Written CommunicationsEXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
LL. ~ ~l-z /to
Grace Schmidt
From•_ Susan Sievert [spsievert@gmail.coir]
Sent•_ Monday, January 11, 2010 5:56 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Written Communication, January 12, 2010
Attachments: ej_eip_kilns_web.pdf; ATTOO001..htm
Written Communication from Susan Sievert
Study Session on Regulation of the Lehigh Cement Plant
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Contains one attachment: ej_eip_kilns_web.pdf (Cementing a Toxic
Legacy? Earthjustice Environmental Integrity Project. How the Environmental Protection Agency has
failed to control mercury pollution from cement kilns. July 2008.)
Dear Cupertino City Council,
My family has lived 1.6 miles east of the Cupertino, CA cement kiln/quarry since 1949. For the past
several months, I have not heard the plant like I am accustomed to, a very loud, intrusive machine
sound that would oftentimes wake me up at night. -therefore, I am concerned the plant operators
may be altering their behavior while the renewal of 1_heir Title S permit is under consideration.
Many longtime residents have bought into the notion that the Cupertino kiln/quarry operation poses
no documented health threat, and to this very day support and defend its operation without
question. After all, we have never received any offi<~ial warning regarding toxic emissions, trusting
that our City, County, and Federal officials would surely warn us if our health was in danger. Fears
that have been raised have been dismissed with "the quarry has been here since 1939," as if to
say some grandfathered in game of King of the Hill :shall now and forever trump health and
environmental threats in the City of Cupertino.
However, the timing of the lack of noise is very suspicious, and I am now deeply concerned some
toxic truth is being concealed from all of us. In other words, if the Cupertino kiln/quarry has been
operating in an environmentally responsible manner, then why on earth has it stopped -- and I mean
stopped completely -- its longstanding behavior while it waits for what Earthjustice (a non-profit
public interest law firm) asserts is the U.S. Environrental Protection Agency's (EPA) equivalency of a
permit to pollute?
By defying federal law, multiple court orders, and refusing to set standards to control cement kilns'
mercury emissions, it's easy to conclude that the EPA has made a mockery of their assumed
role as our taxpayer financed environmental watchdog. The following excerpts are from the
July 2008 Earthjustice report, Cementing a Toxic Legacy?:
Excerpt #1, p.l: "Cement kilns are poisoning our air, water, and food with mercury. For more than a
decade, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has neglected this health threat.
Directly defying federal law and multiple court orders, EPA has refused to set standards to control
cement kilns' mercury emissions. Now, new data from EPA itself show that the American public is
paying a steep price for the agency's recalcitrance ~nrith poisoned fish, polluted air and waters, and
increased risks to our health and our children's health. Mercury emissions from cement kilns are
almost twice as high as the agency has previously acknowledged, and, in many states,
kilns are among the worst mercury polluters.
Thanks to EPA's neglect, the cement industry's rnercury emissions have not only gone
uncontrolled, but also have largely escaped public :scrutiny. Having decided in the 1990s that it did
not wish to control mercury from cement kilns, EPA has, until now, never attempted to tally mercury
emissions from this industry."
Excerpt #2, p.5: "Table 1. Ten Highest Self-Reported Mercury Polluting Cement Kilns, #3 =Hanson
Permanente Cement [now Lehigh], Cupertino, California. Mercury 494 Ibs/yr"
Excerpt #3, p.6: "Cement kilns in Cupertino, California, and Ragland, Alabama, were wholly
omitted from EPA's 2007 data requests. Their n•iercury emissions data included in this report
came directly from the Toxics Release Inventory, whiich are voluntarily reported by the cement
companies. It is possible that mercury emissions: at these facilities could be much higher:
Excerpt #4, p.7: "Table 3. Major Kilns Ignored by EF'A. Hanson Permanente Cement [now Lehigh],
Cupertino, California. Clinker Capacity per Year: 1,497 tons. Clinker Capacity Rank: Eleventh.
Excerpt #5, p.8: "Although there are other sites in California, the kilns at Davenport and Cupertino
are of particular concern. In the San Francisco Bay urea, Hanson Permanente Cement operates a
kiln in Cupertino, California. This kiln is located within a residential area in close proximity to several
Cupertino schools. It is also located within five miles of the San Francisco Bay, which is currently
contaminated with mercury. The Hanson Permanente kiln reported emitting a staggering 494
pounds of mercury in 2006 to EPA's Toxics RelE:ase Inventory. EPA failed to include
Hanson Permanente Cement in any of its infornnation requests, leaving open the possibility
that its mercury emissions could be even worst>_. ~~
<end excerpts>
My other areas of concern are, 1) the plant consistently ramps up its output/noise at night (or on
foggy days); we can see the plume of smoke, or whatever it is, over the horizon, 2) mercury is
contaminating the Stevens Creek Reservoir and San Francisco Bay, and 3) that layer of dust that can
be found on our cars is no doubt making its way into our lungs, too.
A fair question for the EPA: Is that cement kiln operation poisoning us?
Thank you.
