***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 1 of 250

EO 12866_PortlandCement 2060-AQ93 Final_20121203

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 

(NESHAP) 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 NEHSAP for the Portland cement 

industry by the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 2 of 250

of Columbia Circuit on December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is 

setting the date for compliance with the existing source NESHAP 

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-

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

566-1742.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 3 of 250

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 

yelin.patrick@pa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 4 of 250

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?

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***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 5 of 250

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 Low-Income 

Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 6 of 250

In this action the EPA is finalizing amendments to the 

NESHAP for Portland cement plants and to the new source 

performance standards 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). EPA is retaining the stack emission standards for 

mercury, HCl, and THC under the NESHAP, amending the stack 

emission standard for particulate matter (PM) under the NESHAP, 

and making a conforming amendment to the new source performance 

standard for particulate matter. The amendments also include 

provisions which account for commingled HAP emissions from coal 

mills that are an integral part of the kiln, establishment of a 

continuous monitoring regime for parametric monitoring of 

particulate matter, the setting of work practice standards for 

startup and shutdown, and revisions to the compliance date for 

the PM, mercury, hydrogen chloride (HCl), total hydrocarbons 

(THC) and clinker storage pile existing source standards under 

the NESHAP. EPA is also retaining the affirmative defense for 

civil penalties for violations of emission limits occurring as a 

result of a malfunction.

These amendments are based on sound technical and legal 

justifications, and result in cost savings and compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 7 of 250

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 new source 

performance standard for PM, to correct monitoring issues with 

the PM compliance regime as promulgated in the 2010 final rule. 

As a result of this amendment, 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, 

issued after the NESHAP was promulgated, had the effect of 

reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and industrial 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 8 of 250

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 

the cost of achieving such emission reductions, and any non-air 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 9 of 250

quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements, 

the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. 

2. Summary of Major Provisions

a. 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 

analysis informed the level of the final standards discussed 

immediately below.

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

During Review***

Page 10 of 250

clinker for new and reconstructed sources based on manual stack 

testing.

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 11 of 250

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 $23.65 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 Hydrocarbon)

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 

code1 Examples of regulated entities
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 12 of 250

Industry.... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

Federal government... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

1 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 13 of 250

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 

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

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 14 of 250

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 

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

for new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 15 of 250

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 

any such amended compliance date must still establish 

“compliance as expeditiously as practicable.”
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 16 of 250

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 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 

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

(March 21, 2011)), The NHSM rule had the effect of reclassifying 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 17 of 250

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

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

42368, in this final action the EPA is finalizing several 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 18 of 250

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 

(so that, in fact, the EPA had properly classified it as a 

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

information provided, 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 

comments concerning the identification of cement kilns and CISWI 

units. There are thus now 23 kilns identified as combusting 

 

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

solid wastes. Refer to the Docket, No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0482.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 19 of 250

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:

• Amending PM standards under the NESHAP 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; 

• Amending PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources 

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

lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed sources likewise based 

on manual stack testing; 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 20 of 250

• Requiring that sources establish a site-specific parametric 

operating limit for PM , and that the parametric limit be 

continuously monitored using a PM continuous parametric 

monitoring system (CPMS);

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

action including performing a Method 5 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 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

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

During Review***

Page 21 of 250

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 parts per million (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)

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 also amending the 

provisions for the site-specific THC operating parameter for 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 22 of 250

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 the perverse result of 

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 sitespecific THC operating level. Thus, the parametric monitoring 

level for THC will be the level corresponding to oHAP levels of 

75 percent of the standard or the THC level of the oHAP

performance test, whichever is higher.2

 Compliance with the oHAP 

 

2 If a source believes that monitoring non-methane THC rather than total THC 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 23 of 250

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. 

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 

 

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 24 of 250

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, the 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 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 highest one-hour average 

recorded during the HCl performance test, and meet that 

operating limit on a one-hour 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. 

At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm 

compliance with the HCl emissions limit is required every 30 

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

During Review***

Page 25 of 250

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 potential sources that would potentially be 

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

the coal mill, and the clinker cooler, for an existing kiln. The 

EPA is 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 (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).

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

7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 26 of 250

If exhaust gases for any of the sources contained in the 

equation are not commingled and are exhausted through a separate 

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

alternative PM equation for new sources is identical to the 

existing source equation except the PM exhaust concentration 

used in the equation is 0.002 grains per dry standard cubic 

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

lb/ton clinker.

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 27 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 28 of 250

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 the 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 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 

the alkali bypass APCD to account for those emission reductions.

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

During Review***

Page 29 of 250

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 

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 and divided by hourly clinker production to determine the 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 30 of 250

hourly emissions rate in pounds per ton of clinker to determine 

the 30-day rolling average. The 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 Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document, docket item EPA-HQOAR-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 

annually 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 the rule. As with 

mercury, the coal mill flow rate used to calculate the allowable 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 31 of 250

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, 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, THC, mercury, and HCl standards for existing 

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

During Review***

Page 32 of 250

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 

define the span value for this source category, to include 

quality assurance measures for data collected under "mill off" 

conditions, and to clarify use of PS 15. This final rule also 

removes from the standard the O2 correction factors for raw 

material dryers and makes minor, non-substantive 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).

 

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 is not reopening, reconsidering, or otherwise reevaluating 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 33 of 250

• Section 60.64(b)(2).

• Section 60.66. 

• Section 63.1340(b)(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), (m)(10) and (11), 

(o) and (p).

• Section 63.1352(b).

• Section 63.1356.

I. Miscellaneous Amendments

We are also finalizing amendments to clarify various 

requirements in the 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 rule apply only 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 34 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 35 of 250

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 normal operations. In this 

action, based on comments received and EPA’s reconsideration of 

several technical issues related to startup and shutdown, the 

EPA is adopting work practices in place of the 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:
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 36 of 250

• 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;

• 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 Portland Cement 

Association (PCA), indicated that there had been insufficient 

notice of this provision. The EPA agreed and granted 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 37 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 38 of 250

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 

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, EPA notes that a recent court 

decision further supports EPA’s authority to promulgate an 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 39 of 250

affirmative defense. The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit recently upheld 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 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) (EPA's interpretation 

that resolved a tension within the Clean Air Act 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 40 of 250

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

reflect that the affirmative defense could be applicable to 

certain work practice standards. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 41 of 250

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 

“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. 

