P ETITION FOR R ECONSIDERATION AND
R EQUEST TO S TAY THE R ULES P ENDING R ECONSIDERATION F OR
T HE P ARTICULATE M ATTER AND M ERCURY S TANDARDS S ET F ORTH I N

T HE F INAL R ULE FOR N ATIONAL E MISSION S TANDARDS FOR H AZARDOUS A IR
P OLLUTANTS FROM THE P ORTLAND C EMENT M ANUFACTURING I NDUSTRY Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051

and

T HE F INAL R ULE FOR S TANDARDS OF P ERFORMANCE FOR P ORTLAND C EMENT
P LANTS Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877

I. Introduction

Lafarge North America Inc. (“Lafarge”) respectfully requests that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) grant reconsideration and immediately stay the complia nce deadline and effective da te of all the particulate matter (“PM”) and mercury (“Hg”) standard s set forth in the “National Emissions

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portla nd Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants,” 75 Fed. Reg. 54,970 (Sept. 9, 2010) (individually, the “NESHAP Rule” a nd the “NSPS Rule”; collectively the “Rules”).

Lafarge is filing this petition in part to endorse and support the “Petition for Reconsideration and Stay Submitted by Hol cim (US) Inc.,” filed November 15, 2011. (“Holcim Petition.”) Lafarge hereby joins Holcim’s petition regarding the NESHAP Rule PM standards, and through this instant petition Lafarge urges EPA to grant the same relief with respect to the PM standard in the NSPS Rule, and the Hg standards in the NESHAP rule. Lafarge is filing this petition pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) §307(d)(7)(B) and Admini strative Procedure Act (APA) §4(e).2 II. Background

Lafarge is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Lafarge Group, the world leader in building materials, with top-ranking positions in all of its businesses: Cement, Aggregates & Concrete, and Gypsum. Operating in seventy-eight (78) countries with 78,000 employees at over 2,000 i ndustrial facilities , the Lafarge Group responds to the world’s demand for housing and infrastructure. Lafarge is driven by the needs of its customers, shareholders, local communities and architects. In response to these needs, Lafarge creates high value-added solutions which encourage creativity while leavi ng a lighter trace on the world.

In 2010 and for the sixth year in a row, the Lafarge Group was listed in the “Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World.” With the world’s leading building materials research facility , Lafarge places innovation at the heart of its priorities, working for sustainable construction and architectural creativity.

III. Regulatory History

On May 6, 2009, EPA proposed revised and new Portland Cement NESHAP emission standards for PM, THC, Hg and HCl. 74 Fed. Reg . 21135. In the proposal, EPA chose to set the emission standards for THC, Hg, and HCl based on 30-day rolling averages, compliance dem onstrated by the use of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). EPA chose to set the PM emission standard on a 3-hr basis, using stack testing as its compliance methodology. In the final rule, EPA changed the emission standa rds for PM to 30-day rolling averages and the compliance methodology to CEMS. 75 Fed. Reg . 54987 et seq

.

Subsequent to the May 2009 proposal, Lafarge and PCA members held several meetings with EPA personnel to discuss the proposed NESHAP standards and EPA’s approach to converting stack testing, material balance, and limited CEMS data into rolling 30 -day average limits. In particular, Lafarge and PCA offered substantial criticisms of the manner in which EPA’s used the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) statistical model.

In early 2010, the cement industry submitted newly available long-term

THC CEMS data for several of the THC floor sources. 75 Fed. Reg. at 54,980, Sept 9, 2010. With the additional data, EPA was able to calculate a 99 th percentile value directly, instead of using the “predictive” (UPL) methodology. 75 Fed. Reg

. 54975. Once the 99 th percentile value was determined, EPA adjusted the THC3 emission standard upward from the proposed 7 and 6 ppmvd for existing and new kilns, respectively to 24 ppmvd for existing and new kilns. This dramatic adjustment (over 300% increase) demonstrated that the manner in which EPA’s used the UPL model significantly under-predicted the true 99 th percentile value for THC. EPA also abandoned use of the UPL model in setting the final HCl standards based on issues involving detection limits in the stack testing methods for the original data. 75 Fed. Reg. at 54,984, Sept 9, 2010.

