From: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | To: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Date: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |08/05/2010 11:11 PM | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Subject: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Fw: Redline Comments on PC preamble | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG Mail Code D243

‐ 02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 919

‐ 541

‐ 5605 barnett.keith@epa.gov

‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 11:11 PM

‐‐‐‐‐ |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | From: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | To: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Date: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |08/05/2010 12:59 PM | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Subject: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Re: Fw: Redline Comments on PC preamble | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

see below re disposition of OMB comment

|

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | From: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | To: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Date: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |08/05/2010 11:37 AM | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Subject: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Fw: Redline Comments on PC preamble | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

I haven't had time to look at these OMB comments can you take a look and see if they cause you any concern ‐ if not let me know and I'll just put them in. (See attached file: RedlineComments_0805_PCPreamble.pdf) Also, did you look over the language edits that OMB asked for before? 2) On page 14, rather than saying “These standards were intended to be based on the performance of MACT pursuant to CAA sections 112 (d)(2) and (3),” it might be better to describe factually what the agency did, e.g. “We set these standards subject to the MACT requirements of CAA sections 112 (d)(2) and (3).”we should just take this sentence out. We didnt follow 112 d 2 and 3 or we would have won the case. 3) On page 14, is the following statement attributed to the Court a quote: The Court also stated that EPA is obligated to consider other pollution–reducing measures such as process changes and material substitution? If a quote, please clarify, otherwise, consider providing a quote. The next sentence begins “Later cases ...” but only one citation is provided (Brick MACT). Could you include citations to the other cases?included in attached draft 4) On page 15, could you move footnote 8 (begins “In the remainder of the opinion, theCourt..”) into the main body? It seems like information that warrants inclusion in the main body. since it doesnt involve stds which are the subject of the rulemaking it is better left in footnote. 5) On page 16, for clarity, please consider restructuring the last two sentences before Section D “Reconsideration of EPA Final Action ...”) to read as follows: Under CAA section 112(d)(4), EPA did not set a standard for HCl, determining that HCl was a pollutant for which a threshold had been established, and that no cement kiln, even under worst case operating conditions and exposure assumptions, would emit HCl at levels that would exceed that threshold level, allowing for an ample margin of safety.we should do this

. 7) If possible, when providing detailed information about the Brick MACT decision, could you provide quotes?noFor example, can the bulleted list from page 19 be a set of quotations from the decision?no; the summary is quite accurate, and there are some quotes in it 11) Page 36 (and throughout) the statement (or something similar) is made: “No commenter challenged this analysis.” In these cases, did anyone comment on it (e.g. offering support)? It might be more helpful to be neutral about the comments and say “No comment was received,” or “We received comments supporting this analysis.”I thought we agreed to leave this the way it was on the phone call 12) On page 37, the following statement is made: “This type of volitional activity does not seem to be within the ambit of normal variability of process inputs.” Please consider rewriting this sentence to use plain English, such as “EPA believes that thisthis suggested language is an improvement and should be made (See attached file: portland cement preamble changes for omb august 5.doc) Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG Mail Code D243

‐ 02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 919

‐ 541

‐ 5605 barnett.keith@epa.gov

‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 11:31 AM

‐‐‐‐‐ |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | From: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | To: ||

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Cc: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Date: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |08/05/2010 10:53 AM | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > | Subject: | |

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ | |Redline Comments on PC preamble | > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |

Hi Keith, Attached are redline comments on the PC preamble

– these comments are in the (d)(4) section and the discussion of GHG regulations.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Cortney

(See attached file: RedlineComments_0805_PCPreamble.pdf)**This corresponds to p. 13 of Aug 2 version of preamble** Ruling on petitions for review of various environmental groups, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA had erred in failing to establish CAA section 112 (d) standards for mercury, THC (except for greenfield new sources) and HCl. The court held that “[n]othing in the statute even suggests that EPA may set emission levels only for those ... HAPs controlled with technology.” National Lime Ass’n v. EPA , 233 F. 3d 625, 633 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court also stated that EPA is obligated to consider other pollution–reducing measures such as process changes and material substitution. Id . at 634 (“the absence of technology-based pollution control devices for HCl, mercury, and total hydrocarbons did not excuse EPA from setting emission standards for those pollutants”) . Later cases go on to hold

that EPA must account for levels of HAP in raw materials and other inputs in establishing MACT floors, and further hold that