Susan- Sievert
Monta Vista/Cupertino
-.
Cementing a
Toxic Legacy?
How the Environmen al
Protection Agency
has failed to control
Mercury pollution from.
Celtle7lt ~~11riS
Earthjustice
Environmental Integrity Project
JULY 2008
F.A K'THJ US'I'IC:E
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the
magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending
the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change
by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of
organizations, coalitions and communities. We've provided legal representation at
no cost to more than 700 clients. For more information, visit www.earthjustice.org.
E IVVIRONh1EN1'AL IA'TEGR77"r PKCJJ L+CT (EfI'~
The Environmental Integrity Project is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
dedicated to more effective enforcement of anti-pollution laws. EIP's research and
reports shed light on how environmental laws affect public health. EIP works closely
with communities seeking to enfor~~e these laws. For more information, visit
www. e nvironmentalinte grity. o rg.
i°r+crrr~ c~aeurrs
PAG k. t: Becky Borhnorst, Downwinders at Risk
Pnct a: Samantha Bornhors[, Downwinders ,zt Risk
Pwcs s: Earthjustice
Pwcc ~o: Samantha Bornhorst, Downwinders at Risk
Pwce ts: Anacostia Watershed Society
Pace it Becky Borhnorst, Downwinders at R isk
For more information, please visit www.earthjustice.org/cement
Questions and comments can be directed to ,fared Saylor at the Washington, DC, office of Earthjustice
E A trrl t.r t~ s~r tc E
1625 Ma:;sachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 702
`Nashington, DC 20036
Phone (20:2) 667-4500 • Fax (202) 667-2356
Contents
t Overview
z Key Findings
3 Recommendations and Opportunities
4 The Mercury Data
5 Findings
g Data Sources
io Ignored: Mercury Pollution from Cement Kilns
io Where Do the Mercury Emissions Come from?
i2 Fly Ash
i3 Why Mercury Emissions Matter
i7 EPA's Failure to Regulate Mercury Pollution
i7 An Overview of the Federal Regulations
~8 Years of EPA Delay
20 Recommendations and Opportunities
2i Notes
24 Appendix A. Kiln Data Analysis
2g Apendix B. Kiln Data Analysis Methodology
3i Appendix C. Normalized Mercury Emissions for Existing :ind New Cement Kilns
TABLES
S Table i. io Highest Self-Reported Mercury Polluting Cement Kilns
G Table ~. Mercury Accounting Gaps
7 Table 3. Major Kilns Ignored by EPA
iq Table 4. Where Cement is Made
FIGURES
io Figure ~. Concrete Composition
ii Figure z. Mercury Emissions from Cement Production
i3 Figure 3. Biooccumulation of Mercury
~o Figure 4: Timeline of Earthjustice Activity
1
:~
is
tic
'`°"'~, ement kilns are poisoning our
}~y_ air, water, and food with mer-
"~x..,_._f'~ cury. For more than a decade,
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has neglected this health
threat. Directly defying federal law and
multiple court orders, EPA has refused
to set standards to control cement kilns'
mercury emissions. Now, new data from
EPA itself show that the American public
is paying a steep price for the agency's
recalcitrance with poisoned fish, pol-
luted air and waters, and increased risks
to our health and our children's health.
Mercury emissions from cement kilns
are almost twice as high as the agency
has previously acknowledged, and, in
many states, kilns are among the worst
mercury polluters.
'Thanks to EPA's neglect, the cement
industry's mercury emissions have not
only gone uncontrolled, but also have
largely escaped public scrutiny. Having
decided in the 1990s that it did not wish
to control mercury from cement kilns,
EPA has, until now, never attempted to
tally mercury emissions from this indus-
try. EPA noti~ estimates that cement kilns
emit nearly 23,000 pounds of mercury
each year, far more than the Agency's
2006 estimate of 11,995 pounds.' Industry-
wide emissions may be as high as 27,500
pounds per ~~ear~
The proc~°ss
for making clin-
ker -small nodules
of cooked rock that
are eventua:Lly ground
into cement -often
relies on fuels and
raw materials that
are high in mercury
content. While the
large quantity of
mercury emissions
from cement kilns
is not widely known, it is hardly sur-
prising. Sust over 150 cement kilns
operate in the United States and, each
year, they "<:ook" thousands of tons of
2
i
cc
rock -primarily limestone - at mere
than 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit. To fuel
this cooking process, cement kilns burn
primarily coal. Both the rock and the
coal contain mercury, a highly volatile
metal that evaporates at room tempera-
ture. Virtually all the mercury in the
coal and limestone is vaporized in the
cement production process, and t]ze vast
majority of that mercury enters oiir air
through the kilns' smokestacks.
Mercury, an element, does not de-
compose or otherwise exit the environ-
ment once it has been released into the
air. Instead it is deposited back to earth
where it persists in soil and water and,
through the bioaccumulation proc°ss,
concentrates in fish and wildlife. Just
1 /70"' of a teaspoon of mercury, oar
0.0024 ounces, can contaminate a 20-
acre lake and render the fish in that lake
unsafe to eat.'
