# Essroc



# Italcementi Group Essroc Cement 

### Corp. Tel 610-837-6725 3251 Bath

### Pike Fax 610-837-2564 Nazareth, PA 18064

November 

### 4,2010
Mr. Keith Barnett U.S. EPA 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Mail Code: 

### D243-02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Re: 

### Regulation 

### of Clinker Piles Under 40 CFR 63, 

### Subpart LLL (Portland Cement MACT)
Dear Mr. Barnett:

Iam writing 

### to request 

### that EPA clarify 

### the Subpart LLL NESHAP modifications promulgated on September 

### 9, 2010 pertaining

## to the clinker pile requirements in 

### 40 CFR SS 63.1343(c) and (d) 

## as required 

### by 

## 40 CFR 

## 63.6(c).

# I understand 

### that EPA

## is attempting

## to address this 

### interpretative 

### issue prior

## to November 

### 8, 2010, however

## if this 

## is not possible, 

### Essroc is requesting an extension for three years. This three year compliance extension is consistent with 

### the requirements deadlines inthe balance ofthe modifications. 

### Request 

### for Establishment of a 

### Reasonable 

### Clinker Pile Requirement 

### Compliance Date 

### EPA's Part 

### 63 general provisions 

### clearly place

### the burden 

### on 

### the agency 

### to establish the compliance date 

### for each standard. 

### 40 CFR S

### 63.6(c) unequivocally states that 

### the compliance 

### date

## for existing sources 

## is the date "established 

### bythe Administrator 

### in the applicable 

### subpart(s) 

### ofthis part."

### The plain language 

### of S

### 63.1351 

### is that affected sources must have either complied with 

### the pre-existing standards 

### in 2002 or, 

### for the new PM, mercury, THC, and HCI 

### emissions limits 

### in

### $ 63.1343(b), affected sources must comply 

### in 2013. 

### No compliance 

### date 

### is provided 

### for thoseaffected sources 

### that must undertake 

### the significant 

### capital projects required for compliance with SS63.1343(c) and (d).Where EPA has failed to state a compliance 

### data, an affectedsource has no authorityto add 

### a compliance 

### date. Absent the Administrator 

### having identified 

### a compliance 

### date,there is no compliance 

### date. Therefore, 

### it is criticalthat 

### EPA issue 

## a rule correction

## if it wants 

## to establish

## a compliance 

### date

### forthe new PM requirements applicable to clinker piles.
EPA must allow existing affected sources 

### a reasonable amount 

### oftimeto comply with 

### the new 

### PM requirements applicable 

## to clinker piles.

### The clinker 

### pile PM requirements 

### are

## a new element 

### ofthe 2010 rule revisions 

### that could 

### not have been anticipated prior 

### to issuance of the 

### final rule. Compliance

### will require significant capital projects

### that cannot 

### be undertaken until 

### local permitting requirements

## are complied 

### with. Designing, permitting 

### and constructing structures that are compliant with 

### the regulatory requirements is expected to take approximately 

### 2to3 years. Part

### of this 

### time 

### is needed

### for design, butthere will 

### also be 

### the need

### to obtain 

### minor 

### new source 

### review permits 

### from

### the local 

## air permitting authority 

## as most State lmplementation Plans require minor new source review prior 

### to installing any control 

### tech¡ology. As the clinker pile PM regulations clearly require control 

### of clinker pile emissions, 

### we anticipate 

### that 

## this local permitting 

### process

## will apply. 

## ln addition, 

### facilities

## will need

## to obtain structural/building permits given 

### the scale 

### ofthe facilities 

### required. ln light 

### ofthe 

### fact that theseenclosure requirements 

### are new 

### as 

### a result 

### of the 

### 2010 rulemaking and that they wíll

### take time



### to install, EPA should extend the 2013 compliance date 

### tothe new PM requírements applicable to clinker piles. 

### Request 

### for a

### Compliance Extension lnthe eventthat EPA is not able 

### to issue 

### a direct 

### final rule prior 

### to November 

### B, 2OiO, Essroc requests 

### that EPA grant the facilities identified 

### below until 

### 2013

### to come into compliance with the clinker pile requirements. Martinsburg Plant Martinsburg, West Virginia Speed Plant Speed, lndiana Nazareth Plant Nazareth, Pennsylvania Logansport Plant Logansport, lndiana Dorado Plant San Juan, Puerto Rico Essroc believes 

