PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

REQUEST TO STAY THE RULES PENDING RECONSIDERATION FOR

THE PARTICULATE MATTER AND MERCURY STANDARDS SET FORTH IN

THE FINAL RULE FOR NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FROM THE PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051 

and 

THE FINAL RULE FOR STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PORTLAND CEMENT 

PLANTS

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 compliance deadline and effective date of all the particulate 

matter (“PM”) and mercury (“Hg”) standards set forth in the “National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants,” 75 Fed. Reg. 

54,970 (Sept. 9, 2010) (individually, the “NESHAP Rule” and 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 Holcim (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 Administrative 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 industrial 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 leaving 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 demonstrated 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 standards 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 99th percentile 

value directly, instead of using the “predictive” (UPL) methodology. 75 Fed. Reg. 

54975. Once the 99th percentile value was determined, EPA adjusted the THC 
3

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 99th 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 Reconsideration 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 model 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 calculate a comparable 30-day rolling average 

value from the 3-hour stack testing data, such that any randomly 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 99th percentile. In fact, Holcim’s Petition 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 UPL in setting Portland cement emission 

standards – which Lafarge and PCA have long criticized – has now been shown to 

be substantially erroneous for both THC and PM NESHAP standards. It has been 

shown that EPA’s use of the UPL methodology consistently under-predicts the 99th

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 

99th percentile value by over 70%. In the case of PM, real-world data has 

demonstrated that EPA under-predicted the true 99th 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 flawed in the same manner as the PM 

standard for the NESHAP. EPA promulgated 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 proposed a NSPS PM limit that was “achievable” because it 

was based on the 95th to 99th 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 average 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-day 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 Flaws 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 if 

comparison 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