People are exposed to mercury primar-
ily through eating fish. Women of child-
bearing age are often warned to limit
their consumption of certain fish con-
taminated with mercury. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention reported
in 2000 that eight percent of women aged
16 to 49 had mercury levels in their blood
that exceeded EPA's own safe levels for
unborn children." Because mercury is a
potent neurotoxin, babies and children
are especially at risk for birth defects,
loss of IQ learning disabilities, and
developmental problems.
The purposes of this report are to re-
lease the results of EPAs data summary
to the public, to highlight the health and
environmental threats posed by specific
kilns that appear to have especially high
mercury emission levels, to expose what
appears to be gross under-reporting of
mercury emissions from cement kilns,
and to call upon EPA to act swiftly to
set appropriate standards for this toxic
pollutants The Clean Air Act required
EPA to set mercury standards for cement
kilns more than a decade ago. A federal
court ordered EPA to issue those stan-
dards more than seven years ago. Still,
we wait.
Key Findings
EPA has estimated that cement kilns
operating in America emit 22,914
pounds of mercury into the air each
years Because this number reflects
only non-hazardous waste burning
kilns, overall mercury emissions
from the cement industry are higher
than EPA's estimate of nearly 23,000
pounds.
EPA sampling shows that large
amounts of mercury pass through ce-
ment kilns, with some kilns reporting
astonishingly high volumes. Absent
emission monitoring and emission
controls, most of that mercury will be
released into the environment.
A relatively small number of cement
plants that use extremely dirty raw
materials and fuels are among the
worst mercury polluters in their states
and, in some cases, in the country.
Some cement kilns release as much
as or more mercury than coal-fired
power plants. For example, a cement
kiln in Durkee, Oregon, emitted over
2,500 pounds of mercury in 2006.
That same year, according to EPA, the
top mercury-polluting power plant
emitted 1,700 pounds of mercury into
the air.
Since 1974, cement production has
increased 15 percent, but the total
number of cement kilns has shrunk
from 432 to 178 in 2006. lbday, ce-
ment production is concentrated in
the hands of a relatively small num-
ber of large multinational companies.
These companies operate larger
cement kilns that produce more ce-
ment.' Rapidly increasing levels of
cement production in the U.S. mean
that the cement industry's mercury
pollution levels will continue to rise if
left unregulated.
Without proper regulation from the
federal government, specifically from
EPA, mercury pollution from cement
kilns will continue and increase, add-
ing to a growing public health problem
in the United States.
Recommendations and
Opportunities
EPA must swiftly follow through on its
commitments to propose and adopt a
mercury standard for cement kilns.
.- State regulatory agencies should rou-
tinely test cement kiln emissions for
mercury.
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems ~CEMS) should be installed to
measure mercury emissions at every
kiln.
State regulatory agencies should re-
quire cement kilns to install mercury
pollution control devices.
For more than a decade, Earthjustice
has been a leader in fighting weak and
insufficient regulations that failed to clean
up mercury and other toxic air pollutants
from industrial and mobile sources
nationwide. Our work continues to yield
results in cleaning up mercury pollution
from some of the nation's biggest industri-
al sources, ittcluding cement kilns, power
plants, and incinerators. Along with our
partners at the Environmental Integrity
Project, we have compiled this report in
an effort to emphasize the need for strong
regulations that satisfy the long-stand-
ing but long-ignored federal mandate to
control pollution from the cement manu-
facturing industry. Earthjustice, on behalf
of many national and local non-profit
public health and environmental organiza-
tions, has filed dozens of legal challenges
in federal court and won numerous legal
claims resulting in stronger clean air pro-
tections. In ~;oordination with groups like
the Environmental Integrity Project, we
remain committed to fighting toxic air pol-
lution and making our air, water, and lands
safer and cl<:aner for future generations.
Tb learn more about mercury pollu-
tion and thc: cement industry, please visit
www. earth j ustice. org/cement.
3
Sc
Y^
4
~~
=t
'^:' en years after EPA was required
to set standards for cement kilns,
r•;
"' EPA requested basic information
related to mercury emissions from nine
of the major cement kiln companie:; op-
erating in the U.S.s EPA claims that it will
use this information to propose mercury
standards for cement kilns sometime in
the summer or f ill of
2008. After a review
of EPA's data, industry
self-reporting to :EPA's
annual'lbxics Release
Inventory (TRI), and
the data from the
Portland Cement As-
sociation, it is clear
that EPA must act to
regulate an industry
that is emitting more mercury than previ-
ously reported and continues to spew
harmful mercury emissions into our air
and water.
EPA collected data from nine com-
panies and ultimately released data for
51 non-hazardous waste burning kilns
currently operating in the United States.
EPA released data for all the kilns for
which it has data except those owned
by CEMEX, which has claimed that the
information EPA requested -information
directly related to the amount of mercury
it releases into our air and waters - is
confidential business information. All of
the data considered were self-reported
by the kiln companies. For a complete
discussion of the data sources considered
and methodology, please see Appendix
B. The 2007 EPA collection requests were
sent to the following companies:
.w Ash Grove Cement
CEMEX
.x California Portland Cement
Company
k Essroc Cement Corp.
