----- Forwarded by Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/06/2010 09:29 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

 |Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US 

|

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

 |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

|

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

 |Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Walton.Tom@epamail.epa.gov, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

 |08/03/2010 08:10 PM 

|

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|

 |Responses to first set of RIA comments 

|

 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------|
Dear Courtney:

Here are the responses to the RIA comments. We are still working on the others

(See attached file: Interagency working comments cement - EPA

responses.doc)

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 1 of 9

Below are working comments from the interagency review of the draft rule titled,

“Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS.”

Comments:

1) On page 12 (and throughout in other places, page 15, etc.) reference is made to the 

number of comments made on either the NESHAP or NSPS proposed rule. It might 

be more helpful not to present the number of comments, but rather, explain the 

types of commenters there were. If the number of comments is presented, please 

elaborate if a mass email campaign resulted in a large number of comments.

EPA Response: 

2) On page 14, rather than saying “These standards were intended to be based on the 

performance of MACT pursuant to CAA sections 112 (d)(2) and (3),” it might be 

better to describe factually what the agency did, e.g. “We set these standards 

subject to the MACT requirements of CAA sections 112 (d)(2) and (3).”

EPA Response: 

3) On page 14, is the following statement attributed to the Court a quote: The Court also 

stated that EPA is obligated to consider other pollution–reducing measures such as 

process changes and material substitution? If a quote, please clarify, otherwise, 

consider providing a quote. The next sentence begins “Later cases ...” but only one 

citation is provided (Brick MACT). Could you include citations to the other cases?

EPA Response: 

4) On page 15, could you move footnote 8 (begins “In the remainder of the opinion, the 

Court..”) into the main body? It seems like information that warrants inclusion in the 

main body.

EPA Response: 

5) On page 16, for clarity, please consider restructuring the last two sentences before 

Section D “Reconsideration of EPA Final Action ...”) to read as follows: Under CAA 

section 112(d)(4), EPA did not set a standard for HCl, determining that HCl was a 

pollutant for which a threshold had been established, and that no cement kiln, even 

under worst case operating conditions and exposure assumptions, would emit HCl at 

levels that would exceed that threshold level, allowing for an ample margin of safety.

EPA Response: 

6) Page 17 (and throughout), when referencing a document that is in the docket, if a 

docket ID number is available (e.g. it is already in the docket), please provide that 

number.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 2 of 9

EPA Response: 

7) If possible, when providing detailed information about the Brick MACT decision, could 

you provide quotes? For example, can the bulleted list from page 19 be a set of 

quotations from the decision?

EPA Response: 

8) Page 27, can you include in paretheses the number of observations in the THC data 

set? This information might also make it more clear to the reader why the UPL was 

not used for the THC limit.

EPA Response: 

9) It is noted the revised UPL formula was used to recalculate the MACT floor limits for 

mercury, HCl and PM and that in the case of mercury, mercury emission estimates 

were revised using additional data on raw material usage. However, THC emissions 

are influenced by the content of organic materials in the raw materials, particularly 

the limestone. It does not appear EPA has captured all aspects of the variability for 

THC, particularly since no UPL is calculated for THC. THC emission estimates 

should include statistical approaches which capture raw material usage.

EPA Response: 

10) At the end of Section A.1.b, could you include information on how many sources are 

expected to install controls to meet the set of emission standards? Or, conversely, 

what percentage of the existing facilities are currently able to meet all of the 

emissions standards? It seems that 0% of facilities are currently able to meet all of 

the standards.

EPA Response: 

11) Page 36 (and throughout) the statement (or something similar) is made: “No 

commenter challenged this analysis.” In these cases, did anyone comment on it (e.g. 

offering support)? It might be more helpful to be neutral about the comments and 

say “No comment was received,” or “We received comments supporting this 

analysis.”

EPA Response: 

12) On page 37, the following statement is made: “This type of volitional activity does 

not seem to be within the ambit of normal variability of process inputs.” Please 

consider rewriting this sentence to use plain English, such as “EPA believes that this 

voluntary change should not be considered when determining variability.”

EPA Response: 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 3 of 9

13) In Section A.1.c.ii., has EPA considered establishing a high mercury coal 

subcategory based on a statistical test that would show the two high mercury 

facilities are outliers, that is, the lowe mercury coal subcategory would be based on 

the average mercury concentration in limestone plus 3 standard deviations, and 

anything above that would be considered a “high mercury” limestone?

