### MEMORANDUM



### To: Portland Cement 

### NESHAP Docket 

### FROM: Keith Barnett, US 

### EPA Subject: Record 

### of EPA attempts

### to gather 

### additional THC data

### from kilns which use continuous emissions monitors. 

### DATE: August 1,2010.
Attached 

### to this memorandum 

### is a record 

### of attempts 

### by EPAto obtain 

### additional information on 

### THC emissions 

### from the Portland Cement 

### Industry 

### in a

### timely fashion. Here are the key points supported 

### bythis record: 

# o On

### August 

### 26,2009, EPA 

### notified the 

### industry of its intent 

### to require 

### additionaltesting 

### ofTHC emissions using continuous emissions monitors underthe

### authority 

### of Section 114 

### of the Clean

### Air Act 

# o On

### August 

### 26,2009, the Portland Cement 

### Association (PCA) responded 

### to EPA thatthey were 

### preparing a

### THC test 

### plan in response aprevious meeting 

### with EPA.



# . On October 

### I,2009, EPA gave tentative approval 

### of an 

### industry sponsored test plan that 

### would obviate the need 

### for a

### Sectionll4letter. 

# o On 

### November 

### 3,2009 EPA approvedthetest

### plan submitted by the 

### PCA. In that plan the 

### industry committed to supply the requested data no later than 

### March 31,

### 2010. Inthat approval we requested that 

### facilities submit data to 

### EPA asthey collected 

## it. On 

### November 9, the 

### participating companies also submitted a letter 

### committing their 

# I "ompanies to meet the requirements 

### of the

### THC test plan 

# o On 

### February 19,2010 the 

### PCA submitted a status update to 

### EPA that indicated that a number 

### of plants 

### now had more than 30 days 

### of data. EPA requested 

### to see the data

### from those 

### kilns. This request was not met. 

# o On 

### March 1,2010 EPA again requested 

### to see the 

### data. That request was not met. 

# ¡ On 

### April4,2010 EPA again requested 

### to see the data collected 

### to date, and noted that

## if this request was 

### not met we 

### might have to use the data 

### currently available 

### tofinalize the 

### THC standard. 

# o On

### April 14,2010,we again requested 

### to see the data collected 

### to date. That request was not met.



# . April 15,2010, the 

### PCA indicated they 

### would share 

### preliminary results 

### very soon. This 

### did not happen.On 

### May 

## II,2010I called 

### Andy O'Hare of the 

### PCA and 

### told him I needed the

### THC dara as soon as

### possible. He stated hethought he

### could supply the data

### in aweek or

### two. This 

### did not happen 

# o On 

### May 

### 28,2010,I sent an email to

### Andy O'Hare of the 

### PCA. Inthat email 

### I stated that 

### THC data must be received 

### by June

### 3,2010. Otherwise 

### EPA could 

### not guarantee that the data

### would be considered 

### in the

### final 

### rulemaking. The 

### PCA responded that they

### would sendthe data no later 

### than Ju.ly 

### 7,2010.
The datawas

### finally received by 

### EPA on

### Jute 16,2010 at5:45 

### PM. As noted above, 

### prior to June 16, no 

### information onthe results 

### of testing wastransmitted 

### to EPA, despite numerous EPA requests.

### RequestforAdditional Total Hydrocarbon Testing curtis. lesslie, leslie.white, lillianf.deprimo, gina.henry, ruksana.mirza, meg.garakani, Keith 

### Barnettto: hegtor.ybanez, Michelle.Ferguson,

craig.campbell, michael.pelan, tmatz, daniel.nugent, ngarnett, lfaciane, sisaacson, Farr,Jerry, gary.molchan Cc: "Andrew O'Hare" 081261200911:03 AM

As PeterTsirigotis mentioned inthe meeting between Gina McCarthy and the cement industry on August 13,we believe that obtaining more total hydrocarbon emissions data based on continuous monitor measurements will potentially result on a betterTHC standard. We have polled the industry to determine ifthey are going 

### to submit more THC data, and the results indicate there are 

### no plans to do

### so. ln the August 13 meeting, Peter specifically indicated that he would like to hearfrom the cement industry 

### on this issue, but we have not received any communications since that meeting. As a result, we are planing to send out letters, under the authority of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, requiring facilities to install THC monitors and submit at least 30 days of data to 

### us. lt is important that the results be representative of normal operations. lnthe current data set the shortest time peiiod is 31 days, so Iwould say a month of readings isenough. lf startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods are includód they need to be identified. A draft ofthe letter and survey instrument are attached. We need feedback as soon as possible on the survey sowe can be sure our request is

### clear. lf anyone currently has any testing plans, we need to know this sowe don't duplicate ourefforts. lfthe industry has (or is deúeloping) some acceptable alternative,we need to know now. I recommend we have conference call this week or early nextweek to discuss this request.



## E4r THI Data collection t*ttu#tr.unt-Draft-8-28-[9 doc Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG MailCode D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 91 9-541 -5605 barnett. keith@epa. gov 

