

strategies. See 77 FR 42385-87. Further, the amended compliance 

date would apply to all of the stack emission standards due to 

the interrelatedness of the standards: the mercury, THC and HCl 

standards all typically involve some element of PM generation 

and capture and so the controls must be integrated with PM 

control strategies. Id. at 42386.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 91 of 257

The record for this final rule supports the need for the 

September 9, 2015 compliance date. With respect to PM control, 

as the EPA explained at proposal, plants now have the option of 

retaining electrostatic precipitators (ESP) with modification or 

downstream polishing baghouses, rather than replacing ESP with 

baghouses. Plants may also size baghouses differently (with or 

without incorporation of upstream or downstream polishing 

elements). The various types of sorbent injection strategies to 

control organics, mercury and HCl, are affected by the PM limits 

(and vice versa). Based on the facts of this record for this 

source category, the type, size and aggressiveness of the 

controls for these HAP, as well as the PM controls, are not only 

interdependent but can all change as a result of the amended PM 

standard. In addition, the amended alternative oHAP standard 

affords additional compliance alternatives for control of nondioxin organic HAP, including alternatives to use of Residual 

Thermal Oxidizers. See generally, Final Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document, section 3.1, 

December 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking.

Determining, developing, installing, testing and otherwise 

implementing a different comprehensive HAP control regime takes 

time. Specifically, plants will need to conduct engineering 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 92 of 257

studies, determine the most cost-effective control strategy,

seek contract bids, purchase equipment, install and test the new 

equipment. Below is an estimate of a timeline for a cement kiln 

to undertake these steps.

Time needed to prepare for compliance

(Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505-A1)

Steps in preparing for 

compliance

Time Period

New engineering study January –April 2013

Selection of technology 

providers

April – August 2013

Technology procurement August – December 2013

Detailed technology design and 

final engineering

January – June 2014

Equipment fabrication and 

permitting

June – December 2014

Construction and tying into 

existing operation

January – May 2015

Technology commissioning June – August 2015

One commenter, sharply opposing any change in compliance 

date, maintained that all of this reasoning is hypothetical and 

that such a consequential extension could not legitimately rest 

on speculation. The EPA disagrees that this analysis is 

speculative. First, the EPA’s engineering judgment is that the 

changes in the PM standard and alternative oHAP standard, open 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 93 of 257

up different compliance alternatives from those under the 2010 

rule. The EPA has indicated what those alternatives can be, and 

the time needed to determine, purchase, install and test them. 

Comments from the affected industry are consistent with the 

EPA’s engineering judgment as to the type of different 

compliance approaches now available for existing sources. 

The EPA’s engineering determinations as to the time needed 

for cement kilns to implement a different multi-HAP control 

strategy here are moreover consistent with the agency’s longstanding analysis (i.e. analysis not specific to the cement 

industry) of the time needed to install multipollutantmultipollutant control systems. See US EPA, Engineering 

and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control 

Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies, EPA-600/R-02/073,

October 2002) (cited at 77 FR 42386). Therefore, the EPA 

estimated that it is normal for the development and 

implementation of new compliance measures to take between 15-27 

months for single control systems, and longer for systems 

involving multiple controls for HAP and criteria pollutants, as 

is the case here. 

The record to this rule also contains a survey of 92 of the 

97 domestic cement kilns currently in operation. These survey 

results document, on a kiln by kiln basis, alternative 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 94 of 257

engineering strategies now available to these kilns as a result 

of the amended PM standard and also documents the time each kiln 

estimates would be needed to carry out these new compliance 

strategies. See Comments of PCA, Appendix D. For example, kiln 

B12 has the option of modifying its ESP system using a hybrid 

ESP/baghouse filter system, or of using a cyclone upstream of 

the ESP. Steps needed to implement these possibilities include 

main stack evaluation, cooler stack testing, and evaluation, 

vendor/contractor selection, final design, equipment procurement 

and fabrication, startup and commissioning, and demonstrating 

compliance. The plant has already commenced some of these steps, 

but provides reasonable time estimates for why it would take 

until September 2015 to complete them. Kiln Q13 expects to be 

able to retain its ESP system (whereas it could not under the 

2010 final rule), but needs to resize its dust conveying system, 

upgrade the ESP, and utilize a larger activated carbon injection 

system differently from planned (since an ESP will not capture 

mercury as would a baghouse). Steps involved in developing and 

 

12 For competitiveness reasons, kilns in this survey are 

identified by letter. The survey results are consistent with the 

EPA’s engineering understanding and judgment, and the EPA has no 

reason to dispute the overall survey results (although some 

details may be open to question). 13 These examples were chosen at random by the EPA from the 

survey information provided in the comment.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 95 of 257

implementing a system include reviewing the structural integrity 

of the existing ESP, obtaining proposals on ESP upgrades, 

relocating an existing stack adjacent to the existing ESP, 

complete stack design, order equipment for ESP upgrades, order a 

new stack, contract construction, perform necessary 

construction, modify the ESP as needed, evaluate CEMS 

performance and conduct stack testing and make any adjustments 

to the integrated control system. Again, reasonable timelines 

for carrying out these steps are provided.

Neither the EPA nor the industry has said definitively what 

each kiln will do and how long it will take. Until the standards 

are finalized, no such definitive pronouncement is possible. 

However, the record is quite specific that additional control 

strategies are now possible; what the range of those new control 

strategies are; that the strategies are interrelated so that the 

standards for PM, organics, mercury and HCl are all implicated;

and the time needed to carry out the various strategies. Thus, 

the commenter is mistaken that the record regarding the need for

a compliance date of September 2015 is merely conjectural.

The EPA solicited comment on the possibility of a shorter 

extension for the stack emission standards, noting that by 

virtue of the 2010 final rule, the industry was not starting 

from scratch but could already undertake compliance steps. See 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 96 of 257

77 FR 42386/3. The survey results referred to above confirm that 

this is the case, since a number of plants (to their credit) 

indicated that they have taken preliminary steps toward 

compliance such as conducting stack testing, and testing various 

control strategies (e.g., survey results for kilns A, F and G). 

Nonetheless, many commenters made the evident point that this 

preliminary work could only go so far when there was uncertainty 

about the final standard and uncertainty around which standard 

would determine their final control strategy. Moreover, even 

those plants which had begun preliminary compliance steps 

indicated (with specific timelines provided) that the remaining 

work would legitimately stretch through the summer of 2015.

This same record refutes those comments maintaining that an 

even longer compliance extension is needed. Not only is this 

inconsistent with the EPA’s own estimates, but the industry 

survey results document that no further time is needed. See CAA 

section 112(i)(3)(A) (compliance with CAA section 112(d) 

standards to be as expeditious as practicable). Therefore, the 

EPA is revising the compliance date for existing sources for PM, 

THC, HCl, and Hg to be September 9, 2015.

However, the EPA is establishing [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] as the

compliance date for the standards for existing open clinker 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 97 of 257

piles. These standards are not inter-related to the stack 

emission standards, and so need not be on the same timeline. The 

work practices we are adopting as the standards reflect 

practices already in place throughout the entire industry. The 

time needed to come into compliance consequently is to establish 

a reporting and recordkeeping apparatus, and in some instances 

to obtain approval (after appropriate demonstration) to use work 

practices not enumerated in the standard. The EPA estimates that 

these various steps should not exceed twelve months. Since 

section 112 (i)(3)(A) requires compliance to be as expeditious 

as practicable, the EPA is establishing a 12 month compliance 

period for these standards.

A compliance date for an amended standard must still be 

“as expeditiou[s] as practicable” and not more than 3 years. We 

believe a compliance extension is appropriate where, as here,

for the stack emission standards, the amended result in a 

compliance regime differs from the initial rule and additional 

time is needed to develop, install, and implement the controls 

needed to meet the amended standard. The EPA has shown that to 

be the case here, as explained above.

The Sierra Club in its comments also argued that the EPA 

could not change the 2013 compliance date in the 2010 final rule 

as a matter of law. The commenter rests this argument on CAA 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 98 of 257

sections 112(d)(7) and 112(i)(3)(A). We have responded above to 

the argument based on section 112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) 

simply is not an anti-backsliding provision (or, at the least, 

does not have to be interpreted that way). 

CAA Section 112(i)(3)(A) states in relevant part:

“[a]fter the effective date of any emissions standard, 

limitation or regulation . . . the Administrator shall establish 

a compliance date or dates for each category or subcategory of 

existing sources, which shall provide for compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years 

after the effective date of such standard”. 

In NRDC v. EPA (Plywood MACT), 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 

(D.C. Cir. 2007) the court held that “only the effective date of 

Section 112 emissions standards matters when determining the 

maximum compliance date.” 489 F. 3d at 1373 (emphasis original).

The EPA, therefore, lacked authority to extend the compliance 

date when it was only adjusting reporting terms. Id. at 1374. 

The opinion implies, however, that the EPA may reset the 

compliance date when the EPA amends the actual standard, as 

here. If the statute provided an absolute bar on the EPA 

extending an effective date, there was no reason for the court 

to distinguish the situation where the EPA amends some ancillary 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 99 of 257

feature of the rule from the situation where the EPA amends the 

actual standard.14

The reason it makes sense for the EPA to have the authority 

to reestablish a compliance date when it amends a MACT standard 

is evident. In a technology-based regime like section 112(d), if 

the technology basis of the standard changes with a change of 

the standard, it takes time to adopt the revised controls. This 

result fits the statutory text. 

Where the EPA has amended an existing source MACT standard, 

the compliance date for that amended standard must be as 

expeditious as practicable, and no later than 3 years from its 

 

14 Sierra Club maintains that because the revisions to the PM 

standard leave that standard nearly as stringent as the 2010 

standard, all that has effectively changed is the standard’s 

averaging time. Sierra Club likens this situation to the 

amendments to ancillary provisions like reporting at issue in 

Plywood MACT. This is incorrect. First, as explained in section 

V.A. above, the standard did increase numerically as a result of 

removing commercial incinerators from the database. Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, June 15, 

2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225. Second, although 

the amended PM standard is relatively as stringent as the 2010 

standard (75 FR 54988/2 and 77 FR 42389/3), it nonetheless 

affords different compliance options for all of the standards, 

as explained above and in further detail in the Response to 

Comment document. The standard allows flexibility for those days 

when emissions increase as a result of normal operating 

variability, without significantly affecting the long-term 

average performance for PM and affords different compliance 

opportunities as a result. Nor does the commenter consider the 

amendment to the alternative oHAP standard, which amendment 

likewise affords new compliance opportunities.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 100 of 257

effective date. Sierra Club argues that the original standard 

(the one that has been amended) must nonetheless take effect, 

but that standard no longer exists. It has been amended. 

Moreover, the result of Sierra Club’s approach would force 

sources to install one technology and rip it out in short order 

to install another. Congress cannot have mandated this result. 

See PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189 (staying NESHAP standards for 

clinker piles – that is, effectively extending their compliance 

date – because “the standards could likely change substantially. 

Thus, industry should not have to build expensive new 

containment structures until the standard is finally 

determined.”)15,16 Moreover, in the extreme case where the initial 

 

15 In a variant of this argument, Sierra Club maintains that in a 

situation where the compliance date for an initial existing 

source MACT standard has not yet passed and the EPA amended that 

standard to make it more stringent, the EPA would nonetheless 

leave the predecessor less stringent standard in place and 

require compliance with it. Although this situation has not 

arisen, the EPA would presumably be governed by the same 

principle noted by the PCA court: is the technology basis for 

the standard changing in such a way as to require more time for 

compliance and in a way that negates the compliance strategy of 

the initial rule. (Of course, if the compliance date of a 

standard has already occurred and a standard is later amended, 

that compliance date would not change retroactively.)

16 Sierra Club maintains that PCA is distinguishable because it 

involved a standard which the EPA was compelled to change. 

First, the comment is factually mistaken. The EPA had granted 

reconsideration of the clinker pile standards but had not 

indicated that the standards would be amended. See 76 FR 28325/1 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 101 of 257

standard was outright technically infeasible by any source (and 

was amended by the EPA to correct this defect), Sierra Club’s 

reading would leave sources with literally no legitimate 

compliance option.17 Technology-based standards simply do not 

work this way.

E. Eligibility to be a New Source under NESHAP

CAA section 112(a)(4) states that a new source is a 

stationary source if “the construction or reconstruction of 

which is commenced after the Administrator first proposes 

regulations under this section establishing an emissions 

standard applicable to such source.” As we explained 

previously, there is some ambiguity in the language “first 

proposes” and such language could refer to different dates in 

 

(May 17, 2011). Nor did the court indicate that the pile 

standards must change. Rather, “[b]ecause EPA will now be 

receiving comments for the first time, the standards could

likely change substantially.” 655 F. 3d at 189 (emphasis 

supplied). Thus, the court effectively reset the compliance date 

because of a potential future change in the rule which could 

result in a compliance regime which differed from that in the 

2010 final rule. This is directly parallel to the situation now 

presented by the amended PM and alternative oHAP standards. 17 An example is the startup and shutdown standard for HCl in the 

2010 final rule. The EPA established this standard as zero on 

the mistaken assumption that no chlorine could be present in the 

kiln during there periods. See 76 FR 28325 (granting 

consideration on this basis). The commenter’s approach would 

leave this technically infeasible standard and its compliance 

date in place without recourse.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 102 of 257

different circumstances, such as the first time the Agency 

proposes any standards for the source category, the first time 

the Agency proposes standards under a particular rulemaking 

record for the source category, or the first time the Agency 

proposes a particular standard. 

In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to 

retain May 6, 2009, as the date which determines new source 

eligibility and solicited comment on this issue. Industry 

commenters stated that we should change the date for determining 

new source status from May 9, 2009 to July 18, 2012, the date of 

the proposed reconsideration rule. In support, they asserted 

that they will not know what the final standards are until we 

finalize the reconsideration rule. We disagree with the 

commenters’ suggestion and are retaining the May 6, 2009 date as 

the date that determines whether a source is a new source under 

CAA section 112(a)(4). 

As we explained at proposal, it is reasonable to retain the 

May 6, 2009 date as the date the Agency “first proposed” 

standards for this source category. This is the date that EPA 

first proposed these standards under this particular rulemaking 

record. Today’s action is a reconsideration action, and 

although it revises the particulate matter new source standard, 

it is premised on the same general rulemaking record. It is 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 103 of 257

thus reasonable to view the date EPA “first proposes” standards 

to be the May 2009 date. Further, industry commenters 

essentially advocate an approach whereby any time the Agency 

changes a new source standard, in any way, on reconsideration, 

the new source trigger date would change. Such a result is not 

consistent with Congress’ intent in defining the term “new 

source” in section 112(a)(4), to be the date the Agency “first 

proposes” standards. Furthermore, EPA notes that the new source 

standards finalized today are ones that will be met, in our 

view, using the same or similar control technologies as would be 

used to meet the standards issued in May 2010, and commenters 

have not disputed this conclusion. See 77 FR 42387. 

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

A. What are the affected sources? 

As noted in the proposed 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 this final rule, and that approximately 5 of those 

facilities are new greenfield facilities. All these facilities 

will operate 158156 cement kilns and associated clinker coolers. 

Of these kilns, 23 are CISWI kilns. These have been removed from 

our data set used to establish existing source floors. Based on 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 104 of 257

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 PM, mercury, HCl and THC, 

and 7 kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended NSPS for 

nitrogen oxide and SO2. Some of these new kilns will be built at 

existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities. 

B. How did the EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments?

For these final amendments, we determined whether 

additional control measures, work practices and monitoring 

requirements would be required by cement manufacturing 

facilities to comply with the amended rules, incremental to the 

2010 final standards (since any other comparison would result in 

double counting). 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 any of the additional measures in order 

to comply with the proposedthese final amendments. Using this 

approach, we assessed potential impacts from the proposed 

revisions.

These final amendments to the 2010 rule are expected to 

result in lower costs for the Portland cement industry. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 105 of 257

final amendment to the PM standard affords alternative, less 

costly compliance opportunities for existing sources. See 

section V.D above. 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 (putting polishing controls ahead of 

the primary PM control device, for instance). 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. There are also potential cost 

savings associated with the amended oHAP alternative standard 

(which now may be a viable compliance alternative for some 

sources since issues of reliable analytic measurement have been 

resolved). Following proposal, industry submitted kiln specific 

information on likely changes in compliance strategy resulting 

from the proposed amendments so that we are now better able to 

estimate potential savings resulting from the final amendments. 

Based on an industry survey of 18 portlandPortland cement 

facilities (20 kilns) after proposal (see Docket item EPA-HQOAR-2011-0817-0505-A5), it appears that the amendments may have 

the following effects, which may result in savings in capital 

and annual costs associated with implementing control 

technologies for these pollutants:
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 106 of 257

• Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) may not need to 

be installed due to the amended o-HAPoHAP alternative.

• Carbon injection rates may be lowered or not required 

for THC control.

• Existing PM controls (ESP and baghouse) may not need 

to be replaced, but may instead be upgraded.

• Additional PM controls may not have to be implemented.

• Polishing and hybrid filter configurations may be 

implemented instead of total replacements.

There are also certain costs, and cost savings, associated 

with other provisions of the final amendments. There may be a 

difference in costs of stack testing for PM and use of a CPMS, 

rather than use of a PM CEMS. In addition, there are cost 

savings when changing from a PM CEMS compliance demonstration to 

a CPMS demonstration. For example as part of the PS 11 

calibration requirements, a minimum of 15 Method 5 test runs are 

required to develop a correlation curve, with no limit to the 

maximum number of test runs. Omitting the need for these 

multiple test runs will save the facility a minimum of $20,000 

per kiln (each Method 5 test costs $5,000). At a savings of 

$20,000 per kiln, nationwide savings for 133 new and existing 

kilns, would be $2.7 million per year. However, the CPMS is the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 107 of 257

same type of device as a PM CEMS, so the capital cost of the 

CPMS would not be significantly different than the CEMS device.

The final revisions to the alternative organic HAP standard 

(from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic method practical 

quantitation limit) would allow more sources to select this 

compliance alternative and demonstrate compliance without 

needing to install very expensive and energy-intensive RTO. In 

addition, providing parametric monitoring flexibilities (not 

present in the 2010 final rule) will provide lower costs for the 

better-performing sources in the industry. See section IV.B 

above. We have quantified these savings (see Final Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 

2012, p.3).

The revisions to the standard for open clinker storage 

piles codify current fugitive dust control measures already 

required by most states, so no impacts are expected. These final 

standards would be significantly less expensive than the 

controls for open piles in the 2010 final rule, which required 

enclosures in all instances. We estimate that the savings to 

industry over the 2010 rule will be $8.25 million annually. See 

Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document, December 20, 2012, in this rulemaking docket.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 108 of 257

We have estimated the additional industry cost associated 

with the affirmative defense to civil penalties provisions. We 

estimate the additional cost is $3,258 per year for the entire 

industry. See Supporting Statement in the docket. 

One of the final revisions would allow sources that control 

HCl with dry scrubbers to use periodic performance testing and 

parametric monitoring rather than monitoring compliance with an 

HCl CEMS. This will provide those sources with additional 

flexibility in complying with the HCl standard.

The 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 revision. 

The amendments provide for work practices rather than 

numerical standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The 

work practice standards reflect common industry practices, so 

there should be no costs associated with them. There should also 

be substantial savings associated with the work practices. 

At an annual cost of about $51,000 per year ($22,800 per 

Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 per year for Method 25A 

test for THC + $20,000 per year for Method 321 test for HCl),

the final revisions for new testing and monitoring of coal mills 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 109 of 257

that use kiln exhaust gases to dry coal and exhaust through a 

separate stack are not expected to have significant impacts.

The revisions would make existing kilns that undergo a 

modification, as defined by NSPS, subject to a PM standard of 

0.07 lb/ton clinker, 3-run average. There may be less costly 

compliance alternatives under the amended standard, similar to 

alternatives available under the amended existing source NESHAP 

for PM.

C. What are the air quality impacts?

In these final amendments, emission limits for mercury, THC 

and HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus, there is no 

change in emissions from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP 

surrogates. The alternative HAP organic standard is being

amended to 12 ppm, which is the analytic method practical 

quantitation limit based on the performance test method 

detection limit of 4 ppm. The impact on emission levels due to 

this change is not clear since measuring below the quantitation 

limit does not yield a value with enough certainty to represent 

the actual level. Thus, a measurement below 12 ppm could very 

well actually be 12 ppm or something less. For PM, the limit for 

existing sources changes from 0.04 lb/ton clinker 30-day average 

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on stack testing. The PM limit for 

new sources also changed: to 0.02 lb/ton clinker stack test from 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 110 of 257

0.01 lb/ton clinker 30-day average. The final changes in the PM 

standards, while not significant in absolute terms, may result 

in a small increase in total nationwide emissions by allowing 

slightly more variability, although, as noted at proposal, we 

estimate that design values will be essentially identical under 

the 2010 and this final standard. 77 FR 42389. As explained in 

the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (see Docket item EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051-3438), emission reductions were estimated by 

comparing baseline emissions to the long-term average emissions 

of the MACT floor kilns. As a practical matter, plants operate 

to comply with this lower average emissions level (the so-called 

design level), rather than the emissions limit, so that on those 

days where there is normal operating variability they do not 

exceed the emissions limit. See 77 FR 42386-87. Under the 2010 

rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor kilns 

were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the amended standard, 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 as we believe new sources will have to adopt 

identical control strategies as under the promulgated standards.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 111 of 257

We, therefore, are not estimating an emission increase from new 

kilns. For existing kilns, with an increase in PM emissions 

under this final rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to the 

2010 rule, nationwide emissions of PM would increase by 138 tons 

per year (0.00359 X 76,664,662/2000). Thus, the EPA estimates 

that the main effect of this final 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.

Nonetheless, as explained in section V.D above, this change does 

allow for changes in compliance strategies in the form of types, 

sizes and sequencing of treatment trains.

Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and this final

rule, in 2015, are compared in Table 4. 

Table 4. Comparison of nationwide PM emissions from 2010 rule to 

final rule in 2015.

Kiln 

type

2010 

rule

Final 

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 

(CISWI kilns removed) 

(tons/yr)

11,433 11,433 NA

Nationwide emissions 

reduction (tons/yr)

Total 10,540 10,402 -138
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 112 of 257

One commenter noted that the compliance extension will result in 

two additional years of HAP emissions at pre-standard levels, 

noting especially the emission of PM, noting further that fine 

PM (PM2.5) is causally associated with mortality and serious 

morbidity effects at a population level. See, e.g. 77 FR 38909 

(June 29, 2012). We note first that these rules are technologybased, not risk-based, and that there are compelling reasons to 

amend the PM standard and to establish new compliance dates for 

existing sources as a result of technological limitations with 

the 2010 rule PM standard, and the new compliance opportunities 

afforded as a result of the amendment to that standard. See 

section V. D to the preamble to the final rule.D above. We also 

question the commenter's premise that all of the predicted 

emission reductions and benefits would accrue if the existing 

source CEM-based PM standards took effect in September 2013. As 

explained at length in section V.A. of the preamble to the final 

ruleabove and in other comment responses, PM CEMS would not 

reliably measure the level of the PM standard in many instances. 

One cannot assume the full range of emission reductions (and 

consequent health benefits) would accrue in the real world if 

the emission measurements themselves are uncertain. Thus, in a 

meaningful sense, today's amendments result in a regime where 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 113 of 257

the required emission reductions will be reliably measured, so 

that the rule's health benefits will reliably occur. 

D. What are the water quality impacts?

At proposal, we believed that none of the amendments being 

proposed would have significant impacts on water quality and 

that to the extent that the revision affecting dry caustic 

scrubbers encourages their use, some reduction in water 

consumption may occur although we had no information upon which 

to base a quantified estimate. We received no comments 

questioning this assessment. Further, in reviewing the industry 

survey information on the impacts of the proposed changes, only 

1 of the 20 kilns for which information was provided was 

considering the addition of a wet scrubber, although it was also 

evaluating a dry scrubber (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0505-A5, kiln S). Therefore, we continue to believe that these 

final amendments will not significantly impact water quality.

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

None of the amendments being finalized with this final rule

are expected to have any solid waste impacts.18

 

18 Although dust shuttling is likely to be one element of mercury 

compliance strategy, the amount of dust shuttling would not 

increase incremental to the 2010 final rule since the standards 

for new and existing sources are the same in the 2010 final rule 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 114 of 257

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 amendments. Because we are finalizing 

revisions that slightly reduce the stringency of the existing 

source emission limits for PM from the promulgated 2010 limits, 

we project that some facilities will 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. The survey results discussed in section V.D above 

confirm the EPA’s engineering judgment. Other facilities in the 

survey that were not able to meet the THC limit or the 

alternative organic HAP limit in the 2010 rule were considering 

the installation of RTOsRTO. Because some of these facilities 

may now meet the limit without the installation of an RTO, we 

have estimated a reduction of 24,702 tons per year less CO2 

 

and these amendments. Moreover, as explained in section VBV.B

above, even with respect to the high mercury feed source, dust 

shuttling entails moving dust from within the kiln to other 

parts of the process and is considered a closed loop process, 

thereby not causing any waste impacts.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 115 of 257

emissions being emitted to the atmosphere (equivalent to 2 less 

RTO’s being installed). As a result of the organic HAP limit 

being revised from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, these sources responded that 

they now had other less costly alternatives. The additional 

compliance time was also cited as a factor that would gives 

sources the additional time they needed to consider other HAP 

control alternatives to RTO. As the industry survey highlights, 

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. In general, 

this survey indicates that the combination of the revised limits 

for PM and organic HAP as well as the September, 2015 compliance 

date will give sources the opportunity to develop less costly 

and less aggressive compliance strategies. We do not have enough 

information to quantify the impact of overall secondary impacts, 

(with the exception of the CO2 reductions noted above), but we 

believe the impacts would in fact be reduced relative to the 

2010 rule since less energy is expected to be needed for 

facilities that can retain and upgrade their current controls, 

instead of for example, installing additional controls in 

series.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 116 of 257

G. What are the energy impacts?

As discussed in the preceding section, because of the final 

revisions to the PM emission limits, the organic HAP limits and 

the compliance date extension, some facilities will develop more 

cost effective and less energy intensive compliance strategies. 

For three of the facilities (five kilns) that were part of the 

industry survey, all five kilns required significant changes to 

meet the 2010 THC standard, in part because they were not 

pursuing the alternative organic HAP alternative standard due to 

analytic measurement uncertainties. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0505-A5 (kilns A, C and D, and F and G). Prior to the 

proposed revisions, all five of the kilns were considering 

RTOsRTO as a control option as well as other options including 

catalytic ceramic filtration, a relatively new technology and as 

yet, not completely demonstrated technology for the cement 

industry. In response to the survey of what changes, if any, the 

facilities would make in response to the proposed revisions, all 

three facilities indicated that the amended organic HAP limit or 

the September 2015 compliance date allowed them to consider the 

use of less capital intensive alternatives and to continue 

testing alternatives for THC reduction other than the highly 

energy-intensive RTO for the five kilns involved. Although we 

cannot accurately predict for the entire industry the extent to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 117 of 257

which these site-specific compliance strategies may affect 

energy demands, the industry survey results indicate a trend 

toward less energy intensive strategies than RTO, and as noted 

above, we predict a reduction in CO2 emissions due to less 

energy use as a result of two fewer kilns installing RTOs.

H. What are the cost impacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that 

there could be savings of approximately $52 million associated 

with alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM 

standards, making corresponding adjustments in compliance 

strategies for the organic HAP and requiring work practice for 

open clinker storage piles. Table 5 summarizes the costs and 

emissions reductions of this final action.

Table 5. 

Summary of the Costs and Emission Reductions of the Final 

Amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP 

relative to the 2010 rulea,b,c,d,e

Proposed 

Amendment

Annualized 

Cost

PM 

Emissions 

Reduction

2010 rule

PM 

Emissions 

Reduction

2012 rule

Emission 

Change 

tpy

Revised PM, 

oHAP standard

($42.2

million)f

10,540 

tons

10,402 

tons

138 

increase

Replace PM CEMS 

with PM CPMS

($2.7

million) 

0

Coal Mill 

Testing

$1.3 million 0

Open clinker 

storage pile 

work practices

($8.25 

million)

0

Total ($51.85

million)
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 118 of 257

a Parentheses indicate cost savings. All costs are in 2005 

dollars. 

b We also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 

for each facility to revise their operation and maintenance plan 

to include procedures to minimize emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown.

c Emissions reductions are the total once full compliance is

achieved in 2015.

d Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015. e Note emission reductions published in the 2010 rule included 

CISWI kilns, but the reductions in this table reflect reductions 

since CISWI kilns were removed from the database.

f Includes cost savings due to revised PM standard.

The cost information in Table 5 is in 2005 dollars at a discount 

rate of 7 percent. The EPA did not have sufficient information 

to quantify the overall change in benefits or impacts in 

emissions for 2013 to 2015.

With regard to the coal mill monitoring requirements in 

this action, sources with integral coal mills that exhaust 

through a separate exhaust would potentially incur a capital 

cost of $36,000 to install a continuous flow meter. The 

annualized cost of a flow meter is $11,000. Because this final 

rule allows the use of maximum design flow rate instead of 

installing flow meters, we believe that most facilities will 

take advantage of this and will not incur these costs. Annual 

testing at these coal mills for mercury, THC and HCl will cost 

about $51,000 ($22,800 per Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 

per year for Method 25A test for THC + $20,000 per year for 

Method 321 test for HCl). Using information supplied by the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 119 of 257

industry (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0612),

approximately 26 facilities would be affected by these 

requirements for an annual cost of $1.3 million. Costs for coal 

mills to meet the PM limits for this NESHAP are not included, 

since all equipment and monitoring are in place to meet 

requirements of Subpart Y and thus are not considered additional 

costs. 