~ Holcim ~US~ Inc.
LaFarge North America, Inc.
.. Lehigh Cement Company
-~ Lonestar/Buzzi Unicem
ZZ;xas Industries, Inc.
Findings
According to EPA's current estimafe, cement
kilns in the United States emit almost 23,000
pounds of mercury each year. This number
is nearly double what the entire cement
industry reported to the Tbxics Release
Inventory in 2006 - 11,995 pounds of
mercury released into the environment
as air emissions.
Based on the source test data that EPA
collected and data self-reported by indus-
try to TRI, the ten worst mercury emitting
cement kilns across the country are listed
in Table 1: ZO Highest Self-Reported Mercury
Polluting Cement Kilns. The numbers pro-
vided in this chart are based on the data
set described in Appendix A.'
Some cement kilns release as much as or
more mercury than coal-fired power plants.
As shown in 10 Highest Self-Reported
Mercury Polluting Cement Kilns, based on
source tests and industry's own estimates
to TRI, several of these kilns emit over
250 pounds of mercury annually.
The Ash Grove Cement Plant in
Durkee, Clregon, has the dubious dis-
tinction ofbeing the worst mercury
polluter of any kind in the country,
emitting more mercury into the air
than any Dower plant, steel mill, or
hazardous waste incinerator. In 2006
Ash Grovt; reported to the EPA's Tbx-
ics Release Inventory that it emitted
2,582 you-.nds of mercury. Based
on information Ash Grove submit-
ted to EPA. in 2007, however, actual
emissions may be as much as 3,788
pounds a :year. Note that although it
emits the greatest amount of mercury
(more than double the amount of the
next wors~_ polluter), it has the third
smallest production capacity of the
kilns on the Tbp 10 list."
o Lafarge North America, Inc., shows up
on the Tbp 10 Polluting Cement Kiln
list twice, at rank four and rank five
with its plants in New York and Michi-
gan. By Lafarge's own calculations the
TABLE i. ~o HIGHEST SELF-REPORTED MERCURY POLLUTING
CEMENT KILNS
Basis for Production Capacity
Mercury Annual Mercury (thousand metric
Rank Facility Owner Location (Ibs~yr) Estimate tons of clinker yr)
,.'Ash 4G'~'r,"o~'q ~h~'~~~~t~~~'~rb'°~°t~~~'`~'~'r~~~""'+ .~j~8 't s°~~~'i'~e~t ~ i.'~~~~ ~~945~
z Lehigh ',~T'ehachapi, California. 586 TRI 958
3~ r':°,,~'{,rPI.I1CG~~~.v,,~.^,,+w~~ n: •.~~w ;seta ~~~'~n~~f~~' ~f~ e~7 ~".f~ "
CernerlYia; `S r "v. a ± +1Yw +Y a. `* ~ N ~'Na v~am f ~,Ah i t~,
1 ~ .'~~' ~ N~; ~ .. J~W'.. ~.. J4 u~~a~'" ,~ ~1 '4 ,
4 Lafarge Ravena, New York 40o TRI x.695
5 '-Lafarge ., ~." ., "AlpelyaMtth~gah4 i_k~ F("x~;^ ~~~yy+ ~~~~~ Soi'.,rGA~Sest ~- 3:z65 '
6 CEM EX Victorville, California z7, TRI 2,7,7
7 ~.-Natlonal <.e ant ~ Rag~an2, Alabdrlta ~.- ~,y4 i' ~.l'° ty"g~ `' `' v w d ~(a" " '""*i ~. Sol ''t ~~'
k i
w~v ,,flY n
.'S~~orYr~80~rA~b~FdiA: r'm~m~.. R»~.'f~n'$ ('~ ~D, .*Arv~aM~~w~'~~ fix' Y"w"t r~`~~!.~~'w~'AH".*nY~~',
8 Lehigh Mason City, Iowa ,84 Source Test ~3,
u ,i,~y s~ "~F Gr7
°. ,t
9 '1~i?.~,,~C,N S: t~ ~'"^w.'.,. r..4rw"ns r dVF-, r .~ .. .. ~ .... ~ ~,`
,o Essroc Nazareth, Pennsylvania ,63 TRI ,,z8o
Note that a[ the following locations, data provided in this table cover multiple kilns at one site:
Ravena, New York - 2 kilns, Alpena, Michigan-5 kilns, Victorvill ~, California-2 kilns.
S
YO
c
t
~'
n
JR
6
c
=4
kiln in Ravena, New York, emits 400
pounds of mercury per year.
Cement kilns in Cupertino, California,
and Ragland, Alabama, were wh~~lly
omitted from EPA's 2007 data requests.
'Pheir mercury emissions data includ-
ed in this report came directly from
the lbxics Release Inventory, which
are voluntarily reported by the cement
companies. It is possible that mercury
emissions at these facilities could be
much higher.
