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 231

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 

standards for new kilns under both the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants and the new source 

performance standards apply to facilities that commence 

construction, modification or reconstruction after [INSERT 

DATE OF 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]].

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]

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID 

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

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 3 of 231

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

Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments.

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

Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the 

EPA Air and Radiation Docket website.

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 4 of 231

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

Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0817. Such deliveries are only accepted 

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

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

legal holidays), and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed information. Please 

include two copies.

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 5 of 231

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

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

email address will be automatically captured and included 

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

and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 

your name and other contact information in the body of your 

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

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. Electronic 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 6 of 231

whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically in 

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

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

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

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

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 

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

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

pertinent to the previous Portland cement rulemakings 

discussed in this document is contained in dockets EPA-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, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 7 of 231

Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals 

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

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; email: 

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

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
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 8 of 231

D. Proposed Amendments to PM Existing and New Source NESHAP 

and NSPS

E. Revisions to the NSPS PM Standard

F. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting from 

Reconsideration 

G. Standards for Fugitive Emissions from Clinker Storage 

Piles

H. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for Exceedances 

Occurring During Malfunctions

I. Continuously Monitored Parameters for Alternative 

Organic HAP Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter) 

J. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic Scrubbers to Comply 

With HCl Standard Using Performance Tests

K. Alternative PM Limit

L. Standards During Startup and Shutdown

M. Coal Mills (NESHAP and NSPS)

N. PM Standard for Modified Sources Under the NSPS

O. Proposed NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for Existing 

Sources

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 9 of 231

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

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). Specifically, EPA 

is proposing to amend the standards for particulate matter 

for both existing and new sources under the NESHAP, and to 

make the same amendments to the standards for particulate 

matter in the NSPS. EPA is not proposing changes to any of 

the other promulgated standards. The proposed amendments 

also address the issues on which EPA already granted 

reconsideration. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). 

This proposal addresses the remand by the Circuit 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 10 of 231

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 

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. 

EPA anticipates that the effect of these proposed 

amendments, if adopted, will be to provide less costly 

compliance options and compliance flexibilities which were 

not available under the promulgated standards. At the same 

time, EPA believes that the emission reductions under the 

proposed standards will be essentially the same as under 

the promulgated standards because cement plants will need 

to design control systems to achieve essentially the same 

long term averages under either the promulgated or proposed 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 11 of 231

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action. These 

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

of the Clean Air Act, and, as noted, respond to the court’s 

opinion in Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA. 

2) Summary of Major Proposed Provisions

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

is proposing changes to the emission standards for PM. For 

technical reasons, it does not appear that the promulgated 

standard can be reliably measured using a Continuous 

Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). EPA is therefore 

proposing to amend the existing and new source PM standard 

to be measured by stack testing, and is proposing to change 

the level and averaging time of those standards as a 

consequence. After removing all the CISWI kilns from the 

database used to set the 2010 standards for PM, consistent 

with the court’s remand, EPA is proposing a PM standard for 

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

based on stack testing, (from 0.04 lb/ton in the 2010 rule,

30-day average with a 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 CEMS). EPA is also proposing 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 12 of 231

corresponding amendments to the NSPS for PM issued under 

section 111 (b) of the Act.

b. Other Emissions Standards. The EPA also evaluated 

the emission standards for mercury, total hydrocarbons 

(THC) and hydrochloric acid (HCl). For existing sources, 

after removing the CISWI kilns from the database used to 

establish the 2010 standards, the mercury and THC floors 

would have changed but EPA is not proposing to amend the 

standards. The mercury floor is close enough to the 2010 

promulgated standard that the mercury standard can be 

repromulgated as a beyond the floor standard at virtually 

no cost. EPA further believes that the promulgated THC 

standard for existing sources is a technically superior 

measure of performance of the best performers and is 

therefore proposing to retain the standard. Removing CISWI 

kilns from the database for HCl resulted in no change to 

the floor and EPA is proposing to retain the standard as 

promulgated. 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 13 of 231

provision. EPA therefore is not proposing to amend any of 

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

where the best performing source in the database used to 

set the standards was a CISWI cement kiln. 

EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative 

standard for organic HAP, whereby organic HAP are measured 

directly. In order that the alternative standard is not 

lower than the practical quantitation limit of the relevant 

analytic methods, EPA is proposing to increase the 

alternative organic HAP standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. 

c. Fugitive Emissions from Clinker Storage Piles. EPA 

is proposing to amend the promulgated standards which 

control fugitive emissions from open clinker piles. The 

proposed standards would allow sources to choose from a 

number of work practices which EPA believes to be of 

equivalent stringency. These proposed work practices are 

drawn from requirements in cement kilns’ Title V permits 

and include wetting with water or surfactants, covering 

with tarps or building temporary enclosures.

d. Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties for 

Exceedances Occurring during Malfunctions. EPA is 

reproposing the affirmative defense provisions included in 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 14 of 231

the final 2010 rule in order to afford proper opportunity 

for public comment. 

e. Allowing Sources with Dry Caustic Scrubbers to 

Comply with HCl Standard Using Performance Tests. EPA is 

proposing to allow cement kilns controlling HCl with dry 

scrubbing controls the same compliance options as sources 

using wet scrubbers, namely monitoring compliance via stack 

testing rather than with a CEMS. This proposed amendment 

is based on data showing equivalent control and reliability 

of wet and dry control systems. For sources that are 

controlled with wet or dry scrubbers, EPA is also proposing 

that sources can choose to carry out continuous sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) monitoring in lieu of either continuous 

parametric monitoring or monitoring with an HCl CEMS. 

Monitoring continuous SO2 emissions would serve as an 

indicator of scrubber performance. 

f. Alternative PM Limit. The September 2010 final rule 

sought to accommodate commingled flows from the kiln and 

clinker cooler by providing a site specific PM limit, 

including an equation in the rule for calculating that 

limit. The agency failed to recognize that other flows 

besides the exhaust gas flow from the clinker cooler can be 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 15 of 231

commingled as well. EPA is proposing a revised equation 

that would include exhaust gas flows for all sources that 

would potentially be combined into a single exhaust gas 

stream, including the kiln, alkali bypass, coal mill and 

clinker cooler.

g. 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 should have no 

difficulty meeting these standards. EPA is therefore 

proposing that monitoring of these standards be conducted 

via recordkeeping. 

h. Coal Mills. In the 2009 amendments to the NSPS for 

coal mills, coal mills at Portland cement facilities were 

exempted if their only heat source was kiln exhaust. In the 

2010 NESHAP for portland cement plants, EPA failed to 

address these coal mills. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

provisions recognizing coal mills as an integral part of 

the cement kiln. The proposed amendments specify when and 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 16 of 231

how coal mills are to be tested for mercury, THC and HCl 

and contain provisions for continuous monitoring of the 

coal mill and kiln performance. PM emissions from coal 

mills are covered under the NSPS for coal mills and are not 

addressed in these proposed amendments.

i. PM Standard for Modified Sources under the NSPS. 

Under the NSPS, an existing kiln that undergoes 

modification becomes subject to the new source PM standard 

of 0.02 lb/ton clinker (3-run stack test). But under the 

NESHAP, such a kiln would continue to be an existing kiln 

and subject to the PM limit of 0.07 lb/ton clinker (3-run 

stack test)for existing kilns. To rectify this situation, 

the EPA is proposing that a modified kiln would remain 

subject to the 0.07 lb/ton clinker PM standard.

j. Proposed Compliance Dates. The EPA is proposing 

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

existing source standards be extended 2 years to September 

9, 2015. EPA believes that the proposed change to the PM 

standard affords additional, less costly means of control 

of both PM and the other HAP (all of which involve some 

measure of PM control) and that two years is the period in 

which these new compliance strategies can be implemented 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 17 of 231

most expeditiously. EPA is also proposing that the trigger 

date for new source eligibility be the date of this 

proposal, since the proposed amendments to the new source 

standard for PM afford compliance alternatives which are 

different from those available under the 2010 new source 

standards. 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 

promulgation of final rules.

3) Costs and Benefits

This proposal contains amendments to the 2010 rule 

that are expected to result in cost savings for the 

Portland cement industry. The proposed amendments to the PM 

standards afford less expensive compliance opportunities 

for some sources in the form of smaller baghouses with less 

expensive bags, and potential use of ESPs rather than 

baghouses (or use of ESPs in combination with other control 

devices in lieu of a baghouse.) Standards for mercury, HCl, 

and THC also involve some element of PM control (in the 

form of activated carbon residue, or dry or wet scrubber 

residues) which also may be controlled differently and less 

expensively by virtue of the proposed PM standard. The 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 18 of 231

proposal includes examples of the potential cost savings 

associated with these alternatives and bounding estimates 

of the extent of these potential savings. However, we are 

not attempting to make more specific estimates in the 

proposal because of an absence of site-specific information 

which would allow us to make kiln-by-kiln estimates of 

potential compliance strategies. 

EPA is further projecting that long-term emission 

reductions of PM will not change significantly between the 

promulgated standards and the proposed standards. This is 

because kilns must design their control systems to achieve 

a long-term average in order to assure continuous 

compliance, and EPA does not believe that this long-term 

average would change appreciably for any of the HAP. Thus, 

for PM, the proposed amendments would 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 the other 

standards, there should be no change since the standards 

would not be amended. EPA does not anticipate changes in 

emissions reductions for any of the other HAP since EPA is 

not proposing to change those standards. However, as a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 19 of 231

result of the proposed extension of the existing source 

compliance date, the reductions would not fully accrue 

until September 2015.

4. Summary of Proposed Standards

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 20 of 231

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether 

your facility will be regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart 

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

questions regarding the applicability of this final action 

to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 21 of 231

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

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

contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included 

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

without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as 

CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

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

Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

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

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on 

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

Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 22 of 231

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 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 23 of 231

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 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 24 of 231

In developing MACT, we must also consider control 

options that are more stringent than the floor. We may 

establish standards more stringent than the floor based on 

the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions 

reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section 

112(d)(2).