• Adding section 63.1341, a definition for affirmative 

defense.

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

During Review***

Page 42 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 43 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 44 of 250

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 cleaner 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. To avoid a perverse result, 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. 

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 change the PM emission limit that 

must be met.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 45 of 250

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 for parametric monitoring of PM, and for the same 

reason. This provision affects the allowable level of the THC 

parametric limit, but does 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 be 

punitive of sources showing good performance, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 46 of 250

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.

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 

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

During Review***

Page 47 of 250

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, EPA proposed to 

retain the numerical standards, but to use recordkeeping rather 

than measurements to document compliance. 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. We also received comments opposing numeric limits. 

Commenters stated that any numeric limit should be based on 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 48 of 250

actual data gathered during startups and shutdowns, 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 short 

duration of startups and shutdowns. The commenters stated that 

the absence of any emissions data for startup and shutdown and 

the infeasibility of measuring emissions require that the EPA 

issue work practice standards for startup and shutdown events. 

The EPA has remained in a dialogue with the industry on the 

issue of the standards that should apply during startup and 

shutdown. 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 EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0237[1] and 

PCA Meeting 9-15-11 monitoring presentation in the docket for 

this rulemaking. In light of this information, EPA has decided 

to amend the numeric standards and establish work practice 

standards during startup and shutdown periods. EPA is doing so 

because the application of measurement methodology is not 

practicable for technological and economic reasons. See section 

112(h)(2)(B). 

The operation of kilns at cement manufacturing plants is 

different from many other sources. Kiln startups can last days,
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 49 of 250

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 for 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 fluctuating nature 

of these operations not only because of 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 shutdown mode. 

These conditions make stack measurements 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 50 of 250

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 

continuous compliance.

EPA regards situations where a measurement may yield a 

value which is analytically suspect 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)). 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 

noting that they used certain fuels and did not introduce feed 

into the kiln. Under the proposal, sources would have had to

certify compliance for the various organics standards 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. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0506, p. 11 

(“Until ideal combustion conditions can be met in the combustion 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 51 of 250

chamber (adequate temperature and turbulence), the combustion 

process will be incomplete. While this should not impact fuelderived hazardous air pollutants (chlorine and mercury), it will 

impact the emissions of organics and possibly PM.”). Because 

combustion conditions change widely during startup and shutdown, 

sources indicated that they could not certify compliance based 

on an assumed combustion condition. In light of the measurement 

issues noted above and the fact that sources could not certify 

compliance under the proposed approach, 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, EPA is 

establishing work practices to demonstrate compliance with the 

startup and shutdown emissions limits. The work practices that 

apply during startup and shutdown are as follows:

• During startup you must initially 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.

• Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the 

kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 52 of 250

• All air pollution 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 determining 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 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 draft 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 53 of 250

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 will be lower than the standards. 

The promulgated rule requires source owners who use 

continuous monitoring to collect data at all times the process 

is operating including during startup and shutdown (63.1350(a)). 

We are retaining this monitoring requirement. Although, for this 

specific source category, we do not believe these measurements 

are accurate enough to determine if numeric standards are being 

exceeded, the information may prove useful in a more general 

manner. Data collected under this final rule would potentially 

provide the EPA with information to more fully analyze this 

issue and address it during the 8-year review established under 

CAA section 112 (d)(6).
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 54 of 250

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 a 30-day 

average but rather 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/per ton of clinker (average of three test runs). The 0.07 

lb/clinker 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 (UPL) equation to do so. See Portland 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 55 of 250

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, June 15, 

2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225.4

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 

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (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 

 

4 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 in taking single test runs rather 

than 30 days of measurements. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 56 of 250

using PM CEMS calibrated as required by the mandated Performance 

Specification 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 (evidently 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, 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, could be resolved by using 

a beta gauge CEMS. The commenter dismissed the EPA’s technical 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 57 of 250

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 should have resolved 

these technical issues by amending the PM CEMS Performance 

Specification rather than amending the averaging time of the PM 

standard. 

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

commenter’s legal argument based on section 112(d)(7) or the 

commenter’s contention that section 112(d)(7) must be read as an 

anti-backsliding provision. 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, 

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

During Review***

Page 58 of 250

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.5 Moreover, when Congress adopted antibacksliding provisions in the Clean Air Act, 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).6

With regard to the technical issues raised by this 

commenter, the EPA explained in detail at proposal the problems 

 

5 The commenter cites no legislative history to support its reading, nor is 

EPA aware of any.

6 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 59 of 250

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

77FR42374-42377). These obstacles are not resolvable simply by 

measuring more often and longer, as the commenter maintains. 

Extending 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. Sources are allowed to 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 60 of 250

discard five runs for any reason they wish, but must present at 

least fifteen test runs for the correlation calculation. 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. 

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 the 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 61 of 250

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. 

The commenter also maintains that TEOM (Tapered Element 

Oscillating Microbalance) 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 

concentrations. The EPA currently has no data to assess TEOM 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 62 of 250

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 measured at some of the sources in the 

cement NESHAP. 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 Performance Specification 

12A for Mercury CEMS, the EPA invested a budget in excess of one 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 63 of 250

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 conception to final promulgation 

took over five years to complete. Performance Specification 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 rule until we 

could undertake the process to research, propose and finalize 

solutions to PS-11 that may ameliorate some of the issues 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, and so 

there would remain significant technological hurdles to clear 

before the EPA could require the use of PM CEMS in respect to 

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

During Review***

Page 64 of 250

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, compensates for the PM CEMS measurement uncertainty 

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 best performing sources in the category and 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 65 of 250

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-toexceed (i.e., stack test Method 5) standard of 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker.7

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 (RTC) 

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 Continuous Parametric Monitoring System 

(CPMS). 77 FR 42376-77. As explained in section IV.A above, the 

EPA has modified its approach somewhat from proposal. At

proposal, the site-specific PM parametric limit was to be the 

 

7 Because 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), 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 66 of 250

highest of the three Method 5 test runs, and recorded as a 30-

day rolling average. While consistent with other parametric 

monitoring standards, we still received comment that this would 

penalize better performing sources. To resolve this issue, this

final rule requires this to be a parametric level of 75 percent 

of the emission standard (again, as a 30-day rolling average) 

where the highest test run is measured at a level less than 75

percent of the standard. Sources operating at or above 75

percent of the emission standard but still showing compliance 

with the PM emission limit will be held to the average of their 

PM CPMS value during the performance testing (again, as a 30-day 

rolling average). The EPA further proposed corrective action 

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

During Review***

Page 67 of 250

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, 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 PM monitoring.

