MEMORANDUM
TO:

Portland

Cement

Docket SUBJECT: Meeting

with the Portland

Cement Association

and cement industry

representatives, February 15, 2006 FROM: Keith Barnett,

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG DATE: February

16, 2010 On February

15, 2006, representatives

of the Portland

cement industry

met with representatives of EPA in Washington

D.C. The attendees

were as follows: Portland Cement

Association: Andy O'Hare David Novello,

Law Offices fDavid Novello

(for PCA) Cement Industry: Ruksana

Mirza, Holcim

(US) Inc. Dan Nugent,

Buzzi Unicem

U.S.A. Lehigh Cement

Company Tim Matz, Heidelberg

Cement

Group (Lehigh Cement) Fran Streitman,

Ash Grove Cement

Company U. S. Environmental

Agency: Keith Barnett,

OAR/OAQPS

by Phone Steve Page, OAR/OAQPS

by Phone Steve Silverman,

OGC/ARLO Rob Brenner,

OAR Bob Meyers,

OAR Bill Wehrum,

OAR The agenda items and key discussion

points as materials

reviewed

during the meeting

are attached.February 15, 2006 Overview of PCA Concerns

with Proposed

Changes

to the Portland Cement

NESHAP (70 Fed. Reg. 72330) Key Points

• EPA has correctly

determined

that neither a maximum

achievable-control technology (MACT)

"floor" standard

nor a "beyond

the floor" standard

for mercury is warranted.

• There is no need for either an existing

or new source HCl standard.

• Geological

factors make the proposed

THC standard

for existing

sources arbitrary for the same reasons

outlined

for mercury,

• The HWC THC standard

applies

only when the facility is burning

hazardous waste.

• Virtually

no plants will be able to achieve

the proposed

100 ppm CO standard. Mercury

• EPA has correctly

determined

that neither

a maximum

achievable

control technology (MACT)

"floor" standard

nor a "beyond

the floor" standard

for mercury is warranted.

• PCA does not believe

that a limitation

on the utilization

of fly ash as a raw material would be an appropriate

means of controlling

mercury

emissions

>,-,. ¢ %/° associated with fly ash use. Any Agency

action on this matter is premature. Hydro.qen Chloride

(HCl)

• PCA has done extensive

modeling

to demonstrate

that cement

kiln HCL emissions pose no risk to human health and the environment

• There is no need for either an existing

or new source HCl standard. Total Hydrocarbons/Carbon Monoxide

{THC/CO)

• EPA's "importing"

of the THC and CO existing

source standards

has no rational basis and contravenes

CAA §112(d).

• CAA§112(d)

does not allow EPA to venture

across MACT source categories

in developing MACT floors, orto set floors when there is insufficient

data.

• The proposed

THC and CO existing

source standards

violate CAA§112(d), because EPA has not demonstrated

that they are achievable.• Geological

factors make the proposed

THC standard

for existing

sources arbitrary,

• The THC and CO standards

in the HWC MACT were developed

to address concerns with hazardous

waste; the HWC standard

applies

only when the facility is burning

hazardous

waste,

• Virtually

no plants will be able to achieve

the proposed

100 ppm CO standard.

• Mid-kiln

THC monitoring

approaches

are costly and ineffective.

• The approach

proposed

for conducting

THC performance

testing is unworkable.

• There is no legal basis for a THC standard

for existing

area sources.

• The existing

greenfield

source THC standard

appropriately

recognizes

the significant impact raw material

quality has on the siting of cement

plants. Other Matters

• The alternative

approaches

suggested

for resolving

the applicability

questions regarding raw material

storage

facilities

are not appropriate.

• Facilities

with commingled

stack and clinker cooler emissions

should be allowed to use proportional

contributions

to compute

a kiln stack opacity

limit.