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 25 of 231

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 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 26 of 231

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

best performing similar source.

III. Description of Proposed Amendments to Subpart LLL and 

Subpart F

A. Reconsideration of Standards

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 23 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 the same 23 kilns as 

commercial incinerators as were identified in the April 25 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 27 of 231

memorandum. 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. Existing Source Floors. We removed the 23 CISWI 

kilns from the database used to establish existing source 

 

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 limits for HCl were unchanged, the existing 

source limits for PM were essentially unchanged, the limit 

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

analysis), and the mercury limit increases from 54 lb/MM

ton clinker to 66 lb/MM ton clinker. We do not believe 

that any of the limits from this bounding exercise would 

result in a change in the technology needed to comply with 

the standards being proposed in this notice. See Technical 

Support Document, Section X.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 28 of 231

standards and recalculated the following floors for 

existing sources:

Table 1 – Comparison of Floors for Existing Sources with 

and without CISWI Kilns 1

Pollutant Existing source 

floor – 2010 Final 

Rule

Existing source 

floor – CISWI 

kilns removed from 

inventory

Mercury 55 lb/MM tons 

clinker

58 lb/MM tons 

clinker

Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 15 ppmvd

PM 0.04 lb/ton 

clinker 

0.05 lb/ton 

clinker 

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

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

rolling average. If using a CEMS to determine compliance 

with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30-day rolling 

average.

As shown in this Table, the floors for mercury and PM 

are little changed, and the floor for HCl is unaltered.2 

(Changes to the alternative organic HAP standard were based 

on monitoring issues discussed in Section H below.) 

As explained in section B below, the EPA is proposing 

to establish a beyond the floor standard for mercury of 55 

 

2There is no reason the HCl standard would ever change in a 

reanalysis because “there are a whole group of cement kilns 

that performed identically to the floor kiln for HCl that 

was ... reclassified as a CISWI so there would be no effect 

on the standard.” 76 FR at 28322 n. 11.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 29 of 231

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.

2. New Source Standards. With respect to new source 

standards, the EPA does not believe that any 

reclassification and reanalysis is necessary under the 

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

performance of “the best controlled similar source”, as 

opposed to existing source floors which must reflect 

performance of sources “in the category or subcategory”. 

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

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

is a cement kiln. Equally important, burning secondary 

materials for energy recovery does not significantly alter 

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

(documenting both the basis for this conclusion and the 

cement industry’s agreement with it). 3

 

3 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. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 30 of 231

If the EPA were to reconsider the new source standards 

by removing the 23 CISWI kilns from the database, then the 

mercury new source floor would become slightly less 

stringent, the PM and HCl floors would remain the same, and 

the THC floor would become more stringent (inappropriately 

so, as explained in section C below). 

Table 2 – Comparison of Floors for New Sources with and 

without CISWI Kilns1

Pollutant New source floor –

2010 Final Rule

New source floor –

CISWI kilns 

removed from 

inventory

Mercury 21 lb/MM tons 

clinker

24 lb/MM tons 

clinker

Total Hydrocarbons 24 ppmvd 11 ppmvd

PM 0.01 lb/ton 

clinker

0.01 lb/ton 

clinker

HCl 3 ppmvd 3 ppmvd

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

rolling average. If using a CEMS to determine compliance 

with the HCl standard, the floor is also a 30-day rolling 

average.

B. Mercury Standard

1. New Source Standard

As explained above, the new source floor would remain 

at the same level as in the 2010 final rule. The EPA is not 

 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 31 of 231

proposing a beyond-the-floor new source standard for the 

same reasons as in the final rule. See 75 FR at 54980.

2. Existing Source Standard

As shown in Table 1 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. The 

only difference in cost between the two levels is the 

incremental cost of removing slightly more mercury. This 

is because the control equipment needed for mercury would 

not be 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 250 pounds 

of nationwide mercury emissions per year. To achieve this 

additional reduction, we estimated an additional cost of 

approximately $3.72 million for the industry, to purchase 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 32 of 231

additional carbon injection materials. This equates to a 

cost-effectiveness of $15,000/lb of mercury reduction per 

year. EPA believes this standard to be justified given 

mercury’s toxicity and the special consideration in the CAA 

for control of mercury under the air toxics provisions. 

See 75 FR at 54979 (rejecting a subcategory for high 

mercury-emitting cement kilns for this reason). EPA also 

does not see any adverse energy or non-air 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 

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

kilns were Suwannee and Holcim. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 33 of 231

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 

readers’ convenience). Removing the CISWI Union Bridge 

kiln as the best performing new source would leave the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 34 of 231

Suwannee kiln as the lowest emitter based on its daily 

average THC emissions. See Portland Cement Reconsideration 

Technical Support Document (TSD), Section 10.4, 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. 

See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support 

Document, section 10.4, 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 35 of 231

2. Existing Source Standard. Under the calculation 

shown in Table 1 above, the existing source floor would be 

reduced from 24 ppmv to 15 ppmv. EPA does not believe that 

such a floor level would 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 are among the most 

robust in the database, containing over 3 times the number 

of observations as the next best performing cement kiln. 

Thus, EPA 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. EPA’s technical concern, were it to base 

variability estimates exclusively on the data from the nonCISWI cement kilns, is heightened because there are only 

two kilns as best performers for THC, a result dictated by 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 36 of 231

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 

10.4. 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 (RTO) 

which have negative environmental implications, notably 

increased emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other 

greenhouse gases, as well as increased emissions of 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) CO, SO2 and PM10. See 74 FR at 21153.5 

 

5EPA estimates that each thermal oxidizer emits an added 

increment of 0.01 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 37 of 231

These devices are also extremely costly and not costeffective. 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-OAR-2002-0051-3438. For all these 

reasons, 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 

the NESHAP7, the EPA is proposing revisions to the testing 

 

additional 12,000 tons of CO2 per year. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document, Section 12.

6 EPA is also proposing to amend the alternative standard 

for organic HAP under which organic HAP is measured 

directly. See section H 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 wasteburning). Petition pp. 5-6. This information was collected 

commencing in January 2011. Since the information in the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 38 of 231

and monitoring methods used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the existing and new source PM emissions 

standards and the consequent averaging time, level, and 

compliance demonstration for those standards. The EPA has 

also removed all CISWI kilns from the database used to 

establish the standards for PM, consistent with the court’s 

remand. We explain these proposed changes below.

In comments to the 2009 proposal, industry commenters 

maintained that there were several problems with 

implementing the monitoring requirements to demonstrate 

compliance using a PM CEMS and the requirements to conduct 

a periodic audit of the PM CEMS in accordance with 

performance specification (PS) 11 of appendix B and 

 

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 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. 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 39 of 231

Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60. These comments 

claimed that there were insurmountable problems with 

developing the required correlation range for PM CEMS when 

fabric filters are used to control PM emissions due to the 

impracticality to vary PM emissions as required by PS 11. 

Industry also claimed that there were issues with obtaining 

the required accuracy and precision from reference Method 5 

measurements at low emissions levels without a burdensome 

increase in sampling time for 15 or more the Method 5 test 

runs required by PS 11. 

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 has

emerged as the industry has attempted to develop a CEMSbased compliance strategy for PM. 

The industry described that in establishing the 

required PS 11 correlation with Method 5 test results, the 

source must intentionally change operation of the fabric 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 40 of 231

filter to produce a range of emissions. Such control device 

adjustments are difficult to manage under ideal 

circumstances (e.g., laboratory conditions). 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. Including these elevated PM levels 

in their 30-day rolling PM average, the industry expressed 

concern about the potential for periods of noncompliance 

that may subject the source to enforcement actions, 

penalties or citizen suits. 

The industry also 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 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. Industry 

claims that the EPA has not adequately investigated these 

issues at the variety of cement kiln systems and plant 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 41 of 231

configurations where PM CEMS will be required. See docket 

items EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-2845 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-

2859.

Industry commenters submitted several further 

objections to a requirement to use PM CEMS and PS 11 for 

compliance monitoring. Problems identified by commenters 

included: 

1) PM CEMS allowable measurement error (25 percent) 

potentially demonstrating noncompliance even though Method 

5 test results would show compliance; 

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 (i.e., 

essentially constant concentration devices);

3) Method 5 may not be sensitive enough to measure at 

the proposed PM levels 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; and
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 42 of 231

4) PM CEMS is not capable at the time of establishing 

PS 11 “accuracy” using calibration gases as is done with 

other pollutants (SO2 or NOx).

Performance Specification 11

In beginning a response, it is useful to review the 

procedures and acceptance criteria of PS 11. Performance 

Specification 11 is structured differently than other 

performance specifications for validating the performance 

of gaseous pollutant CEMS. This is primarily because the 

pollutant (PM), is defined entirely by the test method 

specified by regulation to measure it. There are no 

independent standard reference materials for PM

concentrations as there are for gaseous pollutants (e.g., 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

traceable compressed gases for SO2 or NOx). The only 

reference standard for determining the PM concentration in 

an air or stack gas sample is the test method. In the case 

of the Portland cement rule, that method is EPA Method 5 

for measuring filterable PM concentration or mass rate 

(e.g., in milligram per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)

or pounds per hour).
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 43 of 231

The structure of PS 11 is further dictated by the 

types of CEMS technologies used as PM CEMS. A PM CEMS 

technology familiar to most industry users relies on the 

degree to which light that strikes particles in a gas 

stream is deflected or causes particles to luminesce (e.g., 

light scatter or light scintillation devices). Sensitive 

detectors can sense the interaction of light with PM (e.g., 

forward, back or side scatter, light scintillation) and 

produce a signal proportional to the number and size of 

particles in the gas stream (i.e., these are essentially 

particle counters). Factors that affect correlation of the 

light-based PM CEMS signal to particle mass concentration 

are numerous and include the surface contours of the 

particles, temperature and flow rate, particle color and 

shape, particle size and absorptivity.