EPA sampling shows that Large arzounts
of mercury pass through cement kiln:;, with
some kilns reporting astonishinglpJ hi;;h
amounts. Absent emis-
sion monitoring and
emission controls, most
of that mercury will
be released into the
environment.
When the actual
mercury content for
the kiln inputs (i.e.,
fuel and feedstoclt) are
compared to the :;elf-re-
ported numbers to TRI,
there are often significant gaps between
what is coming into the plant and what
companies are reporting to EPA as exit-
ing the plant. Companies report data to
TRI that includes not only the air emis-
sions from a cement kiln, but also mer-
cury that may be treated, disposed of, or
recycled rather than emitted through a
smokestack. Yet, for the facilities listed
in Table 2: Mercury Accounting Gaps,
companies consistently reported "n/a"
for these other categories, making it
impossible for the public to know where
the mercury is going.
Some plants have installed scrubbers to
control sulfur dioxide, and mercury emis-
sions should decline as a co-benefit of
sulfur dioxide controls. However, none of
the kilns listed in Table 2 employs scrub-
bers or pollution control devices designed
to control mercury emissions.
Lehigh kilns at Union Bridge and
"Ifihachapi reported numbers to TRI in
2006 that appear to be grossly lower
than their mercury inputs and clearly
illustrate the data gap problem.
The Lehigh cement kiln at Union
Bridge reported to TRI in 2006 emitting
only 35 pounds of mercury; but the
number calculated based on EPA data
shows the kiln could be emitting up
to 1,539 pounds, an unusually large
TABLE z. MERCURY ACCOUNTING GAPS
Production Mercury Content TRI Reported TRI Reported TRI Reported
Capacity from Inputs Mercury sent Mercury sent Mercury
Facility (thousand metric (fuel and feedstock to Treatment to disposal released to
Owner Location tons of clinker/yr) combined in Ibs/yr) (Ibs/yr) (Ibs/yr) the air (Ibs/yr)
.. -m. . ts+ ..., . ~' es,~k s S#>, r.~ n. ,, X.. , 1. ."~. AU 1 bo ... .. z, _ x s, °. r
Lehigh Union Bridge, i,g96 x.539 Unknown Unknown 35
Maryland
2 - nf' e^p w '~~„".KHi"'d`%~. •g 7y' ¢Y'~' rya y~g }~~~mlur rs y~,p '9Y~d~ r ~ e
LBfSrge °I~`Sa4S r ` ~* itn, P~'r 6'~ ~~g ~"~zFF S~'~ ~'P s ~~$~' UnIC'I~ibWft'~ ~' t7' k n '~ 4• b ~i .c" '.
x ~ t i ° &l~~liti'~la t~ ''a ~'`4~i a<Fi {~ 7 +rs. ~'~0 °'* h+`8m.r r u ° ~r, - u rw rS"~ si ;r
.r rv.Y ,,ma~yy ~""}r ~w §1 +i ~ *t a ~'..~''~ ~,]Ara~iaa'.X, , v1 ,ni0 ap~{.~ u°, '.:'it r ~.. ~,ux ~v Sr~r"~'7 :!
r A. x ~ 4 .~. yJ~C,Py(Yv'i~d'^ x -1 MAY nn~.e kA. rI 1". rv n .u ., ~ I J le
Lafarge Harleyville, g78 zo6 Unknown Unknown 78
South
Carolina 5p '
% ,~" pY '~:d+""s .~^rlw~ xqi Y~' 1# ' Y''~~'"re rt ! .r.N t r ~,.~r i ? ~ d ~+ TS4} iC~.a ~.5 "kCG ut9~`{.y '~ k~ t~'~
A~f~ ~~~ a ~~"~~c° ~ , <a ~4`~X,~i ~'a ~<5 h_ ' vx~ .«~ s ~ ~x'~, 2 -,ir ~nknown ,~ ~ .~ ~nk~now n~~w~, i r ~ ,,12
~rovE ,.ash ngtotl! ri''a , , "~ , : ~ ( -.. , v, .w ^ ~ . ~ i ~ ~~~~ G ~ ...
~s"., ~ ,- .;,, .
discrepancy, especially as compared to
the entire data set.
It is not entirely clear why there
is such a large range. What we do
know is: (1) Lehigh reported 35 lbs
of mercury emissions to EPA's 2006
TRI; (2) all of Lehigh's reported 2006
TRI mercury emissions were air emis-
sions; there were no reports of on- or
off-site mercury waste; (3) in 2007
Lehigh reported an estimated amount
of "mass in" of mercury, meaning
content of the fuel and feedstock,
of 1,539 pounds of mercury in fuel
and ingredients. If 1,539 pounds of
mercury go into the plant and only 35
pounds come out, what has happened
to the rest of the mercury?
Lehigh's Union Bridge, Maryland,
plant is located approximately 75
miles northwest of Baltimore. It is the
fifth largest cement kiln in the United
States, able to produce nearly 2 million
tons of clinker annually. This is par-
ticularly significant given the plant's
proximity to the Chesapeake Bay.