• _The PrOp.osed

one year _c.o_mpliance

date for.implementing

the revis.e.d..standards is inadequate.Estimated Maximum

Stack

THC

Emissions
iO00

I00

I0 20 ppm Proposed Standard Source: "Hydrocarbon

Emissions Due to Raw Materials in the Manufacture of Portland Cement," Eric G. Eddings, Ph.D., University of Utah

5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 Raw Material

Sample 65CLARKSVILLE MID-KILN

SAMPLING

SYSTEM
Problems with Mid-kiln

Sampling: Lifetime of probes was limited to approximately

3 months Downtime on kiln to replace and/or repair probes Loss of clinker production

due to kiln downtime Potential for introduction

of false air resulting

in biased CO readings

due to correction

to 7% oxygen Plugging of probes through

condensation

of alkali and other salts inside of probesFrequent cleaning

of probes via kiln guns using lead shot Annual cost to facility for mid-kiln

sampling

$425,000

$550,000 Design and installation

costs for the system were approximately

$2 million.Mid-kiln Photo 1

Sample ProbeMid-kiln Photo 2Mid-kiln Sampler

Schematic00mm

N

m m

m

m

m00 •00 00 000

00BAKER BOTTS THE WARNER 1299 PENNSYLVANIA

AVE.. NW WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 202.639.7700 FAX 202.639.7890

AUSTINBAKUDALLAS HOUSTON LONDON NEW YORK RIYADHWASHINGTON

May 31, 2002, final draft
Steven Silverman Office of General

Counsel U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency Mail Code 2366 Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue,

N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Remand

of Final MACT Standards

for the Portland

Cement Manufacturing Industry Under National

Lime Association

v. EPA. Dear Mr. Silverman:The

American

Portland

Cement

Alliance

("APCA")

is submitting

this letter to request the U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency

("EPA")

to publish amended,

final maximum achievable control technology

("MACT")

standards

for certain hazardous

air pollutant

("HAPs") emissions from the portland

cement manufacturing

industry,

in accordance

with § 112 of the Clean Air Act ("Act").On December

15, 2000,--a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District

of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion that addresses

various challenges

to EPA's final rule entitled, "National Emission

Standards

for Hazardous

Air Pollutants

for the Portland

Cement Manufacturing Industry

("final rule")."

See National

Lime Association

v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (re¥iewing

aspects of the final rule published

at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart LLL; 64 Fed. Reg. 31898 (June 14, 1999)).

The panel opinion,

among other findings,

remanded to EPA to set MACT standards

for hydrogen

chloride

("HCI"),

mercury

and total hydrocarbon emissions from portland

cement plants. The opinion also remanded

to EPA its beyond-the-floor ("BTF") analysis

for control of particulate

matter ("PM")emissions

from portland

cement plants, as a surrogate

for metal hazardous

air pollutant

("HAP")

emissions.

EPA has not yet issued an amended final rule to address the remand of those standards. The APCA participated

extensively

in the development

of the final rule by providing EPA with technical

data and other information

relevant

to setting the MACT standards. The APCA subsequently

participated

in the D.C. Circuit review of the final rule, and has entered

into a settlement

agreement

with EPA to address

its objections

to the rule. The APCA now requests

EPA to publish an amended

final rule that provides

further justification

for

DC01:320820.3BAKER BOTTS

LLP Steven Silverman Page 2

its determination

that the MACT

standard

for hydrogen

chloride

("HCI"),

mercury

and total hydrocarbon emissions

is "no control,"

and that a BTF standard

of fuel and/or feed conversion for control of metal HAP emissions

is not consistent

with § 112 of the Act. DISCUSSION Section

112(d)(3)

of the Act reqmres

EPA to develop

MACT standards

for each source category

listed under § 112(e)(1).

For existing

sources,

the MACT standards

must be at least as stringent

as the average

emission

limitation

achieved

by the best performing

12 percent of sources

(the "existing

source MACT floor").•

The MACT standards

for new sources must be at least as stringent

as the emission

control achieved

in practice

by the best controlled

similar source. § 112(d)(3).

In addition,

EPA may adopt standards

more stringent

than the new or existing source MACT

floor where appropriate

based on consideration

of the cost, non-air quality health and environmental

impacts,

and energy

requirements

("BTF standards"). § 112(d)(2).Ao

The record to the final rule supports

a MACT

standard

of "no control"

for HCI, mercury,

and total hydrocarbon

emissions. The .final rule established

a MACT standard

of no control for HC1 and mercury emissions from new and existing

sources,

and total hydrocarbon

emissions

from existing, reconstructed and new brown field sources.