There are other PM CEMS technologies potentially 

subject to PS 11 that provide a measure more directly 

related to particle mass than do the light-based PM CEMS 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 44 of 231

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. Another PM mass detector projected for greater use 

in 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 

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. 

Performance Specification 11 provides procedures and 

acceptance criteria for validating the performance of any 

of these types of PM CEMS technologies. 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 one principal PM CEMS 

performance requirement that is distinctly different than 

in CEMS performance specifications for gaseous pollutants

and that relates directly to the comments industry has 

raised -- the development of a site-specific PM CEMS 

correlation or mathematical response curve. There are two 

key procedural elements to developing that correlation 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 45 of 231

according to PS 11. First, PS 11 requires that the source 

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

Method 5) and simultaneously collects PM CEMS output data. 

The second key element of the correlation development is 

that the source must vary the operation of the control 

device manually in order to produce a range of PM 

concentrations. Performance Specification 11 requires at 

least 5 test runs at each of 3 different operating (i.e., 

PM concentration) conditions that are to range from 25 to 

100 percent of allowable emissions for a total of 15 or 

more test runs. The source must then 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 in essence 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 46 of 231

requirement is the impracticality of varying the emissions 

from a fabric filter control device. Most of the Portland 

cement plants subject to the MACT use fabric filter control 

devices. As the commenters note, there are typically no 

physical adjustments one can apply to a fabric filter or to 

the kiln process to change significantly the outlet PM 

concentration. 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). 

Performance Specification 11 allows some flexibility when 

control device perturbations are not possible. In such 

cases, the resulting correlation would apply for only the 

narrow range of concentrations measured during the testing 

and presumably below the applicable compliance limit. 

Without the ability to calculate emissions should the 

fabric filter performance change (e.g., bag leaks begin to 

develop), such a limitation would render the correlation 

irrelevant for calculating a long term average 

concentration or emissions rate or for verifying a 

violation of a short term emissions limit.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 47 of 231

Commenters cited problems in developing correlations 

in stack gases with variable PM constituents 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 of the variations in the 

physical characteristics of particles emitted 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. Put another way, these lightbased 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 PM physical characteristics 

remain stable, correlations for light-based PM CEMS meeting 

PS 11 performance criteria can represent mass rates to the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 48 of 231

degree of accuracy required by PS 11. 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 particle characteristics, 

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 Beta gauge 

technology does not suffer from this particular technical 

problem. 

Commenters identified another factor contributing to 

the difficulty of meeting PS 11 correlation requirements 

and that would be low PM concentrations with a 

corresponding low applicable emissions limit. We have 

recently reevaluated the capabilities of the EPA Method 5 

for measuring low concentrations of PM (see memo to docket) 

and have determined a Method 5 method detection limit of 

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

uncertainty of a measurement 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. That means that the PQL 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 49 of 231

for a 1 hour test run with Method 5 would be approximately 

6 mg/dscm. The Portland cement MACT PM emissions limit 0.02 

lb/ton of clinker equates to 6 to 10 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 example, inherent 

uncertainty associated with the Method 5 measurement alone

would readily approach ±25 percent of the applicable limit 

acceptance threshold. Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS 

response variability, we agree with commenters that trying 

to satisfy PS 11 at such low concentrations would be 

problematic. This condition 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 PLQ 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. To achieve a PQL of 1 

mg/dscm, one would need to conduct a test run of 6 hours or 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 50 of 231

longer. The measurements with 6-hour Method 5 test runs at 

this concentration would be ±0.01 to 0.2 mg/dscm.

Using data from longer Method 5 test runs will improve 

the probability of a PM CEMS meeting PS 11 correlation 

requirements but, as commenters noted, will also raise 

practicality concerns. The time to complete 15 1-hour test 

runs under 3 different emissions conditions may be 3 to 6

days of field work. The time to complete 15 6-hour test 

runs under 3 different emissions conditions will require at 

least 2 weeks of field work and very likely longer to 

produce and reproduce the operating conditions associated 

with 3 different emissions rates.

The EPA recognizes that there remain some technical 

issues in need of research and review in the use of PM CEMS 

when applied to low PM concentrations and for low level PM 

emissions limits. The EPA seeks comments and technical 

information on the use of PM CEMS for direct measure of 

compliance with PM emissions limits, particularly at low PM 

concentrations and emissions rates.

A compliance approach alternative to PM CEMS and PS 11

To address these issues associated with the use of PS 

11 at low PM emissions concentrations and given the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 51 of 231

variable emissions characteristics expected from Portland 

cement kilns, the EPA is proposing to change the compliance 

basis for the PM standard from CEMS-based to stack-test 

based. That is, the performance test requirement for this 

proposed rule would be a periodic three test run compliance 

test with the EPA Method 5. This proposed rule would 

continue to require use of PM CEMS equipment but, as 

explained below, that equipment would be used for 

continuous parametric monitoring instead of for compliance 

with the numerical PM emissions limit.

The EPA is thus proposing to base compliance on stack 

testing, specifically the average of a three run Method 5 

stack test (e.g., three 1-hour test runs). If the standard 

becomes a three test run standard rather than a 30-day 

standard, the level of the standard would change. 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 in the equation – the number of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 52 of 231

measurements – becomes larger with more observations 

resulting in a larger denominator and hence lower ultimate 

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

720 hourly values to a three-run test average producing 

three 1-hour 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. After eliminating kilns identified as CISWI, 

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

kilns to 31 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. 

Upper prediction limit (UPL). Rather than using m = 30 

as we did at proposal where compliance was to be based on a 

30 day rolling average, 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 0.070 lb/ ton clinker 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 53 of 231

produced when based on the three run Method 5 test. Beyondthe-floor standards do not appear to be justified for the

same reasons given in the 2010 final rule. 76 FR at 54988. 

This 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 strategy, 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 10.3. 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 will be used to determine compliance rather than a 

30-day rolling average, the calculation of the 99th

confidence UPL used m = 3 rather than 30, which results in 

a floor of 0.02 lb/ton clinker. The EPA is further 

proposing to use PM CEMS technology for continuous 

parametric monitoring of the proposed PM standards. The EPA 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 54 of 231

has developed requirements for continuously monitoring 

operating parameters in instances where compliance is based 

on non-continuous measurements, as would now be the case 

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

requires major sources to use enhanced monitoring for 

compliance certifications. The EPA’s historic approach has 

been to require monitoring of a control device operating 

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

limit of which is based on a periodic compliance test with 

the compliance test method. The use of a CPMS based on PM 

CEMS technology (PM CPMS) is a significant step closer to 

direct measurement of emissions in units of the emissions 

limit and an improvement over less direct monitoring of a 

process control device conditions. 

Specifically, this proposal recognizes the value of PM 

monitoring technology sensitive to changes in PM emissions 

concentrations and use of such a tool to assure continued 

good operation of PM control equipment. As a result, this 

proposed rule would require the installation and operation 

of a PM CPMS. The source owner would not have to meet PS 11 

requirements but would have to prepare and submit for 

approval, if requested, a site-specific monitoring plan to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 55 of 231

apply sound practices for installing, calibrating and 

operating the PM CPMS. While a rigorous PM emissions 

correlation with a PM CEMS is problematic because of 

variability in PM characteristics and low PM 

concentrations, the PM CPMS technology has the sensitivity 

required for this purpose and can provide a continuous 

indication of changes relative to the control device 

compliance status. A PM CPMS would have an operating 

principle based on in-stack or extractive light scatter, 

light scintillation, beta attenuation or mass accumulation 

detection of the exhaust gas or representative exhaust gas 

sample. 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 establishes 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 will collect PM CPMS data continuously and calculate 

a 30 operating day rolling average PM value from the hourly 

PM data collected during process operating hours and 

compare that average to the site specific operating limit. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 56 of 231

For these reasons (i.e., 30 days to average out 

variability, using the highest hourly average from the 

stack testing, and using the device essentially as a bag 

leak detector rather than a CEMS) the EPA believes that use 

of the PM CPMS for parametric monitoring does not pose the 

same technical issues as those underlying the proposed 

decision to base compliance on stack testing. The EPA 

solicits comments on the use of more traditional bag leak 

detectors as alternatives to PM CPMS. 

A 30 kiln operating day average of the PM CPMS values 

in excess of the operating limit will trigger a requirement 

that the source owner inspect the control device and the 

monitoring system to restore the controls to acceptable

levels and to conduct a new PM compliance test to verify 

ongoing compliance with the PM limit. The new test data may 

also be used to verify or reestablish the PM CPMS operating 

limit. This approach parallels that which the EPA adopted 

in, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units and Standards of Performance for FossilFuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 57 of 231

Institutional Steam Generating Units”, 77 FR 9304, 

(February 16, 2012), p. 9384.

E. Revision to the NSPS PM Standard

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 Portland Cement 

Association v. EPA, 665 F. 3d at 192-93, the technical 

problems with PM CEMS are common to both standards and the 

proposed amendment therefore appears appropriate for the 

NSPS as well.

F. Summary of Proposed Standards Resulting From 

Reconsideration.

The EPA is proposing the following revised MACT 

standards:

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 0.02 lb/ton 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 58 of 231

clinker (3-run 

test average)

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 of 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.

G. 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 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 59 of 231

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 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 60 of 231

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 enclosures 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. This is 

the situation at a cement plant in California that is under 

a consent decree to eliminate its open clinker piles. We 

are proposing standards in this proposed rule that address 

the control of fugitive emissions from any open clinker 

pile. 