sources with low HAP emission levels due to low levels of HAP in their raw materials can be considered best performers for purposes of establishing MACT floors. See, e.g., Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 2d 855, 865-66 (D.C. Cir. Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Indent: First line: 36 pt, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: No underline2001); Sierra Club v. EPA (“Brick MACT”), 479 F. 3d 875, 882-83 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 1 C. EPA’s Response to the Remand In response to the National Lime Ass’n mandate, on December 2, 2005, we proposed standards for mercury, THC, and HCl. (More information on the regulatory and litigation history may be found at 70 FR 72332, December 2, 2005.) We received over 1,700 comments on the proposed amendments. Most of these comments addressed the lack of a mercury emission limitation in the proposed amendments. On December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76518), EPA published final amendments to the NESHAP. The 2006 amendments contained a new source standard for mercury emissions from cement kilns and kilns/in-line raw mills of 41 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, or alternatively the application of a limestone wet scrubber with a liquid-to-gas ratio of 30 gallons per 1,000 actual cubic feet per minute of exhaust gas. The final rule also adopted a standard for new and existing sources banning the use of utility boiler fly ash in cement kilns where the fly ash mercury content has been increased through the use of activated carbon or any other sorbent unless the cement kiln

1 In the remainder of the opinion, the Court in National Lime Ass’n upheld EPA’s standards for PM and dioxin (on grounds that petitioner had not properly raised arguments in its opening brief), upheld EPA’s use of PM as a surrogate for HAP metals, and remanded for further explanation EPA’s choice of an analytic method for HCl. Formatted: No underlineseeking to use the fly ash can demonstrate that the use of fly ash will not result in an increase in mercury emissions over its baseline mercury emissions (i.e., emissions not using the mercury-laden fly ash). EPA also issued a THC standard for new cement kilns (except for greenfield cement kilns that commenced construction on or before December 2, 2005) of 20 parts per million (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) or 98 percent reduction

in THC emissions from uncontrolled levels. EPA did not set a standard for HCl, determining that HCl was a pollutant for which a threshold had been established, and that no cement kiln, even under conservative operating conditions and exposure assumptions, would emit HCl at levels that would exceed that threshold level, allowing for an ample margin of safety. EPA pointed to CAA section 112(d)(4) authority as its rationale for not establishing HCl emissions limits. D. Reconsideration of EPA Final Action in Response to the

Remand At the same time we issued the final amendments, EPA on its

own initiative made a determination to reconsider the new source standard for mercury, the existing and new source standard banning cement kiln use of certain mercury-containing fly ash, and the new source standard for THC (71 FR 76553, December 20, 2006). EPA granted reconsideration of the new source mercury standard both due to substantive issues relating to theperformance of wet scrubbers and because information about their performance in the industry had not been available for public comment at the time of proposal; that information is now

available in the docket. We also committed to undertake a test program for mercury emissions from cement kilns equipped with

wet scrubbers that would enable us to resolve these issues. We further explained that we were granting reconsideration of thework practice requirement banning the use of certain mercurycontaining fly ash in cement kilns to allow further opportunity for comment on both the standard and the underlying rationale and because we did not feel we had the level of analysis we would like to have to support a beyond-the-floor determination. We granted reconsideration of the new source standard for THC

because the information on which the standard was based arose after the period for public comment. We requested comment on the actual standard, whether the standard is appropriate for reconstructed new sources (if any should occur) and the information on which the standard is based. We specifically solicited data on THC emission levels from preheater/precalciner

cement kilns. We stated that we would evaluate all data and comments received, and determine whether in light of those data and comments it was appropriate to amend the promulgated

standards.EPA received comments on the notice of reconsideration from two cement companies, three energy companies, three industry associations, a technical consultant, one State, one environmental group, one ash management company, one fuels company, and one private citizen. As part of these comments, one industry trade association submitted a petition to withdraw the new source MACT standards for mercury and THC and one environmental group submitted a petition for reconsideration of the 2006 final action. A summary of these comments is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 2 In addition to the reconsideration discussed above, EPA received a petition from Sierra Club requesting reconsideration of the existing source standards for THC, mercury, and HCl, and judicial petitions for review challenging the final amendments. EPA granted the reconsideration petition. The judicial petitions have been combined and are being held in abeyance pending the results of the reconsideration. In March 2007 the D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion (Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007)(Brick MACT )) vacating and remanding CAA section 112(d) MACT standards for the Brick and Structural Clay Ceramics source categories. Some key holdings in that case were:

2 Summary of Comments on December 20, 2006 Final Rule and Notice of Reconsideration. April 15, 2009.• Floors for existing sources must reflect the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, not levels EPA considers to be achievable by all sources (479 F. 3d at 880-81);

• EPA cannot set floors of “no control.” The Court reiterated its prior holdings, including National Lime

Ass’n , confirming that EPA must set floor standards for all HAP emitted by the major source, including those HAP that are not controlled by at-the-stack control devices (479 F. 3d at 883); and

• EPA cannot ignore non-technology factors that reduce HAP emissions, including when determining which sources are best performers for purposes of ascertaining the MACT floor. Specifically, the Court held that “EPA’s decisionto base floors exclusively on technology even though nontechnology factors affect emissions violates the Act.” (479 F. 3d at 883). Based on the statute, as interpreted in the Brick MACT decision, we believe a source’s performance resulting from the presence or absence of HAP in raw materials must be accounted for in establishing floors; i.e., a low emitter due to low HAP proprietary raw materials can still be a best performer. In addition, the fact that a specific level of performance is not being intentionally achieved by the source is not a legal basisfor excluding the source’s performance from consideration.

Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d at 631-34; National Lime Ass’n , 233

F. 3d at 640.

The Brick MACT decision also reiterated that EPA may account for variability in setting floors. However, the Court found that EPA erred in assessing variability because it relied on data from the worst performers to estimate best performers’ variability, and held that “EPA may not use emission levels of the worst performers to estimate variability of the best performers without a demonstrated relationship between the two.”

479 F. 3d at 882. After considering the implications of this decision, EPA granted the petition for reconsideration of all the existing source standards in the 2006 rulemaking. A second Court opinion of relevance to the Portland cement

NESHAP amended here is Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In that case, the court vacated the regulations contained in the General Provisions which exempt major sources from CAA section 112(d) standards during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). The regulations (in 40 C.F.R. 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1)) provided that sources need not comply with the relevant CAA section 112(d) standard during SSM events and instead must “minimize emissions . . . to the greatest extent which is consistent with safety and good air pollutioncontrol practices.” The current Portland Cement NESHAP

references the now-vacated rules in the General Provisions. As a result of the court’s decision, we are removing the references to the vacated provisions and addressing SSM in this rulemaking. Discussion of this issue may be found in Section IV.A. **III. Background Information on the NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart**

**F** NSPS implement CAA section 111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission control technologies are

installed as the industrial infrastructure is modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving long-termemissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring costeffective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or

modified sources. Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application of the best system of emission reductions which, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements, the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This level of control is commonlyreferred to as best demonstrated technology (BDT). EPA promulgated Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR, part 61 subpart F) in 1971((36 FR 24876, December 23, 1971). Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. We have conducted three reviews of the standards (39 FR 20793, June 14, 1974; 39 FR 39874, November 12, 1974; and 53 FR 50354, December 14, 1988). We proposed the current review of the Portland Cement Plant NSPS on June 16, 2008. We received a total of 46 comments from the Portland cement industry, environmental groups, State environmental agencies and others during the comment period. This final rule reflects our consideration of all the comments we received. Detailed responses to the comments not included in this preamble are contained in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document which is included in the docket for this rulemakingPage **71** of **435**

adverse health effects due to concurrent exposure to other HAPs with similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other source categories, where the concentration of the threshold pollutant emitted from the given source category is below the threshold; the potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the pollutant; and reductions in criteria pollutant emissions

and other co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT

standard – the decisive factor here. Each of these factors is directly relevant to the health and environmental outcomes at which section 112 of the Clean Air Act is fundamentally aimed. If EPA does determine that it is appropriate to set a standard based on a health threshold, we must develop emission standards that will ensure the public will not be exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP in excess of the health threshold, with an ample margin of safety. Since any emission standard under section 112(d)(4) must consider the established health threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, in this rulemaking EPA has considered the adverse health effects of the HAP acid gases, beginning with

HCl. Research indicates that HCl is associated with chronic respiratory toxicity. In the case of HCl, this means that chronic inhalation of HCl can cause tissue damage in humans. Among other things, it is corrosive to mucous membranes and can cause damage to eyes, nose, throat, and the upper respiratoryPage **72** of **435**

tract as well as pulmonary edema, bronchitis, gastritis, and dermatitis. Considering this respiratory toxicity, EPA has established a chronic reference concentration (RfC) for the

inhalation of HCl of 20 μ g/m 3. An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups 25 ) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The development of the RfC for HCl reflected data only on its chronic respiratory toxicity. T he IRIS health assessment

evaluated chronic non-cancer risks and did not include an evaluation of carcinogenic effects (on which there are very limited studies). As a reference value for a single pollutant,