EPA Response: 

14) Comments submitted indicate that some plants believe they will not be able to 

achieve the mercury standard even with control technology. EPA states it is 

interested in working with plants to consider mechanisms that could assure early 

reductions, but does not provide further details. How does EPA expect the higher 

mercury emitting plants to make significant reductions when there is a general sense 

that the control technology to achieve such reductions is not available? Can EPA be 

more explicit on how they would work with those facilities?

EPA Response: 

15) Since the HCl standard is based on the detection limit for Method 321 and CEMS 

will be the compliance method for kilns without wet scrubbers, an indication of how 

Method 321 compares to those used for CEMs would be beneficial. In other words, 

how does the analytical detection limit for Method 321 compare with those for 

CEMs? Can EPA provide any further information to explain why the CEMs should be 

used given what the standard was based on? Furthermore, could EPA consider a 

compliance alternative for monitoring in lieu of installing a CEMs?

EPA Response: 

16) EPA does not provide solid rationale for why stack testing for HCl compliance for all 

kilns is not allowed. We would appreciate knowing more about the use of HCl CEMS 

in the industry and the feasibility of HCl CEMs per EPA’s interactions with 

stakeholders. Furthermore, could EPA consider a compliance alternative for 

monitoring in lieu of installing a CEMs?

EPA Response: 

17) In the discussion of using CAA 112(d)(4) for an HCl emissions limit, there is a great 

deal of discussion of the 2006 PCA study and analysis of the risks from HCl. 

However, the docket for the rulemaking also contains an EPA memo titled 

“Derivations of a Health-Based Stack Gas Concentration Limit for HCL in Support of 

the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland 

Cement Industry” (April 10, 2009), which seems to include a similar finding that an 

HCl stack gas emissions limit of 23 ppmv would not exceed the RfC for HCl. Is there 

a reason this memo is not discussed?

EPA Response: 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 4 of 9

18) Can EPA explain the use of 1,000 feet threshold for the two sets of requirements for 

Open Clinker Piles standards?

EPA Response: 

19) Page 114 contains the following sentence: “Kilns with low sulfur raw materials can 

meet the 0.4 lb/ton clinker level with no add-on controls. We consider these to be 

reasonable costs, comparable with other costs for SO2 control EPA has deemed 

reasonable such as those in the Clean Air Transport Rule. See 70 FR at 25583 (May 

12, 2005).” Please check this citation, as I think you mean to refer to the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule, and this is for a different rule. Furthermore, are there other NSPS 

rules that EPA could refer to with similar control costs for SO2? If not, why not?

EPA Response: 

20) Some benefits are either not quantified, or the benefits that are quantified are poorly 

described. For example, it is stated that NOx and SO2 benefits are not quantified, 

but these are precursors to PM and ozone (which appear to be quantified at least for 

PM). It should be made more explicit that the health benefits for NOx and SO2 are in 

fact quantified in this way, unless there is another explanation, i.e., exposure to 

direct emissions, that EPA is referring to. We would like more information on why 

EPA did not quantify benefits from reducing selected air pollutants, particularly for 

reducing 4,400 tons of NOx.

EPA Response: Some benefits are not quantified due to data, resource, and 

methodological limitations. Due to the method used to estimate air quality changes, 

we were unable to capture the 0.002% reduction in NOx emissions (6,600 tpy minus 

2,200 tpy in energy disbenefits) as it contributes to PM2.5 formation. In addition, we 

were unable to estimate the benefits of reduced direct NO2 and SO2 exposure, 

which is clearly identified in the net benefits table in the EO 12866 section of the 

preamble. The PM benefits reflect reduced exposure to PM2.5 from reductions in 

SO2 and direct PM emissions. 

21) Does EPA include benefits of any ancillary GHG reductions using the social cost of 

carbon metric? If not, please explain.

EPA Response: EPA anticipates an increase in indirect GHG from additional electricity 

consumption as a result of these rules. These GHG disbenefits are estimated in 

section 6.4.2 of the RIA using the social cost of carbon. The energy disbenefits cited 

in the preamble section 10 include these GHG effects. 

RIA:

1. Please insert the bulleted list of uncertainties associated with the analysis, 

both for costs and benefits. The section describing key uncertainties in the 

estimates is missing in the draft circulated for review.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 5 of 9

EPA Response: Key uncertainties are clearly identified in the relevant chapters. See 

Section X for cost uncertainties [Tom please add], Section 5.6 for air quality 

uncertainties (new), and Section 6.6 for benefits uncertainties.

2. The RIA should outline how estimates of compliance costs were developed, 

including what emissions controls (or other activities) would be required, by 

what sources, at what cost, as well as key assumptions and uncertainties.