As indicated in Table 2: Mercury Ac-
counting Gaps, the Lafarge Harleyville,
South Carolina, plant reported 78
pounds of mercury to TRI in 2006,
but reported mercury inputs of just
over 200 pounds of mercury on an
annual basis. This plant, sited close
to the Francis Marion National Forest,
is preparing to more than double its
current clinker production capacity
from about 975,000 tons per year
now to over 2.2 million tons per year
by 2010. The fish in large sections
of South C;arolina's water bodies are
already contaminated with mercury
making tYiem unsafe to eat, according
to advisories from the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environ-
mental Control.'
The cement i ndustry is rapidly expanding.
Production capacity gains of nearly 2.5
million metric tons are expected between
2006 and 207.0." As the cement industry's
capacity increases, the amount of mercu-
ry emission::, if unchecked by regulation,
will also increase.
TABLE 3. MAJOR KILNS IGNORES BY EPA
Company Kiln Location Clinker Capacity per Vear Clinker Capacity Rank
~~ r ~ a,.~4~+uav~rr.u ~~upt*,. fs
Tltan'-/~rltAetiLa~~,~~Cf »'i~ . :4'I* ~~:s&~~~~~Fl~watr'a~..~~~.:a'^, ~f~. °, ..xi:~r~n~ni~i~~+lt s.'~ ~.`3.~'w.~a`' ~ .&'I ~:u th €.r ,. .
Titan~America, LLC Cloverdale, Virgiyniap ,~+,g~ t,i38 to nsa~ zgth
a ~E'~. : t 4'4 ,~ s. ~,s v 3~~ICj~`^~y~iliApS~I~~ x ~rwfi~ ,6'~ k fw""~s ~ 6~h.r °~tl~r ~w ~ ,~
MitSubii'hl.Ce7i'f,4nt~CQ~Q~~t'~"01~1 ~~ L~&1r~4 sao-.K,{,~ ~~~ ,a,~w 1.ds ±'r~~rwr~~' S.,.-. „w sar ;~"'r ,- 9t.~`r3~ 'r" ~i +~?+rc .^~a:
Hanson Permanente Cement Cupertino California t.437 tons ttth
Phdenhe C~iiil;n4 L'bt~~r,'~bi'S` ,~'r '~i z~ ~~ n~~y ~ ~~ ., ~~. .. `r.'"i,~~~'+..`k i~'.,,,.~3t .~."`n ..,,
St. Mary's Cement, Inc. Charlevoix, Michigan ~ t,z;4 tons zest
7
°c
70
8
=r.
~S
c:
The cement industry continues to ,zooid
public scrutinzJ as a result of inaction on the
part of the U. S. EPA.
CEMEX is the largest producer of
cement in the United States.'" E]?A
requested information from CErdEX in
its 2007 informa-
tion requests, but
no information on
mercury content
of the kiln feed
or results of
mercury stack
tests have been
turned over by
EPA to the public.
CEMEX made
blanket claims of
confidentiality re-
garding measure-
ments of mercury
emissions from its
kilns natio~iwide.
No other com-
pany made such
claims to EPA.
CEMEX, like the industry at large, is
expanding. It acquired Rinker Materi-
als in 2007 and is expected to bring
a massive new plant on-line in New
Braunfels, 'I~xas, in 2009. 's
EPA's 2007 data request omitted some
of the country's largest individual
cement kilns. As shown in Table 3:
Major Kilns Ignored by EPA, EPA failed
to request information from numer-
ous companies with cement kilns
that rank in the top 25 for production
of clinker.
Certain communities are bearing the
brunt of EPA's inaction. Even a small
amount of mercury can have adverse en-
vironmental and public health impacts.
There are several kilns throughout the
country that are noteworthy due to their
proximity to other kilns and populated
areas. In these communities, EPAs
failure to control mercury emissions is
especially alarming.
The largest concentration of cement
manufacturing in the entire country
is just outside of the Dallas/Fort
Worth metroplex in Midlothian, 'I~xas.
Citizens of Midlothian are burdened
by five plants operated by Holcim,
Ash Grove, and 'ryas Industries, all
within a 6.5-mile radius of each other.
Combined, these plants may emit just
under 200 pounds of mercury on an
annual basis, and thousands of tons of
other dangerous toxic air pollutants.'s
Although there are other sites in
California, the kilns at Davenport and
Cupertino are of particular concern."
In the San Francisco Bay Area, Hanson
Permanente Cement operates a kiln in
Cupertino, California.18 This kiln is lo-
cated within a residential area in close
proximity to several Cupertino schools.
It is also located within five miles of
the San Francisco Bay, which is cur-
rently contaminated with mercury.19
The Hanson Permanente kiln reported
emitting a staggering 494 pounds
of mercury in 2006 to EPFis Tbxics
Release Inventory. EPA failed to in-
clude Hanson Permanente Cement in
any of its information requests, leaving
Homes, schools, and nearby fauns are Zocated right beside a cemen' plant
in Oa~enport, CA.
open the possibility that its mercury
emissions could be even worse. The
CEMEX kiln in Davenport, California,
is of similar concern. That kiln, located
right beside homes and farms along
California's coastline and only 40 miles
north of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary,
reported emitting 172 pounds of mer-
cury to the Tbxics Release Inventory
in 2006. The Davenport kiln is one of
those for which EPA refuses to release
data gathered in 2007.