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 61 of 231

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 62 of 231

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 63 of 231

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 from the pile. 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,
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 64 of 231

is not proposing to mandate such a practice. Industry cost 

estimates for a full enclosure with a capacity of 50,000 

tons of clinker range from $10 - $25 million in capital 

cost and $400,000 - $500,000 annual operating cost (See 

Portland Cement Association, Clinker Piles, September 7, 

2011, available in the rulemaking docket). We also are not 

proposing opacity or visible emission standards, for 

several reasons. If work practices are properly 

implemented, we believe fugitive emissions, including 

visible emissions, from clinker piles will be effectively 

controlled. Such emission limits would also be redundant 

with work practice requirements. Moreover, in many cases, 

the temporary, short-term nature of clinker piles would 

make it impractical to implement an emissions monitoring 

program that would be more effective than the proposed work 

practices. 

We are proposing that one or more of the following 

control measures be used when adding clinker to a pile, 

during on-going clinker storage, and when reclaiming the 

clinker for processing, to minimize to the greatest extent 

practicable fugitive dust emissions from open clinker 

storage piles: locating the source inside a partial 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 65 of 231

enclosure (such as a three sided structure with tarp), 

installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, 

applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents on 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 66 of 231

stationary structure where there are opportunities for 

newly-constructed entities that do not exist for existing 

entities. The EPA consequently is proposing the same 

standards for both. 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 67 of 231

“limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of 

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

7602(k) (defining “emission limitation and emission 

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

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

ensure that section 112 emissions limitations are 

continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction events 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 68 of 231

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though 

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

1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these cases 

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

incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond 

the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative 

defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset 

events. In a Clean 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 69 of 231

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

support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole.

Petitions filed by environmental advocacy groups 

question the EPA’s authority to promulgate the affirmative 

defense arguing, among other things, that the affirmative 

defense is inconsistent with the provisions of CAA sections 

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

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

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

Section 304 gives district courts’ jurisdiction “to apply 

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

the factors that the 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 70 of 231

stringency requirements of section 112), the EPA 

necessarily defines conduct that constitutes a violation. 

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

emission standard and defines two categories of violation. 

If there is a violation of the emission standard and the 

source demonstrates that all the elements of the 

affirmative defense are met, only injunctive relief is 

available. All other violations of the emission standard 

are subject to injunctive relief and penalties. A citizen 

suit claim under section 304 allows citizens to commence a 

civil action against any person alleged to be in violation 

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

The CAA, however, allows the EPA to establish such

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 71 of 231

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 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 72 of 231

the terms and condition of the affirmative defense. In 

recent rules promulgated under section 112 and 129, the EPA 

has revised certain terms and conditions of the affirmative 

defense in response to concerns raised by various 

commenters. The EPA is proposing to adopt those same 

revisions in this 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 73 of 231

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 

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.

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 74 of 231

HAP. This equivalent alternative standard is intended to 

provide additional flexibility in determining compliance, 

and it would be appropriate for those cases in which 

methane and ethane comprise a disproportionately high 

amount of the organic compounds in the feed because these 

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

THC. The specific organic compounds that are to be measured 

to determine compliance with the equivalent alternative 

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

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

naphthalene. Compliance with the equivalent alternative 

standard under the September 2010 standard will be 

determined through organic HAP emission testing. The rule 

further requires that each source complying with the 

alternative standard establish a site-specific THC limit to

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

measured as a 30 day rolling average, with an annual

compliance test requirement. It would be correlated with 

the organic HAP limit and is therefore not tied to the THC 

standard of 24 ppmvd. We granted reconsideration on the 

level of this site-specific THC limit used as a 

continuously monitored parameter for those sources 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 75 of 231

selecting the alternative HAP compliance method. See 76 FR 

at 28318.

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 

the representative method detection level (RDL)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 RDL 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., 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 76 of 231

Method 320 for aldehydes, Method 18 for aromatic 

hydrocarbons (arenes)). This approach is consistent with 

procedures practiced by the better performing testing 

companies and laboratories using sensitive analytical 

procedures. We determined for each of the organic HAP the 

expected method detection level for the respective method 

based on internal experience and method capabilities 

reported by testing companies. With these reported values, 

we identified the resulting mean of the method detection 

levels, adjusted them for dilution and moisture, summed 

them, and then multiplied the sum by three to determine the 

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 77 of 231

Support Document, section 2.5, 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 78 of 231

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

THC parameter.

J. 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 79 of 231

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 80 of 231

(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 81 of 231

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 82 of 231

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 83 of 231

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.

K. 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 84 of 231

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 85 of 231

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 0.070 lb per ton 

clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are 

not combined8. 

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 

standard cubic foot, which is equivalent to the new source 

PM limit of 0.020 lb/ton clinker.

 

8 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 86 of 231

L. 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).

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 87 of 231

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 any feed material into the kiln. HAP emissions 

from cement kilns are attributable almost entirely to one 

or the other of these feeds, with raw materials 

contributing the great majority. In addition, kilns burn 

fuels during startup and shutdown which are cleaner than 

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

startup). Thus, HAP emissions during startup and shutdown 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 88 of 231

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 materials and volumes of fuels introduced into the 

kiln during startup and shutdown and to use engineering 

judgment to estimate that HAP emissions are less than the 

standard.9 This could be done by making mass balance 

calculations assuming that organics in the fuels are 

destroyed at some reasonable rate in the kiln. Given that 

there is no reason to believe that the standards would be 

exceeded under these startup and shutdown conditions (as 

defined), EPA tentatively believes that these proposed 

recordkeeping requirements are sufficient to yield reliable 

information for the startup and shutdown periods sufficient 

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

the startup and shutdown standards. These proposed 

recordkeeping requirements would thus serve as the basis 

for compliance monitoring and are intended to satisfy the 

requirements of section 70.6 (a) (3) (B) of EPA’s 

 

9 No record would be kept of raw material inputs since, by definition, 

this could not occur during startup and shutdown.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 89 of 231

permitting regulations implementing section 504 (b) of the 

Act. 

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 

would be accomplished by recordkeeping, as explained above.

M. Coal Mills (NESHAP and NSPS)

In the EPA’s amendments to the Standards for 

Performance for Coal Mills (74 FR 51952, October 8, 2009), 

we exempted coal mills at cement manufacturing facilities 

whose only heat source was kiln exhaust. We made this 

change in response to comment from the PCA. The PCA argued 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 90 of 231

that coal mills were similar to inline raw mills which are 

considered to be an integral part of the kiln. The PCA 

requested the same treatment for coal mills, and the EPA 

agreed. The EPA did not address coal mills in the September 

2010 amendments to the Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS and 

granted reconsideration so as to address the issue. See 76 

FR at 28326. In these proposed amendments, we are proposing 

clarifying amendments regarding status of coal mills. Coal 

mills that receive exhaust gases from an affected kiln 

would be considered integral parts of the kiln with the 

exception that coal mills with stacks separate from the 

cement kiln would continue to be subject to the PM limit in 

subpart Y, Standards for Performance for Coal Preparation 

and Processing. Kiln exhaust gases that are used in coal 

mills contain the same HAP for which kilns are regulated. 

Coal mills that use a separate heat source or that use 

exhaust gases from a clinker cooler would continue to be 

regulated and subject to the PM limit in the Standards for 

Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing under which 

PM emissions are adequately controlled by fabric filters. 

These proposed amendments clarify how compliance with 

HAP emission limits would be determined for a kiln with an 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 91 of 231

integral coal mill in which a portion (typically small) of 

the kiln exhaust gases are diverted to the coal mill and 

exhausted separately from the main kiln gases.10 (The 

procedure described here would also apply to kilns with an 

alkali bypass that exhausts through a separate stack.) We 

are proposing that the sum of HAP or HAP surrogate 

emissions routed from the kiln to the coal mill and the 

kiln stack must not exceed the subpart LLL NESHAP emission 

limit set for each HAP or HAP surrogate. Because coal may

be a source of THC and HCl emissions, we are proposing that 

performance tests for these pollutants 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). (Tests 

for PM from the alkali bypass would also be downstream of 

the APCD.) The rule requires the source to monitor 

emissions from the kiln stack using a CEMS. 

a. Mercury. The September 2010 rule did not specify 

how mercury emissions from the coal mill were to be 

 

8The situation where exhaust gases from the coal mill are 

commingled with kiln exhaust gases and is exhausted through 

the kiln common stack is addressed as part of issue E 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 92 of 231

monitored and we did not intend for coal mill emissions to 

be monitored using a CEMS. The gas 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. 

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. To monitor 

compliance, we are proposing that the flow rate to the coal 

mill be continuously monitored. Using the results of the 

annual performance test and the flow rate, the owner or 

operator would develop a mercury hourly mass emission rate 

for the coal mill. Using the hourly mass emissions rate and 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 93 of 231

continuous flow rate, hourly mercury emissions from the 

coal mill could be determined and summed with the mercury 

emissions from the kiln to determine continuous compliance. 

See section 63.1350(k)(5). The same approach would be 

applied to a kiln with an alkali bypass that exhausts to a 

separate stack. 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. 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. Dioxin and furan emissions would be measured 

using Method 23 in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60. For PM 

measurement at an alkali bypass stack, Method 5 in Appendix 

A-3 to 40 CFR Part 60 would be required. The proposed 

amendments also make clear that performance testing 

requirements for mercury, THC, HCl and dioxin and furan 

would apply to each alkali bypass. 

For kilns with an integral coal mill, the calculations 

being proposed for determining compliance with the lb/ton 

of production emissions limit (i.e., mercury) are different 

from the calculations used for the emissions limits in a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 94 of 231

concentration format (i.e., THC and HCl). In the case of 

mercury, for example, the proposed existing kiln limit is 

55 lb/MM tons of clinker. When a portion of the kiln gas is 

diverted to a coal mill, a portion of the mercury is also 

diverted so that emissions from the kiln stack will be 

reduced by the amount of mercury diverted to the coal mill. 

