Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-XXXX-X]

RIN 2060-AQ93

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

For the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and 

Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rules on Reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Portland cement industry for Portland cement plants issued 

under sections 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act. These 

amendments would address the remand of these standards by 

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

177 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In addition, EPA is proposing a 

conforming amendment to the new source performance 

standards issued under section 111 (b) of the Clean Air 

Act. EPA is also proposing amendments with respect to 

issues on which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011. 

See 76 FR 28318. Because the proposed amendments to the 

standards for particulate matter could result in 

significant changes in some sources’ compliance strategies

for all the regulated pollutants, the EPA is proposing to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 2 of 247

extend the date for compliance with the existing source 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to 

September 9, 2015. The EPA is further proposing that the 

compliance date for clinker piles at existing sources be 6 

months from the date of publication of the final rule.

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

30 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Any 

requests for a public hearing must be received by [INSERT 

DATE 10 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 

information collection provisions are best assured of 

having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget 

receives a copy of your comments on or before [INSERT DATE 

30 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID 

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

methods:

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

Follow the online instructions for submitting 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 3 of 247

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

Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the 

EPA Air and Radiation Docket website.

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817 in the subject line of the message.

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

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

 Mail: Send your comments to: The EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 

20460, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0817. Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

the EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. 

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

deliver comments to the EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

(Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0817. Such deliveries are only accepted 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 4 of 247

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 

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

legal holidays), and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed information. Please 

include two copies.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0817. The EPA policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be 

confidential business information or otherwise protected 

through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” 

system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide it in the body of 

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

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

email address will be automatically captured and included 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 5 of 247

as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 

and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 

your name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption 

and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this 

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

documents in the docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 6 of 247

materials are available either electronically in 

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

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

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

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

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 

Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 

EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. Note that information 

pertinent to the previous Portland cement rulemakings 

discussed in this document is contained in dockets EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877.

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

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

PUBLICATION OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and will be held at 

the EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a 

public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pamela 

Garrett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals 

Group (D243-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 7 of 247

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; email: 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243-

04); Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle 

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

number: (919)541-5450; email address: 

nizich.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The information presented in this preamble is 

organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

E. When would a public hearing occur?

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 

amendments?

B. What actions preceded this proposed rule?

III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and 

Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

B. Mercury Standard 

C. THC Standard

D. Proposed Amendments to PM Existing and New Source NESHAP 

and NSPS

E. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting from 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 8 of 247

F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions from Clinker Storage 

Piles

G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedances 

Occurring During Malfunctions

H. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative 

Organic HAP Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter) 

I. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply 

With HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

J. Alternative PM Limit

K. Standards During Startup and Shutdown

L. Coal Mills (NESHAP and NSPS)

M. PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing 

Sources

O. Eligibility to be a New Source

IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions

V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment

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

Impacts of Proposed Amendments

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?

C. What are the air quality impacts?

D. What are the water quality impacts?

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

F. What are the secondary impacts?

G. What are the energy impacts?

H. What are the cost impacts?

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
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 9 of 247

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

a. Need for the Regulatory Action. The EPA is 

proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Portland cement 

source category and to the New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for Portland cement plants issued under sections 112 

(d) and 111 (b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

This proposal addresses the remand by the Circuit 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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 

further held that EPA had arbitrarily denied 

reconsideration of the NESHAP to take into account the 

effect of EPA’s Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) 

rule on the standards. The NHSM rule, issued after the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 10 of 247

NESHAP was promulgated, had the effect of reclassifying 

some cement kilns as commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerators (CISWI) and thus could have an effect on the 

standards. 

The proposal also addresses technical issues with 

respect to the standard for particulate matter in both the 

NESHAP and the NSPS which have emerged since these rules’ 

promulgation. In addition, the proposal addresses the 

issues on which EPA already granted reconsideration.

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action. These 

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

of the Clean Air Act.

2) Summary of Major Proposed Provisions

a. Particulate matter (PM) Emission Standards. The EPA 

is proposing changes to the emission standards for PM. The 

promulgated rule requires compliance to be demonstrated 

using a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) (see

section 63.1348 (75 FR at 55056).) The EPA now 

provisionally believes that it may be problematic for a 

particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring system 

(PM CEMS) to meet the mandated Performance Specification 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 11 of 247

11 (PS 11) correlation requirements complying with the 

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

consequence, the EPA is proposing to amend the existing and 

new source PM standards in the NESHAP to require manual 

stack testing in lieu of PM CEMS for compliance 

determinations. An additional consequence of this proposed 

change of compliance measurement methods is that the EPA is 

proposing to change the averaging time and numeric 

emissions value of those standards. The EPA is proposing 

amended PM standards under both the NESHAP and NSPS for 

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

based on manual stack testing, (from 0.04 lb/ton in the 

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

clinker for new sources based on stack testing(from 0.01 

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

The EPA is further proposing that a site-specific 

parametric operating limit be established during the 

performance test, that there be continuous monitoring of 

that parametric limit using a particulate matter continuous 

parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS), that an exceedance 

of that site-specific operating limit be reported as a 

deviation and trigger immediate corrective action and a
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 12 of 247

Method 5 performance test within 30 days. Further, multiple 

deviations from the parametric limit can constitute a 

violation of the emissions standard. ( a

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

remand, the EPA has removed all the CISWI kilns from the 

database used to set the 2010 existing source standards for 

PM, mercury, hydrochloric acid, and total hydrocarbons. The 

EPA then recalculated existing source floors for each of 

these pollutants, and determined what standards to propose 

in light of that analysis. This analysis informed the level 

of the proposed standards for PM just discussed. The 

remaining standards are discussed immediately below. 

c. Other Emissions Standards.. The EPA provisionally 

believes that the existing source standards for mercury, 

THC, or HCl should not be changed as a result of the 

analysis just described. The reasons are set out in 

sections III. A, B and C below. 

With respect to new source standards, under section 

112 (d) (3) of the Act, new source floors can be based on 

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

CISWI cement kiln is a similar source for purposes of this 

provision. The EPA therefore is not proposing to amend any 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 13 of 247

of the new source floors or standards for mercury, THC, or 

HCl where the best performing source in the database used 

to set the standards was a CISWI cement kiln. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative 

standard for organic HAP, whereby organic HAP are measured 

directly. To avoid a situation where the alternative 

organic standard level is lower than the practical 

quantitation limit of the relevant analytic methods, the 

EPA is proposing to increase the alternative organic HAP 

standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. See additional discussion in 

section III.H below. 

d. Standards during Startup and Shutdown. In the final 

2010 NESHAP, the EPA established specific numerical 

standards for startup and shutdown for each pollutant to be 

measured using a CEMS over an accumulative 7-day rolling 

average. Because raw materials (the source of most cement 

kiln air emissions) are not introduced into cement kilns 

during startup and shutdown, cement kilns’ emissions during 

these periods should be appreciably lower than the level of 

the standards. The EPA is therefore proposing that sources

monitor compliance with these standards via recordkeeping. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 14 of 247

e. Proposed Compliance Dates. The EPA is proposing 

that the compliance date for the PM, mercury, HCl, and THC 

existing source standards be extended to September 9, 2015. 

The EPA provisionally believes that the proposed change to 

the PM standard makes possible compliance alternatives 

unavailable under the promulgated existing source 

standards) and that an extension until September 9, 2015 

is the period in which these new compliance strategies can 

be implemented most expeditiously. The EPA is further 

proposing that the compliance date for the work practice 

standards for clinker piles and the standards for startup 

and shutdown be six months from publication of final rules. 

f. EPA is also taking action on the remaining issues

on which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.

3) Costs and Benefits

The following table summarizes the costs and emissions 

reductions of this proposed action.

Costs and emissions reductions of proposed amendments

relative to the 2010 rule1
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 15 of 247

Proposed Amendment Capital Cost

Annualized 

Cost

Emissions 

Reduction

Coal mill testing and 

monitoring

Mercury

THC

HCl

Flow meter

Total

$4,794,520

$4,794,520

$3,055,200

$1,072,000

$2,680,000

$1,510,850

$8,318,050 0

Mercury beyond the 

floor

0 0 0

Revised PM standard $18,640,106 

(savings)

$4,200,000 

(savings)

135 tons 

(emissions 

increase)

Replace PM CEMS with PM 

CPMS

0 $7,980,000 

(savings)

0

Delayed compliance2, 3

Mercury

THC

HCl

PM

__ __

-16 tons

-20,500 tons

-9,400 tons

-18,700 tons

Total $13,845,586

(savings)

$3,503,000

1 See section III below for further discussion of impacts 

of the proposed amendments.

2 Emissions reductions are the total over the 2-year 

extension of the compliance period.

3 Compliance cost are deferred during the 2-year extension 

of the compliance period.

4. Summary of Proposed Standards
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 16 of 247

The following Table shows the proposed standards.

Proposed Existing and New Source Standards.

Pollutant Existing source 

standard

New source 

standard 

Mercury 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker

21 lb/MM tons 

clinker

Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 24 ppmvd

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

0.02 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

Organic HAP

(alternative to 

Total Hydrocarbon)

12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd

B. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this 

final rule include: 

Category NAICS 

code1

Examples of regulated entities

Industry.... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

Federal government... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

Portland cement manufacturing 

plants.

1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether 

your facility will be regulated by this action, you should 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 17 of 247

examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart 

F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of this final action 

to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

Submitting confidential business information (CBI). 

Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail 

to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM 

the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must 

be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included 

in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 18 of 247

without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as 

CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

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

Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

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

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on 

the World Wide Web (WWW) through the EPA’s Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance 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. When would a public hearing occur?

If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00 

a.m. on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 19 of 247

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and will be held at 

the EPA’s campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a 

public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pamela 

Garrett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, (D243-01), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711; email: garrett.pamela@epa.gov; 

telephone number: (919)541–7966.

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed 

amendments? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory 

process to address emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. After the EPA has identified categories of sources 

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

the CAA, section 112(d) requires us to promulgate NESHAP 

for those sources. For “major sources” that emit or have 

the potential to emit 10 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 20 of 247

achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and 

are commonly referred to as 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 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 best-performing 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 21 of 247

impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section 

112(d)(2).

Under NSPS, the EPA is required 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 process, NSPS requires the EPA to 

take into account the “cost of achieving” emissions 

reductions, as well as health, environmental, and energy 

considerations. Id.

B. What actions preceded this proposed rule?

The history of this proposed rule, commencing with the 

1999 standards and proceeding through the amendments issued 

in September 2009, is set out in detail in 75 FR 54970 

(Sept 9, 2010). Various parties filed petitions for 

reconsideration of aspects of those amendments. On May 17, 

2011, the EPA granted reconsideration of various issues, 

and denied the petitions to reconsider as to the remaining 

issues. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). On December 9, 

2011, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit issued an opinion upholding the NESHAP itself (as 

well as the section 111 NSPS), but found that the EPA had 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 22 of 247

arbitrarily failed to grant reconsideration to consider the 

effect of the EPA’s Nonhazardous Secondary materials (NHSM)

rule on the standards (76 FR at 15456 (March 21, 2011)), 

which rule had the effect of reclassifying some cement 

kilns as commercial and solid waste incinerators. See 

Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 186-189 (D.C. 

Cir. 2011). That court did not stay the standards for PM, 

mercury, HCl, or total hydrocarbons, but did stay the 

standard for clinker piles pending the conclusion of the 

reconsideration process. See 665 F. 3d at 194.

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

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

removing all kilns classified as commercial incinerators 

from the data used to establish the 2010 NESHAP standards. 

The EPA is then recalculating each of the floors based on 

this revised dataset and making beyond-the-floor 

determinations based on the recalculated floors. The EPA 

believes that this approach is fully responsive to the 

court’s remand. See 665 F. 3d at 188 where the court 

referred favorably to this type of recalculation. For new 

sources, the EPA is basing floors on the performance of the 

best performing similar source.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 23 of 247

III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and 

Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

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

the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit upheld all of the EPA’s methodology for 

establishing the Portland cement NESHAP, but remanded the 

standards so that the EPA could account for the effects of 

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

the Portland cement NESHAP, had the effect of reclassifying 

certain cement kilns as commercial incinerators because 

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

F. 3d at 185-189. 

Applying that definition, the EPA has determined that 

there are 24 cement kilns which combust solid waste. See 76 

FR at 28322 and Memorandum “Combustion in a Cement Kiln and 

Cement Kilns’ Use of Tires as Fuel” (April 25, 2011) 

(“April 25 memorandum”); see also 76 FR at 80452 (Dec. 23, 

2011) where the EPA identified 23 of the 24 kilns as 

commercial incinerators as were identified in the April 25 

memorandum. The 24th kiln was identified as a CISWI kiln 

after development of the April 25, 2011 memorandum, but the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 24 of 247

addition of this kiln did not affect the calculations 

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

since Reconsideration Proposal, docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-

0119). The EPA also believes that this count remains 

unchanged by any of the issues being considered in the 

reconsideration of the NHSM rule either because the types 

of secondary materials being addressed in that 

reconsideration are not combusted by cement kilns or that

the EPA has already accounted for those materials in its 

April 25 memorandum analysis. See 76 FR at 28319 (May 17, 

2011). The EPA expects the reconsideration of the NHSM rule 

to be completed before taking final action on this proposed 

rule and will account for any changes in the NHSM rule when 

it takes final action here.

1

 

1

EPA has also conducted a bounding analysis of potential 

floors by removing from the data base all cement kilns that 

burn any type of secondary material for energy recovery (so 

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

bounding analysis database). Under this analysis , the 

existing source floor for HCl was unchanged, the existing 

source floor for PM was essentially unchanged, the 

existing source floor for THC becomes more stringent (as 

in the April 25, 2011 analysis), and the existing source 

mercury floor increases from 54 lb/MM ton clinker to 66 

lb/MM ton clinker. EPA would propose the same standards as 

under today’s proposal if this bounding analysis were used 

in place of the analysis described in the text. EPA thus 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 25 of 247

1. Existing Source Floors. We removed the 24 CISWI 

kilns from the database used to establish existing source 

standards and recalculated floors for existing sources. 

Under this analysis, the existing source floor for mercury 

increased from 55 lb/MM ton clinker to 58 lb/MM tons 

clinker, the existing source floor for PM increased from 

.04 lb/ton clinker to .05 lb/ton clinker, the existing 

source floor for THC decreased to 15 ppmv, and the existing 

source floor for HCl stayed the same at 3 ppmv.

As explained in section B below, the EPA is proposing 

to establish a beyond the floor standard for mercury of 55 

pounds per million metric (lb/MM) tons clinker. Moreover, 

for reasons independent of this analysis, the EPA is 

proposing to amend the existing and new source NESHAP for 

PM. See section D below. The EPA is not proposing to amend 

the HCl standard or the THC standard.

2. New Source Standards. With respect to new source 

standards, the EPA does not believe that any 

reclassification and reanalysis is necessary under the 

 

does not believe that the precise count of CISWI kilns will 

affect the outcome of this rulemaking. See Bounding 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 26 of 247

court’s opinion. New source floors can be based on the 

performance of “the best controlled similar source”, as 

opposed to existing source floors which must reflect 

performance of sources “in the category or subcategory”. 

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

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

is a cement kiln. Equally important, burning secondary 

materials for energy recovery does not significantly alter 

a cement kiln’s HAP emission profile. See 76 FR at 28320 

(documenting both the basis for this conclusion and the 

cement industry’s agreement with it). 2, 3

B. Mercury Standard

 

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

exception of the PM standard, which EPA is proposing to amend). We 

will take comment on whether CISWI cement kilns can be considered a 

“similar source” under section 112 (d)(3) and whether retention of the 

2010 new source standards on this basis is consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s opinion. EPA will not consider comments challenging the data 

and methodology for the new source standards since these are unchanged 

from the 2010 rule and EPA is not reexamining any of these issues.

3 If the EPA were to reconsider the new source standards by removing 

the 24 CISWI kilns from the database, then the mercury new source floor 

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

decreased from 24 to 11 ppmvd, and the PM and HCl new source floor 

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

Memorandum, Revised Portland Cement NESHAP with CISWI kilns removed, 

March 21, 2011. However, as explained in the text, because CISWI 

cement kilns are similar sources to non-CISWI sources for purposes of 

establishing NESHAP new source standards, EPA is not relying on this 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 27 of 247

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

source standard is based on the performance of the best 

performing similar source, and we are not reopening it. .

2. Existing Source Standard. As noted above, the 

recalculated existing source floor is 58 lb/MM tons clinker 

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

of 55 lb/MM ton clinker produced, the level of the 2010 

final standard. As described below, the only difference in 

cost between the two levels is the incremental cost of 

removing slightly more mercury, which is estimated at 

$2,000/lb of mercury removed. This is because the control 

equipment needed for mercury would not alter, would not 

need to be sized differently, and would need to perform on 

average, nearly identically at either a 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker or 58 lb/MM tons clinker level. That is, in 

planning compliance, kilns would calibrate to achieve an 

average performance of 34.1 lb/MM tons clinker for a 

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

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

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

equates to an estimated 180 pounds of nationwide mercury 

emissions per year, incremental to the recalculated floor. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 28 of 247

To achieve this additional reduction, we estimated an 

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

to purchase additional carbon injection materials. This 

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

reduction per year. See section 8.2, Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document. This is 

considerably less than values the EPA has found to be cost 

effective for removal of mercury in other air toxics rules. 

(See Clean Air Markets Rule RIA, Table 7-8 on page 7-7, in 

docket.) EPA also does not see any adverse energy or nonair quality health or environmental consequences of a 55 

ppm beyond-the-floor standard.

We are not proposing a beyond the floor level below 55 

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

final rule – in particular the possibility that a lower 

standard could force some kilns to find alternative sources 

of limestone, at enormous cost and disruption. See 75 FR at 

54980.

C. THC Standard

The THC data for the 2010 standard consist of CEMS 

data for 15 kilns. After removing the four CISWI kilns, 

nine kilns remain. Thus, the MACT floor kilns consisted of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 29 of 247

12 percent of these nine kilns, or two kilns. The top two 

kilns were Suwannee and Holcim. As explained above , when 

CISWI sources are removed from the database for the 2010 

standards, the existing source floor for THC becomes more 

stringent from 24 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 15 

ppmv, and the new source standard would drop from 24 ppmv 

to 11 ppmv. This change results from removing from the 

database a CISWI cement kiln (the Lehigh Union Bridge kiln) 

with the lowest daily average performance but with more 

associated variability than the other kilns with the next 

highest daily average performance. See also 76 FR at 28322 

n. 11 and 665 F. 3d at 188. However, notwithstanding this 

calculation, the EPA is not proposing to reduce the level 

of either the new source or the existing source THC 

standard. 

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

source standard can be based on performance of a “best 

controlled similar source”, so there is no reason under the 

statute or the court’s remand to amend the new source THC 

standard. The standard is also technically appropriate. 

See 75 FR at 54981/1 (explaining basis for the THC new 

source standard, which discussion is summarized below for 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 30 of 247

the readers’ convenience). Removing the CISWI Union Bridge 

kiln as the best performing new source would leave the 

Suwannee kiln as the lowest emitter based on its daily 

average THC emissions. See Portland Cement Reconsideration 

Technical Support Document (TSD), Section 8.4, which is 

available in this rulemaking docket. This kiln has higher 

average emissions than the Union Bridge kiln (that is, its 

daily average emissions are higher than the Union Bridge 

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

kiln, so EPA identified the kiln emitting less THC on 

average – the Union Bridge kiln - to be the best performer. 

The Suwannee kiln has less measured variability than the 

Union Bridge kiln, but also has hundreds of fewer 

observations. For this reason, the EPA considered the Union 

Bridge kiln to be more representative of variability, and 

used its 99th percentile performance as the measure of 

performance of the best performing similar source in 

establishing the new source standard. See 75 FR at 54981/1.4

 

4 For purposes of comparing the relative variability of the 

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

used the ratio of the 99th percentile for each kiln divided 

by its daily average. A ratio of 1.0 indicates no 

variability. As the ratio increases, variability increases. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 31 of 247

2. Existing Source Standard. Under the calculation 

described above, the existing source floor would be 

reduced from 24 ppmv to 15 ppmv. The EPA provisionally

believes that such a floor level would not be technically 

appropriate. It omits the variability of the similar source 

with the best average performance for THC (the Union Bridge 

kiln), and so may not be fully representative of 

variability of best performing sources. As noted above, 

cement kiln HAP emissions are not appreciably affected by 

burning secondary materials for energy recovery so the 

Union Bridge’s variability is representative of cement kiln 

variability. In addition, as noted above, the number of 

daily observations for the Union Bridge kiln is among the 

most robust in the database, containing over 3 times the 

number of observations as the next best performing cement 

kiln. Thus, the EPA initially believes it is technically 

justified to consider the Union Bridge kiln's variability 

in estimating the variability of the best performing cement 

kilns for THC emissions. The EPA’s technical concern, were 

 

See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document, section 8.4, which is available in this 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 32 of 247

it to base variability estimates exclusively on the data 

from the non-CISWI cement kilns, is heightened because 

there are only two kilns as best performers for THC, a 

result dictated by literal statutory language. See 74 FR at 

21150-51 (May 6, 2009). If the variability of the Union 

Bridge kiln is included along with the variability of the 

two best performing cement kilns, and applied to the two 

best performing cement kilns’ performance, the floor would 

be 24 ppm, which EPA is proposing as a floor. See Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, Section 

8.4. This is the level of the 2010 standard. 

3. Beyond the floor standards. The EPA is not 

proposing a beyond the floor THC standard for existing 

cement kiln sources. The reasons given in the rulemaking 

remain valid. See 75 FR at 54983; 74 FR at 21153. We 

especially note that a more aggressive standard for THC 

would force the increased use of energy-intense control 

technologies like Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers which have

negative environmental implications, notably increased 

emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, 

as well as increased emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), CO, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 33 of 247

SO2 and PM10. See 74 FR at 21153.5 These devices are also 

extremely costly and not cost-effective. See 74 FR at 

21153. For a description of the costs, energy requirements, 

and environmental impacts of RTO, see Summary of 

Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement 

NESHAP and NSPS, August 6, 2010, docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR2002-0051-3438. For all these reasons, the EPA does not 

consider a beyond-the-floor standard for THC to be 

justified under section 112(d)(2). Consequently, EPA is not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor standard for THC for existing 

sources.