RfC s do not reflect any potential cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual’s exposure to multiple HAPs or to a combination of HAPs and criteria pollutants. Similarly, an RfC evaluation does not focus on potential environmental impacts. With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we know the following:

1. Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects;

25 “Sensitive subgroups” may refer to particular life stages, such as children or the elderly, or to those with particular medical conditions, such as asthmatics. Comment [A1]: Please provide citations (footnote is fine and link to IRIS file)

Comment [A2]: Not sure this is true

. The RfC setting process looks at all the potential adverse effects and then picks the one of greatest concern (eg effects at lowest level) to protect against all effects. Thus suggest deleting this as the RfC is protective of all the endpoints.

Comment [A3]: The R fC is for chronic effects, thus it wouldn’t include acute exposure. Deleted: It did not take into account effects associated with acute exposure, and, in this situation, t Deleted: did not evaluate the potential carcinogenicity of HCl Deleted: the Deleted: a lso did not Deleted: As the RfC calculation focused on health effects, it did not take into account the potential environmental impacts of HCl.Page **73** of **435**

2. Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. The one occupational study of which we are aware found no evidence of carcinogenicity;

3. There is a significant body of scientific literature addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HCl (California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, 2008. Acute Toxicity Summary for Hydrogen Chloride, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_ final.pdf#page=112 EPA, 2001). However, we currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to

determine whether a chronic health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose health concerns.

4. We are aware of no studies explicitly addressing the toxicity of mixtures of HCl with other respiratory irritants. However, many of the other HAPs (and criteria pollutants) emitted by cement kilns also are respiratory irritants, and in the absence of information on interactions, EPA assumes an additive cumulative effect (Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical

Mixtures. Comment [A4]: Do we know of any cases where the acute exposure level is less than the chronic level? Typically the chronic value is more protective than the acute value and we would expect the same here so if we actually consider the science we know that at a minimum the chronic value would be protective for acute exposures. In fact it would be a conservative value. Thus please revise using what we know about the exposure sciences and health effects.Page **74** of **435**

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20 533). Cement kilns also emit other acid gases along with HCl, including chlorine (Cl 2 ), HCN and hydrogen fluoride (HF), all of which are HAPs. Like HCl, these HAP gases have established chronic health thresholds below which they are not expected to pose any significant risk of chronic respiratory effects, have no evidence to suggest that they may pose carcinogenic effects, and have an established body of literature regarding acute respiratory health effects. They are also controlled during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when considering a

health-based emission limit for HCl. In the 2006 final rule, EPA did not set any standard for

HCl. 26 The Agency reasoned that no further control was necessary

for Portland cement emissions of HCl because HCl is a “health threshold pollutant” and human health is protected with an ample margin of safety at current HCl emission levels. 71 FR at

26 Although the decision not to set a standard in 2006 was based on the authority of section 112(d)(4), we note that the statute in fact states: “the Administrator may consider such threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emission standards under this subsection.” Section 112(d)(4), emphasis added.Page **75** of **435**

76527. Underlying this conclusion was EPA’s analysis of a tiered screening study of dispersion modeling of cement facilities’ worst-case and actual HCl emissions. This study wasconducted by the Portland Cement Association for about twothirds of operating U.S. cement plants. Dispersion modeling results were evaluated against the RfC for HCl. 27 The screening analysis involved making conservative assumptions regarding HCl emission concentrations and plants’ operating conditions (greater concentrations than known to be emitted and perpetual operation at maximum capacity). All plants in the analysis, with five exceptions, had HCl levels well below a Hazard Quotient (HQ) level of 1.0, the ratio of exposure (or modeled concentration) to the health reference value or threshold level. The remaining five plants in the analysis had HQ levels greater than 1.0 assuming maximum emissions, but less than 1.0 when their actual emissions were used in the dispersion models. Id.

at 76528-29. At proposal of these amendments, recognizing that the 2006 determination was deficient, if for no other reason because it failed to establish any emission standard whatever, EPA

