EPA Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817 

Presentation for Hearing on August 16, 2012 - Artlington, Texas 

Speaker: Jeralynn Jackee Cox 

Member, Texas Interfaith Power and Light 

Affected Person who breathes downwind emissions from Midlothian Cement Plants 

6212 Reddenson Drive 

Fort Worth, Texas 76132 

Cell phone: 936-676-6881 

e-mail address: 936-676-6881 

Good morning. My name is Jeralynn Jackee Cox. I appear as a member of Texas 

Interfaith Power and Light and as an affected person who lives only 35 miles downwind 

of the Midlothain cement plants. Each day, those plants pour sky-darkening clouds of 

toxins into my air. 

At 77 FR 42370, Table 1, the EPA executive summary indicates that starting in 

2015, the proposed amended rule changes for cement plants will result in 135 tons 

per year of increased particulate emissions for each and every year after full 

implementation of the amended regulations. [See Ex. 1 attached, 77 FR 42370.] 

Back in 2010, the EPA published a "Fact Sheet" explaining in part the anticipated health 

care benefits from the cement plant air quality rules the agency now seeks to amend. 

That fact sheet lead us to believe that the 2010 rules reducing fine particle emissions 

would produce health care cost savings " rang[ing] from $6.7 billion to $18 billion 

annually in 2013 ." The fact sheet also predicted health care benefits from the 2010 rules 

including "avoiding 960 to 2,500 premature deaths in people with heart disease," and 

reducing other serious health effects each year such as cases of aggravated asthma, heart 

attacks, chronic bronchitis, days of work missed, and days of restricted activities from 

pollution-related symptoms. [See Ex. 2 attached, EPA's 2010 "FACT SHEET" for 2010 

final rule amendments, at page 4.] 

EPA's cost/benefits analysis for the 2012 amendments to the 2010 rules indicates that 

proposed changes will save industry about $18.64 million in capital costs that would 

have been necessary to achieve rule compliance by 2015. So industry's costs for 

protecting the earth and all of its creatures from 13 5 tons or air pollution per year of 

would have been a mere $18.64 million dollars. [See Ex. 1.] 

Under these rule changes, the public gives up health care savings in the range of"$6. 7 

billion to $18 billion in 2013" and industy gets a cost saving of $18.64 million in capital 

costs. [Compare Exhibits 1 and 2] That is an incredibly bad trade in a year when 

budget cuts are hotly debated, and protecting health care budgets is an administration 

mantra. 

I close with a prayer for administrative relief Someone in the EPA chain of command 

has the power to protect the public's interest in better air quality, improved health 
outcomes, and health care cost savings. Please do your best to protect us. Your 

proposed rule amendments inflict unnecessary harm at great cost to the public. 

~ctfully submitted, / ·

,_ ~ 41 

/ ~ f 

i V 'lvt/'---7 . {1/!A-

"-1eratynn Jac ee Cox/ j 1 

¥ember, Texas Interfaith Power and Light 

Mfected Person who breathes downwind emissions from Midlothian Cement Plants 

v 

6212 Reddenson Drive 

Fort Worth, Texas 76132 

Cell phone: 936-676-688 I 

e-mail address: 936-676-6881 

Attachments: 

(1) 77 FR 42370 - Cost benetits analysis for proposed amendments to cement plant 

regulations 

(2) Excerpts from EPA's "FACT SHEET" for 2010 "Final Amendments to 

National Air Taxies Emission Standards and New Source Performance Standards from 

Portland Cement Manufacturing" - pages 1 , 4, and 5. 

2 
42370 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 138 /Wednesday, July 18, 2012/Proposed RuJes 

proposed change of compliance 

mr.asurement met hods is that thr. EPA is 

p roposing to change the averaging timt~ 

and numr.rir. emissions value of thoso 

standards. The EPA is p roposing 

amendP.d PM standards und er Lh e 

J\:ESHAP for existing sources of 0.07 

pounds per Lon (lhlton) c:linker based on 

man ual stack testing, ((rom 0.04 lb/ton 

in Lh o 2010 rul e. 30-day average with a 

PM CEMS) nnd 0.02 lh/ton clinker for 

n ew sources based on stack testing 

(from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2010 rul P. , 30-

day average with a PM CEMS). Tho EPA 

is prop osing amendod PM standards 

under the NSPS fo r modifi ed sources of 

0.0 7lb/ton cUnker based on manual 

SlAck testing, (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 

2010 rule , 30-day average 1v:i th a PM 

CEMS) and 0.02 lh/ton clinker [or n ew 

and reconstructed sources based ou 

stack testing [from 0.01 lh/ton in th e 

2010 rule, 30-day average with a PM 

CEMS). The EPA is further proposing 

that a site-specific parametric operating 

limit be established, that there be 

continuous monitoring of that 

parametric limit using a PM CPM.S. that 

an exceedance of tha t site-specific 

operating limit bo reported us a 

devifltion , triggering corrective action 

including conducting a Method 5 

performance test within 45 days. 

Further, multi pl e deviations from the 

parametric limit ca n r:onstilule a 

violation nf the emissions standard . 

b. Resp onse to Remand . Consistent 

with th e cour1's remand. the EPA has 

removed all the CJSWI kilns from the 

databaso used to set the 2010 ex isting 

source standards for PM, me rcury, 

hvdrochloric acid and total · 

hvdrocurbons (TTIC). The EPA then 

rP.calculatod exisUng source floors for 

each of these polluhmls, and 

determined what standards to propose 

in ligh t of that analysis. This analysis 

informed th e level of Lh e proposed 

standards for PM just disr. ussod. The 

resulting standards are discussed 

imrnedi.at ely below. 

r. . Other Emissions St<~ndards. The 

EPA is not proposing any changes to th e 

existing sourr.o standards for mercury. 

total THC or hydrogen chlorid e (HCl). 

The reasons are set out i.n sectio ns IT! A. 

B and C: below. 

With rospec tto new source standards, 

under section ·t 12(d)(3] of the CAA, new 

source floors can be based on the 

performance of the " hest controlled 

similar source." A CISWI cement kiln is 

a similar so urce for purposes of th is 

provision. The EPA, therefore , is not 

proposing to amend any of the new 

sou rce floors or standAJ'ds for mnrcury, 

THC or HCJ wh ere the best performi ng 

somce in the database used to set the 

standards was a CISWI cemen t kiln . The EPA is also proposing to amend 

Ll1e al ternativfl standard for organic 

HAP, whereby organic HAP are 

measured directly. To avoid a situati on 

where th e altoroative organic standard 

l evel is lowe.r than the practi cal 

quantilation limit of th e relevan t 

analytic methods. the EP.A.. is proposing 

to increase the alternative organic HAP 

standard from 9 parts per million (ppm) 

to 12 ppm. See additional discussion in 

section JILH below. 

d. Standards during Startup and 

Shutdown. In thr final 2010 1\ESTJAP. 

the EPA establisbed specific numericfll 

standards for startup and sh utdow'Tl for 

each pollutant to be moasured using a 

CEMS over :m accumulAtivo 7-day 

rolling average. Because raw materials 

(tho so urce of most cemeut kiln air 

emissions) aro not introduced int o 

cement kilns during startup and 

shut down, cement kilns' emissions 

during these peri ods should be 

appreciably lower than the level of the 

standards. Tho EPA is, therefo ro. 

proposi ng that sources monitor 

compliance with these sta nd ards via 

recordkeeping. 

e. Proposed Compliance Dales. Tho 

EPA is p rop osing that the compliance 

dille for all existing source standards 

including standards for PM. mercury, 

HCI and THC, clinker piles and the 

standards for startup and shutdown be 

extend ed to September 9, 2015. The 

EPA believes thal the proposed change 

to the PM stan dard makes possible 

complianco alternatives unavailable 

under the promulgated existing source 

stnndards) and that an extension until 

September 9, 2015 , is the period in 

which these n ew compli ance strategies 

can bn implemented most expeditiously. 

f. Tho EPA is also taki ng amion on th e 

remaining issu es on which it granted 

reconsideration on l\.-1ay 17, .2011 . 

(3) Costs and Benefits 

The following table l summari zes the 

costs and emissions rnductions of Litis 

proposed action. 

TABLE 1-COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO THE 2010 RULEab cde 

Proposed amendment Capital cost 

I Annua lized cost ! 

---------·- Emissions 

redu<-1ion 

Revised PM standard ...... ........ .. .. ............ .. -$18,640,106 

0 

- $4 .200,000 - 135 tons/yr (emissions increase). 

Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS .. -7,980,000 0 

Total .. ..... -18.640 ,106 - 12,180,000 

• See section Ill below for further discussion of impacts of the proposed amendments. b Negative numbers indicate cost savings or emissions increase . All costs are in 2005 dollars. ewe also estimate !hot there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 fo r each facility to develop the calculation that wilt allow them to demonstmte compliance during periods of startup and shutdown. d Emissions reductions are the total relative lo the 201 0 rule once full compliance is achieved in 2015. • Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015. 

The cost information in Table 1 is in 

2005 dollars at a disc on nt rate of 7 

per cent. The net change in annualized 

costs in 2015 is a $12.2 million sa vings 

compared lo th e 2010 rule. The EPA did 

not have sufficionl iitformation to 

quantify the overall change in benefits 

or costs for 2013 to .2015 that might arise 

due to the proposed change in 

complianr:c dates. 

4. Summary of Proposed StandHrds 

The following Table 2 shows th o 

proposed standards. 

TABLE 2-PROPOSED EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS 

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard 

Mercury .. .. .. .. .......... .... ........... .......... .......... .... .... 55 lb/:;:,M tons clinker ............... .......... .. .......... , 21 tb/MM tons clinker. - - - -----

THC .......................... .. ................... .. ........ ...... .... 24 ppmvd . ...................... .. ............ .. ................ 24 ppmvd. 
FACT SHEET 

FINAL AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL AIR TOXICS EMlSSION STANDARDS 

AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING 

ACTION 

• On August 6, 20 l 0, EPA issued amendments to two rules that will significantly reduce 

emissions of mercury and other air toxics and particle-forming pollutants from nev.r and 

existing Portland cement kilns across the United States. The rules also will limit 

emissions of ozone- and particle-forming pollutants from new kilns. 

• EPA 's amended air 1oxics standards will reduce air emissions of mercury, total 

hydrocarbons, hydrochloric acid and particulate matter from both new and existing 

cement kilns. 'T'he rules apply both to large and small kilns that emit toxic air pollutants. 

Air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants, are known or suspected to cause 

cancer or other serious health effects. Portland cement manufacturing is the third-largest 

source of mercury air emissions in the U.S. 

• The Agency's amended new source pe ~jormance smndard1· will reduce nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02) and particulate matter from new kilns. NOx and SO:>. both are 

harmful to health, and they react in the air to form other harmful pollutants. NOx 

contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution, two of the 

pollutants most commonly found across the U.S. S02 contributes to fine particle 

pollution. 

• The combined benefits of the n:vo rules significantly outweigh costs, yielding an 

estimated $7 to $19 in public health benefits for every dollar in costs. 

• Portland cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process that grinds and heats a 

mi xture ofraw materials such as limestone, day, sand and iron ore in a rotary kiln . That 

product, called clinker, is cooled, ground and then mix ed ·with a small an1ount of gypsum 

to produce concrete. Pollutants are emitted from the burning of fuels and heating ofthe 

raw materials. Emissions also can occur from the grinding, cooling and materialshandling steps in the manufacturing process. 

• A projected 181 Portland cement kilns will be operating at approximately 100 facilities in 

the United States in the year 2013. The amended air taxies requirements will apply to 158 

of those kilns. The remaining kilns are subject to a separate regulation, for kilns that burn 

hazardous waste. About seven kilns \:viii be subject to the new source performance 

standards. 

• EPA estimates the following annual emission reductions when the rules are implemented 

in 2013 : 
• The NSPS emission limits are: 

NewSoorce Performance St~dards' ·. J • • ' ·::· •• ,.., ~--. • : •••• -':·::, 

LS lb/ton clinker, averaged over 30 days 

i so2 

I Particulate -Matte; -

0.4 lb/ton clinker, averaged over 30 days 

----- -- ~-------- ---------~ 

0.01 pounds per ton of clinker, averaged over 30 

days 

• EPA is requiting continuous emissions monitoring each of the three pollutants covered 

under this rule. 

• Kilns must comply with the ne\v source performance standards ·within 60 days of 

publication of the mle in the Federal Register, or at startup, whichever is later. 

BENEFITS AND COSTS 

• The public health benefits of the nvo rules are expected to significantly outweigh costs. 

• EPA estimates benefits of these rules will range from $6.7 billi.on to $18 bi Ilion annually 

in 2013, as a result of reductions in fine particle pollution (PM2 5) . This includes the value 

of avoiding 960 to 2,500 premature deaths in people with heart disease. EPA estimates 

this rule also will prevent other serious health effects each year, including: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

I 7, 000 cases of aggravated asthma, 

I ,500 heart attacks, 

650 cases of chronic bronchitis, 

LOOO emergency room visits for respiratory problems, such as asthma, 

740 hospital admissions for respiratory or cardiovascular problems, 

32,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms, 

130,000 days when people miss w·ork, and 

750,000 days when people must restrict their activities because of particle 

pollution-related symptoms. 

• Today's air toxics rule also is expected to reduce the amount of mercury that deposits to 

land and water by up to 30 percent in some areas of the \"/estern United States, and 17 

percent in some areas of the East Computer models show· that the biggest reductions 

generally occur near the cement kilns. 

• Once mercury from the air reaches water, microorganisms can change it into 

4 
methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. Methylmercury exposure is a 

particular concem for \VOmen of childbearing age, unbom babies, and young children, 

because studies have linked high levels of methylmercury to damage to the developing 

nervous system. This damage can impair children's ability to think and learn. 

• EPA conducted two analyses to estimate costs of implementing the nev•/ standards An 

analysis estimating the costs of installing and operating pollution controls and indirect 

social costs at $926 million to $950 million rumually in 2013 . Another analysis, which 

includes only the costs of installing and operating controls, estimates costs will be lower, 

at $350 million rumually in 2013 . 

BACKGROUND 

• EPA issued air toxics standards for Portland cemem manufacturing in June 1999. That 

rule established emissions limits for particulate matter as a surrogate for certain metals, 

dioxins and furans, and set a total hydrocarbon limit for new kilns (those constructed 

after .March 24, 1998). It did not include limits on total hydrocarbon for existing sources, 

or for acid gases and mercury for new or existing sources. 

• Several organizations filed petitions for judicial review of that mle. On Dec. 15, 2000, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded parts of the 1999 air toxics 

standards. The Court instructed EPA to set standards for hydrochl oric acid, mercury, total 

hydrocarbons and metal hazardous air pollutants. 

• In response to the remand, EPA amended the air toxics standards for Portland cement 

kilns in December 2006. The amendments set emissions limits for mercury and total 

hydrocarbons for cement kilns built after Dec. 2, ::W05. The amendments also required 

that existing kilns meet "work practice" standards for mercury and hydrocarbon 

emissions. The final rule also adopted a standard for new and existing sources banning 

the use of utility boiler fly ash in cement kilns where the Oy ash mercury content has 

been increased through the use of activated carbon or any other sorbent. The 2006 

amendments did not set limits on hydrogen chloride emissions from cement kilns. 

• In a separate action Dec. 8, 2006, EPA announced that it w·ould reconsider the emission 

limits for mercury and total hydrocarbons for new cement kilns. Today 's action responds 

to that reconsideration. 

• Before the Dec. 8, 2006 reconsideration, th e cement industry, environmental groups ru1d 

states sued the Agency on the final amendments. The litigation was stayed by court order 

pending EPA's completion oftoday 's rules. EPA also received petitions to reconsider the 

existing-source standards for mercury and total hydrocarbons, and the decision not to 

regulate hydrochloric acid. EPA granted those petitions, and today's final amendments 

sen·e as a response. 

5