With the final change to PM CPMS instead of CEMS, it is 

estimated that the elimination of the PS correlation tests will 

result in a savings of $20,000 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)19. When 

 

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 

Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 120 of 257

adequate data and resources are available and a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) is required, the EPA generally quantifies 

several health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., 

U.S. EPA, 2011)20. These 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, pre-term 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).

 

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>. 

20 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. 

Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf>..
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 121 of 257

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.21 The greatest impact is 

on the upper respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations 

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. HCl has not been classified for 

carcinogenic effects.22

 

21 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 

Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, 

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.

22 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 122 of 257

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 National Academy of Science (NAS) Study was 

issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg 

on human health (National Research Council (NRC), 2000)23. 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 NAS found 

neurodevelopmental effects to be the most sensitive and best 

documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an oral 

reference dose (RfD) (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 

 

23 National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects 

of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 123 of 257

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 124 of 257

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. 

The Mercury Study24 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 chromosomes25. 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 

 

24 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>. 25 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 125 of 257

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, 

1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 

2000)26.

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 Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA, 2002)27,28. 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 

 

26 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.

27 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.

28 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 126 of 257

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).

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 Office of Management and Budget 

(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:
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 127 of 257

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.

pdf.http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinal

ria.pdf. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this final 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 1801.11 for the 

NESHAP; there are no additional recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements 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 finalizing new paperwork requirements for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing source category in the form of a 

requirement to incorporate work practices for periods of startup 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 128 of 257

and shutdown and fugitive dust control measures for clinker 

piles into their existing operations and maintenance plan. 

This final rule also includes new paperwork requirements 

for recordkeeping of malfunctions, as described in 40 CFR 

63.454(g) (conducted in support of the affirmative defense 

provisions, as described in 40 CFR 63.456).

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report the event 

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LLL. An affirmative defense to civil penalties 

for violations of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions is available to a source if it can demonstrate that 

certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. The criteria 

ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the 

event that causes a violation of the emission limit meets the 

narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source took 

necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source 

must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For 

example, the source must prepare a written root cause analysis 

and submit a written report to the Administrator documenting 

that it has met the conditions and requirements for assertion of 

the affirmative defense.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 129 of 257

The EPA is adding the paperwork and recordkeeping 

associated with the affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

malfunctions 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 the ICR that 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 $3,258, 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 a violation 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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 130 of 257

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 violations caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the 

affirmative defense. Thus, we expect the number of instances in 

which source operators might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be extremely small. For this 

reason, we estimate no more than two such occurrences per year 

for all sources subject to subpart LLL over the 3-year period 

covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on such 

events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available.

We estimate 86 facilities will be subject to all final 

standards. The remaining 14 facilities will only be subject to 

the open clinker pile standards in this action. The annual 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 131 of 257

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping cost for this source

(averaged over the first 3three years after the effective date 

of the standards) for these amendments to subpart LLL is 

estimated to be $352,814 per year for the industry. 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 estimate includes 

reporting and recordkeeping associated with the requirements for 

open clinker storage piles. The total burden to the federal 

government (averaged over the first three years after the 

effective date of the standard) as a result of these amendments

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. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 132 of 257

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 based on the size 

definition for the affected NAICS code (327310), as defined by 

the Small Business Administration size standards; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 

county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 

that is any not-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. and comprise 3 plants. After 

considering the economic impacts of this final 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 these amendments to the 2010 final rule (reflecting 

potential controls on piles, which are likely to have lower cost 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 133 of 257

when compared to the 2010 rule requirements because these plants 

already have requirements for control of open clinker storage 

piles in their title V permits). 

Although this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless adopted amendments which should reduce the

impact of this final rule on small entities. For example, we are 

expanding the provision that allows periodic HCl performance 

tests as an alternative to HCl CEMS for sources equipped with 

wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that use dry 

scrubbers. This final rule also adds an option for sources using 

wet or dry scrubbers for HCl control to use SO2 as a monitored 

parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for SO2, then 

this will provide operational flexibility.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, there is 

an actual savings to the industry of $52 million per year. Thus, 

this final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. This final action is also not subject 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 134 of 257

to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. This final action contains no 

requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no 

obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by 

them of $100 million or more in any one year or any 

disproportionate impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This final 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action may have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA 

is aware of one tribally owned Portland cement facility 

currently subject to subpart LLL and that will be subject to 

this final rule. The provisions of this final rule are not 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 135 of 257

expected to impose new substantial direct compliance costs on 

Tribal governments since the same control technologies that are 

necessary under the current NESHAP will be needed to meet the 

final emissions limits. The EPA has tried to reduce the impact 

of this final rule on Tribal owned facilities. For example, we 

are expanding the provision that allows periodic HCl performance 

tests as an alternative to HCl CEMS for sources equipped with 

wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that use dry 

sorbent injection (i.e., dry scrubbing systems). This final rule 

adds an option for sources using wet or dry scrubbers for HCl 

control to use SO2 as a monitored parameter. If these sources 

already have a CEMS for SO2, then this will provide operational 

flexibility.

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 136 of 257

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This final 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 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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 137 of 257

This final 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 

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 

(See docket item 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 

final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 138 of 257

populations because it increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations without having any

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any minority 

or low-income populations. In addition, the full benefits of 

this final rule will not result until 2015 due to the final 

amended compliance date but the demographic analysis showed that 

the average of 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.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 

will submit a report containing this final rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States 

prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 

major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 139 of 257

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be 

effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 140 of 257

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants

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
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 141 of 257

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 

I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows:

PART 60 – [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[AMENDED]

2. Section 60.61 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) 

and (f) to read as follows:

§60.61 Definitions.

* * * * *

(e) 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.

(f) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 142 of 257

day does not include the hours of operation during startup 

or shutdown. 

 * * * * *

3. Section 60.62 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2); 

b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iii);

c. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(i); 

d. Revising paragraph (b)(1);

e. Removing paragraph (b)(2);

f. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) 

and (b)(3); 

g. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and 

f. Revising paragraph (d).

The revisions and deletion read as follows:

§60.62 Standards.

(a) * * *

(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:

(1) * * *

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 

reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 143 of 257

(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: 

(b) * * *

(1) Contain PM in excess of:* * *

(i) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 

reconstruction of the clinker cooler commences after June 

16, 2008. 

(ii) 0. 07 pound per ton of clinker if the clinker 

cooler has undergone a modification.

* * * * * 

(3) If the kiln has a separated alkali bypass stack 

and/or an inline coal mill with a separate stack, you must 

combine the PM emissions from the bypass stack and/or the 

inline coal mill stack with the PM emissions from the main 

kiln exhaust to determine total PM emissions.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 144 of 257

(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 

this chapter, you must comply with the most stringent 

emissions limit or requirement and are not subject to the 

less stringent requirement. 

4. 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) and (b)(3);

d. Removing paragraph (b)(4);

e. Revising paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3);

f. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(8);

g. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);

h. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;

i. Revising paragraph (g)(2);

j. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;

k. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(6);

l. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text;

m. Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text;

n. Revising paragraph (h)(9);

o. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and

p. Revising paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(1)(i).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 145 of 257

The revisions, addition, and deletion read as follows: 

§60.63 Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 146 of 257

(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 

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.

(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. You will conduct your performance 

test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix A-3 to part 60 

of this chapter. You must also monitor continuous 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 147 of 257

performance through use of a PM continuous parametric 

monitoring system (PM CPMS).

(2) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a sitespecific operating limit. If your PM performance test 

demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent

of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS 

value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp 

equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the 

average PM result of your compliance test to establish your 

operating limit equivalent to 75 percent of the standard. 

If your PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission 

levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit 

you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the 

PM compliance test demonstrating compliance with the PM 

limit to establish your operating limit. You will use 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.

(i) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output 

and the establishment of its relationship to manual 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 148 of 257

reference method measurements must be determined in units 

of milliamps.

(ii) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of 

reading PM concentrations from zero to a level equivalent 

to two times your allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS 

is an auto-ranging instrument capable of multiple scales, 

the primary range of the instrument must be capable of 

reading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to 

two times your allowable emission limit.

(iii) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance 

with the PM limit, record and average all milliamp output 

values from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to 

the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS 

output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test 

runs).

(3) Determine your operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(ii5) of this section. 

If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission 

levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you 

will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 

compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output 

from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your 

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 149 of 257

compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your 

PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to 

be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit you will 

use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 

compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must 

verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after 

each repeated performance test. You must repeat the 

performance test at least annually and reassess and adjust 

the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the 

results of the performance test.

(4) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I 

compliance test runs are below 75 percent of your PM 

emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by 

establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to PM 

concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the 

average PM CPMS values corresponding to the three 

compliance test runs, and the average PM concentration from 

the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the procedures in 

(c)(4)(i)(A)through (c)(4)(i)(D)of this section.

(i) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with 

one of the following procedures.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 150 of 257

(A) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be 

obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and 

monitoring ambient air on a test bench.

(B) Zero point data for extractive instruments should 

be obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack 

and drawing in clean ambient air.

(C) The zero point can also can be obtained by 

performing manual reference method measurements when the 

flue gas is free of PM emissions or contains very low PM 

concentrations (e.g., when your process is not operating, 

but the fans are operating or your source is combusting 

only natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance 

data to find the zero intercept.

(D) If none of the steps in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)(A)

through (C) of this section are possible, you must use a 

zero output value provided by the manufacturer.

(ii) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in 

milliamps, and the average of your corresponding three PM 

compliance test runs, using equation 1.

x = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 , y = 1

n ∑ Y1 n

i=1 (Eq. 1) 

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs 

constituting the performance test,
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 151 of 257

Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs 

constituting the performance test, and

n = The number of data points. 

(iii) With your PM CPMS instrument zero expressed in 

milliamps, your three run average PM CPMS milliamp value, 

and your three run average PM concentration from your three 

PM performance test runs, determine a relationship of 

lb/ton-clinker per milliamp with equation 2.

(X z)

Y

− =

1

1 R (Eq. 2)

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton clinker per milliamp for your PM 

CPMS.

Y1 = The three run average PM lb/ton clinker.

X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM 

CPMS.

z = the milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero 

determined from (c)(4)(i) of this section.

(iv) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling 

average operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per 

milliamp value from Equation 2 above in equationEquation 3, 

below. This sets your operating limit at the PM CPMS output 

value corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 152 of 257

Ol=z+(0.75(L))/ R (Eq. 3)

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your PM CPMS on a 30-day 

rolling average, in milliamps.

L = Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker.

z = Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from 

(1)(i).

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM 

CPMS, from Equation 2.

(5) If the average of your three PM compliance test 

runs is at or above 75 percent of your PM emission limit 

you must determine your operating limit by averaging the PM 

CPMS milliamp output corresponding to your three PM 

performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limit using Equation 4.

Oh = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 (Eq. 4)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.

n = The number of data points.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps. 

(6) To determine continuous compliance, you must 

record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the 

process is operating, and use all the PM CPMS data for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 153 of 257

calculations when the source 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 

(milliamps) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use 

Equation 5 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day average (Eq. 5)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected 

over 30 kiln operating days.

(7) Use EPA Method 5 or Method 5I of appendix A to 

part 60 of this chapter to determine PM emissions. For each 

performance test, conduct at least 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 154 of 257

compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the 

average of the results from three consecutive runs to 

determine compliance. You need not determine the 

particulate matter collected in the impingers (”(“back 

half”) of the Method 5 or Method 5I 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.

(8) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM 

CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test 

report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS 

instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical 

principle of the instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span 

of the instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value 

equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by 

which this zero value was determined, and the average 

milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance test 

run.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 155 of 257

§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.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 156 of 257

(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.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 157 of 257

(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, 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 158 of 257

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 (iii)

and (b)(1)(i) and (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 

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 159 of 257

* * * * *

(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.

* * * * *

(i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of 

Monitoring Plans. To 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).§60.13(3)(i). If you use a bag leak detector Formatted: Font color: Black
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 160 of 257

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 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control device);

* * * * *

5. 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 161 of 257

(b)(1)You must demonstrate compliance with the PM 

standards in §60.62 using EPA method 5 or method 5I.

(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.

(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating 

day average emission rate daily of NOx and SO2 according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (c)(i) through (c)(ii) of this 

section.

(i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day 

average emissions according to equation 6:

P

C Q

E k

n

i

i i

D

∑= = 1

30 (Eq. 6)

Where: 

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of NOX or 

SO2, lb/ton of clinker.

Ci = Concentration of NOX or SO2 for hour i, ppm.

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i, where 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 162 of 257

Ci and Qi are on the same basis (either wet or dry), scf/hr.

PiP = 30 days of clinker production during the same time 

period as the NOx or SO2 emissions measured, tons.

k = Conversion factor, 1.194 x 10-7 for NOX and 1.660 x 10-7

for SO2, lb/scf/ppm.

n = Number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating 

days.

(ii) 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) (http://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 

collected using test methods on the ERT website are subject 

to this requirement for submitting reports electronically 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 163 of 257

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, flash drive or other commonly used 

electronic storage media 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 CBI, to 

the delegated authority in the format specified by the 

delegated authority. For any performance test conducted 

using test methods that are not listed on the ERT website, 

you must submit the results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13.

(2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

CEMS performance evaluation test as defined in §63.2, you 

must submit relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data to the 

EPA’s CDX by using CEDRI in accordance with paragraph (21) 

of this section. Only RATA pollutants that can be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 164 of 257

documented with the ERT (as listed on the ERT website) are 

subject to this requirement. For any performance 

evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on 

the ERT website, you must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in §63.13.

(3) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM 

CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test 

report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS 

instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical 

principle of the instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span 

of the instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value 

equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by 

which this zero value was determined, and the average 

milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance test 

run.

(4) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 165 of 257

copy). The Administrator retains the right to require 

submittal of reports subject to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section in paper format.

6. 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) 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.

(c) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 166 of 257

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.

7. 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 

EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart LLL—[Amended]

9. Section 63.1340 is amended by

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(9); and 

b. Revising paragraph (c).

The revisions read as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 167 of 257

§63.1340 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *

(b The affected sources subject to this subpart are:

(b) * * *:

(1) Each kiln including alkali bypasses and inline coal 

mills, except for kilns that burn hazardous waste and are 

subject to and regulated under subpart EEE of this part;

* * *

(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.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 168 of 257

* * * * *

10. Section 63.1341 is amended by: 

a. Deleting definitions of “Enclosed storage pile,” 

and “Inactive clinker pile;” 

b. Adding a definition for “In-line coal mill,” “Open 

clinker storage pile,” “Startup” and “Shutdown” in 

alphabetical order; and 

c. Revising definitions for “Kiln,” “New source,” 

“Operating day,” “Raw material dryer,” and “Total organic 

HAP,” in alphabetical order.

The deletions, additions and revisions read as follows:

§63.1341 Definitions.

* * * * *

In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust 

gases in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 169 of 257

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 or 

reconstruction 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 a clinker storage pile on 

the ground for more than three days 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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 170 of 257

equipment used to reduce the moisture content of feed or 

other materials.

* * * * *

Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown 

begins when feed to the kiln is halted and ends when 

continuous kiln rotation ceases.

* * * * *

Startup means the time from when a shutdown kiln first 

begins firing fuel until it begins producing clinker. 

Startup begins when a shutdown kiln turns on the induced 

draft fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner. 

Startup ends when feed is being continuously introduced 

into the kiln for at least 120 minutes or when the feed 

rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate, 

whichever occurs first.

* * * * *

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 171 of 257

D6348-0329 or a combination of these methods, as 

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., 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 

 

29 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 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, percent 

R must be 70 percent ≥ R ≤ 130 percent; and (4) The percent 

R value for each compound must be reported in the test 

report and all field measurements corrected with the 

calculated percent R value for that compound using the 

following equation:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 172 of 257

other test methods to make this determination under 

paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part.

* * * * *

11. Section 63.1343 is revised to read as follows:

§63.1343 What standards apply to my kilns, clinker 

coolers, raw material dryers, and open clinker storage 

piles?

(a) General. The provisions in this section apply to 

each kiln and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, 

clinker cooler, raw material dryer, and open clinker 

storage pile. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 173 of 257

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. 

(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 174 of 257

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 

correcti

on 

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 (TEQ)

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

Work practices 

(63.1346(f)))

NA NA

4. 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 (TEQ) 

lb/MM tons 

clinker

ppmvd

NA

7 

percent

NA

7 

percent

5. New kiln Normal 

operation 

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd 7 

percent

6. New kiln Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

Work practices 

(63.1346(f))

NA NA

7. Existing 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operation 

Major or 

area 

source

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

8. Existing 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

Work practices

(63.1348(b)(9)

) 

NA NA

9. New 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operation 

Major or 

area 

source

PM 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

10. New 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

Work practices 

(63.1348(b)(9)

)

NA NA

11. Existing 

or new raw 

material 

dryer

Normal 

operation 

Major or 

area 

source

THC3,4 24 ppmvd NA

12. Existing 

or new raw 

Startup 

and 

Major or 

area 

Work practices 

(63.1348(b)(9)

NA NA
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 175 of 257

material 

dryer

shutdown source )

13. Existing 

or new raw 

or finish 

mill

All 

operating 

modes

Major 

source

Opacity 10 percent NA

1 The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5

or 5I and consistsconsist 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 o

F or less this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm. (TEQ). 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 and/or an inline coal 

mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the combined 

PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass stack and/or 

the inline coal mill stack are subject to the PM emissions 

limit. Existing kilns that combine the clinker cooler exhaust 

and/or coal mill exhaust with the kiln exhaust 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.

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 ton feed per ton clinker.

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed)).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 176 of 257

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 ton feed per ton 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 Storage Pile. The owner or operator of an 

open clinker storage pile must prepare, and operate in 

accordance with, the fugitive dust emissions control measures, 

described in their operation and maintenance plan (see §63.1347 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 177 of 257

of this subpart), that is appropriate for the site conditions as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. The 

operation and maintenance plan must also describe the measures 

that will be used to minimize fugitive dust emissions from piles 

of clinker, such as accidental spillage, that are not part of 

open clinker storage piles. 

(1) The operation and maintenance plan must identify and 

describe the location of each current or future open clinker 

storage pile and 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: 

Locatinglocating the source inside a partial enclosure, 

installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, 

applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents, use of a 

wind barrier, compaction, use of tarpaulin or other equally 

effective cover or use of a vegetative cover. You 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 178 of 257

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. 

(3) Temporary piles of clinker that result from accidental 

spillage or clinker storage cleaning operations must be cleaned 

up within 3 days.

(d) 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.

* * * * *

12. 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 Emission 

Standards During Malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

in paragraph §63.1343(b) and (c) and §63.1345 and 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 if 

you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the requirements 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 179 of 257

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 reporting 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that:

(1) The violation: 

(i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control 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; and

(3) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 180 of 257

(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

(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) All of the 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 practices 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 181 of 257

(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 

section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in 

the first periodic compliance, 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 emission report is due less than 45 

days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after 

the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant 

standard.

13. 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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 182 of 257

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 

gases from these affected sources which exhibit opacity in 

excess of 10 percent.

14. Section 63.1346 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and

c. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f).

The revisions 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 183 of 257

mill was operating, is not exceeded, except during periods of 

startup/ and shutdown when the temperature limit may be exceeded 

by no more than 10 percent.

* * * * *

(c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an 

emission control technique for D/F control, 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 184 of 257

(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 

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
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 185 of 257

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 is in compliance with a 

mercury emissions limit specified in § 63.1343, this paragraph 

no longer applies.

(g) During periods of startup and shutdown you must meet the 

requirements listed in (g)(1) through (4).) of this section.

(1) During startup you must use any one or combination of 

the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, 

propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), and ultra-low 

sulfur diesel (ULSD) until the kiln reaches a temperature of 

1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

(2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once 

the kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

(3) All air pollution control devices must be turned on and 

operating prior to combusting any fuel.

(4) You must keep records as specified in §63.1355 during 

periods of startup and shutdown.

15. Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows:

§63.1347 Operation and maintenance plan requirements.

(a) * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 186 of 257

(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 operations and maintenance plan 

must address periods of startup and shutdown;

* * * * *

16. Section 63.1348 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii);

c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6);

d. Adding paragraph (a)(7);

e. Revising paragraph (b); and

f. Adding paragraph (b) 9; and

g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1348 Compliance requirements.

(a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. For an affected 

source subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance 

with the emissions standards and operating limits by using the 

test methods and procedures in §§63.1349 and 63.7. Any cement 

kiln that has been subject to the requirements of subpart CCCC

or subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 60, and is now electing to cease 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 187 of 257

burning nonhazardous solid waste and become subject to this 

subpart, must meet all the initial compliance testing 

requirements each time it becomes subject to this subpart, even 

if it was previously subject to this subpart. 

NOTE: The first day of the 30 operating day performance 

test is the first day after the compliance date 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. The source 

has the option of performing the compliance test earlier then 

the compliance date if desired.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 188 of 257

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. 

(i) * * * 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 TEQ concentration 

for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the TEQ 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 189 of 257

* * *

(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

performance test 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. 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. 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 190 of 257

standards by using the performance test methods and procedures 

in §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(iv).7.

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must 

conduct the separate performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(4)(iii7) while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw 

mill is operating and while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw 

mill is not operating.

(iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured 

during the separate initial performance test specified by 

§63.1349(b)(4)(iii7) 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 inline kiln/raw mill is on and the fraction 

of time that the inline kiln/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 using one of the two 

approaches in §63.1349(b)(7)(vii) or (viii) depending on the 

level of organic HAP measured during the compliance test.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 191 of 257

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 or sorbent trap monitoring system 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 monitoring system 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 monitoring system 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 days each) of a 30 operating day period. The Hg 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 192 of 257

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 may 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 establish appropriate site-specific 

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 

values obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days that 

occur after the compliance date of this rule to determine 

initial compliance.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 193 of 257

(7) Commingled Exhaust Requirements.

(i) If the coal mill exhaust is commingled with kiln 

exhaust in a single stack, you may demonstrate compliance with 

the kiln emission limits by either:

(A) Performing required emissions monitoring and 

testing on the commingled coal mill and kiln exhaust, or

(B) Perform required emission monitoring and testing 

of the kiln exhaust prior to the reintroduction of the coal mill 

exhaust, and also testing the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal 

mill. All emissions must be added together for all emission 

points, and must not exceed the limit per each pollutant as 

listed in S63.1343(b).

(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 startup and shutdown, monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance 

or quality control activities (including, as applicable, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 194 of 257

calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you 

must operate the 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 mercury emissions (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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 195 of 257

(3) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the 

limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate

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) 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).

(ii) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 196 of 257

limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 

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 of 

§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) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill

or in the coal mill stack.

(7) Mercury Compliance. 

(i) 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). If you use an 

integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to determine ongoing 

compliance, use the procedures described in §63.1348(a)(5) to 

assign hourly mercury concentration values and to calculate 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 197 of 257

rolling 30 operating dataday 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 trap 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).

(ii) Mercury must be measured either upstream of the coal 

mill or in the coal mill stack. 

(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 may

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(2). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 198 of 257

(iii) HCl may be measured either upstream of the coal mill 

or in the coal mill stack.

(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).

(9) Startup and Shutdown Compliance. In order to 

demonstrate continuous compliance during startup and shutdown, 

all air pollution control devices must be operating.

(c) * * * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) The performance test must be completed within 360 

hours after the planned operational change period begins.

* * * * *

17. 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); 

f. Adding paragraph (b)(7) and (b)(8); and

g. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e).

The revisions read as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 199 of 257

§63.1349 Performance testing requirements.

(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. For purposes of determining exhaust gas 

flow rate to the atmosphere from an alkali bypass stack or a 

coal mill stack, you must either install, operate, calibrate and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate according to the requirements in 

paragraphs §63.1350(n)(1) through (n)(10) of this subpart or use 

the maximum design exhaust gas flow rate. For purposes of 

determining the combined emissions from kilns equipped with an 

alkali bypass or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that 

exhausts through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS

on the alkali bypass stack or coal mill stack, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the relevant emissions limit.

* * * * *

(1) PM Emissions Tests. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 200 of 257

The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations on 

PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting 

a performance test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix A-3 

to part 60 of this chapter. You must also monitor continuous 

performance through use of a PM continuous parametric monitoring 

system (PM CPMS).

(i) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific 

operating limit. If your PM performance test demonstrates your 

PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit 

you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 

compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output from 

your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test 

to establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test 

demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 75

percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS 

value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your 

operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat 

the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the sitespecific operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 201 of 257

(A) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output and 

the establishment of its relationship to manual reference method 

measurements must be determined in units of milliamps.

(B) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of reading 

PM concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to three times 

your allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an autoranging instrument capable of multiple scales, the primary range 

of the instrument must be capable of reading PM concentration 

from zero to a level equivalent to three times your allowable 

emission limit.

(C) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with 

the PM limit, record and average all milliamp output values from 

the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the compliance test 

runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS output values for three 

corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test runs).

(ii) Determine your operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (iv) of this section. If your PM 

performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be 

below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average 

PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the 

milliamp equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the 

average PM result of your compliance test to establish your 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 202 of 257

operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates your PM 

emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission 

limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the 

PM compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must 

verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after each 

repeated performance test. You must repeat the performance test 

at least annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific 

operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test.

(iii) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I 

compliance test runs is below 75 percent of your PM emission 

limit, you must calculate an operating limit by establishing a 

relationship of PM CPMS signal to PM concentration using the PM 

CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS values corresponding 

to the three compliance test runs, and the average PM 

concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the 

procedures in (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section.

(A) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one 

of the following procedures.

(1)Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be 

obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and 

monitoring ambient air on a test bench.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 203 of 257

(2)Zero point data for extractive instruments should be 

obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack and 

drawing in clean ambient air.

(3)The zero point may also be established by performing 

manual reference method measurements when the flue gas is free 

of PM emissions or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., 

when your process is not operating, but the fans are operating 

or your source is combusting only natural gas) and plotting 

these with the compliance data to find the zero intercept.

(4) If none of the steps in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A)(1)

through (3) of this section are possible, you must use a zero 

output value provided by the manufacturer.

(B) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, 

and the average of your corresponding three PM compliance test 

runs, using equation 3.

x = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 , y = 1

n ∑ Y1 n

i=1 (Eq. 3) 

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs constituting the 

performance test.

Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs constituting 

the performance test.

n = The number of data points. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 204 of 257

(C) With your instrument zero expressed in milliamps, your 

three run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run PM 

compliance test average, determine a relationship of lb/tonclinker per milliamp with Equation 4.

(X z)

Y

− =

1

1 R (Eq. 4)

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS.

Y1 = The three run average lb/ton-clinker PM concentration.

X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM CPMS.

z = The milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero determined 

from (b)(1)(iii)(A).

(D) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average 

operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value from 

Equation 4 in Equation 5, below. This sets your operating limit 

at the PM CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent of your 

emission limit.

Ol = z + 0.75(L)

R (Eq. 5)

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your PM CPMS on a 30-day rolling 

average, in milliamps.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 205 of 257

L = Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker.

z = Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from (1)(i).

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS, 

from Equation 4.

(iv) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs 

is at or above 75 percent of your PM emission limit you must 

determine your operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp 

output corresponding to your three PM performance test runs that 

demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using Equation 6.

Oh = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 (Eq. 6)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.

n = The number of data points.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps.

(v) To determine continuous operating compliance, you must 

record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process 

is operating, and use all the PM CPMS data for calculations when 

the source 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 (milliamps) on a 30 operating day rolling 

average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 206 of 257

day. Use Equation 7 to determine the 30 kiln operating day 

average.

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day (Eq. 7)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 

30 kiln operating days.

(vi) For each performance test, conduct at least three 

separate test 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 an existing source limit. Calculate the average 

of the results from three consecutive runs, including applicable 

sources as required by (D)(viii), to determine compliance. You 

need not determine the particulate matter collected in the 

impingers (‘‘back half’’) of the Method 5 or Method 5I 

particulate sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM 

standards of this subpart. This shall not preclude the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 207 of 257

permitting authority from requiring a determination of the 

‘‘back half’’ for other purposes.

(vii) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS 

operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report 

must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, 

serial number of the instrument, analytical principle of the 

instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span of the instruments 

primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent to the 

instrument zero output, technique by which this zero value was 

determined, and the average milliamp signals corresponding to 

each PM compliance test run.

(viii) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal 

mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the main 

exhaust and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be tested 

simultaneously and the combined emission rate of PM from the 

kiln and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be computed 

for each run using Equation 8 of this section. 

P

E E E E C K B

c

+ + = 

(Eq. 8)

Where:

EC = Combined hourly emission rate of PM from the kiln and 

bypass stack and/or inline coal mill, lb/ton of kiln clinker 

production.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 208 of 257

EK = Hourly emissions of PM emissions from the kiln, lb.

EB = Hourly PM emissions from the alkali bypass stack, lb.

EC = Hourly PM emissions from the inline coal mill stack, lb.

P = Hourly clinker production, tons.

(ix) 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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 209 of 257

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 

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 210 of 257

(4) THC Emissions Test. 

(i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you 

must operate a 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.

(ii) 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). 

(iii) 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 9:

Cks = (MACT Limit×(Qab+Qcm+Qks))−(Qab×Cab)−(Qcm×Ccm)

Qks ((Eq. 9)

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).