6

D. Proposed Amendments to PM Existing and New Source NESHAP 

and NSPS

Based largely on developments which have occurred 

after the EPA granted reconsideration on certain aspects of 

 

5EPA estimates that each thermal oxidizer emits an added 

increment of 0.02 tons of CO2 for each ton of clinker 

produced. A typical kiln producing 1.2 million tons of 

clinker per year and controlled by an RTO would emit an 

additional 24,000 tons of CO2 per year. See RTO Secondary 

Impacts, May 16, 2012, in this rulemaking docket.

6 EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard 

for organic HAP under which organic HAP is measured 

directly. See section I below.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 34 of 247

the NESHAP7, the EPA is proposing revisions to the testing 

and monitoring methods used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the existing and new source PM emissions 

standards and, as a consequence, is proposing changes to 

the averaging time, level, and compliance demonstration for 

those standards. The EPA has also removed all CISWI kilns 

from the data base used to establish the standards for PM 

and used this revised data base in determining the level of 

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

explain these proposed changes below.

 

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

submitted a petition for reconsideration to the EPA requesting that the 

EPA reconsider and stay the NESHAP PM standard. The basis for the 

petition was CEMS data for PM from four of Holcim’s kilns (some of 

which are either waste-burning or hazardous waste burning). Petition 

pp. 5-6. This information was collected commencing in January 2011. 

Since the information in the petition was gathered outside the time 

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

was impractical to raise the objection during the public comment 

period, the grounds arose outside the time period for judicial review 

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

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

discussed in the text above, because the EPA is proposing to no longer 

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

no longer of direct relevance in setting the level of the PM standard. 

A further issue with the data is that they were not obtained using CEMS 

calibrated according to PS-11, the protocol specified in the rule. 

Accordingly, EPA is not basing its proposal of a revised PM standard on 

these data.

On January 17 2012, LaFarge Cement submitted a petition for 

reconsideration containing no new data or information but arguing that 

the Holcim petition justified reconsideration of the standards. The EPA 

believes that this petition is subsumed by the Holcim petition.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 35 of 247

In comments to the 2009 proposal, industry commenters 

maintained that there were several problems with

implementing the monitoring requirements to demonstrate 

compliance using a PM CEMS and with the requirements to 

conduct a periodic audit of the PM CEMS in accordance with 

performance specification (PS) 11 of appendix B and 

Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60. These commenters 

claimed that the problems were insurmountable Although the 

EPA responded to these comments, see 75 FR at 55007-55008 

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

pp. 163-166, both the industry and the EPA have continued 

to investigate these issues after promulgation of the 

standards. In particular, the Portland cement industry has 

noted further technical issues associated with the current 

PM CEMS technology that have emerged as the industry has 

attempted to develop a CEMS-based compliance strategy for 

PM. 

For example, the industry argued that the variable raw 

feed material and additives used in cement production will 

lead to changes in particle size, refractive index, 

particle density, and other physical characteristics. This 

is important, according to the comments, because 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 36 of 247

correlations developed for the commonly used PM CEMS 

technology (e.g., light scatter and scintillation) may be 

adversely affected by these physical changes in particles 

irrespective of changes in mass emissions rates or 

concentrations. 

Other specific objections voiced by these commenters 

included: 

1) Performance Specification 11 (PS 11) allowable 

measurement error (±25 percent) may result in PM CEMS 

measurements indicating noncompliance even though emissions 

measured with Method 5 tests would be less than the level 

of the standard; 

2) Calibration curve development requires a source 

owner to change the operation of control devices to produce 

the range of emissions concentrations required by PS 11 for 

the correlation testing. This type of control device 

perturbation is not practicable for fabric filters;

3) Under typical industrial operating conditions, the 

industry claimed that even small control device adjustments 

could result in the source operating above the numerical 

emissions limit for some of the test runs, potentially 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 37 of 247

raising the 30-day rolling average for PM above the level 

of the standard; and 

4) Method 5 testing is required for PM CEMS 

calibration, but Method 5 may not be sensitive enough to 

measure at the PM standard levels with sufficient precision 

without longer run sampling times, thereby significantly 

extending the time necessary to conduct the 15 or more runs 

required by PS 11 as a prerequisite to calibration of the 

PM CEMS.

The EPA believes that some of these objections have 

merit and is proposing to change the compliance basis for 

the PM standard as a result.

Performance Specification 11

In response to industry concerns, the EPA reviewed the 

procedures and acceptance criteria of Performance 

Specification 11 (PS 11), the protocol mandated by the 

promulgated rule. See section 63.1350 (b)(1). PS 11 is 

structured differently than other performance 

specifications that apply to validating the performance of 

gaseous pollutant CEMS. This is primarily because the 

pollutant, particulate matter, is defined entirely by the 

test method specified by regulation to measure it. As the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 38 of 247

industry commenters note, there are no independent standard 

reference materials for particulate matter concentrations 

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

compressed gases for validating SO2 or NOx instrumental 

measurements). The only reference standard for determining 

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

reference test method. In the case of the Portland cement 

NESHAP (and NSPS), the rule specifies EPA Method 5 for 

measuring filterable particulate matter concentration or 

mass rate (e.g., in mg/dscm or lb/hr).

PS 11 provides procedures and acceptance criteria for 

validating the performance of several types of PM CEMS 

technologies. Although there are multiple instrument and 

data reporting operational performance checks in PS 11 that 

are similar in concept to those for gaseous pollutant CEMS, 

there is a principal PM CEMS performance requirement that 

is distinctly different. That difference is the development 

of a site-specific PM CEMS correlation or mathematical 

response curve. There are two key procedural elements to 

developing that correlation. First, PS 11 requires that the 

source conduct stack test runs using an EPA PM test method 

(e.g., Method 5) and simultaneously collect corresponding 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 39 of 247

PM CEMS output data. Second, the source must vary the 

operation of the control device manually in order to 

produce a range of PM concentrations. PS 11, section 8.6, 

requires at least five test runs at each of three different 

operating (i.e., low, mid, and high PM concentration) 

conditions for a total of 15 or more test runs that range 

from 25 to 100 percent of allowable emissions. Then the 

source must use the test method data and the corresponding 

PM CEMS output data to develop an equation (i.e., a 

calculated linear or nonlinear curve) that will be used to 

define the relationship between the PM CEMS output and the 

test method measured PM concentrations. Each site-specific 

correlation must meet several PS 11 acceptance criteria 

including limits on confidence interval and tolerance 

interval equating to ±25 percent of the applicable 

emissions limit.

Industry issues relative to PS 11

One issue the commenters raised about conducting the 

testing to meet the PS 11 correlation development 

requirement is the impracticality of varying the emissions 

from a fabric filter control device. Most of the Portland 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 40 of 247

cement plants subject to the NESHAP use fabric filter 

control devices. 

We agree with commenters that there are typically few, 

if any, physical adjustments one can apply to a fabric 

filter or to the kiln process to change the outlet PM 

concentration significantly. A fabric filter produces 

essentially a constant outlet concentration even with 

changes to the inlet loading or flow 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/mkb/documents/ff-pulse.pdf). 

Although PS 11 allows some flexibility when control device 

perturbations are not possible, the resulting correlation 

would apply for only the narrow range of concentrations 

measured during the testing. The result would be that the 

PM CEMS would be correlated only for a relatively small 

range of conditions below the applicable compliance limit. 

This range would not necessarily include situations where 

the standard might be exceeded. Without the ability to 

calculate emissions should the fabric filter performance 

change from initial test conditions (e.g., bag leaks begin 

to develop), such a limited correlation range would render 

the PM CEMS less reliable for calculating long term 

average concentrations or emissions rates and for verifying 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 41 of 247

compliance. Additionally, it is difficult and resource 

intensive to modify baghouse control efficiency in a way 

that is representative of normal operations at a cement 

kiln.

Commenters also cited problems in developing 

correlations in stack gases with variable PM constituents

and physical characteristics when using light scatter or 

scintillation detection PM CEMS devices. The information 

commenters provided with regard to the variability in raw 

feed materials and the continuous adjustments to additives 

used in making Portland cement has improved our 

understanding the variations in the physical 

characteristics of the particles in the emissions from 

cement kilns. As noted above and in the EPA’s technology 

background documents (e.g., 

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

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

correlations developed for these types of instruments are 

inherently dependent on the particle structure, size, and 

other physical characteristics as well as PM mass in the 

exhaust gases for each site. This is an issue of special 

import for cement kilns where limestone composition is 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 42 of 247

variable and kilns also use alternative feedstocks and 

additives to impart particular product characteristics. 

These variations in composition together create 

considerable additional variability in cement kiln stack 

emissions particle size, color, and other relevant physical 

characteristics. Put another way, these light-based PM CEMS 

produce a signal that can vary when different fuels or raw 

materials are introduced to the kilns even when the fabric 

filter outlet mass concentration remains unchanged. 

To the extent that physical characteristics of the PM 

in the stack remain stable, correlations for light-based PM 

CEMS meeting PS 11 performance criteria can represent mass 

rates to the degree of accuracy required by PS 11. For 

example, there are various design structures used in some

light based PM CEMS devices that can mitigate the effects 

of changes in the physical aspects of particles on 

measurement uncertainty. In addition to the type of light 

effect measured (e.g., Rayleigh or Mie scattering or light 

scintillation), the detector wavelength and the frequency 

are design factors that will affect how the PM CEMS 

responds to small changes in the physical appearance of the 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 43 of 247

On this point, we note that if a source owner were 

concerned about the ability of a light-based PM CEMS to 

meet the requirements of PS 11 because of variable physical 

characteristics of particles in the stack, there is at 

least one other PM CEMS technology based more directly on 

mass measurement rather than on light scatter or light 

scintillation characteristics. The currently available Beta 

gauge technology does not suffer from this particular 

technical problem. The Beta attenuation PM CEMS, also 

called Beta gauge, extracts a sample for the stack gas and 

collects the PM on a filter tape. The device periodically 

advances the tape from the sampling mode to an area where 

the sample is exposed to Beta radiation. The detector 

measures the amount of Beta emitted by the sample and that 

amount can be directly related to the mass of PM on the 

filter. The Beta gauge sensitivity or detection limit can 

be enhanced (i.e., lowered) with greater sample volumes 

produced from sampling intervals up to an hour or longer. 

Another PM mass detector projected for greater use as 

PM CEMS is the tapered element oscillating microbalance 

(TEOM). Often used in measuring ambient levels of PM, the 

TEOM operates on a basic principle that can be made 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 44 of 247

traceable to NIST laboratory standards. The TEOM can 

provide a continuous measure of PM mass in a sample 

extracted from the stack and routed to the detector. TEOM 

based PM CEMS are not yet commercially available.

Commenters identified another factor contributing to 

the difficulty of meeting PS 11 correlation requirements 

for low PM concentrations corresponding to a low applicable 

emissions limit, as with the promulgated PM standards here. 

We have recently reevaluated the capabilities of the EPA 

Method 5 for measuring low concentrations of PM 8 and have 

determined a Method 5 method detection limit of 

approximately 2 mg/dscm for a 1-hour test run. The 

uncertainty of a measurement with Method 5 at this PM 

concentration would be from 50 to 100 percent (i.e., ±1 to 

2 mg/dscm). We can determine a practical quantitation limit 

(PQL) using ~3 x method detection limit to reduce that 

Method 5 measurement uncertainty to ±10 to 20 percent (see 

also section III.H. below). That means that the PQL for a 1 

hour test run with Method 5 would be approximately 6 

mg/dscm ±0.6 to 1.2 mg/dscm. 

 

8 See EPA Note from Raymond Merrill, OAQPS, to Bob Schell, OAQPS, 

Subject: Revision of Estimated Method 5 Detection Limit, May 23, 2012
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 45 of 247

The Portland cement NESHAP PM emissions limit for 

existing sources of 0.040 lb/ton of clinker equates to 5 to 

8 mg/dscm, depending on production rate (assuming a typical 

total gas flow rate per clinker production rate). As noted 

above, PS 11 specifies acceptable criteria for a 

correlation directly related to the applicable emissions 

limit. For a PM CEMS set up to measure compliance with a 5 

to 8 mg/dscm equivalent limit, the inherent uncertainty 

associated with a 1 hour Method 5 measurement (±0.6 to 1.2 

mg/dscm) would constitute more than half of the ±25 percent 

of the applicable PS 11 acceptance threshold (i.e., ±1.2 to 

2.0 mg/dscm) of the mid-level PS 11 correlation test (i.e. 

the correlation for the middle of the three PS 11 

correlation points). Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS 

response variability and the uncertainty associated with 

the representative sampling (e.g., PM and flow 

stratification), we agree with commenters that trying to 

satisfy PS 11 at such low concentrations using 1 hour 

Method 5 test runs would be problematic. The same issue 

arises for the new source standard as well, which would be 

even more problematic given the lower numerical limit of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 46 of 247

the new source standard. This drawback applies regardless 

of the type of PM CEMS technology used.

As commenters noted, one can improve the method 

detection capabilities of the Method 5 or other filterable 

PM test method by increasing sampling volume and run time. 

For example, a test run time of about 2 hours will improve 

the Method 5 PQL to about 3 mg/dscm. The measurement 

uncertainty associated with a 2 hour test run at 3 mg/dscm 

would be about ±0.3 to 0.6 mg/dscm. At this level, the 

uncertainty associated with the PM test method measurements 

alone would be about half of the correlation limit allowed 

in PS 11. To achieve a PQL of 1 mg/dscm and a measurement 

uncertainty of about ±0.01 to 0.2 mg/dscm, one would need 

to conduct a test run of 6 hours or longer. As noted 

above,the PS 11 correlation calculations would also have to 

account for any PM CEMS analytical and measurement 

variability.

Using data from longer Method 5 test runs will improve 

the probability of a PM CEMS meeting PS 11 correlation 

requirements but, as commenters note, will also raise 

practicality concerns without completely resolving the 

issue. For example, the time to complete 15 1-hour test 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 47 of 247

runs under three different emissions conditions may be 

three to six days of field work, while the time to complete 

15 6-hour test runs under three different emissions 

conditions will require at least two weeks of field work in 

order to produce and maintain the operating conditions 

associated with three different emissions rates. Longer 

test runs lower the variability of Method 5 PM measurements 

at near detection limit levels from ± 50 percent to below ± 

25 percent; however, the variability of Method 5 results at 

these low levels represents a significantly larger portion 

of the ± 25 percent correlation requirement of PS 11 than 

would Method 5 data collected at higher PM concentrations. 

Method 5 measurement uncertainty becomes increasingly 

greater with lowering PM concentration and thus reference 

measurement variability hinders the PS 11 correlation 

process the most for the best performing sources. Thus, the 

ultimate result might still lack certainty, and would also 

pose the most difficulty and uncertainty to those cement 

kiln sources with lower PM concentrations (potentially 

disadvantaging more efficient operators). 

Although longer Method 5 test runs and longer beta 

gauge sampling times reduce difficulties with PS 11 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 48 of 247

correlation for a PM CEMS, the EPA believes that this 

correlation will not be technically achievable for a 

significant number of cement kiln sources, a result in 

part due to the Method 5 PM emissions measurement 

variability at the low concentrations necessary to maintain 

compliance with the standard. The PM CEMS response values 

become approximations more qualitative than quantitative 

with high levels of uncertainty at low concentrations 

(i.e., the correlations do not meet PS 11 requirements). 

This characteristic exists regardless of the type of PM 

CEMS technology used by the cement kiln (since it involves 

variability not only of the PM CEMS but also the Method 5 

test data, variability of raw material and additive feeds 

to the kiln, and the changing particle sizes, shapes, and 

density with process operations (e.g., mill on versus mill 

off).

Making PM CEMS work at low concentrations (<10

mg/dscm) at cement kiln sources is not impossible; 

although, to expect that correlations would be achievable 

at all low emissions cement kiln sources would be 

unrealistic. Additionally, the technical limitations do not 

mean that PM CEMS cannot be used to monitor for compliance. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 49 of 247

A PM CEMS that does not meet the EPA correlation 

requirements can still produce data indicative of trends 

and changes in emissions control. PM CEMS technology can be 

effective in monitoring control device performance (see, 

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

established PM CPMS parametric operating limits for 

electricity generating units).

A monitoring approach alternative to PM CEMS and PS 11

To address technical issues associated with PM CEMS 

meeting PS 11 correlation requirements at low PM emissions 

concentrations from cement kilns, the impracticability in 

perturbing fabric filter emission rates to establish PS-11 

correlation curves, the potentially variable PM emissions 

characteristics expected from Portland cement kilns, the 

EPA is proposing to change the compliance basis for the PM 

emissions limit from PM CEMS. For monitoring continuous 

compliance, the rule would require PM CEMS equipment but, 

as explained below, that equipment would be used for 

continuous parametric monitoring rather than for direct 

measure of compliance with the numerical PM emissions 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 50 of 247

The EPA is proposing to change the means of 

demonstrating compliance from PM CEMS to Method 5 stack 

testing. In applying Method 5, particulate matter is 

withdrawn isokinetically from the source and collected on a 

glass fiber filter maintained at a temperature of 120 ± 

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

that condenses at or above the filtration temperature, is 

determined gravimetrically after the removal of uncombined 

water. Compliance with the numerical emissions limit is 

then based on an average of three 2-hour test runs rather 

than a 30-day average determined from PM CEMS data. The 

numerical level of the standard would change to reflect the 

different averaging period. See 75 FR at 54988 (explaining 

that more measurements of a properly designed and operated 

control device decreases measured variability since there 

are likely to be more measurements at the mean of 

performance); see also 75 FR at 54975-76 (explaining how 

this phenomenon is reflected in the Upper Prediction Limit 

equation used to project variability, since the m term 

(i.e., the number of measurements) in the equation becomes 

larger with more observations resulting in a larger 

denominator and hence lower ultimate level). By changing 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 51 of 247

from a 30-day average with potentially 720 hourly values to 

a three-run test average producing three test run values, 

we were compelled to review and revise the calculation of 

the PM emissions floor and standard, and consistent with 

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

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

best performing kilns used in the analysis changed as a 

result of removing the kilns identified as CISWI kilns. 

In addition, we realized that PM emissions data for a 

single kiln were inadvertently treated as test results for 

three different kilns in the original analysis. After 

making that correction and after eliminating kilns 

identified as CISWI, the number of kilns in the data set 

was reduced from 45 kilns to 28 kilns. Therefore, the best 

performing 12 percent was represented by four kilns. As a 

result of removing the CISWI kilns, two kilns which were 

not best performers in the 2010 dataset are now best 

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

As in the 2009 proposal, we used individual test run 

data from our best performing kilns and calculated the 99th

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

we did in the 2010 final rule where compliance was based 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 52 of 247

on a 30 day rolling average, see 75 FR at 54988, we used m 

= 3 consistent with the proposed requirement to determine 

compliance using a three run Method 5 test. Under this 

analysis, we determined the revised proposed PM MACT floor 

to be 0.07 lb/ ton clinker produced when based on the three 

run Method 5 test. Beyond-the-floor standards do not 

appear to be justified for the same reasons given in the 

2010 final rule. See 75 FR at 54988. The proposal 

specifies this emissions limit for the kiln and clinker 

cooler and an initial and annual compliance test using 

Method 5 to demonstrate compliance.

These issues affecting the existing source PM limit 

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

revised compliance regime, the new source floor would 

change from 0.01 lb/ton clinker produced, to 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker produced, based on a three run average from a 

Method 5 stack test. See Portland Cement Reconsideration 

Technical Support Document, section 8.3. The best 

performing kiln used to set the MACT floor for new sources 

in the 2010 rule was a cement kiln, not a CISWI kiln, so 

the same kiln was used for this analysis. The difference is 

that because a 3-run test would be used to determine 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 53 of 247

compliance rather than a 30-day rolling average, the 

calculation of the 99th confidence UPL used m = 3 rather 

than 30, which results in a floor of 0.02 lb/ton clinker.

EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard for the 

reasons given at 75 FR 54988.

As indicated above, the EPA is further proposing to 

use PM CEMS technology for continuous parametric monitoring 

of the proposed PM standards. The EPA has developed 

requirements for continuously monitoring operating 

parameters in instances where compliance is based on noncontinuous measurements, as would now be the case for PM. 

This implements section 114(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act 

which requires major sources to use enhanced monitoring for 

compliance certifications. The EPA’s historic approach has 

been to require monitoring of a control device operating 

condition (e.g., electrical power, water flow rate, pH) the 

limit of which is based on a periodic compliance test with 

the compliance test method. The use of a continuous 

parametric monitoring system based on PM CEMS technology 

(PM CPMS) is a significant step closer to direct 

measurement of emissions in units of the emissions limit 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 54 of 247

and an improvement over less direct monitoring of a process 

control device conditions.

Specifically, this proposal recognizes the value of PM 

monitoring technology sensitive to changes in PM emissions 

concentrations and use of such a tool to assure continued 

good operation of PM control equipment. This approach 

avoids the PM CEMS calibration (i.e., PS 11 correlation) 

issues especially problematic at low concentrations This is 

because here is no statistical correlation requirement for 

validating the PM CPMS output: as explained above, PS 11 

requires a ±25 percent limit for confidence interval for 

the PM CPMS curve and that the curve be validated across a 

range of concentrations. We have discussed above how 

problematic this is at low PM concentrations with current 

technology and methods. 

