Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866 

Page 1of 6

Below are working comments from the interagency review of the draft rule titled, 

“Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS.” 

Comments: 

1) On page 12 (and throughout in other places, page 15, etc.) reference is made to the 

number of comments made on either the NESHAP or NSPS proposed rule. It might 

be more helpful not to present the number of comments, but rather, explain the 

types of commenters there were. If the number of comments is presented, please 

elaborate if a mass email campaign resulted in a large number of comments. 

2) On page 14, rather than saying “These standards were intended to be based on the 

performance of MACT pursuant to CAA sections 112 (d)(2) and (3),” it might be 

better to describe factually what the agency did, e.g. “We set these standards 

subject to the MACT requirements of CAA sections 112 (d)(2) and (3).” 

3) On page 14, is the following statement attributed to the Court a quote: The Court 

also stated that EPA is obligated to consider other pollution–reducing measures 

such as process changes and material substitution? If a quote, please clarify, 

otherwise, consider providing a quote. The next sentence begins “Later cases ...” 

but only one citation is provided (Brick MACT). Could you include citations to the 

other cases? 

4) On page 15, could you move footnote 8 (begins “In the remainder of the opinion, the 

Court..”) into the main body? It seems like information that warrants inclusion in the 

main body. 

5) On page 16, for clarity, please consider restructuring the last two sentences before 

Section D “Reconsideration of EPA Final Action ...”) to read as follows: 

Under CAA section 112(d)(4), EPA did not set a standard for HCl, determining that 

HCl was a pollutant for which a threshold had been established, and that no cement 

kiln, even under worst case operating conditions and exposure assumptions, would 

emit HCl at levels that would exceed that threshold level, allowing for an ample 

margin of safety. 

6) Page 17 (and throughout), when referencing a document that is in the docket, if a 

docket ID number is available (e.g. it is already in the docket), please provide that 

number. 

7) If possible, when providing detailed information about the Brick MACT decision, 

could you provide quotes? For example, can the bulleted list from page 19 be a set 

of quotations from the decision? 

8) Page 27, can you include in paretheses the number of observations in the THC data 

set? This information might also make it more clear to the reader why the UPL was 

not used for the THC limit. 

9) It is noted the revised UPL formula was used to recalculate the MACT floor limits for 

mercury, HCl and PM and that in the case of mercury, mercury emission estimates 

were revised using additional data on raw material usage. However, THC emissions 

are influenced by the content of organic materials in the raw materials, particularly 

the limestone. It does not appear EPA has captured all aspects of the variability for 

THC, particularly since no UPL is calculated for THC. THC emission estimates 

should include statistical approaches which capture raw material usage. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866 

Page 2of 6

10) At the end of Section A.1.b, could you include information on how many sources are 

expected to install controls to meet the set of emission standards? Or, conversely, 

what percentage of the existing facilities are currently able to meet all of the 

emissions standards? It seems that 0% of facilities are currently able to meet all of 

the standards. 

11) Page 36 (and throughout) the statement (or something similar) is made: “No 

commenter challenged this analysis.” In these cases, did anyone comment on it 

(e.g. offering support)? It might be more helpful to be neutral about the comments 

and say “No comment was received,” or “We received comments supporting this 

analysis.” 

12) On page 37, the following statement is made: “This type of volitional activity does not 

seem to be within the ambit of normal variability of process inputs.” Please consider 

rewriting this sentence to use plain English, such as “EPA believes that this 

voluntary change should not be considered when determining variability.” 

13) In Section A.1.c.ii., has EPA considered establishing a high mercury coal 

subcategory based on a statistical test that would show the two high mercury 

facilities are outliers, that is, the lowe mercury coal subcategory would be based on 

the average mercury concentration in limestone plus 3 standard deviations, and 

anything above that would be considered a “high mercury” limestone? 

14) Comments submitted indicate that some plants believe they will not be able to 

achieve the mercury standard even with control technology. EPA states it is 

interested in working with plants to consider mechanisms that could assure early 

reductions, but does not provide further details. How does EPA expect the higher 

mercury emitting plants to make significant reductions when there is a general sense 

that the control technology to achieve such reductions is not available? Can EPA be 

more explicit on how they would work with those facilities? 

