Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 1of 6 Below are working comments fr om 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 ei ther 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 we re. If the number of co mments 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 sect ions 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 followin g statement attributed to t he Court a quote: The Court also stated that EPA is obligated to c onsider other pollution–reducing measures such as process changes and material subs titution? If a quote, please clarify, otherwise, consider providing a quote. T he 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 (beg ins “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 c onditions 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 in formation 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 t he 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 ma terial 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 c aptured all aspects of the variability for THC, particularly since no UPL is calcul ated for THC. THC emission estimates should include statistical approaches wh ich 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 standar ds? Or, conversely, what percentage of the existing facilities are currently able to meet all of the emissions standards? It seems t hat 0% of facilities are currently able to meet all of the standards. 11) Page 36 (and throughout) t he statement (or somethi ng 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 stat ement is made: “This type of volitional activity does not seem to be within the ambit of normal vari ability of process inputs.” Please consider rewriting this sentence to use plain English, such as “EPA believes that this voluntary change should not be consider ed when determining variability.” 13) In Section A.1.c.ii., has EPA consi dered establishing a high mercury coal subcategory based on a statistical test t hat 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 lim estone plus 3 standard deviations, and anything above that would be consi dered a “high mercury” limestone? 14) Comments submitted indicate that some plants believe they will not be able to achieve the mercury standard even with c ontrol technology. EPA states it is interested in working with plants to consi der 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 su ch 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 t he detection limit for Method 321 and CEMS will be the compliance method for kilns witho ut 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 informa tion to explain why the CEMs should be used given what the standard was based on? Furthermore, could EPA consider a compliance alternative for monito ring 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 apprec iate 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 co nsider 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 rulemaki ng also contains an EPA memo titled “Derivations of a Health-Based Stack Gas C oncentration Limit for HCL in Support of the National Emissions Standards for Haza rdous 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 w ould 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 SO 2 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 di fferent rule. Further more, are there other NSPS rules that EPA could refer to with si milar control costs for SO2? If not, why not? 20) Some benefits are either not quantified, or the benefits that ar e quantified are poorly described. For example, it is stated that NOx and SO2 benefit s are not quantified, but these are precursors to PM and ozone (w hich appear to be quantified at least for PM). It should be made more explicit that the health benefit s for NOx and SO2 are in fact quantified in this way, unless ther e 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 fr om 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 estim ates of compliance costs were developed, including what emissions cont rols (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 di ffered, 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 fourInteragency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 4of 6 options: Final NSPS and NESHAP, NS PS only, NESHAP only, and both NSPS and Stringent NESHAP. This fram ing 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 e nd of the section – please clarify that the Analysis described refers to the opt ion 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 explanati on of how idled plants were

treated in the model. Pl ease clarify whether the $135 million drop in net operating profits is included in the $239 million drop for m odeled plants or is modeled separately and what level of produc tion, 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 addi tional 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, co sts or parameters that are not quantified or not estimated, a brie f explanation should be provided. Example: p 6-1, explain why HAP benefits are not esti mated in this chapter: Why?

12. P 1-2 Please explain in this paragraph why, under baseline conditions without regulation, existing domest ic 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 re present categories (PM and ?)Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 5of 6 14. Can’t find details on value used for bene fits per ton? What is the source of
that number?

15. Is there description some where that can help the reader navigate how EPA modeled or measured PM from precursors? Throughout, it is difficult to identify how EPA separately analyzed emi tted PM, PM formed from precursors, and gaseous SOx or NOx.

16. P 6-3 bullet 3: EPA describes the previ ous threshold as arbitrary, however
isn’t it in fact the lo west 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 ex planation of data, resource, and methodological limitations, or refer to the section where are they discussed
in detail.

18. P 6-8: it would be he lpful to clarify how EPA is using the term C-R function (including alternative sp ecifications) 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, s hould 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 mort ality at low concentrations.

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

o The table seems to duplicate benefit s – or are the emissions reductions
label “Direct PM” all carbon?

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

million. Recommend that we do not r ound 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 lo w levels, or altern atively 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 th e statement “A clear concentrationresponse relationship has been de monstrated in laboratory studies following exposures to SO2 at con centrations 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 st atistically significant)?

26. P 6-28 Figure 6-8 Please clarify what is represen ted – 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.