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

During Review***

Page 68 of 250

output common to many CEMS.8 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’

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 compliance approach. Industry commenters maintained that 

sources would have to continually retest unnecessarily, since 

they measured an increase in their PM CPMS values. This increase 

in their PM CPMS values would denote a modest rise in PM 

emissions, but their operations would still be well below the 

 

8 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 69 of 250

limit. The EPA recognized 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, 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. It also 

incentivizes the selection of high efficiency PM controls when 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 70 of 250

sources are evaluating what control strategies to consider in 

terms of compliance with this rule. 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. 

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 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 monitoring across the Portland cement 

sector. This approach was selected from among many considered as 

it provides the greatest amount of flexibility for sources which

are the lower emitters in the category and is simultaneously 

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

During Review***

Page 71 of 250

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 

determines the percent of a light signal that is occluded across 

the stack diameter. Opacity analyzers operate on a zero to 100
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 72 of 250

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 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 COMS 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 73 of 250

Industry commenters objected to the proposal that four 

calendar year exceedances9 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-

day averaging feature provides significant leeway to the owner 

operator not to deviate from the parametric operating level 

 

9 In the proposed rule, EPA referred to a measurement higher than the 

parametric limit as a “deviation” and proposed a definition of deviation. 77 

FR 42398. EPA is not including this terminology in the 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 74 of 250

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 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).

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

During Review***

Page 75 of 250

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

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

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

standard would only result in 138 tons per year – nationwide –

of PM reduction (a value not questioned by any of the 

commenters). See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration 

Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012, p.3. We further 

estimate that the cost of achieving this modest incremental 

reduction would be approximately $8.9 million (the estimated 

cost savings attributable to the amended standard). See Final 

Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, 

December 20, 2012, in this rulemaking docket. These total costs 

are high compared to the small nationwide emission reductions, 

and the cost effectiveness of these reductions is 

correspondingly high: approximately $64,493 per ton of PM 

removed. This is significantly higher cost effectiveness for PM 

than 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 EPA had viewed cost effectiveness 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 76 of 250

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 54988.10

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 

 

10 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 cost-effectiveness or 

otherwise balance the statutory factors has likewise been rejected. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (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 77 of 250

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

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

During Review***

Page 78 of 250

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 pounds per 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 ACFM 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 79 of 250

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

FR 42389/3 (estimating emissions attributable to this 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 

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 ACI system cannot achieve the small 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 80 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 81 of 250

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”, 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. 

77 FR 42378. Cement kiln sources were allowed to select from 

among the specified work practices to 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 82 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 83 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 84 of 250

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 

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. The rule defines “temporary” to mean piles that remain 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 85 of 250

in place for three days or less from their generation (three 

days accommodating weekend scheduling). This is sufficient time 

to either pick these spills up or to cover them to prevent 

fugitive emissions.

These final amendments will result in a cost savings to the 

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

work practices instead of enclosures, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 86 of 250

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, 2015 compliance date. With respect to PM control, as 

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

retaining ESPs with modification or downstream polishing 

baghouses, rather than replacing ESPs 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. 

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

During Review***

Page 87 of 250

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 

change in the PM standard opens 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 88 of 250

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 multi-pollutant 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). There, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 89 of 250

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

B11 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 Q12 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 

 

11 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).

12 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 90 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 91 of 250

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 as September 9, 2015.

However, for existing open clinker storage piles, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 92 of 250

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 twelve 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, 

the amended standard results in a compliance regime that 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 done so 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. They rest 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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 93 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 94 of 250

rule from the situation where the EPA amends the actual 

standard.13

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 being 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 

 

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

During Review***

Page 95 of 250

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.”)14,15 Moreover, in the 

extreme case where the initial standard was outright technically 

infeasible by any source (and was amended by EPA to correct this 

defect), Sierra Club’s reading would leave sources with 

 

14 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.) 15 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. 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. 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 standard.
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 96 of 250

literally no legitimate compliance option.16 Technology-based 

standards simply do not work this way.

E. Eligibility to be a New Source under NESHAP.

The EPA proposed to retain May 6, 2009 as the date which 

determines new source eligibility, as in the 2010 final rule. 

The reason was that the proposed amendment to the PM new source 

standard could only be met using the same technology regime 

(i.e. the identical control strategy) needed to meet the PM 

standard in the 2010 final rule. 77 FR 42387/1. The control 

strategies for the other standards would consequently also be 

the same (since the EPA did not propose to amend those 

standards). 

Industry commenters did not dispute this technical 

analysis, but did argue that it would be disruptive not to reset 

the new source date because sources were not sure what standard 

would apply until conclusion of the reconsideration process. 

This misses the point. Sources would be aware of the control 

strategies they would need to adopt because these are unchanged 

under either the 2010 or the amended rule. This situation thus 

 

16 An example is the startup and shutdown standard for HCl in the 2010 final 

rule. EPA established this standard as zero on the assumption that no 

chlorine could be present in the kiln during there periods. This is 

incorrect, and EPA is accordingly amending the standard. 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 97 of 250

differs from the existing source standard where the amended 

standard results in the possibility of different compliance 

alternatives. Consequently, as proposed, the EPA is not changing 

the new source eligibility date.