As a result, the proposed rule would require the 

installation and operation of a PM CPMS for parametric 

monitoring associated with the proposed PM standard. The 

source owner would not have to meet PS 11 requirements but 

would have to prepare and submit for approval, if requested 

by a permitting authority, a site-specific monitoring plan 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 55 of 247

to apply sound practices for installing, calibrating, and 

operating the PM CPMS.

Current PM CPMS have an operating principle based on

in-stack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation,

or beta attenuation. The source owner or operator would 

need to examine the fuel and process conditions of his 

stack as well as the capabilities of these devices before 

selecting a particular CPMS technology. The reportable 

measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as 

milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal.

For the purposes of this proposed rule, the source owner 

would establish an operating limit based on the highest PM 

CPMS hourly value collected during the most recent PM 

compliance test (or other stack tests accepted as a 

legitimate basis for compliance, as explained below). The 

source would collect PM CPMS data continuously and 

calculate a 30 operating day rolling average PM CPMS output 

value from the hourly PM CPMS data collected during process 

operating hours and compare that average to the site 

specific operating limit. For these reasons (i.e., 30 days 

to mitigate the effects of measurement and emissions 

variability and using the highest hourly average from the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 56 of 247

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

for parametric monitoring should not pose the same 

technical issues as those underlying the proposed decision 

to base compliance on PM CEMS measurements. 

We are proposing a number of consequences if the kiln 

PM monitoring parameter is exceeded. First, the source 

owner will have 48 hours to conduct an inspection of the 

control device and to take action to restore the controls 

if necessary and 30 days to conduct a new PM Method 5 

compliance test to verify ongoing compliance with the PM 

limit. Within sixty days the new test data will be used to 

verify or reestablish the PM CPMS operating limit and begin 

a new 30 day rolling average calculation. This approach 

parallels that which the EPA adopted National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and OilFired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards 

of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, 

Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, 77 FR 

9304,9384 (February 16, 2012)).

Second, EPA is proposing that the rule limit the 

number of deviations of the site-specific CPMS limit 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 57 of 247

leading to follow up performance tests in any 12-month 

process operating period and an excess of this number be 

considered to be a violation of the standard. This 

presumption could be rebutted by the source, but would 

require more than a Method 5 test to do so (since a Method 

5 test could not be conducted contemporaneously with the 

discovery of deviations and would not necessarily represent 

conditions identical to those when the deviation occurred). 

The basis for this part of the proposal is that the sitespecific CPMS limit could represent an emissions level 

higher than the proposed numerical emissions limit since 

the PM CPMS operating limit corresponds to the highest of 

the three runs collected during the Method 5 performance 

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

average that should represent an actual emissions level 

lower than the three test run numerical emissions limit and 

since variability is smoothed out over time. See 75 FR at 

54988; 54975-76. Consequently, we believe that there should 

be few if any deviations from the 30-day parametric limit 

and there is a reasonable basis for presuming that 

deviations that lead to multiple performance tests to 

represent poor control device performance and to be a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 58 of 247

violation of the standard. Given the above facts, EPA is 

proposing that PM CPMS deviations leading to more than six 

required performance tests in a 12-month process operating 

period to be presumed a violation of this standard, subject 

to the source’s ability to rebut that presumption with 

information about process and control device operations in 

addition to the performance test results. 

Finally, the EPA is proposing that the NSPS for PM 

established pursuant to section 111(a) also be revised so 

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

resulting different numerical values and averaging times. 

Although the NSPS for PM rests on a justification 

independent of the NESHAP PM standard, see PCA v. EPA, 665 

F. 3d at 192-93, the technical issues associated with the 

use of PM CEMS, particularly at these lower emissions 

levels, are common to both standards and the proposed 

amendments therefore appear appropriate for the NSPS as 

well.

E. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting From 

Reconsideration.

The EPA is proposing the following revised MACT 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 59 of 247

Table 4 – Proposed Existing and New Source Floors and 

Standards.1

Pollutant Existing source 

standard

New source 

standard 

Mercury 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker

21 lb/MM tons 

clinker

Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 24 ppmvd

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

0.02 lb/ton 

clinker (3-run 

test average)

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

Organic HAP 12 ppmvd 12 ppmvd

1Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling 

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

If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl 

standard, the floor is also a 30-day rolling average. 

Organic HAP standards are discussed in Section H below.

F. Standards for Fugitive Emissions From Clinker Storage 

Piles

In the September 2010 rule, the agency established 

work practice requirements to reduce fugitive emissions 

from outdoor clinker storage piles. The agency had 

information that these storage piles emit HAP in the form 

of fugitive PM containing HAP metals, so that regulation of 

these sources was necessary. Because the emissions in 

question were fugitive dusts for which measurement was not 

feasible, the agency adopted work practices as the 

standard, specifically the work practice standards and 

opacity emissions limits contained in California’s South 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 60 of 247

Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1156 as amended 

on March 6, 2009. Because there were only two plants which 

we could state definitively had open storage piles and both 

were complying with Rule 1156, we believed that the 

regulatory standards under Rule 1156 constituted the floor 

level of control. The current promulgated work practices 

consist of providing varying degrees of enclosures or 

barriers to prevent wind erosion of the storage piles. See 

generally 75 FR at 54989-90.

In their reconsideration petition, the cement industry 

maintained that the EPA did not provide sufficient notice 

of the standards it might adopt for clinker storage piles. 

We agreed and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR at 28325. 

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

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

Industry also noted, correctly, that more than two 

plants are potentially affected by clinker pile standards, 

so that the California rule is not necessarily a floor 

level of control. To evaluate which work practices are 

currently used in the industry, we requested data from the 

industry on currently used work practices. We also 

undertook a review of state permits to determine the level 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 61 of 247

of controls to which open clinker piles are currently 

subject. Based on this information, the EPA is proposing to 

amend the work practices for clinker storage piles.

1. What is a clinker pile?

Clinker storage is necessary to allow near continuous 

kiln operation and intermittent grinding and processing of 

the clinker. Clinker storage is also necessary in the event 

of unplanned or planned kiln shutdowns. Cement plants use

silos, domes or other enclosure for clinker storage. 

Additional clinker storage may also be necessary to 

accommodate extended shutdown periods for kiln maintenance 

and/or market conditions. When the conventional enclosed 

storage is not adequate, clinker may be stored in outdoor 

piles. Unlike automated systems for drawing down clinker 

from enclosed silos, these temporary outdoor storage piles 

are drawn down using equipment such as front end loaders or 

other reclaiming equipment. Outdoor clinker storage may be 

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

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

existence for years and are essentially permanent. 

2. What are the proposed standards?
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 62 of 247

We are proposing amended standards that will control 

HAP metal emissions from open clinker piles. Because the 

emissions are fugitive, we are proposing work practices 

instead of an emissions limit since it is “not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce an emission standard” for these 

emissions because, as fugitive emissions, they are not 

“emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to 

emit or capture such pollutant”. See CAA section 112 

(h)(2)(A). The work practices would apply to any open 

clinker piles regardless of the quantity of clinker or the 

length of time that the clinker pile is in existence. 

According to industry stakeholders, virtually all 

Title V permits oblige cement plant operators to “minimize” 

fugitive emissions including those from open clinker piles. 

See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document, section 2, which is available in this rulemaking 

docket. Our examination of relevant permits indicates that 

some permits establish an opacity limit not to be exceeded 

in conjunction with materials management. Others contain a 

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

facility. Industry stakeholders state that to minimize 

fugitive emissions from open clinker piles, plants employ a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 63 of 247

number of practices, the most common being to use water 

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

of the clinker pile. Clinker has cement like properties and 

when exposed to water will hydrate and harden. The crust 

formed by this practice is very effective at reducing 

fugitive emissions as long as the pile is not disturbed. 

Another common practice is to cover clinker piles with 

tarps, which may be held down with tires, which effectively 

minimizes fugitive emissions. Some plants also use foam 

sprays on the exposed surface of the pile, forming a 

coating which drastically reduces or prevents fugitive 

emissions.

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

but one permit required one or a combination of the 

following control measures to reduce fugitive emissions 

generally: work practices, opacity or visible emission 

limits, prohibitions against open clinker piles and some 

type of general duty requirements to minimize fugitive dust 

emissions. Eight of the permits contained requirements 

specific to open or outdoor clinker piles. Eighteen permits 

contained standards that restricted emissions more 

generally from outdoor storage piles including opacity and 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 64 of 247

visible emissions limits and general duty requirements to 

not produce PM or dust emissions at the property line. 

Seventy seven permits contained facility-wide restrictions 

that applied to a variety of fugitive sources at the cement 

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

one permit was it not clear that there were requirements to 

minimize fugitive dust emissions. 

With the exception of total enclosure of all open 

clinker piles, the EPA believes that the control measures 

in the permits are equally effective in reducing fugitive 

emissions. These measures are, therefore, consistent with 

section 112 (d) controls and reflect a level of performance 

analogous to a MACT floor. See CAA section 112(h)(1) (in 

promulgating work practices, the EPA is to adopt standards 

“which in the Administrator’s judgment [are] consistent 

with section (d) or (f) of this section.”) The option of 

full enclosures, somewhat analogous to a beyond-the-floor 

standard under section 112(d)(2), would be extremely costly 

with minimum associated emissions reductions incremental to 

the measures already undertaken (which already reduce most 

or all of the fugitive emissions from these piles). The

EPA, therefore, is not proposing to mandate such a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 65 of 247

practice. Industry cost estimates for a full enclosure with 

a capacity of 50,000 tons of clinker range from $10 - $25 

million in capital cost and $400,000 - $500,000 annual 

operating cost (See Portland Cement Association, Clinker 

Piles, September 7, 2011, available in the rulemaking 

docket). We also are not proposing opacity or visible 

emission standards, for several reasons. If work practices 

are properly implemented, we believe fugitive emissions, 

including visible emissions, from clinker piles will be 

effectively controlled. Such emission limits would also be 

redundant with work practice requirements. Moreover, in 

many cases, the temporary, short-term nature of clinker 

piles would make it impractical to implement an emissions 

monitoring program that would be more effective than the 

proposed work practices.

We are proposing that one or more of the following 

control measures be used when adding clinker to a pile, 

during on-going clinker storage, and when reclaiming the 

clinker for processing, to minimize to the greatest extent 

practicable fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 

storage piles: locating the source inside a partial 

enclosure (such as a three sided structure with tarp), 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 66 of 247

installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, 

applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents on 

the pile, use of a wind barrier, use of a tarp or use of a 

vegetative cover. The owner or operator must select, from 

the list provided, the control measure or combination of 

control measures that are most appropriate for the site 

conditions. We are allowing the owner or operator to select 

the most appropriate control measure or combination of 

measures for their situation. 

We are proposing that the owner or operator must 

include as part of their operations and maintenance plan 

(required in §63.1347) the fugitive dust control measures 

that they will implement to control fugitive dust emissions 

from open clinker piles. These control measures would apply 

to the addition of clinker to the pile, on-going clinker 

storage and reclaiming the clinker for processing. 

We are proposing the same standards for new sources as 

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

there is no essential difference between ‘new’ and 

‘existing’. These piles generally reflect temporary storage 

situations, and are not analogous to building a one-time 

stationary structure where there are opportunities for 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 67 of 247

newly-constructed entities that do not exist for existing 

entities. The EPA consequently is proposing the same 

standards for both. 

G. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedances 

Occurring During Malfunctions

In response to comments urging that the EPA not apply 

the same standards to malfunctions as to normal operation, 

the EPA added to the September 9, 2010, final rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 

emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various 

environmental advocacy groups, as well as the Portland 

Cement Association (PCA), indicated that there had been 

insufficient notice of this provision. The EPA agreed and 

granted reconsideration. See 76 FR at 28325. We are 

proposing to retain the affirmative defense on 

reconsideration. This provision seeks to balance a tension, 

inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure 

adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that 

despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may 

be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the 

source. The EPA must establish emission standards that 

“limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 68 of 247

air pollutants on a continuous basis.” See 42 U.S.C. §

7602(k) (defining “emission limitation and emission 

standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

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

ensure that section 112 emissions limitations are 

continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction events 

meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is 

a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable 

through injunctive relief. Although “continuous” 

limitations, on the one hand, are required, there is also 

case law indicating that in many situations it is 

appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical 

realities of control technology. For example, in Essex 

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

1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting 

standards under CAA section 111 “variant provisions” such 

as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown 

and equipment malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the 

reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be exceeded’ standard 

currently in force.” See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 69 of 247

intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 

1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these cases 

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

incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond 

the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative 

defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset 

events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit 

required this type of formalized approach when regulating 

“upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.” Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977); see 

also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 2012 

U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 2012)(rejecting industry 

argument that reliance on the affirmative defense was not 

adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 

1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions 

give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its 

emission limitations are “continuous” as required by 42 

U.S.C. §7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus 

support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 70 of 247

Petitions filed by environmental advocacy groups 

question the EPA’s authority to promulgate the affirmative 

defense arguing, among other things, that the affirmative 

defense is inconsistent with the provisions of CAA sections 

113(e) and 304(b) governing penalty assessment and citizen 

suits, respectively. The EPA’s view is that the affirmative 

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

Section 304 gives district courts’ jurisdiction “to apply 

appropriate civil penalties.” Section 113(e)(1) identifies 

the factors that the Administrator or a court shall take 

into consideration in determining the amount of a penalty 

to be assessed, once it has been determined that a penalty 

is appropriate. The affirmative defense regulatory 

provision is not relevant to the amount of any penalty to 

be assessed. If a court determines that the affirmative 

defense elements have been established, then a penalty is 

not appropriate and penalty assessment pursuant to the 

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

In exercising its authority under section 112 to 

establish emission standards (at a level that meets the 

stringency requirements of section 112), the EPA 

necessarily defines conduct that constitutes a violation. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 71 of 247

The EPA view is that the affirmative defense is part of the 

emission standard and defines two categories of violation. 

If there is a violation of the emission standard and the 

source demonstrates that all the elements of the 

affirmative defense are met, only injunctive relief is 

available. All other violations of the emission standard 

are subject to injunctive relief and penalties. A citizen 

suit claim under section 304 allows citizens to commence a 

civil action against any person alleged to be in violation 

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

The CAA, however, allows the EPA to establish such

“enforceable emission limitations.” Thus, the citizen suit 

provision clearly contemplates enforcement of the standards 

that are defined by the EPA. As a result, where the EPA 

defines its emissions limitations and enforcement measures 

to allow a source the opportunity to prove its entitlement 

to a lesser degree of violation (not subject to penalties) 

in narrow, specified circumstances, as the EPA did here, 

penalties are not “appropriate” under section 304. 

The EPA solicits comments on this fundamental issue of 

the EPA’s authority to promulgate an affirmative defense. 

The EPA’s view is that an affirmative defense to civil 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 72 of 247

penalties for exceedances of applicable emission standards 

during periods of malfunction appropriately balances 

competing concerns. On the one hand, citizen enforcers are 

concerned about additional complications in their 

enforcement actions. On the other hand, industrial sources 

are concerned about being penalized for violations caused 

by malfunctions that they could not have prevented and were 

otherwise appropriately handled (as reflected in the 

affirmative defense criteria). The EPA has used its Section 

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

out the Act in a manner that appropriately balances these 

competing concerns. However, the EPA also solicits comment 

on alternatives to or variations on to the affirmative 

defense provisions promulgated in the final rule. 

In its petition for reconsideration, the PCA expressed 

support for the affirmative defense, but maintains that 

“the affirmative defense process that EPA codified in the 

final rules is cumbersome and will be exceedingly difficult 

for facilities to employ.” The EPA is soliciting comment on 

the terms and condition of the affirmative defense. In 

recent rules promulgated under section 112 and 129, the EPA 

has revised certain terms and conditions of the affirmative 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 73 of 247

defense in response to concerns raised by various 

commenters. The EPA is proposing to adopt those same 

revisions in this rule. The EPA is proposing to revise the 

affirmative defense language to delete “short” from section 

63.1344(a)(1)(i), because other criteria in the affirmative 

defense require that the source assure that the duration of 

the excess emissions “were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable.” The EPA is also proposing to delete the term 

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

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

make the affirmative defense available only when bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent severe personal injury. In addition, 

the EPA is proposing to revise section 63.1344(a)(8) to add 

“consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions.” The EPA is also proposing to revise 

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

of the root cause analysis is to determine, correct and 

eliminate the primary cause of the malfunction. The root 

cause analysis itself does not necessarily require that the 

cause be determined, corrected or eliminated. However, in 

most cases, the EPA believes that a properly conducted root 

cause analysis will have such results. In addition, the EPA 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 74 of 247

is proposing to revise 63.1344(b) to state that “[t]he 

owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the Administrator in a 

semiannual report with all necessary supporting 

documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth 

in section 63.1354(c) of this subpart.” See proposed 

regulatory text for other proposed minor wording changes to 

improve clarity. Also note that we have added an 

affirmative defense provision to many other 112 rules since 

it was first promulgated in the 2010 cement rule.

H. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative 

Organic HAP Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter)

In the September 2010 final rule, the EPA promulgated 

an alternative standard for non-dioxin organic HAP, based 

on measuring the organic HAP itself rather than the THC 

surrogate. Section 63.1343(b)(1) provides two options for 

meeting a standard for organic HAP. One is to meet a THC 

standard of 24 parts per million volumetric dry (ppmvd); 

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

HAP. This equivalent alternative standard is intended to 

provide additional flexibility in determining compliance, 

and it would be appropriate for those cases in which 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 75 of 247

methane and ethane comprise a disproportionately high 

amount of the organic compounds in the feed because these 

non-HAP compounds could be emitted and would be measured as 

THC. The specific organic compounds that are to be measured 

to determine compliance with the equivalent alternative 

standard are benzene, toluene, styrene, xylene (ortho-, 

meta-, and para-), acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and 

naphthalene. Compliance with the equivalent alternative 

standard under the September 2010 standard will be 

determined through organic HAP emissions testing using EPA 

Method 18 or 320, as appropriate for the compound of 

interest. The rule further requires that each source 

complying with the alternative standard establish a sitespecific THC limit to be met continuously. The sitespecific THC limit will be measured as a 30 day rolling 

average, with an annual compliance test requirement. It 

would be correlated with the organic HAP limit and is 

therefore not tied to the THC standard of 24 ppmvd. We 

granted reconsideration on the level of this site-specific 

THC limit used as a continuously monitored parameter for 

those sources selecting the alternative HAP compliance 

method. See 76 FR at 28318.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 76 of 247

Since THC includes compounds that are not considered 

to be hazardous, either of the two standards are considered 

to be reasonable. 

While the September 2010 final rule required an 

organic HAP limit of 9 ppmvd, a recent review of the method 

detection limits used to measure organic HAP revealed that

three times the representative method detection level 

(3*.RMDL)is actually 12 ppmvd, and therefore we propose to 

revise the alternative organic HAP limit to 12 ppmvd. As 

discussed in the final rule, the expected measurement 

imprecision for an emissions value at or near the method 

detection level is about 40 to 50 percent and decreases to 

a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values that are three 

times the method detection level. See 75 FR at 54984; see 

also section D above. Thus, measured values less than three 

times the representative method detection level are highly 

uncertain and therefore not reasonable for compliance 

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

follows: we determined method detection capabilities for 

Method 320 and Method 18 as appropriate for the various 

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

aromatic hydrocarbons (arenes)). This approach is 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 77 of 247

consistent with procedures practiced by the better 

performing testing companies and laboratories using 

sensitive analytical procedures. We determined for each of 

the organic HAP the expected method detection level for the 

respective method based on internal experience and method 

capabilities reported by testing companies. With these 

reported values, we identified the resulting mean of the 

method detection levels, adjusted them for dilution and 

moisture, summed them, and then multiplied the sum by three 

to determine the RDL. The resulting RDL value was found to 

be 11.2 ppmv @ 7 percent oxygen (O2), dry. This value is 

greater than the final 9 ppmv @ 7 percent O2, dry, in the 

final rule. We are, therefore, proposing to adjust the 

total organic HAP limit to 12 ppmv @ 7 percent O2, dry 

(rounded up from the 11.2 ppm RDL). At this level, we 

believe that currently available emissions testing 

procedures and technologies can be used to provide 

measurements of sufficient certainty for sources to 

demonstrate compliance. A detailed discussion of the use of 

the RDL to arrive at the proposed organic HAP limit is 

found in the Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 78 of 247

Support Document, section 3, which can be found in the

docket for this rulemaking.

A consequence of this analysis is that the accuracy of 

the analytic methods for organic HAP appear to be 

insufficient to allow sources to scale up their sitespecific THC limit based on the degree to which the 

measured organic HAP levels were below the organic HAP 

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

revised, is at the reliable limit of detection as just 

explained. Therefore, this proposed rule retains the 

provision whereby the site-specific THC operating parameter 

is established at the same time the performance test is 

conducted for organic HAP. If the site-specific THC 

operating parameter is exceeded, then the kiln would have 

to be retested to determine compliance with the organic HAP 

limit. This proposed rule would further require that the 

tests for organic HAP and THC be repeated annually to 

establish a new annual site-specific THC parameter 

reflecting the organic HAP level. We also are proposing, 

similar to the PM compliance test procedure, that the 

highest 1-hour average THC concentration measured during 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 79 of 247

the 3-hour organic HAP test, be used as the site-specific 

THC parameter.

I. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply 

With HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

To demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions 

limit, the September 2010 final rule allows sources 

equipped with wet scrubbers to comply with the HCl standard 

by means of periodic performance tests rather than with 

continuous monitoring of HCl with a CEMS (see 

§63.1349(b)(6)). We reasoned that a source that uses a 

limestone wet scrubber for HCl control will have minimal 

HCl emissions even if kiln inputs change because limestone 

wet scrubbers are more efficient in removing HCl than they 

are required to be, to meet the standard. Sources electing 

to comply by means of stack tests must establish 

continuously monitored parameters including liquid flow 

rate, pressure and pH. Sources using a limestone wet 

scrubber are required to perform an initial compliance test 

using Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 and to 

test every 30 months thereafter.