(iv) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill

or the coal mill stack.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 211 of 257

(v) Instead of conducting the performance test specified in 

paragraph (b)(4)of this section, you may conduct a performance 

test to determine emissions of total organic HAP by following 

the procedures in paragraphs (b)(7) of this section.

(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to 

limitations on mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury 

CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system 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 or a sorbent trap 

monitoring system 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 Equation 10 of this 

section:

P

C Q

E k

n

i

i i

D

∑= = 1

30 (Eq. 10)

Where: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 212 of 257

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 Ci and Qi 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.

P = 30 days of clinker production during the same time period as 

the mercury emissions measured, million tons.

(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). For 

kilns with inline raw mills, testing should be conducted for the 

raw mill on and raw mill off conditions.

(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-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 213 of 257

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 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 214 of 257

(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 11:

Cks = (MACT Limit×(Qab+Qcm+Qks))−(Qab×Cab)−(Qcm×Ccm)

Qks (Eq. 11)

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).

(7) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of 

conducting the performance test specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 

this section, you may conduct a performance test to determine 

emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this section.

(i) 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 215 of 257

(ii) 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 THC CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(j). The duration of 

the performance test must be at least 3 hours and the average 

THC concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute averages) 

during the 3-hour test must be calculated. You must establish 

your THC operating limit and determine compliance with it 

according to paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii)of this 

section. It permissible to extend the testing time of the 

organic HAP performance test if you believe extended testing is 

required to adequately capture THC variability over time. 

(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must 

use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of 

time that the raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a 

weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on 

and raw mill off testing.

(iv) If your organic HAP emissions are below 75 percent of 

the organic HAP standard and you determine your operating limit 

with paragraph (vii) of this section your our THC CEMS must be 

calibrated and operated on a measurement scale no greater than 

180 ppmvw, as carbon, or 60 ppmvw as propane. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 216 of 257

(v) Your THC CEMS measurement scale must be capable of 

reading THC concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to 

two times your highest THC emissions average determined during 

your performance test, including mill on or mill off operation.

NOTE: This may require the use of a dual range instrument to 

meet this requirement and paragraph (iv) of this section.

(vi) Determine your operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii) of this section. If your 

organic HAP performance test demonstrates your average organic 

HAP emission levels are below 75 percent of your emission limit 

(9 ppmv) you will use the average THC value recorded during the 

organic HAP performance test, and the average total organic HAP 

result of your performance test to establish your operating 

limit. If your organic HAP compliance test results demonstrate 

your average organic HAP emission levels are at or above 75

percent of your emission limit, your operating limit is 

established as the average THC value recorded during the organic 

HAP performance test. You must establish a new operating limit 

after each performance test. You must repeat the performance 

test no later than 30 months following your last performance 

test and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit 

in accordance with the results of the performance test.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 217 of 257

(vii) If the average organic HAP results for your three 

Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance test runs are below 75

percent of your organic HAP emission limit, you must calculate 

an operating limit by establishing a relationship of THC CEMS 

signal to the organic HAP concentration using the average THC 

CEMS value corresponding to the three organic HAP compliance 

test runs and the average organic HAP total concentration from 

the Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance test runs with the 

procedures in (a)(7)(vii)(A) through (B) of this section.

(A) Determine the results for your and the corresponding

THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the average of your 

corresponding three total organic HAP compliance test runs, 

using Equation 12.

x = 1

n ∑ Xi n

i=1 , y = 1

n ∑ Yi n

i=1 (Eq. 12)

Where:

 = The THC CEMS average values in ppmvw.

Xi= The THC CEMS data points for all three runs i.

Yi= The sum of organic HAP concentrations for test runs i. and

n = The number of data points. 

(B) You must use your three run average THC CEMS value, and 

your three run average organic HAP concentration from your three 

Method 18 and/or Method 320 compliance tests to determine the 

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 218 of 257

operating limit. Use equation 13 to determine your operating 

limit in units of ppmvw THC, as propane.

Tl = � 9

Y1

� ∗ X1 (Eq. 13)

Where:

Tl = The 30-day operating limit for your THC CEMS, ppmvw.

Y1 = The average organic HAP concentration from Eq. 12, ppmv.

X1 = The average THC CEMS concentration from Eq. 12, ppmvw.

(viii) If the average of your three organic HAP performance 

test runs is at or above 75 percent of your organic HAP emission 

limit, you must determine your operating limit using Equation 14

by averaging the THC CEMS output values corresponding to your 

three organic HAP performance test runs that demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit. If your new THC CEMS value 

is below your current operating limit, you may opt to retain 

your current operating limit, but you must still submit all 

performance test and THC CEMS data according to the reporting 

requirements in paragraph (d)(1)of this section.

Th = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 , (Eq. 14)

Where:

X1 = The THC CEMS data points for all runs i.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 219 of 257

Y1 = The organic HAP total value for runs i.

n = The number of data points.

Th = Your site specific operating limit, in ppmvw THC. 

(ix) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must 

conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating (“mill on”) and while the raw mill is not operating 

(“mill off”). 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 compliance testing with Equation 

15.

R=(y*t)+(x*t_1) (Eq.15) 

Where:

R = Operating limit as THC, ppmvw.

y = Average THC CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw.

t = Percentage of operating time with mill on.

x = Average THC CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw.

t1= Percentage of operating time with mill off.

(x) To determine continuous compliance with the THC 

operating limit, you must record the THC CEMS output data for 

all periods when the process is operating and the THC CEMS is 

not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 220 of 257

by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by 

the THC CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 

average operating parameter in units of the operating limit 

(ppmvw) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at 

the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 16 to 

determine the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day (Eq. 16)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 

30 kiln operating days.

(xi) Use EPA Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A to part 

60 of this chapter to determine organic HAP emissions. For each 

performance test, conduct at least 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.

If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct 

three separate test runs with the raw mill on, and 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 with the mill off. Conduct each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 221 of 257

Method 18 test run to collect a minimum target sample equivalent 

to three times the method detection limit. Calculate the average 

of the results from three runs to determine compliance. 

(xii) 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 

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.

(8)(8) HCl Emissions Tests with SO2 Monitoring. If you 

choose to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS to demonstrate HCl 

compliance, follow the procedures in (b)(8)(i) through 

(b)(8)(ix) of this section and in accordance with the 

requirements of §63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an SO2

operating limit equal to the average of the SO2 emissions 

recorded during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will 

apply only for demonstrating HCl compliance.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 222 of 257

(i) Use Method 321 of appendix A to this part to determine 

emissions of HCl. 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 1one hour. 

(ii) At the same time that you are conducting the 

performance test for HCl, you must also determine a sitespecific SO2 emissions limit by operating an SO2 CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(l). The duration of 

the performance test must be 3three hours and the average SO2

concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute averages) during 

the 3-hour test must be calculated. You must establish your SO2

operating limit and determine compliance with it according to 

paragraphs (b)(8)(vii)through (viii)of this section.

(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must 

use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of 

time that the raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a 

weighted average of the SO2 levels measured during raw mill on 

and raw mill off testing.

(iv) Your SO2 CEMS must be calibrated and operated according

to the requirements of §60.63(f). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 223 of 257

(v) Your SO2 CEMS measurement scale must be capable of 

reading SO2 concentrations consistent with the requirements of 

§60.63(f), including mill on or mill off operation.

(vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must 

conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating (“mill on”) and while the raw mill is not operating 

(“mill off”). 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 compliance testing with Equation 

17.

R=(y*t)+x*(t-1) (Eq. 17) 

Where:

R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw.

y = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw.

t = Percentage of operating time with mill on, expressed as a 

decimal.

x = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw.

t-1 = Percentage of operating time with mill off, expressed as a 

decimal.

(vii) To determine continuous compliance with the SO2

operating limit, you must record the SO2 CEMS output data for all 

periods when the process is operating and the SO2 CEMS is not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 224 of 257

out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by 

using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the 

SO2 CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 

average operating parameter in units of the operating limit 

(ppmvw) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at 

the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 18 to 

determine the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day (Eq. 18)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 

30 kiln operating days.

(viii) Use EPA Method 321 of appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter to determine HCl emissions. For each performance test, 

conduct at least 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. If your source 

has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct three separate 

test runs with the raw mill on, and three separate runs under 

the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 225 of 257

at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to 

occur with the mill off. 

(ix) If the SO2 level exceeds by 10 percent or more your 

site-specific SO2 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 

return the SO2 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 HCl limit and 

to verify or re-establish your site-specific SO2 emissions limit.

(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, organic HAP

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 226 of 257

(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)(1), 

(b)(3), (b)(6) and (b)(7) of this section, as applicable, and a 

description, including sample calculations, of how the operating 

parameters were established during the initial performance test. 

(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.

18. Section 63.1350 is amended by:

Formatted: Underline
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 227 of 257

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);

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);

i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2);

j. Adding paragraph (i)(3);

k. Revising paragraph (k);

l. Revising paragraph (l);

m. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;

n. Revising paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(7)(i);

o. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9) and (m) 

(10);

p. Revising paragraph (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and 

paragraph (m)(11)(v);

q. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and 

(p); 

r. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(3); and

us. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), 

(p)(2), and (p)(5).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 228 of 257

The revisions 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 violation.

(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 or Method 5I 

at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM 

CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with this operating 

limit. You must repeat the performance test annually and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 229 of 257

reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in 

accordance with the results of the performance test using the 

procedures in 63.1349(b)(1) (i) through (vi) of this subpart. 

You must also repeat the test if you change the analytical range 

of the instrument, or if you replace the instrument itself or 

any principle analytical component of the instrument that would 

alter the relationship of output signal to in-stack PM 

concentration. 

(ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must use 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 (milliamps) on a 30 operating day 

rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln 

operating day.

(iii) For any exceedance of the 30 process operating day PM 

CPMS average value from the established operating parameter 

limit, you must:

(A) Within 48 hours of the exceedance, visually inspect the 

APCD;
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 230 of 257

(B) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the

exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and 

return the PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; 

and

(C) Within 30 days of the exceedance or at the time of the 

annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM 

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the PM 

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the PM CPMS 

operating limit within 45 days. You are not required to conduct 

additional testing for any exceedances that occur between the 

time of the original exceedance and the PM emissions compliance 

test required under this paragraph.

(iv) PM CPMS exceedances leading to more than four 

required performance tests in a 12-month process operating 

period (rolling monthly) constitute a presumptive violation of 

this subpart.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Clinker Production Monitoring Requirements. In order to 

determine clinker production, 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 tons-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 231 of 257

mass 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 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 232 of 257

(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 hourly 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 

§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 minutes of opacity observations, recorded at 

15-second intervals, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 233 of 257

(v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions 

monitoring under this paragraph do not apply to any(v) Any

totally enclosed conveying system transfer point, regardless of 

the location of the transfer point. is not required to conduct 

Method 22 visible emissions monitoring under this paragraph. 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 

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 234 of 257

* * * * *

(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 

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 235 of 257

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.

* * * * *

(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) * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 236 of 257

(1) * * * 

(ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average 

activated carbon injection rate for the previous 3three 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 

CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in 

Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.

(2) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 237 of 257

chapter or an integrated sorbent trap 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.

(1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that 

represents the mercury concentration corresponding to 

approximately two times the emissions standard and may be

rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 μg/m3 of total mercury or 

higher level if necessary to include Hg concentrations which may 

occur (excluding concentrations during in-line raw “mill off” 

operation). 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. Engineering judgments made and 

calculations used to determine the corresponding span 

concentration from the emission standard shall be documented in 

the site-specific monitoring plan and associated records.

(2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span 

value, you must use one of the two options in paragraphs 

(k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) below.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 238 of 257

(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) Quality assure any data above the span value 

established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the 

following procedure. Any time two consecutive one-hour average 

measured concentration of Hg exceeds the span value you must, 

within 24 hours before or after, 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 between 50 and 150 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 239 of 257

period preceding or following the “above span” calibration for 

reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as 

shown in equation 19:

Normalizedstack gasresult

× Measured stack gas result

Measured valueof referencegas

Certified reference gas value

=

(Eq. 19)

Only one ‘above span’ calibration is needed per 24 hour period.

(3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or an 

integrated sorbent trap monitoring system according to the 

quality assurance requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to 

part 60 of this chapter. During the RATA of integrated sorbent 

trap monitoring systems required under Procedure 5, you may 

apply the appropriate exception for sorbent trap section 2 

breakthrough in (k)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section:

(i) For stack Hg concentrations >1 μg/dscm, <10% of section 

1 mass;

(ii) For stack Hg concentrations <1 μg/dscm and >0.5 

μg/dscm, <20% of section 1 mass;

(iii) For stack Hg concentrations <0.5 μg/dscm and >0.1 

μg/dscm, <50% of section 1 mass; and

(iv) For stack Hg concentrations <0.1 μg/dscm, no 

breakthrough criterion assuming all other QA/QC specifications 

are met.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 240 of 257

(4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems 

under PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal 

operating conditions. If a facility has an inline raw mill, the 

testing must occur with the raw mill on.

(5) If you use a Hg CEMS or an integrated 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 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 (iv) of this section:

(i) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by 

conducting annual performance tests using Method 29, or Method 

30B, to measure the concentration of mercury in the gases 

exhausted from the alkali bypass and coal mill.

(ii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of 

mercury in pounds per hourlb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal 

mill exhausts by using the mercury hourly emissions rate, the 

exhaust gas flow rate and hourly mercury emission rate to 

calculate hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 241 of 257

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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 sorbent trap monitoring 

system conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period at 

least 24 hours but no longer than 168 hours in length. You 

should use a monitoring period 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 parametrically monitor SO2 emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 242 of 257

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 

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) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 243 of 257

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 inline raw “mill on” operation. 

The span value should be a concentration 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. Engineering judgments 

made and calculations used to determine the corresponding span 

concentration from the emission standard shall be documented in 

the site-specific monitoring plan and associated records.

(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) Include a second span that encompasses the HCl 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 HCl. The requirements of the appropriate HCl 

monitor performance specification, shall be followed for this 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 244 of 257

second span with the exception that a RATA with the mill off is 

not required.

(B) 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 

between 50 and 100 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 245 of 257

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 shown in Equation 20:

Normalizedstack gasresult

× Measured stack gas result

Measured valueof referencegas

Certified reference gas value

=

(Eq. 20)

Only one ‘above span’ calibration is needed per 24-hour period.

(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)(9) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 246 of 257

SO2 levels increase above the 30-day rolling average SO2

operating limit established during your performance test, you 

must:

(i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after 

you exceed 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 exceedance 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. 

(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 (CPMS) 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.

* * * * *

(3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded 

readings.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 247 of 257

* * * * *

(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.

* * * * *

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 248 of 257

(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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 249 of 257

* * * * *

(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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 250 of 257

(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.

* * * * *

(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;
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 251 of 257

* * * * *

19. Section 63.1351 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and 

b. Adding paragraph (e). 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1351 Compliance dates.

* * * * *

(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the 

requirements that became effective on [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] except 

for the open clinker pile requirements will be September 9, 

2015.

(d) The compliance date for new sources is [INSERT OF 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or 

startup, whichever is later.

(e) The compliance date for existing sources with the 

requirements for open clinker storage piles in §63.1343(c) is 

[INSERT DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

20. Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows:

§63.1352 Additional test methods.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 252 of 257

(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. 

21. Section 63.1353 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) 

to read as follows:

§63.1353 Notification Requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Within 48 hours of an exceedance 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(b) and 

63.9(e) do not apply to retesting required for exceedances under 

this subpart.

* * * * *

22. Section 63.1354 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);

b. Revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi);

c. Adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii); and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 253 of 257

d. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1354 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(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 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). You must use the appropriate electronic 

reporting form in CEDRI or provide an alternate electronic file 

consistent with the 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 violation of an emissions 

standard or established operating parameter limit, the date, 

duration and description of each violation and the specific 

actions taken for each violation including inspections, 

corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results 

of those actions.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 254 of 257

* * * * *

(c) Reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a

malfunction. For each failure to meet a standard or emissions

limit caused by a malfunction at an affected source, you must 

report the failure in the semi-annual 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 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.

* * * * *

23. Section 63.1355 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1); and 

b. Adding paragraph (h); 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 255 of 257

* * * * *

(f) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of 

each startup or shutdown period for any affected source that is 

subject to a standard during startup or shutdown that differs 

from the standard applicable at other times, and the quantity of 

feed and fuel used during the startup or shutdown period.

(g)(1) You must keep records of 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 exceedance from an emissions standard or 

established operating parameter limit, you must keep records of 

the date, duration and description of each exceedance and the 

specific actions taken for each exceedance including 

inspections, corrective actions and repeat performance tests and 

the results of those actions.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 256 of 257

24. 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 

or operator of the affected facility must comply with the most 

stringent emissions limit or requirement and is exempt from the 

less stringent requirement. 

25. Section 63.1357 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and

b. Revising paragraph (a)(2). 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate 

matter 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 257 of 257

PM and opacity standards of this part or part 60 of this 

chapter.

* * * * *

26. Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised by 

revising the entries for 63.6(e)(3), 63.7(b), and 63.9(e) to 

read as follows:

Table 3. to Subpart LLL of Part 63—Applicability of General 

Provisions

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

LLL Explanation

 * * * * * * *

63.6(e)(3)Startup, 

Shutdown 

Malfunction 

Plan

No Your operations and 

maintenance plan must address 

periods of startup and 

shutdown. See §63.1347(a)(1).

* * * * * * *

63.7(b) Notification 

period

Yes Except for repeat performance 

test caused by an exceedance.

See §63.1353(b)(6)

* * * * * * *

63.9(e) Notification of 

performance 

test

Yes Except for repeat performance 

test caused by an exceedance.

See §63.1353(b)(6)

 * * * * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 1 of 256

EO 12866_PortlandCement 2060-AQ93 Final_20121220

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: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2012, the EPA proposed amendments to the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and the Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants. This final action amends 

the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for 

the Portland cement industry. The EPA is also promulgating 

amendments with respect to issues on which it granted 

reconsideration on May 17, 2011. In addition, the EPA is 

amending the new source performance standard for particulate 

matter. These amendments promote flexibility, reduce costs, ease 

compliance and preserve health benefits. The amendments also 

address the remand of the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants for the Portland cement industry by the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 2 of 256

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit on December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is setting the 

date for compliance with the existing source national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants to be September 9, 2015.

The EPA is setting the compliance date for existing open clinker 

storage piles to be [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION].

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE PUBLICATION 

OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All documents in the 

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

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, for example, confidential business information 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Building, 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-
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 3 of 256

1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 

566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 

action, 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. For information about the applicability 

of the NESHAP or NSPS contact Mr. Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, 

Assistance and Media Programs Division (2227A), Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, 

20460; telephone number (202)654-2970; email address 

yellin.patrick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document.

APCD air pollution control devices

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI confidential business information

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CISWI commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 4 of 256

CMS continuous monitoring system

COMS continuous opacity monitoring system 

CO2 carbon dioxide

CPMS continuous parametric monitoring system

D/F dioxins and furans

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

FR Federal Register

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot

HAP hazardous air pollutants

Hg mercury

HCl hydrogen chloride

ICR information collection request

Lb/ton pound per ton

MACT maximum achievable control technology

meHg methylmercury 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAS National Academy of Science 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants

NHSM Nonhazardous Secondary Materials 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NRC National Research Council 

NSPS new source performance standards

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

oHAP Non-dioxin organic hazardous air pollutants

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PCA Portland Cement Association 

PM particulate matter

ppm(v)(d,w) parts per million (by volume) (dry,wet)

RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit

RfD reference dose 

RIA regulatory impact analysis 

RTC Response to Comment 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers 

SIP state implementation plan

SO2 Sulphur Dioxide

THC total hydrocarbons

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 5 of 256

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

WWW worldwide web

Background Information Document. On July 18, 2012 (77 FR 42368), 

the EPA proposed to amend the Portland cement manufacturing 

industry NESHAP and the Portland cement plant new source 

performance standards (NSPS). In this action, we are taking 

final action on this proposal. A summary of the public comments 

on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is 

available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. 

Organization of this Document. The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

D. Judicial Review

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these amendments?

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic 

HAP Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)

C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply With 

HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

D. Alternative PM Limit

E. Coal Mills

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

G. Section 112 Eligibility to be a New Source

H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown 

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for 

Violation of Emission Standards During Malfunctions

L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 6 of 256

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for 

Alternative OHAP Standard

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions 

Limits for Periods of Startup and Shutdown

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for 

PM Under CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

B. Mercury Standard

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions from Open Clinker Storage 

Piles

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing 

Source Standards 

E. Eligibility to be a New Source Under NESHAP

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

A. What are the affected sources?

B. How did EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments? 

C. What are the air quality impacts?

D. What are the water quality impacts?

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

F. What are the secondary impacts?

G. What are the energy impacts?

H. What are the cost impacts?

I. What are the 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 LowIncome Populations

K. Congressional Review Act
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 7 of 256

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

In this action the EPA is finalizing amendments to the 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Portland cement plants and to the NSPS for Portland 

cement plants. These 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). The EPA is retaining the 

stack emission standards for mercury, hydrogen chloride (HCl), 

and total hydrocarbons (THC) under the NESHAP, amending the 

stack emission standard for particulate matter (PM) under the 

NESHAP, and making a conforming amendment to the NSPS for PM. 

The amendments also include provisions which account for 

commingled HAP emissions from coal mills that are an integral 

part of the kiln, establish a continuous monitoring regime for 

parametric monitoring of PM, set work practice standards for 

startup and shutdown, and revise the compliance date for the PM, 

mercury, HCl, THC and clinker storage pile existing source 

standards under the NESHAP. The EPA is also retaining the 

affirmative defense for civil penalties for violations of 

emission limits occurring as a result of a malfunction.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 8 of 256

These amendments are based on sound technical and legal 

justifications, and result in cost savings and compliance 

flexibility for the Portland cement industry. This result is

consistent with Executive Order 13563.

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

a. Need for the Regulatory Action

The EPA is amending the NESHAP for the Portland cement 

source category and the NSPS for Portland cement plants issued 

under sections 112(d) and 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

most significant amendment is to the NESHAP and NSPS for PM, to 

correct monitoring issues with the PM compliance regime as 

promulgated in the 2010 final rule. As a result of this 

amendment, the EPA is also setting a compliance date of 

September 9, 2015, for meeting the PM, mercury, HCl and THC

existing source NESHAP. 

This final action also addresses the remand by the D.C. 

Circuit in Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (D.C. 

Cir. 2011). 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 9 of 256

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 court also stayed the open storage clinker 

pile standards.

We are also amending various implementation requirements to 

provide more compliance flexibility for affected sources. In 

addition, the amendments address the issues on which the EPA 

previously granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 

2011).

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action

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

the CAA. Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process 

to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (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 112(i)(3)(A) 

requires that the compliance date for existing sources shall be 

“as expeditiou[s] as practicable,” but not more than 3 years 

after a standard’s effective date. Section 111 of the CAA 

requires that NSPS reflect the application of the best system of 

emission reductions achievable which, taking into consideration 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 10 of 256

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. 

2. Summary of Major Provisions

a. PM Emission Standards

As proposed, the EPA is amending the existing and new 

source PM standards in the NESHAP to require manual stack 

testing in lieu of PM continuous emission monitoring systems 

(CEMS) for compliance determinations and requiring that a sitespecific parametric operating level be established using a PM 

continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS). We are changing 

the numeric emissions value of those standards for existing 

sources to 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton) clinker based on manual 

stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed

sources based on manual stack testing. The PM standards under 

the NSPS for modified sources are likewise amended to 0.07 

lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on manual stack 

testing.

b. Response to Remand

Consistent with the court’s remand, the EPA has removed all 

of the CISWI kilns from the database used to set the 2010 

existing source standards for PM, mercury, HCl and THC. This 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 11 of 256

analysis informed the level of the final standards discussed 

immediately below.

c. Other Emissions Standards

As proposed, the EPA is changing the alternative organic 

HAP (oHAP) standard from 9 parts per million (ppm) to 12 ppm. 

The EPA is not changing the existing or new source standards for 

mercury, THC or HCl.

d. Standards during Startup and Shutdown

The EPA is amending the emission standards applicable 

during periods of startup and shutdown from numerical standards

to work practice standards. 

e. Compliance Dates for NESHAP

As proposed, the EPA is establishing a compliance date of 

September 9, 2015, for existing source standards for PM, 

mercury, HCl and THC. The EPA is establishing [INSERT DATE 1 

YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] as the compliance date for the standards for 

existing open clinker storage piles. New source standards 

continue to apply to all sources which commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 6, 2009. 

f. Final Action on Reconsideration

The EPA is also taking final action on the remaining issues 

on which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 12 of 256

3. Cost impacts of these Amendments

We estimate that revising the means of demonstrating 

compliance for the PM, alternative organic HAP standards and 

requiring work practices for open clinker storage piles will 

save industry $52 million annually. 

4. Summary of Final Standards

Table 1 shows the final standards for the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry NESHAP and the Portland Cement Plants 

NSPS. 

TABLE 1. 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/tona 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

0.02 lb/tonb

clinker (3-run 

test average)

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

Organic HAP 

(alternative to 

Total Hydrocarbons)

12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd

a Also applies to NSPS modified sources.

b Also applies to NSPS new and reconstructed sources.

B. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final 

rule include: 

TABLE 2. INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS NESHAP AND NSPS

FINAL ACTION

Category

NAICS 

codea Examples of regulated entities
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 13 of 256

Industry.... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

Federal government... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

Portland cement manufacturing 

plants. a North American Industry Classification System.

Table 2 of this preamble 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 appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final action 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 final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance 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. In addition, more information can be 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 14 of 256

obtained at the following address: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cement.

D. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this 

final action is available only by filing a petition for review 

in the court by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final 

rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that 

“[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial 

review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to 

convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person 

raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for 

public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after 

the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 

judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance 

to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a 

demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 15 of 256

to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General 

Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 16 of 256

“floor” requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, 

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).

Under section 112(i)(3)(A), compliance dates for existing 

sources shall “be as expeditiou[s] as practicable”, but in no 

event later than 3 years after the date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register. The EPA may set a revised 

compliance date of a MACT standard when amending that standard, 

see NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007), but 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 17 of 256

any such amended compliance date must still establish 

“compliance as expeditiously as practicable.”

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 final rule?

The history of this final 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). The Portland Cement Association (PCA) and several cement 

companies filed petitions for reconsideration of aspects of 

those amendments (copies of the petitions are in the Portland 

Cement Reconsideration docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817). 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 finding that the EPA had 

arbitrarily failed to grant reconsideration to consider the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 18 of 256

effect of the EPA’s NHSM rule on the standards (76 FR 15456 

(March 21, 2011)), The NHSM 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). The court did not stay any of the numerical emission

standards, but did stay the work practice standards for open 

clinker storage 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 had done so by removing 

all kilns classified as CISWI units from the data used to 

establish the 2010 NESHAP standards. The EPA then recalculated 

each of the floors based on this dataset (the 2010 dataset minus 

CISWI units) and made beyond-the-floor determinations based on 

the recalculated floors. The EPA believes that this approach is 

properly 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, EPA used the same data as used 

to establish the 2010 floors – namely the performance of the 

best controlled similar sources as required by section 112 

(d)(3).

III. Summary of Final Amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 19 of 256

As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, 77 FR 

42368, in this final action the EPA is finalizing several 

amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F. These amendments are 

summarized below.

A. Reconsideration of Standards

As noted above, EPA has responded to the action of the D.C. 

Circuit by removing all CISWI cement kilns from the database 

used to establish the existing source standards, and 

recalculating existing source floors and standards from that 

revised database. As described in the preamble of the proposal, 

the EPA had determined based on the final NHSM rule that there 

are 24 cement kilns which combust solid waste. 77 FR 42372. 

During the comment period, one company provided reliable 

information in its comments regarding the materials it processes 

indicating that one of these kilns is, in fact, a cement kiln 

(meaning that the EPA had properly classified it as a cement 

kiln in the 2010 rulemaking).1 After reviewing the information 

provided, the EPA agrees that this source should not be 

classified as a CISWI kiln and, therefore, should not be removed 

from the Portland cement kiln database. We received no other 

 

1 The company burns dried biosolids as a fuel which are not 

classified as solid wastes. Refer to the Docket, No. EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0482.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 20 of 256

comments concerning the identification of cement kilns and CISWI 

units. There are thus now 23 kilns identified as combusting 

solid waste and therefore classified as CISWI units. As directed 

by the Court’s decision, we removed these 23 kilns from the 

database and recalculated the floors. This calculation resulted 

in the same floors as proposed in the July 2012 proposal. 

Consistent with this analysis, the EPA is finalizing 

amendments to the emission standards as follows:

1. PM Emission Standards 

The EPA is revising several provisions of the emission 

standards for PM as follows:

• Changing the compliance basis for the PM standards from 

continuous monitoring with a PM CEMS to a manual three run stack 

test, amending the level and averaging time of the standard, and 

requiring a continuous parametric monitoring system using a

CPMS. As a consequence, the EPA is also:

• Amending PM standards under the NESHAP for existing sources 

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing, and 0.02 

lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on manual 

stack testing; 

• Amending PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources 

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 21 of 256

lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed sources likewise based 

on manual stack testing; 

• Requiring that sources establish a site-specific parametric 

operating limit for PM, and requiring that the parametric limit 

be continuously monitored using a PM CPMS;

• Requiring that sources retest once a year to reset the PM 

CPMS operating limit;

• Adding a provision that, if a source exceeds that sitespecific parametric operating limit, it must conduct corrective 

action including performing a Method 5 or 5I performance test 

within 45 days; in addition, if the source exceeds that 

parametric limit four times in a calendar year, the source is

presumed to be in violation of the PM emissions standard itself, 

subject to rebuttal by the source.