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 the rule, and that approximately 5 of those 

facilities are new greenfield facilities. All these facilities 

will operate 158 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 seven kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended NSPS 

for NOx and SO2. Some of these new kilns will be built at 

existing facilities and some at new greenfield facilities. 

B. How are the impacts for this rule evaluated?

For these final amendments, we determined whether 

additional control measures, work practices and monitoring 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 98 of 250

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 proposed 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 

of PM control, also may be affected. Cost savings from these 

alternatives could be significant. There are also potential cost 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 99 of 250

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:

• RTO’s may not need to be installed due to the amended

o-HAP alternative.

• Industry will have more time to research and may be 

able implement alternative and less costly technologies to the 

RTO.

• 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 100 of 250

• 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 not require additional controls or 

monitoring. The EPA accordingly does not estimate that there 

would be any cost (or emission reduction benefit) associated 

with this amendment. However, we believe that more sources may 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 101 of 250

select this compliance alternative and demonstrate compliance 

without needing to install very expensive and energy-intense 

RTOs. 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.

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

During Review***

Page 102 of 250

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 requirement to operate their air pollution control 

device at all times during startup and shutdown is common 

practice in the industry, so there should be no costs associated 

with the work practice requirements. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 103 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 104 of 250

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-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), emission reductions were 

estimated by comparing baseline emissions to the long-term 

average emissions of the MACT floor kilns. The average 

emissions, rather than the emissions limit, must be used because 

to comply with the limit all or most of the time, emissions need 

to be reduced to the average of the MACT floor kilns. Under the 

2010 rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor 

kilns were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the 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.

See section V.E above. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 105 of 250

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

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

During Review***

Page 106 of 250

38909 (June 29, 2012). The commenter’s quantified estimate of 

fatalities is overstated: there will be improvements in sources’ 

HAP and PM emissions as they install air pollution controls, and 

start utilizing these controls as they prepare to demonstrate 

compliance. Moreover, not all PM emitted by cement kilns is 

PM2.5. Nonetheless, the commenter is correct that the additional 

time for compliance has associated adverse health consequences. 

The standards are, of course, technology-based and not riskbased.

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

During Review***

Page 107 of 250

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

None of the amendments being finalized today are expected 

to have any solid waste impacts.17

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 

 

17 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. 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 108 of 250

alternative organic HAP limit in the 2010 rule were considering 

the installation of regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs). 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.

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

During Review***

Page 109 of 250

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 RTOs 

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 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 RTOs. 

H. What are the cost impacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate that 

there could be savings of $23.65 million associated with 

alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 110 of 250

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

($14 

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 ($23.65

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

During Review***

Page 111 of 250

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 

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.

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

During Review***

Page 112 of 250

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)18. 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)19. 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 

 

18 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>. 19 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 113 of 250

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).

Hydrogen chloride (HCl) is a corrosive gas that can cause 

irritation of the mucous membranes of the nose, throat and 

respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat 

irritation, and levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 

1 hour.20 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 chemically- or 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 

 

20 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 114 of 250

increased minute ventilation per kilograms and failure to 

evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not 

been classified for carcinogenic effects.21

Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic 

form, methylmercury (MeHg). Because mercury is a persistent 

pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially the 

tissue of fish. When people consume these fish, they consume 

MeHg. In 2000, the NAS Study was issued which provides a 

thorough review of the effects of MeHg on human health (NRC, 

2000)22. Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited in this section 

are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In 

addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain 

other related and more recent publications to complement the 

material summarized by the NRC in 2000.

In its review of the literature, the National Academy of 

Science (NAS) found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most 

sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for 

establishing an oral reference dose (RfD) (National Research 

Council (NRC), 2000); in particular NAS supported the use of 

 

21 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.

22 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 115 of 250

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.”

Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 

2000. The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose-response 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 116 of 250

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 Study23 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 

 

23 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 117 of 250

in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes24. 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)25.

Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified 

as a “possible” human carcinogen by the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002)26,27.

The existing evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic 

 

24 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. 25 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.

26 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.

27 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 118 of 250

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

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a "significant regulatory action" because it 

raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA 

submitted this action to the OMB for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 119 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 120 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 121 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 122 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 123 of 250

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).

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

During Review***

Page 124 of 250

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 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement 

entities are small entities. After considering the economic 

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

During Review***

Page 125 of 250

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 

parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for SO2, then 

this will provide operational flexibility.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action does not contain a federal mandate under the 

provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The action imposes no 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 126 of 250

enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Thus, this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because it contains no requirements that apply to 

such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

During Review***

Page 127 of 250

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.

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 128 of 250

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 129 of 250

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 130 of 250

populations because it does not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the environment. The full benefits 

of this final rule will not result until 2015 due to the final 

amended compliance date. The EPA has determined that the final 

amended compliance date will not result in disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority or low-income populations because the demographic 

analysis showed that the average of 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review - Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 131 of 250

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 132 of 250

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 133 of 250

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 134 of 250

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. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) as 

(i) and (ii);

e. Revising paragraph (b)(1);

f. Removing paragraph (b)(2);

g. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (2) and 

(3); 

f. Revising paragraph (d).

The revisions and deletion read as follows:

§60.62 Standards.

(a) * * *

(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) 0.02 pound per ton of clinker if construction or 

reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 135 of 250

(iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in 

excess of 0.07 pound per ton of clinker.

(2) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(b) On and after the date on which the performance 

test required to be conducted by §60.8 is completed, you 

may not discharge into the atmosphere from any clinker 

cooler any gases which: 

(1) Contain PM in excess of:

(i) 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 have undergone a modification.

* * * * * 

(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 136 of 250

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 137 of 250

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 138 of 250

(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 139 of 250

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 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 sitespecific 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.

(iii) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 140 of 250

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)(ii) 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 

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 141 of 250

(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, 

but the fans are operating or your source is combusting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 142 of 250

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)

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

During Review***

Page 143 of 250

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 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.

(5) If the average of your three PM compliance test 

runs is at or above 75 percent of your PM emission limit 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 144 of 250

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.