In their petition, industry stakeholders indicated 

that this compliance option should not be limited to wet 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 80 of 247

scrubber equipped units, but should also be available for 

units equipped with caustic scrubbers, in part because some 

sources will be equipped with dry scrubbers (due to water 

shortages) and should have the same operating flexibilities 

as wet scrubber equipped kilns. 

A recent review of data from a vendor of acid gas 

controls using a standard hydrated lime and a high 

performance hydrated lime at a US cement manufacturing

plant, revealed that HCl removal from dry scrubbers on 

kilns ranged from 90 to 95 percent HCl removal, depending 

on lime injection rates (Lhoist North America, Cement 

Industry Experience, DSI for Acid Gas Control, October 5, 

2011). The results also showed the plant could meet the 3 

ppm HCl limit. EPA also evaluated HCl removal efficiency 

using dry sprayer absorber with a fabric filter as part of 

the electric utility generating (EGU) MACT rulemaking. 

Removal efficiencies ranged from 95 percent to nearly 100 

percent with an average of about 99.8 percent (Hutson to 

Nizich, HCl control using SDA/FF, November 29, 2011). In 

addition, information from the National Lime Association 

(http://www.lime.org/uses_of_lime/environmental/flue_gas.as

p) and the Institute for Clean Air Companies 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 81 of 247

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

HCl emissions reductions using dry lime injection 

technology of 95 to 99 percent from coal-fired boilers in 

the electric utility industry, from municipal waste-toenergy facilities and from other industries. In the 

secondary aluminum industry, reductions in HCl emissions 

greater than 99 percent have been achieved (National Lime 

Association, Flue Gas Desulfurization, 

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

). 

Given these high reported removal efficiencies, we 

propose to extend the same option provided to kilns 

equipped with wet scrubbers to dry scrubber-equipped kilns. 

Thus, kilns with either type of scrubber could demonstrate 

compliance with the HCl limit by means of an initial and 

periodic stack test rather than with continuous compliance 

monitoring with a CEMS. In order to assure that the dry

lime injection equipment is operated effectively between 

tests, the proposed amendment would require that the lime 

injection rate used during the performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the HCl limit be recorded and 

then continuously monitored between performance tests to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 82 of 247

show that the injection rate remains at or above the rate 

used during the performance test.

We are also proposing an additional alternative for 

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

this proposal, could therefore do periodic HCl performance 

testing and parametric monitoring). Where either wet or dry 

scrubbers are used, we are proposing that an owner or 

operator would have the option of using sulfur dioxide (SO2)

monitoring as a continuously monitored parameter for 

purposes of compliance monitoring. Because HCl is a watersoluble compound and because it has a large acid 

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

be more rapidly and readily removed than SO2 from a gas 

stream treated with either caustic sorbents (e.g., lime, 

limestone) or plain water. We acknowledge that at proposal 

(see 74 FR at 21154) we rejected setting a standard that 

used SO2 as a surrogate for HCl because we had no data that 

demonstrated a direct link between HCl emissions and SO2

emissions. However, pilot-scale tests by EPA at its Multipollutant Control Research Facility support the use of the 

more easily measured SO2 as a surrogate for HCl where either 

wet or dry scrubbers are used. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 83 of 247

2009-0234-3893. Further, we are aware that there are 

existing kilns equipped with SO2 CEMS and that this 

monitoring technology is less expensive and more mature 

than HCl CEMS. Thus, consistent with the recent Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards for Coal and Oil-Fired Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units (76 FR 25023, 25038 – 25039, 

May 3, 2011), we are proposing that SO2 is an indicator for 

HCl compliance, and that monitoring the emissions of SO2

will provide a reliable indication of HCl removal, making 

SO2 monitoring an appropriate parameter for monitoring 

continuing compliance..

Owners or operators of kilns equipped with dry or wet 

scrubbers that choose to use SO2 monitoring would need to 

conduct an initial performance test for HCl and establish 

the SO2 operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average 

recorded during the HCl performance test, so that there is 

an indication of proper operation of the HCl control 

device. The owner or operator of a kiln controlled using 

either a dry or wet scrubber that chooses to monitor SO2

would not be required to also establish continuously 

monitored parameters reflecting the performance test 

results, such as lime injection rate for a dry scrubber and 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 84 of 247

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

Deviation from any established parameter level or 

established SO2 operating level would trigger a requirement 

to retest for HCl in order to verify compliance with the 

HCl limits and to verify or re-establish the parameter 

levels. 

At a minimum, a repeat performance test to confirm 

compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to reset the SO2

limit and monitoring parameters is required every 5 years. 

We are requesting comment on the efficacy of continuously 

monitoring SO2 as a continuously monitored parameter in lieu 

of continuously monitoring HCl, and also solicit comment on 

testing every 30 months for HCl for purposes of monitoring 

compliance with the HCl emissions limit. 

J. Alternative PM Limit

Some kilns combine kiln exhaust gas with exhaust gas 

from other unit operations, such as the clinker cooler, as 

an energy saving practice. The September 2010 final rule 

sought to accommodate commingled flows from the kiln and 

clinker cooler by providing a site specific PM limit. See 

section 63.1343(b)(2). In its reconsideration petition, the 

PCA pointed out, however, that other flows besides the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 85 of 247

exhaust gas flow from the clinker cooler can be commingled 

as well. The petitioner provided the example of coal mill 

exhaust and exhaust from an alkali by-pass as instances of 

additional flows that can be commingled with the exhaust 

gas flow from the kiln. The petitioner observed that 

without an allowance for these additional flows, the site 

specific PM limit is stricter than the EPA intended (since 

the PM concentration will be divided by a lower number in 

the implementing equation), and penalizes the energy-saving 

practice of commingling these flows.

The Agency agreed with the petitioner that the 

alternative PM equations for existing and new sources 

contained in the final rule do not adequately account for 

commingled exhaust gas flows from sources other than the 

clinker cooler, and granted reconsideration for this 

reason. See 76 FR at 28325. We believe that although the 

form of the equation is correct, the equation is not 

written to accommodate sources other than exhaust gases 

from the clinker cooler. We are proposing to revise the 

equation so that it includes exhaust gas flows for all 

potential sources that would potentially be combined, 

including exhausts from the kiln, the alkali bypass, the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 86 of 247

coal mill, and the clinker cooler, For an existing kiln,

the EPA is proposing the following equation:

PM alt = 0.006 x 1.65 x (Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000) 

Where: 

PM alt is the alternative PM emission limit for 

commingled sources. 0.006 is the PM exhaust 

concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 0.07 lb per ton 

clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are 

not combined9. 

1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb 

clinker

Qk is the exhaust flow of the kiln (dscf/ton raw 

feed)

Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton 

raw feed).

Qab is the exhaust flow of the alkali bypass (dscf/ton 

raw feed).

Qcm is the exhaust flow of the coal mill (dscf/ton raw 

feed).

7000 is the conversion factor for gr per lb.

If exhaust gases for any of the sources contained in the 

equation are not commingled and are exhausted through a 

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

The alternative PM equation for new sources is identical to 

the existing source equation except the PM exhaust 

concentration used in the equation is 0.002 grams per dry 

 

9 Note that this figure would change correspondingly if the 

EPA were to amend the existing source PM standard. The same 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 87 of 247

standard cubic foot, which is equivalent to the new source 

PM limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker.

K. Standards During Startup and Shutdown

In the final NESHAP, the EPA established specific 

standards for startup and shutdown (. These standards 

require kilns to meet numerical limits for each pollutant 

regulated by the rule, each standard to be measured using a 

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

54991-92. Industry petitioned EPA to reconsider these 

standards claiming lack of notice, but EPA denied these 

petitions because the agency had already provided ample 

opportunity for comment which petitioners had used. See 76 

FR at 28323. The D.C. Circuit dismissed all challenges to 

these startup and shutdown provisions (see 665 F 3d at 

189). The EPA did grant reconsideration on several 

technical issues related to startup and shutdown – certain 

aspects of CEM-based monitoring of mercury and PM during 

startup and shutdown – issues which would be moot if EPA 

adopts the approach proposed below - and having an HCl 

limit of zero for kilns not equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR 

at 28325).
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 88 of 247

EPA is proposing to retain the startup and shutdown 

standards for mercury and THC, to amend the startup and 

shutdown standards for PM to be consistent with the 

proposed numeric levels in today’s proposal, and to amend 

the level of the startup and shutdown standard for HCl to 

be 3 ppm in all circumstances. 

EPA is further proposing to clarify that startup and 

shutdown means the periods of kiln operation that do not 

include normal operations. More specifically, startup 

begins when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and 

continues until continuous raw material feed is introduced 

into the kiln, at which time the kiln is in normal 

operating mode. Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is 

halted. Thus, during startup and shutdown, as defined, a 

kiln would not be firing coal or coke and would not be 

introducing feed material into the kiln continuously. HAP 

emissions from cement kilns are attributable almost 

entirely to one or the other of these feeds, with raw 

materials contributing the great preponderance. In 

addition, kilns burn fuels during startup and shutdown 

which are cleaner than coal and coke (natural gas is used 

for the most of the startup). Thus, HAP emissions during 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 89 of 247

startup and shutdown necessarily should be far less than 

the numerical limits in the standards since the kiln will 

not be introducing raw materials, and will be burning fuels 

which are cleaner than its normal fuels . 

Accordingly, EPA is further proposing to change the 

means of monitoring for compliance with the startup and 

shutdown standards. Rather than require monitoring by a 

CEM or by stack testing, EPA is proposing that a source 

keep records of the volumes of fuels introduced into the 

kiln during startup and shutdown to verify that raw 

materials are not introduced into the kiln, although, by 

definition, if raw materials are introduced continuously 

into the kiln, the kiln is not operating in startup and 

shutdown and the monitoring requirements of the main 

standards would therefore apply. Kiln owners and operators 

would then make conservative assumptions as to the 

combustion efficiency of the kiln so as to reasonably 

estimate destruction of organics, and include mass balance 

calculations showing that the startup/shutdown standards 

would not be exceeded.

These proposed recordkeeping requirements would serve 

as the basis for compliance monitoring. EPA believes that 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 90 of 247

these proposed recordkeeping requirements are both

sufficient to yield reliable information for the startup 

and shutdown periods, and to establish a source’s 

compliance or non-compliance with the startup and shutdown

standards. EPA also believes that this proposed requirement 

would satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR section 70.6(c)

(1) which requires that Title V permits shall contain 

“monitoring ... requirements sufficient to assure compliance 

with the terms and conditions of the permit.”

EPA is further proposing that the standard for HCl 

during startup and shutdown be 3 ppmvd under all 

circumstances, and thus is proposing to eliminate the 

current provision that the startup and shutdown standard be 

zero for kilns measuring compliance by means other than a 

CEM. As shown in the petitions for reconsideration, HCl 

can be formed even when normal fuels and raw materials are 

not being introduced into the kiln (for example, from 

residual chlorides in the kiln refractory). See PCA 

Petition for Reconsideration Exh.1. Consequently, the 

promulgated limit of zero is technically inappropriate, and 

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

which applies in all other operating modes. Monitoring 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 91 of 247

during startup and shutdown would be accomplished by 

recordkeeping, as explained above.

L. Coal Mills 

Cement kilns burn coal as their main fuel, and mill 

the coal before firing it. From the standpoint of air 

emissions, these coal mills are sometimes physically 

distinct from the cement kiln, generating emissions solely 

attributable to the coal mill and emitting exhaust through 

a dedicated stack. However, some kilns are configured so 

that coal mill emissions are commingled with kiln exhaust 

and the emissions are discharged through the main kiln 

stack. Finally, there are some configurations whereby kiln 

emissions are routed to the coal mill and discharged 

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

proposed rule discuss the regulatory treatment of these 

different scenarios.

First, EPA has promulgated new source performance 

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

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

mills, including coal mills at cement manufacturing 

facilities, which emit through a dedicated stack. Subpart 

Y standards do not apply to coal mills at cement facilities 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 92 of 247

whose only heat source is kiln exhaust. See section 60.251

(j) (definition of indirect thermal dryer). This leaves 

ambiguous, or partially ambiguous, the regulatory treatment 

of the second and third situations mentioned above: a kiln 

whose coal emissions are discharged through the main kiln 

stack, and the coal mill which receives some exhaust from 

the cement kiln so that some portion of the coal mill 

exhaust can reflect cement kiln emissions. Because we did 

not address these issues in the 2010 final NESHAP for 

portland cement kilns, we granted reconsideration in order 

to do so. See 76 FR at 28326...

A cement kiln which commingles emissions from its coal 

mill with all other emissions and discharges through kiln 

emission points would have to meet all of the NESHAP. In 

the case of PM, the additional flow from the coal mill 

would be accounted for in the equation used to determine PM 

contributions from commingled flows. See section K. above.

In the case of a coal mill which receives and 

discharges some of the cement kiln exhaust, the regulatory 

concern is that this re-routing of kiln exhaust not result 

in uncontrolled HAP emissions. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 93 of 247

Our basic principle for this situation would be that 

the kiln demonstrate that it is meeting all of the NESHAP 

standards for pollutants not regulated under the subpart Y 

coal mill standard, that is mercury, THC, and HCl. Because 

the subpart Y standards contain a PM standard predicated on 

use of fabric filter control technology, we do not believe 

it necessary to account for diverted PM emissions. 

We are proposing the following compliance mechanisms 

for the mercury, THC, and HCl standards in this situation.

We are proposing that the sum of the kiln emissions and 

diverted kiln emissions (i.e. the kiln exhaust diverted to 

the coal mill) must not exceed the subpart LLL NESHAP 

emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP surrogate. 

The proposed rule contains requirements to document the 

contribution of the emissions diverted to the coal mill. 

With respect to THC and HCl, because coal may be a source 

of these emissions, we are proposing that performance tests 

for THC and HCl be performed upstream of the coal mill. For 

mercury, tests would be required downstream to account for 

any mercury removal in the coal mill air pollution control 

device (APCD), and to avoid double counting emissions of 

mercury from mercury that becomes re-entrained in the coal,
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 94 of 247

which is then burned by the cement kiln (which emissions 

are otherwise accounted for in the NESHAP). 

We note further that an analogous situation is when a 

cement kiln has an alkali bypass which receives and 

exhausts emissions from the kiln. We are proposing that 

these emissions be subject to controls reflecting the same 

principle – the total emissions of the kiln and alkali 

bypass must meet the subpart LLL NESHAP. We are also 

proposing to use the same monitoring procedures to document 

compliance. The one (slight) exception is for PM. Because 

there is no independent PM standard for an alkali bypass 

(unlike the situation for coal mills, where subpart Y 

regulates PM emissions), the summed PM emissions from the 

kiln and alkali bypass would have to be equal to or less 

than the PM limit in the subpart LLL NESHAP. Tests for PM 

from the alkali bypass would be downstream of the alkali 

bypass APCD to account for those emission reductions. 

We expand on these proposed monitoring requirements 

below.

1. Mercury. Although mercury from the main stack is 

monitored using a CEMS, there is no need for such 

monitoring for the gas streams from the coal mill. The gas 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 95 of 247

stream to the coal mill is small in comparison to the kiln 

exhaust, operation of the coal mill is intermittent, and 

the cost of requiring additional CEMS for coal mills would 

be overly burdensome. Instead, we are proposing that 

performance tests for mercury be conducted at such a coal 

mill once per year, and, as explained above, that the tests 

be conducted downstream of the coal mill. The proposed 

amendments require performance tests for mercury to be 

conducted using either Methods 29 or 30B in Appendix A-8 to 

40 CFR Part 60. These performance tests would be required 

annually until the tested mercury levels are below the 

method detection limits for two consecutive years, after 

which tests may be conducted every 30 months. If test 

results at any time exceed the method detection limit, 

annual performance testing would again be required until 

mercury levels are below the method detection limit for two 

consecutive years. The results of the performance test 

would then be summed with the emissions from the kiln stack 

to determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit. 

Since kiln stack emissions are measured continuously with a 

CEMS, the coal gas emissions would need to be normalized on 

both a CEMS and production basis (lb/MM ton clinker) in 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 96 of 247

order to be summed with the kiln stack emissions. To do so, 

we are proposing that the flow rate to the coal mill be 

continuously monitored. Using the results of the annual 

performance test and the continuous flow rate from the coal 

mill, the owner or operator would develop a mercury hourly 

mass emission rate for the coal mill. Hourly mercury 

emissions from the coal mill would be summed with the 

mercury emissions from the kiln to determine continuous 

compliance as follows:

((Qab×Cab)+(Qcm×Ccm)+(Qks×Cks))/P ≤ MACT Limit

Where:

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (lb/dscf)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (lb/dscf)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (lb/dscf)

P = Kiln production rate (million tons 

clinker/hr)

MACT Limit = Limit for mercury (55 lb 

mercury/MM tons clinker)

This equation requires all values to be at or 

corrected to 7 % oxygen.

Thus, if the normalized test results at the coal mill 

control device outlet shows mercury emissions of 10 lb/MM 

tons clinker, emissions from the kiln would have to be less 

than 45 lb/MM tons of clinker to be in compliance with the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 97 of 247

proposed mercury emissions limit. See proposed section 

63.1350(k)(5).

For kilns also equipped with an alkali bypass, the 

same procedure as that for the coal mill would apply. Where 

a portion of kiln gases are diverted to a coal mill and to 

an alkali bypass, emissions from the coal mill and alkali 

bypass would be tested, normalized, and summed and with the 

mercury emissions from the kiln to determine compliance 

with the emissions limit.

2. THC and HCl. Because THC and HCl are concentrationbased limits, the proposed compliance demonstration differs 

in certain details from the procedure described above for 

the production based limits for mercury. We are proposing 

that kiln stack emission limits (to be continuously 

monitored) be calculated taking into consideration the 

volumetric exhaust gas flow rates and concentrations of all 

applicable effluent streams (kiln stack, coal mill, and 

alkali bypass) for the kiln unit as follows: 

( × ) + ( × ) + ( × )

( +  + )

≤  

Where:

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 98 of 247

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)e

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

MACT Limit = Limit for THC or HCl (ppmvd)

This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 

7 % oxygen.10

In order to determine the flow rates and 

concentrations of THC and HCl in the coal mill and alkali 

bypass streams, the source would need to test annually 

using the appropriate test method and would need to monitor 

the flow rate of the kiln stack with CMS. For HCl, the 

performance test would be performed using Method 321 in 

Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For measurement of THC, 

Method 25A in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60 would be 

required. With these data, the concentration of THC and 

HCl that must be monitored in the CEMS in order to 

demonstrate compliance with the MACT limit under this 

proposal can be calculated by solving for Cks (kiln stack 

concentration) from the equation above, as shown: 

 

10 The proposed approach is conceptually similar to that for PM from 

multiple sources discussed in K. above—an equation which accounts for 

the flow-weighted concentration of PM from all sources. [
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 99 of 247

 ≤

(  × ( +  + )) − ( × ) − ( × )



This equation is based on the following: 

 The total allowable mass emissions of THC and HCl for 

the kiln unit can be determined with the sum of all 

flow rates (coal mill, alkali bypass and kiln stack) 

and the applicable NESHAP limit (THC or HCl) 

concentration. This yields the total allowable mass 

emissions per unit of time for the kiln unit according 

to the MACT limits and the site specific flow rates 

for the coal mill, alkali bypass and kiln stack.

 By testing the coal mill and alkali bypass streams for 

concentration and flow rate, the actual mass of THC 

and HCl emitted per unit of time can be determined.

 Subtracting the actual mass emissions of THC and HCl 

leaving the coal mill and alkali by pass from the 

total allowable mass emissions for the kiln unit 

determines the remainder of allowable mass emissions 

that can be emitted through the kiln stack.

 With knowledge of the flow rate at the kiln stack 

(measured by CMS) and the allowable mass emissions 

(i.e. remainder) that can be emitted through the kiln 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 100 of 247

stack, a site specific concentration can be 

determined. The equation above provides a simplified 

approach to determining this value. 

The following example indicates how compliance would 

be demonstrated. In this example, we assume a kiln stack, 

coal mill and alkali bypass with the following volumetric 

flow rates and THC concentrations:

Effluent Flow Rate 

THC 

Concentration Notes MACT LIMIT

Stream (dscm/hr) (ppmvd) (ppmvd)

(@ 7% O2) (@ 7% O2)

Alkali 

Bypass Qab 38,233 Cab 56

Determined 

through test

24 Coal 

Mill Qcm 57,349 Ccm 56

Determined 

through test

Kiln 

Stack Qks 286,746 Cks ?

Flow rate 

monitored by CMS

With the simplified equation provided above, the THC 

value that must not be exceeded in the kiln stack (verified 

with CEMS) is determined as follows: 

 ≤

24  (38,233 + 57,349 + 286,746) − (38,233  56) − (57,349  56)

286,746

Using the equation above, Cks is less than or equal to 

13.3 ppmvd @ 7 percent O2. This value would be monitored by 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 101 of 247

a CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP

limit – i.e to demonstrate that the summed values are less 

than or equal to the standard of 24 ppmvd. 

The proposal for THC and HCl is thus essentially the 

same as that for mercury (except that limits are 

concentration based as opposed to production-normalized 

mass based): the flow-weighted averages of THC and HCl must 

be less than or equal to the subpart LLL NESHAP. The kiln 

stack emissions are measured by a CEMS (for THC) or by 

other applicable means (for HCl). The flow-weighted 

contributions from other sources (the alkali bypass and the 

kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill) are assessed by 

annual testing and applied continuously with flow being 

measured continuously (explained further in the next 

paragraph). As noted above, testing of the kiln exhaust 

diverted to the coal mill would be conducted upstream of 

the coal mill for THC and HCl so that only the kiln exhaust 

contribution is assessed.