The amount of mercury being continuously monitored in the 

kiln stack would not account for the total amount of 

mercury coming from the kiln (i.e. would not account for 

any mercury diverted to the coal mill and separately 

exhausted from the coal mill stack). To correctly determine 

compliance, the proposed amendments would require that 

mercury emissions from the coal mill control device be 

measured as well as the emissions from the kiln stack. We 

are proposing that a stack test be conducted to determine 

mercury emissions from the coal mill. In order to determine 

compliance on a continuous basis, we are proposing that the 

emissions measured from the coal mill stack on a lb/MM ton 

of clinker basis be summed with the proposed mercury limit 

of 55 lb/MM tons of clinker to establish a site specific 

limit for the kiln stack. For example, if a test at the 

coal mill control device outlet shows mercury emissions of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 95 of 231

10 lb/MM tons clinker, emissions from the kiln would have 

to be less than 45 lb/MM tons of clinker to be in 

compliance with the proposed mercury emissions limit. 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 and summed and with the mercury or 

PM emissions from the kiln to determine compliance with the 

emissions limit.

b. THC and HCl. Because THC and HCl are concentrationbased limits, the proposed procedure for establishing site 

specific limits for THC and HCl is different from the 

procedure described above for the production based limits 

for mercury and PM. The limits for THC and HCl are 

expressed as concentrations. Therefore, we are proposing 

that site specific 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: 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 96 of 231

( × ) + ( × ) + ( × )

( +  + )

 

Where:

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)e

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

MACT Limit = Limit for THC or HCl (ppmvd)

This equation requires all values to be at or corrected to 

7 % oxygen. 

In order to determine the flow rates and 

concentrations of THC and HCl in the coal mill and alkali 

bypass streams, annual testing would need to be 

accomplished via the appropriate test method and the flow 

rate of the kiln stack will need to be monitored with CEMS. 

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: 

 ≤

(  × ( +  + )) − ( × ) − ( × )



This equation is based on the following: 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 97 of 231

 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 MACT 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 CEMS) and the allowable mass emissions 

(i.e. remainder) that can be emitted through the kiln 

stack, a site specific concentration can be 

determined. The equation above provides a simplified 

approach to determining this value. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 98 of 231

As an illustration of how the site specific limit 

would be calculated, we have provided the following example 

for calculating a site specific THC emission limit. 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 CEMS

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 site specific value would be 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 99 of 231

monitored by a CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with 

the MACT limit. 

The EPA proposes that the site specific MACT limit 

would be established annually. This would require testing 

of the coal mill and alkali bypass effluent streams for THC 

and HCl on an annual basis. Testing of the coal mill would 

be accomplished upstream of the coal mill for THC to avoid 

measuring any THC that is emitted from the coal.

Because we do not expect to require continuous 

emissions monitoring of the coal mill, we are proposing to 

require that during the annual performance test, the 

owner/operator monitor their exhaust gas flow rate from the 

coal mill. This flow rate measured during the annual 

performance test would be the maximum flow rate allowed 

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

owner/operator would have to retest to establish that they 

are 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.

As a result of this revision, we are also proposing a 

revised definition of “kiln” to clarify that coal mills 

using kiln exhaust gases in their operation are considered 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 100 of 231

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.

N. 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 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 101 of 231

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 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 102 of 231

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. 

O. 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 it amends the standards themselves (as opposed 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 103 of 231

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 

kilns, clinker coolers, and raw material dryers be extended 

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

compliance date. We believe that this date would require 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 104 of 231

compliance “as expeditiously as practicable” as required by 

section 112 (i)(3)(A) of the Act.11

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. 

Moreover, 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 maintenance. See Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-

0051-3438. The proposed standard of .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 

 

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

Section III.C.2 above), an extension of three years 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 105 of 231

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). 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 .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, 2012. We note that in 

the database for the 2010 standards, only 7 cement kilns 

with ESP were meeting the proposed 0.07 lb/ton clinker 

standard in compliance tests. See Portland Cement 

Reconsideration TSD, Section 11. However, no ESP vendors 

will guarantee being able to meet the 2010 PM limit (see 

Docket item, “Summary Discussion, Lodge Cottrell, 

04/30/12.)
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 106 of 231

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 .07 lb/ton 

clinker standard and also control the auxiliary PM 

collected from control of the other HAP, making polishing 

filters unnecessary.12 Conversely, a central baghouse to 

meet a .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 

 

12 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 107 of 231

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.S. Installation of controls normally occurs during 

winter months (to coincide with kiln outages during low 

production seasons). Putting this together, it tentatively 

appears that summer of 2015 would be an expeditious 

compliance date. However, EPA solicits comment on this 

analysis and may adopt a different compliance date for 

these standards than proposed.

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 108 of 231

meet a level comfortably lower. This is to provide 

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 recalculated a 

design value (i.e. the level to which kilns would design to 

meet the standard) under the proposal, which removes CISWI 

kilns from the database of best performers. The calculated 

design value for these best performers would be 0.02655 

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

lb/ton clinker under the final rule. TSD App. E. 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%. 

Table 5 Comparison of nationwide PM emissions 

reductions from 2010 rule to this proposed rule (TSD, 

section 11)

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 0.02296 0.02655 0.00359
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 109 of 231

emissions for 

compliance (lb/ton 

clinker

2010 baseline 

emissions (tons/yr)

10,326 10,326 NA

Nationwide emissions 

reduction (tons/yr)

9489 9321 168

Under the proposed revisions, compliance would be 

delayed 2 years with the result that emission reductions 

would also be delayed 2 years. Thus, emissions of 18,642 

tons would continue being emitted until the compliance date 

of September 2015. However, as facilities begin installing 

or retrofitting controls, we believe this number would 

continually be reduced as the compliance date approaches.

Nonetheless, total annual reductions listed in Table 5 

above will occur 2 years later than the original compliance 

date.

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 110 of 231

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 

and is proposing that these standards also take effect 

within 6 months of promulgation.

P. Eligibility to be a New Source 

The EPA is proposing [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] as the trigger date for determining 

new source status under both the NESHAP and for the PM 

standard under the NSPS. 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. Because the proposed 

standards would rest on a different record basis (the EPA 

is proposing amendments to the PM standards which affect 

compliance strategies for mercury, HCl and THC), the EPA 

believes it is legitimate to view this rulemaking as 

establishing a new trigger date for purposes of new source 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 111 of 231

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. The EPA is also proposing 

minor, non-substantive changes to the provisions listed 

below. These changes are largely for ease of readability or 

clarity, and do not reopen, reassess or otherwise 

reconsider these provisions’ substance. The minor editorial 

and clarifying changes were made in the following sections 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 112 of 231

 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). 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 113 of 231

 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.

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 114 of 231

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. 

Changes to recordkeeping requirements. The EPA is 

also proposing to amend 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 115 of 231

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 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 116 of 231

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

A. What are the affected sources? 

According to the September 2010 final rule, 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, approximately 5 of those
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 117 of 231

facilities are complete new greenfield facilities. All 

these facilities will operate 158 cement kilns and 

associated clinker coolers. Of these kilns, 23 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 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 118 of 231

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 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 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 24 ESPs are retained rather 

than replaced with FF’s or membrane bags installed on a 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 119 of 231

downstream polishing FF, and two 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 

$4.9 million per year. That is, under the proposed rule, 

the annual cost of compliance will be $4.9 million less 

than under the 2010 rule under this scenario. reducing PM 

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, 

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 120 of 231

method practical quantitation limit) and would not require 

additional controls or monitoring. 

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. So 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 Section 8 of the Portland Cement 

Reconsideration Technical Support Document.) 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 the fact 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 121 of 231

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 could cost each facility $425,000 in 

capital cost and annualized costs of $163,000. See EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051-3438. 

The proposed revisions for new testing and monitoring 

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

exhaust through a separate stack are not expected to have 

significant impacts. The proposed revision would make

existing kilns that undergo a modification, as defined by 

NSPS, subject to the 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?
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 122 of 231

In the proposed amendments, emission limits for 

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

Thus, once sources come into compliance we expect no change 

in emissions from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP 

surrogates. The alternative HAP organic standard would be 

amended to 12 ppm, but as this reflects the practical 

quantitative limit of detection, it is not clear if 

additional emissions are associated with the proposed 

standard since a lower standard would not be measured 

reliably.

For PM, the limit for existing sources would change 

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

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

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

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

with a CEMS. The proposed changes in the PM standards, 

while not considered significant in absolute terms may

result in a small increase in total nationwide emissions by 

allowing slightly more variability, although we estimate 

that design values will be essentially identical under the 

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

explained in the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (see 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 123 of 231

Docket item EPA-HQQ-oar-2002-0051-3438), emission 

reductions were estimated by comparing baseline emissions 

to the long-term average emissions of the MACT floor kilns. 

The average emissions, rather than the emissions limit, 

must be used because to comply with the limit all or most 

of the time, emissions need to be reduced to the average of 

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

emissions from the existing floor kilns was 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 far less than the normal analytic variability 

in PM measurement methods and so must be viewed as 

directional rather than absolute. The average emissions for 

new kilns did not change, so we are not estimating an 

emission increase from new kilns. In the 2010 rule, total 

clinker production from existing kilns was 93,345,993 per 

year. 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 168 tons per 

year (0.00359 X 93,345,993/2000). Thus, EPA estimates that 

the main effect of the proposed rule for PM will be to 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 124 of 231

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 

reductions from 2010 rule to proposed rule

Kiln 

type

2010 

rule

Proposed 

rule

Difference of 

proposed rule 

compared to 2010 

rule

Emissions 

limit 

(lb/ton 

clinker

Existing 0.04

(30-day 

average 

with a 

CEMS)

0.07 (3-

run 

stack 

test)

NA

MACT 

average 

emissions 

for 

compliance 

(lb/ton 

clinker

Existing 0.02296 0.02655 0.00359

2010 

baseline 

emissions 

(tons/yr)

10,326 10,326 NA

Nationwide 

emissions 

reduction 

Total 9489 9321 -168
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 125 of 231

(tons/yr)

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 would be delayed until the compliance date of 

September 2015. 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?