EPA Response: 

3. The air quality modeling section of the RIA should explain what options were 

analyzed, and how the results differed, as well as how those results were used 

to estimate the costs and benefits associated with each option.

EPA Response: We have added text to section 5.4 that describes the options modeled.

4. The air quality modeling section of the RIA should outline key uncertainties 

associated with the modeling.

EPA Response: We have added Section 5.6 that outlines key uncertainties in the air 

quality modeling.

5. P 1-1 This bullet should be edited to list the four analyzed options – not just

three -- for clarity. Currently, it reads as if EPA has framed the analysis as three 

options: NSPS only, NESHAP only, and Both NSPS and Final NESHAP with more 

Stringent NSPS . The bullets should clarify that EPA analyzed four options: Final 

NSPS and NESHAP, NSPS only, NESHAP only, and both NSPS and Stringent 

NESHAP. This framing should be retained throughout the document to provide the 

reader with clear description of what is discussed.

EPA Response: 

6. P 1-1 second bullet continuing to the end of the section – please clarify that the 

Analysis described refers to the option that is not listed in the first bullet.

EPA Response: 

7. P. 3-8, p. 3-11. Market output and market production. Comparing tables 3-5 and 

3-7, changes in market output and market production relative to the baseline differ. 

Please explain these differences (such as inventory effects, etc.).

EPA Response: 

8. p. 3-11, Idled plants. Please expand the explanation of how idled plants were

treated in the model. Please clarify whether the $135 million drop in net operating 

profits is included in the $239 million drop for modeled plants or is modeled 

separately and what level of production, if any, is included for these idled firms in the 

model. Also, please explain how EPA determined the additional price and quantity 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 6 of 9

effects if these plants do shut down. The price elasticity for the overall market model 

appears to be approximately .88 while it appears to be approximately 1.428 for the 

idled firms. Finally, please correct compliance costs on page 3-11 text to read “close 

to $8 per ton” (currently reads $5 per ton).

EPA Response: 

9. Input costs. If available, please provide additional explanation or data on input costs, 

including and cost data for substitute inputs such as lower Hg limestone.

EPA Response: 

10. P. 3-14, Job Effects. Do the job losses include losses if the 15 idled plants and

Durkee and Tehachapi plants shut down? If not, does EPA have an estimate of job 

effects for those plants?

EPA Response: 

11. When the RIA describes benefits, costs or parameters that are not quantified 

or not estimated, a brief explanation should be provided. Example: p 6-1, 

explain why HAP benefits are not estimated in this chapter: Why?

EPA Response: [Tom, please add for costs] We have clarified in a footnote to each netbenefits table that several categories of benefits were not monetized due to data, 

resource, and methodological limitations.

12. P 1-2 Please explain in this paragraph why, under baseline conditions without 

regulation, existing domestic cement plants are assumed to choose a 

suboptimal production level.

EPA Response: 

13. P 6-2 Figure 6-1, as well as other bar charts on pages 6-18, 6-47, and 6-48,

should break out benefits to represent categories (PM and ?)

EPA Response: All of the graphics represent the PM-related benefits, reflecting 

reductions of directly-emitted PM and PM precursors (i.e., SO2). With the data 

available, it is not possible to estimate the fraction of benefits attributable to the 

precursor emission reductions.

14. Can’t find details on value used for benefits per ton? What is the source of

that number?

EPA Response: With the exception of the energy disbenefits, we did not use benefitper-ton estimates for this analysis. The source of the benefit-per-ton estimates used 

for the energy disbenefits are cited in the RIA (Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009). 

For the benefits estimate, we used air quality modeling in conjunction with BenMAP, 
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 7 of 9

not benefit-per-ton estimates. The underlying health and valuation functions are 

incorporated by reference from the recent Transport Rule RIA.

15. Is there description somewhere that can help the reader navigate how EPA

modeled or measured PM from precursors? Throughout, it is difficult to identify 

how EPA separately analyzed emitted PM, PM formed from precursors, and 

gaseous SOx or NOx.

EPA Response: EPA modeled directly emitted PM and PM precursors together in the 

photochemical model CAMx. Due to the method used to estimate air quality 

changes, we were unable to capture the 0.002% reduction in NOx emissions as it 

contributes to PM2.5 formation. EPA considers it extremely unlikely that a reduction 

this small reduction in NOX will translate into appreciable air quality changes in 

ambient concentrations of particulate matter or ozone.

16. P 6-3 bullet 3: EPA describes the previous threshold as arbitrary, however

isn’t it in fact the lowest observed value in one of the studies used to measure 

the magnitude of health effects? Is there some way we could describe this other 

than “arbitrary”?