To monitor compliance continuously, we are 

proposing that gas flow rate from the coal mill be 

monitored continuously. This flow rate measured during the 

annual performance test would be the maximum flow rate 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 102 of 247

allowed during the year. If a higher flow rate is observed, 

the owner/operator would have to retest THC and HCl to 

obtain a new flow-weighted concentration which would be 

summed with the kiln main stack THC or HCl concentration to 

determine whether the kiln is still in compliance. Because 

of this requirement, the owner/operator should perform 

their test at a flow rate that would cover the range of 

conditions expected.

3. PM. As explained above, in the situation where a 

cement kiln diverts some exhaust to an integrated coal 

mill, the coal mill would have to meet the subpart Y 

standards, and the kiln would have to meet the subpart LLL 

NESHAP standard but would not have to account for the 

diverted exhaust in doing so. In all other situations, PM 

contribution from a coal mill (or from an alkali bypass) 

would be accounted for via the equation discussed in 

section J above. If the alkali bypass discharges 

separately, it would have to sum its PM emissions with 

those from the main stack and the summed emissions would 

have to be less than or equal to the subpart LLL NESHAP 

standard for PM. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 103 of 247

As a result of this proposed revision, we are also 

proposing a revised definition of “kiln” to clarify that 

coal mills using kiln exhaust gases in their operation are 

considered to be an integral part of the kiln (and hence 

subject to these standards). We are also proposing a 

definition for “in-line coal mill” for those coal mills 

using kiln exhaust gases in their process. The proposed 

definition would exclude coal mills with a heat source

other than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases from 

the clinker cooler.

M. PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

The EPA adopted the level of the new source standard 

under the NESHAP as the NSPS for both new and modified 

kilns and clinker coolers. See 75 FR at 54996. As the PCA 

noted in its reconsideration petition, there need not be 

functional equivalence between the NESHAP and NSPS PM 

limits for modified kilns and clinker coolers. The PCA also 

noted that the NSPS for modified kilns and clinker coolers

could have associated costs which need to be accounted for 

pursuant to CAA section 111(a)(1). Since such kilns and 

clinker coolers would not be subject to the section 112(d) 

new source standard, any costs for such modified kilns and 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 104 of 247

clinker coolers to control PM to the new source limit could 

not be attributed to the section 112(d) new source limit. 

In addition, the PCA noted that existing Portland cement 

kilns cannot be assumed to find ways to avoid triggering 

the NSPS modification criteria when making physical or 

operational changes due to the stringency of the newly 

adopted standards for PM.

The EPA believes that the PCA’s arguments on this 

point have merit. Under the September 2010 final NESHAP, 

existing kilns and clinker coolers are subject to the PM 

limit of 0.04 lb/ton clinker. If the kiln or clinker cooler 

undergoes modification, it would continue to be subject to 

0.04 lb/ton limit, but would now be subject as well to the 

NSPS limit of 0.01 lb/ton clinker. Notwithstanding that 

there are independent justifications under section 111 that 

could justify this result (see PCA v. EPA, 665 F 3d at 190-

91), the EPA believes, subject to consideration of comment, 

that it is more appropriate for modified kilns and clinker 

coolers to meet the NESHAP PM limit for existing sources. 

We are proposing that existing kilns and clinker coolers

that are subject to the NESHAP existing source emissions 

limit would continue to be subject to that limit and not to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 105 of 247

the more stringent limit for new sources under the NSPS. 

This would be a limit of 0.07 lb per ton clinker, three-run 

average based on Method 5 stack testing as explained in 

section D above. The parametric monitoring using a CPMS 

would likewise apply, as would the requirement of annual 

stack tests. We have justified the PM standard for modified 

kilns and clinker coolers under section 111 and need not 

repeat that rationale here. See PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 

190-91. This analysis continues to apply when the standards 

are based on stack tests rather than CEMS and no longer use 

a 30-day averaging period. The EPA also finds that the 

costs of meeting the incrementally more stringent proposed 

new source limit of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (three-run average) 

are not justified for modified kilns and clinker coolers. 

For an existing kiln to reduce emissions from 0.07 to 0.02 

lb/ton clinker would result in a modest reduction in PM 

emissions at a cost of more than $21,000 per ton of PM 

reduced (the extra cost being attributable to more frequent 

replacement of bags) and greater still if sources are able 

to comply with the proposed limit by using controls other 

than a fabric filter or different types of fabric filters. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 106 of 247

N. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing 

Sources

Under section 112 (i)(a)(3) of the Act, the EPA may 

reset compliance dates for section 112 (d) emission 

standards if EPA amends the standards themselves (as 

opposed to amending some ancillary feature of the standards 

relating to implementation). See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 

1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Such a resetting would be 

appropriate if the standards are changed in such a way as 

to warrant more time for compliance, either to develop 

necessary controls or to otherwise significantly alter 

control strategy. Cf. PCA v. EPA, 655 F. 3d at 189. 

(staying NESHAP standards for clinker piles because “the 

standards could likely change substantially. Thus, industry 

should not have to build expensive new containment 

structures until the standard is finally determined”). EPA 

believes that may be the case here. Subject to 

consideration of public comment, the proposed amendments to 

the PM standard could significantly alter compliance 

strategies for all of the regulated HAP. The EPA is 

accordingly proposing that the compliance date for the PM, 

THC, mercury, and HCl standards for existing sources for 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 107 of 247

kilns, clinker coolers, and raw material dryers be extended 

until September 10, 2015, a 2-year extension of the current 

compliance date.11 We believe that this date would require 

compliance “as expeditiously as practicable” as required by 

section 112 (i)(3)(A) of the Act.12

The EPA is proposing to amend the standards for PM, 

changing the compliance regime from CEMS-based to stacktest based, changing the averaging time for compliance, and 

changing the level of the standard. These proposed changes, 

in and of themselves, may occasion the need for additional 

time to study the possibility of different control 

strategies than are available under the 2010 final rule. 

The EPA believes that different compliance strategies 

may now be available. The 2010 PM standard is achievable 

but requires the most advanced fabric filters, membrane 

bags, frequent bag replacement and other aggressive 

 

11 This date would be approximately two years and 10 months from the 

December 20, 2012 signature date for final action called for in the 

draft settlement agreement between EPA and PCA. See 77 FR 27055 (May 

8, 2012). 

12 If EPA were to adopt a THC standard of 15 ppmv (see 

section III.C.2 above), an extension of three years from 

the current compliance date would be needed since many 

kilns' control strategies for organics controlled would be 

fundamentally altered."
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 108 of 247

maintenance. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438. The 

proposed standard of 0.07 lb/ton of clinker (3-run stack 

test) may be achievable by other means. Potential 

compliance strategies include use of electrostatic 

precipitators (ESP) (or an ESP with a polishing baghouse or 

cyclone), or using a different type of baghouse. Baghouses

could, for example, be sized smaller, could use cloth 

rather than membrane bags, or could use other variants (see 

PCA letter, The Impact of a Change in the Cement NESHAP PM 

Limit on Compliance Strategies and Schedules, April 9, 

2012. see also PCA letter, Implications of Altered 

Particulate Matter Limit on PCA Technology Analysis, May 

24, 2012). The proposed change in the PM limit may also 

allow some sources to comply using their existing PM 

control device. As a result, they may be able to cancel a 

planned upgrade to membrane fabric filters or a replacement 

of their existing device with a new one. The PM standard

also applies to clinker coolers, and sources may be able to 

meet the 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard with an existing 

control device for a clinker cooler. See Portland Cement 

Association, The Impact of a Change in the Cement NESHAP PM 

limit on Compliance Strategies and Schedules, April 9, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 109 of 247

2012; and PCA letter, Implications of Altered Particulate 

Matter Limit on PCA Technology Analysis, May 24, 2012. We 

note that in the database for the 2010 standards, six

cement kilns with ESPs already were meeting the 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker standard for PM which we are proposing here. . See 

Portland Cement Reconsideration TSD, Section 9. However, no 

ESP vendor will guarantee being able to meet the 2010 PM 

limit (see Docket item, “Summary Discussion, Lodge 

Cottrell, 04/30/12.)

The proposal to amend the standard for PM has 

implications for all of the standards, not just those for 

PM. The standards for mercury, HCl and THC all rely (or may 

rely) on control strategies involving injection and removal 

of added particulates, whether in the form of activated 

carbon, or dry or wet sorbent injectant. See Docket item 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438, section 2. A change in the PM 

standard thus affects these collateral PM control 

strategies as well. For example, it may be possible for a 

single PM control device to meet the proposed 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker standard and also control the auxiliary PM 

collected from control of the other HAP, making polishing 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 110 of 247

filters unnecessary.13 Conversely, a central baghouse to 

meet a 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard may be sized smaller, 

but this may necessitate adding polishing filters to 

capture PM from control of the other HAP. 

New compliance strategies require time to implement. 

New engineering studies are needed, potential suppliers 

identified, a new bidding/procurement process undertaken, 

and the appropriate construction and operating permits 

obtained. Significant plant redesign, in the form of new 

ductwork and new fan design, and changes in the main 

control equipment may be needed. See US EPA, Engineering 

and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control 

Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies, October 2002. 

Depending on the type of control, this normally requires 

15-27 months. Multiple control systems will take longer. 

Id.. Installation of controls at cement kilns normally 

occurs during winter months (to coincide with kiln outages 

during low production seasons). Putting this together, it 

tentatively appears that summer of 2015 would be an 

 

13 EPA did not believe this possible under the 2010 PM 

standard, and costed polishing filters in all instances. 

See EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 111 of 247

expeditious compliance date, and EPA is proposing to extend 

the existing source compliance date until September 9, 

2015..

EPA also solicits comment on a shorter extension. The 

industry here is not starting from scratch. There should 

be on-going planning to meet the standards promulgated in 

2010 which could shorten the time needed to come into 

compliance with these revised standards. Moreover, as 

explained below, we calculate that sources will need to 

design controls to meet virtually the same average 

performance for PM under the proposed standard of 0.07 

lb/ton clinker (Method 5) as they would under the 

promulgated standard of 0.04 lb/ton clinker (30-day 

average). Again, this could dovetail with on-going 

compliance efforts and shorten the time needed to come into 

compliance with a revised standard. Consequently, the EPA 

solicits comment on a compliance extension until September, 

2014 (one year from the current compliance date). This type 

of extension would recognize that additional time for 

compliance is needed, and accommodate cement kilns’ 

operating cycle (leaving winter months for control 

equipment deployment), but recognize that the industry is 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 112 of 247

not starting from scratch. Commenters should take into 

account that individual sources could still apply to permit 

writers for an additional extension of one year under 

section 112 (i)(3)(B) in instances where it is not possible 

to install control equipment within the specified period. 

EPA provisionally believes that an extension until at 

least September, 2014 is warranted, but also solicits 

comment on potential compliance dates between one and two 

years from the present compliance date.

Notwithstanding that we believe that the proposed PM 

standard may create new and lower cost opportunities for 

compliance, we believe the overall emission reductions from 

the standard to be roughly the same (except for the delayed 

compliance date noted below). We believe that sources will 

still need to design to meet essentially the same daily 

average as they would under the 2010 standard. That is, 

sources do not design to meet a standard, but rather to 

meet a level comfortably lower. They do so in order to 

provide a compliance margin on those days where emissions 

rise due to inherent and uncontrollable variability. See 

Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438, section 2. The 

difference is too small to be reliably quantified. We have 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 113 of 247

recalculated a design value (i.e. the level to which kilns 

would design to meet the existing source standard) under 

the proposal. The calculated design value, which reflects 

the average PM emissions from the sources used to establish 

the floor in this proposed rule, would be 0.02655 lb/ton 

clinker vs. a calculated design value of 0.02296 lb/ton 

clinker under the final rule. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document section 9. 

These calculations are not so precise as to reliably 

predict to the third decimal point to the right of zero, so 

this difference should be viewed as suggesting a 

directional difference in the standards. Viewed as a type 

of bounding, directional difference, the difference in 

design values would be approximately 1.7 percent. 

Table 5 Comparison of nationwide PM emissions from 

2010 rule to this proposed rule (TSD, section 9)

2010 rule Proposed rule Increment

Emissions limit 

(lb/ton clinker

0.04 30-

day 

average

0.07 average of 

three one-hour 

stack tests

NA

MACT average 

emissions for 

compliance (lb/ton 

clinker

0.02296 0.02655 0.00359

2010 baseline 

emissions (tons/yr)

10,326 10,326 NA

Nationwide emissions 

reduction (tons/yr)

9,489 9,354 -135
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 114 of 247

Under the proposed revisions, full compliance would be 

delayed 2 years until September, 2015, which would also 

postpone the costs and benefits associated with full 

compliance by that length of time. However, because 

facilities will begin installing or retrofitting controls 

prior to the full compliance date, the full benefits and 

costs would be phased-in over 2 years with the full 

benefits and costs realized by 2015. Nonetheless, total 

annual reductions listed in Table 5 above would occur 2 

years later than the original compliance date under today’s 

proposal.

With respect to compliance dates for open clinker 

piles, we believe that the standards we have proposed 

reflect control technologies which are either currently 

used or which can be implemented rapidly. We are,

therefore, proposing that the standards apply within 6 

months of promulgation (i.e. earlier than the present 

compliance date of September, 2013). For piles that come 

into existence after that date, the standards would apply 

immediately.

The EPA also believes that the proposed standards for 

startup and shutdown do not require significant lead time 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 115 of 247

and is proposing that these standards also take effect 

within 6 months of promulgation.

O. Eligibility to be a New Source 

EPA is not proposing a new date for new source 

eligibility. Thus, a source which commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction after May 6, 2009 would 

remain subject to the new source standard. The basic 

reason for not proposing to alter the new source 

eligibility date is that we believe new sources must use 

the identical control strategies under the 2010 promulgated 

new source standards as they would under the proposed new 

source standard. We explain this further below. 

The EPA views the new source compliance date trigger 

to be the date the rulemaking record under which a standard 

is developed is proposed. See 74 FR at 21158. (This 

interpretation was not challenged in the underlying 

rulemaking and the EPA is not reopening it here, but rather 

is applying it.) Here the key record information is what 

new sources would need to do to comply and whether there is 

any change. It is EPA’s initial technical judgment that new 

sources would have to adopt the same control strategy – use 

of the same size fabric filter with membrane bags -- under 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 116 of 247

an amended standard of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (stack test) as 

they would under the promulgated standard of 0.01 lb/ton 

clinker (30-day average). A standard of 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker (stack test) remains very stringent and cannot be 

met (in EPA’s view) without using appropriately optimized

baghouses and membrane bags. If this is correct (and EPA 

solicits comment on the issue), then new sources would not 

need additional time and would follow through on their 

present control strategies. We also have performed the 

same type of analysis regarding the design value to which 

new sources would need to design under this proposal, 

reflecting the average performance of the best performing 

similar source. We believe that there would be no change, 

corroborating our engineering judgment that new sources 

will adopt the same control strategy under the proposed 

standard as under the promulgated standard. See Portland 

Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document section 9 

Consequently, EPA is not proposing to alter the new source 

eligibility date of May 6, 2009.14.

 

14 For the same reasons, EPA is not proposing to change the new source 

trigger date under the section 111 NSPS. That date consequently would 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 117 of 247

IV. Other Proposed Testing and Monitoring Revisions

Following the September 2010 promulgation of the final 

rule, we found the following errors and omissions in the 

testing and monitoring provisions and are proposing to 

correct them.

 Equations for calculating rolling operating day 

emissions rates.

 Definition or procedures that include extraneous 

wording.

 Incorrect units in equations.

 Cross references and typographical errors in the 

rule.

We are proposing revisions that will clarify that data 

collected as part of relative accuracy test audits and 

performance tests are to be submitted to the EPA using 

their Electronic Reporting Tool. For sources that are 

required to monitor HCl emissions with a CEMS, we are 

revising the requirements for using HCl CEMS to define the 

span value for this source category, to include QA measures 

 

remain June 16, 2008 for sources that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction after that date.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 118 of 247

for data collected under "mill off" conditions, and to 

clarify use of PS 15. The EPA is also proposing minor, nonsubstantive changes to the provisions listed below. These 

changes are largely for ease of readability or clarity, and 

do not reopen, reassess or otherwise reconsider these 

provisions’ substance. The minor editorial and clarifying 

changes were made in the following sections and paragraphs:

 Section 60.62(a)(3) and (4), and (d).

 Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), (f)(1), (2) 

(4), (5) , (h)(1) and (6) through (9), (i).

 Section 60.64(b)(2).

 Section 60.66. 

 Section 63.1340(b)(6) through (8). 

 Section 63.1344 and 63.1344(a).

 Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through (e). 

 Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through (iii), 

(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(4)(ii) and (iv).

 Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii) and (iv). 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 119 of 247

 Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) and 

(c)(2)(iv).

 Section 63.1349(a), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(3), (d)(1) and 

(d)(2) and (e).

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

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

and (5), (m)(10) and (11), (o) and (p).

 Section 63.1352(b).

 Section 63.1354(c).

 Section 63.1356.

V. Other Changes and Areas Where We Are Requesting Comment

We are also proposing amendments to clarify various 

requirements in this proposed rule including issues of 

applicability, treatment of multiple sources that vent to a 

single stack, third party certification, definitions, 

startup/shutdown, malfunctions and use of bag leak 

detection systems when PM CPMS are in use. We are also 

proposing to revise the definition of raw material dryer to 

clarify that they may be used for removing the moisture 

from materials other than kiln feed.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 120 of 247

The EPA is proposing to amend 63.1354 (c) for 

reporting startup, shutdown and malfunctions when sources 

fail to meet a standard. We are proposing language that 

requires sources that deviate from a standard during 

startup, shutdown or malfunction to report the information 

concerning such events in semi-annual compliance reports. 

We are proposing that the report must contain the number, 

duration, and cause of such events (including unknown 

cause, if applicable), list the affected source or 

equipment, the date and time that each event started and 

stopped, an estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the 

source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

We note that while malfunction events may also be 

reported under provisions related to assertion of an 

affirmative defense, this separate malfunction reporting 

requirement is not redundant of the affirmative defense 

reporting requirement because reporting of malfunctions 

under the affirmative defense is not mandatory and would 

occur only if a source chooses to take advantage of the 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 121 of 247

Changes to recordkeeping requirements. The EPA is 

also proposing to amend section 63.1355 (f) for 

recordkeeping for events of startup and shutdown. Currently 

(f) requires a record of the occurrence and duration of 

each startup or shutdown. The EPA is proposing to refine 

this requirement based on the requirements applicable 

during periods of startup and shutdown. Given that some 

affected sources under subpart LLL are subject to a 

different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be 

important to know when such startup and shutdown periods 

begin and end in order to determine compliance with the 

appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to require 

that affected sources subject to emission standards during 

startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard 

that applies at all other times (i.e., Hg and PM) must 

record the occurrence and duration of such periods. The EPA 

is also proposing to add a requirement that sources record 

an estimate of the volume of emissions over the standard if 

the affected source fails to meet a standard during either 

startup or shutdown, and record the estimating technique.

The EPA is also proposing to amend (g)(1) to obtain 

similar information on malfunction events. Currently this 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 122 of 247

paragraph requires the creation and retention of a record 

of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 

process, air pollution control and monitoring equipment. 

The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply only to 

malfunctions that cause a failure to meet an applicable 

standard and is requiring that the source record date and 

time of the malfunction rather than “occurrence.” The EPA 

is also proposing to add to (g) the requirement that 

sources keep records that include a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the 

source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. The EPA is proposing 

to require that sources keep records of this information to 

ensure that there is adequate information to determine 

compliance during malfunction events, to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of the failure to meet the standard, 

and to provide data that may document how the source met 

the general duty to minimize emissions during recorded 

malfunction events. 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic 

Impacts of Proposed Amendments
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 123 of 247

A. What are the affected sources? 

As noted in the promulgated rule, EPA estimates that

by 2013 there will be 100 Portland cement manufacturing 

facilities located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that are 

expected to be affected by that rule, and, that 

approximately 5 of those facilities are complete new 

greenfield facilities. All these facilities will operate 

158 cement kilns and associated clinker coolers. Of these 

kilns, 24 are CISWI kilns and have been removed from our 

data set used to establish existing source floors. Based on 

capacity expansion data provided by the PCA, by 2013 there 

will be 16 kilns and their associated clinker coolers 

subject to NESHAP new source emission limits for mercury, 

HCl and THC, and seven kilns and clinker coolers subject to 

the amended NSPS for NOx and SO2. Some of these new kilns 

will be built at existing facilities and some at new 

greenfield facilities. 

B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?

For these proposed amendments, we determined whether 

additional control measures, work practices and monitoring 

requirements would be required by cement manufacturing 

facilities to comply with the proposed amendments. For any 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 124 of 247

additional control measure, work practice or monitoring 

requirement we determined the associated capital and 

annualized cost that would be incurred by facilities 

required to implement the measures. Finally, we considered 

the extent to which any facility in the industry would find 

it necessary to implement the additional measures in order 

to comply with the proposed amendments. Using this 

approach, we assessed potential impacts from the proposed 

revisions.

These proposed amendments affect the 2010 rule and are 

expected to result in lower costs for the Portland cement 

industry. We are evaluating the impacts of these proposed 

amendments relative to the impacts estimated for the 2010 

final rule. As explained in section N above, the proposed 

amendment to the PM standard affords alternative compliance 

opportunities for existing sources which are less costly. 