'The Lafarge site in Alpena, Michigan,
is a five-kiln plant, and in 2006 was
the nation's third largest cement plant.
'These kilns collectively reported emit-
ting 360 pounds of mercury in 2006.
The Alpena cement plant is of particu-
lar concern because it sits on the banks
of Lake Huron and is in close proximity
to residential areas of Alpena.
Data Sources
For the analysis in this report, an
extensive review of available data on
mercury emissions was undertaken. Data
were assembled and analyzed from the
following sources:
.~ EPA, Summary of Cement Kiln
Mercury Emissions (July 2008).
~+ Portland Cement Association, I7. S.
and Canadian Portland Cement IndustrsJ
PZant Information Summary
(December 31, 2006).
EPA list of hazardous-waste burn-
ing kilns (:ZOOS). These kilns were
excluded from the analysis because
mercury emissions from hazardous
waste-bur~iing kilns are regulated,
albeit inadequately.
~- EPA-obtained data from several large
cement companies in response to a
2007 EPA information collection re-
quest. These data generally include:
(1) mercwy tests and (2) data on mer-
cury content in input (raw materials)
for an approximate 30-day period in
2007.
Data on rr~ercury air emissions
submitted to EPA as a part of the 2006
TRI reporting.
Clean Air Act Title V operating
permits for various cement kilns.
9
~-
T4
10
c
or.
~:
_~
u
'~ ement kilns produce cement, the
,~#~ ~~ main ingredient in concrete. The
`~2>.,__,_,~^~ terms cement and concrete are
often used interchangeably, but cement
and concrete are quite different. Cement
FIGURE i. CONCRETE COMPOSITION
. Air
. Portland Cement
- Cravel or Gushed Stone
Sand
- Wa[er
makes up just over 10 percent of any con-
crete mix.2O See Figure 1, Concrete Compo-
sition. Worldwide, the United States is the
third largest producer of cement, behind
China and India.' Thirty-nine companies
produce cement in the United States,
and the top five companies produce over
one-half of all U.S. cement.~~ In 2002, the
United States consumed 103.8 million
metric tons of cement.23
Where Do the Mercury Emissions
Come from?
Mercury emissions from cement kilns
originate from the feed materials (e.g.,
limestone, clay, shale, fly ash, and sand,
among others) and fossil fuels ~e.g., coal,
oil). In general, the amount of mercury
emitted by a cement manufacturing kiln
is proportional to the amount of mercury
in the fuel and feed materials due to the
volatile nature of mercury at the tem-
peratures encountered in a cement kiln."
For a description of the cement manu-
facturing process, see, Figure 2: Mercury
Emission from Cement Production.
With regard to limestone, EPA
recognizes that:
A significant portion of kilns' mercury
emissions comes from limestone; and
Limestone's mercury content varies
with location.
Similarly, with regard to the fuel sourc-
es at cement kilns, EPA recognizes that:
A significant portion of kilns'
mercury emissions comes from the
fuel they use;
.• Individual kilns use widely different
fuels, including different types of coal,
petroleum coke, scrap tires, fuel oil,
and natural gas; and,
These fuels have significantly differ-
ent mercury contents, as do different
types of coal.~s
Many factors can decrease the quan-
tity of mercury emissions produced at a
cement kiln. These factors include the
use of fuels containing less mercury (e.g.,
natural gas or coal with low mercury
content), cleaner raw materials (e.g.,
limestone with low mercury content),
kiln design (e.g., dry kilns as opposed to
wet kilns), and various types of control
FIGURE 2. MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM CEMEIVT PRODUCTION
w. ,r1.~ mewls+wtr~l..
~olscwl~d t-~ pgllMi ff wfrlo vn[ w I eni ram {raMpln
,pear.!-7h!41'~'wanr al+twai/ rw®>iC•n r.y n. i..
aYV~ril of w[~.uy`r r wrrrrtrmlroeorn. Mrw ~puis u~
~, ~
fb S
!. Yrw ~.. O[a A QirtT Mr[.