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day average (Eq. 5)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 145 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 146 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 147 of 250

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 

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

During Review***

Page 148 of 250

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:

* * * * *

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

During Review***

Page 149 of 250

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.

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

During Review***

Page 150 of 250

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.

* * * * *

(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.

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

During Review***

Page 151 of 250

(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). If you use a bag leak detector system (BLDS), you 

must also meet the requirements specified in paragraph 

§63.1350(m)(10) of this chapter.

(1) For each continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

required in this section, you must develop, and submit to 

the permitting authority for approval upon request, a sitespecific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs 

(i)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit 

this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 

30 days before the initial performance evaluation of your 

CMS.

(i) Installation of the CMS sampling probe or other 

interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 152 of 250

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

During Review***

Page 153 of 250

the procedures in paragraphs (i) through (ii) of this 

section.

(i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day 

average emissions according to equation 6:

∑=

=

n

i

D Ci

Qi Pi

n

E k

1

/

( )

1

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.

Pi = Total kiln clinker produced during production hour i, 

ton/hr and

k = Conversion factor, 1.194 x 10-7 for NOX and 1.660 x 10-7

for SO2.

n = Number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating 

days, n = 1 to 720.

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

During Review***

Page 154 of 250

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 

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, 

the owner or operator must also submit these reports, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review***

Page 155 of 250

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, the owner or operator 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, the 

owner or operator must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) data to the EPA’s CDX by using CEDRI in accordance 

with paragraph (2) 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, the owner or operator 

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

During Review***

Page 156 of 250

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 

comply with the requirements in §60.7(c). Notwithstanding 

the provisions of §60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted 

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

During Review***

Page 157 of 250

(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. 

* * * * *

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

During Review***

Page 158 of 250

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) * * *

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

During Review***

Page 159 of 250

(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 

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.

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

During Review***

Page 160 of 250

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 

determining the applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler 

and raw material dryer emissions limits for mercury, PM, 

THC, and HCl.

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

During Review***

Page 161 of 250

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.

* * * * *

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

During Review***

Page 162 of 250

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 

D6348-0328 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 

 

28 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 163 of 250

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?

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

During Review***

Page 164 of 250

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 

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 165 of 250

Table 1. Emissions Limits for Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw 

Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills

If your 

source is 

a (an):

And the 

operating 

mode is:

And if 

is 

located 

at a:

Your emissions 

limits are:

And the 

units 

of the 

emissions 

limit are:

The oxygen 

correction 

factor is:

1. Existing

kiln 

Normal 

operation 

Major or 

area 

source

PM1 0.07 

D/F2 0.2

Mercury 55

THC3,4 24

lb/ton 

clinker

ng/dscm

lb/MM tons 

clinker

ppmvd

NA

7 percent

NA

7 percent

2. Existing 

kiln 

Normal 

operation 

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd 7 percent

3. Existing 

kiln

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

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

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 

material 

dryer

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major or 

area 

source

Work practices 

(63.1348(b)(9)

)

NA NA

13. Existing 

or new raw 

or finish 

All 

operating 

modes

Major 

source

Opacity 10 percent NA
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 166 of 250

mill

1 The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 

and consists of three 1-hr tests. 2 If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device 

(fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test 

is 400 o

F or less this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm. 3 Measured as propane. 4 Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an 

alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP. 

(2) When there is an alkali bypass associated with a kiln, 

the combined PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass 

stack are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that 

combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill 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 lb feed per lb clinker.

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

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

feed).

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

Qcm = The exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton feed).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 167 of 250

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

For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust and clinker cooler gas 

the limit is calculated using the Equation 2 of this section:

PMalt = (0.0020 x 1.65)(Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000) (Eq. 2)

Where: 

PMalt = Alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources.

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

0.020 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 

gas are not combined.

1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker

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

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

feed).

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

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

7000 = The conversion factor for gr per lb.

(c) Open Clinker 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 

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

Review***

Page 168 of 250

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. The owner or operator must select, 

for inclusion in the operations and maintenance plan, the 

fugitive dust control measure or measures listed in this 

paragraph that are most appropriate for site conditions. The 

plan must also explain how the measure or measures selected are 

applicable and appropriate for site conditions. In addition, the 

plan must be revised as needed to reflect any changing 

conditions at the source. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 169 of 250

(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 

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

Review***

Page 170 of 250

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. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to 

the extent practicable to make these repairs; and

(3) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable; and

(4) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control 

equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to 

prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 171 of 250

(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. 

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

Review***

Page 172 of 250

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 

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

Review***

Page 173 of 250

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 

mill was operating, is not exceeded, except during periods of 

startup/shutdown when the temperature limit may be exceeded by 

no more than 10 percent.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 174 of 250

* * * * *

(c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343 that employs sorbent injection as an 

emission control technique you must operate the sorbent 

injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 

of this section.

(1) The rolling three-hour average activated sorbent 

injection rate must be equal to or greater than the sorbent 

injection rate determined in accordance with §63.1349(b)(3)(vi).

(2) You must either:

(i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier 

gas flow rate, as a rolling three-hour average, based on the 

manufacturer's specifications. These specifications must be 

documented in the test plan developed in accordance with 

§63.7(c), or

(ii) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection 

carrier gas pressure drop, as a rolling three-hour average, 

based on the manufacturer's specifications. These specifications 

must be documented in the test plan developed in accordance with 

§63.7(c).

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, 

for an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation 

under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 175 of 250

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) During periods of startup and shutdown you must meet the 

requirements listed in (f)(1) through (6).

(1) During startup you must initially 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 176 of 250

(2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once 

the kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

(3) All air pollution 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) * * * 

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

Review***

Page 177 of 250

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 

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

Review***

Page 178 of 250

(1) PM Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on PM 

emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emissions standards by using the test methods and 

procedures in §63.1349(b)(1). 

(2) Opacity Compliance. If you are subject to the 

limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity emissions standards by using the 

performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(2). Use 

the maximum 6-minute average opacity exhibited during the 

performance test period to determine whether the affected source 

is in compliance with the standard.