EPA Response: While the LML of the Laden et al. (2006) study is 10 ug/m3, it is 

arbitrary to assume that there are no health effects below this concentration as other 

studies have shown health effects below this concentration.

17. P 6-3 bullet 4: Please insert explanation of data, resource, and methodological 

limitations, or refer to the section where are they discussed in detail.

EPA Response: A description of these limitations has been added to Section 6.6.

18. P 6-8: it would be helpful to clarify how EPA is using the term C-R function

(including alternative specifications) as separate from coefficient – which can 

also vary depending on the underlying function.

EPA Response: Although we use the terms somewhat interchangeably in the RIA, the 

coefficient is the slope of the concentration-response function (CRF). The PM 

mortality benefits calculated using Pope et al. (2002) and Laden et al. (2006) are 

based on a log-linear CRF. The experts specified alternate functional forms, 

including log-linear and piece-wise.

19. P 6-9: Again, it would be helpful to identify a phrase or term other than

“arbitrary” to describe the threshold.

EPA Response: The threshold language in the RIA reflects previous agreements 

between EPA and OMB. 

20. P 6-16: EPA should provide explanation of how the pie chart differ above and 

below the LML. If the values differ, should EPA present both to more clearly 

represent the uncertainty below LML?
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 8 of 9

EPA Response: EPA does not consider the LML to be a threshold, and we continue to 

estimate mortality effects through the entire range of modeled concentrations. 

Therefore, it is inappropriate to provide the suggested graphic. However, over 94% 

of the mortality effects are above the LML, so the suggested graphic would be 

substantially similar to the one already in the RIA. 

21. P 6-19 Title should provide some information on LML and what it represents, 

somehow convey that the purpose of this bar chart is to represent uncertainty 

in PM mortality at low concentrations.

EPA Response: The purpose of the LML graphic is to illustrate the fraction of mortalities 

estimated at each air quality level, and to identify the percentage of mortalities 

estimated to occur above the LML of the two cohort studies. The LML is described 

in detail in the preceding section. We believe the title and footnote are appropriate 

to convey the information in the graphic. 

22. P 6-21: Table 6-5 seems to require some clarification; please edit.

o The table seems to duplicate benefits – or are the emissions reductions label 

“Direct PM” all carbon?

o The totals are correct – unless the intent was to round to the nearest $10

million. Recommend that we do not round more coarsely than the nearest

$million.

EPA Response: Table 6-5 shows the disbenefits associated with the increased 

electricity demand, not duplicate benefits. In accordance with advice from the 

National Research Council, it is our policy to always round the monetized benefits to 

two significant figures.

23. It would be helpful to describe what is represented in Table 6-7. P 6-24: What is 

represented in Table 6-7 that is not represented in Table 6-6? The text seems only 

to present SCC? Is it the PM disbenefits?

EPA Response: We have clarified the column heading in Table 6-7 to clarify that those 

results reflect the total CO2 disbenefits (in millions of dollars) derived from the SCC 

estimates (per ton of CO2) provided in Table 6-6.

24. P 6-25: EPA should clarified that effects such as bronchoconstriction occur at 

certain (higher) levels, not low levels, or alternatively present the studies 

showing response measured at exposure to very low levels, to support the 

sentence “The immediate effect of SO2 on the respiratory system in humans 

in bronchoconstriction.” In the science referenced by EPA rules, this is true for 

higher levels, but not low, background levels.

EPA Response: We have provided the citation for this language (Risk Assessment for 

SO2, U.S. EPA, 2009) and provided the direct quote.
Interagency Working Comments on Draft Rule under EO 12866

Page 9 of 9

25. P 6-26: Please provide reference for the statement “A clear concentration

response relationship has been demonstrated in laboratory studies following 

exposures to SO2 at concentrations between 20 and 100 ppb, both in terms of 

increasing severity of effect and percentage of asthmatics adversely affected.” 

Aren’t the clinical studies at levels of 400 ppb (statistically significant) and 200 ppb 

(not statistically significant)?

EPA Response: We have provided the citation for this language (Risk Assessment for 

SO2, U.S. EPA, 2009) and provided the direct quote.

26. P 6-28 Figure 6-8 Please clarify what is represented – all HAPs, or HAPs from 

Portland Cement Kilns.

EPA Response: We have clarified the figure title. 

27. How is the Greenstone (2002) used in the chapter? Henderson (1996)? They 

are listed among references, but can’t find reference to them in the text of the 

chapter.

EPA Response: These references are mentioned in the text of Section 3.2.3.3