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 

65 
CLARKSVILLE 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 

probes 

Frequent 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 Probe 
Mid-kiln Photo 2 
Mid-kiln Sampler Schematic 
0 

0 
mm N 

m 

m m m m 

0 
0 • 
0 

0 

0 

0 0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
BAKER BOTTS 

THE WARNER 

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVE.. NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 

20004-2400 

202.639.7700 

FAX 202.639.7890 

AUSTIN 

BAKU 

DALLAS 

HOUSTON 

LONDON 

NEW YORK 

RIYADH 

WASHINGTON 

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 

DC01:320820.3 
BAKER 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). 

DC01:320820.3 
BAKER 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 

DC01:320820.3 
BAKER 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. 

DC01:320820.3 
BAKER 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