27 In the previous study EPA also evaluated dispersion modeling results against an acute exposure guideline level ( AEGL) below which acute effects would not be expected to occur. However, even given the uncertainties mentioned for short term HCl emissions, that analysis indicated that chronic effects would be of the most concern.Page **76** of **435**

conducted its own analysis to determine what numerical standard for HCl would be necessary to at least assure that, for the sources in the controlled category or subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of HCl would not experience the adverse

health effects on which the threshold is based. In order to determine this level, in the proposed rule we conducted a risk analysis of the same 68 facilities analyzed by PCA using a screening level dispersion model (AERSCREEN). Using site specific stack parameters and conservative meteorological conditions (taken from the PCA analysis), the AERSCREEN modeling predicted the highest long term ground level concentration surrounding each facility. The results of this analysis indicated that an HCl emission limit of 23 ppmv or less (an order of magnitude higher than the MACT standard) would result in no exceedances of the RfC for HCl for any of the facilities

assessed. 28 Based on further consideration, EPA now believes that the 2006 PCA study and analysis have several serious deficiencies. First of all, not all cement plants were evaluated (the PCA study covered about two thirds of the plants in the source category), and among those not evaluated were cement plants with

28 Derivation of a Health-Based Stack Gas Concentration Limit for HCl in Support of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, April 10, 2009. Comment [A5]: Not sure what exactly constitutes a serious deficiency. Is the concern that the facilities are not representative of potential worst case. If so, please be more clear.Page **77** of **435**

the most likelihood of posing risk at ground level from HCl emissions due to use of positive pressure baghouses with monovents or multiple short stacks. Secondly, the analysis did not consider the impacts of the co-emitted acid gases, an important consideration in determining an ample margin of safety. In addition, no data were provided, nor do we have data, on other pollutants in the vicinity of these cement facilities, or background concentration data for HCl to determine cumulative impacts of HCl emissions for these

facilities. 29 EPA’s analysis of 2009 could not improve on the PCA study, given the lack of robust emissions data for Cl 2 , HF, and HCN, and the lack of any additional data for the cement kilns not included in the original study. As a result, EPA cannot ensure that the resulting derivation of 23 ppmv as a possible health-based emission standard for HCl would result in chronic ambient levels of acid gases that would not pose significant health risks. EPA has not received any data since proposal that would allow us to extend that analysis to cover all acid gases and all facilities.

29 It should be noted that large amounts of site-specific information both on kiln operation and local meteorological information is needed to obtain meaningful results from AERSCREEN and other dispersion models. This information is in the ready possession of the industrial sources themselves, but for unknown reasons, was not provided by industry to EPA either as part of the 2006 PCA analysis or in response to subsequent data solicitations by EPA. Comment [A6]: Has EPA asked for this?Page **78** of **435**

In addition to potential health impacts, EPA has evaluated the potential for environmental impacts when considering whether to exercise discretion under section 112(d)(4). When HCl gas encounters water in the atmosphere, it forms an acidic solution of HCl. In areas where the deposition of acids derived from emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides are causing aquatic and/or terrestrial acidification, with accompanying ecological impacts, the deposition of HCl could exacerbate these impacts. Being mindful of the explicit legislative history, and in keeping with past EPA practice, it is appropriate to consider potential adverse environmental effects in addition to adverse health effects when setting an emission standard for HCl under section 112(d)(4). The co-emissions of HF, HCN, and Cl 2 from cement kilns could serve to further aggravate these environmental acidification impacts impacts but at this time EPA has no data to support this claim

. Although the PCA analysis did not include an assessment of potential environmental effects, for the 2006 final Portland cement rule, EPA conducted its own analysis of potential effects of cement kilns’ HCl emissions to wildlife, aquatic life, and other natural resources. The Agency concluded at the time that acute and chronic exposures to expected HCl concentration around cement kilns are not expected to result in adverse environmentalPage **125** of **435**

73 FR at 34,084. These concerns were specifically related to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V permitting programs and the unmanageable permitting burden that we anticipated would arise should GHGs become subject to these programs as a result of regulation under the Act. Since that time, we have issued regulations for GHG emissions under the CAA through the light duty vehicle rule (75 FR 25324, (May 7, 2010)) and have finalized the greenhouse gas “tailoring” rule ( 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010)) and the Johnson

memo Reconsideration (75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010)). As a result of these actions, as of January 2, 2011, GHGs will become "subject to regulation" under the Act. Accordingly, the Agency has now finalized a framework addressing the concerns that were the basis of our decision not to propose standards of performance for GHG emissions from this industry at the time we proposed this 8-year review action. Today’s final rule does not include a standard of performance for GHG. There are two reasons for this. First, we did not propose such a standard. Promulgating such a standard without providing opportunity to comment on it would not be a logical outgrowth of the proposal and would, accordingly, violate the norms of notice and comment rulemaking **.** Second, we do not yet have adequate information about GHG emissions and control strategies for the Portland cement industry. This Comment [A7]: How does this statement comport with the statements below about emissions and that there are cost-effective GHG controls for cement kilns?Page **126** of **435**

information forms the basis of standards of performance, which must take into account achievability and cost of such controls. This is not the end of the matter. To the contrary, based on our current knowledge we believe that it may be appropriate for the Agency to set a standard of performance for GHGs. We have historically declined to propose standards for a pollutant where it is emitting in low amounts or where we determined that a BDT analysis would result in no control. National Lime