(3) D/F Compliance. 

(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 concentration for 

each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the 

concentrations measured for the three runs to determine 

continuous compliance.

(ii) If you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

§63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the 

temperature operating limits specified in §63.1346 by using the 

performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3)(ii) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 179 of 250

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). 

* * *

(iv) If activated carbon injection is used, you must also 

develop a carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow 

rate or the carrier gas pressure drop) during the initial and 

updated during any subsequent performance test conducted under 

§63.1349(b)(3) that meets the requirements of 

§63.1349(b)(3)(vi). Compliance is demonstrated if the system is 

maintained within +/- 5 percent accuracy during the performance 

test determined in accordance with the procedures and criteria 

submitted for review in your monitoring plan required in section 

63.1350(p). 

(4)(i) THC Compliance. 

(A) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions 

under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the THC 

emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 180 of 250

procedures in §63.1349(b)(4)(i). You must use the average THC 

concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days 

after the compliance date of this rule to determine initial 

compliance. 

(B) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. 

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. If you elect to 

demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions 

limit under §63.1343(b) in lieu of the THC emissions limit, you 

must demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions 

standards by using the performance test methods and procedures 

in §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(iv). 

(iii) If you are demonstrating initial compliance, you must 

conduct the separate performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(4)(iii) while the raw mill 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 181 of 250

§63.1349(b)(4)(iii) must be used to determine initial 

compliance.

(v) The average THC concentration measured during the 

initial performance test specified by §63.1349(b)(4)(iv) must be 

used to determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the 

fraction of time the 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 

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

Review***

Page 182 of 250

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 

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

Review***

Page 183 of 250

(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.

(iii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit.

(7) Commingled Exhaust Requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 184 of 250

(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

(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 monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 185 of 250

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 

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 186 of 250

§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 

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 187 of 250

record the rate of activated carbon injection in accordance with 

the requirements §63.1350(h)(1). 

(ii) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with 

the D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated 

and maintained to record the activated carbon injection system 

gas parameter in accordance with the requirements 

§63.1350(h)(2). 

(6) THC Compliance. 

(i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions 

under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using the 

monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350 (i) and (j). 

(ii) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

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

Review***

Page 188 of 250

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 data emissions rates. Since you assign the 

mercury concentration measured with the sorbent trap to each 

relevant hour respectively for each operating day of the 

integrated period, you may schedule the sorbent 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) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through separate stacks, instead of 

installing a CEMS, you may use the results of the initial and 

subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 

mercury emissions limit. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 189 of 250

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) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit. 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) * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 190 of 250

(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

g. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e).

The revisions read as follows:

§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.

* * * * *

(b)(1) PM Emissions Tests. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 191 of 250

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 192 of 250

(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 two 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 two 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 193 of 250

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 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 (b)(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 194 of 250

(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 can also can be established 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.

(4) If none of the steps in paragraphs (b)(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 195 of 250

(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 196 of 250

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 

and you must submit all compliance test and PM CPMS data 

according to the reporting requirements in section (d)(1) of 

this section.

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

Review***

Page 197 of 250

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.

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

Review***

Page 198 of 250

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.

(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 associated with a 

kiln, the main exhaust and alkali bypass of the kiln must be 

tested simultaneously and the combined emission rate of PM from 

the kiln and alkali bypass must be computed for each run using 

Equation 8 of this section. For purposes of calculating the 

combined kiln and alkali bypass emissions, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent Method 5 performance test 

for the alkali bypass, instead of installing a CEMS, to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit.

P

E E

E K B

c

+ = 

(Eq. 8)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 199 of 250

Where:

EC = Combined hourly emission rate of PM from the kiln and 

bypass stack, lb/ton of kiln clinker production.

EK = Hourly emissions of PM emissions from the kiln, lb.

EB = Hourly PM emissions from the alkali bypass stack, lb.

P = Hourly clinker production, tons.

(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.

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

Review***

Page 200 of 250

(v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, you 

must record the rate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, 

and where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the 

alkali bypass exhaust, continuously during the period of the 

Method 23 test in accordance with the conditions in

§63.1350(m)(9), and include the continuous injection rate 

record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the sorbent 

injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs 

(b)(3)(vi) of this section.

(B) Include the brand and type of sorbent used during the 

performance test in the performance test report.

(C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas 

flow rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration of 

the performance test. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, 

determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the 

carrier gas flow rate monitoring system according to the 

procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. If the 

carrier gas pressure drop is used, determine, record, and 

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

Review***

Page 201 of 250

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. 

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

Review***

Page 202 of 250

(iv) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

measured 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 

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

Review***

Page 203 of 250

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:

∑=

=

n

i

D Ci

Qi K

n

E

1

30 / 1

(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.

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating hour 

i, where Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or 

dry), scm/hr.

K = Conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 μg.

n = Number of kiln operating hours in a 30 kiln operating day 

period, n = 1 to 720.

(6) HCl Emissions Tests. For a source subject to 

limitations on HCl emissions you must conduct performance 

testing by one of the following methods:

(i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray 

tower or dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing 

using Method 321 of appendix A to this part unless you have 

installed a CEMS that meets the requirements §63.1350(l)(1).

(B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by 

using the CPMS required in §63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 204 of 250

tray tower, measure and record the pressure drop across the 

scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH in intervals of no more 

than 15 minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-

hour average pressure drop, pH, and average scrubber water flow 

rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions 

limit is met. For a dry scrubber, measure and record the sorbent 

injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during 

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

Review***

Page 205 of 250

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)

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

Review***

Page 206 of 250

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 

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 (b)(7)(vii)through (viii)of this 

section. It permissible to extend the testing time of the 

organic HAP performance test 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) Your THC CEMS must be calibrated and operated on a 

measurement scale no greater than 180 ppmvw, as propane. 

(v) Your THC CEMS measurement scale must be capable of 

reading THC concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 207 of 250

two times your highest THC emissions average determined during 

your performance test, including mill on or mill off operation.