2. Mercury Standard 

As proposed, the EPA is establishing a standard for mercury 

of 55 pounds per million (lb/MM) tons clinker for existing 

sources and is not changing the emission standard (21 lb/MM tons 

clinker) for new sources. The emission standard for existing 

sources is the same as the 2010 standard but is a beyond the 

floor standard.

3. Other Emissions Standards 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 22 of 256

As the Court requested, the EPA removed the CISWI units 

from the database and re-calculated the standards for THC and 

HCl. The standards remain the same as they were in the final 

2010 rule. See also 76 FR 21149, 21152, and 21154 explaining why 

beyond the floor standards for THC and HCl are not justified. 

The 2010 rules provide an alternative to the THC standard 

whereby sources can meet a limit for non-dioxin organic HAP by 

measuring those HAP directly rather than meeting the standard 

for THC (a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP). As proposed, 

the EPA is changing the level of the alternative non-dioxin

organic HAP standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. Table 3 summarizes 

the Final Existing and New Source Standards

TABLE 3. EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE 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 HAPb 12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd a Standards 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.

b If the source opts to comply with the THC emission limit, this 

standard does not apply.

B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative Organic HAP 

Standard (with THC Monitoring Parameter)
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 23 of 256

In addition to amending the level of the alternative oHAP 

standard (i.e., the standard whereby sources meet a standard for 

oHAP rather than for THC), the EPA is amending the provisions 

for the site-specific THC operating parameter for that 

alternative standard (where THC is a site-specific parameter 

monitored continuously to show compliance with the oHAP 

standard). The THC operating parameter is established based on 

THC levels measured during the successful stack test where oHAP 

are measured directly to demonstrate compliance. As amended, if 

compliance source testing of oHAP averages a value that is 75 

percent or less of the emission limit for oHAP, the facility is 

allowed to establish a THC parametric operating level 

corresponding to 75 percent of the oHAP emission limit. We are 

adopting this provision to avoid penalizing lower-emitting 

sources by burdening them with the most stringent parametric 

operating levels. The EPA is adopting a similar provision for 

continuous PM parametric monitoring, for the same reason (see 

Section IV.A below). Sources which show oHAP emissions in 

compliance, but greater than 75 percent of the standard, must 

establish the average THC concentration measured during the 3-

hour organic HAP test and use that as the site-specific THC 

operating level. Thus, the parametric monitoring level for THC 

will be the level corresponding to oHAP levels of 75 percent of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 24 of 256

the standard or the THC level of the oHAP performance test, 

whichever is higher.2 Compliance with the oHAP standard will be 

shown as a ratio of three test runs during mill-on conditions 

and three test runs during mill-off conditions, with the 

percentage of operating time spent in each condition determining 

the ratio. The parametric operating level will be set according 

to average THC values measured during these same test runs, or 

to the default value of 75 percent of the standard, as just 

explained. In addition, the EPA will allow facilities to extend 

the testing time of the oHAP performance test if they believe 

extended testing is required to adequately capture THC 

variability over time. This final rule further requires that the 

stack test for oHAP be repeated every 30 months to establish a 

new site-specific THC parameter.

C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply With 

HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

The 2010 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. 

 

2 If a source believes that monitoring non-methane THC rather 

than total THC is a more reliable indicator of its oHAP

emissions, it can submit an alternative monitoring request 

pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.8(f).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 25 of 256

Sources electing to comply by means of stack tests must 

establish continuously monitored parameters including liquid 

flow rate, pressure, and pH. Under this final rule, kilns with 

dry scrubbers may also demonstrate compliance with the HCl 

emissions limit by means of an initial and periodic stack test 

rather than with continuous compliance monitoring with an HCl 

CEMS. If a kiln equipped with a dry scrubber chooses this 

alternative, this final rule requires that the sorbent injection 

rate used during a successful performance test be recorded and 

then continuously monitored to show that the injection rate 

remains at or above the rate used during the performance test.

Where either wet or dry scrubbers are used, owners and 

operators may also establish sulfur dioxide (SO2) as an operating 

parameter, rather than, for example, sorbent injection rate, 

liquid injection rate or pressure drop. If the owner or operator 

of a scrubber-equipped kiln makes this choice, it must establish 

the SO2 operating limit equal to the average of the HCl levels 

recorded during the HCl performance test, and meet that 

operating limit on a 30 day rolling average basis. If a source 

exceeds any established parameter level, it must retest for HCl 

in order to verify compliance with the HCl emissions standard 

and must verify or re-establish the parametric monitoring levels

as well. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 26 of 256

At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm 

compliance with the HCl emissions limit is required every 30 

months. 

D. Alternative PM Limit

The 2010 final rule established an alternative PM limit to 

accommodate situations where kilns combine exhaust gas from 

various operations. 77 FR 42382. The equation establishing the 

alternative limit contained certain technical errors which the 

EPA proposed to correct. As proposed, this final rule revises

the alternative PM equation so that it includes exhaust gas 

flows from all 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 

thus finalizing 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. 

0.0060 = The PM exhaust concentration (grains per dry standard

cubic feet (gr/dscf)) equivalent to 0.07 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 27 of 256

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton 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 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to 

the new source PM limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker.

E. Coal Mills

The EPA discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed 

rule a potential regulatory regime to cover situations where a 

portion of the kiln exhaust is ducted to the coal mill. See 77 

FR 42383-85; see also the regulatory text at 77 FR 42398, 42402-

06, 42408-09. To assure that cement kilns do not exhaust 

untreated HAP through coal mills, and to assure accurate 

accounting of commingled emissions so that cement kilns are not 

penalized for commingling emissions where it makes sense to do 

so, the EPA is finalizing rules applicable to kiln/coal mill 

emissions for two configurations. In one, a portion of the kiln 

exhaust is ducted to a coal mill, and then the coal mill exhaust 

is commingled with remaining kiln exhaust and discharged through 

the main kiln stack. In the other, a portion of the kiln exhaust
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 28 of 256

is routed through the coal mill and discharged through the coal 

mill stack. 

In the case of a coal mill that receives and discharges a 

portion of the cement kiln exhaust, this final rule requires 

that the sum of the mercury, THC and HCl in the kiln exhaust 

diverted to the coal mill, and the kiln exhaust exhausted from

the main kiln stack, must not exceed the subpart LLL emission 

limits for each respective HAP or HAP surrogate. The facility 

must document the contribution of the emissions diverted to the 

coal mill. For mercury, the rule allows tests to be performed

downstream of the coal mill to take advantage of any mercury 

removal that occurs in the coal mill air pollution control 

device, and to avoid double counting emissions from mercury that 

becomes re-entrained in the coal. For THC and HCl, the rule 

allows tests to be performed upstream of the coal mill to avoid 

any THC or HCl that might be emitted by the coal. For owners and

operators who believe that the impact of the testing location 

(upstream or downstream of the coal mill) would not result in 

their exceeding the kiln mercury, THC or HCl emissions limits 

and wish to conduct all their THC, HCl and mercury testing at a 

single location, this final rule allows testing either upstream 

or downstream of the coal mill. For sources complying with the 

alternate organic HAP limit, the facility would not be required 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 29 of 256

to test for THC emissions, but would test for the organic HAP 

and add that concentration to the remaining emission points to 

estimate their total emissions for organic HAP.

A cement kiln that commingles emissions from its coal mill 

with all other kiln exhaust emissions and discharges through a 

single stack could simply meet the kiln emission limits. 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 D above. In this 

configuration, the source would also have the option of 

monitoring and/or testing kiln exhaust gases prior to the 

introduction of the coal mill exhaust gas, and testing the kiln 

gas diverted to the coal mill. In this case this final rule 

requires that the sum of the mercury, THC (or organic HAP if the 

source chooses the alternative organic HAP limit), and HCl in 

the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill plus the kiln exhaust 

measured in the main kiln exhaust must not exceed the subpart 

LLL emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP surrogate. 

The same provisions for coal mills also apply to kilns 

equipped with an alkali bypass. The one minor exception is that

for PM, the summed PM emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass 

must be equal to or less than the PM limit in subpart LLL. Tests 

for PM from the alkali bypass must be conducted downstream of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 30 of 256

the alkali bypass air pollution control devices (APCD) to 

account for those emission reductions.

With regard to PM, the EPA stated at proposal that where a 

coal mill receives and discharges a portion of the cement kiln 

exhaust, the kiln owner operator would have to demonstrate 

compliance with the 40 CFR 60 subpart Y standard for PM. 

Although the subpart Y standard is numerically higher than the 

subpart LLL PM standard, EPA assumed that control would be to 

the same level because the subpart Y PM standard is predicated 

on use of fabric filer control technology. 77 FR 42383/2.

However, a commenter pointed out accurately that this proposal 

contravened the basic principle EPA indicated it was adopting 

here of not allowing diverted kiln emissions to meet a more 

lenient standard than required by the NESHAP, and further 

indicated that EPA had failed to show that these diverted PM 

emissions were controlled as required by section 112(d)(2) and 

(3) of the Act. EPA agrees with this comment, and accordingly is 

indicating in the final rule that commingled emissions in this 

situation would be required to meet the subpart LLL NESHAP for 

PM. Because coal mill stacks are controlled with fabric filters, 

we project that they can meet the subpart LLL numeric standard 

without further controls. See 77 FR 42383. Coal mill stacks will 

be required to meet annual PM performance testing and combine 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 31 of 256

the measured emissions with PM emissions from the separated 

alkali stack, bypass stack, and/or main kiln as required in 

sections 60.62 (b)(3), 63.1349 and 63.1350 of this rule.

This final rule also states that sources equipped with an 

alkali bypass stack or sources that exhaust kiln gases to a coal 

mill that exhausts through a separate stack are not required to 

install CEMS on these stacks. Instead of installing a CEMS, such 

sources may use the results of the initial and subsequent 

performance test to demonstrate compliance with the PM, THC, HCl 

and mercury emissions limits. Note that for the main kiln 

exhaust, the CEMS requirements remain.

We expand on these monitoring provisions below.

1. Mercury 

Although mercury from the kiln stack is monitored using a 

CEMS, mercury emissions from the coal mill are based on a 

periodic performance test and use of the gas flow rate to the 

coal mill. Performance tests for mercury must be conducted 

annually unless and until the tested mercury levels are below 

the method detection limits for two consecutive years, after 

which tests may be conducted every 30 months. The performance 

test results must be summed with the emissions from the kiln 

stack to determine compliance. The coal mill exhaust mercury 

emissions are calculated on a mass basis using the measured 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 32 of 256

mercury concentration and the coal mill exhaust gas flow. The 

coal mill exhaust flow is established using a continuous 

monitoring system (CMS), or the design maximum flow rate. Mass 

mercury emissions from the coal mill would be summed with the

hourly mercury emissions from the kiln measured by the mercury 

CEMS. Hourly mercury emissions are then summed to calculate the 

rolling 30-day mass mercury emissions. This number is then 

divided by the corresponding 30 days of clinker production to

determine the 30-day rolling average. This final rule provides 

equations for summing emissions from the coal mill with the 

mercury emissions from the kiln to determine continuous

compliance. To see an example calculation, see Section 4 of the 

Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document

(developed for the proposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0225.

2. THC and HCl 

In this case, site specific kiln stack emission limits (to 

be continuously monitored) are to 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. In order to 

determine the flow rates and concentrations of THC and HCl in 

the coal mill and alkali bypass streams, the source must test 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 33 of 256

every 30 months using the appropriate test method. For HCl, the 

performance test must 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 is required. With these data, the 

concentration of THC and HCl that must be monitored by the kiln 

CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the kiln MACT limit

can be calculated using the equations in this final rule. As 

with mercury, the coal mill flow rate used to calculate the 

allowable main kiln stack THC and HCl concentrations can be 

based on a CMS, or on the maximum design flow rate. The sum of 

the kiln CEMS and the maximum emissions from the coal mill or 

alkali bypass must be at or below the subpart LLL limits for THC 

and HCl. See Section 4 of Portland Cement Reconsideration 

Technical Support Document (developed for the proposal), docket 

item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225, for an example calculation.

Also, as a result of these revisions, the EPA is revising 

the definition of kiln to include inline coal mills and adding a 

definition of inline coal mill.

F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing Sources

This final rule establishes that the compliance date for 

the amended PM standard, and for the THC, mercury and HCl 

standards, for existing sources for kilns, clinker coolers and 

raw material dryers is September 9, 2015. This final rule also 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 34 of 256

establishes [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM THE PUBLICATION OF THESE 

AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] as the compliance date for 

the existing open clinker storage pile work practice standards. 

A detailed discussion of these compliance dates can be found in 

Section V.D. below.

G. Section 112 Eligibility to be a New Source 

The EPA is not changing the date for new source eligibility

under the NESHAP. Thus, a source that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the 

section 112 new source standards. A more detailed discussion of 

this topic can be found below in Section V.E.

H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions

In this action we are finalizing the proposed corrections 

and clarifications to the 2010 rule including changes to:

equations for calculating rolling operating day emissions rates; 

procedures that include extraneous wording; and cross references 

and typographical errors in the rule.3

For sources that are required to monitor HCl emissions with 

a CEMS, we are revising the requirements for using HCl CEMS to 

 

3 We note that these changes required the agency to reprint 

sections of regulatory text. See e.g. 63.1348(a)(3)(i). In 

reprinting these passages, EPA has not reopened, reconsidered, 

or otherwise reevaluated the substance of these provisions but 

rather is only making the needed technical alteration.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 35 of 256

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 performance specification (PS)

15. This final rule also removes from the standard the oxygen

correction factors for raw material dryers and makes minor, nonsubstantive changes to the sections and paragraphs below:

• Section 60.62(d).

• 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)(1) and (6) through (8). 

• 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)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and (e).

• Section 63.1350(d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and 

(iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), l(2), (m)(3), 

(m)(10) and (11), (o) and (p).

• Section 63.1352(b).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 36 of 256

• Section 63.1356.

• In addition, we are adding requirements in section 

63.1348(a), that a cement kiln that becomes subject to the rule 

after having been subject to the CISWI regulations, must meet 

all the initial compliance testing requirements even if they 

were previously subject to Subpart LLL.

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

We are also finalizing amendments to clarify various 

requirements in this final rule including issues of 

applicability, treatment of multiple sources that vent to a 

single stack, third party certification, definitions and use of 

bag leak detection systems when PM CPMS are in use. 

For raw material, clinker or finished product storage bins, 

we have clarified that the requirements of this final rule apply 

only at facilities that are a major source (see section 

63.1340(b)(6)) and that affected sources that are subject to 

subpart OOO (standards for nonmetallic mineral processing) are 

not subject to the requirements of subpart LLL (see section 

63.1340(c)). 

With regard to the NSPS, to clarify the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirement in section 60.65(a) to submit excess 

emission reports, we have added to section 60.61 of the NSPS a 

definition of “excess emissions” to mean “with respect to this 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 37 of 256

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.” To 

clarify what data are used in the calculation of emissions, or 

used in the calculation of parametric levels that are used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance, we added to this section a 

definition of “operating day” to mean “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.” The definition for “operating day” in 

section 63.1341 of the NESHAP is revised to be consistent with 

the above definition. We also became aware that some raw 

material dryers may be used to dry materials other than kiln 

feed and we have revised the definition of “raw material dryer” 

in recognition of that fact.

J. Standards During Periods of Startup and Shutdown 

In the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA established separate 

standards for periods of startup and shutdown which differ from 

the main standards that apply during steady state operations. In 

this action, based on comments received and the EPA’s 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 38 of 256

reconsideration of several technical issues related to startup 

and shutdown, the EPA is adopting work practices in place of 

these numerical standards. The rationale and provisions for the 

work practice standards are discussed in detail in section IV.C.

The EPA is also clarifying the operating conditions during 

which these standards apply, including a definition of “startup” 

and “shutdown”. Under the amended definition, startup begins 

when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and fuel combustion is 

occurring in the main burner of the kiln. Startup ends when feed 

has been continuously fed to the kiln for at least 120 minutes 

or when the kiln feed rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design 

limitation rate. Shutdown begins when continuous feed to the 

kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation ceases.

The startup and shutdown-related changes include:

• Adding a definition of startup and shutdown in section 

63.1341, as described;

• Adding section 63.1346(f) describing work practice 

standards to be met during periods of startup and shutdown;

• Revising section 63.1347 to require that startup and 

shutdown procedures be included in the facility’s operation and 

maintenance plan;
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 39 of 256

• Adding section 63.1355(f) requiring records of each startup 

and shutdown including the date, time and duration and the 

quantity of feed and fuel added to the kiln during startup and 

shutdown;

• Adding section 63.1348(b)(9) requiring continuous 

compliance by operating all air pollution control devices during

periods of startup and shutdown.

K. Reporting for Malfunctions and Affirmative Defense for 

Violation of Emission Standards During Malfunctions

The EPA added to the September 9, 2010, final NESHAP rule 

an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 

emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various 

environmental advocacy groups, as well as the PCA, indicated 

that there had been insufficient notice of this provision. The 

EPA agreed and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 

2011). This action finalizes the EPA’s decision to retain the 

affirmative defense on reconsideration. 

The EPA is retaining in the final NESHAP rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 

emission standards that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 

63.1341 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the context 

of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 40 of 256

proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We are 

also revising some of the regulatory provisions that specify the 

elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative 

defense as proposed with minor changes from proposal described 

later in this section. The source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 

section 63.1344. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria are designed

in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes a violation of the emission standard 

meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance or careless operation). For example, to 

successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation 

“[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure 

of air pollution control, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner....” The criteria also are 

designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with section 

63.1344 and to prevent future malfunctions. 

Similar to actions taken in several other recent NESHAP 

amendments (see National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 41 of 256

Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting, 77 FR 556, January 5, 

2012, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating),

and National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations, 76 FR 72050, November 21, 2011), the EPA included an 

affirmative defense in the 2010 final rule and is retaining it 

in this rule (see section 63.1344). The affirmative defense 

provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its 

emission standards 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. In addition to the 

authority cited in support of the affirmative defense in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA notes that a recent court 

decision further supports the EPA’s authority to promulgate an 

affirmative defense. The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA’s view that an affirmative 

defense provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the Clean 

Air Act. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 2012 

U.S. App. LEXIS 21223 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2012) (upholding the

EPA’s approval of affirmative defense provisions in a CAA State 

Implementation Plan). As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (77 FR 42379), the EPA’s view is that an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 42 of 256

applicable emission standards during periods of malfunction 

appropriately resolves an underlying tension inherent in many 

types of air regulation, to ensure continuous compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. See generally, Virginia v. 

Browner, 80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir. 1996) (the EPA's 

interpretation that resolved a tension within the CAA is 

reasonable). 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.

We are promulgating revisions to the affirmative defense 

provisions in section 40 CFR 63.1344 as described at proposal 

(77 FR 42380) and making some minor additional revisions. The 

phrase “emission limit” was changed to “emission standards” to 

reflect that the affirmative defense could be applicable to 

certain work practice standards. The phrase, "Off-shift and 

overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make 

these repairs" was removed. The term “notification” to 

“reporting” was changed to reflect that the root cause analysis 

required under affirmative defense would be submitted with other 

periodic reporting. The term “and monitoring” was deleted 

because monitoring malfunctions are defined differently than 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 43 of 256

malfunctions of process and control units and the affirmative 

defense is intended to apply to malfunctions to affected units 

that cause a failure to meet an emission standard. The word 

“however” was removed to incorporate more plain language into 

the regulation. The phrase “the respondent fails” was removed 

and replaced with “you fail” to incorporate more plain language 

into the regulation. The word “its” was replaced with “your” to 

incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase 

“all of the” was replaced with “your” also to incorporate more 

plain language into the regulation. The phrase “air pollution 

control practice” was shortened to “good practices” to 

incorporate more plain language into the regulation. In 

addition, the written report required when asserting an 

affirmative defense was changed from a separate “semiannual” 

report to a report that is submitted with the first periodic 

compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after 

the event. 

We are finalizing the reporting and recordkeeping 

associated with violations due to malfunctions as described at 

proposal (77 FR 42388) and making some minor additional 

revisions as described below. 

• Revising section 63.1354(b)(vii) for reporting and 

recordkeeping violations due to malfunctions. The phrase 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 44 of 256

“failure to meet a standard” was used to replace “deviation” in 

the requirement to report violations of the standard. This was 

changed because the EPA is not finalizing a definition of 

deviation in this subpart and the term is not defined in the 

general provisions. 

• Revising section 63.1354(c) for reporting a failure to meet 

a standard due to a malfunction. In addition, the phrase 

“failure to meet a standard” was used to replace “deviation” in 

the requirement to report violations of the standard. This was 

changed because the EPA is not finalizing a definition of 

deviation in this subpart and the term is not defined in the 

general provisions. 

• Revising section 63.1355(f) addressing recordkeeping during 

startup and shutdown. The proposed recordkeeping requirement 

applicable to startup and shutdown assumed that a numerical 

emission standard was applicable during startup and shutdown. In 

finalizing the work practice standards in 63.1346(f) there will 

no longer be a numerical emission standard applicable during 

startup and shutdown. As such the recordkeeping requirement must 

change to reflect the content of the work practice standard. 

Records must be kept of the date, time and duration of the 

periods when the work practice is applicable, as well as the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 45 of 256

fuel and feed data to demonstrate compliance with the work 

practice standard.

L. What are the compliance dates of the standards?

During the comment period, comments were received that 

confirmed the need for additional compliance time, since the 

revised standards can result in different compliance strategies 

relative to the 2010 final rule. Thus, as proposed, this final 

rule establishes the compliance date for the amended existing 

source standards including standards for PM, mercury, HCl and 

THC to be September 9, 2015. The existing source compliance date 

for the requirements for open clinker storage piles is [INSERT 

DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. New sources which commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the 

new source standards and a compliance date of [INSERT DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or 

startup, whichever is later. 

M. Open Clinker Storage Piles

The EPA has added work practice requirements for open 

clinker storage piles that will reduce fugitive dust emissions 

from these sources. This final rule also contains a definition 

of open clinker storage piles and requires that a source’s 

operation and maintenance plan include the steps the facility 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 46 of 256

will take to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 

storage piles. A detailed discussion of these requirements can 

be found in section V.C below. 

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. PM Parametric Monitoring

Changes to PM Parametric Monitoring. The EPA proposed the 

use of PM CPMS for continuous monitoring of PM emissions as a 

30-day rolling average established by identifying the average PM 

CPMS response corresponding to the highest 1-hour PM compliance 

test. Failure to meet this 30-day rolling average would result 

in retesting, and more than four exceedances from the parametric 

limit in a year would be presumed (subject to possibility of 

rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of the emission 

standard itself. See 77 FR 42377. Industry commented that this 

requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many 

facilities, especially for the lower-emitting sources. The issue 

of increased compliance burden falling on the lower emitting 

sources is legitimate. Sources with especially low PM limits in 

their performance test would be most at risk of exceeding a 

parametric limit due to a few emission spikes, even though they 

would still be operating well under the actual PM compliance 

limit. We also received comment that the highest PM performance 

test run may represent, in some circumstances, a number higher 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 47 of 256

than the PM emissions standard. To avoid this eventuality we 

have changed the final rule to require setting the PM operating 

limit equivalent to the average of the three PM performance 

tests, which constitutes the demonstration of compliance with 

the standard. To avoid penalizing lower emitting facilities, the 

EPA has modified the way PM CPMS operating limits are 

established. Sources whose compliance with the PM emission 

standard are shown to be 75 percent or below the emission limit 

in the PM method 5 compliance test will set their PM parametric 

operating limit to be a 30-day rolling average equivalent to 

that 75 percent level. In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 

2011), the EPA established 75 percent of the limit as a number 

that allows for compliance flexibility and is simultaneously 

protective of the emission standard, and the same technical 

basis is applicable here as well. Sources whose compliance with 

the PM emission standard are above 75 percent of the emission 

limit will establish their operating limit as a 30-day rolling 

average equal to the average PM CPMS values recorded during the 

PM compliance test. It should be noted that this provision 

affects the allowable level of the parametric limit, but does

not change the PM emission limit that must be met.

B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric Monitoring of THC for

Alternative OHAP Standard
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 48 of 256

As explained in section III.B above, the EPA is adopting a 

scaling approach for parametric monitoring of THC under the 

alternative organic HAP standard which is conceptually similar 

to the one just discussed for parametric monitoring of PM. This 

provision affects the allowable level of the THC parametric 

limit, but does not change the oHAP emission limit that must be 

met.

The EPA proposed the use of THC monitoring in conjunction 

with organic HAP compliance testing to determine a parametric 

operating limit option for monitoring continuous compliance with 

the alternative organic HAP standard. In the proposed rule the 

organic HAP parametric operating limit was established by 

correlating the highest of three organic HAP test results with 

the corresponding average THC concentration recorded by a 

parametric THC monitor. Industry commented that this requirement 

would trigger unnecessary retests for many facilities, 

especially for the best performing sources. Not wishing to 

penalize those sources showing good performance, and 

simultaneously wanting to be protective of the emission 

standard, the EPA is changing the way parametric THC operating 

levels are established. Sources whose compliance with the 

organic HAP emission standard are shown to be below 75 percent
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 49 of 256

of the emission limit will set their operating limit to be a 30-

day rolling average equivalent to that 75 percent level. Sources 

whose compliance with the organic HAP emission standard are at 

or above 75 percent of the emission limit will establish their 

operating limit as a 30-day rolling average equal to the average 

parametric THC values recorded during the organic HAP compliance 

test. Sources with an in-line kiln/raw mill will use the 

fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time 

that the raw mill is off, and calculate this limit as a weighted 

average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw 

mill off testing.

C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Numerical Emissions Limits 

for Periods of Startup and Shutdown

Under section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA may adopt a work 

practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only 

if it is “not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to 

prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a 

hazardous air pollutant”. This phrase is defined in the Act to 

apply to any situation “in which the Administrator determines 

that ... the application of measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations.” CAA section 112(h)(1) 

and (2). In adopting numerical limits for startup and shutdown 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 50 of 256

in the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA rejected comments that it 

should adopt work practices as a standard during startup and 

shutdown. This was largely because the commenters had not 

addressed the issue of whether the requirements of section 

112(h) had been met. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3464, 

pp. 183-84. The EPA later denied petitions to reconsider this 

issue on the grounds that the agency had already provided ample 

opportunity for comment on the issue, which petitioners had 

used. See 76 FR at 28323. The D.C. Circuit dismissed all 

challenges to the startup and shutdown provisions in the NESHAP 

(665 F 3d at 189). The EPA granted reconsideration on several 

technical issues related to startup and shutdown – specifically, 

monitoring of mercury and PM during startup and shutdown and 

having an HCl limit of zero for kilns not equipped with CEMS 

(see 76 FR at 28325), but these issues are no longer relevant 

based on the approach adopted in this final rule. 

In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to 

retain the numerical standards, but to use recordkeeping rather 

than measurements to document compliance with the numerical 

standard. 77 FR 42382-83. EPA further solicited comment “on 

whether the numeric standards during startup and shutdown should 

be amended to provide work practices”, and suggested what 

potential work practices might be. Id. at 42383. Some commenters 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 51 of 256

supported retention of numerical standards, stating that nothing 

in the record supports a decision by the EPA that numeric 

standards are not feasible to measure. However, these commenters 

provided no supporting technical data. We also received comments 

opposing numeric limits and supporting work practices in their 

stead. Commenters stated that any numeric limit should be based 

on actual data gathered during startup and shutdown, which the 

proposed limits are not, and that measurement of emissions 

during startup and shutdown poses significant technical 

problems, mainly based on CEMS calibration issues, and the 

duration of startups and shutdowns.

Industry has presented information specific to the cement 

industry to the EPA on technical issues associated with cement 

kilns measuring PM, mercury, THC and HCl during periods of 

startup and shutdown. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0237[1] and PCA Meeting 9-15-11 monitoring presentation in the 

docket for this rulemaking, as well as their public comments. 

EPA has continued to evaluate these data. In light of all of 

these public comments and further evaluation of the data, the 

EPA has decided to establish work practice standards in lieu of 

numeric standards during startup and shutdown periods. The EPA 

is doing so because the application of measurement methodology 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 52 of 256

is not practicable for technological and economic reasons. See 

CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). 

The operation of kilns at cement manufacturing plants is 

different from many other sources. Kiln startups can last days,

during which time fuels are switched and temperatures and 

moisture conditions fluctuate substantially. Also, cement kilns 

have two types of inputs – raw feed that is changed into clinker 

in the kiln, and kiln fuel. The cement kiln is sized to 

accommodate not just exhaust gas flow from combustion, but the 

gases evolved from the calcination of limestone and moisture 

that evaporates from the kiln feed. As a result of these 

factors, the difference in gas flow characteristics of a cement 

kiln during steady state operation and startup/shutdown is more 

pronounced than that for other combustion source categories. In 

addition, cement kilns begin introducing feed as part of the 

startup process which further exacerbates the transient and 

fluctuating nature of these operations not only because of the 

impact of this feed on the exhaust gases, but because raw 

materials and fuels are introduced at opposite ends of the kiln, 

which results in countercurrent flow of the solid material in 

the kiln and kiln exhaust gas, increasing the turbulence, 

transience and fluctuating conditions. The result is that 

conditions change constantly when cement kilns are in startup or 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 53 of 256

shutdown mode. These conditions make stack measurements, both 

manual and continuous, for this source category unreliable 

because the constant shifting in conditions prevents any stack 

measurement from being representative of anything but conditions 

at that precise moment. For that reason manual stack tests, 

which take place over a period of a few hours, would not be 

presenting accurate information, since they would not be 

reliably measuring conditions across the duration of the test.

