### 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 be st to protect us . Your proposed rule amendments inflict unnecessary harm at great cost to the public
.**~ctfull y**  

### submitted , 

# / · ,_**~** 

# 41

/

## ~ f i

# V 'l vt/ '---7
. 

# {1/!A- "- 1e ra t y nn 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 : 

### 936-67 6 -6881 Attachments: (1) 77 F R 

### 42370

- Cost benetits analysis for proposed amendments to cement plant regulations 

### (2) Excerpts from EPA's " FACT SHEET " for 

### 2010 " Final Amendments to N ational Air Taxies Emission Standards and New Source Performance Standards from Portland Cement Manufacturing "

- pages 1 , 4 , and 5
.

242370 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 138 /Wednesday , July 18 , 2012/Proposed RuJes pro pos ed cha n ge of c ompliance mr.as ur e m e nt m et hods is that thr. EPA is p ro p os ing to change the averagi ng**timt ~**  a nd num r. r ir. emissions va lu e of tho so s tandard s . Th e EP A is p roposi ng ame nd P. d P M s tanda rds und er Lh e J\:ESHAP for exis ting sources o f 0.07 pounds per Lon (lh lto n) c:l inker bas e d on man ual s tack testing , ((r om 0
. 04 lb/ton i n Lh o 2010 rul e . 30

-day ave rage with a PM CEMS) nnd 0
. 02 l h / ton clinker for n e w so u rces based o n stack te sti n g (from 0
. 01 lb /ton in th e 2010 rul P. , 30- day average w ith a PM CEMS). Th o EPA is pro p os ing amendod PM sta ndar d s under th e NS PS fo r m o difi ed so urce s of 0 .0 7l b / ton c Unk e r based on manual S lAck testing, (from 0.01 lb/ton in the 2 010 rule , 30-da y av erag e 1 v:i th a PM CE MS ) and 0.02 lh /ton clinke r [or n ew and reconstructed sources based ou stack tes t in g [f rom 0
. 01 lh /ton in th e 2010 rule, 30-day a verage with a PM CEMS). T h e EPA is further propos ing that a sit e- specific parametric operating limit be e s ta bli s hed , that t here be continuous m onit oring of th at parametric li mit us in g a PM CPM.S. that an ex cee danc e of tha t site

-specific operatin g limit bo repo rt ed us a devifltion , tri gge ring corrective ac tion including c ondu c ti n g a Method 5 p e rformance tes t w ithin 45 da y s . Further, m u lti pl e deviations from th e parametric limi t ca n r:onstilul e a v io l ation nf the emissions standard
.

b
. Resp o n se to R e m and
. Consist e nt with th e cour1's re mand. th e EPA h as remove d a ll the CJSWI kilns from th e dat abas o u se d to set the 2 010 ex isting source standards for PM, me rc ur y, hvdrochloric ac id and total · hvdrocurb on s (TTIC). Th e EPA then r P.calculatod exisUng so urce floors f or eac h of the se polluhml s , and determined what s tand ards to prop ose in li gh t of th at anal y sis. Thi s analy sis inform ed th e le vel of L h e proposed standar ds for PM just di sr. uss od. T he resulting s tandards are di scusse d imrnedi
. at e ly b e low. r. . Other Emi ss ions**St<~ndards.** The EPA is not prop os in g an y changes to th e existing sourr.o standard s for m ercury . to tal THC or h y drog e n chl orid e (HCl)
. The reasons ar e s e t out i
. n sect io ns IT! A
. B and C: bel ow.

With rospe c tto new s ource standard s , und er section · t 12(d)(3 ] of the CAA , new sou r ce floo rs can b e based on the perform a nc e of the " hest c ontrolled similar s o urce." A CISWI cement k i ln is a similar so u rce for purp oses of th i s provision. The EPA , th er efore , is not proposing to am e nd an y of th e new sou rce floor s or standAJ' ds for mnrcury , THC or HCJ wh ere the b e st p erfo rmi ng somce in th e database u sed to set th e s tandards was a CISWI cem en t kiln
.

