500 New Jersey Avenue, NW

7 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 408

- 9494 April 1, 2010

Peter Tsirigotis Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality and Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D205

- 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

RE: Follow

- up f

rom March 15 Meeting

Dear Mr. Tsirigotis,

I am writing to express PCA’s sincere appreciation for the participation by you and your colleagues in the March 15, 2010 meeting with cement industry representatives

. We believe that the meeting was very productive and set the groundwork fo r additional collaboration on the portland cement national emission standard for hazardous air pollutant ( NE SHAP) and new source performance standard (NSPS) rulemaking s

. I want to take the opportunity, on behalf of PCA, to share some thoughts and potentia l next steps on the key subjects we discussed during the meeting.

Ongoing Total Hydrocarbon (THC) and Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) Data Collection

As we discussed at length, the industry, in good faith, continues to proceed with

its efforts to collect addit ional THC and HCl emissions data. As you know, we have been providing Keith Barnett with monthly updates on the status of the THC program. We noted that progress on these data collections have been impeded by the recession and the series of recent, sever e weather events. Many cement plants have been running at less than 1⁄2 of their capacity , close to historic lows

. Needless to say, emissions data cannot be collected when a plant is not running , and since cement cannot be stored outdoors, kilns

cannot operate when there is insufficient product storage

. We expect these circumstances

to continue for at least the balance of the year, further hampering industry efforts to collect data relevant to the rulemaking.

PCA believes , however, that the data will be very useful in informing a reasoned rulemaking outcome and would like the collection to continue as long as possible to
address the data issues discussed with EPA . We are aware that this circumstance sets up a potential conflict with the current rulemaking sch edule. PCA believes that a six month extension to the final rule schedule would be most helpful in this regard. I will send you under separate cover the information we discussed summarizing the current state of the industry supporting the need for more t ime. In addition, we are open to sitting down with the other litigants, as appropriate, to explain the se circumstance s

.2

Consideration of Variability in Standard Setting

John Holmes with AEMs Inc. reviewed an analysis of variability addressing thos e facilities used by EPA to set the floor for the proposed mercury standard. He noted that a number of variables, including the chemistry of the limestone, type of coal used at the plant, the type of cement being manufactured, among other factors, could s ignificantly impact the emissions from a given plant over time. We believe that this type of variability, common across the indust r y, needs to be factored into the emission standards in some way. We would be pleased to work with you to refine these analy s e s , broaden them beyond mercury (as appropriate)

, and a ddress any questions you may have.

Statistical Approach Employed to Compute the Standards

As was outlined by PCA in its comments on the proposed rule and discussed with

Keith Barnett in a meetin g last year, we believe the statistical approach employed by the Agency in the proposal was flawed and should be modified. We continue to believe that emission standards computed using the upper tolerance limit (UTL) approach more accurately reflect real world circumstances. Accordingly, we are pleased that the Agency is rethinking the statistical approach . We support this reconsideration and would welcome the opportunity to explore this further with you and your colleagues.

Subcategorization

We were a lso pleased to learn that the Agency continues to favorably view subcategorization as a means of tailoring the rule outcome to suit the unique

circumstances among the diverse operations of the U.S. cement in dustry. As you know,

one of the purposes of the ongoing THC data collection is to inform whether it would be appropriate to establish subcategories to address this pollutant. We also believe it is highly appropriate to consider at least two subcategories for mercury. Emissions of

mercury are highly in fluenced by the chemistry of limestone, the principle raw material used to make cement. We look forward to working with you to devise an approach to reduce the amount of mercury emissions coming from cement plants, while also allowing

the continued manufa cturing of a necessary ingredient in the nation’s infrastructure.

Portland Cement New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)

PCA continues to have concerns with the approaches EPA appears to be considering in making changes to the portland cement NSPS, as detailed below.

Potential Sulfur Dioxide Standard : As indicated in our comments, emissions of SOx are largely influenced by the concentration of pyritic minerals in raw materials. Consequently, as with mercury, emissions of SOx from cement plants are highly variable

, site

- specific

, and also dependent on the type of pyroprocessing equipment employed at the facility . Reflecting on this, we believe the proposed standard (1.33 lbs/ton of clinker) is as low as any such standard should be. While we are awar e that some plants, pursuant3

to the new source review process
, may have lower emissions standards

, t h is is most likely

the result of favorable site

- specific mineralogy (i.e., very small amounts of pyritic sulfur

in the raw materials )

.

Potential Nitro gen Dioxide Standard : Similar to the perspectives outlined above for SOx,

NOx emissions are also considerably influenced by the type of raw material being utilized by the plant. The hardness and chemistry of the limestone ha ve the greatest

influence on t he burnability of the kiln feed

. Plants with more difficult to burn raw materials may have higher NOx emissions. Owing to this concern, coupled with the effectiveness of current NOx control technologies, we believe that the 1.95 lbs/ton of

clinker standard we recommended in our comments is most appropriate. While we believe that the rule should apply only to new preheater/precalincer (PH/PC) kilns systems, we are encouraged that the Agency may be contemplating some type of subcategorization approach to tailor the standard b y process type

, if not strictly focused only on new PH/PC kilns.

Scope of Rulemakin g : In comments on the proposal, PCA expressed strong objections to including within the scope of the changes to the NSPS, modifications made to existing cement plants. The NSPS p rogram was intended to be a new source program, and should focus strictly on that ; namely

, new, greenfield PH/PC kilns or new PH/PC kilns at existing cement plants.

Thank you again for your time on March 15 th . We look forward to working with

you on the se matters of great significance to the future of the U.S. cement industry. I may be reached at (202) 408

- 9494 to address any questions you may have regarding the perspectives of PCA.

Sincerely,

Andrew T. O’Hare

Vice President

, Regulatory Affairs

Cc: Keith Barnett

Steve Fruh

Steve Silverman