(vi) Determine your operating limit as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(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 208 of 250

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 (b)(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:

 = ?

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

Review***

Page 209 of 250

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.

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

Review***

Page 210 of 250

(“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 

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 211 of 250

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 212 of 250

(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) 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 1 hour average 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 1 hour. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 213 of 250

(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 3 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 214 of 250

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 

20.

R=(y*t)+(x*t_1) (Eq.20) 

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.

x = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw.

t1= Percentage of operating time with mill off.

(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 21 to 

determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 215 of 250

n

n

Hpv

i

∑ i

= =1 30kiln operating day (Eq. 21)

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 216 of 250

(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.

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

Review***

Page 217 of 250

(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:

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

Review***

Page 218 of 250

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 paragraph (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

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

Review***

Page 219 of 250

(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 

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

Review***

Page 220 of 250

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;

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

Review***

Page 221 of 250

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the PM 

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the PM CPMS 

operating limit. 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.

(2) Kilns equipped with an alkali bypass. If kiln gases 

are diverted through an alkali bypass, you must account for the 

PM emitted from the alkali bypass stack by following the 

procedures in (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section:

(i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 

instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust 

gas flow rate to the atmosphere from the alkali bypass stack 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through 

(n)(10) of this section.

(ii) Develop a PM emissions factor by conducting annual 

performance tests using Method 5 to measure the concentration of 

PM in the gases exhausted from the alkali bypass stack.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 222 of 250

(iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions 

of PM in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass exhaust by using 

the PM emissions factor and the continuously measured exhaust 

gas flow rates or maximum design flow rate.

(iv) Sum the hourly PM emissions from the kiln and alkali 

bypass to determine total hourly PM emissions. Using hourly 

clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in 

pounds per ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling 

average.

(v) You must determine compliance with your PM limit

according to paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(A) through (C) of this 

section:

(A) Conduct an annual performance test using Method 5 or 5I

to determine total PM emissions from the alkali bypass and kiln. 

(B) To determine continuous compliance, you must establish 

your PM CPMS operating limit according to paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(C) You must establish the maximum exhaust gas flow rate 

for the alkali bypass during your annual performance test. You 

must continuously monitor the flow rate until the next 

performance test. If there is an exceedance of the monitored 

flow rate from the maximum established during your last 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 223 of 250

performance test by more than 10 percent, you must retest the 

kiln and alkali bypass to determine compliance. 

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Clinker Production Monitoring Requirements. If you are 

subject to an emissions limitation on mercury emissions (lb/ton 

of clinker), you must:

(1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two 

methods:

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent 

weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in tonsmass per hour of the amount of clinker produced. The system of 

measuring hourly clinker production must be maintained within ±5 

percent accuracy, or 

(ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent 

weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in tonsmass per hour of the amount of feed to the kiln. The system of 

measuring feed must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy. 

Calculate your hourly clinker production rate using a kiln 

specific feed to clinker ratio based on reconciled clinker 

production determined for accounting purposes and recorded feed 

rates. Update this ratio monthly. Note that if this ratio 

changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 224 of 250

going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 

clinker production rates previously estimated. 

(iii) [Reserved]

(2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the 

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 

(or feed mass flow if applicable) before initial use (for new 

sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule (for 

existing sources). During each quarter of source operation, you 

must determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing 

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 

(or feed mass flow). 

(3) If you measure clinker production directly, record the 

daily clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln feed 

rates and calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln 

feed and clinker production rates.

(4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 

paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this section.

(e) [Reserved]

(f) Opacity Monitoring Requirements. If you are subject to 

a limitation on opacity under §63.1345, you must conduct 

required opacity monitoring in accordance with the provisions of 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vii) of this section and in 

accordance with your monitoring plan developed under 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 225 of 250

§63.1350(p). You must also develop an opacity monitoring plan in 

accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) and paragraph 

(o)(5), if applicable, of this section.

(1) * * *

(iv)If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 

performance test, of appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter, 

you must conduct 30 opacity observations in accordance with 

Method 9 of appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 

9 performance test, of appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter, 

must begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible

emissions.

(v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions 

monitoring under this paragraph do not apply to any totally 

enclosed conveying system transfer point, regardless of the 

location of the transfer point. The enclosures for these 

transfer points must be operated and maintained as total 

enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance with the facility 

operations and maintenance plan.

(vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying 

system transfer point is located in a building, you must conduct 

a Method 22 performance test, of appendix A–7 to part 60 of this 

chapter, according to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

through (f)(1)(iv) of this section for each such conveying 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 226 of 250

system transfer point located within the building, or for the 

building itself, according to paragraph (f)(1)(vii) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor 

opacity by conducting daily visible emissions observations of 

the mill sweep and air separator PM control devices (PMCD) of 

these affected sources in accordance with the procedures of 

Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. The 

duration of the Method 22 performance test must be 6 minutes. 

* * * * *

(iii) If visible emissions are observed during the followup Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) 

of this section from any stack from which visible emissions were 

observed during the previous Method 22 performance test required 

by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the section, you must then conduct an 

opacity test of each stack from which emissions were observed 

during the follow up Method 22 performance test in accordance 

with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. The 

duration of the Method 9 test must be 30 minutes.

(3) If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 

visible emissions test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1) or 

(f)(2) of this section, you must initiate, within one-hour, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 227 of 250

corrective actions specified in your operation and maintenance 

plan as required in §63.1347.

(4) The requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section 

to conduct daily Method 22 testing do not apply to any specific 

raw mill or finish mill equipped with a COMS or BLDS. 

(i) If the owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in 

lieu of conducting the daily visible emissions testing required 

under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, then the COMS must be 

installed at the outlet of the PM control device of the raw mill 

or finish mill and the COMS must be installed, maintained, 

calibrated, and operated as required by the general provisions 

in subpart A of this part and according to PS–1 of appendix B to 

part 60 of this chapter. 

(ii) If you choose to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting 

the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph

(f)(2) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (m)(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section apply. 