These standards

primarily

were based on EPA's determination that the number

of cement plants that use control technologies

for each of these HAPs is not sufficient

to set the MACT floor. While the National

Lime Association

opinion does not affect EPA's analysis

of the control technologies

in use by cement plants, it does require EPA to address in further detail whether

factors other than control technology

affect HC1, mercury and total hydrocarbon

emissions

from portland

cement plants. 1. HCI emissions The final rule established

a MACT standard

of no control for HC1 emissions

from new and existing

sources.

This standard

is based on EPA's consideration

of the control technologies used b y c ement plants, and whether

cement plants use fuel and/or feed material changes to control HC1 emissions.

Based on the information

in the record, EPA concluded

that cement plants do not use any technology

that would be considered

existing

source MACT and that the limited use of SO2 scrubbers

would not justify a new source MACT requirement

to use This standard

applies to sources in categories

or subcategories

with 30 or more sources. For source categories

or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources,

the existing

source MACT floor must be at least as stringent

as the average

emission

limitation

achieved

by the best performing five sources,

§ 112(d)(3).

DC01:320820.3BAKER BO'I-IS

L,.• Steven Silverman .Page 3

alkaline scrubbers.

See 64 Fed. Reg. at 31919; 63 Fed. Reg. at 14203.

The APCA supports EPA's assessment

of control technologies

used by portland

cement plants for HC1 emissions

and believes that EPA is not obligated

under the National

Lime Association

opinion

to revisit that analysis. In addition

to control technology,

changes

to fuels or feed materials

may affect HCI emissions

from portland

cement plants. While the final rule does not specifically,

address whether either method would constitute

MACT for HC1 emissions,

EPA has indicated

elsewhere in the rule that cement plants are constrained

by location

and transportation

costs in their ability to change fuels or feed materials.

The amended

final rule should clarify that these constraints applyequally to the use of fuel or feed material

changes

to control HCI emissions. Therefore, none of the factors that affect HC1 emissions

from portland

cement plants use of control technology,

or fuel or feed material

changes

would constitute

new or existing source M ACT for H C1. E PAp roperly determined

t hat t he M ACT standard

for H CI emissions should be no control. 2. Mercury

emissions In the final rule, EPA also. established

a MACT

standard

of no control

for mercury emissions

from new and existing

sources.

This standard

was based on the Agency's evaluation of activated

carbon injection

technology

and fuel or feed material

changes.

The record indicates

that only one cement plant used activated

carbon injection

on two of its kilns. However, that plant did not segregate

cement kiln dust containing

mercury,

but recycled

all of the cement kiln dust-back

to the kiln and, subsequently,

revaporized

the mercury

in the ldln exhaust gas. For that reason,

EPA concluded

that activated

carbon injection

is not new or existing source MACT for control of mercury

and no other control technology

would provide the basis for setting MACT standards.

See 63 Fed. Reg. at 14201-02.

The panel opinion in National Lime Association

does not require EPA to reconsider

its assessment

of the control technologies in use for mercury.The

only factors other than control

technology

that would affect mercury emissions from portland

cement plants are fuel or feed material

changes.

However,

as set forth in the final rule, cement plants do not use these methods

to control mercury

and, therefore, neither method would be new or existing

source MACT for mercury.

See 64 Fed. Reg. at 31918. EPA should clarify in the amended

final rule that control technology

and fuel or feed material changes are the' only factors that would affect mercury

emissions

and none of those factors provides a basis for setting the MACT standards.

3. Total hydrocarbon

emissions

DC01:320820.3BAKER BOTTS Steven Silverman Page 4

Finally,

EPA set the MACT

standard

for total hydrocarbon

emissions

from existing, reconstructed

and new brownfield

kilns as no control.