Assoc’n v. EPA , 627 F.2d at 426. Based on current information we do not believe such circumstances are present here. Without prejudging the outcome of a future regulatory process, we note the following considerations. First, Portland cement is one of the largest stationary source categories of GHG emissions, ranking as the third highest

U.S. source of CO 2 emissions. Second, based on our initial evaluation it appears that there are cost-effective control strategies for this source category that would provide an appropriate basis for establishing a standard of performance for GHG emissions. See 73 FR 44491, July 30, 2008. These control strategies include, for example, energy efficiency measures, reductions in cement clinker content, and raw materials substitution. There may be other cost-effective controls as

well. Comment [A8]: Please explain what is meant by this? The FR notice points to a report titled “U.S. EPA (2008), Air Pollution Controls and Efficiency Improvement Measures for Cement Kiln. Final Report.” – where can the reader find this?

Comment [A9]: Would these changes also reduce HAP?Page **71** of **435**

adverse health effects due to concurrent exposure to other HAPs with similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other source categories, where the concentration of the threshold pollutant emitted from the given source category is below the threshold; the potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the pollutant; and reductions in criteria pollutant emissions

and other co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT

standard – the decisive factor here. Each of these factors is directly relevant to the health and environmental outcomes at which section 112 of the Clean Air Act is fundamentally aimed. If EPA does determine that it is appropriate to set a standard based on a health threshold, we must develop emission standards that will ensure the public will not be exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP in excess of the health threshold, with an ample margin of safety. Since any emission standard under section 112(d)(4) must consider the established health threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, in this rulemaking EPA has considered the adverse health effects of the HAP acid gases, beginning with

HCl. Research indicates that HCl is associated with chronic respiratory toxicity. In the case of HCl, this means that chronic inhalation of HCl can cause tissue damage in humans. Among other things, it is corrosive to mucous membranes and can cause damage to eyes, nose, throat, and the upper respiratoryPage **72** of **435**

tract as well as pulmonary edema, bronchitis, gastritis, and dermatitis. Considering this respiratory toxicity, EPA has established a chronic reference concentration (RfC) for the

inhalation of HCl of 20 μ g/m 3. An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups 25 ) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The development of the RfC for HCl reflected data only on its chronic respiratory toxicity. T he IRIS health assessment

evaluated chronic non-cancer risks and did not include an evaluation of carcinogenic effects (on which there are very limited studies). As a reference value for a single pollutant,

RfC s do not reflect any potential cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual’s exposure to multiple HAPs or to a combination of HAPs and criteria pollutants. Similarly, an RfC evaluation does not focus on potential environmental impacts. With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we know the following:

1. Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects;

25 “Sensitive subgroups” may refer to particular life stages, such as children or the elderly, or to those with particular medical conditions, such as asthmatics. Comment [A1]: Please provide citations (footnote is fine and link to IRIS file)

Comment [A2]: Not sure this is true

. The RfC setting process looks at all the potential adverse effects and then picks the one of greatest concern (eg effects at lowest level) to protect against all effects. Thus suggest deleting this as the RfC is protective of all the endpoints.

Comment [A3]: The R fC is for chronic effects, thus it wouldn’t include acute exposure. Deleted: It did not take into account effects associated with acute exposure, and, in this situation, t Deleted: did not evaluate the potential carcinogenicity of HCl Deleted: the Deleted: a lso did not Deleted: As the RfC calculation focused on health effects, it did not take into account the potential environmental impacts of HCl.Page **73** of **435**

2. Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. The one occupational study of which we are aware found no evidence of carcinogenicity;

3. There is a significant body of scientific literature addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HCl (California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, 2008. Acute Toxicity Summary for Hydrogen Chloride, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_ final.pdf#page=112 EPA, 2001). However, we currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to

determine whether a chronic health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose health concerns.

