From:   Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US  

To:   "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Cc:   Amy Branning/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula VanLare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sharon

Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA  

Date:   04/09/2010 02:01 PM  

Subject: RE: Interagency comments under EO 12866 on the Gold Ore Processing

NESHAP Draft NPRM

Hi Heidi,

With regard to the discussion of health effects, one recent regulation we

proposed (in May 2009) was the NESHAP for Portland Cement, which had a discussion

of the health effects of mercury, etc...I attached below the text (see third

column). Would it be satisfactory to you if we insert this same text in the Gold

Mines proposal in place of the current text on health effects?

Thanks.

Chuck

(See attached file: Pages from cement FR proposal.pdf)
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules 21161 

46November 18, 2002 memo from EPA’s Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards entitled ‘‘2002 

Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs.’’ 

47USEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate 

matter, chapter 9.2 (October 2004). 

48For more information see http://www.epa.gov/ 

mercury/about.htm. 

49For more information see http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppt/aegl/pubs/tsd52.pdf. 

Reasonable Progress, and long-term 

strategies. Screening analyses showed 

that there are 14 cement facilities within 

a distance of 50 km Class 1 Areas. 

A potential benefit for cement 

facilities utilizing wet scrubbers to 

comply with this rule is a level of 

certainty for satisfying a facility’s BART 

requirements for SO2 under the regional 

haze program. This rule may establish a 

framework for States to include certain 

control measures or other requirements 

in their regional haze SIPs where such 

a program would be ‘‘better than 

BART.’’ A facility must comply with 

BART as expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than 5 years after the 

regional haze SIP is approved. A state 

may be able to rely on this rule to satisfy 

the BART requirements for a NESHAP 

affected source utilizing a wet scrubber 

if (1) the compliance date for a source 

subject to this NESHAP falls within the 

BART compliance timeframe, (2) the 

proposed controls are more cost 

effective than the controls that would 

constitute BART, and (3) the visibility 

benefits of the controls are at least as 

effective as BART. 

States may also allow sources to 

‘‘average’’ emissions across any set of 

BART-eligible emissions units within a 

fence-line, provided the emissions 

reductions from each pollutant being 

controlled for BART are equal to those 

reductions that would be obtained by 

simply controlling each of the BARTeligible units that constitute the BARTeligible source (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). 

This averaging technique may also be 

advantageous to cement facilities 

subject to this NESHAP that also have 

BART-subject sources. 

Under the regional haze rule, States 

may develop an alternative ‘‘better than 

BART’’ program in lieu of source-bysource BART. The alternative program 

must achieve greater reasonable 

progress than BART would toward the 

national visibility goal. The alternative 

program may allow more time for 

compliance than source-by-source 

BART would have allowed. Any 

reductions relied on for a better than 

BART analysis must be surplus as of the 

baseline year the State relies on for 

purposes of developing its regional haze 

SIP (i.e., 2002) and can include 

reductions from non-BART and BART 

sources.46 Visibility analyses must 

verify that the alternative program, on 

average, gets greater visibility 

improvement than BART and that no 

degradation in visibility on the best 

days occurs (40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)). 

EPA believes that emissions units at 

cement sources found to be subject to 

BART and that will be required to 

install controls or otherwise achieve 

emissions reductions per the regional 

haze regulations can benefit from this 

Cement NESHAP to potentially satisfy 

the regional haze requirements. EPA 

will need to demonstrate that the 

implementation of the cement NESHAP 

will result in SO2 emissions reductions 

and related visibility improvements that 

are greater than reductions achieved 

through the application of BART 

controls. If EPA demonstrates that the 

SO2 emissions reductions and visibility 

and air quality improvements resulting 

from the rule are better than BART, this 

demonstration, when incorporated into 

the Regional Haze SIP, may be 

anticipated to fulfill federal regulatory 

requirements associated with SO2 BART 

requirements for cement facilities. 

Additionally, the level of control 

achieved through the Cement NESHAP 

may contribute toward, and possibly 

achieve, the visibility improvements 

needed to satisfy the reasonable 

progress requirements of the regional 

haze rule for cement facilities through 

the first Regional Haze planning period. 

States can submit the relevant regional 

haze SIP amendments once this rule 

becomes final. 

Health Benefits of Reducing Emissions 

From Portland Cement Kilns 

Implementation of the Cement 

NESHAP, which could lead to 

substantial reductions in PM2.5, SO2, 

and toxic air pollutants, could reduce 

numerous health effects. 

Section VI.G of this preamble 

provides a summary of the monetized 

human health benefits of this proposed 

regulation based on the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis available in this docket 

that includes more detail regarding the 

costs and benefits of this proposed 

regulation. 

As mentioned before, Portland cement 

kilns emit several criteria pollutants 

with known human health effects, 

including PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and 

precursors to ozone. Exposure to PM2.5

is associated with significant respiratory 

and cardiac health effects, such as 

premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, 

nonfatal heart attacks, hospital 

admissions, emergency department 

visits, asthma attacks, and work loss 

days.47 Exposure to SO2 and NOX is 

associated with increased respiratory 

effects, including asthma attacks, 

hospital admissions, and emergency 

department visits. Exposure to ozone is 

associated with significant respiratory 

health effects, such as premature 

mortality, hospital admissions, 

emergency department visits, acute 

respiratory symptoms, school loss days. 

In addition, Portland cement kilns 

emit toxic air pollutants, including 

mercury and HCl. Potential exposure 

routes to mercury emissions include 

both inhalation and subsequent 

ingestion through the consumption of 

fish containing methylmercury. Mercury 

in the air eventually settles into water 

or onto land where it can be washed 

into water. Once deposited, certain 

microorganisms can change it into 

methylmercury, a highly toxic form that 

builds up in fish, shellfish and animals 

that eat fish. Fish and shellfish are the 

main sources of methylmercury 

exposure to humans. Methylmercury 

builds up more in some types of fish 

and shellfish than others. The levels of 

methylmercury in fish and shellfish 

depend on what they eat, how long they 

live and how high they are in the food 

chain. Mercury exposure at high levels 

can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, 

lungs, and immune system of people of 

all ages. Research shows that most 

people’s fish consumption does not 

cause a health concern. However, it has 

been demonstrated that high levels of 

methylmercury in the bloodstream of 

unborn babies and young children may 

harm the developing nervous system, 

making the child less able to think and 

learn.48 HCl is an upper respiratory 

irritant at relatively low concentrations 

and may cause damage to the lower 

respiratory tract at higher 

concentrations.49

I. Other Changes and Areas Where We 

are Requesting Comment 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

The cement kiln source category is 

presently exempt from compliance with 

the generally applicable section 112 

standards during periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction. See Table 1 

to subpart LLL of Part 63, which crossreferences the exemption found in the 

General Provisions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) (exemption from non-opacity 

emission standards) and (h)(1) 

(exemption from opacity and visible 

emission standards)). With respect to 

those exemptions, we note that on 

December 19, 2008, in a decision 

addressing a challenge to the 2002, 

2004, and 2006 amendments to those 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS3