From: O’Hare, Andrew < AOhare@cement.org > To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/16/2012 06:47 PM Subject: testimony

Keith and Sharon,
Attached please find a copy of my testimony from the hearing today for the rulemaking record.
I’ll be back in touch regarding a meeting in September.
Regards, Andy

Andrew T. O'Hare Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Office: (202) 408

- 9494 Fax: (202) 408

- 0877 Cell: (202) 270

- 0094
e
- mail: aohare@cement.org (See attached file: PCA Hearing Statement 8

- 12 FINAL.pdf)

### Statement of the Portland Cement Association Regarding the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement

Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule

August 16 , 20 12 Arlington, TX

Good Morning. My name is Andy O’Hare. I am h ere today representing the Portland Cement Association (PCA) , where I am the V ice P resident of R egulatory A ffairs. Founded in 1916, PCA’s
25 member companies operate 9 7 cement plants in 3 6 states and distributions centers in all 50 states. Portland ceme nt is the essential ingredient in concrete. Concrete, a ubiquitous building material, is the second most consumed material on earth after water

. Concrete , a sustainable material, is the foundation of our nation’s infrastructure, found in roads, homes, br idges, buildings, dams, levees and in newer applications, such as platforms for wind energy facilities. For example, energy savings from concrete buildings may more than offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with cement manufacturing.

Thank yo u for the opportunity to address this panel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the proposed amendments to the portland cement national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants , or “ NESHAP. ” The July 18 proposal is an outgrowth of petition s for reconsideration filed by PCA and others and directives from a DC Circuit Court decision . It would modify an earlier version of the rule finalized in September 2010. PCA has worked closely with EPA for the past year or more to address issues the Agency agreed to revisit as part of the 2010 rule reconsideration process. PCA is currently in the process of preparing comment on the proposal, but is generally supportive of many of the modifications the Agency has proposed.2

I would like to hig hlight a few provisions in the proposal which are strongly supported by PCA , including a modification to the emission standards for particulate matter, or PM, for existing and new sources , and a reset of the rule compliance deadline to address the new PM s tandard.

Regarding the PM standard, the change EPA has proposed is strongly supported by the data EPA possesses in the rule record

. In 2009, PCA argued in comments on the previous proposal that the PM standard should be revised to reflect the natural v ariability of emissions over time. In reviewing the standard as part of the reconsideration process, EPA came to the same conclusion as PCA . T he new proposed standard now more accurately reflects the variability of emissions experienced by actual cement kilns over extended periods of time. Accordingly, P CA endorses the EPA proposed modification to the PM standards for existing and new sources.

On a related matter, PCA strongly supports a reset of the compliance deadline for the NESHAP, moving it from September 2013 to September 2015. This additional time will be necessary to implement the change to the PM standard , the reasons for which are outlined by EPA and PCA in the rulemaking record. I will highlight briefly today why the additional time is nec essary

. Additional details will be provided in PCA comments.

The proposal expresses EPA’s recognition that the changes being proposed to emission standards, in particular to the particulate matter (PM) standard, will require cement plants not only to a ssess the need to use and therefore develop new control and compliance strategies, but the likelihood that new control and compliance strategies will indeed have to be developed and implemented as a result of the changes to the PM standards

.

EPA notes the following in the proposal: “New compliance strategies require time to implement. New engineering studies are needed, potential suppliers identified, and a new bidding/procurement process undertaken. Significant plant redesign, in the form of new ductwo rk and new fan design, and the changes in the main control equipment may be needed.
77 Fed. Reg. at 42386.3

These EPA conclusions are strongly supported by an analysis prepared by PCA to assess the impact a new PM standard would have on rule complianc e. Importantly, the PCA analysis found that a change to the PM standard will have implications for all of the standards, not just for PM. The standards for mercury, hydrochloric acid and total hydrocarbons all rely , or may rely , on control strategies invo lving injection and removal of added particulates . This may come in the form of activated carbon, or dry or wet sorbent or scrubbing device s

. A change in the PM standard, therefore , impacts the types of technologies o r combination thereof employed to ach ieve all of the standards of the rule

.

PCA surveyed its members as part of the effort to assess the potential impact of a new PM standard. The purpose of the questionnaire was to solicit perspectives on how and whether cement plant operators would reco nsider their NESHAP compliance strategies. Virtually all U.S. cement manufacturers participated in the survey and a plurality, or greater than 50%, indicated that they would have to revisit their plans. It turned out that this conclusion was also true fo r the other standards, such as total hydrocarbons. The survey fur ther explored how much time would be necessary to implement these new plans.

As the chart here indicates (make reference to a blown up version of technology implementation timeline), the typical facility will be working diligently to meet a September 2015 compliance deadline, assuming the changes to the NESHAP are final in December of this

year.

As you can see from the chart (reference chart) there a series of steps that must be underta ken sequentially, as information from one is used to inform the next, leading ultimately to technology commissioning and utilization. While this is a generalized schematic, PCA expect s that most plants will be on a schedule of similar duration.4

In conc lusion, PCA generally welcomes the changes that EPA has proposed to make to the NESHAP and looks forward to working with the Agency over the next several month s in anticipation of a final rule late in 2012

. The industry also believes a reset of the compli ance deadline is appropriate , in light of the very challenging economic climate, which has not been friendly to the cement industry or co nstruction industry, generally.

Thank you for your attention

. I would be pleased to address any questions.