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include 

impacts that will result from the increased electricity 

usage associated with the operation of control devices as 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 126 of 231

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 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 

compliance strategies. However, we cannot accurately 

predict the extent to which these site-specific compliance 

strategies may increase or decrease energy demands. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 127 of 231

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.

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 128 of 231

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.

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 129 of 231

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 

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 $3,141 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. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 130 of 231

The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden 

because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 

violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense.

Given the variety of circumstances under which 

malfunctions could occur, as well as differences among 

sources' operation and maintenance practices, we cannot 

reliably predict the severity and frequency of 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 131 of 231

instances in which source operators might be expected to 

avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small.

With respect to the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

source category, the emissions controls are operational 

before the associated emission source(s) commence operation 

and remain operational until after the associated emission 

source(s) cease 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 100 regulated entities are 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 132 of 231

currently subject to subpart LLL and will be subject to all 

proposed standards. The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) 

for these amendments to subpart LLL is estimated to be 

$371,400 per year. This includes 545 labor hours per year 

at a total labor cost of $52,500 per year, and total nonlabor capital and operation and maintenance costs of 

$318,900 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 300 hours per year at a total labor cost of 

$13,700 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 133 of 231

suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA 

has established a public docket for this proposed rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 134 of 231

unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business whose parent company has no more than 750 

employees depending on the size definition for the affected 

NAICS code, as defined by the Small Business Administration 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 135 of 231

comply with this rule (reflecting potential controls on 

piles, which are likely to have lower cost when compared to 

the 2010 rule requirements because these plants already 

have requirements for control of piles in their Title V 

permits). 

Although this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this proposed rule on small entities. For 

example, we are proposing to expand the provision that 

allows periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative to 

CEMS for sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply 

to those sources that use dry sorbent injection. This

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 136 of 231

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 137 of 231

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 138 of 231

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 139 of 231

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 140 of 231

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.

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 An analysis of demographic data 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 141 of 231

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
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 142 of 231

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) 

* * * * *

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 143 of 231

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.

* * * * *

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 144 of 231

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

reconstruction of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. 

(iii) Kilns that have undergone a modification may not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in 

excess of 0.07 pound per ton of clinker.

(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] 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 145 of 231

(d) If you have an affected source subject to this 

subpart with a different emissions limit or requirement for 

the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of 

this chapter, you must comply with the most stringent 

emissions limit or requirement and are not subject to the 

less stringent requirement. 

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.

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 146 of 231

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

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

permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight 

rates of the amount of clinker produced in tons of mass per 

hour. The system of measuring hourly clinker production 

must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy or 

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

permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight 

rates of the amount of feed to the kiln in tons of mass per 

hour. The system of measuring feed must be maintained 

within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly clinker 

production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker ratio 

based on reconciled clinker production rates determined for 

accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio 

should be updated monthly. Note that if this ratio changes 

at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going 

forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 

clinker production rates previously estimated. 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 147 of 231

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

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker 

production rates or feed rates before initial use (for new 

sources) or by the effective compliance date of this rule 

(for existing sources). During each quarter of source 

operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a 

record of the ongoing accuracy of the system of measuring 

hourly clinker production rates or feed rates. 

(3) If you measure clinker production directly, record 

the daily clinker production rates; if you measure the kiln 

feed rates and calculate clinker production, record the 

daily kiln feed and clinker production rates.

(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 results of 

the performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM 

limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 148 of 231

5 at appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter. You will use 

the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with your 

operating limit. You must repeat the performance test 

annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific 

operating limit in accordance with the results of the 

performance test. 

(3) [Reserved]

(4) [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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 149 of 231

also continuously monitor and record the concentration by 

volume of SO2 present at the wet scrubber inlet.

(f) The NOx and SO2 CEMS required under paragraphs (d) 

and (e) of this section must be installed, operated and 

maintained according to Performance Specification 2 of 

appendix B of this part and the requirements in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The span value of each NOx CEMS monitor must be 

set at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly 

potential NOx emission concentration that translates to the 

applicable emissions limit at full clinker production 

capacity.

(2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each 

NOx CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) 

and Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. 

You must use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 

to this part for conducting the relative accuracy 

evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see 

§60.17) is an acceptable alternative to Method 7 or 7C of 

appendix A-4 to this part.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 150 of 231

(3) The span value for the SO2 CEMS monitor is the SO2

emission concentration that corresponds to 125 percent of 

the applicable emissions limit at full clinker production 

capacity and the expected maximum fuel sulfur content.

(4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each 

SO2 CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) 

and Performance Specification 2 of appendix B to this part. 

You must use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A-4 to this 

part for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The 

method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,” (incorporated by reference-see §60.17) is an 

acceptable alternative to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A-4 to 

this part.

(5) You must comply with the quality assurance 

requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to this part for 

each NOx and SO2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy 

determinations for monitors, and daily calibration drift 

tests.

(g) For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs 

(c) through (e) of this section:

* * * * *

(2) You may not use data recorded during the 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 151 of 231

monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system 

to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must use all the 

data collected during all other periods in reporting 

emissions or operating levels.

* * * * *

(h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain 

instruments for continuously measuring and recording the 

stack gas flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant 

mass emissions rate to the atmosphere for each kiln subject 

to the PM emissions limits in §60.62(a)(1) (ii) and 

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 152 of 231

representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at 

the sampling location of the NOx and/or SO2 CEMS, taking 

into account the manufacturer’s recommendations. The flow 

rate sensor is that portion of the system that senses the 

volumetric flow rate and generates an output proportional 

to that flow rate.

* * * * *

(6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed 

to measure a minimum of one cycle of operational flow for 

each successive 15-minute period.

(7) The flow rate sensor must be able to determine the 

daily zero and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 

3.1 and 8.3 of Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to 

this part for a discussion of CD).

* * * * *

(8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test 

of the flow rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 

of Performance Specification 6 of appendix B to this part, 

with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii) 

of this section.

* * * * *

(9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate 

monitoring system at least once per year by repeating the 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 153 of 231

relative accuracy test specified in paragraph (h)(8) of 

this section.

e

(i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of 

Monitoring Plans. If you demonstrate compliance with any 

applicable emissions limit through performance stack 

testing or other emissions monitoring, 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.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 154 of 231

(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);

* * * * *

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 155 of 231

(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).

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 156 of 231

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.

(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]

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 157 of 231

E30D = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of NOX or 

SO2, lb/ton of clinker; 

Ci = concentration of NOX or SO2 for hour i, ppm; 

Qi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i, where 

Ci and Qi are on the same basis (either wet or dry), scf/hr;

Pi = total kiln clinker produced during production hour i, 

ton/hr; and

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

for SO2.

n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating 

days, n = 1 to 720.

(ii) [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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 158 of 231

collected using test methods on the ERT website are subject 

to this requirement for submitting reports electronically 

to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the 

information being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) must submit a 

complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage 

media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 159 of 231

section. Only data collected using test methods compatible 

with ERT are subject to this requirement to be submitted 

electronically to EPA’s CDX.

(3) All reports required by this subpart not subject 

to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 

section must be sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or 

the delegated authority may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used 

electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard 

copy). The Administrator retains the right to require 

submittal of reports subject to paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section in paper format.

7. Section 60.65 is revised to read as follows:

§60.65 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS 

or CEMS under sections §60.63(c)-(e) shall submit reports 

of excess emissions. The content of these reports must 

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

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

semiannually.

(b) [Reserved]
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 160 of 231

(c) Each owner or operator of facilities subject to 

the provisions of §60.63(c)-(e) shall submit semiannual 

reports of the malfunction information required to be 

recorded by §60.7(b). These reports shall include the 

frequency, duration, and cause of any incident resulting in 

deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions or 

in the venting of emissions directly to the atmosphere.

(d) The requirements of this section remain in force 

until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement 

authority to a State under section 111(c) of the Clean Air 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting requirements or an 

alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by 

such States. In that event, affected sources within the 

State will be relieved of the obligation to comply with 

this section, provided that they comply with the 

requirements established by the State.

8. Section 60.66 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follows:

§60.66 Delegation of authority. 

* * * * *

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, the approval 

authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 161 of 231

this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S 

EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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, 

incorporation by reference (IBR) approved for 

§63.1349(b)(4)(ii) of subpart LLL and table 4 to subpart 

DDDD of this part as specified in the subpart.

* * * * *

Subpart LLL—[Amended]

11. Section 63.1340 is amended by
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 162 of 231

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) * * *

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

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 163 of 231

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 

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.

* * * * *

In-line coal mill means those coal mills using kiln exhaust 

gases in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other 

than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases from the 

clinker cooler are not an in-line coal mill.

* * * * *

Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or 

precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or 

alkali bypasses that produces clinker by heating limestone 

and other materials for subsequent production of portland 

cement. Because the inline raw mill and inline coal mill 

are considered an integral part of the kiln, for purposes 

of determining the appropriate emissions limit, the term 

kiln also applies to the exhaust of the inline raw mill and 

the inline coal mill.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 164 of 231

* * * * *

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. 