This standard

was based on EPA's consideration

of control technologies

and fuel or feed material

changes

at portland

cement plants, the only factors that would affect total hydro.carbon

emissions

at.tho•e plants. The final rule indicates

that the only control technology

used by cement plants for total hydrocarbon

emissions

is a precalciner/no

preheater

kiln. However,

EPA rejected

the use of this technology

as new or existing

source MACT because

of the increase

in criteria air pollutant emissions and negative

energy impacts

associated

with its use. The National

Lime Association opinion does not affect that determination. EPA rejected

feed material

selection

as the MACT

floor for existing, reconstructed or new, brownfield

plants because

plant location

and transportation

costs constrain the ability of cement plants to change feed materials.

See 64 Fed. Reg. at 31917-18;

63 Fed. Reg. 14202-03.

This determination

also is not affected

by the National

Lime Association opinion. However,

the final rule does not specifically

address

whether

fuel switching

would constitute MACT for control of total hydrocarbon

emissions.

EPA should clarify in the amended final rule that fuel switching

is not a viable MACT standard

for existing,

reconstructed

or new, brownfield kilns due to constraints

imposed

by site location

and transportation

costs. Fuel and/or feed switching

is not an acceptable

BTF standard

for control

of metal HAP emissions. The final rule rejected

fuel or feed material

changes

as a BTF standard

for control of non-volatile

metal•-HAP

emissions

_from portland

cement plants.

This determination

was based on EPA's consideration

of the costs and energy impacts associated

with the BTF standard. The D.C. Circuit panel; however,

remanded

to EPA to evaluate

the non-air quality health and environmental impacts

associated

with the BTF standard,

consistent

with § 112(d)(2)

of the Act. While the BTF analysis

in the final rule does not specifically

address non-air quality impacts,

the record elsewhere

addresses

the impacts

associated

with a reduction

in metal HAP emissions

from portland cement plants generally.

See 64 Fed. Reg. at 31908-09

(stating that the standards

under the final rule will reduce aerial deposition

of metal HAPs to the Great Lakes and other waterbodies, and occupational

exposure

1 evels for p lant employees).

The amended

final rule should address

in further detail the non-air

quality impacts

associated

with the incremental reduction in metal HAP emissions

that would be achieved

with a BTF standard

of fuel or feed material changes.

[Andy:

Does the record contain

information

that we can direct EPA to regarding non-air

quality

impacts

from incremental

reduction

in metal HAP emissions with BTF standard

?]In addition,

the panel opinion objected

to two other aspects of EPA's BTF analysis for total hydrocarbon

emissions.

First, EPA stated in the final rule that the record lacks any data to indicate

that fuel conversion

can or has achieved

reductions

in metal HAP emissions.

DC01:320820.3BAKER BO'I-IS

LL.P Steven Silverman Page 5

On review, the panel pointed to EPA's study for the electric utility steam generating

industry

that addresses HAP emissions

associated

with conversion

to natural gas from oil or coal and is included in the record to the final rule. See 233 F.3d at 635-36;

Study of Hazardous

Air Pollutant Emissions

from Electric

Utility Steam Generating

Units Final Report to Congress (Volume 1), at 13-3 (EPA 1998) (Document

IV-A-2 of the record to the final portland

cement NESHAP). While this study does address HAP emissions

associated

with conversion

to natural gas, the amended

final rule should clarify that this study does not provide

any data regarding HAP emissions

from the conversion

of portland

cement plants to natural gas. Second, the opinion pointed to EPA's failure to support the assertion

that portland cement plants do not have access to adequate

natural gas supplies.

The study regarding

HAP emissions from electric, utility steam generating

units provides

an analysis

of natural gas availability for industrial

demand

that would be applicable

to the portland

cement industry.

That report states that:there is concern

over the long-term

availability

of natural gas (particularly withrespect

to other fuels) given the projected

usage (and increase

in usage) in the residential,

commercial,

and industrial sectors and the estimates

of proved and supplemental
reserves of natural gas. EPA should clarify in the amended

final rule that this analysis

supports

its determination

that portland cement plants do not have access to a reliable natural gas supply.

The APCA would appreciate

the opportunity

to discuss with EPA its position regarding the MACT standards

for HC1, mercury

and total hydrocarbon

emissions

from portland cement plants or the BTF standard

for metal HAP emissions.Sincerely,

Andrew

T. O'Hare

DC01:320820.3