(g) * * *

(1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously 

operate a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases 

from the kiln and alkali bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to, 

or upstream of, the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCDs.

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

Review***

Page 228 of 250

(2) You must monitor and continuously record the 

temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali 

bypass, if applicable, at the inlet to the kiln and/or alkali 

bypass PMCD.

* * * * *

(4) Calculate the rolling three-hour average temperature 

using the average of 180 successive one-minute average 

temperatures. See §63.1349(b)(3).

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) * * * 

(ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average 

activated carbon injection rate for the previous 3 hours of 

process operation. See §63.1349(b)(3). 

* * * * *

(i) * * * 

(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC 

continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with 

Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this 

chapter and comply with all of the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems found in the general provisions, subpart A of 

this part. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 229 of 250

CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in 

Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.

(2) For sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or 

that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a 

separate stack, instead of installing a CEMS, you may use the 

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit.

(3) Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks 

must be conducted using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 

60 and repeated annually.

* * * * *

(k) Mercury Monitoring Requirements. If you have a kiln 

subject to an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you 

must install and operate a mercury continuous emissions 

monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in accordance with Performance 

Specification 12A (PS 12A) of appendix B to part 60 of this 

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

Review***

Page 230 of 250

(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.

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

Review***

Page 231 of 250

(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 

period preceding or following the “above span” calibration for 

reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as 

follows:

Certified reference gas value

Measured value of reference gas

× Measured stack gas result

= Normalized stack gas result
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 232 of 250

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. 

(4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems 

under PS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 must be conducted at normal 

operating conditions with the inline kiln/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 (v) of this section:

(i) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an 

instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust 

gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section or you may use 

the maximum design flow rate.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 233 of 250

(ii) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rate by 

conducting annual performance tests using Method 29 to measure 

the concentration of mercury in the gases exhausted from the 

alkali bypass and coal mill.

(iii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions 

of mercury in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass and coal 

mill exhausts by using the mercury hourly emissions rate and the

continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates or use the maximum 

design flow rate and hourly mercury emission rate to calculate 

hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr.

(iv) Sum the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln, alkali 

bypass and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. Using 

hourly clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate 

in pounds per ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling 

average.

(v) If mercury emissions from the coal mill are below the 

method detection limit for two consecutive annual performance 

tests, you may reduce the frequency of the performance tests of 

coal mills to once every 30 months. If the measured mercury 

concentration exceeds the method detection limit, you must 

revert to testing annually until two consecutive annual tests 

are below the method detection limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 234 of 250

(6) If you operate an integrated sorbent trap monitoring 

system conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period 

from 24 hours to 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 235 of 250

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 236 of 250

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 PS-12A, 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 

be introduced at the probe. Record and report the results of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 237 of 250

this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The ‘above 

span’ calibration is successful if the value measured by the HCl 

CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the 

reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl CEMS is not 

within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, 

then you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span 

as described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. If the ‘above 

span’ calibration is conducted during the period when measured 

emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect the 

required minimum number of data points in an hour due to the 

calibration duration, then you must determine the emissions 

average for that missed hour as the average of hourly averages 

for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following 

the missed hour.

(C) In the event that the ‘above span’ calibration is not 

successful (i.e., the HCl CEMS measured value is not within 20 

percent of the certified value of the reference gas), then you 

must normalize the one-hour average stack gas values measured 

above the span during the 24-hour period preceding or following 

the ‘above span’ calibration for reporting based on the HCl CEMS 

response to the reference gas as follows:

Certified reference gas value

Measured value of reference gas

× Measured stack gas result

= Normalized stack gas result
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 238 of 250

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)(8) of this section. 

(3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or 

tray tower, and you choose to monitor SO2 emissions, monitor SO2 

emissions continuously according to the requirements of 

§60.63(e) through (f) of part 60 subpart F of this chapter. If 

SO2 levels increase above the 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 239 of 250

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.

* * * * *

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

Review***

Page 240 of 250

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a BLDS as 

specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (viii) of this 

section.

(i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust 

stack of the fabric filter.

(ii) Each BLDS must be installed, operated, calibrated, and 

maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's 

written specifications and recommendations and in accordance 

with the guidance provided in EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997.

(iii) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 or 

fewer milligrams per actual cubic meter.

(iv) The BLDS sensor must provide output of relative or 

absolute PM loadings.

(v) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor.

(vi) The BLDS must be equipped with an alarm system that 

will alert an operator automatically when an increase in 

relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm 

must be located such that the alert is detected and recognized 

easily by an operator.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 241 of 250

(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do 

not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a BLDS 

must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

* * * * *

(11) * * * 

(v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the 

BLDS; or 

* * * * *

(n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System. You must 

install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according 

to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this 

section, for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas 

flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions 

rate to the atmosphere from sources subject to an emissions 

limitation that has a pounds per ton of clinker unit.

* * * * *

(3) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval. You may 

submit an application to the Administrator for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission standards of this subpart, except for emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 242 of 250

standards for THC, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(o)(1) through (o)(6) of this section.

* * * * *

(p) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring 

Plans. If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable 

emissions limit through performance stack testing or other 

emissions monitoring, you must develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs 

(p)(1) through (4) of this section. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this 

section and §63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the 

requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this section.

(1) For each CMS required in this section, you must 

develop, and submit to the permitting authority for approval 

upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses 

paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must 

submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at 

least 30 days before your initial performance evaluation of your 

CMS.

* * * * *

(2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also 

address paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 243 of 250

* * * * *

(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 

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.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 244 of 250

(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.

* * * * *

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

Review***

Page 245 of 250

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) 

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

Review***

Page 246 of 250

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 

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

Review***

Page 247 of 250

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 

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

Review***

Page 248 of 250

* * * * *

(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. 

25. Section 63.1357 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and

b. Revising paragraph (a)(2). 

The revisions read as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 249 of 250

§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

 * * * * * * *

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 Yes Except for repeat performance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

Page 250 of 250

period 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)

 * * * * * * *