* * * * *

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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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

acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test 

Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or ASTM 

D6348-0313 or a combination of these methods, as 

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

reported as below the method detection level (e.g., 

laboratory analytical results for one or more sample 

components are below the method defined analytical 

detection level), you must use the method detection level 

as the measured emissions level for that pollut

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

 

13 When using ASTM D6348

(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348

Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; (2

Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (see 

Equation A5.5); (3) For the ASTM D6348

analyte, %R must be 70 % ≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The %

be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound using the following equation:

agency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 165 of 231

which time the kiln is in normal operating mode

Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted.

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 

or a combination of these methods, as 

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

ted 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 

 

When using ASTM D6348-03, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348

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 

≥ R ≤ 130%; and (4) The %R value for each compound must 

be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound using the following equation:

agency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

which time the kiln is in normal operating mode. 

means, for the purposes of this subpart, 

the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, 

xylene, 

acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test 

Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or ASTM 

appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are 

ted 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 

ant in 

calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured 

(1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, 

03 Annex A5 (Analyte 

Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (see 

03 test data to be acceptable for a target 

R value for each compound must 

be reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated %R 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 166 of 231

result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical 

values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may include a 

combination of method detection level data and analytical 

data reported above the method detection level. The owner 

or operator of an affected source may request the use of 

other test methods to make this determination under 

paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) of this part.

* * * * *

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 Open Clinker Piles?

(a) General. The provisions in this section apply to 

each kiln and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln, 

clinker cooler, and raw material dryer. All D/F, HCl, and 

total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit are on a dry basis. 

The D/F, HCl, and THC limits for kilns are corrected to 7 

percent oxygen. All THC emissions limits are measured as 

propane. Standards for mercury and THC are based on a 

rolling 30-day average. If using a CEMS to determine 

compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based on 

a rolling 30-day average. You must ensure appropriate 

corrections for moisture are made when measuring flow rates 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 

Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 167 of 231

used to calculate particulate matter (PM) and 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 168 of 231

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 7.0*10-2

D/F2 2.0*10-

1

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 4.0x10-3

D/F 2.0x10-

1

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 3.0 ppmvd NA

5. New 

kiln 

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major

or 

area 

source

PM 2.0*10-2

D/F1 2.0*10-

1 

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 8.0x10-4

D/F 2.0x10-

1

Mercury 4.0

THC 24 

gr/dscf

ng/dscm 

(TEQ)

ug/dscm

ppmvd

NA

NA

NA

NA

8. New Startup Major HCl 3.0 ppmvd NA
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 169 of 231

kiln and 

shutdown

source

9. Existin

g 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 7.0*10-2 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

10

.

Existin

g 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 4.0x10-3 Gr/dscf NA

11

.

New 

clinker 

cooler

Normal 

operatio

n 

Major 

or 

area 

source

PM 2.0*10-2 lb/ton 

clinker

NA

12

.

New 

clinker 

cooler

Startup 

and 

shutdown

Major 

or 

area

source

PM 8.0x10-4 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 170 of 231

electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test is 

400 oF or less this limit is changed to 0.04 ng/dscm.

3 Measured as propane.

4 Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet 

an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP. 

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

the combined PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass 

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

combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill with the 

kiln exhaust for energy efficiency purposes and send the 

combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single stream may 

meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is calculated 

using equation 1 of this section: 

PM alt = (0.006 x 1.65)(Qk + Qc + Qab + Qcm)/(7000 x 2000) (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.

2000 is the conversion factor for lb per ton.

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 x 2000)(Eq. 2)
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 171 of 231

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 

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.

2000 is the conversion factor for lb per ton.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 172 of 231

chemical dust suppression agents on the source, use of a wind 

barrier, compaction, or use of a vegetative cover. The owner or 

operator must select, for inclusion in the operations and 

maintenance plan, the fugitive dust control measure or measures 

listed in this paragraph that are most appropriate for site 

conditions. The plan must also explain how the measure or 

measures selected are applicable and appropriate for site 

conditions. In addition, the plan must be revised as needed to 

reflect any changing conditions at the source. 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 173 of 231

that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the 

respondent fails to meet its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense 

shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the notification 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that:

(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

ee

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 174 of 231

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 175 of 231

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 176 of 231

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 177 of 231

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 178 of 231

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 179 of 231

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; 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 180 of 231

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 181 of 231

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 182 of 231

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. 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 183 of 231

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.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 184 of 231

demonstrate compliance by operating a mercury CEMS or a sorbent 

trap based CEMS. Compliance with the mercury emissions standard 

must be determined based on the first 30 operating days you 

operate a mercury CEMS after the compliance date of this rule.

In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an

integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions 

concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7 day 

sorbent trap sample) to each relevant hour of the kiln operating 

days spanned by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln 

operating day emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg 

emissions concentrations and the respective flow and production 

rate values collected during the 30 kiln operating day 

performance test period. Depending on the duration of each 

integrated sampling period, you may not be able to calculate the 

30 kiln operating day emissions value until several days after 

the end of the 30 kiln operating day performance test period. 

For example, a sorbent trap CEMS producing an integrated 7-

day sample will provide Hg concentration data for each hour of 

the first 28 kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 185 of 231

the performance test period until at least five days after the 

end of the subject period.

(6) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 

HCl emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the HCl standards by using the performance test 

methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified 

in §63.1349(b)(6)(i). You must determine the HCl concentration 

for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the 

concentrations measured for the three runs to determine 

compliance. You must also have established appropriate sitespecific operational parameter limits.

(ii) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance by operating a CEMS as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(6)(ii). You must use the average of the hourly HCl 

concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 186 of 231

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit.

(iv) As an alternative to paragraph (i), you may use an SO2

CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level during your initial and 

repeat HCl performance tests as specified in 

§63.1349(b)(6)(iii).

(b) Continuous Monitoring Requirements. You must

demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and 

operating limits by using the performance test methods and 

procedures in §§63.1350 and 63.8 for each affected source.

(1) General Requirements. 

(i) You must monitor and collect data according to §63.1350 

and the site-specific monitoring plan required by §63.1350(p).

(ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 187 of 231

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that 

are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are 

not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all 

other periods in assessing the operation of the control device 

and associated control system.

(iv) Clinker Production. If you are subject to limitations 

on PM emissions (lb/ton of clinker) or mercury (lb/MM tons of 

clinker) under §63.1343(b), you must determine the hourly 

production rate of clinker according to the requirements of 

§63.1350(d).

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

emissions under §63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods 

and procedures in §63.1350(b) and (d). 

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

limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 188 of 231

corrective actions d within one hour of detecting visible 

emissions above the applicable limit.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) COMS. If you install a COMS in lieu of conducting the 

daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance 

using a COMS such that it is installed, operated, and maintained 

in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(i).

(iii) Bag leak determination system (BLDS). If you install 

a BLDS on a raw mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting the 

daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance 

using a BLDS that is installed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(ii).

(4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject to a D/F emissions 

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

using a CMS that is installed, operated and maintained to record 

the temperature of specified gas streams in accordance with the 

requirements of §63.1350(g). 

(5)(i) Activated Carbon Injection Compliance. If you use 

activated carbon injection to comply with the a D/F emissions 

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

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 189 of 231

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

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

demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is installed, operated 

and maintained to record the activated carbon injection system 

gas parameter in accordance with the requirements 

§63.1350(h)(2). 

(6) THC Compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations 

on THC emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 

§63.1350 (i) and (j). 

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

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

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

measured upstream of the coal mill.

(7) Mercury Compliance. If you are subject to limitations 

on mercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate 

compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in 

§63.1350(k). 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 190 of 231

to calculate rolling 30 operating data emissions rates. Since 

you assign the mercury concentration measured with the sorbent 

trap to each relevant hour respectively for each operating day 

of the integrated period, you may schedule the sorbent change 

periods to any time of the day (i.e., the sorbent trap 

replacement need not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight nor must the 

sorbent trap replacements occur only at integral 24-hour 

intervals).

(8) HCl Compliance. If you are subject to limitations on 

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

using the performance test methods and procedures in 

§63.1349(b)(6). 

(i) For an affected source that is not equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(1). 

(ii) For an affected source that is equipped with a wet 

scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must 

demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and 

procedures in §63.1350(l)(2). 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 191 of 231

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) * * *

* * * * *

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 192 of 231

requested, the site-specific test plan to be followed during 

performance testing.

* * * * *

(b)(1) PM Emissions Tests. 

(i)(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)(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. If you elect to use 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 193 of 231

(D) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the 

PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is 

operating and the PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured 

hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating 

hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in 

units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, 

raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 

3 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.

n

n

Hpv

i

 i



1

30kiln operatingday (Eq. 3)

where:

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) [Reserved]

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 194 of 231

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.

* * * * *

(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 

P

EC

EK  EB

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 195 of 231

bypass exhaust when the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is 

operating or not operating.

* * * * * 

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

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

and where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the 

alkali bypass exhaust, continuously during the period of the 

Method 23 test in accordance with the conditions in 

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

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

injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs 

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

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

performance test in the performance test report.

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

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

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

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

carrier gas flow rate monitoring system according to the 

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

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

maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas pressure 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 196 of 231

drop monitoring system according to the procedures in 

§63.1350(m)(6). 

(vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for 

each run and determine and include the average of the run 

average injection rates in the performance test report and 

determine the applicable injection rate limit in accordance with 

§63.1346(c)(1).

(4)(i) THC Emissions Test. 

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

must operate a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) in 

accordance with the requirements in §63.1350(i). For the 

purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance 

evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 50 

ppmvd and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A 

to part 60 of this chapter.

(B) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test 

for the first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the 

compliance date of the rule. See 63.1348(a). 

(C) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must 

calculate a kiln-specific THC limit using equation 5:

 =

( ×())(×)(×)



(Eq. 5)

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 197 of 231

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

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

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

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

results of the initial and subsequent performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions limit. THC must be 

measured upstream of the coal mill.

