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 from 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 for additional 

collaboration on the portland cement national emission standard for hazardous air 

pollutant (NESHAP) and new source performance standard (NSPS) rulemakings. I want 

to take the opportunity, on behalf of PCA, to share some thoughts and potential 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 additional 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, severe 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 schedule. 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 time. In addition, we are open to sitting down with 

the other litigants, as appropriate, to explain these circumstances. 
2

Consideration of Variability in Standard Setting

John Holmes with AEMs Inc. reviewed an analysis of variability addressing those 

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 significantly 

impact the emissions from a given plant over time. We believe that this type of 

variability, common across the industry, needs to be factored into the emission standards 

in some way. We would be pleased to work with you to refine these analyses, broaden 

them beyond mercury (as appropriate), and address 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 meeting 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 also 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 industry. 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 influenced 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 manufacturing 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 aware that some plants, pursuant 
3

to the new source review process, may have lower emissions standards, this is most likely 

the result of favorable site-specific mineralogy (i.e., very small amounts of pyritic sulfur 

in the raw materials). 

Potential Nitrogen 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 have the greatest 

influence on the 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 by process type, if not strictly focused 

only on new PH/PC kilns. 

Scope of Rulemaking: 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 program 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 15th. We look forward to working with 

you on these 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