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, 2012

Arlington, TX

Good Morning. My name is Andy O’Hare. I am here today representing the Portland Cement 

Association (PCA), where I am the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. Founded in 1916, PCA’s 

25 member companies operate 97 cement plants in 36 states and distributions centers in all 50 

states. Portland cement 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, bridges, 

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 you 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 petitions

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 highlight 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 standard. 

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 variability of emissions over time. 

In reviewing the standard as part of the reconsideration process, EPA came to the same 

conclusion as PCA. The new proposed standard now more accurately reflects the variability of 

emissions experienced by actual cement kilns over extended periods of time. Accordingly, PCA 

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 necessary. 

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 assess 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 ductwork 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 compliance. 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 involving injection and removal of added particulates. This may come 

in the form of activated carbon, or dry or wet sorbent or scrubbing devices. A change in the PM 

standard, therefore, impacts the types of technologies or combination thereof employed to 

achieve 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 reconsider 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 for 

the other standards, such as total hydrocarbons. The survey further 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 undertaken 

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 expects 

that most plants will be on a schedule of similar duration. 
4

In conclusion, 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 months in 

anticipation of a final rule late in 2012. The industry also believes a reset of the compliance 

deadline is appropriate, in light of the very challenging economic climate, which has not been 

friendly to the cement industry or construction industry, generally.

 

Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to address any questions.