These could be utilizing existing PM control devices rather 

than replacing them (for example, retaining an ESP or a 

smaller baghouse), or supplementing existing PM control 

rather than replacing it (putting polishing controls ahead 

of the primary PM control device). Compliance strategies 

for the other HAPs, all of which involve some element of PM 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 125 of 247

control, also may be affected. Cost savings from these 

alternatives could be significant. For example, we have 

performed a case study from the data set used in the 2010 

impacts analysis. Under the proposed rule, an estimated 21 

ESP-equipped kilns no longer need to install membrane bags 

on a downstream polishing FF, and one FF retain their 

standard fabric bags rather than replacing them with 

membrane bags. The difference in annual cost for PM control 

under the proposal scenario and the more stringent 2010 

scenario is $4.2 million per year. That is, under the 

proposed rule, the annual cost of compliance will be $4.2 

million less than under the 2010 rule under this scenario

(see Portland Cement Reconsidertion Technical Support 

Document, section 9). EPA is not presently able to further 

quantify potential costs of the proposed changes to the 

emission standards. This is because the Agency lacks the 

site-specific information necessary to make the engineering 

determinations as to how individual sources may choose to 

comply. There are also certain costs, and cost savings, 

associated with other aspects of the proposal. There may 

be a minor difference in costs of stack testing for PM and 

use of a CPMS, rather than use of a PM CEMS. However, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 126 of 247

since the PM CEMS would be calibrated based on stack 

testing, and the CPMS is the same type of device as a PM 

CEMS, EPA does not believe there is any significant cost 

difference between these provisions.

The proposed revisions to the alternative organic HAP 

standard (from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, reflecting the analytic 

method practical quantitation limit) would not require 

additional controls or monitoring. EPA accordingly does not 

estimate that there would be any cost (or emission 

reduction benefit) associated with this proposal.

The proposed revisions for open clinker storage piles 

codify current fugitive dust control measures already 

required by most states, thus no impacts are expected. 

These proposed standards would be significantly less 

expensive than the controls for open piles in the 2010 

final rule, which required enclosures. 

Although we are reproposing the affirmative defense 

provisions, impacts were not accounted for in the 2010 

rulemaking. Thus we have estimated the additional industry 

burden associated with the affirmative defense provisions.

We estimate the additional cost is $3,142 per year for the 

entire industry. See Supporting Statement in the Docket.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 127 of 247

One of the proposed revisions would allow sources that 

control acid gases, including HCl, with dry caustic 

scrubbers to use periodic performance testing and parameter 

monitoring rather than with HCl CEMS. This will provide 

those sources with additional flexibility in complying with 

the HCl standards. The proposed revision to the alternative 

PM emissions limit provisions merely recognizes that

sources other than the clinker cooler may combine their 

exhaust with the kiln exhaust gas and corrects the equation 

for calculating the alternative limit. Therefore, there 

should be no impacts from this proposed revision. The

proposal to use recordkeeping as the monitoring mechanism 

for the startup and shutdown standards should also result 

in cost savings because facilities in the industry already 

keep records on feed and fuel usage and they will not have 

to install and operate CEMS for these periods. CEMS for 

monitoring all HAP or HAP surrogates could cost each 

facility $569,000 in capital cost and annualized costs of 

$198,000. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438. 

The proposed revisions for new testing and monitoring 

of coal mills that use kiln exhaust gases to dry coal and 

exhaust through a separate stack are not expected to have 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 128 of 247

significant impacts. The proposed revision would make

existing kilns that undergo a modification, as defined by 

NSPS, subject to the NESHAP PM standard for existing source 

rather than the PM limit for new sources. This proposed 

revision is correcting an inadvertent conflict between the 

two rules and will not result in any impacts. 

C. What are the air quality impacts?

In the proposed amendments, emission limits for 

mercury, THC and HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. 

Thus, we expect no change in emissions from the 2010 rule

for these HAP and HAP surrogates. The alternative HAP 

organic standard would be amended to 12 ppm, but as this 

reflects the practical quantitative limit of detection, it 

is not clear if additional emissions are associated with 

the proposed standard since a lower standard would not be 

measured reliably.

For PM, the limit for existing sources would change 

from 0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.07 lb/ton clinker. The PM 

limit for new sources also would be changed to 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker from 0.01 lb/ton clinker. The standard would be 

measured on a 3-run basis rather than on a 30-day basis 

with a CEMS. The proposed changes in the PM standards, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 129 of 247

while not considered significant in absolute terms, may

result in a small increase in total nationwide emissions by 

allowing slightly more variability, although we estimate 

that design values will be essentially identical under the 

2010 and proposed standard. See section III.N above. As 

explained in the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (see 

Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), emission reductions 

were estimated by comparing baseline emissions to the longterm average emissions of the MACT floor kilns. The average 

emissions, rather than the emissions limit, must be used 

because to comply with the limit all or most of the time, 

emissions need to be reduced to the average of the MACT 

floor kilns. Under the 2010 rule, the average PM emissions 

from the existing floor kilns were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. 

Under the reconsideration, the average PM emissions of the 

existing floor kilns is calculated to be 0.02655 lb/ton 

clinker although, as noted, this difference is less than 

the normal analytic variability in PM measurement methods 

and so must be viewed as directional rather than precisely 

quantitative. The average emissions for new kilns did not 

change and we believe new sources will have to adopt 

identical control strategies as under the promulgated 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 130 of 247

standards. We therefore are not estimating an emission 

increase from new kilns. For existing kilns, with an 

increase in PM emissions under the proposed rule of 0.00359 

lb/ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule, nationwide 

emissions of PM would increase by 135 tons per year 

(0.00359 X 75,355,116/2000). Thus, EPA estimates that the 

main effect of the proposed rule for PM will be to provide 

flexibility for those days when emissions increase as a 

result of normal operating variability, but would not 

significantly alter long-term average performance for PM.

Emission reductions under the 2010 rule and the 

proposed rule are compared in Table 6.

Table 6. Comparison of nationwide PM emissions from 

2010 rule to proposed rule

Kiln 

type

2010 

rule

Proposed 

rule

Increment

Emissions limit 

(lb/ton clinker

Existing 0.0400

(30-day 

average 

with a 

CEMS)

0.07 (3-

run 

stack 

test)

NA

MACT average 

emissions for 

compliance (lb/ton 

clinker

Existing 0.02296 0.02655 0.00359

2010 baseline 

emissions (tons/yr)

10,326 10,326 NA

Nationwide emissions 

reduction (tons/yr)

Total 9,489 9,354 -135
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 131 of 247

Under the proposed revisions, compliance would be 

delayed 2 years with the result that emission reductions 

would also be delayed 2 years. Thus, reductions of 18,642 

tons annually of PM would be delayed until the compliance 

date of September 2015. Delayed compliance would also delay 

emissions reductions of mercury (16 tons), THC (20,500 

tons) and HCl (9, 400 tons) over a two year period. 

However, as facilities begin installing or retrofitting 

controls, we believe this number would continually be 

reduced as the compliance date approaches.

D. What are the water quality impacts?

None of the amendments being proposed will have 

significant impacts on water quality. To the extent that 

the proposed revision affecting dry caustic scrubbers 

encourages their use, some reduction in water consumption 

may occur although we have no information upon which to 

base an estimate. 

E. What are the solid waste impacts?

None of the amendments being proposed today are 

expected to have any solid waste impacts.

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 132 of 247

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include 

impacts that will result from the increased electricity 

usage associated with the operation of control devices as 

well as water quality and solid waste impacts (which were 

just discussed) that will occur as a result of these 

proposed revisions. Because we are proposing revisions that 

reduce the stringency of the existing source emission 

limits PM from the promulgated 2010 limits, we believe that

some facilities may be able to alter their strategy for 

complying with the standards for the four pollutants to 

achieve compliance at a lower cost than possible under the 

original standard. These types of determinations will be 

made for each facility based on site-specific 

characteristics such as process type, equipment age, 

existing air pollution controls, raw material and fuel 

characteristics, economic factors and others. Therefore, we 

are not able to reliably predict secondary impacts for 

individual facilities or for the industry as a whole. 

G. What are the energy impacts?

As discussed in the preceding section, because of the 

proposed revisions to the PM emission limits, some 

facilities may be able to develop more cost effective 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 133 of 247

compliance strategies. However, we cannot accurately 

predict the extent to which these site-specific compliance 

strategies may increase or decrease energy demands. 

H. What are the cost impacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate 

that there could be savings in the millions of dollars 

associated with alternative compliance strategies for 

meeting amended PM standards and making corresponding 

adjustments in compliance strategies for the other HAP. The 

proposed revisions would require sources with integral coal 

mills that exhaust through a separate exhaust to install a 

continuous flow meter as part of the proposed requirement 

to monitor mercury emissions. The capital cost of flow 

meters are $36,000. The annualized cost of a flow meter is 

$14,000. We do not have information on the number of such 

coal mills in the industry that would allow us to calculate 

nationwide costs. We also estimate that there will be a 

one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to develop the 

calculation that will allow them to demonstrate compliance 

during periods of startup and shutdown. With the proposed 

change to PM CPMS instead of CEMS, it is estimated that the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 134 of 247

elimination of the PS correlation tests will result in a 

savings of $60,000 per kiln.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review

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

1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action" 

because it raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 

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

any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the docket for this action. A Regulatory

Impact Analysis (RIA) was prepared for the September 2010 

final rule and can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfina

lria.pdf . The benefits, cost, and economic analysis for 

the first year of full compliance for the 2010 final rule 

are expected to be little changed for the first year of 

full compliance for this action.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 135 of 247

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this 

proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared 

by the EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number ____. The 

information requirements are based on notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim 

of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to 

agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

We are proposing new paperwork requirements for the 

Portland Cement Manufacturing source category in the form 

of a requirement to incorporate fugitive dust control 

measures for clinker piles into their existing operations 

and maintenance plan. We are also proposing to use 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 136 of 247

recordkeeping as the means of monitoring compliance with 

the startup and shutdown standards.

For this proposed rule, the EPA is also proposing to 

add an affirmative defense to the estimate of burden in the 

ICR. To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA 

has provided administrative adjustments to this ICR to show 

what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s estimate for 

the required notification, reports and records for any 

individual incident, including the root cause analysis, 

totals $3,142 and is based on the time and effort required 

of a source to review relevant data, interview plant 

employees, and document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emissions 

limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and 

retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. 

The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden 

because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 137 of 247

violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense.

Given the variety of circumstances under which 

malfunctions could occur, as well as differences among 

sources' operation and maintenance practices, we cannot 

reliably predict the severity and frequency of malfunctionrelated excess emissions events for a particular source. It 

is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently 

for estimating the number of malfunctions that would 

qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical 

records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners 

or operators previously operated their facilities in 

recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to 

comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events reported by source 

operators, only a small number would be expected to result 

from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and 

only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions 

would result in the source choosing to assert the 

affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators might be expected to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 138 of 247

avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small.

With respect to the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

source category, the emissions controls are operational 

before the associated emission source(s) commence operation 

and remain operational until after the associated emission 

source(s) cease operation. Also, production operations 

would not proceed or continue if there is a malfunction of 

a control device and the time required to shut down 

production operations (i.e., on the order of a few hours or 

a day) is small compared to the averaging time of the 

emission standards (i.e., monthly averages). Thus, we 

believe it is unlikely that a control device malfunction 

would cause an exceedance of any emission limit. Therefore, 

sources within this source category are not expected to 

have any need or use for the affirmative defense and we 

believe that there is no burden to the industry for the 

affirmative defense provisions in the proposed rule.

We expect to gather information on such events in the 

future and will revise this estimate as better information 

becomes available. We estimate 86 regulated entities are 

currently subject to subpart LLL and will be subject to all 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 139 of 247

proposed standards. The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) 

for these amendments to subpart LLL is estimated to be 

$352,814 per year. This includes 496 labor hours per year 

at a total labor cost of $47,806 per year, and total nonlabor capital and operation and maintenance costs of 

$305,008 per year. This estimate includes reporting and 

recordkeeping associated with the proposed requirements for 

startup and shutdown and outdoor clinker piles. The total 

burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 

3 years after the effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 263 hours per year at a total labor cost of 

$11,885 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 

are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency's need for this information, 

the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 140 of 247

has established a public docket for this proposed rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the 

EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 

NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the 

EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is 

best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to 

any OMB or public comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 

unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 141 of 247

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business whose parent company has no more than 750 

employees depending on the size definition for the affected 

NAICS code, as defined by the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) 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-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field.

We estimate that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement 

entities are small entities. After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the 

three affected small entities, all are expected to incur an 

annual compliance cost of less than 1.0 percent of sales to 

comply with this rule (reflecting potential controls on 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 142 of 247

piles, which are likely to have lower cost when compared to 

the 2010 rule requirements because these plants already 

have requirements for control of piles in their Title V 

permits). 

Although this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this proposed rule on small entities. For 

example, we are proposing to expand the provision that 

allows periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative to 

CEMS for sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply 

to those sources that use dry sorbent injection. This

proposed rule would add an option for sources using wet or 

dry scrubbers for HCl control that also use a CEMS for SO2. 

These sources would now have the option of using their SO2

CEMS in conjunction with a periodic stack test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl standard. We continue 

to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 143 of 247

This action does not contain a federal mandate under 

the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. The action 

imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. Thus, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 

UMRA.

This proposed rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments because it contains no 

requirements that apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of 

the affected facilities are owned or operated by State 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 144 of 247

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). Under the provisions of this proposed rule, there 

may be an increase in mercury emissions and metal HAP 

emissions although any increase will be minimal because the 

same control technology that is necessary under the current 

NESHAP will be needed to meet the proposed emissions 

limits. The more stringent limitations of fugitive dust 

emissions from open clinker piles may result in decreased 

risk to Indian tribal populations. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on 

this proposed action from tribal officials.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 145 of 247

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions 

that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use

This proposed action is not a “significant energy 

action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 

(May 22,2001)), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 

use of energy. The proposed amendments do not require the 

use of additional controls as compared to the 2010 rule and 

may allow the industry to reduce its cost of compliance by 

increasing the industry’s flexibility to institute 

different and less costly control strategies than under the 

2010 rule.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 146 of 247

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 voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides not to use available 

and applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of 

any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629)(February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 147 of 247

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 (EPA-docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3415). The 

impacts of the 2010 rule, which assumed full compliance, 

are expected to be unchanged as a result of this action. 

Therefore, beginning from the date of full compliance, the

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of protection provided 

to human health or the environment. This proposed rule may 

temporarily result in higher emissions due to the delayed 

compliance date. The EPA has determined that these 

increased emissions will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 148 of 247

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 149 of 247

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
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 150 of 247

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 

I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 60 – [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A—[Amended]

2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph 

(h)(4) to read as follows:

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4) of subpart Ec, §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4) of 

subpart F, §60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, §§60.104a(d)(3), 

(d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), 

(i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), 

(g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), 

(a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and 

60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), 

(d)(2), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(2)(ii) of subpart Ja, tables 1 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 151 of 247

and 3 of subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, 

table 2 of subpart JJJJ, §60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3) of 

subpart KKKK, 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 

60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, tables 2 

and 3 to subpart MMMM, §§60.5406(c)(4)(iii) and 

60.5413(b)(4)(iii)(A).

* * * * *

Subpart F--[AMENDED]

3. Section 60.61 is amended by adding a definition for 

“Excess emissions” and “Operating day,” to read as follows:

§60.61 Definitions.

* * * * *

Excess emissions means, with respect to this subpart, 

results of any required measurements outside the applicable 

range (e.g., emissions limitations, parametric operating 

limits) that is permitted by this subpart. The values of 

measurements will be in the same units and averaging time 

as the values specified in this subpart for the 

limitations.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 152 of 247

* * * * *

Operating day means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 

midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For 

calculating rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating 

day does not include the hours of operation during startup 

or shutdown. 

 * * * * *

4. Section 60.62 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2);and 

d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§60.62 Standards.

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

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

may not discharge into the atmosphere from any kiln any 

gases which: 

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

(i) [Reserved]

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

reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 153 of 247

(iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in 

excess of 0.07 pound per ton of clinker.

(2) [Reserved]

* * * * *

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

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

may not discharge into the atmosphere from any clinker 

cooler any gases which: 

(1) Contain PM in excess of:

(i) [Reserved] 

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

reconstruction of the clinker cooler commences after June 

16, 2008. 

(iii) Clinker coolers that have undergone a 

modification may not discharge into the atmosphere any 

gases which contain PM in excess of 0.07 pound per ton of 

clinker.

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * *

(d) If you have an affected source subject to this 

subpart with a different emissions limit or requirement for 

the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 154 of 247

this chapter, you must comply with the most stringent 

emissions limit or requirement and are not subject to the 

less stringent requirement. 

5. Section 60.63 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)and (b)(1)(ii);

b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4);

d. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f);

e. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;

f. Revising paragraph (g)(2);

g. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(6);

i. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text;

j. Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text;

k. Revising paragraph (h)(9);

l. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text; and

m. Revising paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(1)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§60.63 Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 155 of 247

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

permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight 

rates of the amount of clinker produced in tons of mass per 

hour. The system of measuring hourly clinker production 

must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy or 

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

permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight 

rates of the amount of feed to the kiln in tons of mass per 

hour. The system of measuring feed must be maintained 

within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly clinker 

production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker ratio 

based on reconciled clinker production rates determined for 

accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio 

should be updated monthly. Note that if this ratio changes 

at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going 

forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 

clinker production rates previously estimated. 

(iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do 

not have data on clinker production or the amount of feed 

to the kiln, use the value from the most recent previous 

hour for which valid data are available.

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

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 156 of 247

production rates or feed rates before initial use (for new 

sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule 

(for existing sources). During each quarter of source 

operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring 

hourly clinker production rates or feed rates. 

(3) If you measure clinker production directly, record 

the daily clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln 

feed rates and calculate clinker production, record the 

daily kiln feed and clinker production rates.

(4) [Reserved]

(c) PM Emissions Monitoring Requirements. (1) For each 

kiln or clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions limit in 

§60.62, you must demonstrate compliance through an initial 

performance test and you must monitor continuous 

performance through use of a particulate matter continuous 

parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS).

(2) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a sitespecific operating limit corresponding to the highest 1-

hour average PM CPMS output value recorded during the 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM 

limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 

5 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 157 of 247

the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with your 

operating limit. You must repeat the performance test 

annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific 

operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test. 

(3) [Reserved]

(d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 

a CEMS continuously monitoring and recording the 

concentration by volume of NOx emissions into the atmosphere 

for any kiln subject to the NOx emissions limit in 

§60.62(a)(3). If the kiln has an alkali bypass, NOx

emissions from the alkali bypass do not need to be 

monitored, and NOx emission monitoring of the kiln exhaust 

may be done upstream of any commingled alkali bypass gases. 

(e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 

a CEMS for continuously monitoring and recording the 

concentration by volume of SO2 emissions into the atmosphere 

for any kiln subject to the SO2 emissions limit in 

§60.62(a)(4). If you are complying with the alternative 90 

percent SO2 emissions reduction emissions limit, you must 

also continuously monitor and record the concentration by 

volume of SO2 present at the wet scrubber inlet.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 158 of 247

(f) The NOx and SO2 CEMS required under paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this section must be installed, operated and 

maintained according to Performance Specification 2 of 

appendix B of this part and the requirements in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The span value of each NOx CEMS monitor must be 

set at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly 

potential NOx emission concentration that translates to the 

applicable emissions limit at full clinker production 

capacity.

(2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each 

NOx CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) 

and Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. 

You must use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 

to this part for conducting the relative accuracy 

evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see 

§60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 7 or 7C of 

appendix A-4 to this part.

(3) The span value for the SO2 CEMS monitor is the SO2

emission concentration that corresponds to 125 percent of 

the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production 

capacity and the expected maximum fuel sulfur content.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 159 of 247

(4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each 

SO2 CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) 

and Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. 

You must use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A-4 to this 

part for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The 

method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an 

acceptable alternative to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A-4 to 

this part.

(5) You must comply with the quality assurance 

requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to this part for 

each NOx and SO2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy 

determinations for monitors, and daily calibration drift 

tests.

(g) For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs 

(c) through (e) of this section:

* * * * *

(2) You may not use data recorded during the 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 160 of 247

not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system 

to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods in reporting 

emissions or operating levels.

* * * * *

(h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 

instruments for continuously measuring and recording the 

stack gas flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant 

mass emissions rate to the atmosphere for each kiln subject 

to the PM emissions limits in §60.62(a)(1) (ii) and 

(b)(1)(ii), the NOx emissions limit in §60.62(a)(3), or the 

SO2 emissions limit in §60.62(a)(4) according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (10), where 

appropriate, of this section.

(1) The owner or operator must install each sensor of 

the flow rate monitoring system in a location that provides 

representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at 

the sampling location of the NOx and/or SO2 CEMS, taking 

into account the manufacturer’s recommendations. The flow 

rate sensor is that portion of the system that senses the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 161 of 247

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.

* * * * * (i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) 

of Monitoring Plans. If you demonstrate compliance with any 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 162 of 247

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 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control device);
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 163 of 247

* * * * *

6. Section 60.64 is amended to read as follows:

§60.64 Test methods and procedures

(a) In conducting the performance tests and relative 

accuracy tests required in §60.8, you must use reference 

methods and procedures and the test methods in appendix A 

of this part or other methods and procedures as specified 

in this section, except as provided in §60.8(b).

(b) You must demonstrate compliance with the PM 

standards in §60.62 according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section.

(1)(i) In using a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, 

you must establish your PM CPMS operating limit and 

determine compliance with it according to paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section.

(ii) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance 

with the PM limit, record all hourly average output values 

(e.g., milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data 

signal) from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to 

the test runs (e.g., three 1-hour average PM CPMS output 

values for three 1-hour test runs).
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 164 of 247

(iii) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1-

hour average PM CPMS output value recorded during the 

performance test. You must verify an existing or establish 

a new operating limit after each repeated performance test.

(iv) To determine continuous compliance, you must 

record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the 

process is operating and the PM CPMS is not out-of-control. 