The EPA is also propo s ing to amend Ll1e al tern a tivfl standard for org anic HAP , whereby organic HAP ar e measur e d direc tl y. To avoid a s itu ati o n where th e altoroative organic s tandard l ev el is low e .r than th e practi cal quantilation l i mit of th e r elevan t analytic methods. the EP. A.. i s proposing to incr eas e the alternative organic HAP s tandard from 9 parts p er million (p pm ) to 12 ppm . See additional dis cussion in section JILH b elow. d
. Standards durin g Startup a nd Shutdown. In thr final 2010 1\ ESTJAP
. the EPA establi sbed specific numericfll s tandards f or startup and sh utdow'Tl for eac h po llutant to b e mo asure d u sing a CEMS over :m acc umulAtivo 7-d ay rolling avera ge . B e c au se raw m aterials (th o so ur ce of most c em eut k i ln air e missions) aro not introd uced i nt o cemen t kilns during startup and shut down , cem e nt kilns' emi ss ion s durin g these peri od s should be appr eciably l ower than the l eve l of th e s tandard s. Tho EPA is, ther efo ro. prop osi ng that sourc es monit o r complian ce with th e s e s ta nd ards vi a rec ordkeepi ng.

e. Prop os ed Compliance Dales. Tho EPA is p rop osing that the com p liance dill e for all existing sou rce standards including standards for PM. mer c ur y , HCI and THC , cli nker pile s and the s tandard s for star tup and shutdown be extend ed to Sep t e mber 9, 2015. Th e EPA b e li eves thal th e proposed c hang e to the PM st an dard mak e s pos s ible co mplianco al ternatives unav ai lable under th e promulgated e xi s ting sou rc e s tnndard s ) an d that an ext ensi o n until S e

ptemb e r 9, 2015 , is the p er iod in which these n e w comp li ance stra t egies can b n impl e mente d most exp editiousl y .

f. Th o E P A is a lso t aki ng amion on th e r emaining i s su es on which it gra nt e d reco nsi d eratio n on l\.-1ay 17, .2011
. (3) Costs and B enefits

T he followin g table l summari zes the costs an d emiss ions rnd u c tions of Liti s propos ed act ion
. TABLE 1-COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO THE 2010 RULEab cde Propo sed amendmen t Capital cost I A

nnua li zed cost ! 

### ---- - --- -·- Emissions redu<-1ion R

evised PM standard
...... ...... .. .. .. .. .... ...... .. -$18 , 640 , 106 0 - $4
. 200,000

- 135 tons/yr (emi ssi ons incre ase ). R

e place PM CEMS wi th PM CPMS
.. -7 ,980 ,000 0

To t al
.. . .... -18
.640 , 10 6

- 12 , 180 ,000 • See section Ill below f or furt h e r dis cus s ion of impacts of th e proposed amendments
. b Negative number s indica t e cost s avings or emissions increa se . All cos ts are in 2005 do llar s . e w e a l s o estima te ! h ot there will be a one -ti me cos t of $25 , 000 fo r each faci lit y t

o develop t he calculation t hat wilt a llow them to de monstm t e com pliance during periods of startup and shutd own.

d Emi s sion s reduction s ar e the total relative lo the 2 01 0 rule o n ce full compliance i s achieved in 2015
. • Full compliance costs will not occur un t il September 9 , 2015
. Th e cost inform ati o n in Tabl e 1 is in 2005 dollars at a disc on nt rate of 7 per cent. Th e n e t ch ange in annuali zed costs in 2 015 is a $12
. 2 milli on sa vings comp are d lo th e 2010 rul e. The EPA did not have s uf ficionl iitformation to quantif y the overall chang e i n b e n e fit s or cos ts for 2013 t o .2015 that mi g ht arise due to the propos e d c h ange i n co mp l ianr:c dates. 4
. Summary of Pr o posed StandHrd s The follo w ing Table 2 shows th o pro p osed standards
. TABLE 2-PROPOSED E XISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS Pollu tant Existing source sta ndard New source standard Mer c ury .. .. .. .. .......... .... .... .. .... . . ..... .... ...... .. .. .. .. . ... 55 lb/:;:,M t on s clinker
........... .... ........ .. .. ........ .. , 21 t b/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 U nited States
. The rules also will limit emissions of ozone- and particle-forming pollutants from new kiln s.
• EPA ' s amended 