There is no way to craft a testing regime to compensate for 

these testing issues at each kiln in a manner that can produce 

reliable and replicable results. Such modifications would be 

specific to that individual startup event – i.e. ad hoc and 

therefore not of general applicability or utility in showing 

compliance. Continuous measurements conducted during these 

periods for cement kilns are also subject to inaccuracies

resulting from these rapidly changing conditions. The 

temperature changes of greater than one thousand degrees

Fahrenheit, flue gas moisture changes greater than 20 percent, 

and gas flow changes over several thousand cubic feet per 

minute, as well as other factors such as flue gas molecular 

weight swings, combine to create a complex matrix of measurement 

variables not accounted for in a cement kiln CEMS installation. 

That is, CEMS for PM, HCl, Hg, and THC are not able to reliably 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 54 of 256

accommodate all of these transient shifting variables when 

measuring cement kiln startup and shutdown emissions.

As noted above, these issues are further exacerbated by the fact 

that cement kilns have multiple inputs (fuel and feed), and the 

clinker production process generates higher gas flows than would 

be expected based on just the fuel inputs. This fact also means 

that flue gas flow rates cannot be accurately calculated from 

fuel inputs alone. 

The EPA regards situations where a measurement may yield a 

value which is analytically suspect, which is the case for 

cement kilns during startup and shutdown for the reasons just 

described, as being a situation where measurement is not 

“technologically practicable” within the meaning of section 112 

(h)(2)(B) of the Act. Unreliable measurements raise issues of 

practicability and of feasibility and enforceability (see 

section 112 (h)(1)).4

The EPA is not finalizing its proposed approach of setting 

numerical emission limits for startup and shutdown and requiring 

 

4 The application of measurement methodology during cement kiln 

startup and shutdown would also not be “practicable due to ... 

economic limitation” within the meaning of section 112 (h)(2) 

(B) since it would just result in cost expended to produce 

analytically suspect measurements.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 55 of 256

that sources certify compliance with those limits by keeping 

certain records certifying that they used certain fuels and did 

not introduce feed into the kiln. Under the proposal, sources 

would have had to certify compliance with the standards for the 

various organics based on assumed combustion conditions. As 

pointed out persuasively in the public comments, combustion 

conditions during startup and shutdown are too widely varying to 

either reliably measure or calculate emissions because 

combustion conditions change widely during startup and shutdown, 

sources indicated that they could not certify compliance based 

on an assumed combustion condition. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0506, p. 11 (“Until ideal combustion conditions can be 

met in the combustion chamber (adequate temperature and 

turbulence), the combustion process will be incomplete. While 

this should not impact fuel-derived hazardous air pollutants 

(chlorine and mercury), it will impact the emissions of organics 

and possibly PM”). In light of the measurement issues noted 

above and the fact that sources could not certify compliance 

under the proposed approach, the EPA is not finalizing the 

proposed approach of setting numerical limits for startup and 

shutdown and allowing sources to certify compliance with the 

limits by maintaining certain records. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 56 of 256

Instead, for the reasons explained above, the EPA is 

establishing work practice standards to demonstrate compliance 

with startup and shutdown. The work practices that apply during 

startup and shutdown are as follows:

• During startup the kiln must initially use any one or 

combination of the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic 

natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas, and ultralow sulfur diesel until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 

degrees Fahrenheit.

• Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the 

kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

• All air pollution control devices must be turned on and 

operating prior to combusting any fuel. 

• You must keep records as specified in §63.1355 during 

periods of startup and shutdown.

For the purpose of identifying when the kiln is in a 

startup/shutdown mode and subject to work practices and when the 

kiln is subject to numerical emission limits, we are defining

the beginning and ending of startup and shutdown. At proposal we 

defined startup as when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and 

shutdown was defined as beginning when feed to the kiln is 

halted. Commenters noted that a kiln may have the induced draft 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 57 of 256

(ID) fan operating even when the kiln is completely shutdown, no 

fuel is being burned, and there is no potential for emissions. 

Therefore, we changed the startup definition to be when a 

shutdown kiln turns on the ID fan and begins firing fuel in the 

main burner, because this is the point where the potential for 

emissions to occur begins. Startup ends when feed is being 

continuously introduced into the kiln for at least 120 minutes 

or until the feed rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design 

limitation rate. We added the duration/load element to the 

definition of startup because during startup a kiln must begin 

adding feed material to achieve steady state operation. After 

feed is first introduced it requires up to two hours or 

sufficient feed to achieve 60 percent of maximum operation to 

achieve a representative steady-state condition. (See meeting 

notes, PCA November 28, 2012, in the docket for this 

rulemaking). Shutdown begins when continuous feed to the kiln is 

halted and ends when the kiln rotation ceases. 

We believe these work practices, which include the 

requirement that all air pollution control devices be operating, 

will ensure that emissions during startup and shutdown will be 

lower than the standards that apply during steady state 

operations, given use of cleaner fuels, minimal raw material 

inputs, and operation of all control devices during these 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 58 of 256

periods. See 77 FR 42382 (noting that emissions during startup 

and shutdown would be expected to be lower than during steady 

state operations for these reasons).

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Amendments to Existing Source and New Source Standards for PM 

Under CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b)

1. Changes to Level and Averaging Time of Existing Source NESHAP 

The EPA proposed to amend the existing and new source 

standards for PM. The floor for the existing source standards 

increased from 0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.05 lb/ton clinker as a 

result of removing CISWI kilns from the database. See Section 

8.3, Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, 

June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225; see also 

77 FR 42372/3. Second, the EPA proposed to change the compliance 

regime for the standard from use of PM CEMS to stack testing, a 

consequence being that the standard would no longer be expressed 

as a 30-day average but rather as the average of three test 

runs. The EPA thus proposed to express the recalculated floor 

(i.e. 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average resulting from the 

reanalysis) as .07 lb/ton of clinker (average of three test 

runs). The 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard expresses the 

recalculated floor (i.e. 0.05 lb/ton clinker) as a not-to-exceed 

value based on stack testing, using the Upper Prediction Limit 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 59 of 256

equation to do so. See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical 

Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0817-0225.5

The EPA further proposed to use CPMS for continuous 

parametric monitoring. This system responds to changes in PM 

concentration and generates a corresponding milliamp output 

signal. 77 FR 42376-77. The proposed PM parametric level was 

correlated to the highest recorded value during three test runs. 

A source would meet this site-specific level on a 30-day rolling 

average. Failure to meet this 30-day rolling average would 

result in retesting, and more than four deviations from the 

parametric level in a year would be presumed (subject to 

possibility of rebuttal by the source) to be a violation of the 

emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377.

Our proposal to change the compliance regime from use of 

CEMS to stack tests reflected technical issues related to a PM 

CEMS’ reliability with measuring the Portland cement PM 

 

5 One commenter inaccurately stated that the proposed rule would 

essentially double the PM standard. As just explained, the 

existing source floor (and standard) increased from 0.04 30-day 

average to 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average as a result of 

removing CISWI kilns. As a not-to-exceed standard, that same 

level is expressed as 0.07 lb/ton clinker, the higher level 

reflecting the greater variability involved when basing the 

standard on the average of the three test runs rather than on 30 

days of measurements. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 60 of 256

standard. Specifically, the EPA discussed the reliability of 

measurements, obtained using PM CEMS calibrated as required by 

the mandated PS 11, below the level of the 2010 standard or the 

level of the recalculated PM floor. See 77 FR 42374-76. The 

EPA’s judgment at proposal was that as a result of PM 

measurement uncertainties, “this correlation will not be 

technically or practically achievable for a significant number 

of cement kiln sources.” Id. at 42376.

One commenter challenged the necessity of amending the 

standard to a stack test regime (apparently not realizing that 

the existing source standard also changed as a result of 

removing CISWI kilns from the database). First, the commenter 

maintained that the EPA has no authority to voluntarily change a 

promulgated MACT standard to make the standard less stringent,

based on the language of section 112(d)(7). The commenter

further maintained that the EPA had not definitively shown that 

PM CEMS calibrated pursuant to PS 11 could not be used to 

reliably measure the Portland cement PM standard. Specifically, 

the commenter stated that the various problems identified by the 

EPA at proposal are amenable to resolution by testing longer and 

more often, and argued that the EPA essentially admitted as much 

at proposal. The commenter noted that other technical problems, 

like the difficulty of accounting for varied particle sizes, 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 61 of 256

could be resolved by using a beta gauge CEMS. The commenter 

dismissed the EPA’s technical reservations on these issues as 

arbitrary speculation. The commenter also stated that PM CEMS 

are already in successful use by cement plants both in this 

country and overseas. The commenter further believed that the 

EPA could resolve these technical issues by amending the PM CEMS 

Performance Specification rather than by amending the averaging 

time of the PM standard and changing its compliance basis. 

In response, we note first that we do not accept the 

commenter’s legal argument based on section 112(d)(7). 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 111 of this title, part C or D of this subchapter, or 

other authority of this chapter or a standard issued under State 

authority.” Although the commenter maintained that this 

provision unambiguously bars the EPA from amending the 

promulgated NESHAP to make it less stringent, we disagree. 

Indeed, it is hard to read the statutory language in such a way. 

On its face, the provision indicates that a section 112(d) 

standard does not supplant more stringent standards issued under 

some authority other than section 112(d). Nor does the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 62 of 256

commenter’s interpretation make sense. It would bar the EPA from 

amending a section 112(d) standard that was technically 

deficient or incorrect. This cannot have been Congress’ intent 

when adopting the technology-based section 112(d) MACT regime.6

Moreover, when Congress adopted anti-backsliding provisions in 

the CAA, it did so explicitly. See CAA sections 172(e); 110(l); 

and 193. There is no such explicit language in section 

112(d)(7). Thus, the EPA does not read section 112(d)(7) as 

precluding amendments to MACT standards which result in 

numerically less stringent standards, provided of course, that 

such standards are technically justified and otherwise 

consistent with the requirements of the Act. 

The commenter is also mistaken in asserting that sources 

can simply utilize PM CEMS not correlated to PS 11. The PS 11 

requirements apply to all PM CEMS used by a cement kiln. See 

sections 63.1349(b)(1)(A) and 1350 (b)(1) from the 2010 final 

rule (75 FR 55057, 55059).7

With regard to the technical issues raised by this 

commenter, the EPA explained in detail at proposal the problems 

 

6 The commenter cites no legislative history to support its 

reading, nor is EPA aware of any.

7 It also makes no sense to use PM CEMS not subject to a uniform 

calibration protocol. The results obtained would not be 

comparable.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 63 of 256

of correlating PM CEMS under PS 11 at cement plants (see 77 FR

42374-42377). These obstacles are not resolvable simply by 

measuring more often and longer, as the commenter maintains. 

Extending the duration of the Method 5 test gives this reference 

method additional opportunity to collect more sample mass, but 

this is no guarantee that the time added to the test will 

collect enough particulate mass to resolve detection issues, 

especially when testing is conducted at the better performing 

(lower emitting) sources. Longer test runs inherently increase

the variability of the PM CEMS data collected during the test, 

which may cause further difficulties with the correlation 

between instrument and reference method. Nor does conducting a 

higher number of reference method tests resolve the difficulties 

with PS 11 correlation created by greater uncertainty in the 

reference method at low levels. Put another way, more tests with 

high uncertainty and poor correlation do not improve the 

likelihood of passing PS 11 as there is no expectation of 

improving the mathematical relationship between the reference 

test and the instrument. Furthermore, PS 11 section 8.6 requires 

a minimum number of fifteen tests to develop a correlation 

curve, with no limit to the maximum number. Considering more 

than 15 tests when developing the correlation creates much 

difficulty in developing a precise mathematical relationship.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 64 of 256

Sources are allowed to discard 5 runs for any reason they wish, 

but must present at least 15 test runs for the correlation 

calculation. Id. As a source increases the number of test runs 

beyond 20, any additional runs must be included in the 

correlation equation and at that point the ability of a source 

to satisfy PS 11 becomes more hampered with every test run. 

The EPA noted that special problems are posed by the size 

and variability of cement kiln-generated particulate. The EPA 

also noted that the standard light-scintillation type of PM CEMS 

would likely encounter higher variability for the same PM 

concentration, and have difficulty satisfying correlation 

protocols as a result. The EPA noted that beta gauge CEMS could 

potentially resolve at least some issues related to cement 

particle variability but noted further that these devices were 

largely untested in the cement industry, and none (so far as the 

EPA is aware) has successfully completed a PS 11 certification. 

See 77 FR 42375/3. The commenter maintains that the existence of 

beta gauge CEMS resolves all questions as to their reliability 

in the cement industry, but the EPA reiterates, as it did at 

proposal, that there needs to be some assurance of the 

reliability of that methodology to certify with PS 11 at low 

levels (as required by this final rule). That information does 

not presently exist. The commenter states that the EPA is being 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 65 of 256

speculative as to potential difficulties with a different CEMS 

technology, but relative to Portland cement sources, it would be 

speculative to assume that beta gauge CEMS would successfully 

pass a PS 11 certification to reliably and quantifiably measure 

compliance with the NESHAP, especially at the very low PM levels 

at some of the sources in the cement source category.

The commenter also maintains that Tapered Element 

Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) devices could be used in place 

of light scintillation PM CEMS. A TEOM is a device that uses a

very thin, tapered, element vibrating at a known frequency that 

has a first principle relationship to the measurement of mass. 

Particles that impact the element also impact the harmonic 

vibration of the sensor which can be translated to a measurement 

of the particle mass. This is a more direct approach to 

measuring the actual mass of PM in stack gas, and has shown 

promise to operate very consistently at low levels in laboratory 

conditions. Several TEOMs are currently used for monitoring 

ambient PM levels at several non-cement, non-domestic industry 

installations. TEOMs that are capable of measuring stack gas are 

not currently available for sale in the U.S., though this may 

change in future years. Even so, with a monitor capable of more 

direct mass measurement of PM in stack gas, using PS 11 to 

certify one against Method 5 may be problematic at low PM 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 66 of 256

concentrations. The EPA currently has no data to assess TEOM 

capabilities versus Method 5 at very low PM concentrations such 

as those presented by the better performing sources in this 

category. Were TEOM instrumentation commercially available, the 

EPA would need to conduct a re-evaluation of PM CEMS technology 

that included TEOM data to determine if this instrument could 

overcome the challenges posed by calibration with Method 5 at 

the very low PM levels emitted by some of the sources in the 

cement source category. As just explained, it is not 

speculation, but rather legitimate engineering caution that 

makes it appropriate not to require compliance with a rule based 

on an untested measurement methodology. 

The commenter further maintains that rather than amend the 

standard to change the compliance test methodology and averaging 

time, the EPA should revise PS 11 instead, evidently assuming 

that a revision can be done rapidly. The commenter’s assumption 

is mistaken. Performance specification development is a process 

that takes multiple years and involves data collection on types 

of technologies, field testing, comparison to reference 

measurement methodology, workgroup and stakeholder meetings, 

peer review, rule proposal and public comment period, as well as 

comment response and final promulgation of the Performance 

Specification. With the development of PA 12A for Mercury CEMS, 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 67 of 256

the EPA invested a budget in excess of one million dollars to 

conduct technology and field studies, as well as to refine the 

analytical techniques and work through stakeholder concerns 

prior to proposal of the Performance Specification. The process 

from inception to final promulgation took over 5 years to 

complete. PS 11, at issue here, was over 3 years in development, 

from concept to final promulgation, and involved a budget of 

$250,000. Based on this past history, it is likely to result in 

a delay of 3 years or more were the EPA to delay promulgation of 

this final rule until we could undertake the process to 

research, propose and finalize solutions to PS 11 that may 

ameliorate some of the issues vis-a-vis the cement industry now 

present. Furthermore, such a process would not address the 

issues relating to measurement uncertainties using Method 5 at 

low PM concentration levels near its detection limit (i.e. below 

its practical quantitation limit of 3 mg), and so there would 

remain significant technological hurdles to clear before the EPA 

could require the use of PM CEMS in respect to this final rule. 

The commenter points to PM CEMS use by European cement 

kilns. This is a misplaced comparison. The European calibration 

and certification of this instrumentation is completely 

different than PS 11 requirements developed by the EPA. European 

monitoring is certified in a laboratory environment, and 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 68 of 256

calibrated on site by the instrument vendor when installed. The 

EPA has a long history of requiring CEMS installations in the 

USA to meet more rigorous calibration and performance 

specification certification through a series of comparisons to 

reference Method 5 test measurements conducted on the stack with 

the flue gas matrix at the facility, not in a controlled 

laboratory. For a PM CEMS, this would be a correlation developed 

with Method 5 as described in PS 11. The two certification 

regimes differ greatly in approach and simply adapting European 

certification standards to USA facilities does nothing to 

mitigate this difference.

In summary, the EPA has carefully considered the issue and 

it is our engineering judgment that the PS 11 correlation will 

not be technically or practically achievable for a significant 

number of cement kiln sources. This is due to the combination of 

the low emissions concentrations, PM CEMS measurement 

uncertainty factors, the variability in composition of cement 

PM, and need for extraordinarily long test runs to reduce Method 

5 uncertainty to a level that provides normal measurement 

confidence (i.e. greater than the 3 mg practical quantitation 

level of Method 5), plus the compounding uncertainties 

associated with source operational variability. The EPA further 

recognizes that these problems in developing PS 11 correlations 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 69 of 256

are most likely to adversely affect the lowest emitting sources 

in the category and are more likely to result in violations of 

the rule more often for these sources than for sources operating 

with higher PM emissions. This result would obviously be 

environmentally counterproductive. We are therefore amending the 

standard to be based on stack testing, and expressing the 

standard as a not-to-exceed (i.e., stack test Method 5 or 5I) 

standard of 0.07 lb/ton clinker.8

Additional responses regarding these issues, including 

responses to issues raised in the comments from industry, are 

found in sections 3 and 4 of the Response to Comment document, 

which is found in the docket for this rulemaking.

2. Issues Related to Use of CPMS for Parametric Monitoring

To document continuous compliance with the Method 5 

standard (i.e., parametric monitoring designed to monitor proper 

operation of PM controls), the EPA proposed that PM be monitored 

continuously using a CPMS. See 77 FR 42376-77. The parametric 

limit was to reflect the highest of the three method 5 test runs 

 

8 Because the EPA believes that these same issues pertain to 

measurements of the section 111(b) new source performance 

standard for modified sources, and because further controls 

would be both costly and not cost effective (see section V.A.3 

below), the EPA is adopting the same amendment for modified new 

sources under the NSPS.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 70 of 256

from the stack test, and would be averaged over 30-days. The 

EPA further proposed corrective action requirements in the event 

of exceeding the 30-day rolling average parametric limit, and a 

rebuttable presumption that four such exceedances in a calendar 

year showed a violation of the emission standard itself. 

With respect to the use of CPMS technology, the EPA has 

recognized that PM CEMS technology cannot meet PS 11 

requirements in all Portland cement installations, yet the EPA 

has also recognized that PM CEMS sensors are more sensitive and 

better at detecting small differences in PM concentration than 

other technologies such as opacity monitors 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/pmcemsknowfinalrep.pdf) In 

considering the use of PM CEMS at Portland cement facilities we 

find that while using PM CEMS technology for continuous 

quantitative measurement of PM concentration as correlated to 

Method 5 with PS 11 is frequently not achievable (as stated in 

the preceding subsection of this preamble), using the same 

technology for continuous qualitative measurement of PM 

emissions is practicable in every instance. Given the 

information we have that shows PM CEMS technology to be more 

sensitive to in-stack PM concentration differences than opacity 

monitors and nepheolmeters, the EPA sees a distinct advantage in 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 71 of 256

using these technologies for continuous parametric PM 

monitoring, rather than measuring some other parameter.

In using a PM CEMS as a CPMS to conduct continuous

qualitative monitoring of PM concentration in the stack, we are 

not interested in specific output information from the 

instrument (e.g. lbs/ton clinker). We only need to know that PM 

concentration increases or decreases. The signal output from the 

instrument need not be correlated to PM concentration through PS

11 trials to achieve this, but rather we can accept the native 

signal output from the instrument, as is, in milliamps, and 

track that signal to determine trends in PM emissions. In this

final rule we are requiring PM CPMS instruments to employ a 4-20 

milliamp output, which is a standard electronic signal output 

common to many CEMS.9 With a PM CPMS the milliamp output would 

not represent an opacity value, but like an opacity analyzer,

the milliamps would increase as PM concentration increases and 

decrease as PM concentration decreases. We can then monitor the 

 

9 For example, an opacity instrument uses a series of filters to 

calibrate the analyzer and produce a “percent opacity” output. 

Twenty five percent opacity likely correlates to a milliamp 

value near eight milliamps, or 4 milliamps plus 25 percent of 

the difference between 4 and 20 milliamps (again, 4 milliamps). 

Fifty percent opacity would represent a signal near 12 

milliamps, and so on, with 20 milliamps representing a signal of 

100 percent opacity. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 72 of 256

milliamp signal while conducting a Method 5 performance test and 

correlate the average milliamp signal to the average PM 

concentration during the testing. This relationship is notably 

coarser in terms of understanding the precise PM concentration 

in the stack, but the instrument’s sensitivity to changing PM 

concentration in the stack, and its changing milliamp signal 

output, does not deteriorate and may still be employed to 

qualitatively monitor PM emissions.

The EPA received numerous comments about our proposed PM 

CPMS parametric monitoring approach. Industry commenters 

maintained that sources would have to continually retest 

unnecessarily, since CPMS measure an increase in PM CPMS values. 

This increase in PM CPMS values would (or at least, could) 

denote a modest rise in PM emissions, but actual stack emissions 

of PM could still be well below the limit. The EPA recognizes 

this concern as creating additional burden for facilities 

exhibiting good control of their PM emissions (see section IV.A 

above), and, therefore, we have modified the process by which a 

source would establish and comply with their PM CPMS operating 

limit in this final rule. In doing so we considered scaling 

options for PM CPMS signals, as they correspond with PM 

emissions, that were proposed by industry but found the options 

presented were not protective enough of the emission standard. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 73 of 256

After extensive analysis (see S. Johnson, memo to docket number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, ”Establishing an Operating Limit for PM 

CPMS”, November 2012), we are promulgating a scaling factor of

75 percent of the emission limit as a benchmark. See section 

IV.A above. As in the proposed rule, every source will need to 

conduct an annual Method 5 test to determine compliance with the 

PM emissions limit, and during this testing will also monitor 

their PM CPMS milliamp output. Sources which emit PM less than 

75 percent of their emission limit will be able to scale their 

PM CPMS milliamp output to determine where their PM CPMS would 

intersect 75 percent of their allowed PM emissions, and set 

their operating level at that milliamp output. This alleviates 

many re-testing concerns for sources that operate well below the 

emission limit and provides them with greater operational 

flexibility while still assuring continuous compliance with the 

PM stack emission standard. It also creates an incentive for 

sources to select high efficiency PM controls when sources are 

evaluating potential compliance strategies.

For sources whose Method 5 compliance tests place them at 

or above 75 percent of the emission standard, their operating 

level will be the average PM CPMS milliamp output during the 

three Method 5 test runs. This means their operating level is 

the milliamp output that correlates to their PM compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 74 of 256

determination, and not the highest average 1 hour run value that 

was in the proposed rule. Now that we are adopting a scaling 

factor, we no longer believe that it is also appropriate to 

establish the parametric limit based on the highest of the three 

runs (which moreover, could reflect a level higher than the 

level of the standard). Moreover, as noted below, we believe 

that on balance the 30 days of averaged CPMS measurements 

provides ample operating cushion. 

In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA 

established 75 percent of the limit as a number that allows for 

compliance flexibility and is simultaneously protective of the 

emission standard. In this final rule we are utilizing that 

value so as not to impose unintended and costly retest 

requirements for the lowest emitting sources and to provide for 

more cost effective, continuous, PM parametric monitoring across 

the Portland cement sector. This approach was selected from 

among many considered as it provides the greatest amount of 

flexibility while demonstrating continuous compliance for 

sources which are the lower emitters in the category and is also 

effective in holding higher emitters to the emission standard. 

With this parametric monitoring approach in place we expect 

sources to evaluate control options that provide excellent PM 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 75 of 256

emissions control and provide them greater operational 

flexibility below the standard. 

One commenter maintained that the use of a CPMS for 

parametric monitoring would be “egregious” since the milliamp 

output of the CPMS allowed a source to select operational 

parameters of tangential relation to PM emissions and would 

therefore not provide useful information as to proper PM 

control. The commenter also stated that monitoring of opacity 

would be preferable. An industry commenter likewise requested 

that continuous opacity monitors or bag leak detectors be used 

rather than CPMS.

The EPA does not agree with these comments. First, the 

milliamp output of the CPMS reliably and sensitively indicates 

increasing or decreasing PM concentration in the stack. Where PM 

controls are failing, the PM CPMS signal will indicate the 

increasing concentration of PM in the stack. A source will need 

to monitor the trend from the PM CPMS daily reading to maintain 

compliance with the 30-day emission standard. Indeed, the EPA

has sufficient confidence that four exceedances of the CPMS 

continuous measurements is a presumptive violation of the 

emission standard itself. Moreover, the CPMS is considerably 

more sensitive than an opacity monitor or bag leak detector at 

detecting fluctuations in PM level. An opacity monitor 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 76 of 256

determines the percent of a light signal that is occluded across 

the stack diameter. Opacity analyzers operate on a zero to 100

percent scale, meaning they are capable of registering PM that 

completely occludes the far stack wall from the instrument light 

source. This amount of PM is roughly equivalent to a complete 

failure of the emission control device. A properly operating 

control device will emit five percent opacity or less, which is 

barely visible to the naked eye and on the low end of the 

opacity monitor capability. PM emissions that increase opacity 

two percent at this level may well exceed the emission standard, 

yet they only mildly deflect the opacity monitor output. This 

same 2 percent opacity increase is capable of registering 

changes of several milliamps on a PM CPMS when operating on the 

scale provided in this final rule. With several decimal 

fractions available between each milliamp to track signal 

output, and three or four milliamps representing 1 percent 

opacity, the PM CPMS has a clear advantage in low PM 

concentration measurement over continuous opacity monitoring

systems. Regarding baghouse leak detectors, the EPA has no 

information that shows them operating on the same sensitivity 

level as PM CPMS technology, and we do not require baghouse leak 

detection systems on sources where PM CPMS are in use for this 

reason.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 77 of 256

Industry commenters objected to the proposal that 4

calendar year exceedances10 from the parametric limit would be a 

presumptive violation of the emission standard. Again, the EPA 

does not agree. First, the EPA may permissibly establish such a 

presumption by rule, assuming there is a reasonable factual 

basis to do so. See Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 

886 F. 2d 355, 367-68 (D.C. Cir. 1989) explaining that such 

presumptions can legitimately establish the elements of the 

agency’s prima facie case in an enforcement action. Second, 

there is a reasonable basis here for the presumption that four 

exceedances (i.e. increases over the parametric operating limit) 

in a calendar year are a violation of the emission standard. The 

parametric monitoring limit is established as a 30-day average 

of the averaged test value in the performance test, or the 75th

percentile value if that is higher. In either instance, the 30-

 

10 In the proposed rule, the EPA referred to a measurement higher 

than the parametric limit as a “deviation” and proposed a 

definition of deviation. See 77 FR 42398. The EPA is not 

including this terminology in this final rule. The term 

“deviation” is not in the Portland cement NESHAP rules (which 

date back to 1998), and has not proved necessary in practice. 

More important, the rule itself states what the consequences of 

measurements which exceed a parametric limit are (i.e. 

retesting, and in some instances, a presumptive violation of the 

emission standard itself), so that no further general regulatory 

provision (i.e. a generalized definition of ‘deviation’ or 

similar term) is necessary.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 78 of 256

day averaging feature provides significant leeway to the owner 

operator not to deviate from the parametric operating level 

since the 30 measurements will significantly dampen variability 

in the single measurement (average of three test runs) that 

produced the parametric value. See 77 FR 42377/2 and sources 

there cited. The EPA acknowledges that the difference was even 

greater between the parametric level and the emission standard

in the proposed rule (which was based on the highest measured 

test run). The EPA believes that the 30-day averaging feature 

plus the 75-percent scaling feature for the lower emitting 

sources now provides a sufficient operating cushion. See 77 FR 

42377.

3. Existing Source Beyond the Floor Determination 

The EPA proposed to use the floor levels for PM as the 

standard, rejecting more stringent standards on the grounds of 

poor cost effectiveness (after considering non-air environmental 

impacts and energy implications of a more stringent standard as 

well). See 77 FR 42376. One commenter argued that the EPA should 

adopt a beyond the floor standard for PM, maintaining that such 

a standard was justified under the factors set out in section 

112 (d)(2).

