ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MID

‐ PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES

NORTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN WASHINGTON, D C INTERNATIONAL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN OFFICE 633 17th STREET, SUITE 1600 DENVER, C O 80202

T : 303.623.9466 F : 303.623.8083 RMOFFICE@EARTHJUSTICE.ORG WWW.EARTHJUSTICE.ORG August 12, 2016

Submitted via www.regulations.gov

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846

Vijay Limaye U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Division (AIR-2)

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Arizona Regional Haze – Reconsideration of Reasonable Progress Controls for the

Rillito and Clarkdale Cement Plants

Dear Mr. Limaye:

On behalf of National Parks Conserva tion Association (NPC A) and Sierra Club, Earthjustice respectfully submits the follo wing comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reconsideration of the reasonable progress controls for th e Rillito and Clarkdale cement plants. 81 Fed. Reg. 42,600 (June 30, 2016). For the reasons discussed below, we urge EPA to reconsider its earlier rejection of Selec tive Catalytic Reduction (SCR) controls at the two cement plants. EPA previously rejected SCR b ecause at the time of the earlier rulemaking, SCR

had not been installed on cement plants in the United States. That is no longer the case. A cement plant in Illinois has recently installe d and successfully operated SCR. Moreover, another cement plant in Texas plans to begin operating SCR c ontrols in the fall of 2016. Consequently, in this rulema king, EPA should fully analyze wh ether SCR at the two Arizona cement plants would ensure reasonable progress.

EPA’s regional haze Federal Implementation Pl an (FIP) for Arizona requires the Rillito

Cement Plant Kiln 4 and the Clarkdale Cement Pl ant Kiln 4 to install Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) controls. 79 Fed. Reg. 52,420, 52,426 (Sept. 3, 2014). EPA determined that SNCR controls are necessary to ensure reasonable progress toward eliminating all human-caused visibility impairment at national parks, wild erness areas, and other Class I areas by 2064. Id.

When EPA examined reasonable progress controls for the two cement plants in 2013- 2014, it initially rejected SCR cont rols as technically infeasib le. Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR2013-0588, Technical Support Document fo r the Proposed Phase 3 Action 92–93, 105–06 (Jan. 27, 2013). NPCA and Sierra Club submitted commen ts demonstrating that SCR is technically feasible, as it has been installed on several cement kilns in Europe. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 52,460. In response to these comments, EPA clarified that SCR is technically feasible on cement kilns. However, EPA explained that it did not fully ex amine SCR on the two Arizona plants because2 SCR controls had not been installed on any cemen t kilns in the United States at that time. Specifically, EPA stated:

We agree that SCR is tec hnically feasible. We clarify that although SCR was not further considered after Step 2 (Eliminat e Technically Infeasible Options) of the RP analysis, we consider SCR a technical ly feasible control option. While we explicitly eliminated other control options in Step 2 as technically infeasible, we

elected not to consider further SCR due to a lack of information that would allow

us to evaluate its effectiveness and cost of controls on cement kilns. In particular, we note that SCR has not been commercially applied to a cement plant of any type in the United States, and there is little information available

about its use on cement kilns in other c ountries. Thus, we lack sufficient

information to conduct a four-factor an alysis for SCR on cement kilns.

Id. (emphasis added and parenthetical and footnote omitted); see also id. at 52,461–62 (same).

Since EPA issued its FIP in September 2014, at least two cement plants in the United States have installed SCR. In 2013, EPA entered into a consent decree with the Lafarge Company that required Lafarge’s Joppa , Illinois cement plant to install SCR. 1 The SCR controls at the Joppa cement plant have now been in opera tion for more than a year. According to EPA, “The SCR at the Joppa IL kiln is successfu lly operating,” and it ha s achieved “an emission

reduction of about 80% which was th e goal of the [consent decree].” 2 Furthermore, LaFarge itself has reportedly claimed that “the S CR control technology performed well and no operational problem was encountered.” 3

In addition, Holcim’s Midlothian cement pl ant in Texas has been granted a permit to

install SCR on one of its two kilns. 4 Notably, the owner and operator of this cement plant voluntarily chose to install SCR, and the S CR will soon begin operations in the fall of 2016. 5

In the current rulemaking, EPA proposes to relax the existing FIP requirements for the Rillito and Clarkdale cement plants because of recent information rega rding SNCR performance

on other cement kilns in the United States. 81 Fed. Reg. at 42,602–03. Specifically, EPA has reviewed recent SNCR performance data from th e Mojave cement plant in California. EPA

believes this recent SNCR data from Califor nia justifies replaci ng the existing “control optimization” requirements for the two Arizona plants with less stringent recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Id.

1 See EPA, Lafarge North America, Inc. Clean Air Act Settlement, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/lafarge-north-america-inc-clean-air-act-settlement (last visited August 12, 2016).