15) Since the HCl standard is based on the detection limit for Method 321 and CEMS 

will be the compliance method for kilns without wet scrubbers, an indication of how 

Method 321 compares to those used for CEMs would be beneficial. In other words, 

how does the analytical detection limit for Method 321 compare with those for 

CEMs? Can EPA provide any further information to explain why the CEMs should 

be used given what the standard was based on? Furthermore, could EPA consider 

a compliance alternative for monitoring in lieu of installing a CEMs? 

16) EPA does not provide solid rationale for why stack testing for HCl compliance for all 

kilns is not allowed. We would appreciate knowing more about the use of HCl 

CEMS in the industry and the feasibility of HCl CEMs per EPA’s interactions with 

stakeholders. Furthermore, could EPA consider a compliance alternative for 

monitoring in lieu of installing a CEMs? 

17) In the discussion of using CAA 112(d)(4) for an HCl emissions limit, there is a great 

deal of discussion of the 2006 PCA study and analysis of the risks from HCl. 

However, the docket for the rulemaking also contains an EPA memo titled 

“Derivations of a Health-Based Stack Gas Concentration Limit for HCL in Support of 

the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland 

Cement Industry” (April 10, 2009), which seems to include a similar finding that an 

HCl stack gas emissions limit of 23 ppmv would not exceed the RfC for HCl. Is there 

a reason this memo is not discussed? 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866 

Page 3of 6

18) Can EPA explain the use of 1,000 feet threshold for the two sets of requirements for 

Open Clinker Piles standards? 

19) Page 114 contains the following sentence: “Kilns with low sulfur raw materials can 

meet the 0.4 lb/ton clinker level with no add-on controls. We consider these to be 

reasonable costs, comparable with other costs for SO2 control EPA has deemed 

reasonable such as those in the Clean Air Transport Rule. See 70 FR at 25583 

(May 12, 2005).” Please check this citation, as I think you mean to refer to the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule, and this is for a different rule. Furthermore, are there other 

NSPS rules that EPA could refer to with similar control costs for SO2? If not, why 

not? 

20) Some benefits are either not quantified, or the benefits that are quantified are poorly 

described. For example, it is stated that NOx and SO2 benefits are not quantified, 

but these are precursors to PM and ozone (which appear to be quantified at least for 

PM). It should be made more explicit that the health benefits for NOx and SO2 are 

in fact quantified in this way, unless there is another explanation, i.e., exposure to 

direct emissions, that EPA is referring to. We would like more information on why 

EPA did not quantify benefits from reducing selected air pollutants, particularly for 

reducing 4,400 tons of NOx. 

21) Does EPA include benefits of any ancillary GHG reductions using the social cost of 

carbon metric? If not, please explain. 

RIA: 

1. Please insert the bulleted list of uncertainties associated with the analysis, 

both for costs and benefits. The section describing key uncertainties in the 

estimates is missing in the draft circulated for review. 

2. The RIA should outline how estimates of compliance costs were 

developed, including what emissions controls (or other activities) would be 

required, by what sources, at what cost, as well as key assumptions and 

uncertainties.

3. The air quality modeling section of the RIA should explain what options 

were analyzed, and how the results differed, as well as how those results 

were used to estimate the costs and benefits associated with each option. 

4. The air quality modeling section of the RIA should outline key uncertainties 

associated with the modeling. 

5. P 1-1 This bullet should be edited to list the four analyzed options – not just 

three -- for clarity. Currently, it reads as if EPA has framed the analysis as 

three options: NSPS only, NESHAP only, and Both NSPS and Final NESHAP 

with more Stringent NSPS . The bullets should clarify that EPA analyzed four 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866 

Page 4of 6

options: Final NSPS and NESHAP, NSPS only, NESHAP only, and both NSPS 

and Stringent NESHAP. This framing should be retained throughout the 

document to provide the reader with clear description of what is discussed. 

6. P 1-1 second bullet continuing to the end of the section – please clarify that 

the Analysis described refers to the option that is not listed in the first 

bullet. 

7. P. 3-8, p. 3-11. Market output and market production. Comparing tables 3-5 

and 3-7, changes in market output and market production relative to the baseline 

differ. Please explain these differences (such as inventory effects, etc.). 

