MEMORANDUM

TO: Portland Cement Rulemaking Docket

SUBJECT: Meeting with 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 Association, 500 New Jersey, Avenue, NW, 

 Washington, DC 20001

DATE OF MEETING: August 17, 2010

Participants:

Portland Cement Association (PCA)

And Cement Industry

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

Jason Morin, Holcim

Curtis Lesslie, Ash Grove 

Tim Matz, Lehigh

Mike Pelan, Lafarge

Satish Sheth, CEMEX

Bryan Brendle, PCA 

Ty Wilson, PCA

Craig Campbell, Lafarge 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Peter Tsirigotis

Steve Silverman

Keith Barnett (by phone)

Elineth Torres (by phone)

Susan Fairchild (By Phone)

RTI International (contractor to EPA)

Mike Laney

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 items 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 facility cannot meet the PM emissions limit due to carryover

from the wet scrubber.

 The levels of the standards, especially 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 these issues. Four areas EPA 

specifically 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 UPL calculation for mercury.

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

The industry also discussed concerns about the overlap of the CISWI and NESHAP rules. EPA 

recommended they start a dialogue specifically on this issue as soon as possible.
Attachment 1

List of Issues provided by the Portland Cement association

Preliminary List of Issues/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 

CISWI 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 

equation 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 Unachievable 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 exemption 

for HCl still desired; 

Perceived shortcomings 

of analysis may be 

addressed; Other 

regulatory tools 

available to reduce SOx 

and PM2.5 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 among 
runs within tests 

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 

criteria 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 

option 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 opportunity 

for facilities to pursue 

synthetic minor HAP 

status
Preliminary 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 should 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 line) 

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 

NESHAP
Attachment 2

Mercury Variability Calculations