The EPA disagrees, and is not adopting a beyond the floor 

standard. After considering the cost of the emission reductions 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 79 of 256

attributable to such a standard, and the associated non-air and 

energy impacts of such a standard, the EPA determines that the 

standard is not “achievable” within the meaning of section 112 

(d)(2). Specifically, the EPA estimates that a beyond the floor 

standard set at the level of the original (2010 final rule) 

standard would only result in 138 tpy – nationwide – of PM 

reduction (a value not questioned by any of the commenters). See 

Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document, December 20, 2012. We further estimate that the cost 

of achieving this modest incremental reduction would be 

approximately $37 million (the estimated cost savings 

attributable to the amended PM standard (including savings 

attributable to ancillary PM controls related to collection of 

PM from the control of Hg, THC, and HCl). See Final Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 

2012, included in the rule docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. These 

total costs are high compared to the small nationwide emission 

reductions, and the cost effectiveness of these reductions is 

correspondingly high: approximately $268,000 per ton of PM 

removed. This is significantly higher cost effectiveness for PM 

than the EPA has accepted in other NESHAP standards. See 76 FR 

15704 (March 21, 2011)(rejecting $48,501 per ton of PM as not 

cost effective for PM emitted by CISWI energy recovery units); 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 80 of 256

see also 72 FR 53814, 53826 (Sept. 20, 2007) (proposing (and 

later accepting) cost effectiveness of $10,000 per ton for PM as 

reasonable in determining Generally Available Control 

Technology, and noting that the EPA had viewed cost 

effectiveness only as high as approximately $31,000 per ton as 

reasonable under its Title II program for mobile sources). A 

beyond the floor standard at the level of the 2010 standard 

would also involve slightly higher energy use, although this is 

not a major factor in EPA’s decision. EPA is therefore not 

adopting a beyond the floor standard for PM at the level of the 

2010 standard. A standard even more stringent would likewise not 

be justified. See 76 FR 54988.11

 

11 The commenter’s argument that section 112 (d)(2)’s requirement 

that the EPA consider “the cost of achieving such emission 

reduction” limits the EPA to considerations of economic 

achievability, and not cost effectiveness, is misplaced. See 

Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (cost 

effectiveness properly considered in evaluating cost of 

compliance under CAA section 213, a technology-based provision 

similar to section 112 (d)(2)). The commenter’s further argument 

that the requirement in section 112 (d)(2) for standards to 

result in “the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants... achievable” considering cost and other 

factors constrains the EPA’s ability to consider costeffectiveness or otherwise balance the statutory factors has 

likewise been rejected. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 

378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (the EPA was left with great discretion in 

determining how to balance such factors when considering 

technology-based standards which are to result in maximum 

reductions achievable). 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 81 of 256

4. New Source PM Standard Under Section 112(d)(3)

One commenter challenged the methodology the EPA used in 

the 2010 rulemaking to establish the new source floor and 

standard, maintaining that for new plants, the EPA’s floors must 

reflect the emission level achieved by the single best 

performing kiln in the category, not the best performing kiln 

for which the EPA happens to have emissions information. See 

section 112(d)(3). The EPA did not reopen the methodology by 

which new source floors for this industry are determined. See 77 

FR 42373 n. 3 (“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.”) In any case, if the issue is 

(against the EPA’s view) deemed to be reopened, CAA section 

112(d)(3) indicates that new source floors are to be based on 

“the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator” 

(emphasis supplied). This language affords considerable 

discretion for the agency to base the NESHAP new source floors

on performance of sources for which the agency has emissions 

information.

B. Mercury Standard
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 82 of 256

The EPA explained at proposal that reanalysis of the 

mercury floor, after removing CISWI kilns, resulted in a floor 

of 58 lb/MM tons clinker produced – slightly higher than the 

previously calculated floor and standard of 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker produced. The EPA further proposed to adopt 55 lb/MM 

tons clinker produced as a beyond-the-floor standard. See 77 FR 

42373. The new source standard was unchanged since the standard 

was based on the performance of the best performing similar 

source. 

The EPA is adopting the standards as proposed. One 

commenter challenged the appropriateness of adopting a beyondthe-floor standard, not for the industry as a whole, but for 

itself. As to this individual plant (Ash Grove, Durkee), the 

commenter maintained that the cost of attaining the three 

additional lb/MM ton clinker produced reduction (i.e., the 

difference between 58 and 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced) was 

greater than the EPA estimated because it would require more 

than just additional carbon in an activated carbon injection 

system to achieve the incremental difference. According to the 

commenter, they have performed extensive testing and the 

addition of activated carbon per million actual cubic feet per 

minute of exhaust gas has little or no impact on mercury 

emissions. The commenter states that for plants such as Ash 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 83 of 256

Grove’s Durkee plant, there is no known add-on control 

technology at this time that will assure achievement of the 

standard on a continuous basis.

We note first that the commenter is somewhat overestimating the incremental reduction of mercury actually needed. 

To achieve the emission standard, sources will need to operate 

their processes and controls so that they can achieve the 

average emissions level used in setting the existing source 

limit of 55 lb/MM ton - the so-called design level. See e.g. 77 

FR 42389/3 (estimating emissions attributable to this final rule 

based on design levels); see also discussion of design values in 

section VI.B below. That level is 31.7 lb/MM ton for the 

standard of 55 lb/MM ton. See 75 FR 54976/3. The average for the 

58 lb/MM ton is 34.1 lb/MM ton. The additional reduction needed 

is therefore 2.4 lb/MM tons, not 3 lb/MM tons as stated by the 

commenter.

As the EPA has acknowledged repeatedly, due to the high 

levels of mercury in their limestone, mercury emissions from the 

Ash Grove Durkee plant are not typical of other plants in the 

industry. See, e.g. 75 FR 54978-79. As a result, this plant 

faces a particularly great challenge in meeting the mercury 

standard, whether the standard is 55 or 58 lb/MM tons. Because 

of their unique situation, we do not believe that the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 84 of 256

difficulties this facility is having in meeting the mercury 

standards can be generalized to the rest of the industry. 

Section 112(d)(2) of the Act posits an industry-wide standard. 

Having said this, our cost analysis conducted for the 2009 

proposal and 2010 final rule assumed that this plant would have 

to install multiple control systems in order to meet the limit 

for mercury. See EPA Docket item 2002-0051-3438. Therefore, if 

in this particular case the activated carbon injection (ACI)

system cannot achieve the small additional reductions required, 

then the facility has other mercury control options available 

such as further dust shuttling, or treating cement kiln dust to 

remove mercury. Dust shuttling entails moving dust from within 

the kiln to other parts of the process and is considered a 

closed loop process, thereby not causing any waste impacts. In 

addition, any costs associated with dust shuttling have already 

been accounted for in the cost estimates the EPA has developed 

for this particular facility.

The commenter alluded to control performance data that it 

shared with the EPA. We note that the commenter has provided 

pilot scale data as part of the 2010 rulemaking (see Docket item 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-2073), but has not provided data on the 

effects of increasing carbon injection on mercury emissions for 

a full scale facility. We note that in the electric utility 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 85 of 256

industry, where there is significantly more experience with ACI, 

it is well established that higher carbon injection rates 

increase mercury removal (Sjostrom, S.; Durham, M.; Bustard, J. 

Martin, C.; "Activated Carbon Injection for Mercury Control: 

Overview", FUEL, 89, 6, 1320 (2010)). There is no data to 

indicate that ACI systems in the cement industry would behave 

differently than those in the utility industry. Given the lack 

of data on the efficacy of increasing carbon injection rates on 

mercury removal for full scale cement operations, we cannot 

conclude that increasing carbon injection is not a reasonable 

approach for increasing mercury removal efficiency. 

C. Standards for Fugitive Emissions from Open Clinker Storage 

Piles

The EPA proposed that cement kilns control fugitive 

emissions from open clinker storage piles, defined at proposal 

as “any clinker storage pile that is not completely enclosed in 

a building or structure”. These piles would be controlled 

through the use of work practices which minimized emissions by 

means of (among others) partial enclosure, damping down the pile 

by chemical or physical means or shielding piles from wind. 

These work practices were drawn from permits for existing cement 

kilns, and every cement kiln appears to already be utilizing 

some type of work practice to minimize fugitive emissions from 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 86 of 256

open clinker storage piles. See 77 FR 42378. Cement kiln sources 

were allowed to select from among the specified work practices 

and choose those most suitable for its operations. 

For both new and existing sources, the NESHAP is amended to 

require that one or more of the control measures identified in 

the rule be used to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open 

clinker storage piles. The work practices would apply to open 

clinker storage piles regardless of the quantity of clinker or 

the length of time that the clinker pile is in existence. 

In addition, the owner or operator must include as part of 

their operations and maintenance plan (required in §63.1347) the

location of their open clinker storage piles and the fugitive 

dust control measures as specified in this rule that will be 

implemented to control fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 

piles. We agree with comments received that the list of allowed 

work practices reflects all of the available practices 

documented in cement kiln facility operating permits to control 

clinker storage pile fugitive emissions. The size, type and 

duration of a clinker pile may warrant different types of work 

practices. The final rule requires that one or more of a variety 

of work practices need to be employed, recognizing that the 

source will use the work practices that will be effective for 

the particular piles. Thus, the EPA has revised the list of work 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 87 of 256

practices to be consistent with those listed in the proposal 

preamble. These are: use of partial enclosures, using a water 

spray or fogging system, applying appropriate dust suppression 

agents, using a wind barrier and using a tarp. Commenters also 

requested that the EPA allow other work practices if approved by 

the delegated authority. Our regulations already provide 

procedures for sources to seek approval of alternative work

practices. See section 112(h)(3) as implemented by 40 CFR 

63.8(f).

Several industry commenters stated that the definition of 

clinker pile is problematic as proposed because it was not 

limited by size or duration. Commenters note that it is not 

uncommon for small amounts of clinker to be dropped, or to fall 

off a front-loader onto the ground when being moved from a kiln 

to a storage location or from such a location to the grinding 

mill. Because these are small amounts of clinker, it is also not 

uncommon that these small quantities of clinker will remain 

where they were dropped and may not be picked up or removed 

until the necessary manpower becomes available; in some cases 

this could be multiple days. Another industry commenter noted 

that because of the short-term duration of temporary clinker 

stockpiles, the use of work practices similar to those proposed 

for clinker storage piles is not feasible. The industry trade 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 88 of 256

association suggested the following definition: “Open clinker 

storage pile means an outdoor, unenclosed accumulation of 

clinker on the ground, which contains in excess of 50,000 tons 

of clinker, and is utilized for a continuous period in excess of 

180 days.” Under this suggested approach, only a clinker storage 

pile meeting this definition would be subject to the work 

practice standards.

We are not adopting this approach. We believe that the 

potential to emit may be different at different sites for a 

variety of reasons such as weather and traffic conditions. Nor 

did the commenter provide information indicating that open 

clinker storage piles of less than 50,000 tons or stored for 

less than 180 days are unlikely to produce fugitive emissions. 

Indeed, as a result of weather, traffic or other conditions, 

smaller piles stored for shorter periods have the evident 

potential to emit substantial levels of fugitive emissions. Nor 

is any such uniformly applicable distinction based on duration 

evident. Clinker piles can be temporary but be replaced by a new 

pile at the same (or nearby) location a few days later, with no 

essential difference in fugitive emissions. 

Nonetheless, we believe that the commenter is correct that 

spills are unavoidable, and that work practices designed for 

non-temporary piles cannot feasibly be applied in such 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 89 of 256

circumstances. The commenter is also correct that work practices 

used for non-temporary piles would be misapplied to temporary 

piles attributable to cleaning storage structures. For these 

reasons, the definition of “open storage pile” excludes these 

types of piles. Specifically, the definition of open clinker 

storage pile does not include temporary piles of clinker that 

are the result of accidental spillage or temporary use of 

outdoor storage while clinker storage buildings are being 

cleaned. This final rule defines “temporary” to mean piles that 

remain in place for 3 days or less from their generation (3 days 

accommodating weekend scheduling). This is sufficient time to 

either pick these spills up (the applicable work practice for 

these spills) or to cover them to prevent fugitive emissions.

These final amendments will result in a cost savings to the 

industry as compared to the 2010 rule. As a result of requiring 

work practices instead of enclosures, we estimate that there 

will be a savings of $8.25 million annually. See Final Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 

2012, in this rulemaking docket.

D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for the Amended Existing 

Source Standards

The EPA proposed to establish September 9, 2015, as the 

compliance date for the amended existing source NESHAP 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 90 of 256

standards. The basic reason for the proposed compliance date was 

that the proposed change in the PM standard made possible 

different compliance alternatives for all of the stack emission 

standards, and that it could legitimately take two years from 

the original compliance date to implement these new compliance 

strategies. See 77 FR 42385-87. Further, the amended compliance 

date would apply to all of the stack emission standards due to 

the interrelatedness of the standards: the mercury, THC and HCl 

standards all typically involve some element of PM generation 

and capture and so the controls must be integrated with PM 

control strategies. Id. at 42386.

The record for this final rule supports the need for the 

September 9, 2015 compliance date. With respect to PM control, 

as the EPA explained at proposal, plants now have the option of 

retaining electrostatic precipitators (ESP) with modification or 

downstream polishing baghouses, rather than replacing ESP with 

baghouses. Plants may also size baghouses differently (with or 

without incorporation of upstream or downstream polishing 

elements). The various types of sorbent injection strategies to 

control organics, mercury and HCl, are affected by the PM limits 

(and vice versa). Based on the facts of this record for this 

source category, the type, size and aggressiveness of the 

controls for these HAP, as well as the PM controls, are not only 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 91 of 256

interdependent but can all change as a result of the amended PM 

standard. In addition, the amended alternative oHAP standard 

affords additional compliance alternatives for control of nondioxin organic HAP, including alternatives to use of Residual 

Thermal Oxidizers. See generally, Final Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document, section 3.1, 

December 2012, in the docket for this rulemaking.

Determining, developing, installing, testing and otherwise 

implementing a different comprehensive HAP control regime takes 

time. Specifically, plants will need to conduct engineering 

studies, determine the most cost-effective control strategy,

seek contract bids, purchase equipment, install and test the new 

equipment. Below is an estimate of a timeline for a cement kiln 

to undertake these steps.

Time needed to prepare for compliance

(Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505-A1)

Steps in preparing for 

compliance

Time Period

New engineering study January –April 2013

Selection of technology 

providers

April – August 2013

Technology procurement August – December 2013

Detailed technology design and 

final engineering

January – June 2014
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 92 of 256

Equipment fabrication and 

permitting

June – December 2014

Construction and tying into 

existing operation

January – May 2015

Technology commissioning June – August 2015

One commenter, sharply opposing any change in compliance 

date, maintained that all of this reasoning is hypothetical and 

that such a consequential extension could not legitimately rest 

on speculation. The EPA disagrees that this analysis is 

speculative. First, the EPA’s engineering judgment is that the 

changes in the PM standard and alternative oHAP standard, open 

up different compliance alternatives from those under the 2010 

rule. The EPA has indicated what those alternatives can be, and 

the time needed to determine, purchase, install and test them. 

Comments from the affected industry are consistent with the 

EPA’s engineering judgment as to the type of different 

compliance approaches now available for existing sources. 

The EPA’s engineering determinations as to the time needed 

for cement kilns to implement a different multi-HAP control 

strategy here are moreover consistent with the agency’s longstanding analysis (i.e. analysis not specific to the cement 

industry) of the time needed to install multipollutant control 

systems. See US EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 93 of 256

the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant 

Strategies, EPA-600/R-02/073, October 2002) (cited at 77 FR 

42386). Therefore, the EPA estimated that it is normal for the 

development and implementation of new compliance measures to 

take between 15-27 months for single control systems, and longer 

for systems involving multiple controls for HAP and criteria 

pollutants, as is the case here. 

The record to this rule also contains a survey of 92 of the 

97 domestic cement kilns currently in operation. These survey 

results document, on a kiln by kiln basis, alternative 

engineering strategies now available to these kilns as a result 

of the amended PM standard and also documents the time each kiln 

estimates would be needed to carry out these new compliance 

strategies. See Comments of PCA, Appendix D. For example, kiln 

B12 has the option of modifying its ESP system using a hybrid 

ESP/baghouse filter system, or of using a cyclone upstream of 

the ESP. Steps needed to implement these possibilities include 

main stack evaluation, cooler stack testing, and evaluation, 

vendor/contractor selection, final design, equipment procurement 

 

12 For competitiveness reasons, kilns in this survey are 

identified by letter. The survey results are consistent with the 

EPA’s engineering understanding and judgment, and the EPA has no 

reason to dispute the overall survey results (although some 

details may be open to question).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 94 of 256

and fabrication, startup and commissioning, and demonstrating 

compliance. The plant has already commenced some of these steps, 

but provides reasonable time estimates for why it would take 

until September 2015 to complete them. Kiln Q13 expects to be 

able to retain its ESP system (whereas it could not under the 

2010 final rule), but needs to resize its dust conveying system, 

upgrade the ESP, and utilize a larger activated carbon injection 

system differently from planned (since an ESP will not capture 

mercury as would a baghouse). Steps involved in developing and 

implementing a system include reviewing the structural integrity 

of the existing ESP, obtaining proposals on ESP upgrades, 

relocating an existing stack adjacent to the existing ESP, 

complete stack design, order equipment for ESP upgrades, order a 

new stack, contract construction, perform necessary 

construction, modify the ESP as needed, evaluate CEMS 

performance and conduct stack testing and make any adjustments 

to the integrated control system. Again, reasonable timelines 

for carrying out these steps are provided.

Neither the EPA nor the industry has said definitively what 

each kiln will do and how long it will take. Until the standards 

 

13 These examples were chosen at random by the EPA from the 

survey information provided in the comment.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 95 of 256

are finalized, no such definitive pronouncement is possible. 

However, the record is quite specific that additional control 

strategies are now possible; what the range of those new control 

strategies are; that the strategies are interrelated so that the 

standards for PM, organics, mercury and HCl are all implicated;

and the time needed to carry out the various strategies. Thus, 

the commenter is mistaken that the record regarding the need for 

a compliance date of September 2015 is merely conjectural.

The EPA solicited comment on the possibility of a shorter 

extension for the stack emission standards, noting that by 

virtue of the 2010 final rule, the industry was not starting 

from scratch but could already undertake compliance steps. See 

77 FR 42386/3. The survey results referred to above confirm that 

this is the case, since a number of plants (to their credit) 

indicated that they have taken preliminary steps toward 

compliance such as conducting stack testing, and testing various 

control strategies (e.g., survey results for kilns A, F and G). 

Nonetheless, many commenters made the evident point that this 

preliminary work could only go so far when there was uncertainty 

about the final standard and uncertainty around which standard 

would determine their final control strategy. Moreover, even 

those plants which had begun preliminary compliance steps 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 96 of 256

indicated (with specific timelines provided) that the remaining 

work would legitimately stretch through the summer of 2015.

This same record refutes those comments maintaining that an 

even longer compliance extension is needed. Not only is this 

inconsistent with the EPA’s own estimates, but the industry 

survey results document that no further time is needed. See CAA 

section 112(i)(3)(A) (compliance with CAA section 112(d) 

standards to be as expeditious as practicable). Therefore, the 

EPA is revising the compliance date for existing sources for PM, 

THC, HCl, and Hg to be September 9, 2015.

However, the EPA is establishing [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] as the

compliance date for the standards for existing open clinker 

piles. These standards are not inter-related to the stack 

emission standards, and so need not be on the same timeline. The 

work practices we are adopting as the standards reflect 

practices already in place throughout the entire industry. The 

time needed to come into compliance consequently is to establish 

a reporting and recordkeeping apparatus, and in some instances 

to obtain approval (after appropriate demonstration) to use work 

practices not enumerated in the standard. The EPA estimates that 

these various steps should not exceed twelve months. Since 

section 112 (i)(3)(A) requires compliance to be as expeditious 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 97 of 256

as practicable, the EPA is establishing a 12 month compliance 

period for these standards.

A compliance date for an amended standard must still be 

“as expeditiou[s] as practicable” and not more than 3 years. We 

believe a compliance extension is appropriate where, as here,

for the stack emission standards, the amended result in a 

compliance regime differs from the initial rule and additional 

time is needed to develop, install, and implement the controls 

needed to meet the amended standard. The EPA has shown that to 

be the case here, as explained above.

The Sierra Club in its comments also argued that the EPA 

could not change the 2013 compliance date in the 2010 final rule 

as a matter of law. The commenter rests this argument on CAA 

sections 112(d)(7) and 112(i)(3)(A). We have responded above to 

the argument based on section 112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) 

simply is not an anti-backsliding provision (or, at the least, 

does not have to be interpreted that way). 

CAA Section 112(i)(3)(A) states in relevant part:

“[a]fter the effective date of any emissions standard, 

limitation or regulation . . . the Administrator shall establish 

a compliance date or dates for each category or subcategory of 

existing sources, which shall provide for compliance as 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 98 of 256

expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3 years 

after the effective date of such standard”. 

In NRDC v. EPA (Plywood MACT), 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 

(D.C. Cir. 2007) the court held that “only the effective date of 

Section 112 emissions standards matters when determining the 

maximum compliance date.” 489 F. 3d at 1373 (emphasis original).

The EPA, therefore, lacked authority to extend the compliance 

date when it was only adjusting reporting terms. Id. at 1374. 

The opinion implies, however, that the EPA may reset the 

compliance date when the EPA amends the actual standard, as 

here. If the statute provided an absolute bar on the EPA 

extending an effective date, there was no reason for the court 

to distinguish the situation where the EPA amends some ancillary 

feature of the rule from the situation where the EPA amends the 

actual standard.14

 

14 Sierra Club maintains that because the revisions to the PM 

standard leave that standard nearly as stringent as the 2010 

standard, all that has effectively changed is the standard’s 

averaging time. Sierra Club likens this situation to the 

amendments to ancillary provisions like reporting at issue in 

Plywood MACT. This is incorrect. First, as explained in section 

V.A. above, the standard did increase numerically as a result of 

removing commercial incinerators from the database. Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, June 15, 

2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225. Second, although 

the amended PM standard is relatively as stringent as the 2010 

standard (75 FR 54988/2 and 77 FR 42389/3), it nonetheless 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 99 of 256

The reason it makes sense for the EPA to have the authority 

to reestablish a compliance date when it amends a MACT standard 

is evident. In a technology-based regime like section 112(d), if 

the technology basis of the standard changes with a change of 

the standard, it takes time to adopt the revised controls. This 

result fits the statutory text. 

Where the EPA has amended an existing source MACT standard, 

the compliance date for that amended standard must be as 

expeditious as practicable, and no later than 3 years from its 

effective date. Sierra Club argues that the original standard 

(the one that has been amended) must nonetheless take effect, 

but that standard no longer exists. It has been amended. 

Moreover, the result of Sierra Club’s approach would force 

sources to install one technology and rip it out in short order 

to install another. Congress cannot have mandated this result. 

See PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189 (staying NESHAP standards for 

clinker piles – that is, effectively extending their compliance 

 

affords different compliance options for all of the standards, 

as explained above and in further detail in the Response to 

Comment document. The standard allows flexibility for those days 

when emissions increase as a result of normal operating 

variability, without significantly affecting the long-term 

average performance for PM and affords different compliance 

opportunities as a result. Nor does the commenter consider the 

amendment to the alternative oHAP standard, which amendment 

likewise affords new compliance opportunities.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 100 of 256

date – because “the standards could likely change substantially. 

Thus, industry should not have to build expensive new 

containment structures until the standard is finally 

determined.”)15,16 Moreover, in the extreme case where the initial 

standard was outright technically infeasible by any source (and 

was amended by the EPA to correct this defect), Sierra Club’s 

reading would leave sources with literally no legitimate 

 

15 In a variant of this argument, Sierra Club maintains that in a 

situation where the compliance date for an initial existing 

source MACT standard has not yet passed and the EPA amended that 

standard to make it more stringent, the EPA would nonetheless 

leave the predecessor less stringent standard in place and 

require compliance with it. Although this situation has not 

arisen, the EPA would presumably be governed by the same 

principle noted by the PCA court: is the technology basis for 

the standard changing in such a way as to require more time for 

compliance and in a way that negates the compliance strategy of 

the initial rule. (Of course, if the compliance date of a 

standard has already occurred and a standard is later amended, 

that compliance date would not change retroactively.)

16 Sierra Club maintains that PCA is distinguishable because it 

involved a standard which the EPA was compelled to change. 

First, the comment is factually mistaken. The EPA had granted 

reconsideration of the clinker pile standards but had not 

indicated that the standards would be amended. See 76 FR 28325/1 

(May 17, 2011). Nor did the court indicate that the pile 

standards must change. Rather, “[b]ecause EPA will now be 

receiving comments for the first time, the standards could

likely change substantially.” 655 F. 3d at 189 (emphasis 

supplied). Thus, the court effectively reset the compliance date 

because of a potential future change in the rule which could 

result in a compliance regime which differed from that in the 

2010 final rule. This is directly parallel to the situation now 

presented by the amended PM and alternative oHAP standards.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 101 of 256

compliance option.17 Technology-based standards simply do not 

work this way.

E. Eligibility to be a New Source under NESHAP

CAA section 112(a)(4) states that a new source is a 

stationary source if “the construction or reconstruction of 

which is commenced after the Administrator first proposes 

regulations under this section establishing an emissions 

standard applicable to such source.” As we explained 

previously, there is some ambiguity in the language “first 

proposes” and such language could refer to different dates in 

different circumstances, such as the first time the Agency 

proposes any standards for the source category, the first time 

the Agency proposes standards under a particular rulemaking 

record for the source category, or the first time the Agency 

proposes a particular standard. 

In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to 

retain May 6, 2009, as the date which determines new source 

eligibility and solicited comment on this issue. Industry 

 

17 An example is the startup and shutdown standard for HCl in the 

2010 final rule. The EPA established this standard as zero on 

the mistaken assumption that no chlorine could be present in the 

kiln during there periods. See 76 FR 28325 (granting 

consideration on this basis). The commenter’s approach would 

leave this technically infeasible standard and its compliance 

date in place without recourse.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 102 of 256

commenters stated that we should change the date for determining 

new source status from May 9, 2009 to July 18, 2012, the date of 

the proposed reconsideration rule. In support, they asserted 

that they will not know what the final standards are until we 

finalize the reconsideration rule. We disagree with the 

commenters’ suggestion and are retaining the May 6, 2009 date as 

the date that determines whether a source is a new source under 

CAA section 112(a)(4). 

As we explained at proposal, it is reasonable to retain the 

May 6, 2009 date as the date the Agency “first proposed” 

standards for this source category. This is the date that EPA 

first proposed these standards under this particular rulemaking 

record. Today’s action is a reconsideration action, and 

although it revises the particulate matter new source standard, 

it is premised on the same general rulemaking record. It is 

thus reasonable to view the date EPA “first proposes” standards 

to be the May 2009 date. Further, industry commenters 

essentially advocate an approach whereby any time the Agency 

changes a new source standard, in any way, on reconsideration, 

the new source trigger date would change. Such a result is not 

consistent with Congress’ intent in defining the term “new 

source” in section 112(a)(4), to be the date the Agency “first 

proposes” standards. Furthermore, EPA notes that the new source 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 103 of 256

standards finalized today are ones that will be met, in our 

view, using the same or similar control technologies as would be 

used to meet the standards issued in May 2010, and commenters 

have not disputed this conclusion. See 77 FR 42387. 

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

A. What are the affected sources? 

As noted in the proposed 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 this final rule, and that approximately 5 of those 

facilities are new greenfield facilities. All these facilities 

will operate 156 cement kilns and associated clinker coolers. Of 

these kilns, 23 are CISWI kilns. These 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 PM, mercury, HCl and THC, 

and 7 kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended NSPS for 

nitrogen oxide and SO2. Some of these new kilns will be built at 

existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities. 

B. How did the EPA evaluate the impacts of these amendments?
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 104 of 256

For these final amendments, we determined whether 

additional control measures, work practices and monitoring 

requirements would be required by cement manufacturing 

facilities to comply with the amended rules, incremental to the 

2010 final standards (since any other comparison would result in 

double counting). 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 any of the additional measures in order 

to comply with these final amendments. Using this approach, we 

assessed potential impacts from the proposed revisions.

These final amendments to the 2010 rule are expected to 

result in lower costs for the Portland cement industry. The 

final amendment to the PM standard affords alternative, less 

costly compliance opportunities for existing sources. See 

section V.D above. 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 (putting polishing controls ahead of 

the primary PM control device, for instance). Compliance 

strategies for the other HAP, all of which involve some element 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 105 of 256

of PM control, also may be affected. Cost savings from these 

alternatives could be significant. There are also potential cost 

savings associated with the amended oHAP alternative standard 

(which now may be a viable compliance alternative for some 

sources since issues of reliable analytic measurement have been 

resolved). Following proposal, industry submitted kiln specific 

information on likely changes in compliance strategy resulting 

from the proposed amendments so that we are now better able to 

estimate potential savings resulting from the final amendments. 

Based on an industry survey of 18 Portland cement facilities (20 

kilns) after proposal (see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0505-A5), it appears that the amendments may have the following 

effects, which may result in savings in capital and annual costs 

associated with implementing control technologies for these 

pollutants:

• Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) may not need to 

be installed due to the amended oHAP alternative.

• Carbon injection rates may be lowered or not required 

for THC control.

• Existing PM controls (ESP and baghouse) may not need 

to be replaced, but may instead be upgraded.

• Additional PM controls may not have to be implemented.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 106 of 256

• Polishing and hybrid filter configurations may be 

implemented instead of total replacements.

There are also certain costs, and cost savings, associated 

with other provisions of the final amendments. There may be a 

difference in costs of stack testing for PM and use of a CPMS, 

rather than use of a PM CEMS. In addition, there are cost 

savings when changing from a PM CEMS compliance demonstration to 

a CPMS demonstration. For example as part of the PS 11 

calibration requirements, a minimum of 15 Method 5 test runs are 

required to develop a correlation curve, with no limit to the 

maximum number of test runs. Omitting the need for these 

multiple test runs will save the facility a minimum of $20,000 

per kiln (each Method 5 test costs $5,000). At a savings of 

$20,000 per kiln, nationwide savings for 133 new and existing 

kilns, would be $2.7 million per year. However, the CPMS is the 

same type of device as a PM CEMS, so the capital cost of the 

CPMS would not be significantly different than the CEMS device.