8. p. 3-11, Idled plants. Please expand the explanation of how idled plants were 

treated in the model. Please clarify whether the $135 million drop in net 

operating profits is included in the $239 million drop for modeled plants or is 

modeled separately and what level of production, if any, is included for these 

idled firms in the model. Also, please explain how EPA determined the additional 

price and quantity effects if these plants do shut down. The price elasticity for 

the overall market model appears to be approximately .88 while it appears to be 

approximately 1.428 for the idled firms. Finally, please correct compliance costs 

on page 3-11 text to read “close to $8 per ton” (currently reads $5 per ton). 

9. Input costs. If available, please provide additional explanation or data on input 

costs, including and cost data for substitute inputs such as lower Hg limestone. 

10. P. 3-14, Job Effects. Do the job losses include losses if the 15 idled plants and 

Durkee and Tehachapi plants shut down? If not, does EPA have an estimate of 

job effects for those plants?

11. When the RIA describes benefits, costs or parameters that are not 

quantified or not estimated, a brief explanation should be provided. 

Example: p 6-1, explain why HAP benefits are not estimated in this chapter: 

Why? 

12. P 1-2 Please explain in this paragraph why, under baseline conditions 

without regulation, existing domestic cement plants are assumed to 

choose a suboptimal production level. 

13. P 6-2 Figure 6-1, as well as other bar charts on pages 6-18, 6-47, and 6-48, 

should break out benefits to represent categories (PM and ?) 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866 

Page 5of 6

14. Can’t find details on value used for benefits per ton? What is the source of 

that number? 

15. Is there description somewhere that can help the reader navigate how EPA 

modeled or measured PM from precursors? Throughout, it is difficult to 

identify how EPA separately analyzed emitted PM, PM formed from precursors, 

and gaseous SOx or NOx. 

16. P 6-3 bullet 3: EPA describes the previous threshold as arbitrary, however 

isn’t it in fact the lowest observed value in one of the studies used to 

measure the magnitude of health effects? Is there some way we could 

describe this other than “arbitrary”? 

17. P 6-3 bullet 4: Please insert explanation of data, resource, and 

methodological limitations, or refer to the section where are they discussed 

in detail. 

18. P 6-8: it would be helpful to clarify how EPA is using the term C-R function 

(including alternative specifications) as separate from coefficient – which 

can also vary depending on the underlying function. 

19. P 6-9: Again, it would be helpful to identify a phrase or term other than 

“arbitrary” to describe the threshold. 

20. P 6-16: EPA should provide explanation of how the pie chart differ above 

and below the LML. If the values differ, should EPA present both to more 

clearly represent the uncertainty below LML? 

21. P 6-19 Title should provide some information on LML and what it 

represents, somehow convey that the purpose of this bar chart is to 

represent uncertainty in PM mortality at low concentrations. 

22. P 6-21: Table 6-5 seems to require some clarification; please edit. 

o The table seems to duplicate benefits – or are the emissions reductions 

label “Direct PM” all carbon? 

o The totals are correct – unless the intent was to round to the nearest $10 

million. Recommend that we do not round more coarsely than the nearest 

$million. 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866 

Page 6of 6

23. It would be helpful to describe what is represented in Table 6-7. P 6-24: 

What is represented in Table 6-7 that is not represented in Table 6-6? The text 

seems only to present SCC? Is it the PM disbenefits? 

24. P 6-25: EPA should clarified that effects such as bronchoconstriction 

occur at certain (higher) levels, not low levels, or alternatively present the 

studies showing response measured at exposure to very low levels, to 

support the sentence “The immediate effect of SO2 on the respiratory 

system in humans in bronchoconstriction.” In the science referenced by 

EPA rules, this is true for higher levels, but not low, background levels. 

25. P 6-26: Please provide reference for the statement “A clear concentrationresponse relationship has been demonstrated in laboratory studies 

following exposures to SO2 at concentrations between 20 and 100 ppb, 

both in terms of increasing severity of effect and percentage of asthmatics 

adversely affected.” Aren’t the clinical studies at levels of 400 ppb (statistically 

significant) and 200 ppb (not statistically significant)? 

26. P 6-28 Figure 6-8 Please clarify what is represented – all HAPs, or HAPs 

from Portland Cement Kilns. 

27. How is the Greenstone (2002) used in the chapter? Henderson (1996)? 

They are listed among references, but can’t find reference to them in the text of 

the chapter.