### 1|41 

## _-l THC Data collection letter-Draft.8-26-D5.docName



### Title Company 

### Mailing Address 

### City, State

### Zip
Re: Requirement 

### to provide information according 

### to

### Title 42

### of the 

### Unites States Code, Chapter 85, Subchapter

# I, Part 

### A, section 

### 74I4 (42 

### U,S.C 7414)
Dear 

### Mr./Ms. fName]: The 

### U.S. Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA) is 

### collecting additional information about 

### your industry, Portland Cement 

### Manufacturing. This information isfor the purpose 

### of developing standards under 

### Section

## ll2 (d) of the Clean

### Air Act for the 

### industry, and assessing the 

### Section 112(d) standards 

### which EPA has akeady promulgated 

### for the

### industry. Specifically, EPA is reconsidering the new and 

### existing source 

### total hydrocarbon standards 

### in the Portland Cement 

### Manufacturing NESHAP amendments promulgated on Decemb er 20,2007


# . See

### 7l FR 

### 76553. Based on comments raised 

### in the reconsideration, and a recent decision by the D.C. 

### Circuit Court of Appeals 

### in Sierra Club 

### v. EPA,479 F. 3d 875 (2007), 

### EPA is gathering datato better assess the

### variability oftotal hydrocarbon emissions 

### for 

### individual kilns,

We are requesting 

### this information under the 

### authority of Section 114

### of the Clean 

### Air Act 

### (CAA) (42 

### U.S.C. section 7414), and, asalso 

### authorizedby Section 1

### i4, require thatyou send the requested 

### information to us 

### by 90 days 

### from the receipt 

### ofthis letter. Specifically, 

### Section 

### 1la (g) allows EPA to 

### require source owners

### tofurnish "such other 

### information asthe 

### Administrator may reasonably

### require". Because this 

### information relates 

### directly to a

### critical issue 

### for the 

### Portland Cement 

### Manufacturing NESHAP, namely theamount 

### of 

### intra-kiln variability associated 

### with hydrocarbon emissions

### from Portland cement 

### kilns, 

### it is reasonable to require Portland cement

### facilitiesto generate and submit this 

### information. In the enclosed survey,we request 

### information on emissions

### oftotal hydrocarbons 

### (THC) from your cement

## kilns. We are requesting the emissions be measured using atotal hydrocarbon 

### continuous emissions 

### monitor (CEM) that meets the requirements 

### of 

## PS-84. 

## If you do 

### not currently have a

### THC CEMS installed on your 

### kilns, we are requesting you 

### install a 

### THC CEMS to 

### provide this data. 

### As noted 

### in Enclosure 1,

### we are 

### requiring the

### THC data be

### provided for each

### facility operated by 

### your

### company. Forfacilities 

### with multiple kilns, you must test each 

### kiln. Detailed instructions are 

### included

### within the

### enclosure. Using the 

### information you provide to us 

### in these surveys, along

### with similar information we receive 

### from other companies 

### inyour industry, we

### will update 

### our data base

### of total hydrocarbons emissions 

### information.
Enclosure 2 contains asummary 

### of our legal 

### authority 

### in Section 114

### ofthe 

### CAA to obtain the 

### information requested 

### in these

### surveys. If you believe that 

### providing any specific 

### information to us

### would reveal atrade secret, please 

### identify this information clearly 

### inyour

### response. However, please do 

### not label 

### your entire response 

### "Confidential" 

### if only a

### portion

includes trade

### secrets. You can see

### in Enclosure 

### 2 thetype 

### of information that 

### EPA may ask

### of you at alater time to prove that any 

### information you have so 

### identified is

### truly confidential. 

### Any information determined to be atrade secret 

### will be protected 

### by 18 

### U.S.C. 

### 1905. If you do 

### not claim as

### confidential any 

### of the 

### information in your returned survey, we can make this 

### information available to the 

### public 

### without notifying you 

### further (40 CFR 

### Part2.203, September 

## l,1976). Because Section 114 

### of the 

### CAA does not 

### allow emission datato be 

### claimed as

### confidential, the emission data you 

### provide to us can be made available to the 

### public. 

### A detailed explanation 

### of what we consider to be emission data is contained 

### in Enclosure 3. We have contracted 

### RTI International 

### (RTI) (Contract 

### No. EP-D-06-1 18) to help us gather 

### information about

### your

### industry. As noted 

### in Enclosure 

### 4,we have designated 

### RTi to be 

### our authorized 

### representatives. Therefore, 

### RTI hasthe same 

### rights discussed above and 

### in Enclosure 2 as 

### EPA

## has. This means that 

### RTI 

### will have access

### to all information provided 

### to us 

### inyour completed 

### survey. As a designated representative 

### of theAgency, 

### RTI must, by law, also abide 

### by the requirements 

### of 42 

### U.S.C, 7al4@) in regardto the

### confidentiality of what you claim to be trade secrets.
Enclosure 5 summarizes our 

### policies and procedures

### for handling trade secret 

### information and describes 

### how our contractor also is required to use the same procedures aswe

## do. Because 

### our contractors or other authorizedrcpresentatives are required 

### to

### follow the requirements 

### in Enclosure 4,we 

### believethatwe can ensure

### your rights and protect any 

### privileged information you submit to us. 

### If you have questions regarding the need 

### forthis survey or need

### clarification on the 

### information we are requesting, please contact 

### Mr. Keith Barnett 

### with EPA's Office of

### Air Quality Planning and Standards at 919-5 

### 4I-5605 (e-mail 

### barnett.keith@epa.gov). As we have 

### previously discussed, 

### it is natural that questions

### will arise, and EPA 

### will work 

### with affected plants 

### to 

### mutually and reasonably resolve these questions.
Please return the completed survey 

### form(s) to 

### Mr. Barnett atthe address by 90 days 

### from the 

### receipt ofthis 

## letter. However, 

### if you can not meet this date due to unavoidable delays (such as a

### plant outage) we

### will grant an

### extension. Should you need anextension, please lease contact 

### Mr. Barnett by phone 

### or email 

### with anestimated

### completion date andthe reason(s) 

### for the unavoidable 

## delay. Mr. Bamett's address and other contact 

### information are:



### Mr. Keith Barnett US 

### EPA 

### Mailroom (D243-02) 

### United States 

### Environmental Protection 

### Agency 

### Office of

### Air Quality Planning and Standards Research 

### Triangle Park,

# NC 27711 

### 919-s47-560s Barnett. kei th@ep a.gov

### I am sureyou rmderstand 

### how important 

### it isfor the 

### EPAto usethevery best 

### information

available 

### to develop the most 

### meaningful

### standard. Yourhelp in providing this information is greatly appreciated.

Peter 

### Tsirigotis Director, Sector 

### Policies and Programs 

### Division OfÍice of

### Air Quality Planning and Standards
5 Enclosures 

# cc: State

### AQM Office U.S. EPA 

## Region (w/o Enclosures)Enclosure 1 

### PORTLAND CEMENT 

### MANUFACTURING THC EMISSIONS 

### INFORMATION COLLECTION GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Please 

### provide the 

### information requested 

### below. 

### If you have other relevant 

### information that

### would assist us 

### in interpreting the

### total hydrocarbon 

### information we are requesting please 

### provide this 

### information as

### well. Use 

### additional copies

### of the request 

### forms, as needed, 

### for your response.


### If you 

### believethe disclosure 

### of the 

### information requested 

### would compromise atrade secret, 

### clearly 

### identify such 

### information as discussed 

### in the cover 

### letter. Any information subsequently determined 

### to constitute atrade secret

### will be protected 

### under 18 

### U.S.C. 1905. 

## If
no 

### claim 

### of confidentiality accompanies the 

### information when 

### it is received by 

### EPA, 

### it may be made available 

### to the 

### public by EPA

### without further notice (40 CFR 2.203, September 

### I,1976). Because 

### section 11a(c) 

### of the Clean

### Air Act exempts emission data

### from claims 

### of confidentiality, the emission data you 

### provide may be made available to the 

### public, A definition of whatthe 

### EPA considers emissions data is 

### provided in 40 CFR 

### 2.301(a)(2)(i) and 

### in Enclosure 3.

We are requesting 

### for each cement

### kiln at each

### of your Portland cement manufacturing 

### facilities at least 30 days

### of 

### THC emissions data measured using a continuous emissions 

### monitor 

### (CEMS). The 

### monitor should be 

### installed and

### certified according to 

### protocol PS-84 

### of Appendix B to40 CFR Part 60 orthe 

### equivalent. V/e also need to 

### know thefuels 

### fired during that 

### period. 

### If thetypes 

### of fuels varied, 

### we also need

### to know during what time periods the 

### different fuels were 

### fired, and any other 

### variations in 

### kiln operating parameters that may have affected 

### THC emissions. 

### If the data you 

### provide include periods 

### of startup, shutdown, or 

### malfunction, these periods should be indicated 

### inyour response.

Please 

### include 

### in you data submission the

### following information:



# . ppm 

### THC measured as propane

# . ppmTHC measured as propane, dry basis



# . oxygen content 

### of the exhaust gas at the 

### THC measurement 

### location



# . ppm THC measured as propane, 

### dry basis, corrected

### to 7 percent oxygen


### If you have 

### kilns that have been shutdown 

### temporarily due to maintenance 

### or 

### low demand

### for cement, we are 

### not requiring atthis 

### time that you restart these 

### kilns onlyto comply 

### with this information request. \ùy'e are 

### requiring you to 

### provide us a 

### list of anl¿ 

### kilns )¡ou cannot

Please 

### identify the 

### specific 

### kiln where the measurements were obtained using the same 

### naming system as

### you used on

### your response 

### to our previous request 

### for information dated 

### May 8,2007


## . Also identify any controls or

### work practices usedto reduce emissions

### of

### THCfor each 

### kiln for 

### which you submit data, unless the

### controls are unchanged

### from your previous response. 

### If you are 

### submitting 

### information for a new 

### kiln that was not included 

### in your previous response, please

## fill out the general

### facility information form below

### for any such new 

### kilns.

Questions regarding 

### this information request should be directed to 

### Mr. Keith Barnett at 

### (91e) s41-s60s.

Return 

### this information request and any 

### additional information to: 

### Mr. Keith Barnett U,S. Environmental Protection 

### Agency 

### Office of

### Air Quality Planning and Standards 

### Mail Code 

### D234-02 Research 

### Triangle Park, 

### North Carolina 

### 277I1
GENERAL 

### INFORMATION FOR 

### NEW 

### KILNS WHERE 

### YOU HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY 

### SIIBMITTED THIS NFORMATION 

# L Name 

### of legal owner

### offacility: 

# 2. Name 

### of legal operator 

### of facility, 

### if different 

### from legalowner:



# 3. Address

# of legal owner 

## or_operator:



# 4. Complete street address 

### of

### facility (physical 

### location):



# 5. Provide 

### facility mailing address

### if different from physical location:



# 6. Name and

### title of contact(s) able 

### to answer technical questions about the completed survey: 

# 7. Contact(s)telephonenumber(s): and 

### e-mail address(es): 

# 8. What fuels are

### fired in the cement 

### kilns 

### (if you have 

### multiple 

### kilns at

### this 

### facility, note 

### which 

### kilns bum 

### which fuels) 

# coal pet coke 

### TDF



# _ natural

# gas other 

### (specify___________-) 

# 9. If coal 

### isfired, indicatewhich type 

### of coal is 

### utilized:



# - lignite
- subbituminous 

### (including waste coal)



# - bituminous (including waste coal 

### or gob)



# _ anthracite 

### (including waste coal or culm)

# i0' Kiln identification (or designation), design 

### kiln capacity 

### (tpy of clinker production) for each 

### kiln located atthis 

### facility

(do not 

### include any 

### kilns that burn hazardous waste).



### Kiln ID Design 

### kiln

capacrty (Tons per year) Does this 

### kiln have an

### alkali



### blpass? 

### If so, what percentage 

## of the exhaust goes to bypass? 

### Kiln Type 

### (Wet, long dry, preheater, preheaterþrecalciner) Does the 

### kiln have an 

### in-line raw 

### mill? If so,what percentage 

### of the 

### time does the raw 

### mill operate?1

# 1. For each

### kiln noted 

### in Part 

### I, question 10, 

### provide the

### following information:



## Kiln ID NO* 

### controll S02 control2 

### PM control3 

### THC/VOC controla



### lExamples: low-NO* burners; selective 

### catalytic reduction (SCR); selective 

### non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

### 'Examples: wet flue gas 

### desulfurization (FGD; any

### type); 

### dry scrubbing (any

### type); compliance 

### (low sulfur) coal 

### 3Examples: fabric 

### filter; cold-side electrostatic 

### precipitator (ESp) a

### Examples: thermal oxidizer; carbon 

### injectionPage 

### I of2

FW: Request

### for 

### Additional Total Hydrocarbon Testing 

### O'Hare, Andrew to: 

### Keith Barnett 08/26/2009 12:47 

### PM Show 

### Details



### History:This message has been forwarded. Keith, Just left you avoicemail aboutthis draft data collection request. As I indicated in myvoicemail message, followingthe meetingwith Gina and Peter we agreed to prepare a test plan to collect more THC data which we had every intension of sharing with EPA in advance of a meeting to discuss. Ithink itwould be preferable to discuss how best to incorporate the thoughts of the anticipated plan (expected any time now) into any 1 14. We are ready and willingto have a call as soon as it can be arranged to discuss our intensions and their relationship toa 114. Please let me know when you would be available for such a call. Thanks, Andy AndrewT. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 PH: (202) 408-9494 FX: (202) 408-0877 CELL: (202)270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.org 

### From: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov fmailto:Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov] 

### Sent: Wednesday, August 26,2009 11:03 AM 

### To: cuttis.lesslie@ashgrove.com; leslie.white@cemex.com; lillianf.deprimo@cemex.com; gina.henry@cemex.com; ruksana,mirza@holcim.com; meg.garakani@holcim,com; hector.ybanez@holcim.com; Michelle,Ferguson@holcim.com; craig.campbell@lafarge-na.com; michael,pelan@lafarge-na.com; tmatz@htcnam.com; daniel.nugent@buzziunicemusa.com; ngarnett@b<i.com; lfaciane@b<i.com; sisaacson@calpotland,com; Farr,Jerry; gary,molchan@essroc,com Cc: O'Hare, Andrew 

### Subject: Requestfor Additional Total Hydrocarbon Testrng

As Peter Tsirigotis mentioned inthe meeting between Gina McCarthy and the cement industry onAugust 13,we believe that obtaining more total hydrocarbon emissions data based on continuous monitor measurements will potentially result on a better THC standard. We have polled the industry to determine ifthey are going

### to submit more THC data, and the results indicate there are 

### no plans to do

### so. ln the August 13 meeting, Þetei specifically indicated that he woLild like to hear fromthe cement industry 

### on this issue, butwe have not received any communications sincethat meeting.
As a result, we are planingto send out letters, under the authority of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, requiring facilities to install THC monitors and submit at least 30 days of data to 

### us. lt is important that the results be representative of normaloperations. ln the current data setthe shorlest time period is 31 days, so Iwould say a



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbamett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web9254.htm 81112010Page 2

### of 2

month of readings isenough. lf startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods are included they need to be 

### identified. A draft of the letter and survey instrument are attached. We need feedback as soon as possible on the survey sowe can be sure our request is

### clear. lf anyone currently has any testing plans, we need to know 

### thissowedon'tduplicateourefforts. lftheindustryhas(orisdeveloping)someacceptablealternative,weneed to know now.
I recommend we 

### have conference call thisweek or early next week to discuss this request.

Keith W. Barnett USEPAJOAQPS/SPPD/MMG Mail Code D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 91 9-541 -5605 barnett.keith@epa. gov



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbamett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web9254.htm 

### 8lIlZ0I0

### Draft THC Data 

### Colllection Plan



### O'Hare, 

### Andrew to: 

### Keith Bamett 08128/24A9 01:23 

### PM Show 

### Details



### History: This message has been forwarded. Keith, Attached please find a draft THC data collection plan. We will discuss with you onthe call later this afternoon, Regards, Andy Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 PH: (202) 408-9494 FX: (202) 4A8-0877 CELL: (202)270-0094 e-mail: aohare@ceme_ nt o¡g



### file:/iC:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web8095.htm 81T12010August28,2009

8-28-09 

### PCA Plan 

### for Supplementing the 

### MACT Decision Making Record 

### With AdditionalTHC CEMS Data 

### Backsround
In December 2006, 

### EPA finalized its 

### rulemaking for a revised PC

### MACT. At the same

### time the 

### rule was 

### published in the Federal Register, 

### EPA also published asecond 

### notice advising that 

### it was reconsidering the rule. 

### Dueto continued pressure and court actions 

### by those challenging the 

### rulemaking and the

### timeliness of 

### EPA's efforts to issue a

### final rule, in March 2007, 

### EPA set out a 

### Section 114 

### notice to the 

### nine largest cement companies requesting thatthey 

### provide emissions data 

### for mercury,

### THC, and

### HCl. EPA sentthe request 

### toonly nine companies, because requesting 

### information from the entire 

### industrywould have required 

### time consuming procedural stepsthat 

### would have slowed down the data 

### collection 

### process. EPA wastherefore 

### limited to collecting information from less than ten companies 

### via the Section 114 process. Those companies represented 

### only 89 

### ofthe 167 PC

### MACT kilns in the 

### United States atthe

### time. The 

### Section 114 request mandatedthat 

### facilities collect raw material and 

### fuel samples

### for 30 consecutive days 

### in June 2007, and have them analyzed, for. 

### mercury and 

### total organic carbon 

### (TOC). EPA planned to use these data

### to develop 

### material balances needed 

### to estimate 

### mercury and

### THC emissions

### from cement 

### kilns. In addition tothe 

### raw material and 

### fuel sampling, 

### EPA also requested that these companies 

### provide 

### all stack

### testing and 

### CEMS data 

### in

### theii possession related

### to mercury, 

### THC, and 

### HCl.All datawas collected and submitted 

### to 

### EpA prior tothe end 

### of 2007

. 

### EPA reviewed and analyzed the data 

### provided by the cement 

### industry for several 

### months. Near the end 

### of 2008, 

### EPA concluded that they could not 

### effectively estimate 

### THC emissions 

### from the

### TOC data

### provided (because they 

### did not request stack testing in 

### conjunction 

### with raw material testing), and instead, decidedto 

### rely onthe

### THC CEMS data 

### provided 

### by approximately 1 1plants (14

### kilns), These data consisted 

### of less than 30 days 

### to, 

### invery few cases, more than

### 2 years 

### of 

### data. EPA then ranked these data, and using a

### MACT basis

### of 

### the average 

### of the best l2Yo 

### performing units 

### with CEMS data, established a

### THC 

### MACT floor for 

### kilns and raw 

### material dryers 

### relying on 

### an average 

### of the

### two lowest emitting 

### kilns. No datawas collected 

### for raw 

### material dryers. Current Status 

### of 

### Available Data
Sincethe

### time of the 

### submittal of the 

### Section

# ll4 data, 

### all of the sourcesthat reported 

### THC CEMS data have collected 

### additional data. These data

### will be submitted to 

### EPA as

### part of 

### PCA's comments on the proposed 

### rulemaking. Based on 

### PCA's analysis 

### of this longer 

### term data, 

### PCA believes that 

### EPA

### will be comfortable that there is enough 

### THC CEMS data 

### to develop adefensible 

### floor for most 

### of the 

### industry. In the nextAugust 28,2009



### coupleof days, 

### PCA 

### will send 

### to EPA this data and

### will welcome the

### opportunity to discuss the data

### with you. 

### PCA has analyzed 

### this longer term data 

### (now all

### > 1year

### in duration) from 5 

### kilns along

### with data 

### provided by EPA 

### for other 

### kilns not included 

### in the

### original Section 

# ll4 data request, 

### to determine a revised 

### MACT

### floor. The analysis shows that there is 

### sufñcient data

### to establish a

### MACT floor based on the 99th 

### percentile. Using the data, 

### PCA

### will propose a

### THC 

### MACT floor in its comments to the proposed 

### rule. Further 

### THC CEMS data 

### from a random selection 

### of kilns 

### will likely not 

### impact a

### MACT floor analysis 

### beyond the data 

### currently being 

### reviewed, and 

### PCA believes that gather

### of such data

### will not be 

### helpfulto EPA and

### will impose an unnecessary burden onthe industry,
The data does 

### not show, however, whether the limestone reserves available to 

### units in the 

### existing data 

### pool or other 

### units have 

### significant variations in the nature and amount 

### of organics.To address 

### this uncertainty, 

### PCA welcomes the

### opportunity to

### work 

### with EPA on 

### conducting an 

### industry-wide effort to gather more

### THC CEMS datato address

### this issue and possibly 

### provide support 

### for subcategories given the

### variations in the 

### raw 

### materials. Such afocused 

### effort to gather longer term 

### THC CEMS data is 

### warranted

### for several reasons: 

# o It is 

### likely that the 

### high

### THC levels 

### for some 

### kilns can be attributed 

### to a 

### combination of the 

### level of organics 

### in the limestone, the

### form of the organics 

### in the 

### limestone and a

### kiln configuration that has one or more source 

### of organic releases downstream 

### of the

### kiln (in particular 

### in-line raw 

### mills and 

### in-line coal 

### millsventing to the 

### main 

### stack,) While a

### few of the units

### with THC CEMS have 

### high 

### THC emissions, the data on limestone organics have not been collected 

### or correlated 

### to these

### kiln emissions. 

# o EPA has assumed the stand alone raw 

### mills and coal 

### mills operated on

### kiln gases should meetthe 

### kiln THC 

### limit, but 

### EPA has no data

### to showthat

### this is an appropriate extension 

### of 

### kiln THC measurements. We have 

### limited datathat suggests that these 

### units have 

### lowvolume, higher 

### THC emissionsthan kilns. 

# o Separate standards 

### (which could be asubcategory or 

### distinct affected source) 

### for stand alone 

### raw 

### mills operated 

### with supplemental 

### fuel 

### firing, raw material dryers and those 

### kilnswith high

### THC levels due

### to organics 

### in the co-located quaruy may be

### appropriate. This cannot be done 

### without astrong database 

### of 

### THC CEMS readings and feed 

### material characteristics supporting the best possible presentation onthe need 

### for one or more added subcategories 

### for 

### THC limits. 

# o However, 

### for stand alone 

### raw 

### mills that usesupplemental fuels and coal 

### mills that use

### kiln or cooler gases, there 

### is no data

### to suggest that organic 

### HAPs are even emitted. 

### THC Monitoring Program Goals
The 

### first goal 

### of the testing 

### program is

### to gather 

### sufficient 

### kiln THC emissions 

### CEM data and 

### raw materials organics characterization data (over several months) such that 

### PCA can determine 

### if there 

### is abasis

### for one or more subcategories 

### for high THC emissions 

### kilns related to the characteristics 

### of the 

### limestone. Furthermore, where eitherAugust 28,2009

coal 

### mill and/or 

### raw material dryer exhaust are po-mingled 

### with the 

### kiln stack emissions, 

### it is important to determine whether either case

### waffants subcategorization. The second goal

### will be

### to collect organic 

### HAP data 

### for stand alone raw 

### material dryers and coal 

### mills that use 

### kiln gases 

### for drying to determine whether these sources 

### emit organic 

### HAPs. 

### If it is determined that these sources 

### emit significant HAPs, then CEMS 

### monitoring may be necessary 

### to establish a

### floor. Prior to commencing such an 

### investigation, PCA

### will statistically design the 

### projectto ensure 

### all elements are included. Program 

### Approach
Once candidate plants have been 

### identified, member companies

### will install CEMS and gather raw 

### material samples and complete analyses consistent

### with a standard project 

### protocol. PCA

### will hire a

### third-party contractor 

### to oversee thetesting program, 

### working 

### with the 

### individual firms on 

### completing the 

### monitoring activities and then interpreting the 

### data. Each 

### of the selected

### facilities 

### will be required 

### to install a

### THC CEMS at

### their own expense and

### collect data 

### for at least 6

### months. In parallel, the limestone 

### will be analyzed 

### during the same 

### period 

### for organics content as

### well asthe 

### level and nature 

### of releases 

### during grinding and 

### drying. Proposed Schedule 

### As you 

### know, the 

### majority of PCA's and its member 

### companies'efforts are 

### currently focused on 

### preparing comments onthe proposed rule, 

### which are due next week, 

### By September 15, 

### PCA 

### will develop aproposed test plan 

### for EPA 

### review. PCA is 

### committed to

### working 

### with EPA to ensure that the test

### plan is supported by 

### EPA and the scope and 

### objectives are 

### clearly established and 

### known to all parties. 

### After obtaining EPA's conculrence on the scope and schedule 

### of the study

### by September 30, 

### PCA

### will initiate testing 

### with the expectation 

### of 

### providingdatato EPA in the spring 

### of 2010.Page 1

### of 1



### THC Test Plan 

### O'Hare, Andrew to: 

### Keith Barnett, Peter 

### Tsirigotis 09115/2009 

### 09:24 

### ANI Show 

### Details

Keith and Peter, Attached isthe latest version of the THC test plan for your review and consideration in advance of the conference call to discussthe

### details. Please let me know when would be a good time for a one hour call to move this process fon¡,¡ard. Regards, Andy Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 PH" (202) 408-9494 FX: (202) 408-0877 CELL: (202) 270-0494 e-m a il: aoh arq@cementctg

flrle://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web0313.htm 

### 8lIl20l0

# PCtu

:ì:;¡'tì.; ili.i i''erri'¿iti- Âs5 *ti¿liall
September 15,2009 

### Design of the 

### PCA 

### THC Sub-Categorization Study 

### In comments 

### tothe 

### EPA dated 

### August 28,2009, the Portland Cement 

### Association (PCA) proposed 

### to collect additional data

### to determine whether subcategories should be established 

### for the

### THC 

### limit under the

### MACT standards applicable to Portland cement

### facilities. For the

### limit applicable 

### tothe

### kiln exhaust, consideration 

### will focus on a

### potential subcategory 

### for units

### with inherently high 

### THC emissions. The 

### high emissions may be related

### tothe

### composition of the 

### raw materials, 

### including the 

### level and/or 

### form of organics 

### in the limestone and shale, the 

### inclusion of raw 

### mill, raw 

### material dryer or coal 

### mill exhaust 

### in the main 

### kiln exhaust and the 

### kiln type. In addition, there is concern regarding 

### EPA's proposal that standalone raw material dryers meetthe same

### THC standard as 

### kilns. Because the 

### existing data on

### THC emissions and raw material organic content are 

### insufficient to resolve these issues, the 

### PCA sub-categorization study

### will collect emissions data on a substantial sample 

### of 

### kilns, along

### with characterizingthe limestone and shale inputs to the kilns. The data should be adequate 

### to determine the need 

### to establish subcategories (where appropriate) and, 

### if possible, 

### to estimate 

### MACT standards 

### for such subcategories. The data should also be adequate 

### to determine whether standalone raw 

### material dryers emit a

### significant amount

### of organics 

### HAPs and

### warrant a

### specific

### THC 

### limit. This paper discusses some 

### of the 

### key considerations 

### in the design 

### of the samples 

### for this study, organized 

### into 

### two investigations: 

### Kiln Sub-Categoñzationfor THC, and Standalone Raw 

### Material 

### Dryer Organic HAPs Assessment. 

### Kiln Sub-Catesorization 

### forTHC After review of the 

### existing data on

### kiln emissions and operations, 

### PCA members have 

### identified three 

### primary factors that 

### may lead 

### tothe need

### for sub-categorization 

### of the

### THC 

### limit: 

# o Kiln type, 

### divided into three 

### major groups: 

### (1) long 

### kilns (wet 

### or dry), (2) pre-heaterlprecalciners or preheaters 

### with in-line raw 

### mills, and (3) pre-heaters 

### or preheaterþrecalciners 

### without inline raw 

### mills. For example, long 

### kilns may be 

### distinctivefrom others because

### of the temperature 

### profile that the 

### raw material 

### experiences. Units 

### with in-line raw 

### mills may have higher 

### THC emissions due

### to losses 

### during grinding. 

# o Comminglingof coal 

### mill or 

### raw material dryer exhaust 

### with the 

### kiln exhaust increases the 

### loading of the 

### kiln exhaust 

### with THC relative 

### to a

### kilnwith a stand alone coal 

### mill or 

### raw material dryer. 

# ¡ Beyond process t1pes, thetypes 

### of organic materials 

### within the limestone and shale 

### will directly influence 

### THC emissions. Therefore, 

### it is important 

### to characterize thetypes 

### of organic materials 

### within the limestone and shale 

### by the 

### level of organics liberated 

### in the so-called 

### evolved organic matter 

### or off-gassing test as

### well asthe 

### level of organics liberated 

### during grinding.One

### of the challenges 

### of this investigation is

### to create a

### workable number 

### of test categories. The

proposed sample design 

### for 

### kiln sub-categorization is

### to stratify 

### with 12 cells 

### -- 3 

### (kiln type)

### x 2 

### (with or

### without commingled 

### mill/dryer exhaust)

### x2 (high or 

### low organics raw materials). 

### Work is underway 

### to characterize the

### full kiln population for 

### kiln type andthe presence 

### of commingled 

### mill or 

### dryer exhaust.

### This should be doable 

### for most 

### of the 

### kiln population. What is more 

### diff,rcult isdetermining

### which kilns have 

### high emissions

### of 

### THC andtherefore are 

### in the 

### high or 

### low emissions planes 

### of the 3

### x 2

### x 

### 2 cell 

### structure. Even 

### if it is not possible 

### to obtain data to charccterizethe entire 

### kiln population according 

### totechnology and emissions, 

### it is expected that 

### sufficient information can be obtained 

### to determine 

### which ofthe 12cells are

### signihcant andto support 

### recruitment of 

### kilns for the study. 

### Limestone and shale are 

### not 

### sufficiently characterized 

### in existing data

### with respect tothe nature 

### of the organics 

### influencingTHC emissions, 

### nor has such 

### composition data been correlated

### with 

### kiln emissions 

### to understand the 

### role

### of organic 

### composition in

### THC emissions. There is considerable data on

### Total Organic Carbon 

### in raw materials but that has not been 

### helpful in determining high 

### emitters. Thus, 

### it is 

### not possible based on 

### existing data

### to cleanly determine 

### which 

### kilns have 

### compositional factors leading to 

### high or 

### low emissions. Instead, surrogate data must be used

### to recruit and assign units to the 

### high or 

### low emissions planes as best as possible. 

### For example, 

### kilns for 

### which existing CEMS or stack testing show 

### high (or 

### low) emissions compared 

### tothe average

### will be clear candidates 

### for the 

### high (or 

### low) emission planes. 

### Qualitative 

### information from 

### kiln operators can also be used

### to assist 

### in this classihcation and a 

### quick survey is 

### in progress. Because 

### little is 

### known about the 

### role of material composition on 

### THC emissions, the study

### will have to 

### rely onthe

### existing data and make reasonable choices 

### for the sample, 

### with the expectation that the 

### resulting sample 

### will have 

### sufficient variation in the 

### compositional factors 

### to prove 

### usefulfor the analysis. 

### A number 

### of factors

### will be considered 

### in selecting the 

### total sample size

### for the study and 

### determining its allocation among tbe 12

### cells. The statistical considerations 

### in sample size 

### determination and 

### allocation relate

### toobtaining satisfactory coverage 

### of the 

### population and enough data to 

### provide 

### sufficient statistical 

### po\¡/er. Once 

### all of the 

### analytical considerations are applied, the

### total sample sizeshould be onethat 

### is: proportionate tothe importance 

### of the 

### problem 

### it addresses; and 

### appropriate given the state

### of the art 

### in the area (neither too small to 

### provide useful answers, 

### nor so large as

### to be a

### poor allocation 

### of resources). These are not 

### statistical considerations, 

### but rather management considerations to

### judge the soundness 

### of the 

### project in the real

### world. Inthis study, the sample size cannot 

### simply be allocated 

### by cell in proportion tothe

### distribution of the US 

### kiln population, because the study is

### to answer questions on whether 

### individual cells 

### differ statistically from other 

### cells. Instead, a 

### minimum sample size

### will be set

### for each 

### cell

### for which separate analysis 

### is desired. This approach leads

### to a

### stratified sample that is distributed 

### in a manner that 

### differs from the 

### distribution ofthe 

### kiln population. As apractical matter, 3 units 

### will be the 

### minimum sample size

### for each cell, because 3 units isthe smallest sample that 

### permits computation of confidence 

### intervals and also permits the 

### identification 

### of an erroneous data

### point (an 

### outlier) in comparison 

### tothe other data

### points. 

### A larger sample 

### is generally desirable 

### in each

### cell, but may not be possible given 

### time and resource constraints and 

### kiln availability.

### With 12

### total cells 

### in the sample design, a

### minimum of 36 units is 

### implied for the 

### overall sample

size,

### whichwould be a large study 

### involving a

### major commitment of resources 

### industry-wide and 

### participation by 20 percent 

### of the 

### 167 kilns in the 

### US. It is 

### likely that the

### total sample size 

### will not be

### this large because 

### it is 

### unlikely that 

### all cells are represented 

### in the US 

### kiln population or

### willjustify separate 

### analysis. The sample selection

### will start 

### with atarge| 

### of 3 

### kilns per cell and then 

### apply the

### following considerations 

### to select the

### final design and sample size:



## . 

# , Cells 

### not represented 

### in the US 

### kiln population are 

### obviously dropped

### from the study design 

### entirely 

# o If cells are represented 

### by 

### only 

## I or 2 

### kilns in the entire 

### population (or at least the 

### portion of the 

### population that can be characterized), then 

### it is not possible 

### to obtain a sample 

### of more 

### than 

## I or

### 2. Even 

### if there are more than 3 

### units in the 

### population, 

### it may not be possible 

### to recruit a sample 

### of

### 3. One challenge 

### for this study isthefact that the 

### downturn 

### in the economy has cause a number 

### of kilns to not be 

### in operation on a 

### continuing basis 

### in 2009. 

# o For cells 

### representing avery small number 

### of 

### kilns, itmay or may not be appropriate to retain the 

### cells in the sample 

### design. 

### If the available 

### information indicates that the 

### kilns all have 

### low emissions, then there may be no benefit 

### to including the

### cell in the study. On the other hand,

## if available 

### information indicates that 

### kilns are

### technologically unique 

### or 

### likely to have 

### distinctive emissions characteristics, thenthe

### cell could be retained 

### in the study, and one 

### could consider whether 

### to increase the sample 

### for that 

### cell to more than three. 

# o It is 

### likely that a

### small number 

### of cells 

### in the sample design 

### will be found to represent a 

### majority (perhaps 

### alarge 

### majority) of the US 

### kiln population. For these cells, we

### will consider increasing the sample size above the 

### minimum of three sothatthe data set has greater 

### power for detecting emissions 

### differences. 

### An increase 

### of sample size

### from 3

### to 5 

### kilns narrows the 95o/o confidence 

### interval for the 

### cell 

### by 19 percent. 

# o Finally, one can take advantage 

### of circumstances that 

### permit increasing sample size aI 

### low cost

## - for example, 

### by adding 

### kilns that have 

### pre-existing CEMS, one can contribute 

### tothe study atthe cost

### of the limestone and shale 

### composition testing only. To

### judge how the sample 

### is allocated, onewants 

### to know how much power the resultin 

### g data 

### will have

### for detecting differences among cells and 

### for supporting the establishment 

### of sub

### categories. Power issimply the

### ability to detect the presence 

### of an effect 

### of agiven 

### size.

### A powerful dataset 

### could detect a

### small effect

### with strong statistical 

### significance. 

### A less 

### powerful dataset 

### could detect 

### only a larger effect 

### with the same 

### significance, and 

### it might 

### fail to detect the smaller 

### effect,when actually present. The most 

### common statistical test performed 

### in the sub-category analysis 

### will be

### to determine

# if mean emissions 

### in one 

### cell (or group 

### of cells) are

### statistically different from those 

### in another cell 

### (or group) at a stated confidence 

### level. This test depends onthe variances 

### of the means 

### in each 

### cell (or group),

### which intum is based onthe 

### length of the test 

### period and the differences 

### in emissions across 

### units. Typical variances can be estimated

### from the

### existing CEMS data and then can be used 

### to determine whether an

### effect

### ofX percent 

### in size can be detected 

### with a sample 

### of size 

### N 

### units. This can be 

### summarizedin a curye that gives the smallest detectable

### effect as a

### function of sample size, 

### which can be usedto

### judgethe adequacy 

### of the proposed

sample 

### allocation. The nature 

### of the sub-category analysis isthat 

### it

### will look broadly

### for evidencethat one or more cells, 

### or groups 

### of cells, show 

### statistically significant evidence 

### for differences 

### in emissions compared 

### to other cells 

### or

### groups. 

### It

### will also 

### look broadly atthequestion 

### of how material 

### composition affects emissions and whether that 

### relationship varies

### with technology. It

### will not 

### simply test

### whether each

### cell isstatistically different than other

### cells. When many cells are grouped together, the 

### available sample size 

### is greater and the dataset becomes more 

### powerful for 

### identifying differences. The sample size and 

### power are smaller when the differences being examined 

### pertainto

### only a

### few cells. The outcome 

### of the sub-category analysis may take a number 

### of different forms: 

# o To recommend establishing asub-category 

### for one or more 

### individual cells, because the 

### collected data demonstrate that the 

### kilns in the cells are 

### distinctive and

### significantly different than other 

### kilnswith respect 

### to

### THC emissions. 

# o To recommend establishing asub-category 

### for a group 

### of cells, because the data demonstrate thatthe group, taken as

### whole, is 

### distinctive and 

### signihcantly different than other 

### kilns,while finding no evidence

### to support 

### subdividing 

### kilnswithin the group. 

# o To demonstrate the 

### relationship between 

### material composition and

### THC emissions and, based onthat 

### relationship, recommend establishing sub-categories 

### for 

### kilns facing 

### distinctive and 

### significantly different material compositions that lead 

### to higher emissions. Materials-based sub-categories could be defined solely 

### by the

### composition of materials used 

### by the 

### kilns or 

### by a

### combination of material composition and

### kiln type, where 

### it is 

### found that the materials 

### effect is important 

### in only some 

### kiln t1pes. 

### PCA's proposed study

### will require that 

### THC CEMS be installed on 

### participating units and that data be

### collected for periods 

### of at least 6 months, 

### with data

### from the 

### hrst 3 months used to 

### provide EPA

### will a

### preliminary assessment

### of sub-category 

### potential. It is important that the data 

### collection period be 

### long enough 

### to adequately charactertze the variance 

### in emissions, both because thevariance 

### is an 

### important factor 

### in setting the 

### MACT floor and because a higher variance 

### in emissions 

### might itself be abasis

### for establishing a

### sub-category. The 

### existing data submitted 

### tothe 

### EPA docket can be used

### to examine this question by 

### plotting the variance 

### in 30- day average emissions versus the 

### length of the 

### time series used

### to compute 

## it. Generally, PCA has found that thevariance increases asthe

### time series length increases (andthere is more chance 

### for a

### variety 

### of factors 

### affecting emissions 

### to come 

### into play) before tending 

### to stabilize 

### (with continuing fluctuations) around some 

### level. One wants

### to collect data

### for a 

### long enough period 

### of time to 

### allow thevariance 

### to approach or reach 

### its

### full and stabilized value. 

### To moveforward 

### with the sub-categorization study, the

### following steps are being taken: 

# o PCA is preparing a

### profile of all the 

### kilns asto type andthe presence 

### of commingled coal 

### mill or 

### raw material dryer exhaust 

### to see 

### how many 

### units are 

### in the 3

### x 2technology 

### cells. This is being done 

### by amending the

### kiln inventory from EPA and adding codes

### for coal 

### mills and 

### raw 

### mills as

### follows:Coal 

### Mills



# L Stand alone stack 

## 2. Vented 

### to a

### kiln stack
Raw 

### Mills 

## 1. In 

### line or vented to the 

### kiln stack 

# 2. Stand alone stack 

# o The 

### next step 

### isto characterize the 

### kiln population for 

### THC emissions. PCA has created 

### two categories 

### for this purpose: 

### THC emissions 

### below 50

### ppm and

### THC emissions over 50

### ppm. Where available, 

### CEMS and stack test data

### will be used

### to classify 

### kilns. 

### Additionally, PCA members have been asked

### to classify each

### oftheir units as 

### high or 

### low emitters 

### tothe extent they are able 

### with any testing 

### for VOCs or

### THC they may have 

### done. Use

### this input, we

### will stratify each technology 

### cell into expected 

### low emitter, expected 

### high emitter and unknown. 

# o PCA is preparing the 

### protocol 

### for generating data, 

### including specifications 

### for THC CEMS and

### testing

### of shale and limestone (and coal 

### if the 

### commingled exhaust is

### from a coal

## mill). The 

### raw material testing 

### will be a

### combination of ofÊgassing organics 

### quantification and 

### grinding loss testing using a method developed recently by FLS. 

### Standalone 

### Raw 

### Material Dryer Organic HAPs Assessment 

### EPA has proposed that standalone 

### raw material dryers and 

### raw 

### mills that remove moisture 

### from the feed 

### material meet the 

### kiln THC 

### limit, without data

### to substantiate that theassumption is 

### appropriate'. 

### A se"ottdpartof the study is totest a sample 

### of raw 

### mills and raw matárial dryers 

### to determine 

### their emission 

### characteristics. One hypothesis is that these standalone units do not generate any

### significant organic 

### HAP emissions. 

### This part 

### of the study 

### involves establishing a separate sample 

### of standalone 

### mills and dryers and measuring 

### their organic 

### HAP and

### THC emissions. Stack testing 

### will be performed, rather than 

### installing a

### CEMS for

### THC. When stack testing is used, a

### total of 3 back-to-back tests

### will be 

### performed. The 

### organic HAPs to be measured 

### will be those listed 

### in the

### THC 

### limit alternative compliance method 

### in the proposed ru1e2. 

### Many of the same considerations 

### of sample design and selection are encountered here, andthe discussion 

### given for the sub-categorization sample 

### applies. The 

### primary difference isthat the sample 

### drawnfor this part of the study

### will be

### stratified 

### for only two technology types: raw 

### material dryers and 

### raw 

### mills. As a result, one

### will not 

### build upthe sample 

### from individual cells consisting 

### of at least 3 

### units each. Instead, we are 

### planning on a sample 

### of at least 5

### mills that
tAll inlitte and stand-alone coal mills that ventto the atmosphere are regulated by Subpart

### Y. However, PCA has requested aSubparlY exemption for inline coal mills where gases are vented through the kiln main stack. PCA believes that such kilns should be regulated under Subpart LLL. 'Thore organic HAPs are formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetaldehyde and naphthalene.meet the def,rnition 

### for dryer and 5true 

### dryers. 

### A sample 

### of 5 

### in eachcategory 

### allows 

### for

improved confidence 

### intervals (compared 

### to a sample 

### of 3) and

### will permit useful analysis to be done even 

### if data 

### on 1

### or 2 units were to be compromised 

### in some manner. 

### It is useful 

### to consider 

### the sample size 

### in the

### following 

### way, 

### If thequestion is posed as 

### determining whether 

### organic 

### HAP emissions 

### from raw 

### mills or dryers are

### significant, there are three 

### different outcomes that are possible 

### from agiven sample size: 

# o One

### finds that the estimated emissions are too small 

### in some senseto be 

### meaningful or

### of concern. Given thevariance, one concludes thatthere is no evidence that standalone 

### units have 

### significant organic 

### HAP emissions. This is a conclusive result.



# . One

### finds that the estimated emissions are large enough to be 

### meaningful and, given the variance, one concludes that standalone 

### units do represent sources 

### of organic 

### HAP emissions. This is also a conclusive result, and

### it comes about when the estimated effect (emissions increase) 

### is at least 1.96 times the standard 

### deviation 

### (for a 95% confidence 

### interval, two-sided).



# . One

### finds that the estimated emissions are large enough to be 

### meaningful, but the variance is 

### high enoughto prevent 

### finding thatthey are

### statistically 

### significant. This is a less 

### conclusive result, 

### but one that could be changed through more testing. The 

### primary risk posed 

### in selecting

### atotal sample size 

### is always that 

### it is 

### insufficient to achieve a conclusive 

### result. 

### It is 

### impossibleto guarantee that a given sample size

### will be adequate (to do so

### would require 

### knowing the answer before conducting the

### study). Whatever sample size is used 

### initially, the 

### risk of an 

### inconclusive result may be remedied 

### by extending thetesting to 

### include more 

### units over a longer 

### period of time. 

### Next steps 

### with this 

### part of the study

### will be: 

# o PCA is surveying its members

### to 

### find standalone raw 

### mills and raw 

### material dryers. 

# o PCA isdeveloping atest 

### protocol. The plan

### will address the organic 

### HAPs listed in the 

### THC compliance alternative 

### in the proposed 

### rule and the test methods

### will be those recommended 

### in the 

### PCA comments on that compliance alternative. 

### Other Considerations PCA and 

### its members are 

### committedtothe conduct 

### ofthis study but 

### we face a number 

### of challenges. First, 

### with the current economy, a number 

### of 

### kilns

### will not be operating this 

### winter when data gathering is

### to 

### occur. Second, we believe thatwe can securethe necessary number

### of THC CEMS but we have not been able 

### to confirm this 

### with the

### vendors. Lastly, this study

### will be

### costly. The installation and operation 

### of the

### THC CEMS is expected 

### to cost between S10,000 and 

### $30,000/month depending on the 

### existing monitoring capability atthe 

### kiln and the onsite 

### staff expertise. Raw 

### material testing

### will be an

### additional cost but those costs have not been 

### determined. The 

### organic 

### HAP testing 

### for 

### mills and dryers 

### is expected to run between $25,000 and $50,000 per 

### unit. Inthe interest 

### of time, this study design is 

### being submitted 

### to EPA for comment. 

### While 

### it is under 

### review, PCA 

### will begin completing thetasks 

### listed above and 

### recruiting participants 

### in the study.Re: 

### THC 

### plan

# J Keith 

### Barnettto: O'Hare, Andrew 10/01/2009 04:35 PM
Yes. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG Mail Code D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 91 9-541 -5605 barnett. keith@epa. gov O'Hare,

## Andrew Keith, Igotyour message this afternoon 

## regardi... 10101t2009 04:31:00 pM 

## From: O'Hare,Andrew <AOhare@cement.org> 

## To: Keith BarneIURTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

## Date: 1010112009 04:31 PM 

## Subject: THC plan

Keith,
Igot your message this afternoon regarding the THC test plan. We are busy identifying facilities for the various cells reflecting the September 15'n version of the planwe discussed with you a week or so ago. Regarding the draft plan, when we discussed it most recently, you indicated that you were going to review it in greater detail and then get back to mewith a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." Should Itake your message today as being a "thumbs up"to proceed as outlined inthe

### 9li5 draft? Thanks, Andy AndrewT. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 PH: (202) 408-9494 FX: (202) 408-0877 CELL: (202)270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.orqRe: 

### THC 

### plan 

### *ì Keith 

### Barnett to: O'Hare, Andrew 1010112009 04:39 PM
Yes proceed as outlined inthe g/15 draft. Also,just soyou know, the Florida Rinker kilns (now Cemex) had THC Cems in case you had not been 

### told. We actually have data from those kilns supplied by the State of Florida, but Florida does not have any data on the ppm levels, their data is pounds of emlsslons. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG MailCode D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 919-541-5605 barnett. keith@epa. gov O'Hare,

## Andrew Keith, Igot your message this afternoon 

## regardi... 1010112009 04:31:00 pM 

## From: O'Hare, Andrew <AOhare@cement.org> 

## To: Keith BarneIVRTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

## Date: 10t01t2009 04:31 PM 

## Subject: THC plan

Keith,
Igot your message this afternoon regarding the THC test plan. We are busy identifying facilities for the various cells reflecting the September 15'n version of the pfan we discussed with you aweek or so ago. Regarding the draft plan, when we discussed it most recently, you indicated that you were going to review it in greater detail and then get back to mewith a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." Should Itake your message today as being a "thumbs up" to proceed as outlined inthe

## gll, draft? Thanks, Andy Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 PH: (202) 408-9494 Fx: (202) 408-0877 CELL: (202)270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.orqPage 1

### of I

Tentative 

### Agenda O'Hare, Andrew to: 

### Keith Bamett 1110212009 01:08 

### PM Show 

### Details

Keith, Attached please find atentative agenda for the meeting tomorrow. As we discussed, it isfocused primarily on the THC test plan with a brief opportunity at the end to discuss your thoughts on our comments onthe proposal. Some of my members would like to participate inthe meeting tomorrow by conference 

### call. Iam happy to host the conference call (at indicated on the tentative agenda), provided you can arrange for a conference phone in the meeting room. Thank you and seeyou tomorrow, Andy Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 PH: (202) 408-9494 Fx: (202) 408-0877 CELL: (202)270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.org



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web2289.htm 81112010

## EPA

# - PCA Meeting November 3, 

## 2009 RTP, NC 

### 12:30

# - 3:00 p.m. Tentative Agenda (888) 387-8686, 

### then 4089494 

### 12:30 

# l. lntroductions 12:35 

# ll. THG

### Test Plan Discussion



# . Test Plan Overview 

### (J. Holmes)



# . Test Plan 

### Matril/Candidates (J Holmes, All)



# . Raw Material 

### Sampling (H 

### Ybanez, 

### A O'Hare, All) 

# 2:30 

# lll. Portland Gement NESHAP 

### Gomment 

# o Review EPA's Perspectives 

### on PCA's Comments 

### on Proposed Changes 

### to NESHAP 

# 2:50 

# lV. Other Business 

# 3:00

# V. Adjourn

### Approval 

### of Portland Cement Association THC 

### Test Plan Keith 

### Barnett to: Andrew O'Hare Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, Torres.Elineth, Steve Fruh by EPA 1110312009 04:20 PM

Dear Andy:
Iwant thankyou ,your staff, and your members for the effort they have put into developing the THC subcategorization study test plan you presented intoday's meeting. Ispoke with mydivision director, PeterTsirigotis, and he agreed that you may consider this email to be approval of the plan by EPA. We appreciate the significant time and expense of this testing effort for your members. Iwant to also state that we recognize that the actual testing schedule and may change due tofactors beyond anyone's control, such as conditions of the cement market, and the availability of monitoring equipment. However, we do ask that we be kept apprised of progress. Specifically please ask thefacilities being tested to let us know the following: 

## o The schedule for obtaining and installing monitoring equipment. 

## o The anticipated schedule to begin collecting information and number of days they expect to operate. 

## o Any changes to the two items above.

Iwould also encourage the facilities to submit data as they collect it (maybe on a monthly basis) and not view March 31, 2010 is an absolute cut-off date for submitting data should they have more data available after that date. Please ask the participating companies to sent to us their commitment to participate inthis testing program at their earliest convenience. Thanks, Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG MailCode D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 91 9-541 -5605 barnett. keith@epa. gov

# ,d RE: 

### Approval of Portland Cement 

### Association THC 

### Test Plan 

### by EPA



# '4r O'Hare,'Andrew to: Keith

# Barnett 11l}4l2o0g 10:38 AM 

### Keith, Thanksfor your message 

### and for your time yesterday. I will pass on to my 

### members 

### and 

### be back 1n touch with the follow-ups we 

### dlscussed yesterday. Regards, Andy 

### Andrew 

### T. O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement

### Association 500 New

### Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th FÌoor Washington, DC 20001 

### PH: (202) 408-9494 

### FX: (202) 408-0811 

### GELL:' 

### (202) 210-0094 

### e-mail : aohareGcement. 

### org 

### -----OriginaÌ Message----- From: Barnett.KeithGepamal-L.epa.gov [mailto:Barnett.KeithGepamail.epa.qov] Sent: Tuesday, November 

### 03, 2009 

### 4:20 PM 

### To: O'Hare, Andrew 

### Cc: Tslrlgotis

.

### PeterGepamail

.epa. 

### qov; Torres

.

### trlinethGepamail

.epa. 

### qov; trruh. SteveGepamail. epa. qov 

### Subject: Approval of Portland Cement 

### Association THC

### Test Plan by EPA 

### Dear Andy: 

### I want thank you , your staff, and your members 

### for the effort they have 

### put into deveÌoping the THC 

### subcategorizatlon study test plan you 

### presented in todayrs meeting. r spokewith my 

### division dlrector, peter Tsirigotls, and he agreed that you may 

### consider this email to be 

### approval of the plan by EPA. We 

### appreciate the slgnificant time and expense 

### of this testinq effort for your members. I want to also state that we 

### recognize that the 

### actual testing schedule and may change 

### dueto factors beyond anyone's 

### controÌ, such as conditions of the cement 

### market, and the availabrlity of monitoring equipment. However, we 

### do ask that we 

### be kept apprlsed of progress. Specrfically please ask the facilities being tested to let us 

### know 

### the foll-owing: The schedufe for obtalning and installing monltoring equipment. The 

### anticipated scheduÌe to begin co-Llecting information and 

### number

### of days they expect to operate. Any changes 

### to the two ltems above, 

### I would afso encourage the facil-itles to submit data as they collect it (maybe 

### on a monthly basis) and not view March 

### 31, 2010 

### is an absolute cut-off date for submitting data shoufd they have more 

### data available af

### t-er that date.

### PÌease ask the participating companies 

### to sent to us the-ir commitment 

### to

participate in this testing program at their earfiest convenience. Thanks, 

### Keith W. Barne Lt US EPA/OAQPS /S PPD/MMG 

### Maif Code D243-02 

### ResearchTriangle Park, NC 211L7 

### 9r9-54 1-5 605 

### barnett

.

### keithGepa. gov

### THC Plan 

### Commitment Letter

O'Hare, 

### Andrew to: 

### Keith Bamett, Peter 

### Tsirigotis 111091200912:56 

### PM Show 

### Details



### History: This message has been forwarded.
Keith and Peter, Please see the attached letter conveying commitments to ímplement the THC test plan as discussed lastweek. Please call with any questions. Regards, Andy AndrewT. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., 7th F.loor Washington, DC 20001 PH: (202) 408-9494 FX: (202) 408-0877 CELL: (202)270-0094 e-majl :aohare@cement.org



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web1258.htm 81112010

# PClt*

i. + i : i ;) 11,..j i. t:tri t:tiI L*i t:t i.aii ri zl 

### November 9, 2009 

### Mr. Keith Barnett Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02) Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 

# Re: PGA 

### Member 

### Support 

### for lmplementation of

### Total Hydrocarbon (THG) 

### Test Plan Dear Keith,
I

### am

### writing regarding 

### the proposed PCA planto collect additional THC data, 

### which 

### was shared with you in September and 

### was the subject of more detailed 

### discussion at

### the meeting between PCA and EPA, held on 

### Tuesday, November 3, 2009. 

### Thanks toyou 

### and Mr. 

### Tsirigotis for your expression ofapproval and support for the 

### plan,which 

### we received on November 

## 3. As 

### we discussed during

### the recent meeting, 

### PCA members are committed 

### to making the necessary investments in

### THC continuous emission monitoring equipment and associated raw material sampling to carry out the 

### plan. The undersigned PCA member companies and company representatives stand by 

### this commitment. As you know, the current economic situation

### will present some challenges to the 

### industry in carrying out the 

### plan. Many 

### U.S cement plants have been shut down 

### because of market circumstances and it is

### difficult to predict at

### this timewhat impact 

### market dynamics 

### will have on plant 

### operations. ln reflection ofthis situation, 

### we have 

### carefully crafted 

### the list oftest plan candidates, discussed with you on November 3,to 

### focus on those plants that plan 

### to be operational for at least 30 

### days before the end of March 

### 2010. The other significant potential uncertainty 

### will be

### the amount of

### time necessary to 

### obtain 

### and installthe THC 

### monitors. Monitorvendors currently indicate that theywill be 

### able 

### to satisfy

### the demand and conform with the anticipated program start date, though 

### unanticipated delays are 

### possible. As

### we implement the plan, we 

### will keep you apprised 

### of developments 

### and provide youwill timely updates on our progress. 

### Thank you again for supporting our proposed 

### plan. We look fon¡rard to working 

### with you and your colleagues on

### this 

### project. Please call 

### with any questions regarding 

### the plan 

### or plan 

### implementation. You may reach me at (202) 408-9494 (or 

### aohare@cement.orq) to address any questions.

500 New Jersey Avenue, NW 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 2000'lSincerely, 

# A^^a o'Hú^
Andrew 

### T. O'Hare Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, EPA-OAQPS

Commitments ofTHC Test Plan Candidates: Larry

## Alexander Bernard Terver Alamo Cement

## Co. Holcim (US) lnc. Curtis 

## Lesslie Craig Campbell Ash Grove Cement 

## Co. Lafarge North America lnc.'
Dan

## Nugent Tim Matz Buzzi Unicem USA

## lnc. Lehigh Hanson Cem ent Co. Jay

## Grady Michael Stevens 

## CalPortland National Cement Co. Satish

## Sheth Martin Vroegh 

## CEMEX St. Marys Cement /VCNA Gary 

## Molchan Marty Fallon Essroc Cement

## Corp. Suwannee American Cement Doug

## Roark Nancy Garnett GCC ofAmerica

## lnc. Texas lndustries, lnc,
Lane

## Smith Jay Willis Giant Cement 

## Holding TitanAmerica LLCPage 1

### of2

THC Plan Update 

### O'Hare, 

### Andrew to: 

### Keith Barnett 12118/2009 01:36 

### PM Cc: Peter

### Tsirigotis Show 

### Details



### History:This message has been replied 

### to and forwarded. Keith, Below please 

### find atable 

### which summar¡zes the status of

### THC plan implementation as 

### of 12-1-0g. We have 

### 36 kilns in the 

### work plan (the most recent version of

### which is

### attached). As 

### you can see, we are moving 

### fonvard acrossthe 

### board. My members continue 

### to be challenged by the 

### time it istaking to secure 

### and install 

### THC CEMS and, more importantly, by kilnshutdowns associated 

### with low demand for 

### cement. I

### should note 

### that a number of

### the units that 

### did not havethe CEMS installed on December 1st

### were shutdown at the 

### time and remain 

### off

### line. For those facilities, the goal is

### to have the CEMS installed 

### and ready 

### to run

### whenthe unit 

### is back in service, early next year.
I

### will provide you 

### with an update to this 

### status report early in

### the New Year. Happy Holidays! Andy

Status 

### Category Number 

### of Kilns in

### the Cateoorv Data 

### Gathering Undenruay (have less 

### than 30 

### davs of data) 3 Data 

### Gathering Started; Kiln 

### Shutdown (have less

### than 30 days of data) 3



### CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Beoun 

# I
CEMS 

### Order Placed 7 

### CEMS Bids Rec'd 

### and Under Review 10 CEMS 

### Spec. Out

### for Bid 3 Unit Out 

### of Study

# - Not Operatinq 1 Unit Out 

### of Study

## - Technical Problems 1 36total

Andrew T. 

### O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement 

### Association

file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web3315.htm 

### 811l2}l0

### Page2

### oï2

500 New 

### Jersey,Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax: 

### (202) 408-0877 Cetl:

## QA) 270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.org



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web3315,htm 

### 8lll20l0

# PC/t-

.,r ,ll,t ,

### ,,rti,tii /),:,rçltà,,,:t^,r:

December 18,2009 

### Design of the 

## PCA

## THC Sub-Categorization Study Introduction In comments to the 

### EPA dated 

### August 28,2009, the 

### Porlland Cement 

### Association (PCA) proposed

### to collect additional data

### to determine whether subcategories should be established 

### for the

### THC 

### limit under the

### MACT standards applicable to Portland cement 

### facilities. The data gathering 

### will focus on 

### potential subcategories 

### for kilns 

### with inherently 

### high

### THC emissions and 

### to address other process design 

### distinctions. The 

### high emissions may be related to the 

### composition of the 

### raw materials, 

### including the 

### level and/or

### form of organics 

### in the limestone, or the 

### inclusion of raw

### mill or coal 

### mill exhaust 

### in the main 

### kiln exhaust andthe 

### kiln type. Because the 

### existing data on

### THC emissions and raw material organic content are 

### insufficient to resolve these issues, the 

### PCA sub-categorization study

### will collect emissions data on a substantial sample 

### of 

### kilns, along

### with characterizingthe raw 

### material inputs 

### to these 

### kilns. The data should be adequate 

### to determine the need

### to establish subcategories (where appropriate) and, 

### if possible, 

### to estimate 

### MACT standards 

### for such subcategories. This paper discusses some 

### of the 

### key considerations 

### in the design 

### of the sample 

### population forthis study and presents an 

### overview 

### of the process used 

### to select 

### kilns for the study, the characteristics 

### of the 

### kilns that are 

### participating in the study, the stack 

### THC monitoring and raw 

### material analyses that are being done, andthe current plans 

### for data analysis. 

### Study Desien 

### After a 

### review 

### of the 

### existing data on

### kiln emissions and operations, 

### PCA members have 

### identified three 

### primary factors that 

### may lead to the need 

### for sub-categorization 

### of the 

### THC 

### limit: 

# o Kiln type, 

### divided into three 

### major groups: (1) 

### long 

### kilns (wet or 

### dry), 

### (2) pre-heater/precalciners or preheaters 

### with in-line raw 

### mills, and (3) pre-heaters 

### or preheaterþrecalciners 

### without inline raw 

### mills. For example, long 

### kilns may be 

### distinctive from others because

### of thetemperature 

### profile that the 

### raw material 

### experiences. Units 

### with in-line raw 

### mills may have higher 

### THC emissions, due

### to losses 

### during grinding.



# . Commingling 

### of coal 

### mill exhaust 

### with the

### kiln exhaust may increase the loading 

### of the 

### kiln exhaust 

### withTHC relativeto a

### kilnwith astand alone coal 

### mill. 

# o Beyond process types, thetypes 

### of organic materials 

### within the raw materials, and limestone 

### in particular, 

### will directly influence

### THC emissions. Therefore, 

### it is important 

### to characterize thetypes 

### of organic materials 

### within the limestone and 

### all of the

### kiln feed 

### by the 

### level 

### of organics liberated 

### in the so-called evolved organic matter or preheater 

### offgassing test as

### well asthe level 

### of organics liberated 

### during raw 

### material grinding (where those emissions are present 

### in the

### kiln exhaust).One

### of the challenges 

### of this investigation is

### to create aworkable number 

### of test categories. The

sample design 

### for 

### kiln sub-categorization started 

### with a

### stratification ofthe current 

### kiln population 

### into 12cells 

### -- 3 

### (kiln type) 

### x 2 

### (with or

### without commingled 

### mill/dryer exhaust) 

### x 2 

### (high or 

### low organics 

### raw materialsr). Characterizingthe 

### full kiln population by 

### kiln type and the presence 

### of commingled 

### mill exhaust was straight 

### forward for most 

### of the

### population. What is more 

### difficult is 

### determining which kilns have 

### high levels 

### of

### THC andtherefore are 

### in the high 

### or 

### low emissions planes 

### of the 3

### x 2

### x

### 2 cell 

### structure. 'While 

### it was not possible 

### to obtain data to characterize the entire 

### kiln population according 

### totechnology and emissions

### with specihcity, 

### sufficient information was obtained 

### to classify units to the 12cells and 

### recruit 

### kilns for the study. 

### Limestone and feed 

### materials are 

### not

### sufficiently characterized 

### in existing data

### with respect to the nature 

### of the organics 

### influencing 

### THC emissions, nor has such data been correlated 

### with 

### kiln emissions 

### to understandthe 

### role of organic 

### composition in

### THC emissions. There is considerable data on

### Total Organic Carbon 

### in raw materials, but that has not been 

### helpful in determining high emitters 

### of

### THC. Thus, 

### it is not possible based on 

### existing data

### to determine 

### which 

### kilns have 

### compositional factors leading 

### to high or 

### low emissions. Instead, surrogate data were used to 

### recruit and assign 

### unitsto the 

### high or 

### low emissions planes as best as

### possible. For' example, 

### kilns for

### which existing CEMS or stack testing show 

### high (or 

### low) emissions compared 

### tothe aveÍage areclear candidates

### for the 

### high (or 

### low) emission 

### planes. Qualitative information from 

### kiln operators also was used

### to assist 

### in this classification. 

### A number 

### of factors were considered 

### in deciding on the 

### total sample size

### for the study and 

### determining its allocation amongthe 

### cells. The statistical considerations 

### in sample size 

### determination and 

### allocation relate 

### to obtaining satisfactory coverage 

### of the 

### population and enough data to 

### provide sufficient statistical 

### power. Inthis study, the sample size could not 

### simply be allocated 

### by cell in proportion to the 

### distribution of the US 

### kiln population, because the study is

### to answer questions onwhether 

### individual cells 

### differ statistically from other cells. Instead, a

### minimum sample size was set

### for each

### cellfor which separate analysis was desired. 

### This approach leads 

### to a

### stratified sample that is distributed 

### in a manner that 

### differs from the 

### distribution of the 

### kiln population. As a

### practical matter,3 kilns was

### viewed asthe 

### minimum sample size

### for each

### cell, because 3

### kilns isthesmallest sample that permits computation 

### of confidence 

### intervals and also 

### permits the 

### identification 

### of an erroneous data

### point (an 

### outlier) in comparison to the other data 

### points. 

### A larger sample is generally desirable 

### in eachcell. 

### V/ith 12

### total cells 

### in the sample design, a

### minimum of 36 units is 

### implied for the

### overall sample size, 

### which would be a large study 

### involving a

### major commitment of resources 

### industry-wide and 

### participation by 20 percent 

### of the 167 

### kilns in the 

### US. However, 

### it was anticipated that a number 

### of the cells 

### would have

### few or no 

### kilns in the current 

### population

### while others 

### would be 

### highly populated. Therefore, the sample selection started

### with 3

### kilns per 

### cell and anoverall number 

### of 

### kilns in the study targeted at between 30 and 40

### kilns. Next, the

### following considerations were applied 

### to select 

### kilns for the study: 

# o Cells not represented 

### in the 

### US 

### kiln population were dropped 

### from thestudy entirely. 

### Additional unitswere 

### recruited for the cells

### with the largest number 

### of units.
ITo assign units to the high or low THC cells, acutoff of 50 ppm or greaterTHC as propane in the exhaust was used.

# . Where there are

### two or more 

### kilns of the same design atthe same 

### location, only one was considered 

### for inclusion in the study so as

### to obtain the greatest 

### diversity in the 

### kilns being studied. 

# o Kilns not expected 

### to operate 

### for 30 days or more between December 1't and 

### March 3 1't were 

### not considered. 

# o Kilns 

### with stack measurement concems 

### (multiple stacks; stacks

### with commingled emissions 

### from a

### power plant) were 

### not considered. 

# o The 

### kilns selected 

### for the study were 

### distributed among the 

### PCA members and 

### geographically across the U.S. 

### Study Participants Once the

### full population of 

### kilns was 

### distributed among the 72 cells, 

### only seven cells were 

### populated. Applyrng the

### kiln selection 

### criteria listed above, 36 

### kilns from those seven cells were selected 

### fortesting. For each 

### cell, the number 

### of 

### kilns selected out 

### of the number 

### of "unique" 

### kilns is listed 

### below, That is,where a cement plant has more than one 

### ofthe same type 

### of 

### kiln, it was consider as asingle 

### entry in the 

### population. Shutdown units were not 

### considered. Of the 36 

### kilns selected 

### for study, ten have 

### existing

### THC CEMS for which some past data have been 

### provided to 

### EPA. The 

### location and owner 

### of each

### kiln by cell is as

### follows:

Cell 

### 1: Long wet or dry, 

### kiln alone, lowTHC (7 of 23 in this cell)
Ash Grove Midlothian Lafarge Ravena Cemex'Wampaum Lafarge Tulsa Holcim Trident Lehigh Evansville Lafarge Joppa



### Cell2: Long wet or dry, 

### kiln alone, highTHC (3of 3 in this cell) Holcim Ada Lafarge Seattle BuzziPryot

Cell

### 3: PH and PH/PC inline 

### mill, kiln alone, lowTHC (10 of 34 in this cell) Alamo San Antonio Cemex Miami Buzzi Challanooga Essroc Speed CalPortland Mojave GCC Rapid CityCemex Clinchfield Lehigh Redding (may not be operational before 3-3 I-10)
Cemex Fairborr Titan Roanoke
Suwannee Branford

Cell

### 4: PH and PH/PC inline 

### mill, kiln alone, highTHC (3 of 3 in this cell)
Cemex 

## Demopolos ITXI Midlothian K 5 (upstream of RTO; may not Lehigh Mason

## City I be feasible)


### Cell5: PH and PH/PC inline 

### mill, commingling, low THC (5

### of 10 in this cell)
Ash Grove Durkee National Ragland Lafarge Sugar Creek Titan Perursuco Lehigh Union Bridge

Cell

### 6: PH and PH/PC inline mrll, commingling, high THC (4 of 4 in this cell) Giant Dragon Thomaston Holcim Midlothian Holcim Devil's Slide Holcim Portland



### cell7: PH and PH/PC no inline 

### mill, kiln alone, low THC (4

### of 

### l0 in this cell)
Cemex Knoxville Holcim Theodore Lafarge Whitehall



### Testins Methods
As apart 

### of this study, each

### participating 

### kiln

### will have a

### THC CEMS and

### will gather limestone and 

### raw feed samples 

### for organic content

### testing. For the

### THC CEMS, the

### kiln owner

### will operate a

### THC continuous emission 

### monitoring system 

### in accordance 

### with Performance

### Specification 

### 84, of appendix 

### B

### to part 60.2 The 

### monitoring results

### will be reported as

### daily

averages and 

### 30 day averages

### for the days that the

### kiln is 

### operating. 

### THC levels

### will be expressed 

### in parts per 

### million volume dry, as propane, adjusted 

### to 7Yo oxygen. 

### Raw 

### Material Sampline 

### Off Gas 

### Samplins: For each 

### kiln in the study, 

### during the 

### period of operation 

### with the

### THC CEMS in service, a

### daily 0.5 

### kg grab sample 

### of limestone and

### adaily 0.5 

### kg grab sample 

### of 

### kiln feed (that 

### which enters the 

### kiln/preheater)

### will betaken 

### for eachdaythat the

### THC CEMS is in 

### operation. The limestone sample should betaken 

### from the raw 

### mill feed areaand dried (at less 

### than 

### 105'C) and ground 

### to afineness 

### similar to the

### kiln feed 

### (it is recommended, 

### but not necessary, 

### to grind the limestone sample the same day that 

### it is

### taken). Both the 

### daily 

### kiln feed and

### daily dried/ground limestone samples should be stored 

### in an

### airtight container. 

### After thirty days

### of operation 

### with the

### THC CEMS 

### in service and samples being taken (and 

### which may not be consecutive days), a30 day composite 1 kg sample should be created, both 

### for the

### kiln feed and the 

### limestone. These

### two samples should be packed separately 

### in airtight containers, labeled, and shipped

### to the 

### FlSmidth laboratory 

### inWhitehall, PA as perthe attached shipping 

### instructions. These 

### firsttwo samples should be labeled as

### follows:



# - "First 30 days Composite 

### Kiln Feed Sample

### for 

### Kiln No, ????atthe ????

### facility that 

### is operated 

### by ????" 

# - "First 30 days Composite 

### Limestone Sample

### for 

### Kiln No. ????at the ????

### facility that is operated 

### by ????" The 

### daily samples used 

### to create the composite samples should be retained 

### for ayear, 

### if that is 

### possible. 

### After the 

### next 30 days 

### of monitoring and sampling arecompleted, composites 

### of the 

### kiln feed and limestone should be created and shippedto 

### Flsmidth with the 

### notation "second 30 days 

### composite....", 'When the

### third 30 days are done, composites 

### ofthe

### kiln feed and limestone should be created and shippedto 

### FlSmidth with the 

### notation 

### "Third 30 days 

### composite....". 

### If at any 

### time the

### THC CEMS monitoring is discontinued before the

### full 90 days 

### of monitoring and 

### sampling occurs, create 

### afinal composite 

### of the 

### kiln feed and limestone samples 

### for whatever days, short 

### of

### thirty days, you have andthey should be labeled and sent to 

### FLSmidth. Grindine 

### THC Sampline: 

### A grinding 

### THC sample 

### is

### onlyrequired 

### if initial data

### from the

### THC test

### with the

### THC CEMS being 

### in service indicates an increase 

### inTHC emissionswhen the raw 

### mill is 

### running versus when the raw 

### mill is

### down. 

### If the 

### grinding 

### THC sample is required, two separate

### daily grab samples 

### of the limestone should be taken 

### during thetesting 

### period. The days thatthe samples aretaken should be spread out 

### during the

### THC monitoring period,

### with one sample taken 

### during the

### first 30 days and one 

### during the second 30 days,

### with the

### two separated 

### by at least three

### weeks. The 

### physical material size required 

### for this testing 

### is 6 inches

### or larger, so 

### it is requested that the limestone sample betaken before the 

### primary crusher. Each 

### of thetwo samples should be a

### minimum 

### of 10 kgs 

### in size, stored 

### in airtight containers, 

### properly labeled,

2Any minor variations from the 8A requirements necessary duetothe fact that these aretemporary CEMS retlofits that must be executed quickly will be noted in thefinal report onTHC data gathered under this study.and shipped

### to the 

### FlSmidth laboratory in Denmark (as perthe attached shipping instructions)



### via air

### freight. Each sample should be sent 

### tothe lab assoon as

### it is ready

### for shipping. Each sample should be labeled as

### follows:



# - "First (or Second) 

### Grinding Sample 

### of Limestone taken on (date)

### for 

### Kiln No. ???? at the ????

### facility that is operated 

### by ???? Schedule 

### Kiln owners have been asked

### to order and 

### install THC CEMS on anexpeditious 

### basis. Some 

### will be

### buying and 

### installing CEMS; others 

### will be 

### leasing. The 

### CEMS are targeted to be 

### in operation 

### by December 

### 1" or as soon as possible 

### thereafter. 

### THC data gathering at each 

### kiln 

### will be dependentonthe

### time 

### it takes 

### to getthe

### CEMS installed and calibrated as

### well asthe operating schedule

### for the

### kiln. Units 

### with existing CEMS are 

### being askedto begin data gathering 

### for this study on December 

### 1't. While the 

### THC data are 

### being gathered, the sites

### will collect composite samples 

### oftotal raw feed and limestone 

### for testing asdescribed 

### above. Data analysis

### will begin 

### in late February 

### with the goal 

### of providing an

### initial data report to 

### EPA atthe end 

### of 

### March. That report 

### will addressthe scope 

### ofthe data gathered, andthe

### initial analysis 

### of the prospects

### for subcategories. Data gathering and data analyses are expected 

### to extend beyond 

### March 

### for a number 

### of units, depending in 

### part on the

### initial findings. Data 

### Analysis 

### All data

### will be 

### provided to 

### PCA for analysis and 

### in tum to EPA for the 

### rulemaking record. 

### PCA's analysis 

### of the results

### will focus on whether there is evidence 

### of asubcategory 

### for THC and the characteristics 

### of that subcategory 

### relative to both

### technology and material 

### characteristics. The 

### initial statistical test to be performed 

### in thesub-category analysis 

### will be to determine 

### if mean emissions 

### in one 

### cell (or group 

### of cells) are

### statistically different from those 

### in another

### cell (or group) at a stated confidence 

### level. This test depends onthevariances 

### of the means 

### in each 

### cell (or group),

### which in turn is based onthe length 

### of the test 

### period and the differences 

### in emissions across 

### units. Beyond that test, thesub-category analysis 

### will look broadly 

### for evidence that one or more cells, 

### or groups 

### of cells, show 

### statistically significant evidence 

### for differences 

### in emissions compared

### to other cells 

### or groups. 

### It

### will also 

### look broadly atthequestion 

### of how material composition affects emissions andwhether that relationship varies 

### with technology. 

### It

### will not simply test whether each

### cell isstatistically different than other 

### cells. When 

### many cells are grouped together, the available sample size is greater and the dataset becomes more 

### powerful for identifying differences. The sample size and power are smaller when the differences 

### being examined pertain 

### toonly a

### few cells. The outcome 

### of thesub-category analysis may take a number 

### of different forms: 

# o To recommend establishing asub-category 

### for one or more 

### individual cells, because the collected data demonstrate thatthe 

### kilns in the cells are

### distinctive and 

### significantly different than other 

### kilnswith respect 

### toTHC emissions. 

# o To recommend establishing asub-category 

### for a group 

### of cells, becausethe data demonstratethat the group, taken as

### whole, is

### distinctive and 

### signihcantly different than other 

### kilns,while finding no evidence

### to support 

### subdividing kilns 

### within the group.



# . To demonstrate the 

### relationship between material 

### composition and

### THC emissions and, based on that 

### relationship, recommend establishing sub-categories

### for 

### kilns facing

### distinctive and 

### significantly different material compositions that leadto higher emissions, Materials-based sub-categories could be defined solely 

### by the composition 

### of materials used 

### by the 

### kilns or 

### by a

### combination of material composition and 

### kiln type, where 

### it is 

### found that the materials 

### effect is 

### important 

### in only some

### kiln types.

### THC Study Supplemental Guidance (as

### of December 18, 

### 2009)



### THC CEMS Operations 

## 1. Relative Accuracy Test

### Audit (RATA) is not 

### required. Instead, 

### it

### will be acceptable to conduct the

### daily calibrations 

### (withtwo calibration gases) to 

### prove accuracy; do a manual 

### calibration 

### (with 3

### calibration gases) 

### from time to

### time to prove 

### linearity and a7-day

### drift 

### test. There is 

### nospecific 

### minimum frequency 

### for the 

### linearity test and 

### it can be keyedto the results 

### of the

### daily calibration tests. 

# 2. Performance 

### Specification 

### 8A says that the

### calibration gases should be introduced into the 

### sampling system asclose to the sampling probe 

### outlet as 

### practical. This isthe recommended 

### practice. However, in the interest 

### oftime and the shortterm nature 

### of these tests, 

### it is 

### not necessary 

### to run the 

### calibration gases

### all the

### way out to the probe; 

### calibration 

### gas6 may be injected 

### directly into the báck 

### of 

### the analyzer,provided 

### daily sample 

### line leak checks are

### perfotmed and pass. 

### If you have an

### existing CEMS system that 

### you areconnecting 

### intofor the

### THC sample, the 

### confirmation of the 

### integrity of that system 

### will be adequate 

### for this purpose. 

## 3. Is 

### EPA Protocol gas 

### required or can 

### calibration gas be 

### used? Given the potential delays associated 

### with securing 

### Protocol gas, 

### calibration gas

### will be acceptable. 

### Protocol gas is preferable and should be added when available, 

### if possible. 

# 4. Determination of the 

### oxygen level for pulposes 

### of adjusting the oxygen 

### levelto 7%, can be done 

### with a continuous 

### monitor pursuant

### to EPA Method 

### 3A but 

### it can also be done 

### with agrab or integrated sample pursuant

### to EPA Method

## 38. If the 

### individual sample is used, thetest should be done atthe outset 

### of the 

### THC monitoring and on a regular basis, to be decided 

### by the site. 

## 5. Determining the stack gas 

### moisture content 

### for purposes 

### of adjusting 

### todry conditions should be conducted 

### in accordance 

### with EPA Method

### 4, atleast once

### within the 3-month



# , PCA data 

### collection period, unless the source corrects

### for moisturefor other pollutants under an applicable 

### CAA permit, in which casethe correction method used

### for that purpose may be 

### used. For units

### with inline raw 

### mills, moisture correction factors should be established 

### for both

### mill on and

### mill off conditions.

Raw 

### Material Sampling 

## 1. While the

### original protocol 

### call for drying 

### of limestone samples before the composite was created and shipped

### to FLS, 

### it is 

### now preferred that samples not be

### dried. Drying of the limestone samples should 

### only be done to the extent needed

### to grind the 

### daily samples and create the composite 

### sample. 

### It should be air 

### drving rather than oven drl¿ing (at a temperature less than 30 deqrees 

### Celsius). 

### In any event, 

### final drying 

### will be done 

### by 

### FLS. Additionally, for wet 

### kiln raw 

### material samples, 

### it is appropriate to take

### daily samples 

### of slurry, and create acomposite 

### slurry sample to beshippedto 

### FLS. Again no 

### drying before 

### shipping is 

### now the preferred 

### approach, 

### If earlier samples were dried, they are

### still acceptable however.

### While the 

### possibility of taking samples 

### of limestone and 

### raw feed 

### only onweek days was discussed, 

### it is expectedthat samples

### will be taken on each and every daythat the 

### kiln is 

### running and the

### THC monitor is 

### recording. Once 

### thirty days 

### of sampling is done (consecutive or 

### not), the 30 day composite sample is created and 

### daily sampling for the 

### next composite begins. Containers 

### for samples need

### to air 

### tight but no 

### particular glass or 

### plasticfor the containers 

### is specified.



### THC Data Template 

## 1. What should be the

### definition of start 

### up and 

### shutdown? We have no precise 

### def,nition except that start up is 

### not finished 

### until there is feed

### to the 

### kiln and shutdown cannot occur 

### until feed 

### is discontinued. 

# 2' What is meant 

### by 

### recordingC2 and CO atthe 

### "top of the

### shelf' for preheater/precalciner 

## units? Remember the

### 02 and CO data submittal 

### is

### optional. And the template

### will be revised 

### to saythe 

### "top of the

### tower." 2

3.Page 1

### of I



### THC Plan Update O'Hare, 

### Andrew to: 

### Keith Barnett 011211201009:51

### AM Show Details



### History: This message has been replied 

### to and forwarded. Keith, Pasted in below please find an update on the status ofthe THCtest 

### plan. lexpect more kilns to come on line bythe end of

### the month. Please callwith any questions. Regards, Andy

THCTest Plan Status asof Jan 1st:
Status Categorv Kiln Number Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway; have lessthan 60 days of data 

## !

Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway; have lessthan 30 days of data 1.
Kiln Shutdown; Data Gathering Started; have lessthan 30 days of data 5
Kiln Shutdown; CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Begun 3 Kiln Operating, CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Begun 10 Kiln Shutdown; CEMS Order Placed 8 Kiln Operating; CEMS Order Placed 5 Unit Out of Studv

### - Shuttins Down 1. Unit Out of Study

## - Not Operatine 1 Unit Out of Studv

### - Technical Problems 1 36total

Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey, 

### Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax: 

### (202) 408-0877 Cell: (202) 270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.org



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCBE\-web9965.htm 81112010Page 1

### of 1



### THC Test Plan Update 

### O'Hare, 

### Andrew to: 

### Keith Barnett 0211812010 03:54 

### PM Show 

### Details



### History: This message has been 

### replied to. Keith, Pasted in 

### below, please find 

### the latest monthly update on theTHC data collection effort. 

### Also, I

### will call 

### you back 

### toaddressthe question 

### you posed 

### to me in avoicemail message about the 

### statistical information. Regards, Andy 

### THC

### Test Plan 

### Status as 

### of February 

### 1,2010
Status CategorV Number KilnOperating; Data Gathering Underway; have lessthan 60 days of data 6
KilnOperating; Data Gathering Underway; have lessthan 30 days of data 5
KilnShutdown; Data Gathering Started; have less than 30 days of data 7
KilnShutdown; CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Besun 1. KilnOperating, CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Begun 6 KilnShutdown; CEMS Order Placed 5 KilnOperating; CEMS Order Placed 3 Unit Out of Study

### - Shutting Down 1) Unit Out of Study

## - Not Operating 1 Unit Out of Study

### - Technical Problems 

## I 36total



### AndrewT. O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 

### Portland Cement Association 

### 500 New 

### Jersey,Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax: 

### (202) 408-0877 Cett. 

### (202)270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.org

flrle://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web8966.htm 8lit12010Re: 

### THCTest Plan 

### Update 

## r) Keith Barnett to: O'Hare, Andrew 0211912010 08:57 AM
We would like to see the data where they have less than 60 days (but Iassume more than 30) to see where the numbers arefalling. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG Mail Code D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 91 9-541 -5605 barnett. keith@epa. gov O'Hare,

## Andrew Keith, Pasted in below, please find the latest

## mo... 02118t2010 03:54:03 pM 

## From: O'Hare, Andrew <AOhare@cement.org> 

## To: Keith BarneIURTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

## Dare; 02/1812010 03:54 PM 

## Subject THC Test Plan Update
Keith, 

### Pasted in 

### below, please 

### findthe latest monthly update on the 

### THCdata collection effort. 

### Also, I

### will call 

### you back 

### to addressthe question 

### you posed 

### to me in a

### voicemail message about 

### the statistical information. Regards, Andy 

### THC

### Test Plan 

### Status as

### of February 

### 1,2010

Status Category Number Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway; have less than 60 days of data 6
Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway; have less than 30 daysof data 5
KilnShutdown; Data Gathering Started; have less than 30 daysof data 7
KilnShutdown; CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Begun 1. Kiln Operating, CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Begun 6 Kiln Shutdown; CEMS Order Placed 5 Kiln Operating; CEMS Order Placed 3 Unit Out of Study

### - Shutting Down 1 Unit Out of Study

## - Not Operating '1. Unit Out of Study

### - Technical Problems 

## I 36 total

### AndrewT. O'Hare, CAE



### Vice President, Regulatory 

### Affairs Portland Cement 

### Association 500 New Jersey, 

### Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax: 

### (202) 408-0877 Cett: 

### (202) 270-a094 e-mail; aohare@cement.org

### RE: Meeting and THC data O'Hare,

### Andrew to: Keith Barnett 031011201011:06 AM 

### Thanks. I{ilf caff to discuss the THC

### data.. Andrew 

### T. OrHare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portl-and Cement 

### Assoclation 500 New

### Jerseyr Avenue, NVI 

### Washington, DC 20001 

### Phone: (202) 408-9494 

### Fax: (202) 408-0811 

### Celf : (202) 2'10-0A94 

### e-mail-: aohareGcement. 

### orq 

### -----OrlginaÌ Message----- From: Barnett.KêithGepamall-.epa.gov [mailto:Barnett.Keith6epamaif.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, 

### March 01, 2010 

### 10:46 AM 

### To: OtHare, Andrew 

### Subject: Re: Meeting and THC

### data 

### f am 

### checking on avallabifity of my 

### projeet team members. 

### on another matter - it would be helpful if we

### could get preJ-iminary 

### data flles for klÌns that have 30 days of THC

### data or more now 

### so we can 

### see where the numbers 

### are trending. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS / SPPD/MMG 

### Malf Code D243-02 

### Research 

### Trlangle park, NC 2ljII 9I9-541-5605 

### barnett

.

### keithGepa. g'ov


## From:

I

IO'

### Hare, Andrew <AOhareßcement.org>



## To:

I 

## ------------l I

## Keith Barnett/RTp/USEPA/USGEpA

I

## -lPage 

## I of 2

Tentative 

### Agenda/THC Update 

### O'Hare, Andrew to: 

### Keith Barnett 0311112010 01:50 

### PM Cc: Peter

### Tsirigotis Show 

### Details



### History:This message has been replied 

### to and forwarded. Keith, 

### Attached please 

### find a

### tentative agenda for 

### the meeting 

### on Monday. As 

### we have 

### done before, Iwould like

### to have 

### a conference line available for 

### thoseto participate 

### who cannot be there in 

### person. I suggest 

### we use my 

### conference call 

### line: (888) 387-8686, then 4089494. I have 

### also pasted in below 

### the March 1 update on the status ofthe THC 

### test program. See 

### you on Monday, Andy
Status of THC Test Program asof March L,zOtO

Status Category Numberof Kilns Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway (have less than 60 days of data) 5
Kiln Shutdown; Data Gathering Started (have less than 60 days of data) 3
Data Gatheredfor 30 Days; No Further Monitoring Plan ned L
Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway (have less than 30 days of data) 1.2
KilnShutdown; Data Gathering Started (have less than 30 days of data) 6
Kiln Shutdown; CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Begun 0
Kiln Operating, CEMS lnstalled; Data Gathering Not Begun L
KilnShutdown; CEMS Order Placed 2 Kiln Operating; CEMS Order Placed 3 

### unit 

### out of Study

### - shutting Down 1 Unit Out of Study

## - Not Operating 1 Unit Out of Study

### - Technical Problems L 36total



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbamett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web 

### 1980.htm 8l1lZ0l0

### Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE



### Vice President, 

### Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement 

### Association 500 New Jersey, 

### Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 

### Fax (202) 408-0877 Cell: 

### (202)270-0094 e-mail :aohare@cement.org



### file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web1980,htm 

## Slll¡0l0

### II. 

## EPA

# - PCA Meeting Technical Rulemaking Issues 

## March 15,2010 RTP, 

## I\C 12:00

# - 2:30 

### p.m. 

## Tentative Agenda 

## (Draft, 3-10-2010) (888) 387-8686, 

### then 4089494 

### Introductions Discussion of PCA comments 

# A. Mercury 

# 1. Kiln Surveys and 

### Variability Analysis 

# a. Brief review of survey and

### findings 

# b. EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps 

# 2. Statistical 

### Review of 

### Variability in Mercury Data 

# a. Brief review of PCA's technical comments and statistical methodologies 

# b. EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps 

# 3. Subcategories 

# a. Brief review of PCA's technical comments and statistics showing need

### for subcategories 

# b. EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps



### Brief review of PCA's technical comments 

### PCA review 

### of status

### THC testing program 

### EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps

1. 

### HCITechnology issues 

# a. Brief review of PCA technical comments 

# b. EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps Ongoing 

### HCI Testing Program 

# a. Brief review of PCA's data 

### collection efforts 1. 2. 3. 

### HCI C.

2.b. c.
d.



### PM 

# I. Brief review of PCA technical comments 

# 2. Issues

### with use

### af 9.9Y¡ and possible 

### violations 

# 3. EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps Other Business 

# A. EPA's current 

### thinking on and schedule fo-r NSpS 

# B. Next Steps 

### Adjourn EPA's current

### thinking on 

### how 

### it might use data



### EPA's thoughts on the 

### Rfd threshold approach andthe 112(dX4) alternative 

### EPA'stiming of final rule given new 

### HCI testing program; need 

### to incorporate data 

### into rulemaking; 

### OMB review; and possible notice and 

### public comment onthe new 

### HCI (and. perhaps 

### THC) data D.



### ru,

### THC data Keith 

### Barnett to: Andrew O'Hare Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, Steve Fruh, Nizich.Sharon, Steven Silverman 4410112010 09:57 PM

Dear Andy: We need the THC data collected to date now. Otherwise we may haveto go with the data we got during the comment period. Call me. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG MailCode D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 919-541-5605 ba rnett. keith@epa. govPage 7

### of2

THC Test Program Update 

### O'Hare, Andrew to: 

### Keith Barnett 0411312010 08:01

### AM Show 

### Details Keith, Pasted in below is a

### the status of the 

### THCtest program as of

### April 

### 1,2010. Please callwith any questions. Regards, Andy
PCATHC Data Gathering Project Kiln Status Categories as ofApril 

### lst
Status Category Number of Kílns 90 daysof Data Gathering Completed 2 Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway; (have more than 60 and lessthan 90 days of data) 8 KilnOperating; Data Gathering Underway (have more than 30 but less than 60 davs of data) 4 Kiln Shutdown; Data Gathering Started (have more than 30 but lessthan 60 daysof data) 5 Data Gathered for 30 Days; No Further Monitoring Plan ned L
Kiln Operating; Data Gathering Underway (have lessthan 30 daysof data) 7 Kiln Shutdown; Data Gathering Started (have less than 30 days of data) 2 Kiln Shutdown; CEMS on Site 2 Kiln Operatine; CEMS on Site L Kiln Operating; CEMS Order Placed 1. Unit Out of Study

## - Shut Down 1 Unit Out of Study

## - Not Operating 1 Unit Out of Studv

### - Technical Problems 

## I 36total

Andrew 

### T. O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, 

### Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement 

### Association 500 New Jersey, 

### Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax. 

### (202) 408-0877 

### Cell (202)270-0094

file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web1506.htm 

### 8lll20l0Page 2

### of 2

e-mail :

### aohare@cement.org
From: O'Hare, Andrew 

### Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:33 AM To:'barnett. keith@epa.gov' 

### Subject: Update Keith, I have a 

### conference call

### with my members 

### this a.m. to discuss the state ofthe 

### data collection efforts, 

### etc. I

### was hoping 

### toalso share with 

### themthe latest thinking from theAgency on the timing for the final 

### rule. Any word on moving 

### the June date? Thanks, 

### Andy AndrewT. O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 

### Portland Cement Association 500 New 

### Jersey,Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax: 

### (202) 408-0877 Celt: 

### (202) 270-0094 e-mail :

### aohare@cement.org

file://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web1506.htm 8lIl2O10

### Response toyour Voice Mail Messages Keith 

### Barnett to: Andrew O'Hare Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, Steven Silverman, Nizich.Sharon, Steve Fruh 04 I 14 I20 10 04 :2-7 Plttl

Dear Andy: Peter asked me to respond to your messages and I leftyou avoice mail - but in case you check mailfirst

- Peter istied up and won't be able to get back toyou until Friday at the earliest. lfyou are calling about the extension, we have reached out to Earthjustice. They haven't said no -they are considering our request - but they have not given any indication theywill agree either. Iappreciate the THC status update - but wewould liketo see some on the data collected to date by next week sowe can get an idea ofwhat the data may show. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG Mail Code D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 919-541-5605 ba rnett. keith@epa. gov

### .

# É RE: Response toyour Voice Mail Messages



# "s O'Hare,

### Andrew to: Ke¡ttr

# Barnett O4l15l2o1o 10:01 AM 

### Keith, Thank 

### you very much 

### for the update. Reqarding the THC

### data, we 

### are planning to share some 

### preliminary resuÌts very soon. 

### Regards, Andy 

### Andrew 

### T. O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portfand Cement

### Assoc-iation 500 New

### Jersey, Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 

### Phone: (202) 408-9494 

### Fax: (202\ 408-0877 

### CelÌ: (202) 210-0094 

### e-maiI : aohareGcement. 

### org 

### -----Original Message----- From: Barnett.KeithGepamail.epa.gov lmalfto:Barnett.KelthGepamail.epa.gov] Sent: tr{ednesday, 

### ApriJ- 14, 2010 4:21 PM 

### To: O'Hare, Andrew 

### Cc: Tsirigotis

.

### PeterGepamail

.epa

.

### gov; sifverman. stevenGepamail

.epa. 

### gov; 

### Nrzich. SharonGepamail. epa.

### gov; Fruh. Steve@epamaif

.epa. gov 

### Subject: Response 

### to your Voice Mail Messages


### Dear Andy: 

### Peter asked me

### to respond to your messages 

### and I left you a voice mail

- but in case you check maif first - Peter is tied up andwon't be able to get back to you untif Frì-day at the earliest. If you are calling about the extension, we 

### have reached out to Earthjustice. They 

### haven't said no - they are consldering our request

- but they have not glven any indlcation they will agree either. I appreciate the THC 

### status update - but we woul-d 

### like to see some on 

### the data collected to date by next week

### so we 

### can get an ldea of what 

### the data may show. Ke i

### Lh 

### W. BarneLL USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG 

### Mall Code D243-02 

### Research 

### Triangle Park, NC 21117 

### 9t 9-54 1-5 605 

### barnett

.

### keithG epa

.gov

### CONTACT REPORT

Person 

### Calling: 

### Keith Barnett

U.S. Environmental OAQPS/ESD/OCG 

### 9t9-54t-560s Protection 

### Agency

Person Called: 

### Andy O'Hare

Portland Cement

### Association Date

### of Contact: 

### 5nr/20t0
Contact Summary: 

### I called 

### Andy to discussthe status 

### of the

### THC testing 

### effort. I told Andy we needed 

### to seethe data collected 

### to date as soon as possible. 

### I was going t have 

### to start 

### briefing senior managers on the

### final rule

### very soon. 

### Andy stated that he

### thought he 

### could supply the data

### to datethis week or 

### next. He was

### waiting for member 

### review.Page 1

### of I

THC Test Plan Update O'Hare,Andrew to: Keith Barnett 0511212010 05:04 PM Show Details

History: This message has been forwarded. Keith, 

### Pastedinbelowisanupdateonthestatusof theTHCtestplanasof May 

### 1,2010. pleaseletmeknowif you have any questions. Regards, Andy
Kiln Status Categories as of May 1st Status Category Number 90 days of Data Gathering Completed 4 Kiln Operating; have 60 days or more but lessthan 90 days of data 3 Kiln Shutdown; have 60 days or more but less than 90 days of data 2 Data Gathered for 60 days; No Further Data Gathering Planned 4
Kiln Operating; have 30 days or more but lessthan 60 days of data 10
Kiln Shutdown; have 30 days or more but lessthan 60 days of data 

## t
Data Gathered for 30 Days; No Further Data Gathering Planned 1 Kiln Operatingj have lessthan 30 days of data. 6 Kiln Shutdown; have lessthan 30 days of data) 0 Kiln Shutdown; CEMS on Site L Kiln Operating; CEMS on Site 0 Kiln Operating; CEMS Order placed 

## t unit out of study

### - shut Down 

## t Unitout of study

### - Not operating 

## t Unit Out of Study 

### - Technical problems 

## t 36total

Andrew T. O'Hare, CAE Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey, Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 408-9494 Fax: (202) 408-0877 Cell: (202) 270-0094 e-mail: aohare@cement.org



### frle://C:\Documents and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web293 7

## .htm glll20l0

### THC Data 

### from PCA's 

### Voluntary Data 

### Gathering Effort Keith 

### Barnett to: Andrew O'Hare Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, Steven Silverman, Susan Fairchild, Steve Fruh 0512812010 04:44 PM



### TO: Andy O'Hare ofthe Poftland Cement Association andthe Portland Cement NESHAP Docket Dear Andy: Our Office of General Counsel, the Department of Justice, and I had a call with Rich Alonso today. lnthat callwe communicatedto himthat PCA must send to us by COB June 3, 2010, all avaílable THC emissions data intheir possession that was generated as part of PCA's voluntary THC data gathering 

### effort. I repeat that same statement toyou here: if EPA has not received the data by that time we cannot guarantee that we will be able to consider the data in making our decisions regarding standards forTHC in the final Portland Cement NESHAP. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG Mail Code D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 91 9-541 -5605 barnett. keith@epa.govRE: 

### THC Data 

### from PCA'sVoluntary Data 

### Gathering Effort O'Hare,

### Andrew to: Keith Barnett 

### ^^. Peter Tsirigotis, Steven Silverman, Susan Fairchild, Steve Fruh, 

## ""' "Alonso, Richard" 05t2812010 04:54 PM

IZa i I l-r 

### Thanksfor your note. As you know, PCA 

### has been 

### working diligentÌy over the 

### past six monthsto collect THC, and more 

### recently HCI 

### data. The 

### recess-ion and 

### associated state of the industry has severely hampered 

### our data coflectlon efforts and resuÌted in unfortunate delay in the data collection timeframe we 

### had origina-lly envisioned. Nevertheless, as r have indicated to you 

### previous-ly, we 

### plan to transmit to you a partial set of the THC

### data, 

### representing approximately 2/3 of the data that we 

### had orlginally hoped

### to collect, by Monday, 

### June 7. I appreciate your patience and understandlng for what has been a very challenging period for the u.S. cement 

### industry. Regards, 

### Andy O'Hare 

### Andrew 

### T. O'Hare/ CAE 

### Vlce Presrdent, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement

### Association 500 New

### Jersey, Avenue, NW 

### Washlngton, DC 20001 

### Phone: (202) 408-9494 

### Fax: (202) 408-081-l 

### Cefl: (202) 210-0094 

### e-maif : aohareGcement.org 

### -----Originaf Message----- From: Barnett

.

### KelthGepamail

.epa

.

### gov fmailto :

### Barnett

.

### Kelth@epamaiÌ

.epa

.

### gov] 

### Sent: Friday, May 

### 28, 2OI0 4:45 pM 

### To: O'Hare, Andrew 

### Cc: Tsirigotis

.

### PeterGepamail

.epa

.

### gov; siÌverman. stevenGepamalf

.epa. qov,. F

### alrchild. SusanG epama_if

.epa

.

### gov; Fruh

.Steve@epamail

.epa

.go-, 

### subject: THC 

### Data from PCA's 

### Voluntary Data Gathering Effort TO: Andy 

### O'Hare of the Portland Cement 

### Associatlon andthe portland Cement NtrSHAP 

### Docket 

### Dear Andy: 

### our office of General counsel, the Department 

### of Justice, and r had a 

### call wrth Rlch Alonso today. In that calÌ we cornmunicated 

### to hlm that PCA 

### must send to us by coBJune 3, 2070, afl avalfabÌe THC 

### emissions 

### data in their possession that was 

### generated as part of PCA's 

### voluntary THC 

### data qathering effort. r repeat that same 

### statement to you here: i EPA

### has not received the data by that tlme we 

### cannot guarantee that we 

### wifl be ab-re 

### to consider the data in making our decislons reqarding standards for THC 

### in the flnaf Port_land Cement NESHAP. 

### Kerth !r/. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS /SPPD/MMG 

## Maif Code D243-02 

### Research 

## Trlangle Park, NC 2'1177

### 919-541-5605



### barnett. keithGepa. govPage 1

### of 1



### THC Data 

### O'Hare, Andrew to: 

### Keith Bamett 06/0812010 

### 02:14Pl¡4 Show 

### Details Keith, My 

### apologiesfor not being able to

### transmit itto

### your attention 

### yesterday. We have encountered some difficulties 

### with some ofthe 

### test reports interms 

### of QA/QC which 

### should be resolved 

### shortly. I

### will be 

### transmitting to

### youthe raw 

### data as

### well as a summary ofwhat 

### we believe it indicates. Regards, 

### Andy Andrew T, O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland Cement 

### Association 500 New Jersey, 

### Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax: 

### (202| 408-0877 Cell: 

### (202) 270-0094 e-mail :

### aohare@cement.org

fîle://C:lDocuments and 

### Settings\kbarnett\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web8166.htm 8|112010Is 

### New PCA 

### employee and 

### wasthe data sent? Keith 

### Barnett to: Andrew O'Hare


### to sendthe

### THC data? 0611412010 09:34 PM

Doesthis mean any changes asfar as 

### NESHAp and NSpS rulemakings?


### PCA named 

### Bryan Brendle its director

### of environmental and energy 

### policy. He

### will focus on 

### regulatory issues 

### of concern to the U.S. cement 

### industry such asair 

### quality, climate change, and other matters related to the environment and health and safety, 

### including acting as a 

### liaison between the cement 

### industry and the U.S. federal govemment on appropriate issues. Brendle 

### brings a

### wealth of experience developing environmental strategies and 

### policies. He most 

### recently served as

### director 

### of energy and resources 

### policies for the 

### National Association 

### of Manufacturers where hewas responsible 

### for the successful 

### lobby of inclusion 

### of energy and 

### manufacturing provisions in the

### American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

### Previously, Brendle worked

### with Baise

### & Miller PC, aWashington, 

### D.C. based 

### lobbying 

### firm, and the

### Water Environment Federation.
Brendle received his 

### Bachelor of Arts degree

### from Hampden-Sydney 

### Collegg Hampden-Sydney, 

### Va., and received his Juris 

### Dqctor from Mercer 

### Law School, 

### Mercer 

### University in Macon, Ga.

KeithW. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG MailCode D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 919-541 -5605 ba rnett. keith @epa. gov

### RE: New PCA 

### employee and 

### wasthe data sent? O'Hare,

### Andrew to: Keith Barnett


### It is comlng, On

### a reÌated rev1ew.

PCA named 

### Bryan Brend-le 

### its director of environmenta_L 

### He

### wilf focus on regulatory issues of concern to the U 

### such as air quality, cfimate change, and other matters environment and health and safety, including acting as 

### the cement 

### industry and the u.s. federal qoíernment on



### Previously, Brendfe worked 

### with Baise & 

### MiÌler pC, a 

### lobbying firm, and the !ûater Environment Federation. 06/15/2010 'l 1:07 AM



### I promise. note, wlll send you 

### a draft agenda

### for the meeting on Monday 

### to -----Orrgina_I Message----
F

### rom: Barnett

.

### KelthGepamall

.epa

.

### gov [mailto :

### Barnett Sent: Monday, 

### June 14, 2OIO 

### 9:35 pM 

### To: O'Hare, Andrew 

### Subject: New PCA

### employee 

### andwas

### the data sent? KeithGepamai_l

.epa. 

### govl



### Is there a date to send the THC

### data? Does 

### this mean 

### any changes 

### as far as NESHAp 

### and NSps 

### ruremakinqs?



### Brendfe brings a wealth of experience _deveÌoping 

### environmentaf strategies and policles ' He 

### most recentÌy served as diiecior of energy and resources 

### policies for the NationaÌ assoclation of Manufacturers where 

### he was 

### responsible for the successfuf robby of incfusion of energy and 

### manufacturing provisions 1n the American Recovery 

### and ReinvestmentAct. and energy poÌlcy.

.

### S. cement 

### lndustry, related to the 

### a fiaison between 

### appropriate issues.

l{ashington, D.

### C. based


### Brendle received his Hampden-Sydney, 

### Va., Mercer University in Bachefor of Arts degree from Hampden-Sydney 

### ColÌege, 

### and received his Jurls Doctor from Mercer Law 

### schooÌ, Macon, Ga.

### Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS / S PPD/MMG 

### Maif Code D243-02 

### Research 

### TriangÌe park, 9r9-541-5605 

### barnett

.

### kelthGepa. gov 

### NC 2117IRe: 

### THC 

### Data

# li Keith 

### Barnett to: O'Hare, Andrew
Yes Igot it. Keith W. Barnett USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG MailCode D243-02 Research Triangle Park, 

### NC 27711 91 9-541 -5605 ba rnett. keith@epa. gov O'Hare,

## Andrew Keith, Did you receive the THC data Isent on W 06118t2010 08:31 AM

0611812010 0B:13:28 AM From: To: Date: Subject: O'Hare, Andrew <AOhare@cement.org>

Keith BarneIURTP/USEPA/US@EPA 0611812010 08:13 AM THC Data
Keith, Did

### you receivetheTHCdata Isent on

### Wednesday? Also, 

### will send atentative agenda for the meeting 

### on Monday later today. Regards, Andy Andrew 

### T. O'Hare, CAE 

### Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Portland 

### CementAssociation 500 New 

### Jersey, Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 

### (202) 408-9494 Fax: 

### (202) 408-0877 Cell: 

### (202) 270-0094 e-mail: 

### aohare@cement.org