### that ínthe absence 

### of a compliance date, there is no deadline 

### for implementing 

### the clinker pile requirements. However, 

### the earliest compliance 

### date that could be establisheã 

### would be November 

### 8,2010. Therefore, 

### as 

### a precautionary 

### measure, Essroc 

### is requesting 

### a 3 year compliance extension 

### for the clinker pile requirements commencing 

### fromthe eadiest date thatthe requirements could ultimately be deemed to apply, i.e., until November 

### 8,2013. Athree year extension is appropriate under the circumstances. CleanAirAct Section 112(|X3XB) provides an extension 

### of 1year across all industries if controls must be installed and 

### an additional 

### 3years 

### forthe mining industry 

### "if

### the 4-year compliance 

### time is insufficient 

### to dry 

### qnd 

### cover mining waste." 

### This statutory provision 

### is implemented 

### in EPA's regulations

### at 4Ó CFR S63.6(iX4Xi). Essroc is clearly engaged in the mining 

### of limestone and other materials and 

### the outdoor clinker 

### storage piles 

### are clearly 

### within the scope of mining wastes 

### that need 

### to be 

### dried and covered. Given that 

### the clinker pile requirements 

### were 

### not known until after capital planning 

### for 201'1 

### was largely completed, 

### that permittíng 

### is required prior 

### to commencement 

### of work and thatthe structures themselves 

### will require significant engineering, 

### it 

### is reasonable to allow 

### a minimum extension ofthree years

### from November 

### 8, 2010, i.e.,the earliest date that the standards could 

### comply.l As stated in40 CFR S63.6(iX4)(iXB), a request for an extension must be submitted 

### to the state 

### wherethe 

### facility is located 

### wherethat 

### state is

### the Part 

### 70 permitting 

### authority 

### with delegation 

### for the NESHAP. However, 

### wherethe standard 

### has not

### yet takeñ 

### effect,

### the state cannot be assumed

### to hold

### the necessary 

### authority

### to grant

### an extension. ln 

### order

## to grant 

## an extension, specific information

## is being submitted consistent 

### with the 

### requirements 

### in 

### 40 CFR 

### S 63.6(iX6Xi). 

### Essroc 

### is currently 

### working

### with its engineers and 

### vendors 

### to establish designs 

### and timetables

### for the equipment installation. 

### This þrocess will require considerable 

### time, althoughwe are 

### too early in

### the process 

### to generate 

### a compliance schedule 

### with 

### any specificity. However, consistent 

### with 

### the rule requirements, 

### we present our 

### best answers 

### tothe required questions below. 

### We currently believe 

### that these answers are equally applicable to each of ourfacilities: (i)(6)(¡)(A) 

## - A description ofthe controls to 

### be instatled to comptywith

### the standard; Essroc believes 

### that the specific controls 

### that require installation 

### for each facility 

### are described 

### with reasonable specificity 

### in S 

### 63.1343(c) and 

### (d)of the rule. Essroc 

### is still evaluating which facilities are subject to which provision of

### the rule 

### as it may be possible 

### at some plants 

### tó move clinker storage 

### and handling facilities 

### to more 

### than 1,000feet from 

### the property line. Therefore,until 

### this engineering 

### assessment 

### is completed, 

### it is impossible 

### to identify 

### the controls beyond

this reference tothe NESHAP requirements. (i)(6)(¡)(B) 

# - A compliance schedule, including 

### the date 

### bywhich each steptoward compliance 

### willbe reached; Essroc has prepared thefollowing conceptual schedule as required by 

### EpA's regulations. 

# Activity Estimated Completion Date Assessment of clinker storage 

## relocation June 30, 2011 Design drawings prepared Permitting (environmental, structural, land use, etc.) lnitiation of on-síte construction Completion of on-site construction
Final compliance date December 

### 31,2011
July 1

### ,2012 September 

### 1,2012 June 1

### ,2013 November 

### 9,2013 Please 

### keep 

### in mind 

### that this schedule 

### does 

### not include 

### any unanticipated delays 

### such as permitting 

### delays, requests 

### for public 

### hearings, late deliveries 

### of necessary equipment, vendor 

### or contractor problems 

### or similar 

### sources

### of delay. Thistable reflects 

### our besi estimate at the present time.
Thank youfor your consideration ofthese requests. Sincerely, Essroc Cement Corp. I -^- --l 

# flf'T/Wtü1,¿"-
Gérv

### A. Molchan Vice President Environmental Affairs