### 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)

### 21161 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 / Proposed Rules

46 November 18, 2002 memo from EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards entitled ‘‘2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr

Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze Programs.’’ 47 USEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate matter, chapter 9.2 (October 2004). 48 For more information see http://www.epa.gov/ mercury/about.htm

.

49 For 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 SO 2 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 bysimply 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 thanBART’’ 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 SO 2 emissions reductions and related visibility improvements that are greater than reductions achieved through the application of BART

controls. If EPA demonstrates that the

SO 2 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 SO 2 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 PM 2.5 , SO 2 , 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 PM 2.5 , SO 2 , NO X , and
precursors to ozone. Exposure to PM 2.5 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 SO 2 and NO X 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 1to 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