The final revisions to the alternative organic HAP standard 

(from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic method practical 

quantitation limit) would allow more sources to select this 

compliance alternative and demonstrate compliance without 

needing to install very expensive and energy-intensive RTO. In 

addition, providing parametric monitoring flexibilities (not 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 107 of 256

present in the 2010 final rule) will provide lower costs for the 

better-performing sources in the industry. See section IV.B 

above. We have quantified these savings (see Final Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 

2012, p.3).

The revisions to the standard for open clinker storage 

piles codify current fugitive dust control measures already 

required by most states, so no impacts are expected. These final 

standards would be significantly less expensive than the 

controls for open piles in the 2010 final rule, which required 

enclosures in all instances. We estimate that the savings to 

industry over the 2010 rule will be $8.25 million annually. See 

Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document, December 20, 2012, in this rulemaking docket.

We have estimated the additional industry cost associated 

with the affirmative defense to civil penalties provisions. We 

estimate the additional cost is $3,258 per year for the entire 

industry. See Supporting Statement in the docket. 

One of the final revisions would allow sources that control 

HCl with dry scrubbers to use periodic performance testing and 

parametric monitoring rather than monitoring compliance with an 

HCl CEMS. This will provide those sources with additional 

flexibility in complying with the HCl standard.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 108 of 256

The 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 revision. 

The amendments provide for work practices rather than 

numerical standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The 

work practice standards reflect common industry practices, so 

there should be no costs associated with them. There should also 

be substantial savings associated with the work practices. 

At an annual cost of about $51,000 per year ($22,800 per 

Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 per year for Method 25A 

test for THC + $20,000 per year for Method 321 test for HCl),

the final 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 revisions would make existing kilns that undergo a 

modification, as defined by NSPS, subject to a PM standard of 

0.07 lb/ton clinker, 3-run average. There may be less costly 

compliance alternatives under the amended standard, similar to 

alternatives available under the amended existing source NESHAP 

for PM.

C. What are the air quality impacts?
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 109 of 256

In these final amendments, emission limits for mercury, THC 

and HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus, there is no 

change in emissions from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP 

surrogates. The alternative HAP organic standard is being

amended to 12 ppm, which is the analytic method practical 

quantitation limit based on the performance test method 

detection limit of 4 ppm. The impact on emission levels due to 

this change is not clear since measuring below the quantitation 

limit does not yield a value with enough certainty to represent 

the actual level. Thus, a measurement below 12 ppm could very 

well actually be 12 ppm or something less. For PM, the limit for 

existing sources changes from 0.04 lb/ton clinker 30-day average 

to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on stack testing. The PM limit for 

new sources also changed: to 0.02 lb/ton clinker stack test from 

0.01 lb/ton clinker 30-day average. The final changes in the PM 

standards, while not significant in absolute terms, may result 

in a small increase in total nationwide emissions by allowing 

slightly more variability, although, as noted at proposal, we 

estimate that design values will be essentially identical under 

the 2010 and this final standard. 77 FR 42389. As explained in 

the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (see Docket item EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051-3438), emission reductions were estimated by 

comparing baseline emissions to the long-term average emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 110 of 256

of the MACT floor kilns. As a practical matter, plants operate 

to comply with this lower average emissions level (the so-called 

design level), rather than the emissions limit, so that on those 

days where there is normal operating variability they do not 

exceed the emissions limit. See 77 FR 42386-87. Under the 2010 

rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor kilns 

were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the amended standard, 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 as 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 this final rule of 0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to the 

2010 rule, nationwide emissions of PM would increase by 138 tons 

per year (0.00359 X 76,664,662/2000). Thus, the EPA estimates 

that the main effect of this final 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 111 of 256

Nonetheless, as explained in section V.D above, this change does 

allow for changes in compliance strategies in the form of types, 

sizes and sequencing of treatment trains.

Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and this final

rule, in 2015, are compared in Table 4. 

Table 4. Comparison of nationwide PM emissions from 2010 rule to 

final rule in 2015.

Kiln 

type

2010 

rule

Final 

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 

(CISWI kilns removed) 

(tons/yr)

11,433 11,433 NA

Nationwide emissions 

reduction (tons/yr)

Total 10,540 10,402 -138

One commenter noted that the compliance extension will result in 

two additional years of HAP emissions at pre-standard levels, 

noting especially the emission of PM, noting further that fine 

PM (PM2.5) is causally associated with mortality and serious 

morbidity effects at a population level. See, e.g. 77 FR 38909 

(June 29, 2012). We note first that these rules are technologybased, not risk-based, and that there are compelling reasons to 

amend the PM standard and to establish new compliance dates for 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 112 of 256

existing sources as a result of technological limitations with 

the 2010 rule PM standard, and the new compliance opportunities 

afforded as a result of the amendment to that standard. See 

section V. D above. We also question the commenter's premise 

that all of the predicted emission reductions and benefits would 

accrue if the existing source CEM-based PM standards took effect 

in September 2013. As explained at length in section V.A. above

and in other comment responses, PM CEMS would not reliably 

measure the level of the PM standard in many instances. One 

cannot assume the full range of emission reductions (and 

consequent health benefits) would accrue in the real world if 

the emission measurements themselves are uncertain. Thus, in a 

meaningful sense, today's amendments result in a regime where 

the required emission reductions will be reliably measured, so 

that the rule's health benefits will reliably occur. 

D. What are the water quality impacts?

At proposal, we believed that none of the amendments being 

proposed would have significant impacts on water quality and 

that to the extent that the revision affecting dry caustic 

scrubbers encourages their use, some reduction in water 

consumption may occur although we had no information upon which 

to base a quantified estimate. We received no comments 

questioning this assessment. Further, in reviewing the industry 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 113 of 256

survey information on the impacts of the proposed changes, only 

1 of the 20 kilns for which information was provided was 

considering the addition of a wet scrubber, although it was also 

evaluating a dry scrubber (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-

0505-A5, kiln S). Therefore, we continue to believe that these 

final amendments will not significantly impact water quality.

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

None of the amendments being finalized with this final rule

are expected to have any solid waste impacts.18

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 amendments. Because we are finalizing 

revisions that slightly reduce the stringency of the existing 

 

18 Although dust shuttling is likely to be one element of mercury 

compliance strategy, the amount of dust shuttling would not 

increase incremental to the 2010 final rule since the standards 

for new and existing sources are the same in the 2010 final rule 

and these amendments. Moreover, as explained in section V.B 

above, even with respect to the high mercury feed source, dust 

shuttling entails moving dust from within the kiln to other 

parts of the process and is considered a closed loop process, 

thereby not causing any waste impacts.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 114 of 256

source emission limits for PM from the promulgated 2010 limits, 

we project that some facilities will 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. The survey results discussed in section V.D above 

confirm the EPA’s engineering judgment. Other facilities in the 

survey that were not able to meet the THC limit or the 

alternative organic HAP limit in the 2010 rule were considering 

the installation of RTO. Because some of these facilities may 

now meet the limit without the installation of an RTO, we have 

estimated a reduction of 24,702 tons per year less CO2 emissions 

being emitted to the atmosphere (equivalent to 2 less RTO’s 

being installed). As a result of the organic HAP limit being 

revised from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, these sources responded that they 

now had other less costly alternatives. The additional 

compliance time was also cited as a factor that would gives 

sources the additional time they needed to consider other HAP 

control alternatives to RTO. As the industry survey highlights, 

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. In general, 

this survey indicates that the combination of the revised limits 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 115 of 256

for PM and organic HAP as well as the September, 2015 compliance 

date will give sources the opportunity to develop less costly 

and less aggressive compliance strategies. We do not have enough 

information to quantify the impact of overall secondary impacts, 

(with the exception of the CO2 reductions noted above), but we 

believe the impacts would in fact be reduced relative to the 

2010 rule since less energy is expected to be needed for 

facilities that can retain and upgrade their current controls, 

instead of for example, installing additional controls in 

series.

G. What are the energy impacts?

As discussed in the preceding section, because of the final 

revisions to the PM emission limits, the organic HAP limits and 

the compliance date extension, some facilities will develop more 

cost effective and less energy intensive compliance strategies. 

For three of the facilities (five kilns) that were part of the 

industry survey, all five kilns required significant changes to 

meet the 2010 THC standard, in part because they were not 

pursuing the alternative organic HAP alternative standard due to 

analytic measurement uncertainties. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0505-A5 (kilns A, C and D, and F and G). Prior to the 

proposed revisions, all five of the kilns were considering RTO 

as a control option as well as other options including catalytic 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 116 of 256

ceramic filtration, a relatively new technology and as yet, not 

completely demonstrated technology for the cement industry. In 

response to the survey of what changes, if any, the facilities 

would make in response to the proposed revisions, all three 

facilities indicated that the amended organic HAP limit or the 

September 2015 compliance date allowed them to consider the use 

of less capital intensive alternatives and to continue testing 

alternatives for THC reduction other than the highly energyintensive RTO for the five kilns involved. Although we cannot 

accurately predict for the entire industry the extent to which 

these site-specific compliance strategies may affect energy 

demands, the industry survey results indicate a trend toward 

less energy intensive strategies than RTO, and as noted above, 

we predict a reduction in CO2 emissions due to less energy use 

as a result of two fewer kilns installing RTOs.

H. What are the cost impacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that 

there could be savings of approximately $52 million associated 

with alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM 

standards, making corresponding adjustments in compliance 

strategies for the organic HAP and requiring work practice for 

open clinker storage piles. Table 5 summarizes the costs and 

emissions reductions of this final action.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 117 of 256

Table 5. Summary of the Costs and Emission Reductions of the 

Final Amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 

NESHAP relative to the 2010 rulea,b,c,d,e

Proposed 

Amendment

Annualized 

Cost

PM 

Emissions 

Reduction

2010 rule

PM 

Emissions 

Reduction

2012 rule

Emission 

Change 

tpy

Revised PM, 

oHAP standard

($42.2

million)f

10,540 

tons

10,402 

tons

138 

increase

Replace PM CEMS 

with PM CPMS

($2.7

million) 

0

Coal Mill 

Testing

$1.3 million 0

Open clinker 

storage pile 

work practices

($8.25 

million)

0

Total ($51.85

million) a Parentheses indicate cost savings. All costs are in 2005 

dollars. 

b We also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 

for each facility to revise their operation and maintenance plan 

to include procedures to minimize emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown.

c Emissions reductions are the total once full compliance is

achieved in 2015.

d Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015. e Note emission reductions published in the 2010 rule included 

CISWI kilns, but the reductions in this table reflect reductions 

since CISWI kilns were removed from the database.

f Includes cost savings due to revised PM standard.

The cost information in Table 5 is in 2005 dollars at a discount 

rate of 7 percent. The EPA did not have sufficient information 

to quantify the overall change in benefits or impacts in 

emissions for 2013 to 2015.

With regard to the coal mill monitoring requirements in 

this action, sources with integral coal mills that exhaust 

through a separate exhaust would potentially incur a capital 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 118 of 256

cost of $36,000 to install a continuous flow meter. The 

annualized cost of a flow meter is $11,000. Because this final 

rule allows the use of maximum design flow rate instead of 

installing flow meters, we believe that most facilities will 

take advantage of this and will not incur these costs. Annual 

testing at these coal mills for mercury, THC and HCl will cost 

about $51,000 ($22,800 per Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 

per year for Method 25A test for THC + $20,000 per year for 

Method 321 test for HCl). Using information supplied by the 

industry (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0612),

approximately 26 facilities would be affected by these 

requirements for an annual cost of $1.3 million. Costs for coal 

mills to meet the PM limits for this NESHAP are not included, 

since all equipment and monitoring are in place to meet 

requirements of Subpart Y and thus are not considered additional 

costs. 

With the final change to PM CPMS instead of CEMS, it is 

estimated that the elimination of the PS correlation tests will 

result in a savings of $20,000 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 119 of 256

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)19. When 

adequate data and resources are available and a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) is required, the EPA generally quantifies 

several health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., 

U.S. EPA, 2011)20. These 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. 

 

19 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>. 

20 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. 

Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 120 of 256

Although the EPA has not quantified certain outcomes including 

adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term 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).

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.21 The greatest impact is 

on the upper respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations 

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 

 

21 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 

Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 121 of 256

be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute 

ventilation per kilograms and failure to evacuate an area 

promptly when exposed. HCl has not been classified for 

carcinogenic effects.22

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 National Academy of Science (NAS) Study was 

issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg 

on human health (National Research Council (NRC), 2000)23. 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 NAS found 

neurodevelopmental effects to be the most sensitive and best 

 

22 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.

23 National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects 

of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 122 of 256

documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an oral 

reference dose (RfD) (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 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.”
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 123 of 256

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. 

The Mercury Study24 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 

 

24 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>.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 124 of 256

in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes25. 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, 

1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 

2000)26.

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 Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA, 2002)27,28. The existing 

 

25 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.

26 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.

27 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 125 of 256

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).

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

 

28 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 126 of 256

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 Office of Management and Budget 

(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. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this final 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 1801.11 for the 

NESHAP; there are no additional recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 127 of 256

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 finalizing new paperwork requirements for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing source category in the form of a 

requirement to incorporate work practices for periods of startup 

and shutdown and fugitive dust control measures for clinker 

piles into their existing operations and maintenance plan. 

This final rule also includes new paperwork requirements 

for recordkeeping of malfunctions, as described in 40 CFR 

63.454(g) (conducted in support of the affirmative defense 

provisions, as described in 40 CFR 63.456).

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report the event 

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LLL. An affirmative defense to civil penalties 

for violations of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions is available to a source if it can demonstrate that 

certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. The criteria 

ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the 

event that causes a violation of the emission limit meets the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 128 of 256

narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source took 

necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source 

must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For 

example, the source must prepare a written root cause analysis 

and submit a written report to the Administrator documenting 

that it has met the conditions and requirements for assertion of 

the affirmative defense.

The EPA is adding the paperwork and recordkeeping 

associated with the affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

malfunctions 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 the ICR that 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 $3,258, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 129 of 256

malfunction that has caused a violation 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.

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 violations caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the 

affirmative defense. Thus, we expect the number of instances in 

which source operators might be expected to avail themselves of 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 130 of 256

the affirmative defense will be extremely small. For this 

reason, we estimate no more than two such occurrences per year 

for all sources subject to subpart LLL over the 3-year period 

covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on such 

events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available.

We estimate 86 facilities will be subject to all final 

standards. The remaining 14 facilities will only be subject to 

the open clinker pile standards in this action. The annual 

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping cost for this source

(averaged over the first three years after the effective date of 

the standards) for these amendments to subpart LLL is estimated 

to be $352,814 per year for the industry. 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 estimate includes reporting and 

recordkeeping associated with the requirements for open clinker 

storage piles. The total burden to the federal government 

(averaged over the first three years after the effective date of 

the standard) as a result of these amendments 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 131 of 256

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. 

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 based on the size 

definition for the affected NAICS code (327310), as defined by 

the Small Business Administration size standards; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 

county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 132 of 256

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 and comprise 3 plants. After 

considering the economic impacts of this final 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 these amendments to the 2010 final 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 open clinker storage 

piles in their title V permits). 

Although this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless adopted amendments which should reduce the

impact of this final rule on small entities. For example, we are 

expanding the provision that allows periodic HCl performance 

tests as an alternative to HCl CEMS for sources equipped with 

wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that use dry 

scrubbers. This final rule also adds an option for sources using 

wet or dry scrubbers for HCl control to use SO2 as a monitored 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 133 of 256

parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for SO2, then 

this will provide operational flexibility.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, there is 

an actual savings to the industry of $52 million per year. Thus, 

this final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. This final action is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. This final action contains no 

requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no 

obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by 

them of $100 million or more in any one year or any 

disproportionate impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This final 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 134 of 256

13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by 

State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action may have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA 

is aware of one tribally owned Portland cement facility 

currently subject to subpart LLL and that will be subject to 

this final rule. The provisions of this final rule are not 

expected to impose new substantial direct compliance costs on 

Tribal governments since the same control technologies that are 

necessary under the current NESHAP will be needed to meet the 

final emissions limits. The EPA has tried to reduce the impact 

of this final rule on Tribal owned facilities. For example, we 

are expanding the provision that allows periodic HCl performance 

tests as an alternative to HCl CEMS for sources equipped with 

wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources that use dry 

sorbent injection (i.e., dry scrubbing systems). This final rule 

adds an option for sources using wet or dry scrubbers for HCl 

control to use SO2 as a monitored parameter. If these sources 

already have a CEMS for SO2, then this will provide operational 

flexibility.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 135 of 256

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 final 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 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 136 of 256

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 final 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 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 137 of 256

An analysis of demographic data was prepared for the 2010 

final rule and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking 

(See docket item 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 

final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations without having any

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any minority 

or low-income populations. In addition, the full benefits of 

this final rule will not result until 2015 due to the final 

amended compliance date but the demographic analysis showed that 

the average of 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.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 138 of 256

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 

will submit a report containing this final rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States 

prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 

major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be 

effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 139 of 256

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants

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
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 140 of 256

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 

I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows:

PART 60 – [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[AMENDED]

2. Section 60.61 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) 

and (f) to read as follows:

§60.61 Definitions.

* * * * *

(e) 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.

(f) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 141 of 256

day does not include the hours of operation during startup 

or shutdown. 

 * * * * *

3. Section 60.62 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2); 

b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iii);

c. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(i); 

d. Revising paragraph (b)(1);

e. Removing paragraph (b)(2);

f. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) 

and (b)(3); 

g. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and 

f. Revising paragraph (d).

The revisions and deletion read as follows:

§60.62 Standards.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 

reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. 

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 142 of 256

(2) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 

reconstruction of the clinker cooler commences after June 

16, 2008. 

(ii) 0.07 pound per ton of clinker if the clinker 

cooler has undergone a modification.

* * * * * 

(3) If the kiln has a separated alkali bypass stack 

and/or an inline coal mill with a separate stack, you must 

combine the PM emissions from the bypass stack and/or the 

inline coal mill stack with the PM emissions from the main 

kiln exhaust to determine total PM emissions.

* * * * *

(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 

this chapter, you must comply with the most stringent 

emissions limit or requirement and are not subject to the 

less stringent requirement. 

4. Section 60.63 is amended by:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 143 of 256

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)and (b)(1)(ii);

b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3);

d. Removing paragraph (b)(4);

e. Revising paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3);

f. Adding paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(8);

g. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);

h. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;

i. Revising paragraph (g)(2);

j. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;

k. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(6);

l. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text;

m. Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text;

n. Revising paragraph (h)(9);

o. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and

p. Revising paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(1)(i).

The revisions, addition, and deletion read as follows: 

§60.63 Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 144 of 256

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 

production rates or feed rates before initial use (for new 

sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 145 of 256

(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.

(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. You will conduct your performance 

test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix A-3 to part 60 

of this chapter. You must also 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. If your PM performance test 

demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent

of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS 

value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp 

equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the 

average PM result of your compliance test to establish your 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 146 of 256

operating limit equivalent to 75 percent of the standard. 

If your PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission 

levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit 

you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the 

PM compliance test demonstrating compliance with the PM 

limit to establish your operating limit. You will use 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.

(i) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output 

and the establishment of its relationship to manual 

reference method measurements must be determined in units 

of milliamps.

(ii) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of 

reading PM concentrations from zero to a level equivalent 

to two times your allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS 

is an auto-ranging instrument capable of multiple scales, 

the primary range of the instrument must be capable of 

reading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to 

two times your allowable emission limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 147 of 256

(iii) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance 

with the PM limit, record and average all milliamp output 

values from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to 

the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS 

output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test 

runs).

(3) Determine your operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(5) of this section. If 

your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission 

levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you 

will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 

compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output 

from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your 

compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your 

PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to 

be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit you will 

use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 

compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must 

verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after 

each repeated performance test. You must repeat the 

performance test at least annually and reassess and adjust 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 148 of 256

the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the 

results of the performance test.

(4) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I 

compliance test runs are below 75 percent of your PM 

emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by 

establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to PM 

concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the 

average PM CPMS values corresponding to the three 

compliance test runs, and the average PM concentration from 

the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the procedures in 

(c)(4)(i)(A)through (c)(4)(i)(D)of this section.

(i) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with 

one of the following procedures.

(A) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be 

obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and 

monitoring ambient air on a test bench.

(B) Zero point data for extractive instruments should 

be obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack 

and drawing in clean ambient air.

(C) The zero point can also can be obtained by 

performing manual reference method measurements when the 

flue gas is free of PM emissions or contains very low PM 

concentrations (e.g., when your process is not operating, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 149 of 256

but the fans are operating or your source is combusting 

only natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance 

data to find the zero intercept.

(D) If none of the steps in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)(A)

through (C) of this section are possible, you must use a 

zero output value provided by the manufacturer.

(ii) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in 

milliamps, and the average of your corresponding three PM 

compliance test runs, using equation 1.

x = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 , y = 1

n ∑ Y1 n

i=1 (Eq. 1) 

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs 

constituting the performance test,

Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs 

constituting the performance test, and

n = The number of data points. 

(iii) With your PM CPMS instrument zero expressed in 

milliamps, your three run average PM CPMS milliamp value, 

and your three run average PM concentration from your three 

PM performance test runs, determine a relationship of 

lb/ton-clinker per milliamp with equation 2.

(X z)

Y

− =

1

1 R (Eq. 2)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 150 of 256

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton clinker per milliamp for your PM 

CPMS.

Y1 = The three run average PM lb/ton clinker.

X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM 

CPMS.

z = the milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero 

determined from (c)(4)(i) of this section.

(iv) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling 

average operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per 

milliamp value from Equation 2 above in Equation 3, below. 

This sets your operating limit at the PM CPMS output value 

corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.

Ol=z+(0.75(L))/ R (Eq. 3)

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your PM CPMS on a 30-day 

rolling average, in milliamps.

L = Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker.

z = Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from 

(1)(i).

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM 

CPMS, from Equation 2.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 151 of 256

(5) If the average of your three PM compliance test 

runs is at or above 75 percent of your PM emission limit 

you must determine your operating limit by averaging the PM 

CPMS milliamp output corresponding to your three PM 

performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limit using Equation 4.

Oh = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 (Eq. 4)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.

n = The number of data points.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps. 

(6) To determine continuous compliance, you must 

record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the 

process is operating, and use all the PM CPMS data for 

calculations when the source 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 

(milliamps) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use 

Equation 5 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 152 of 256

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day average (Eq. 5)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected 

over 30 kiln operating days.

(7) Use EPA Method 5 or Method 5I of appendix A to 

part 60 of this chapter to determine PM emissions. For each 

performance test, conduct at least 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 an existing source limit. Calculate the 

average of the results from three consecutive runs to 

determine compliance. You need not determine the 

particulate matter collected in the impingers (“back half”) 

of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this 

subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 153 of 256

from requiring a determination of the ”back half” for other 

purposes.

(8) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM 

CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test 

report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS 

instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical 

principle of the instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span 

of the instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value 

equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by 

which this zero value was determined, and the average 

milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance test 

run.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 154 of 256

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.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 155 of 256

§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.

(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:

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 156 of 256

(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, 

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 (iii)

and (b)(1)(i) and (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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 157 of 256

(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 

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.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 158 of 256

(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.

* * * * *

(i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of 

Monitoring Plans. To 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 §60.13(3)(i). 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 159 of 256

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 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control device);

* * * * *

5. 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)(1)You must demonstrate compliance with the PM 

standards in §60.62 using EPA method 5 or method 5I.

(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 subject to the 

10 percent opacity limit must follow the appropriate 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 160 of 256

monitoring procedures in §63.1350(f), (m)(1)through(m)(4), 

(m)(10) through (11), (o), and (p) of this chapter.

(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating 

day average emission rate daily of NOx and SO2 according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (c)(i) through (c)(ii) of this 

section.

(i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day 

average emissions according to equation 6:

P

C Q

E k

n

i

i i

D

∑= = 1

30 (Eq. 6)

Where: 

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of NOX or 

SO2, lb/ton of clinker.

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.

P = 30 days of clinker production during the same time 

period as the NOx or SO2 emissions measured, tons.

k = Conversion factor, 1.194 x 10-7 for NOX and 1.660 x 10-7

for SO2, lb/scf/ppm.

n = Number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating 

days.

(ii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do not 

have at least one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, use the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 161 of 256

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) (http://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 

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, flash drive or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. 

EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 162 of 256

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 CBI, to 

the delegated authority in the format specified by the 

delegated authority. For any performance test conducted 

using test methods that are not listed on the ERT website, 

you must submit the results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13.

(2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

CEMS performance evaluation test as defined in §63.2, you 

must submit relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data to the 

EPA’s CDX by using CEDRI in accordance with paragraph (1) 

of this section. Only RATA pollutants that can be 

documented with the ERT (as listed on the ERT website) are 

subject to this requirement. For any performance 

evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on 

the ERT website, you must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in §63.13.

(3) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM 

CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 163 of 256

report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS 

instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical 

principle of the instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span 

of the instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value 

equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by 

which this zero value was determined, and the average 

milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance test 

run.

(4) 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.

6. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 164 of 256

comply with the requirements in §60.7(c). Notwithstanding 

the provisions of §60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted 

semiannually.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

7. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follows:

§60.66 Delegation of authority. 

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 165 of 256

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval 

authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S 

EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

8. The authority citation for part 63 continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart LLL—[Amended]

9. Section 63.1340 is amended by

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(9); and 

b. Revising paragraph (c).

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1340 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *

(b) * * *:

(1) Each kiln including alkali bypasses and inline coal 

mills, except for kilns that burn hazardous waste and are 

subject to and regulated under subpart EEE of this part;

* * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 166 of 256

(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.

* * * * *

10. Section 63.1341 is amended by: 

a. Deleting definitions of “Enclosed storage pile,” 

and “Inactive clinker pile;” 

b. Adding a definition for “In-line coal mill,” “Open 

clinker storage pile,” “Startup” and “Shutdown” in 

alphabetical order; and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 167 of 256

c. Revising definitions for “Kiln,” “New source,” 

“Operating day,” “Raw material dryer,” and “Total organic 

HAP,” in alphabetical order.

The deletions, additions and revisions read as follows:

§63.1341 Definitions.

* * * * *

In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust 

gases in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other 

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 or 

reconstruction after May 6, 2009, for purposes of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 168 of 256

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 a clinker storage pile on 

the ground for more than three days 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 

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.

* * * * *

Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown 

begins when feed to the kiln is halted and ends when 

continuous kiln rotation ceases.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 169 of 256

Startup means the time from when a shutdown kiln first 

begins firing fuel until it begins producing clinker. 

Startup begins when a shutdown kiln turns on the induced 

draft fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner. 

Startup ends when feed is being continuously introduced 

into the kiln for at least 120 minutes or when the feed 

rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln design limitation rate, 

whichever occurs first.

* * * * *

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 

D6348-0329 or a combination of these methods, as 

 

29 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 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, percent 

R must be 70 percent ≥ R ≤ 130 percent; and (4) The percent 

R value for each compound must be reported in the test 

report and all field measurements corrected with the 

calculated percent R value for that compound using the 

following equation:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 170 of 256

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., 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 

other test methods to make this determination under 

paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part.

* * * * *

11. Section 63.1343 is revised to read as follows:

§63.1343 What standards apply to my kilns, clinker 

coolers, raw material dryers, and open clinker storage 

piles?

 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 171 of 256

(a) General. The provisions in this section apply to 

each kiln and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, 

clinker cooler, raw material dryer, and open clinker 

storage pile. 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. 

(1) The emissions limits for these sources are shown 

in Table 1 below. PM limits for existing kilns also apply 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 172 of 256

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 256

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 

correcti

on 

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 (TEQ)

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

Work practices 

(63.1346(f))

NA NA

4. 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 (TEQ) 

lb/MM tons 

clinker

ppmvd

NA

7 

percent

NA

7 

percent

5. New kiln Normal 

operation 

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd 7 

percent

6. New kiln Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

Work practices 

(63.1346(f))

NA NA

7. Existing 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operation 

Major or 

area 

source

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

8. Existing 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

Work practices

(63.1348(b)(9)

) 

NA NA

9. New 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operation 

Major or 

area 

source

PM 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

10. New 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

Work practices 

(63.1348(b)(9)

)

NA NA

11. Existing 

or new raw 

material 

dryer

Normal 

operation 

Major or 

area 

source

THC3,4 24 ppmvd NA

12. Existing 

or new raw 

Startup 

and 

Major or 

area 

Work practices 

(63.1348(b)(9)

NA NA
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 174 of 256

material 

dryer

shutdown source )

13. Existing 

or new raw 

or finish 

mill

All 

operating 

modes

Major 

source

Opacity 10 percent NA

1 The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5

or 5I and consist 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 o

F or less this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ). 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 and/or an inline coal 

mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the combined 

PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass stack and/or 

the inline coal mill stack are subject to the PM emissions 

limit. Existing kilns that combine the clinker cooler exhaust 

and/or coal mill exhaust with the kiln exhaust 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.

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 ton feed per ton clinker.

Qk = The exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton feed).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 175 of 256

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 ton feed per ton 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 Storage Pile. The owner or operator of an 

open clinker storage pile must prepare, and operate in 

accordance with, the fugitive dust emissions control measures, 

described in their operation and maintenance plan (see §63.1347 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 176 of 256

of this subpart), that is appropriate for the site conditions as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. The 

operation and maintenance plan must also describe the measures 

that will be used to minimize fugitive dust emissions from piles 

of clinker, such as accidental spillage, that are not part of 

open clinker storage piles. 

(1) The operation and maintenance plan must identify and 

describe the location of each current or future open clinker 

storage pile and 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, use of a wind barrier, 

compaction, use of tarpaulin or other equally effective cover or 

use of a vegetative cover. You 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 177 of 256

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. 

(3) Temporary piles of clinker that result from accidental 

spillage or clinker storage cleaning operations must be cleaned 

up within 3 days.

(d) 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.

* * * * *

12. 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 Emission 

Standards During Malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

in paragraph §63.1343(b) and (c) and §63.1345 and 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 if 

you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the requirements 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 178 of 256

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 reporting 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that:

(1) The violation: 

(i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control 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; and

(3) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 179 of 256

(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

(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) All of the 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 practices 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 180 of 256

(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 

section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in 

the first periodic compliance, 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 emission report is due less than 45 

days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after 

the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant 

standard.

13. 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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 181 of 256

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 

gases from these affected sources which exhibit opacity in 

excess of 10 percent.

14. Section 63.1346 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and

c. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f).

The revisions 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 182 of 256

mill was operating, is not exceeded, except during periods of 

startup and shutdown when the temperature limit may be exceeded 

by no more than 10 percent.

* * * * *

(c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an 

emission control technique for D/F control, 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 183 of 256

(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 

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
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 184 of 256

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 is in compliance with a 

mercury emissions limit specified in § 63.1343, this paragraph 

no longer applies.

(g) During periods of startup and shutdown you must meet the 

requirements listed in (g)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) During startup you must use any one or combination of 

the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, 

propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), and ultra-low 

sulfur diesel (ULSD) until the kiln reaches a temperature of 

1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

(2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once 

the kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

(3) All air pollution control devices must be turned on and 

operating prior to combusting any fuel.

(4) You must keep records as specified in §63.1355 during 

periods of startup and shutdown.

15. Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows:

§63.1347 Operation and maintenance plan requirements.

(a) * * * 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 185 of 256

(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 operations and maintenance plan

must address periods of startup and shutdown;

* * * * *

16. Section 63.1348 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii);

c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6);

d. Adding paragraph (a)(7);

e. Revising paragraph (b); and

f. Adding paragraph (b) 9; and

g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1348 Compliance requirements.

(a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. For an affected 

source subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance 

with the emissions standards and operating limits by using the 

test methods and procedures in §§63.1349 and 63.7. Any cement 

kiln that has been subject to the requirements of subpart CCCC

or subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 60, and is now electing to cease 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 186 of 256

burning nonhazardous solid waste and become subject to this 

subpart, must meet all the initial compliance testing 

requirements each time it becomes subject to this subpart, even 

if it was previously subject to this subpart.

NOTE: The first day of the 30 operating day performance 

test is the first day after the compliance date 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. The source 

has the option of performing the compliance test earlier then 

the compliance date if desired.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 187 of 256

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. 

(i) * * * 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 TEQ concentration 

for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the TEQ 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 188 of 256

(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

performance test 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. 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. 

(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)(7. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 189 of 256

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must 

conduct the separate performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(7) while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is 

operating and while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is 

not operating.

(iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured 

during the separate initial performance test specified by 

§63.1349(b)(7) must be used to determine initial compliance.

(v) The average THC concentration measured during the 

initial performance test specified by §63.1349(b)(4) must be 

used to determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the 

fraction of time the inline kiln/raw mill is on and the fraction 

of time that the inline kiln/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 using one of the two 

approaches in §63.1349(b)(7)(vii) or (viii) depending on the 

level of organic HAP measured during the compliance test.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 190 of 256

must be determined based on the first 30 operating days you 

operate a mercury CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system 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 monitoring system 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 monitoring system 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 191 of 256

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 may 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 establish appropriate site-specific 

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 

values obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days that 

occur after the compliance date of this rule to determine 

initial compliance.

(7) Commingled Exhaust Requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 192 of 256

(i) If the coal mill exhaust is commingled with kiln 

exhaust in a single stack, you may demonstrate compliance with 

the kiln emission limits by either:

(A) Performing required emissions monitoring and 

testing on the commingled coal mill and kiln exhaust, or

(B) Perform required emission monitoring and testing 

of the kiln exhaust prior to the reintroduction of the coal mill 

exhaust, and also testing the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal 

mill. All emissions must be added together for all emission 

points, and must not exceed the limit per each pollutant as 

listed in S63.1343(b).

(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 startup and shutdown, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 193 of 256

must operate the 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 mercury emissions (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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 194 of 256

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 within one hour of detecting visible 

emissions above the applicable limit.

(i) 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).

(ii) 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 D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 

using a CMS that is installed, operated, and maintained to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 195 of 256

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 of 

§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) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill

or in the coal mill stack.

(7) Mercury Compliance. 

(i) 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). If you use an 

integrated sorbent trap monitoring system 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 day emissions rates. Since you assign the 

mercury concentration measured with the sorbent trap to each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 196 of 256

relevant hour respectively for each operating day of the 

integrated period, you may schedule the sorbent trap 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).

(ii) Mercury must be measured either upstream of the coal 

mill or in the coal mill stack. 

(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 may

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(2). 

(iii) HCl may be measured either upstream of the coal mill 

or in the coal mill stack.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 197 of 256

(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).

(9) Startup and Shutdown Compliance. In order to 

demonstrate continuous compliance during startup and shutdown, 

all air pollution control devices must be operating.

(c) * * * 

(2) * * *

(iv) The performance test must be completed within 360 

hours after the planned operational change period begins.

* * * * *

17. 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); 

f. Adding paragraph (b)(7) and (b)(8); and

g. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e).

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1349 Performance testing requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 198 of 256

(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. For purposes of determining exhaust gas 

flow rate to the atmosphere from an alkali bypass stack or a 

coal mill stack, you must either install, operate, calibrate and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate according to the requirements in 

paragraphs §63.1350(n)(1) through (n)(10) of this subpart or use 

the maximum design exhaust gas flow rate. For purposes of 

determining the combined emissions from kilns equipped with an 

alkali bypass or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that 

exhausts through a separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS

on the alkali bypass stack or coal mill stack, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the relevant emissions limit.

* * * * *

(1) PM Emissions Tests. 

The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations on

PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 199 of 256

a performance test using Method 5 or Method 5I at appendix A-3 

to part 60 of this chapter. You must also monitor continuous 

performance through use of a PM continuous parametric monitoring 

system (PM CPMS).

(i) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific 

operating limit. If your PM performance test demonstrates your 

PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit 

you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM 

compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output from 

your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test 

to establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test 

demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 75

percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS 

value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your 

operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat 

the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the sitespecific operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test.

(A) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4-20 milliamp output and 

the establishment of its relationship to manual reference method 

measurements must be determined in units of milliamps.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 200 of 256

(B) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of reading 

PM concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to three times 

your allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an autoranging instrument capable of multiple scales, the primary range 

of the instrument must be capable of reading PM concentration 

from zero to a level equivalent to three times your allowable 

emission limit.

(C) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with 

the PM limit, record and average all milliamp output values from 

the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the compliance test

runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS output values for three 

corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test runs).

(ii) Determine your operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (iv) of this section. If your PM 

performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be 

below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average 

PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the 

milliamp equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the 

average PM result of your compliance test to establish your 

operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates your PM 

emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission 

limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 201 of 256

PM compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must 

verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after each 

repeated performance test. You must repeat the performance test 

at least annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific 

operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test.

(iii) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I 

compliance test runs is below 75 percent of your PM emission 

limit, you must calculate an operating limit by establishing a 

relationship of PM CPMS signal to PM concentration using the PM 

CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS values corresponding 

to the three compliance test runs, and the average PM 

concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the 

procedures in (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section.

(A) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one 

of the following procedures.

(1)Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be 

obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and 

monitoring ambient air on a test bench.

(2)Zero point data for extractive instruments should be 

obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack and 

drawing in clean ambient air.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 202 of 256

(3)The zero point may also be established by performing 

manual reference method measurements when the flue gas is free 

of PM emissions or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., 

when your process is not operating, but the fans are operating 

or your source is combusting only natural gas) and plotting 

these with the compliance data to find the zero intercept.

(4) If none of the steps in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A)(1)

through (3) of this section are possible, you must use a zero 

output value provided by the manufacturer.

(B) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, 

and the average of your corresponding three PM compliance test 

runs, using equation 3.

x = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 , y = 1

n ∑ Y1 n

i=1 (Eq. 3) 

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for the three runs constituting the 

performance test.

Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs constituting 

the performance test.

n = The number of data points. 

(C) With your instrument zero expressed in milliamps, your 

three run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run PM 

compliance test average, determine a relationship of lb/tonclinker per milliamp with Equation 4.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 203 of 256

(X z)

Y

− =

1

1 R (Eq. 4)

Where:

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS.

Y1 = The three run average lb/ton-clinker PM concentration.

X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PM CPMS.

z = The milliamp equivalent of your instrument zero determined 

from (b)(1)(iii)(A).

(D) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average 

operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value from 

Equation 4 in Equation 5, below. This sets your operating limit 

at the PM CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent of your 

emission limit.

Ol = z + 0.75(L)

R (Eq. 5)

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your PM CPMS on a 30-day rolling 

average, in milliamps.

L = Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker.

z = Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from (1)(i).

R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PM CPMS, 

from Equation 4.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 204 of 256

(iv) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs 

is at or above 75 percent of your PM emission limit you must 

determine your operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp 

output corresponding to your three PM performance test runs that 

demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using Equation 6.

Oh = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 (Eq. 6)

Where:

X1 = The PM CPMS data points for all runs i.

n = The number of data points.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps.

(v) To determine continuous operating compliance, you must 

record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process 

is operating, and use all the PM CPMS data for calculations when 

the source 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 (milliamps) on a 30 operating day rolling 

average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating 

day. Use Equation 7 to determine the 30 kiln operating day 

average.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 205 of 256

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day (Eq. 7)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 

30 kiln operating days.

(vi) For each performance test, conduct at least three 

separate test 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 an existing source limit. Calculate the average 

of the results from three consecutive runs, including applicable 

sources as required by (D)(viii), to determine compliance. You 

need not determine the particulate matter collected in the 

impingers (‘‘back half’’) of the Method 5 or Method 5I 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 206 of 256

(vii) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS 

operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report 

must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, 

serial number of the instrument, analytical principle of the 

instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span of the instruments 

primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent to the 

instrument zero output, technique by which this zero value was 

determined, and the average milliamp signals corresponding to 

each PM compliance test run.

(viii) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal 

mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the main 

exhaust and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be tested 

simultaneously and the combined emission rate of PM from the 

kiln and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be computed 

for each run using Equation 8 of this section. 

P

E E E E C K B

c

+ + = 

(Eq. 8)

Where:

EC = Combined hourly emission rate of PM from the kiln and 

bypass stack and/or inline coal mill, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 207 of 256

EC = Hourly PM emissions from the inline coal mill stack, lb.

P = Hourly clinker production, tons.

(ix) 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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 208 of 256

§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 

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) THC Emissions Test. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 209 of 256

(i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you 

must operate a 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.

(ii) 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). 

(iii) 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 9:

Cks = (MACT Limit×(Qab+Qcm+Qks))−(Qab×Cab)−(Qcm×Ccm)

Qks ((Eq. 9)

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).

(iv) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill

or the coal mill stack.

(v) Instead of conducting the performance test specified in 

paragraph (b)(4)of this section, you may conduct a performance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 210 of 256

test to determine emissions of total organic HAP by following 

the procedures in paragraphs (b)(7) of this section.

(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to 

limitations on mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury 

CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system 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 or a sorbent trap 

monitoring system 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 Equation 10 of this 

section:

P

C Q

E k

n

i

i i

D

∑= = 1

30 (Eq. 10)

Where: 

E30D = 30-day rolling emission rate of mercury, lb/MM tons 

clinker.

Ci = Concentration of mercury for operating hour i, μg/scm.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 211 of 256

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating hour 

i, where Ci and Qi 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.

P = 30 days of clinker production during the same time period as 

the mercury emissions measured, million tons.

(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). For

kilns with inline raw mills, testing should be conducted for the 

raw mill on and raw mill off conditions.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 212 of 256

injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during 

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 11:

Cks = (MACT Limit×(Qab+Qcm+Qks))−(Qab×Cab)−(Qcm×Ccm)

Qks (Eq. 11)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 213 of 256

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).

(7) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of 

conducting the performance test specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 

this section, you may conduct a performance test to determine 

emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this section.

(i) 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. 

(ii) 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 THC CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(j). The duration of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 214 of 256

the performance test must be at least 3 hours and the average 

THC concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute averages) 

during the 3-hour test must be calculated. You must establish 

your THC operating limit and determine compliance with it 

according to paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii)of this 

section. It permissible to extend the testing time of the 

organic HAP performance test if you believe extended testing is 

required to adequately capture THC variability over time. 

(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must 

use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of 

time that the raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a 

weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on 

and raw mill off testing.

(iv) If your organic HAP emissions are below 75 percent of 

the organic HAP standard and you determine your operating limit 

with paragraph (vii) of this section your THC CEMS must be 

calibrated and operated on a measurement scale no greater than 

180 ppmvw, as carbon, or 60 ppmvw as propane. 

(v) Your THC CEMS measurement scale must be capable of 

reading THC concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to 

two times your highest THC emissions average determined during 

your performance test, including mill on or mill off operation.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 215 of 256

NOTE: This may require the use of a dual range instrument to 

meet this requirement and paragraph (iv) of this section.

(vi) Determine your operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii) of this section. If your 

organic HAP performance test demonstrates your average organic 

HAP emission levels are below 75 percent of your emission limit 

(9 ppmv) you will use the average THC value recorded during the 

organic HAP performance test, and the average total organic HAP 

result of your performance test to establish your operating 

limit. If your organic HAP compliance test results demonstrate 

your average organic HAP emission levels are at or above 75

percent of your emission limit, your operating limit is 

established as the average THC value recorded during the organic 

HAP performance test. You must establish a new operating limit 

after each performance test. You must repeat the performance 

test no later than 30 months following your last performance 

test and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit 

in accordance with the results of the performance test.

(vii) If the average organic HAP results for your three 

Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance test runs are below 75

percent of your organic HAP emission limit, you must calculate 

an operating limit by establishing a relationship of THC CEMS 

signal to the organic HAP concentration using the average THC 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 216 of 256

CEMS value corresponding to the three organic HAP compliance 

test runs and the average organic HAP total concentration from 

the Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance test runs with the 

procedures in (a)(7)(vii)(A) through (B) of this section.

(A) Determine the THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the 

average of your corresponding three total organic HAP compliance 

test runs, using Equation 12.

x = 1

n ∑ Xi n

i=1 , y = 1

n ∑ Yi n

i=1 (Eq. 12)

Where:

 = The THC CEMS average values in ppmvw.

Xi= The THC CEMS data points for all three runs i.

Yi= The sum of organic HAP concentrations for test runs i. and

n = The number of data points. 

(B) You must use your three run average THC CEMS value, and 

your three run average organic HAP concentration from your three 

Method 18 and/or Method 320 compliance tests to determine the 

operating limit. Use equation 13 to determine your operating 

limit in units of ppmvw THC, as propane.

Tl = � 9

Y1

� ∗ X1 (Eq. 13)

Where:

Tl = The 30-day operating limit for your THC CEMS, ppmvw.

Y1 = The average organic HAP concentration from Eq. 12, ppmv.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 217 of 256

X1 = The average THC CEMS concentration from Eq. 12, ppmvw.

(viii) If the average of your three organic HAP performance 

test runs is at or above 75 percent of your organic HAP emission 

limit, you must determine your operating limit using Equation 14

by averaging the THC CEMS output values corresponding to your 

three organic HAP performance test runs that demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit. If your new THC CEMS value 

is below your current operating limit, you may opt to retain 

your current operating limit, but you must still submit all 

performance test and THC CEMS data according to the reporting 

requirements in paragraph (d)(1)of this section.

Th = 1

n ∑ X1 n

i=1 , (Eq. 14)

Where:

X1 = The THC CEMS data points for all runs i.

Y1 = The organic HAP total value for runs i.

n = The number of data points.

Th = Your site specific operating limit, in ppmvw THC. 

(ix) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must 

conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating (“mill on”) and while the raw mill is not operating 

(“mill off”). Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 218 of 256

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 compliance testing with Equation 

15.

R=(y*t)+(x*t_1) (Eq.15) 

Where:

R = Operating limit as THC, ppmvw.

y = Average THC CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw.

t = Percentage of operating time with mill on.

x = Average THC CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw.

t1= Percentage of operating time with mill off.

(x) To determine continuous compliance with the THC 

operating limit, you must record the THC CEMS output data for 

all periods when the process is operating and the THC CEMS is 

not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by 

the THC CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 

average operating parameter in units of the operating limit 

(ppmvw) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at 

the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 16 to 

determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 219 of 256

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day (Eq. 16)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 

30 kiln operating days.

(xi) Use EPA Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A to part 

60 of this chapter to determine organic HAP emissions. For each 

performance test, conduct at least 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.

If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct 

three separate test runs with the raw mill on, and 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 with the mill off. Conduct each 

Method 18 test run to collect a minimum target sample equivalent 

to three times the method detection limit. Calculate the average 

of the results from three runs to determine compliance. 

(xii) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your 

site-specific THC emissions limit, you must 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 220 of 256

(A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the 

exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to 

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.

(8) HCl Emissions Tests with SO2 Monitoring. If you choose 

to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS to demonstrate HCl 

compliance, follow the procedures in (b)(8)(i) through 

(b)(8)(ix) of this section and in accordance with the 

requirements of §63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an SO2

operating limit equal to the average of the SO2 emissions 

recorded during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will 

apply only for demonstrating HCl compliance.

(i) Use Method 321 of appendix A to this part to determine 

emissions of HCl. 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 one hour. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 221 of 256

(ii) At the same time that you are conducting the 

performance test for HCl, you must also determine a sitespecific SO2 emissions limit by operating an SO2 CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(l). The duration of 

the performance test must be three hours and the average SO2

concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute averages) during 

the 3-hour test must be calculated. You must establish your SO2

operating limit and determine compliance with it according to 

paragraphs (b)(8)(vii)through (viii)of this section.

(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must 

use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of 

time that the raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a 

weighted average of the SO2 levels measured during raw mill on 

and raw mill off testing.

(iv) Your SO2 CEMS must be calibrated and operated according

to the requirements of §60.63(f). 

(v) Your SO2 CEMS measurement scale must be capable of 

reading SO2 concentrations consistent with the requirements of 

§60.63(f), including mill on or mill off operation.

(vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must 

conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating (“mill on”) and while the raw mill is not operating 

(“mill off”). Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 222 of 256

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 compliance testing with Equation 

17.

R=(y*t)+x*(t-1) (Eq. 17) 

Where:

R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw.

y = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw.

t = Percentage of operating time with mill on, expressed as a 

decimal.

x = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw.

t-1 = Percentage of operating time with mill off, expressed as a 

decimal.

(vii) To determine continuous compliance with the SO2

operating limit, you must record the SO2 CEMS output data for all 

periods when the process is operating and the SO2 CEMS is not 

out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by 

using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the 

SO2 CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 

average operating parameter in units of the operating limit 

(ppmvw) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at 

the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 18 to 

determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 223 of 256

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day (Eq. 18)

Where:

Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.

n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 

30 kiln operating days.

(viii) Use EPA Method 321 of appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter to determine HCl emissions. For each performance test, 

conduct at least 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. If your source 

has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct three separate 

test runs with the raw mill on, and 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 with the mill off. 

(ix) If the SO2 level exceeds by 10 percent or more your 

site-specific SO2 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 

return the SO2 CEMS measurements to within the established value.

and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 224 of 256

(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 HCl limit and 

to verify or re-establish your site-specific SO2 emissions limit.

(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, organic HAP

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 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.

* * * * * (ii) The values for the site-specific operating 

limits or parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1), 

(b)(3), (b)(6) and (b)(7) of this section, as applicable, and a 

description, including sample calculations, of how the operating 

parameters were established during the initial performance test. 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 225 of 256

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.

18. 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);

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);

i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2);

j. Adding paragraph (i)(3);
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 226 of 256

k. Revising paragraph (k);

l. Revising paragraph (l);

m. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;

n. Revising paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(7)(i);

o. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9) and (m) 

(10);

p. Revising paragraph (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and 

paragraph (m)(11)(v);

q. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and 

(p); 

r. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(3); and

s. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), 

(p)(2), and (p)(5).

The revisions 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 227 of 256

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 violation.

(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 or Method 5I 

at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM 

CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with this 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 using the 

procedures in 63.1349(b)(1) (i) through (vi) of this subpart. 

You must also repeat the test if you change the analytical range 

of the instrument, or if you replace the instrument itself or 

any principle analytical component of the instrument that would 

alter the relationship of output signal to in-stack PM 

concentration. 

(ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must use the 

PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 228 of 256

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 (milliamps) on a 30 operating day 

rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln 

operating day.

(iii) For any exceedance of the 30 process operating day PM 

CPMS average value from the established operating parameter 

limit, you must:

(A) Within 48 hours of the exceedance, visually inspect the 

APCD;

(B) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the

exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and 

return the PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; 

and

(C) Within 30 days of the exceedance or at the time of the 

annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM 

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the PM 

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the PM CPMS 

operating limit within 45 days. You are not required to conduct 

additional testing for any exceedances that occur between the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 229 of 256

time of the original exceedance and the PM emissions compliance 

test required under this paragraph.

(iv) PM CPMS exceedances leading to more than four required 

performance tests in a 12-month process operating period 

(rolling monthly) constitute a presumptive violation of this 

subpart.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Clinker Production Monitoring Requirements. In order to 

determine clinker production, 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 kilnspecific feed to clinker ratio based on reconciled clinker 

production determined for accounting purposes and recorded feed 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 230 of 256

rates. Update this ratio 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) [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 hourly 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 231 of 256

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of this section and in 

accordance with your monitoring plan developed under 

§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 minutes of opacity observations, recorded at 

15-second intervals, 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) Any totally enclosed conveying system transfer point, 

regardless of the location of the transfer point is not required 

to conduct Method 22 visible emissions monitoring under this 

paragraph. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 232 of 256

chapter, according to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

through (f)(1)(iv) of this section for each such conveying 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 233 of 256

(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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 234 of 256

from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, 

or upstream of, the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCDs.

* * * * *

(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 three 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 235 of 256

monitoring systems found in the general provisions, subpart A of 

this part. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each 

CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in 

Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.

(2) 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 an integrated sorbent trap 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.

(1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that 

represents the mercury concentration corresponding to 

approximately two times the emissions standard and may be
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 236 of 256

rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 μg/m3 of total mercury or 

higher level if necessary to include Hg concentrations which may 

occur (excluding concentrations during in-line raw “mill off” 

operation). 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. Engineering judgments made and 

calculations used to determine the corresponding span 

concentration from the emission standard shall be documented in 

the site-specific monitoring plan and associated records.

(2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span 

value, you must use one of the two options in paragraphs 

(k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) 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) Quality assure any data above the span value 

established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the 

following procedure. Any time two consecutive one-hour average 

measured concentration of Hg exceeds the span value you must, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 237 of 256

within 24 hours before or after, 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 between 50 and 150 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 or following the “above span” calibration for 

reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as 

shown in equation 19:

Normalizedstack gasresult

× Measured stack gas result

Measured valueof referencegas

Certified reference gas value

=

(Eq. 19)

Only one ‘above span’ calibration is needed per 24 hour period.

(3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or an 

integrated sorbent trap monitoring system according to the 

quality assurance requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to 

part 60 of this chapter. During the RATA of integrated sorbent 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 238 of 256

trap monitoring systems required under Procedure 5, you may 

apply the appropriate exception for sorbent trap section 2 

breakthrough in (k)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section:

(i) For stack Hg concentrations >1 μg/dscm, <10% of section 

1 mass;

(ii) For stack Hg concentrations <1 μg/dscm and >0.5 

μg/dscm, <20% of section 1 mass;

(iii) For stack Hg concentrations <0.5 μg/dscm and >0.1 

μg/dscm, <50% of section 1 mass; and

(iv) For stack Hg concentrations <0.1 μg/dscm, no 

breakthrough criterion assuming all other QA/QC specifications 

are met.

(4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems 

under PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal 

operating conditions. If a facility has an inline raw mill, the 

testing must occur with the raw mill on.

(5) If you use a Hg CEMS or an integrated 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 239 of 256

account for the mercury emitted from those stacks by following 

the procedures in (k)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section:

(i) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by 

conducting annual performance tests using Method 29, or Method 

30B, to measure the concentration of mercury in the gases 

exhausted from the alkali bypass and coal mill.

(ii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of 

mercury in lb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts 

by using the mercury hourly emissions rate, the exhaust gas flow 

rate and hourly mercury emission rate to calculate hourly 

mercury emissions in lb/hr.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 240 of 256

(6) If you operate an integrated sorbent trap monitoring 

system conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period at 

least 24 hours but no longer than 168 hours in length. You 

should use a monitoring period 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 parametrically 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 241 of 256

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 

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 inline raw “mill on” operation. 

The span value should be a concentration 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. Engineering judgments 

made and calculations used to determine the corresponding span 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 242 of 256

concentration from the emission standard shall be documented in 

the site-specific monitoring plan and associated records.

(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) Include a second span that encompasses the HCl 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 HCl. The requirements of the appropriate HCl 

monitor performance specification, shall be followed for this 

second span with the exception that a RATA with the mill off is 

not required.

(B) 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 

between 50 and 100 percent of the highest hourly concentration 

measured during the period of measurements above span, and must 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 243 of 256

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 shown in Equation 20:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 244 of 256

Normalizedstack gasresult

× Measured stack gas result

Measured valueof referencegas

Certified reference gas value

=

(Eq. 20)

Only one ‘above span’ calibration is needed per 24-hour period.

(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)(9) 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 30-day rolling average SO2

operating limit established during your performance test, you 

must:

(i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after 

you exceed 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 exceedance 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 245 of 256

(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 (CPMS) 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.

* * * * *

(3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded 

readings.

* * * * *

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 246 of 256

this section. These requirements also apply to the sorbent 

injection equipment of a dry scrubber.

* * * * *

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 247 of 256

(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 

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]

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 248 of 256

(o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval. You may 

submit an application to the Administrator for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 249 of 256

least 30 days before your initial performance evaluation of your 

CMS.

* * * * *

(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;

* * * * *

19. Section 63.1351 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and 

b. Adding paragraph (e). 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1351 Compliance dates.

* * * * *

(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the 

requirements that became effective on [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] except 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 250 of 256

for the open clinker pile requirements will be September 9, 

2015.

(d) The compliance date for new sources is [INSERT OF 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or 

startup, whichever is later.

(e) The compliance date for existing sources with the 

requirements for open clinker storage piles in §63.1343(c) is 

[INSERT DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

20. Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows:

§63.1352 Additional test methods.

* * * * *

(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. 

21. Section 63.1353 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) 

to read as follows:

§63.1353 Notification Requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 251 of 256

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Within 48 hours of an exceedance 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(b) and 

63.9(e) do not apply to retesting required for exceedances under 

this subpart.

* * * * *

22. Section 63.1354 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);

b. Revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi);

c. Adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii); and 

d. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1354 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(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 the EPA’s WebFIRE database by using 

the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 252 of 256

that is accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). You must use the appropriate electronic 

reporting form in CEDRI or provide an alternate electronic file 

consistent with the 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 violation of an emissions 

standard or established operating parameter limit, the date, 

duration and description of each violation and the specific 

actions taken for each violation including inspections, 

corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results 

of those actions.

* * * * *

(c) Reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a

malfunction. For each failure to meet a standard or emissions

limit caused by a malfunction at an affected source, you must 

report the failure in the semi-annual 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 253 of 256

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. 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.

* * * * *

23. Section 63.1355 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1); and 

b. Adding paragraph (h); 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *

(f) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of 

each startup or shutdown period for any affected source that is 

subject to a standard during startup or shutdown that differs 

from the standard applicable at other times, and the quantity of 

feed and fuel used during the startup or shutdown period.

(g)(1) You must keep records of 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 254 of 256

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 exceedance from an emissions standard or 

established operating parameter limit, you must keep records of 

the date, duration and description of each exceedance and the 

specific actions taken for each exceedance including 

inspections, corrective actions and repeat performance tests and 

the results of those actions.

* * * * *

24. 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 

or operator of the affected facility must comply with the most 

stringent emissions limit or requirement and is exempt from the 

less stringent requirement. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 255 of 256

25. Section 63.1357 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and

b. Revising paragraph (a)(2). 

The revisions read as follows:

§63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate 

matter 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.

* * * * *

26. Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised by 

revising the entries for 63.6(e)(3), 63.7(b), and 63.9(e) to 

read as follows:

Table 3. to Subpart LLL of Part 63—Applicability of General 

Provisions

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

LLL Explanation

 * * * * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 256 of 256

63.6(e)(3)Startup, 

Shutdown 

Malfunction 

Plan

No Your operations and 

maintenance plan must address 

periods of startup and 

shutdown. See §63.1347(a)(1).

* * * * * * *

63.7(b) Notification 

period

Yes Except for repeat performance 

test caused by an exceedance.

See §63.1353(b)(6)

* * * * * * *

63.9(e) Notification of 

performance 

test

Yes Except for repeat performance 

test caused by an exceedance.

See §63.1353(b)(6)

 * * * * * * *