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. Instead of 

conducting the performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

of this section, you may conduct a performance test to determine 

emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) through (b)(4)(iv) of this section.

(iii) Use Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this 

part, Method 18, 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 198 of 231

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.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 199 of 231

return the THC CEMS measurements to within the established 

value; and

(B) within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the 

annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another 

performance test to determine compliance with the organic HAP 

limit and to verify or re-establish your site-specific THC 

emissions limit. 

(5) Mercury Emissions Tests. If you are subject to 

limitations on mercury emissions, you must operate a mercury 

CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(k). The 

initial compliance test must be based on the first 30 kiln 

operating days in which the affected source operates using a 

mercury CEMS after the compliance date of the rule. See 

§63.1348(a). 

(i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap 

monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the 

requirements in §63.1350(k)(5).

(ii) Calculate the emission rate using the equations 6 of 

this section:





n

i

D CiQi K

n

E

1

30 /

1

(Eq. 6)
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 200 of 231

Where: 

E30D = 30-day rolling emission rate of mercury, lb/MM tons 

clinker; 

Ci = concentration of mercury for operating hour i, μg/scm; 

Qi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for operating hour i, 

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

scm/hr;

K = conversion factor, 1 lb/454,000,000 μg; 

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

period, n = 1 to 720.

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

limitations on HCl emissions you must conduct performance 

testing by one of the following methods:

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

tower or dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing 

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

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

(B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by 

using the CPMS required in §63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or 

tray tower, measure and record the pressure drop across the 

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

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

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

rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions 

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

injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during 

the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-hour average sorbent 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 201 of 231

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 chooses 

to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS in accordance with the 

requirements of §63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an SO2

operating limit equal to the highest 1 hour average recorded 

during the HCl stack test. This operating limit will apply only 

for demonstrating HCl compliance.

(iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or 

to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must 

calculate a kiln-specific HCl limit using equation 7:

 =

( ×())(×)(×)



(Eq. 7)

Where:

Cks = Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd)
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 202 of 231

Qab = Alkali bypass flow rate (volume/hr)

Cab = Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd)

Qcm = Coal mill flow rate (volume /hr)

Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd)

Qks = Kiln stack flow rate (volume /hr)

(c) Performance Test Frequency. Except as provided in 

§63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals 

for affected sources that are subject to a dioxin or HCl, 

emissions limit and must be repeated every 30 months except for 

pollutants where that specific pollutant is monitored using

CEMS. Tests for PM and total organic HAP are repeated every 12 

months.

(d) Performance Test Reporting Requirements. 

(1) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section no later than 60 days 

following the initial performance test. All reports must be 

signed by a responsible official.

(i) The initial performance test data as recorded under 

paragraph (b) of this section.

(ii) The values for the site-specific operating limits or 

parameters established pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3), 

(b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i) of this section, as 

applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 203 of 231

how the operating parameters were established during the initial 

performance test. 

(2) As of December 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance evaluation or test, as 

defined in §63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any 

standard covered by this subpart, you must submit the relative 

accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except 

opacity data, to the EPA by successfully submitting the data 

electronically to the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using 

the Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).

(e) Conditions of performance tests. Conduct performance 

tests under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to 

the owner or operator based on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you 

must make available to the Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 204 of 231

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);

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 205 of 231

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) All continuous monitoring data for periods of startup 

and shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data 

gathered during other operating periods. 

(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. If 

you elect to use a PM CPMS, 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 206 of 231

units of the operating limit (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, 

raw data signal) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, 

updated at the end of each new kiln operating day.

(iii) If any 30 process operating day PM CPMS average value 

exceeds the established parameter limit, you must

(A) As soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after 

the average PM CPMS value has exceeded the established parameter 

limit, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to 

return the PM CPMS measurement 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 a PM 

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the PM 

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

limit.

(2) [Reserved]

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 207 of 231

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.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 208 of 231

(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 the monitored flow rate exceeds 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:

(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 tons-
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 209 of 231

mass per hour of the amount of feed to the kiln. The system of 

measuring feed must be maintained within ±5 percent accuracy. 

Calculate your hourly clinker production rate using a kiln 

specific feed to clinker ratio based on reconciled clinker 

production determined for accounting purposes and recorded feed 

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

changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio 

going forward, but you do not have to retroactively change 

clinker production rates previously estimated. 

(iii) [Reserved]

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

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 

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

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

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

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

accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production 

(or feed mass flow). 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 210 of 231

(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, 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 211 of 231

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 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 212 of 231

observed during the previous Method 22 performance test required 

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

opacity test of each stack from which emissions were observed 

during the follow up Method 22 performance test in accordance 

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

duration of the Method 9 test must be 30 minutes.

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

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

(f)(2) of this section, you must initiate, within one-hour, the 

corrective actions specified in your operation and maintenance 

plan as required in §63.1347.

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

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

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

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

lieu of conducting the daily visible emissions testing required 

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

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

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

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 213 of 231

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

the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph 

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

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

(g) * * *

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

operate a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases 

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

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

* * * * *

(2) You must monitor and continuously record the 

temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali 

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

bypass PMCD.

* * * * *

(4) Calculate the rolling three-hour average temperature 

using the average of 180 successive one-minute average 

temperatures. See §63.1349(b)(3).

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) * * * 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 214 of 231

(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.

(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.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 215 of 231

(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.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 216 of 231

(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 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 217 of 231

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. 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 218 of 231

(5) If you use a Hg CEMS, 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 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 219 of 231

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 

continuously monitor HCl according to paragraph (l)(1) or (2) 

and paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this sectionor, if your 

kiln is controlled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, 

you may continuously monitor SO2 emissions according to paragraph 

(l)(3) of this section. You must also develop an emissions 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 220 of 231

monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through 

(p)(4) of this section.

* * * * * 

(2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet 

scrubber or tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs 

(m)(5) and (m)(7) of this section, and dry scrubber, as 

specified in paragraph (m)(8) of this section. 

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

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

continuously monitor SO2 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 level 

established during your performance test, you must

(i) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after you 

exceed the established SO2 value conduct an inspection and take 

corrective action to return the SO2 CEMS measurement to within 

the established value; and

(ii) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the 

next compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl 

emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the SO2 CEMS 

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 221 of 231

(m) Parameter Monitoring Requirements. If you have an 

operating limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must 

install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CMS) according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by the compliance 

date specified in §63.1351. You must also meet the applicable 

specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs (m)(5) 

through (m)(11) that are applicable to you.

* * * * *

(7) * * * 

(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of wet scrubber or tray tower 

effluent pH.

* * * * *

(9) Mass Flow Rate (for Sorbent Injection) Monitoring 

Requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh 

belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. These requirements also apply to the sorbent 

injection equipment of a dry scrubber.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 222 of 231

(10) Bag leak detection monitoring requirements. If you 

elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply 

with the requirements of this subpart, you must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a BLDS as 

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

section.

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

stack of the fabric filter.

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

maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's 

written specifications and recommendations and in accordance 

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

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

capable of detecting 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 223 of 231

detected. The alarm must be located such that the alert is 

detected and recognized easily by an operator.

(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do 

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

must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

* * * * *

(11) * * * 

(v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the 

BLDS; or 

* * * * *

(n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System. You must 

install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according 

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

section, for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas 

flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions 

rate to the atmosphere from sources subject to an emissions 

limitation that has a pounds per ton of clinker unit.

* * * * *

(3) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(o) Alternate Monitoring Requirements Approval. You may 

submit an application to the Administrator for approval of 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 224 of 231

alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission standards of this subpart, except for emission 

standards for THC, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

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

* * * * *

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

Plans. If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable 

emissions limit through performance stack testing or other 

emissions monitoring, you must develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs 

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

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this 

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

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

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

develop, and submit to the permitting authority for approval 

upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses 

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

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

least 30 days before your initial performance evaluation of your 

CMS.

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

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 225 of 231

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

address paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.

* * * * *

(5) BLDS Monitoring Plan. Each monitoring plan must 

describe the items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this 

section. At a minimum, you must retain records related to the 

site-specific monitoring plan and information discussed in 

paragraphs (m)(1) through (4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this 

section for a period of 5 years, with at least the first 2 years 

on-site;

* * * * *

21. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 

and (d), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§63.1351 Compliance dates.

* * * * *

(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the 

requirements that became effective on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] will be 

September 9, 2015.].

(d) The compliance date for new sources is [INSERT DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] or startup, whichever is later.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 226 of 231

(e) The compliance date for existing and new sources with 

the requirements for open clinker storage piles in §63.1343(c) 

is [INSERT DATE 60 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 

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 63.1354 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(b)(9)(vi) and (c) to read as follows:

§63.1354 Reporting requirements.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 227 of 231

* * * * *

(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. 

* * * * *

(c) Reporting edeviations 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 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 228 of 231

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.

* * * * *

24. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) 

and (g) to read as follows:

§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *

(f) The date, time and duration of each startup or shutdown 

which causes the source to exceed any applicable emission 

limitation, and (f)(i) through (iii) of this section;

(i) The date, time, and duration of each startup or 

shutdown period, for any affected source that is subject to an 

emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from 

the emission standard applicable at other times.

(ii) The quantity and type of raw feed and fuel used during 

the startup or shutdown period.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 229 of 231

(ii) 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.

* * * * *

25. 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. 

26. Section 63.1357 is amended by:
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 230 of 231

(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) * * *

(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.

* * * * *

27. 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 e

Applies to 

Subpart LLL Explanation

 * * * * * * *

63.6(e)(3)Startup, Shutdown 

Malfunction Plan

No Startup and shutdown 

plans addressed in 

§63.1347. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EOs 12866 and 13563 Interagency

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 231 of 231

 * * * * * * *