You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all 

quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM 

CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic 

average operating parameter in units of the operating limit 

(e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data signal) on a 

30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end 

of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 2 to determine 

the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

 i



1

30kiln operatingday Eq. 2

where:

Hpvi is the hourly parameter value for hour i and

n is the number of valid hourly parameter values collected 

over 30 kiln operating days.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 165 of 247

(2) Use Method 9 and the procedures in §60.11 to 

determine opacity.

(3) Any sources other than kilns (including associated 

alkali bypass and clinker cooler) that are major sources as 

defined in §63.2 of this chapter and that are subject to 

the 10 percent opacity limit must follow the appropriate 

monitoring procedures in §63.1350(f), (m)(1)through(m)(4), 

(m)(10) through (11), (o), and (p) of this chapter.

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) [Reserved]

(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating 

day average emission rate daily of NOx and SO2 according to 

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

section.

(i) Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day 

average emissions according to equation 3:

 



n

i

D CiQi Pi

n

E k

1

/

( )

1

 (Eq. 3)

 

Where: 

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of NOX or 

SO2, lb/ton of clinker; 

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;
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 166 of 247

Pi = total kiln clinker produced during production hour i, 

ton/hr; and

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

for SO2.

n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating 

days, n = 1 to 720.

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) For each kiln operating hour for which you do 

not have at least one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, use 

the average emissions rate (lb/hr) from the most recent 

previous hour for which valid data are available. 

(d)(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test(see §60.8) as required by this 

subpart you must submit the results of the performance 

tests conducted to demonstrate compliance under this 

subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX)(www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be 

submitted in the file format generated through use of 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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 167 of 247

information being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) must submit a 

complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage 

media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to 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 EPA via CDX as described earlier in 

this paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated 

authority, you must also submit these reports, including 

the confidential business information, to the delegated 

authority in the format specified by the delegated 

authority.

(2) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

CEMS performance evaluation test (see §60.13), you must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit data electronically 

into EPA’s Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool as mentioned in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. Only data collected using test methods compatible 

with ERT are subject to this requirement to be submitted 

electronically to EPA’s CDX.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 168 of 247

(3) All reports required by this subpart not subject 

to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section must be sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or 

the delegated authority may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used 

electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard 

copy). The Administrator retains the right to require 

submittal of reports subject to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section in paper format.

7. Section 60.65 is revised to read as follows:

§60.65 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS 

or CEMS under sections §60.63(c)-(e) shall submit reports 

of excess emissions. The content of these reports must 

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

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

semiannually.

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to 

the provisions of §60.63(c)-(e) shall submit semiannual 

reports of the malfunction information required to be 

recorded by §60.7(b). These reports shall include the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 169 of 247

frequency, duration, and cause of any incident resulting in 

deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions or 

in the venting of emissions directly to the atmosphere.

(d) The requirements of this section remain in force 

until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement 

authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Clean Air 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting requirements or an 

alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by 

such States. In that event, affected sources within the 

State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with 

this section, provided that they comply with the 

requirements established by the State.

8. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follows:

§60.66 Delegation of authority. 

* * * * *

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval 

authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S 

EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 170 of 247

PART 63--[AMENDED]

9. The authority citation for part 63 continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

10. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph 

(b)(54) to read as follows:

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

approved 2003, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved 

for §63.1349(b)(4)(iii) of subpart LLL, table 4 to subpart 

DDDD, and table 8 of subpart HHHHHHH of this part.

* * * * *

Subpart LLL—[Amended]

11. Section 63.1340 is amended by

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(9); and 

b. Revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§63.1340 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *

(b) * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 171 of 247

(6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product 

storage bin at any portland cement plant that is a major 

source;

(7) Each conveying system transfer point including 

those associated with coal preparation used to convey coal 

from the mill to the kiln at any portland cement plant that 

is a major source; 

(8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system 

at any portland cement plant that is a major source; and 

(9) Each open clinker storage pile at any portland

cement plant.

(c) Onsite sources that are subject to standards for 

nonmetallic mineral processing plants in subpart OOO, part 

60 of this chapter are not subject to this subpart. 

Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless of 

their location.

* * * * *

12. Section 63.1341 is amended by: 

a. Deleting definitions of “Enclosed storage pile,” 

and “Inactive clinker pile;” 

b. Adding a definition for “In-line coal mill,” and 

“Startup and shutdown;” and 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 172 of 247

c. Revising definitions for “Kiln,” “New source,” 

“Operating day,” “Raw material dryer,” and “Total organic 

HAP,” in alphabetic order to read as follows:

§63.1341 Definitions.

* * * * *

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source 

subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 

source: (i) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart including, but not limited to, 

any emission limit, operating limit, work practice 

standard, or monitoring requirement; or (ii) Fails to meet 

any term or condition that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included 

in the operating permit for any affected source required to 

obtain such a permit. A deviation is not always a 

violation. 

* * * * *

In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust 

gases in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other 

than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases from the 

clinker cooler are not an in-line coal mill.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 173 of 247

Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or 

precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or 

alkali bypasses that produces clinker by heating limestone 

and other materials for subsequent production of portland 

cement. Because the inline raw mill and inline coal mill 

are considered an integral part of the kiln, for purposes 

of determining the appropriate emissions limit, the term 

kiln also applies to the exhaust of the inline raw mill and 

the inline coal mill.

* * * * *

New source means any source that commenced construction 

after May 6, 2009, for purposes of determining the 

applicability of the kiln, clinker cooler and raw material 

dryer emissions limits for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl.

* * * * *

Open clinker storage pile means any clinker storage pile 

that is not completely enclosed in a building or structure.

Operating day means any 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 

midnight during which the kiln operates for any time. For 

calculating the rolling 30-day average emissions, kiln 

operating days do not include the hours of operation during 

startup or shutdown. 

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 174 of 247

Raw material dryer means an impact dryer, drum dryer, 

paddle-equipped rapid dryer, air separator, or other 

equipment used to reduce the moisture content of feed or

other materials.

* * * * *

Startup and shutdown means the periods of kiln 

operation that do not include normal operations. Startup 

begins when the kiln’s induced fan is turned on and 

continues until continuous feed is introduced into the 

kiln, at which time the kiln is in normal operating mode. 

Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted.

* * * * *

Total organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, 

the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, 

benzene, toluene, styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, 

acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test 

Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or ASTM 

D6348-0315 or a combination of these methods, as 

 

15 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, %R must be 70 % ≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The %R value for each compound must 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

reported as below the method detection level (e.g., 

laboratory analytical results for one or more sample 

components are below the meth

detection level), you must use the method detection level 

as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical 

values for multiple Method 18 fractions

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 deter

paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part.

* * * * *

13. Section 63.1343 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(a) through (e) to read as follows:

§63.1343 What Standards Apply to my Kilns, Clinker 

Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, and Ope

 

be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound using the following equation:

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 175 of 247

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

reported as below the method detection level (e.g., 

laboratory analytical results for one or more sample 

components are below the method defined analytical 

detection level), you must use the method detection level 

as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical 

r 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.

Section 63.1343 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(a) through (e) to read as follows:

§63.1343 What Standards Apply to my Kilns, Clinker 

Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, and Open Clinker Piles?

 

be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound using the following equation:

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

reported as below the method detection level (e.g., 

laboratory analytical results for one or more sample 

detection level), you must use the method detection level 

as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical 

may include a 

combination of method detection level data and analytical 

data reported above the method detection level. The owner 

or operator of an affected source may request the use of 

mination under 

Section 63.1343 is amended by revising paragraphs 

§63.1343 What Standards Apply to my Kilns, Clinker 

n Clinker Piles?

 

be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 176 of 247

(a) General. The provisions in this section apply to 

each kiln and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, 

clinker cooler, and raw material dryer. All D/F, HCl, and 

total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit are on a dry basis. 

The D/F, HCl, and THC limits for kilns are corrected to 7 

percent oxygen. All THC emissions limits are measured as 

propane. Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 

rolling 30-day average. If using a CEMS to determine 

compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based on 

a rolling 30-day average. You must ensure appropriate 

corrections for moisture are made when measuring flow rates 

used to calculate mercury emissions. The 30-day period 

means 30 consecutive kiln operating days excluding periods 

of startup and shutdown.

(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 – 1/6/12

Page 177 of 247

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

Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills.

If your 

source 

is a 

(an): 

And the 

operatin

g mode 

is:

And if 

is 

locate

d at 

a:

Your 

emissions 

limits are:

And the 

units of 

the 

emission

s limit 

are:

The 

oxygen 

correctio

n factor 

is:

1. Existin

g kiln 

Normal 

operatio

n 

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. Existin

g kiln 

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd 7 percent

3. Existin

g kiln

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 0.04

D/F 0.2

Mercury 10

THC 24

gr/dscf

ng/dscm 

(TEQ)

ug/dscm

ppmvd

NA

NA

NA

NA

4. Existin

g kiln

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major

source

HCl 3 ppmvd NA

5. New 

kiln 

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 0.02 

D/F1 0.2

Mercury 21

THC3,4 24

lb/ton 

clinker

ng/dscm

lb/MM 

tons 

clinker

ppmvd

NA

7 percent

NA

7 percent

6. New 

kiln

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

source

HCl 3 ppmvd 7 percent

7. New 

kiln

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 0.0008

D/F 0.2

Mercury 4

THC 24 

gr/dscf

ng/dscm 

(TEQ)

ug/dscm

ppmvd

NA

NA

NA

NA

8. New Startup Major HCl 3 ppmvd NA
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 178 of 247

kiln and 

shutdown

source

9. Existin

g 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 0.07 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

10

.

Existin

g 

clinker

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 0.004 Gr/dscf NA

11

.

New 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 0.02 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

12

.

New 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 0.0008 Gr/dscf NA

13

.

Existin

g or 

new raw 

materia

l dryer

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

or 

area 

source

THC3,4 24 ppmvd 19 

percent

14

.

Existin

g or 

new raw 

materia

l dryer

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major

or 

area

source

THC 24 ppmvd NA

15

.

Existin

g or 

new raw 

or 

finish 

mill

All 

operatin

g modes

Major 

source

Opacity 10 percent NA

11

.

Open 

clinker 

storage 

piles

All 

operatin

g modes

Major 

or 

area 

source

Work 

practices 

(63.1343(c)

)

NA NA

1 The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed 

using Method 5 and consists of three 1-hr tests. 

2 If the average temperature at the inlet to the first 

particulate matter control device (fabric filter or 

electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test is 

400 oF or less this limit is changed to 0.04 ng/dscm.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 179 of 247

3 Measured as propane.

4 Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet 

an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP. 

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

the combined PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass 

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

combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill with the 

kiln exhaust for energy efficiency purposes and send the 

combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single stream may 

meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is calculated 

using equation 1 of this section: 

PM alt = (0.006 x 1.65)(Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000) (Eq. 1)

Where:

PMalt = alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources.

0.006 is 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 is the conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker

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

Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton feed).

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

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

7000 is the conversion factor for 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 = (0.002 x 1.65)(Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000)(Eq. 2)

Where: 

PMalt = alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources.

0.002 is the PM exhaust concentration (gr/dscf) equivalent to 

0.02 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 180 of 247

gas are not combined1.65 is the conversion factor of lb feed per 

lb clinker

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

Qc is the exhaust flow of the clinker cooler (dscf/ton feed).

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

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

7000 is the conversion factor for gr per lb.

(c) Open Clinker Piles. The owner or operator of an open 

clinker pile must prepare and operate in accordance with the 

fugitive dust emissions control measures, described in their 

operation and maintenance plan (see §63.1347 of this subpart), 

that is appropriate for the site conditions as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this paragraph. 

(1) The operations and maintenance plan must identify and 

describe the fugitive dust emissions control measures the owner 

or operator will use to minimize fugitive dust emissions from 

each open clinker storage pile. 

(2) For open clinker storage piles, the operations and 

maintenance plan must specify that one or more of the following 

control measures will be used to minimize to the greatest extent 

practicable fugitive dust from open clinker storage piles: 

Locating the source inside a partial enclosure, installing and 

operating a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriate 

chemical dust suppression agents on the source, use of a wind 

barrier, compaction, or use of a vegetative cover. The owner or 

operator must select, for inclusion in the operations and 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 181 of 247

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. 

(d) [Reserved]

(e) Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. 

Any source defined as an existing source in §63.1351, and that 

was subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions 

limit prior to September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the 

limits shown in Table 2 to this section until September 9, 2015.

* * * * *

14. Section 63.1344 is amended by revising the section 

heading and revising the section to read as follows:

§63.1344 Affirmative defense for violation of emissions limit 

during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

in paragraph §63.1343(b) you may assert an affirmative defense 

to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards 

that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the 

respondent fails to meet its burden of proving all of the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 182 of 247

requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense 

shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the notification 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that:

(1) The violation: 

(i) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could 

have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and

(iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to 

the extent practicable to make these repairs; and
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 183 of 247

(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

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 

the violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human 

health; and

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices; and

(7) Your actions in response to the violation were 

documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; 

and 

(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a 

manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions; and

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and the violation resulting 

from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 184 of 247

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 

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. 

15. Section 63.1345 is amended by revising the section 

heading and revising the section to read as follows:

§63.1345 Emissions limits for affected sources other than 

kilns; clinker coolers; new and reconstructed raw material 

dryers; and open clinker piles.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 185 of 247

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 

gases from these affected sources which exhibit opacity in 

excess of 10 percent.

16. Section 63.1346 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

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

c. Revising paragraphs (c)through (f) to read as follows:

§63.1346 Operating limits for kilns.

(a) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to a D/F 

emissions limitation under §63.1343 must operate the kiln such 

that the temperature of the gas at the inlet to the kiln 

particulate matter 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 in-line kiln/raw mill subject to a D/F emissions 

limitation under §63.1343 must operate the in-line kiln/raw 

mill, such that:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 186 of 247

(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.

* * * * *

(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
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 187 of 247

(ii) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection 

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

based on the manufacturer's specifications. These specifications 

must be documented in the test plan developed in accordance with 

§63.7(c).

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

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

under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission 

control technique you must specify and use the brand and type of 

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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 188 of 247

documentation that the substitute sorbent will provide the same 

or better level of control as the original sorbent.

(f) No kiln may use as a raw material or fuel any fly ash 

where the mercury content of the fly ash has been increased 

through the use of activated carbon, or any other sorbent, 

unless the facility can demonstrate that the use of that fly ash 

will not result in an increase in mercury emissions over 

baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not using the fly ash). The 

facility has the burden of proving there has been no emissions 

increase over baseline. Once the kiln must comply with a mercury 

emissions limit specified in §63.1343, this paragraph no longer 

applies. 

17. Section 63.1347 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows:

§63.1347 Operation and Maintenance Plan Requirements.

(a) * * * 

(1) Procedures for proper operation and maintenance of the 

affected source and air pollution control devices in order to 

meet the emissions limits and operating limits, including 

fugitive dust control measures for open clinker piles, of 

§§63.1343 through 63.1348. Your operation and maintenance plan 

must address periods of startup and shutdown; 

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 189 of 247

18. Section 63.1348 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

e. Removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii);

c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6);

d. Revising paragraph (b); and

e. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

§63.1348 Compliance Requirements.

(a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. For an affected 

source subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance 

with the emissions standards and operating limits by using the 

test methods and procedures in §§63.1349 and 63.7.

NOTE: The first day of the 30 operating day performance 

test is the first day following completion of the field testing 

and data collection that demonstrates that the CPMS or CEMS has 

satisfied the relevant CPMS performance evaluation or CEMS 

performance specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 12B) acceptance 

criteria. The performance test period is complete at the end of 

the 30th consecutive operating day. See §63.1341 for definition 

of operating day and §63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating 

requirements.

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

emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 190 of 247

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) If you are subject to limitations on D/F emissions 

under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the D/F 

emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 

procedures in §63.1349(b)(3). The owner or operator of a kiln 

with an in-line raw mill must demonstrate compliance by 

conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill is 

operating and while the raw mill is not operating. Determine the 

D/F concentration for each run and calculate the arithmetic 

average of the concentrations measured for the three runs to 

determine continuous compliance.

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

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

temperature operating limits specified in §63.1346 by using the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 191 of 247

performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3)(ii) 

through (b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of the 

temperatures measured during the three runs to determine the 

applicable temperature limit.

(iii) If activated carbon injection is used and you are 

subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you 

must demonstrate compliance with the activated carbon injection 

rate operating limits specified in §63.1346 by using the 

performance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(3)(v). 

The average of the run injection rates will determine the 

applicable injection rate limit.

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

develop a carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow 

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

updated during any subsequent performance test conducted under 

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

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

maintained within +/- 5 percent accuracy during the performance 

test determined in accordance with the procedures and criteria 

submitted for review in your monitoring plan required in section 

63.1350(p). 

(4)(i) THC Compliance. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 192 of 247

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

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

emissions standards by using the performance test methods and 

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

concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days 

after the compliance date of this rule to determine initial 

compliance. 

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

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

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. 

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

demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions 

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

must demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions 

standards by using the performance test methods and procedures 

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

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

conduct the separate performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(4)(iii) while the raw mill kiln is operating and 

while the raw mill of the kiln is not operating.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 193 of 247

(iv) The average total organic HAP concentration measured 

during the separate initial performance test specified by 

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

compliance.

(v) The average THC concentration measured during the 

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

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

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

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

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

mill off testing.

(5) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations 

on mercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance with the mercury standards by using the performance 

test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(5). You must 

demonstrate compliance by operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent 

trap based CEMS. Compliance with the mercury emissions standard 

must be determined based on the first 30 operating days you 

operate a mercury CEMS after the compliance date of this rule.

In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an 

integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions 

concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day 

sorbent trap sample) to each relevant hour of the kiln operating 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 194 of 247

days spanned by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln 

operating day emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg 

emissions concentrations and the respective flow and production 

rate values collected during the 30 kiln operating day 

performance test period. Depending on the duration of each 

integrated sampling period, you may not be able to calculate the 

30 kiln operating day emissions value until several days after 

the end of the 30 kiln operating day performance test period. 

For example, a sorbent trap CEMS producing an integrated 7-

day sample will provide Hg concentration data for each hour of 

the first 28 kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7 

days each) of a 30 operating day period. The Hg concentration 

values for the hours of the last 2 days of the 30 operating day 

period will not be available for calculating the emissions for 

the performance test period until at least five days after the 

end of the subject period.

(6) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 

HCl emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the HCl standards by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 195 of 247

in §63.1349(b)(6)(i). You must determine the HCl concentration 

for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the 

concentrations measured for the three runs to determine 

compliance. You must also have established appropriate sitespecific operational parameter limits.

(ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance by operating a CEMS as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(6)(ii). You must use the average of the hourly HCl 

concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days 

that occur after the compliance date of this rule to determine 

initial compliance.

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

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

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit.

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (i), you may use an SO2

CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level during your initial and 

repeat HCl performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(6)(iii).

(b) Continuous Monitoring Requirements. You must 

demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 196 of 247

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 

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.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 197 of 247

(iv) Clinker Production. If you are subject to limitations 

on PM emissions (lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM tons of 

clinker) under §63.1343(b), you must determine the hourly 

production rate of clinker according to the requirements of 

§63.1350(d).

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

emissions under §63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods 

and procedures in §63.1350(b) and (d). 

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

limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate 

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 

§63.1350(f) based on the maximum 6-minute average opacity 

exhibited during the performance test period. You must initiate 

corrective actions d within one hour of detecting visible 

emissions above the applicable limit.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) COMS. If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the 

daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance 

using a COMS such that it is installed, operated, and maintained 

in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(i).

(iii) Bag leak determination system (BLDS). If you install 

a BLDS on a raw mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting the 

daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 198 of 247

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 

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). 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 199 of 247

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

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

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

measured upstream of the coal mill.

(7) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations 

on mercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 

§63.1350(k). 

If you use an integrated sorbent trap Hg CEMS to determine 

ongoing compliance, use the procedures described in 

§63.1348(a)(5) to assign hourly mercury concentration values and 

to calculate rolling 30 operating data emissions rates. Since 

you assign the mercury concentration measured with the sorbent 

trap to each relevant hour respectively for each operating day 

of the integrated period, you may schedule the sorbent change 

periods to any time of the day (i.e., the sorbent trap 

replacement need not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight nor must the 

sorbent trap replacements occur only at integral 24-hour 

intervals).

(8) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 

HCl emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 200 of 247

using the performance test methods and procedures in 

§63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(1). 

(ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(2). 

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

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

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit.

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (ii), you may use an SO2

CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level during your initial and 

repeat HCl performance tests and monitor the SO2 level using the 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(3).

(c) * * * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) The performance test must be completed within 360 

hours after the planned operational change period begins.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 201 of 247

* * * * *

19. Section 63.1349 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);

c. Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text;

d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and (b)(3)(vi);

e. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6); and

f. Revising paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) to read as follows:

§63.1349 Performance testing requirements.

(a) You must document performance test results in complete 

test reports that contain the information required by paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section, as well as all other 

relevant information. As described in §63.7(c)(2)(i), you must 

make available to the Administrator prior to testing, if 

requested, the site-specific test plan to be followed during 

performance testing.

* * * * *

(b)(1) PM Emissions Tests. 

(i) The owner or operator of a kiln subject to limitations 

on particulate matter emissions shall demonstrate initial 

compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 202 of 247

(A) In using a PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance, you must 

establish your PM CPMS operating limit and determine compliance 

with it according to paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) through (D) and 

(b)(1)(ii) and (iv) of this section.

(B) During the initial performance test or any such 

subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with 

the PM limit, record all hourly average output values (e.g., 

milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal) from 

the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the test runs 

(e.g., three 1-hour average PM OK CPMS output values for three 

1-hour test runs).