IV. Holcim’s Petition for Recons ideration on the PM Standards

As explained in the Holcim Petition, to establish PM standards in the Rules, EPA used stack tests at Portland cement kilns. However, rather than use the stack test data to create PM emission standards testable by stack tests, EPA decided to

use its version of the UPL statistical m odel to convert 3-hour average stack test data to 30-day rolling average emission data in order to establish standards based on continuous rolling averages. EPA based its conversion on the assumption that

the UPL calculation was able to calculat e a comparable 30-d ay rolling average value from the 3-hour stack testing data, such that any random ly selected future

test would fall at or below the UPL value 99% of the time. 75 Fed. Reg . at 54,975- 76, Sept. 9, 2010.

Holcim’s Petition shows, however, through recently gathered CEMS data, that the manner in which EPA uses the UPL formula significantly under-predicts

the true 99 th percentile. In fact, Holcim’s Pe tition shows that with the way EPA uses the UPL model, emission levels that are less than one-half actually measured levels are predicted. Holcim Petition at 6.

V. Lafarge’s Additional Points

1. Real-World Data has Shown that the Manner in Which EPA has Used its UPL is Seriously Flawed

The manner in which EPA uses the UP L in setting Portland cement emission standards – which Lafarge and PCA have long criticized – has now been shown to be substantially erroneous for both THC an d PM NESHAP standards. It has been shown that EPA’s use of the UPL methodology consistently under-predicts the 99 th
percentile emission levels when compared directly to long-term CEMS data. In the case of THC, real-world data demonstrated that EPA under-predicted the true

99 th percentile value by over 70%. In the case of PM, real-world data has demonstrated that EPA under-predicted the true 99 th percentile value by over 50%.4 2. The PM Standard in the NSPS Rule Suffers the Same Flaws as the

PM Standards in the NESHAP Rule

EPA’s NSPS standard for PM is fl awed in the same manner as the PM standard for the NESHAP. EPA promulga ted the NSPS pursuant to CAA Section 111, 42 U.S.C. § 7411. Section 111 requires EPA to issue “standards of performance” for certain listed new sources. Section 111 also requires that EPA show that its standards are “achievable” by producing a record reflecting “the ‘achievability’ of the promulgated standards for the industry as a whole.” Nat’l

Lime Ass’n v. EPA , 627 F.2d 416, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

EPA initially pro posed a NSPS PM limit that was “achievable” because it

was based on the 95 th to 99 th percentile of data derived from stack tests performed on Portland cement kilns. However, EPA derived the final PM limit not by using the data it had used to support the standard’s “achievability,” but by instead applying the UPL to predict a 30-day aver age from the stack testing data. This manner of using the UPL has significant flaws, as shown above. EPA has not, therefore, produced the required record showing that the 30-d ay PM average for the NSPS is “achievable.” Therefore, the same relief is required for the NSPS PM standard as is required for the NESHAP PM standard.

3. The Hg Standards in the NESHAP Rule, Which are Based on EPA’s Use of the UPL, Suffer the Same Fl aws as the PM Standards in the

NESHAP Rule

In evaluating the NESHAP standards, EPA moved away from the UPL methodology for THC when available CEMS data showed that the UPL formula significantly under-predicted the emission rates. The Holcim petition further demonstrates that EPA’s manner of using the UPL methodology significantly under-predicts emission rates for PM and is seriously flawed. Therefore, Hg is the only remaining constituent in the NESHAP regulations for which the final standards are based on EPA’s application of the UPL methodology.

Direct comparison to CEMS data for Hg is not possible at this time. Lafarge submits, however, that simple logic strongly compels the conclusion that ifcomparison of EPA’s UPL methodology to CEMS data consistently underpredicted THC and PM emission rates, then the current Hg NESHAP standards must be similarly substantially flawed. There is nothing that is constituent-specific about the manner which EPA uses the UPL methodology or its application that