4. We are aware of no studies explicitly addressing the toxicity of mixtures of HCl with other respiratory irritants. However, many of the other HAPs (and criteria pollutants) emitted by cement kilns also are respiratory irritants, and in the absence of information on interactions, EPA assumes an additive cumulative effect (Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical

Mixtures. Comment [A4]: Do we know of any cases where the acute exposure level is less than the chronic level? Typically the chronic value is more protective than the acute value and we would expect the same here so if we actually consider the science we know that at a minimum the chronic value would be protective for acute exposures. In fact it would be a conservative value. Thus please revise using what we know about the exposure sciences and health effects.Page **74** of **435**

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20 533). Cement kilns also emit other acid gases along with HCl, including chlorine (Cl 2 ), HCN and hydrogen fluoride (HF), all of which are HAPs. Like HCl, these HAP gases have established chronic health thresholds below which they are not expected to pose any significant risk of chronic respiratory effects, have no evidence to suggest that they may pose carcinogenic effects, and have an established body of literature regarding acute respiratory health effects. They are also controlled during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when considering a

health-based emission limit for HCl. In the 2006 final rule, EPA did not set any standard for

HCl. 26 The Agency reasoned that no further control was necessary

for Portland cement emissions of HCl because HCl is a “health threshold pollutant” and human health is protected with an ample margin of safety at current HCl emission levels. 71 FR at

26 Although the decision not to set a standard in 2006 was based on the authority of section 112(d)(4), we note that the statute in fact states: “the Administrator may consider such threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emission standards under this subsection.” Section 112(d)(4), emphasis added.Page **75** of **435**

76527. Underlying this conclusion was EPA’s analysis of a tiered screening study of dispersion modeling of cement facilities’ worst-case and actual HCl emissions. This study wasconducted by the Portland Cement Association for about twothirds of operating U.S. cement plants. Dispersion modeling results were evaluated against the RfC for HCl. 27 The screening analysis involved making conservative assumptions regarding HCl emission concentrations and plants’ operating conditions (greater concentrations than known to be emitted and perpetual operation at maximum capacity). All plants in the analysis, with five exceptions, had HCl levels well below a Hazard Quotient (HQ) level of 1.0, the ratio of exposure (or modeled concentration) to the health reference value or threshold level. The remaining five plants in the analysis had HQ levels greater than 1.0 assuming maximum emissions, but less than 1.0 when their actual emissions were used in the dispersion models. Id.

at 76528-29. At proposal of these amendments, recognizing that the 2006 determination was deficient, if for no other reason because it failed to establish any emission standard whatever, EPA

27 In the previous study EPA also evaluated dispersion modeling results against an acute exposure guideline level ( AEGL) below which acute effects would not be expected to occur. However, even given the uncertainties mentioned for short term HCl emissions, that analysis indicated that chronic effects would be of the most concern.Page **76** of **435**

conducted its own analysis to determine what numerical standard for HCl would be necessary to at least assure that, for the sources in the controlled category or subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of HCl would not experience the adverse

health effects on which the threshold is based. In order to determine this level, in the proposed rule we conducted a risk analysis of the same 68 facilities analyzed by PCA using a screening level dispersion model (AERSCREEN). Using site specific stack parameters and conservative meteorological conditions (taken from the PCA analysis), the AERSCREEN modeling predicted the highest long term ground level concentration surrounding each facility. The results of this analysis indicated that an HCl emission limit of 23 ppmv or less (an order of magnitude higher than the MACT standard) would result in no exceedances of the RfC for HCl for any of the facilities

assessed. 28 Based on further consideration, EPA now believes that the 2006 PCA study and analysis have several serious deficiencies. First of all, not all cement plants were evaluated (the PCA study covered about two thirds of the plants in the source category), and among those not evaluated were cement plants with

28 Derivation of a Health-Based Stack Gas Concentration Limit for HCl in Support of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, April 10, 2009. Comment [A5]: Not sure what exactly constitutes a serious deficiency. Is the concern that the facilities are not representative of potential worst case. If so, please be more clear.Page **77** of **435**

the most likelihood of posing risk at ground level from HCl emissions due to use of positive pressure baghouses with monovents or multiple short stacks. Secondly, the analysis did not consider the impacts of the co-emitted acid gases, an important consideration in determining an ample margin of safety. In addition, no data were provided, nor do we have data, on other pollutants in the vicinity of these cement facilities, or background concentration data for HCl to determine cumulative impacts of HCl emissions for these

facilities. 29 EPA’s analysis of 2009 could not improve on the PCA study, given the lack of robust emissions data for Cl 2 , HF, and HCN, and the lack of any additional data for the cement kilns not included in the original study. As a result, EPA cannot ensure that the resulting derivation of 23 ppmv as a possible health-based emission standard for HCl would result in chronic ambient levels of acid gases that would not pose significant health risks. EPA has not received any data since proposal that would allow us to extend that analysis to cover all acid gases and all facilities.

