MEMORANDUM

TO: Portland Cement Rulemaking Docket

S UBJECT : Meeting wi th Portland Cement Association and Cement Industry Representatives
to discuss their concerns on the Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS

LOCATION : Offices of the Portland Cement Assoc iation

, 500 New Jersey , Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20001

D ATE OF MEETING : August 17, 2010

Participants:

Portland Cement Association (PCA ) And Cement Industry Andy O’Hare, PCA Hector Ybanez, Holcim Jason Morin, Holcim Curtis L esslie, Ash Grove Tim Matz, Lehigh Mike Pelan, Lafarge Satish Sheth, CEMEX Bryan Brendle, PCA Ty Wilson, PCA Craig Campbell, Lafarge U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Peter Tsirigotis Steve Silverman Keith Barnett (b y phone) Elineth Torres (b y phone) Susan Fairchild (By

Phone)

RTIInternational (contractor to EPA) Mike Lane y Breda Munoz

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) met with EPA and presented a list of issues (attached) and concerns on the final NESHAP and NSPS. Each of the ite ms listed were discussed briefly

. PCA also provided additional information (attached) on the assessment of variability associated with the standards for mercury

. Some of the specific item discussed were:

 Conflicts between standards. Mainly the issue that wet scrubbers for HCl control may result in situation where the facilit y cannot meet the PM emissions limit due to carryover from the wet scrubber.

 The levels of the standards, especiall y the new source standards for PM.

 Concerns about the startup and shutdown limits.

 Regulations for open clinker piles.EPA agreed that we would continue a dialogue on some of th ese issues. Four areas EPA

specificall y agreed to continue to discuss were:

 The NSPS modification emissions limits

 HCl/PM conflicts noted above

 Modification relating to kiln subject to the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste incinerator (CISWI) rule

 The UPLcalculation for mercury

.

 The conversion used to calculate the concentration limits for startup and shutdown.

The industry

also di scussed concerns about the overlap of the CISWI and NESHAP rules. EPA recommended they

start a dialogue specificall y on this issue as soon as possible.Attachment 1

List of Issues provided by the Portland Cement association

Preliminary List of Issue s/Concerns with the Portland Cement NESHAP Issue Concern Recommendation Emission Standards CISWI Sources in NESHAP Floor Calculations Some facilities in NESHAP floor pools for are CISWI units, Nullifying the floor calculations Stay NESHAP Rule until CISW I rule finalized; Exempt portland cement industry from CISWI rule through tailored definition of solid waste Mercury Standard Improper use of Boiler MACT equation to set standard; Lack of subcategorization Reconsider application of the Boiler MACT equatio n in standard setting; Creation of subcategory for high emitters is necessary THC Standard Compliance with standard will require widespread application of RTOs Some type of subcategorization approach is necessary to avoid this result HCl Standard Unachie vable for many facilities; Could compel use of scrubbers where there is no water; Industry did not have an opportunity to comment on how EPA computed the standard; Improper review of the finding/implications of PCA’s 112(d)(4) assessment Risk

- based exempti on for HCl still desired; Perceived shortcomings of analysis may be addressed; Other regulatory tools available to reduce SOx and PM 2.5 emissions, if that is the ultimate EPA objective

PM Standards Existing and new source standards unachievable by many facilities; Industry did not have an opportunity to comment on how EPA computed the standards Reconsider application of Boiler MACT equation; Data is lognormal; Variability needs to be computed using reflecting multiple stack tests, not amongruns within te sts

Dioxin/Furan Standard Standard lacking “TEQ” in rule language; Most likely typos Standard is 0.2 ng TEQ/dscm, not 0.2 ng/dscm (other errors in some footnotes) Start

- up and Shutdown Standards No opportunity to comment on these standards; Difficult to determine whether they are achievable Need to assess their efficacy; Will recommend alternatives, as appropriate Malfunctions No opportunity to comment on “affirmative defense” criteria; May be cumbersome Will review and recommend modifications to the

cr iteria or another approach Other Issues Open Clinker Piles Requirements as crafted are unworkable; no industry opportunity to comment on the details Recommend removal or delay in implementation to consider a workable alternative 30

- Month Frequency for Compliance Testing for D/F, Hg, Organic HAP and HCl This is too frequent Apply a consistent 5 year interval for facilities without CEMs

Requirement for PM and HCl CEMs Standard based on stack tests; Compliance based on CEMs Provide plants with the opt ion of alternative monitoring approaches Synthetic Minor HAP Source New NESHAP

considerably different from old NESHAP; Can sources pursue synthetic minor HAP status before 2013 New NESHAP with new effective and compliance dates should

re
- open the opportun ity for facilities to pursue synthetic minor HAP statusPreliminary List of Issues /Concerns with Portland Cement NSPS Issue Concern Recommendation Scope Apparent inclusion of

modifications that don’t result in the construction of a “new”

kiln Rule sh ould apply only

to brand new kiln lines, whether at existing facilities or greenfield facilities

Emission Standards NOx Standard Too low A subcategorization approach may be necessary if “modifications” include simple plant upgrades (and not a new kiln l ine) SOx Standard Too low Need to review basis of standard; A subcategorization approach may be necessary if “modifications” include simple plant upgrades (and not a new kiln line) PM Standard Too low See above under NESHAPAttachment 2

Mercury Variabilit y Calculations