(C) Determine your operating limit as the highest 1-hour 

average PM CPMS output value recorded during the performance 

test. You must verify an existing or establish a new operating 

limit after each repeated performance test. You must repeat the 

performance test annually and reassess and adjust the sitespecific operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test.

(D) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the 

PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is 

operating and the PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured 

hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 203 of 247

hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in 

units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, 

raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 

3 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

 i



1

30kiln operatingday (Eq. 3)

where:

Hpvi is the hourly parameter value for hour i and n is the 

number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 kiln 

operating days.

(ii) Use EPA Method 5 of appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter to determine PM emissions. For each performance test, 

conduct three separate runs under the conditions that exist when 

the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity 

level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to 

collect a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining 

compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for determining 

compliance with a existing source limit. Calculate the average 

of the results from three runs to determine compliance. You need 

not determine the particulate matter collected in the impingers 

(‘‘back half’’) of the Method 5 particulate sampling train to 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 204 of 247

demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. 

This shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring 

a determination of the ‘‘back half’’ for other purposes.

(iii) [Reserved] 

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

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

simultaneously and the combined emission rate of particulate 

matter from the kiln and alkali bypass must be computed for each 

run using equation 4 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.

 

(Eq. 4)

 

Where:

EC= combined hourly emission rate of particulate matter from 

the kiln and bypass stack, lb/ton of kiln clinker 

production;

EK= hourly emissions of particulate matter emissions from 

the kiln, lb;

EB= hourly particulate matter emissions from the alkali 

bypass stack, lb

P = hourly clinker production, tons.

(v) The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw 

mill and subject to limitations on particulate matter emissions 

P

EC

EK  EB


DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 205 of 247

shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate 

performance tests while the raw mill is under normal operating 

conditions and while the raw mill is not operating.

* * * * *

(3) D/F Emissions Tests. If you are subject to limitations 

on D/F emissions under this subpart, you must conduct a 

performance test using Method 23 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of 

this chapter. If your kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped 

with an alkali bypass, you must conduct simultaneous performance 

tests of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust and the 

alkali bypass. You may conduct a performance test of the alkali 

bypass exhaust when the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

operating or not operating.

* * * * * 

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

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

and where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the 

alkali bypass exhaust, continuously during the period of the 

Method 23 test in accordance with the conditions in 

§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.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 206 of 247

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

performance test in the performance test report.

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

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

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

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

carrier gas flow rate monitoring system according to the 

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

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

maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas pressure 

drop monitoring system according to the procedures in 

§63.1350(m)(6). 

(vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for 

each run and determine and include the average of the run 

average injection rates in the performance test report and 

determine the applicable injection rate limit in accordance with 

§63.1346(c)(1).

(4)(i) THC Emissions Test. 

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

must operate a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) in 

accordance with the requirements in §63.1350(i). For the 

purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance 

evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 50 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 207 of 247

ppmvd and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A 

to part 60 of this chapter.

(B) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test 

for the first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the 

compliance date of the rule. See 63.1348(a). 

(C) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must 

calculate a kiln-specific THC limit using equation 5:

 =

( ×())(×)(×)



(Eq. 5)

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

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

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

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

measured upstream of the coal mill.

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of 

conducting the performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

of this section, you may conduct a performance test to determine 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 208 of 247

emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) through (b)(4)(iv) of this section.

(iii) Use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, Method 18

of Appendix A of part 60, ASTM D6348-03 or a combination to 

determine emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance test 

must consist of three separate runs under the conditions that 

exist when the affected source is operating at the 

representative performance conditions in accordance with 

§63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least 1 hour. You 

must conduct the performance test while the raw mill of the kiln 

is operating and while the raw mill of the kiln is not 

operating.

(iv) At the same time that you are conducting the 

performance test for total organic HAP, you must also determine 

a site-specific THC emissions limit by operating a CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(j). The duration of 

the performance test must be 3 hours and the highest 1-hour 

average THC concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute 

averages) during the 3-hour test must be calculated. Using the 

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

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

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

mill off testing.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 209 of 247

(v) You must repeat the performance test for organic HAP 

according to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section no 

later than 12 months after your last test to confirm compliance 

with the organic HAP emissions limit and to re-establish your 

site-specific THC emissions limit.

(vi) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your 

site-specific THC emissions limit, you must 

(A) as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the 

exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to 

return the THC CEMS measurements to within the established 

value; and

(B) within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the 

annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another 

performance test to determine compliance with the organic HAP 

limit and to verify or re-establish your site-specific THC 

emissions limit. 

(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to 

limitations on mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury 

CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(k). The 

initial compliance test must be based on the first 30 kiln 

operating days in which the affected source operates using a 

mercury CEMS after the compliance date of the rule. See 

§63.1348(a). 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 210 of 247

(i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap 

monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 

requirements in §63.1350(k)(5).

(ii) Calculate the emission rate using the equations 6 of 

this section:





n

i

D CiQi K

n

E

1

30 /

1

(Eq. 6)

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) 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 211 of 247

(B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by 

using the CPMS required in §63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or 

tray tower, measure and record the pressure drop across the 

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

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

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

rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions 

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

injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during 

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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 212 of 247

requirements of §63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an SO2

operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average recorded 

during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will apply only 

for demonstrating HCl compliance.

(iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must 

calculate a kiln-specific HCl limit using equation 7:

 =

( ×())(×)(×)



(Eq. 7)

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

(c) Performance Test Frequency. Except as provided in 

§63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals 

for affected sources that are subject to a dioxin or HCl 

emissions limit and must be repeated every 30 months except for 

pollutants where that specific pollutant is monitored using

CEMS. Tests for PM and total organic HAP are repeated every 12 

months.

(d) Performance Test Reporting Requirements. 

(1) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section no later than 60 days 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 213 of 247

following the initial performance test. All reports must be 

signed by a responsible official.

(i) The initial performance test data as recorded under 

paragraph (b) of this section.

(ii) The values for the site-specific operating limits or 

parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3), 

(b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of this section, as 

applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of 

how the operating parameters were established during the initial 

performance test. 

(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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 214 of 247

must make available to the Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.

20. Section 63.1350 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d);

b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;

c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) through (f)(1)(vi);

d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);

e. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4); 

f. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text; 

g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(4);

h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);

i. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2);

j. Adding paragraph (i)(3);

k. Revising paragraph (k) introductory text;

l. Revising paragraph (k)(1)

m. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4) as 

paragraphs (k)(3), (k)(4), and (k)(5), respectively;

n. Adding new paragraph (k)(2) text;

o. Revising newly designated paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(5);

p. Adding new paragraph (k)(6);

q. Revising paragraph (l) introductory text;

r. Revising paragraph (l)(2);

s. Adding paragraph (l)(3);
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 215 of 247

t. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;

u. Revising paragraph (m)(7)(i);

v. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (m)(9) and 

(m)(10);

w. Revising paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and 

paragraph (m)(11)(v);

x. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (n), (o), and 

(p); 

y. Revising paragraph (n)(3); and

z. Revising introductory text for paragraphs (p)(1), 

(p)(2), and (p)(5), to read as follows:

§63.1350 Monitoring requirements. 

(a)(1) Following the compliance date, the owner or operator 

must demonstrate compliance with this subpart on a continuous 

basis by meeting the requirements of this section.

(2) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup 

and shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data 

gathered during other operating periods. 

(3) For each existing unit that is equipped with a CMS, 

maintain the average emissions or the operating parameter values 

within the operating parameter limits established through 

performance tests.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 216 of 247

(4) Any instance where the owner or operator fails to 

comply with the continuous monitoring requirements of 

this section is a deviation.

(b) PM Monitoring Requirements. 

(1)(i) PM CPMS. You will use a PM CPMS to establish a sitespecific operating limit corresponding to the results of the 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit. You 

will conduct your performance test using Method 5 at appendix A3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use the PM CPMS to 

demonstrate continuous compliance with this operating limit. You 

must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and 

adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the 

results of the performance test. 

(ii) To determine continuous compliance, you must record 

the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is 

operating and the PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured 

hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating 

hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in 

units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, 

raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 217 of 247

(iii) For any deviation of the 30 process operating day PM 

CPMS average value from the established operating parameter 

limit, you must

(A) Within 48 hours of the deviation, visually inspect the 

APCD;

(B) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the 

deviation, take corrective action as soon as possible., and 

return the PM CPMS measurement to within the established value; 

and

(C) Within 30 days of the deviation or at the time of the 

annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM 

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the PM 

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

limit. You are not required to conduct additional testing for 

any deviations that occur between the time of the original 

deviation and the PM emissions compliance test required under 

this paragraph.

(iv) PM CPMS deviations from the operating limit leading 

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

process operating period (rolling monthly) constitute a separate

violation of this subpart.

(2) [Reserved]
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 218 of 247

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

diverted through an alkali bypass, you must account for the 

particulate matter emitted from the alkali bypass stack by 

following the procedures in (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this 

section:

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

instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust 

gas flow rate to the atmosphere from the alkali bypass stack 

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

(n)(10) of this section.

(ii) Develop a particulate matter emissions factor by 

conducting annual performance tests using Method 5 to measure 

the concentration of particulate matter in the gases exhausted 

from the alkali bypass stack.

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

of particulate matter in pounds per hour from the alkali bypass 

exhaust by using the particulate matter emissions factor and the 

continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates.

(iv) Sum the hourly particulate matter emissions from the 

kiln and alkali bypass to determine total hourly particulate 

matter emissions. Using hourly clinker production, calculate the 

hourly emissions rate in pounds per ton of clinker to determine 

your 30 day rolling average.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 219 of 247

(v) If you monitor compliance using a PM CPMS, you must 

determine compliance according to paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(A) 

through (C) of this section:

(A) Conduct an annual performance test using Method 5 to 

determine total particulate matter emissions from the alkali 

bypass and kiln. 

(B) To determine continuous compliance, you must establish 

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

this section. 

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

for the alkali bypass during your annual performance test. You 

must continuously monitor the flow rate until the next 

performance test. If there is a deviation of the monitored flow 

rate from the maximum established during your last performance 

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 particulate matter or 

mercury emissions (lb/ton of clinker), you must:

(1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two 

methods:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 220 of 247

(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 

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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 221 of 247

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 

§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, 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 222 of 247

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 

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 particulate matter control 

devices (PMCD) of these affected sources in accordance with the 

procedures of Method 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 223 of 247

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 

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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 224 of 247

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.

* * * * *

(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).
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 225 of 247

* * * * *

(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 

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.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 226 of 247

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

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

60 and repeated annually.

* * * * *

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

subject to an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you 

must install and operate a mercury continuous emissions 

monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in accordance with Performance 

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

chapter or a sorbent trap-based integrated monitoring system in 

accordance with Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. You must monitor mercury 

continuously according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) of 

this section. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan 

in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4) of this 

section.

(1) You must use a span value for any Hg CEMS that 

represents the mercury concentration corresponding to 

approximately two times the emissions standard rounded up to the 

nearest multiple of 5 μg/m3 of total mercury. As specified in PS 

12A, Section 6.1.1, the data recorder output range must include 

the full range of expected Hg concentration values which would 

include those expected during “mill off” conditions.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 227 of 247

(2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span 

value, you must use one of the options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) 

through (k)(2)(iii) below.

(i) Include a second span that encompasses the Hg emission 

concentrations expected to be encountered during “mill off” 

conditions. This second span may be rounded to a multiple of 5 

μg/m3 of total mercury. The requirements of PS-12A, shall be 

followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA 

with the mill off is not required.

(ii) Conduct an additional ‘above span’ daily calibration 

using a Hg reference gas standard at a concentration level 

between 50 and 85 percent of the highest hourly Hg concentration 

expected during “mill off” conditions. The ‘above span’ 

reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 

and be introduced at the probe. The ‘above span’ calibration is 

successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 

percent of the certified value of the reference gas. Record and 

report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily 

calibration.

(iii) If you choose not to conduct an additional daily 

calibration, then quality assure any data above the span value 

established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the 

following procedure. Any time the one hour average measured 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 228 of 247

concentration of Hg exceeds the span value you must, within 24 

hours, introduce a higher, ‘above span’ Hg reference gas 

standard to the Hg CEMS. The ‘above span’ reference gas must 

meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1, must be of a 

concentration level greater than 80 percent of the highest 

hourly concentration measured during the period of measurements 

above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and 

report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily 

calibration. The ‘above span’ calibration is successful if the 

value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of the 

certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by 

the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified value of the 

reference gas, then you must normalize the one-hour average 

stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour 

period preceding the ‘above span’ calibration for reporting 

based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as follows:

   

    

×    

=    

(3) You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or sorbent 

trap-based integrated monitoring system according to the quality 

assurance requirements in Procedure 5 of appendix F to part 60 

of this chapter. 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 229 of 247

(4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems 

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

operating conditions with the raw mill on.

(5) If you use a Hg CEMS or a sorbent trap-based integrated 

monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 

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

section. If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through separate stacks, you must 

account for the mercury emitted from those stacks by following 

the procedures in (k)(5)(i) through (v) of this section:

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

instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust 

gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section.

(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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 230 of 247

mill exhausts by using the mercury hourly emissions rate and the 

continuously measured exhaust gas flow rates.

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

bypass and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. Using 

hourly clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate

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

average.

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

method detection limit for two consecutive annual performance 

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

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

concentration exceeds the method detection limit, you must 

revert to testing annually until two consecutive annual tests 

are below the method detection limit.

(6) If you operate an integrated sampling Hg CEMS 

conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period from 24 

hours to 168 hours in length. You should use a monitoring period 

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, 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 231 of 247

if your kiln is controlled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray 

tower, you alternatively may monitor SO2 emissions continuously

according to paragraph (l)(3) of this section. You must also 

develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with 

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

(1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit 

by operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with 

Performance Specification 15 (PS 15) of appendix B to part 60 of 

this chapter, or, upon promulgation, in accordance with any 

other performance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to 

part 60 of this chapter. You must operate, maintain, and quality 

assure a HCl CEMS installed and certified under PS 15 according 

to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix 

F to part 60 of this chapter except that the Relative Accuracy 

Test Audit requirements of Procedure 1 must be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 

of PS 15. If you install and operate an HCl CEMS in accordance 

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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 232 of 247

conducting relative accuracy testing. The span value and 

calibration requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (l)(1)(ii) 

below apply to HCl CEMS other than those installed and certified 

under PS 15.

(i) You must use a span value for any HCl CEMS that 

represents the intended upper limit of the HCl concentration 

measurement range during normal “mill on” operation. The span 

value should be equivalent to approximately two times the 

emissions standard and it may be rounded to the nearest multiple 

of 5 ppm of HCl. The HCl CEMS data recorder output range must 

include the full range of expected HCl concentration values 

which would include those expected during “mill off” conditions. 

(ii) In order to quality assure data measured above the 

span value, you must use one of the two options in paragraphs 

(l)(1)(ii)(A) and (l)(1)(ii)(B) below.

(A) Conduct an additional ‘above span’ daily calibration 

using a HCl reference gas standard at a concentration level 

between 50 and 85 percent of the highest hourly HCl

concentration expected during “mill off” conditions. The ‘above 

span’ reference gas must meet the requirements of the applicable 

performance specification and be introduced at the probe. The 

‘above span’ calibration is successful if the value measured by 

the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 233 of 247

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

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

then you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span 

as described in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(C) below. Record and report 

the results of this procedure as you would for a daily 

calibration.

(B) If you choose not to conduct an additional calibration 

on a daily basis, then quality assure any data above the span 

value established in paragraph (1)(1)(i) of this section using 

the following procedure. Any time the average measured 

concentration of HCl exceeds or is expected to exceed the span 

value for greater than two hours you must, within a period 24 

hours before or after the ‘above span’ period, introduce a 

higher, ‘above span’ HCl reference gas standard to the HCl CEMS. 

The ‘above span’ reference gas must meet the requirements of the 

applicable performance specification and be of a concentration 

level greater than or equal to 80 percent of the highest hourly 

concentration measured during the period of measurements above 

span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and report the 

results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. 

The ‘above span’ calibration is successful if the value measured 

by the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of 

the reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl CEMS is not 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 234 of 247

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:

   

    

×    

=    

(2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet 

scrubber or tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 235 of 247

(m)(5) and (m)(7) of this section, and dry scrubber, as 

specified in paragraph (m)(8) of this section. 

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

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

emissions continuously according to the requirements of 

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

SO2 levels increase above the 1 hour average SO2 operating limit

established during your performance test, you must

(i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after 

you deviate from the established SO2 value conduct an inspection 

and take corrective action to return the SO2 emissions to within 

the operating limit; and

(ii) Within 60 days of the deviation or at the time of the 

next compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl 

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the SO2 CEMS 

operating limit. 

(m) Parameter Monitoring Requirements. If you have an 

operating limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must 

install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CMS) according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by the compliance 

date specified in §63.1351. You must also meet the applicable 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 236 of 247

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, 

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a BLDS as 

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

section.
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 237 of 247

(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 particulate matter emissions at 

concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams per actual cubic meter.

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

absolute particulate matter 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 particulate matter emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located such that the alert is 

detected and recognized easily by an operator.

(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do 

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

must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

* * * * *

(11) * * * 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 238 of 247

(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 

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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 239 of 247

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.

* * * * *

(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 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 240 of 247

section for a period of 5 years, with at least the first 2 years 

on-site;

* * * * *

21. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 

and (d), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§63.1351 Compliance dates.

* * * * *

(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the 

requirements that became effective on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] will be 

September 9, 2015.].

(d) The compliance date for new sources is May 6, 2009 or 

startup, whichever is later.

(e) The compliance date for existing and new sources with 

the requirements for open clinker storage piles in §63.1343(c) 

is [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or startup, whichever is later. 

22. Section 63.1352 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows:

§63.1352 Additional test methods.

(a) If you are conducting tests to determine the rates of 

emission of HCl from kilns and associated bypass stacks at 

portland cement manufacturing facilities, for use in 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 241 of 247

applicability determinations under §63.1340 you may use Method 

320 or Method 321 of appendix A of this part.

(b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the 

rates of emission of specific organic HAP from raw material 

dryers, kilns at Portland cement manufacturing facilities, 

solely for use in applicability determinations under §63.1340 of 

this subpart are permitted to use Method 320 of appendix A to 

this part, or Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this 

chapter. 

23. Section 63.1353 is amended by inserting paragraph 

(b)(6) to read as follows:

§63.1353 Notification Requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Within 48 hours of a deviation that triggers retesting 

to establish compliance and new operating limits, notify the 

appropriate permitting agency of the planned performance tests.

The notification requirements of §63.7(e) and 63.9(e) do not 

apply to retesting required for deviations under this subpart.

* * * * *

24. Section 63.1354 is amended by revising paragraph 

(b)(9)(vi), adding paragraph (b)(9)(vii) and revising paragraph

(c) to read as follows:
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 242 of 247

§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 EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that 

is accessed through 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 EPA’s reporting form output format. For each 

reporting period, the reports must include all of the calculated 

30-operating day rolling average values derived from the CEMS or 

Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems. 

(vii) In response to each deviation from an emissions 

standard or established operating parameter limit, the date, 

duration and description of each deviation and the specific 

actions taken for each deviation including inspections, 

corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results 

of those actions.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 243 of 247

(c) Reporting deviations due to startup, shutdown or 

malfunctions. For each deviation from a standard or emission 

limit caused by a startup, shutdown, or malfunction at an 

affected source, you must report the deviation in the semiannual compliance report. The report must contain the date, time 

and duration, and the cause of each event (including unknown 

cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number of events in the 

reporting period. The report must list for each event the 

affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which 

the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. The report must also 

include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §63.1348(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction.

* * * * *

25. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) 

and (g) and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 244 of 247

(f) The date, time and duration of each startup or shutdown 

which causes the source to exceed any applicable emission 

limitation, and (f)(i) through (iii) of this section;

(i) The date, time, and duration of each startup or 

shutdown period, for any affected source that is subject to an 

emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from 

the emission standard applicable at other times.

(ii) The quantity and type of raw feed and fuel used during 

the startup or shutdown period.

(iii) An estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during startup or shutdown, with 

a description of the method used to estimate emissions.

(g)(1) The date, time and duration of each malfunction that 

causes an affected source to fail to meet an applicable 

standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the date, 

time and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the record must 

list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume 

of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which 

the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions.

* * * * *

(h) For each deviation from an emissions standard or 

established operating parameter limit, you must keep records of
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 245 of 247

the date, duration and description of each deviation and the 

specific actions taken for each deviation including inspections, 

corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results 

of those actions.

* * * * *

26. Section 63.1356 is amended by revising the section 

heading and the section text to read as follows: 

§63.1356 Sources with multiple emissions limit or monitoring 

requirements. 

If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a 

different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant 

under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner 

or operator of the affected facility must comply with the most 

stringent emissions limit or requirement and is exempt from the 

less stringent requirement. 

27. Section 63.1357 is amended by:

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

(b). Revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate 

matter and opacity standards.

(a) * * *
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 246 of 247

(1) Any particulate matter 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 

particulate matter and opacity standards of this part or part 60 

of this chapter.

* * * * *

28. Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 is revised to read as 

follows:

Table 3 to Subpart LLL of Part 63—Applicability of General 

Provisions

Citation Requirement

Applies to 

Subpart 

LLL Explanation

 * * * * * * *

63.6(e)(3)Startup, 

Shutdown 

Malfunction Plan

No Startup and shutdown plans 

addressed in §63.1347. 

* * * * * * *

63.7(b) Notification 

period

Yes Except for repeat 

performance test caused by 

a deviation. See 

§63.1353(b)(6)

* * * * * * *

63.9(e) Notification of 

performance test

Yes Except for repeat 

performance test caused by 

a deviation. See 
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE –5/01/12

Page 247 of 247

§63.1353(b)(6)

 * * * * * * *