### a ir 1 oxics standard s will reduce air emissions of mercury , total hy drocarbons , hy drochloric acid and particulate matter from both new and existing cement kilns
. ' T'he rule s apply both to large and small kilns that emit toxic air pollutants. Air t oxics , also known as hazardous air pollutants, are known o r suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects
. Portland c ement manufacturing is the third-larges t source of mercury air emissions in the U.S
. • The Agency ' s amended 

### new source**pe ~jorman** **ce** 

### smndard1· will reduce nitro gen oxides (NOx) , sulfur dioxide 

### (S0 2) 

### and particulate matter from new kilns
. NOx and SO:>. both are h armful to health , and they re act in the air to form other harmful pollutants
. NOx contributes to the formation of ground-level o zone and fine particle pollution , two of the pollutants mo st commonly found across the 

### U.S. S0 2 

### contributes to fine particle pollution
. • The combined benefits of the n:vo rules significantl y outweigh co sts, y ielding an estimated $7 

### to $19 

### in public health benefits for every dollar in costs . • Portland cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive proc e ss that grinds and heats a mi x ture ofraw materials s uch as limestone , da y, sand and iron ore in a rotary 

### kiln
. That product , called clinker, is cooled , g round 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 material s handlin g steps in the manufacturing process . • A projected 181 

### Portland cement kilns will be operating at approximatel y 100 facilities in the United States in the y ear 

### 2013. The amended air taxies requirements 

### will apply to 

### 158 of those kilns
. The remaining kilns are s ubject to a separate regulation , for kilns that burn hazardous waste . About seven kilns \: viii be subject to the new source perf o rmance standards
.

• EPA e s timates 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 

## so 2 

# 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 Registe r, 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 (PM 2 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 emergenc y 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 gene rally 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 \ VO men of childbearing age, unbom babies , and young children , because studies have linked high levels of methy lmercury to damage to the de veloping nervous sys tem . This damage can impair children ' s ability to think and learn.
• EPA conducted two anal ys es to estimate costs of implementin g the nev• / standards An anal ys is estimating t he costs of installing and operating pollution controls and indirect social costs at $926 million to $950 

### million rumually in 2013
. 

### Another analys is , which includes only the costs of installing and operating control s , estimates costs will be lower , at $ 35 0 

### mi llion rumually in 2013
. 

### BACKGRO UND
• EPA issued air toxics standards for Portland cemem manufacturing in June 1999
. 

### Tha t rule established emissions limit s for particulate matter as a surrogate for certain metals , dioxi ns and furans , and set a total hydrocarbon limit for new kilns (those constructed after
. March 24 , 1 998)
. 

### It 

### did not include limits on total hydrocarbon for existing sources , or for acid gases and mercury for n ew or existing sources . • Several organizations filed petitions for judicial review of that mle
. On Dec
. 15 , 2000 , 

### th e U.S
. Court of Appeals for the D
. C
. Circuit remanded parts of the 1999 

### air toxics standards
. The C ourt instructed EPA to s et standards for hy drochl oric acid , mercury , total hydrocarbons and metal hazardous air pollutant s . • In response to the remand , EPA amended the air toxi cs standards for Portland cement kilns in Decemb er 2006
. 

### The amendments set emissions limits for mercu ry and total hy drocarbons for cement kilns built after Dec. 2, ::W05
. 

### The amendments also required th at existing kiln s meet " work practice " standards for mercury and hy drocarbon emissions
. The final rule also ad o p te d a standard for new and existing sources banning the use of utilit y boiler 

### fl y ash in cement kilns where the 

### O y ash mercury content has been increased through the use of activated carbon or any other sorbent. The 2006 

### amendments did not set limits on hy drogen chloride emissions from cement kilns. • In a separate action Dec
. 8 , 2006 , 

### EPA announc ed that it w ·ould reconsider the emission limits for mercury and total hy drocarbons for new cement kiln s. Toda y ' 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 litigati on was sta yed by court order pending EPA ' s completion oftoday ' s rules
. EPA also recei ved petitions to reconsider the existing-source standards for mercury and total hydrocarbons , and the decision not to regulate hy drochloric acid
. EPA granted tho se petitions , and tod ay' s final amendments s en·e as a res ponse . 5