29 It should be noted that large amounts of site-specific information both on kiln operation and local meteorological information is needed to obtain meaningful results from AERSCREEN and other dispersion models. This information is in the ready possession of the industrial sources themselves, but for unknown reasons, was not provided by industry to EPA either as part of the 2006 PCA analysis or in response to subsequent data solicitations by EPA. Comment [A6]: Has EPA asked for this?Page **78** of **435**

In addition to potential health impacts, EPA has evaluated the potential for environmental impacts when considering whether to exercise discretion under section 112(d)(4). When HCl gas encounters water in the atmosphere, it forms an acidic solution of HCl. In areas where the deposition of acids derived from emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides are causing aquatic and/or terrestrial acidification, with accompanying ecological impacts, the deposition of HCl could exacerbate these impacts. Being mindful of the explicit legislative history, and in keeping with past EPA practice, it is appropriate to consider potential adverse environmental effects in addition to adverse health effects when setting an emission standard for HCl under section 112(d)(4). The co-emissions of HF, HCN, and Cl 2 from cement kilns could serve to further aggravate these environmental acidification impacts impacts but at this time EPA has no data to support this claim

. Although the PCA analysis did not include an assessment of potential environmental effects, for the 2006 final Portland cement rule, EPA conducted its own analysis of potential effects of cement kilns’ HCl emissions to wildlife, aquatic life, and other natural resources. The Agency concluded at the time that acute and chronic exposures to expected HCl concentration around cement kilns are not expected to result in adverse environmentalPage **125** of **435**

73 FR at 34,084. These concerns were specifically related to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V permitting programs and the unmanageable permitting burden that we anticipated would arise should GHGs become subject to these programs as a result of regulation under the Act. Since that time, we have issued regulations for GHG emissions under the CAA through the light duty vehicle rule (75 FR 25324, (May 7, 2010)) and have finalized the greenhouse gas “tailoring” rule ( 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010)) and the Johnson

memo Reconsideration (75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010)). As a result of these actions, as of January 2, 2011, GHGs will become "subject to regulation" under the Act. Accordingly, the Agency has now finalized a framework addressing the concerns that were the basis of our decision not to propose standards of performance for GHG emissions from this industry at the time we proposed this 8-year review action. Today’s final rule does not include a standard of performance for GHG. There are two reasons for this. First, we did not propose such a standard. Promulgating such a standard without providing opportunity to comment on it would not be a logical outgrowth of the proposal and would, accordingly, violate the norms of notice and comment rulemaking **.** Second, we do not yet have adequate information about GHG emissions and control strategies for the Portland cement industry. This Comment [A7]: How does this statement comport with the statements below about emissions and that there are cost-effective GHG controls for cement kilns?Page **126** of **435**

information forms the basis of standards of performance, which must take into account achievability and cost of such controls. This is not the end of the matter. To the contrary, based on our current knowledge we believe that it may be appropriate for the Agency to set a standard of performance for GHGs. We have historically declined to propose standards for a pollutant where it is emitting in low amounts or where we determined that a BDT analysis would result in no control. National Lime

Assoc’n v. EPA , 627 F.2d at 426. Based on current information we do not believe such circumstances are present here. Without prejudging the outcome of a future regulatory process, we note the following considerations. First, Portland cement is one of the largest stationary source categories of GHG emissions, ranking as the third highest

U.S. source of CO 2 emissions. Second, based on our initial evaluation it appears that there are cost-effective control strategies for this source category that would provide an appropriate basis for establishing a standard of performance for GHG emissions. See 73 FR 44491, July 30, 2008. These control strategies include, for example, energy efficiency measures, reductions in cement clinker content, and raw materials substitution. There may be other cost-effective controls as

well. Comment [A8]: Please explain what is meant by this? The FR notice points to a report titled “U.S. EPA (2008), Air Pollution Controls and Efficiency Improvement Measures for Cement Kiln. Final Report.” – where can the reader find this?

Comment [A9]: Would these changes also reduce HAP?