2 E-mail from Kushal Som, Envtl. Eng’r, EPA Region 5, to Jim Schermbeck (July 21, 2015, 18:18 CST) (Ex. 1).

3 McIlvaine Co., NOx Control, Decision Guide Webinar, at 73, available at http://goo.gl/UhZhvX (Ex. 2).

4 See Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, Notice of Application and Preliminary Decision For an Air Quality Permit (Oct. 17, 2014), available at http://goo.gl/5ONhVl (Ex. 3).

5 McIlvaine Co., NOx Control, Decision Guide Webinar, at 73 (Ex. 2).3 If EPA is going to revise the existing FIP’ s requirements based on recent data from a cement plant in California, it should also exam ine the recent success of SCR controls at the cement plants in Illinois and Texas. Reconsid ering the FIP’s requirements based on recent data from other plants should not be a one-way ratc het toward weakening the FIP’s requirements. Instead, in order to make a reasonable and fully-informed decision on reconsideration, EPA

should also re-examine whether more stringent SCR controls are warranted. 6 Doing so is especially important because EPA’ s earlier rationale for rejecti ng SCR is no longer valid, as SCR is now a proven control technology on cement plants in the United States. As a result, sufficient

information now exists for SCR to be consid ered in a full four-fact or reasonable progress analysis. As this recent experience with SCR in Illinois and Texas shows, SCR can successfully and cost-effectively remove larg e amounts of nitrogen oxides pollution from cement kilns. Moreover, industry consultants have recently not ed that SCR is a proven technology that has been increasingly installed on cement kilns in recent years. 7 Given this recent information documenting the success of SCR at cement plants, EPA should r econsider whether SCR at the Rillito and Clarkdale plants is necessary to ensure reasonable progress.

In addition, if EPA continues to require the two cement plan ts to install SNCR, rather than SCR, it should not eliminate the FIP’s SN CR “control optimization” requirements. As EPA noted earlier, SNCR on cement plants can achieve a wide range of contro l efficiencies. 79 Fed. Reg. at 52,455 (noting SNCR control efficiencies ranging from 30-90%). Thus, EPA explained that “a site-specific optimization program at [the Rillito and Clarksdale plants] could identify operating parameters and conditions that could resu lt in an SNCR control efficiency greater than 50 percent.” Id. To ensure the SNCR controls on the two cement plants achieve maximum pollution reductions, EPA required the plants to comply with several “control optimization” requirements. Id. at 52,455–56. Now, EPA proposes to eliminate these requirements because recent data shows that SNCR on the Mojave plant in California achieved 40% control efficiency,

“which is on the lower end of the range that was suggested by the optimization protocol.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 42,602. However, the fact that the Mojave plant’s SNCR performance was underwhelming does not warrant eliminating the requirement that the two Arizona plants optimize their SNCRs. The entire point of the “c ontrol optimization” requirement is to ensure the Arizona plants identify the “operating parameters and cond itions” that will result in maximum pollution reductions, which is a site-speci fic inquiry. Thus, even if the Mojave plant’s optimization protocol did not re sult in significant SN CR improvements, that does not mean the Arizona plants’ optimization re quirements would be similarly unsuccessful. In fact, EPA explicitly notes how the tw o Arizona plants differ from the Mojave plant. See id. at 42,602–03.

This shows that the results of the Mojave plant’s optimizatio n protocol may not be a good predictor of whether the optimization requireme nts at the Arizona plants can improve SNCR

6 While EPA granted reconsideration of the FI P’s SNCR “control optimization” requirements, the agency has inherent authority in a reconsidera tion proceeding to consider additional issues raised in public comments. See, e.g. , 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004, 17,007 (Apr. 2, 2010) (after receiving public comments on significant new issues, EPA’s final action on reconsideration “reflect[ed] additional interpretations and EPA statements of policy on topi cs not discussed in the [initial] notice,” and “[i]n subsequent actions, EPA may address additional topics raised in public comments on this action.”)

7 See, e.g. , John Kline Consulting, Is SCR Technology Coming (Back) to Cement? (Apr. 2013) (Ex. 4).4 performance. Ensuring that the Rillito a nd Clarksdale SNCRs achieve maximum pollution reductions remains critically important to reduci ng air pollution at national parks and wilderness areas. As a result, the “control optimization” requirements that make sure this occurs should remain in place, regardless of the rece nt experience at the Mojave plant.

We appreciate EPA’s work on the Arizona regional haze plan and we thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Michael Hiatt Earthjustice 633 17th Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 996-9617 mhiatt@earthjustice.org

On behalf of National Parks Conser vation Association and Sierra Club

cc: Kevin Dahl, Stephanie Kodish, Nathan Miller – National Parks Conservation

Association Sandy Bahr, Bill Corcoran, Gloria Smith – Sierra Club