L1n1t+nMnt. [!.e )nrne[Y Npe[tr1[I :. cnnerR d laio^lMI If Iy1L
.alw.+Y+~ r+a<.a~ .a...f.~r V r.~..n. oil Va+~[....t 6r..W +Hh Sw
1°'St1la}~O![y!1Ut GfO~r ~MII/, BFl 11~ f>A[. 6,%~l RI[Gl1C.It /i411Fy n{11. 1
~~armase ry}Ya>. tl[N A ~I~. ~'ww Kl~i N1w b~v~R~s~: ~~
a wury oR mr[o ury
i AM Furl Up
B4rw1 n1 rar n1aln l.b eir K+i mo nla1l~ ~uaM1'b
rlii ral ar rari.d r w=a[q ^.>s1 R• r~r [[rt.rvfa [Ppvcl+
N ae..r nl [I+r op(xr,11r crl rl rl rr ~N~r<JI'Nf ^~wa+rHC1
Mrrpwatrw almvr ~5 pMan [v hN sa n.. aF`~ anbo-. Tha
d.-rrl:M ..-sr3xa pel~rraYY1 by dGn ~.ert a,m p.e ran..1[1<rleM
.,f+ el~/,v n.. rearrdN,n R+nss•+v n1 mr.+Trwc ~'' : •M a Tp
, .~..... y .~+~.1 n -. cr'~ ~< ..1 utrn !•~ ~~ i r. v y 9nf11r1t up MS 9[I.U. rsU2 k
r s .1 W ~. Yra rry Mme[ .:r
~y
6. TIVI.sptsYSOn
.41v po..ap Mrsv~h IM rafvy kY1 sl.sse[ s rnd.d. ~.vld v+d L/a[r d•t wwr+
pMMAr, WM [ h kr_ ryf [1'1e otmen[ hnm nsni M [g ico qu~9~rV 1' M_ `t+d KoAU ri nl
lapa~ v.a .A.n v.~d la c,ar...v-...w ra u.a ccr,.w :,. wt
i.~ ..FIB
' 4nla Rrn foal IA prfrtl MY) wN[nN h4a1 :[K/d4
uvr, N ~ a nafatlranl~ ~[[tr rsrgy alo~[o rnd
iN r,~cpwvgi W. 6+ Rra C+. oI Ih+. ~I'INf W1i !N\IFi In r[, ni'y 114'h"
a av[1 1c1tr
11
Yc
o'
Yc
7
12
of
y
_~
technology (e. g., particulate matter
control devices, such as baghouses .and
activated carbon injection).
Some kilns have already reduced their
mercury emissions by making changes
to either their raw materials or fuels or
by using additives.~s Not only do some
kilns have consistently cleaner inputs
than others, but some kilns are deploying
pollution control equipment that reduces
mercury emissions. Yet, EPA has failed to
require similar reductions at other plants.
13
i.
o'
YC
~ eople are exposed
-°to unhealthy levels
.. of mercury when
they eat mercury-con-
taminated fish. Figure 3:
Bioaccumulation of Mercury,
depicts how mercury can
end up in our food supply.
Three forms of inor-
ganic mercury are emitted
into the air by cement
kilns -elemental, gas-
phase, and particle-bound
mercury. The latter two,
comprising 50 percent of
all mercury emitted, are
believed to deposit locally
and regionally around the
source.' Once released
into the environment,
bacteria convert this inor-
ganic mercury into organic
mercury - methylmercury
FIGURE 3. BIOACCUIVIULATION OF MERCURY
w~:'_"-
t n.~
ew ~
, . ~
~ '-'
~ ~ p
h .
~
_
14
C
;<
is the most common form -which the:n
accumulates in fish and shellfish.~a
Methylmercury quickly enters the
aquatic food chain and accumulates as
it is passed from the smallest organisms
to those at the top of the food chain, like
walleye and bass.
(See Figure 3.J fish
at the top of the
food chain contain
between 10,000 and
100,000 times great-
er concentrations
of methylmercury
than that dissolved
in the water.29
Once in the hu-
man body, mercury
acts as a neuro~~oxin,
interfering wit]i the
brain and nervous
system. Exposure
to mercury cars be
particularly hazard-
ous for pregnant
women and small
children. During the
first several years of
life, a child's brain is
still developing and
rapidly absorbing
nutrients. Prenatal
and infant mercury
exposure can cause mental retardation,
cerebral palsy, deafness, and blindness.
Even in low doses, mercury may affect
a child's development, delaying walking
and talking, shortening attention span,
and causing learning disabilities.ao
TABLE 4. CEMENT CAPACITY BY STATE'
...........................................................................
State Percent of Industry
~. -„
c>ilti~ ~~ ~~. ..
o `
...~.,- u,n ~a_ .. __ ... ~ _ ..~. _ .
Texas I2.2 %
fi~rr,, ~ ~ ~
'"-P! „n..wvsaFiz~ «.~~,~,~ u ~..~'.;_ ~;e:rv, ~'a; .:, n4i .. ~ "-{.~,,.. «~~'x~~.."~'a.. °'~.
Florida 6.; %
M~ ~~ ~ ~, ~~Sf:iL of ~.
'Alabajn3' r ' ~ r ,", e~:a~' S ~ ~+, ~; 54 P * ..
From the U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry. Plant
Information Summary, December 37, 2006.
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimate that 8 percent of
women of childbearing age have enough
mercury in their blood to put a baby at
risk of cognitive and developmental dam-
age." The National Academy of Sciences'
National Research Council estimated in
a 2000 report that approximately 60,000
children per year maybe born in the
U.S. with neurological problems due to in
utero exposure to methylmercury.'~
Mercury poses a threat to adult men,
as well as women and children. In adults,
mercury poisoning can adversely affect
fertility and blood pressure regulation
and can cause memory loss, tremors,
vision loss, and numbness of the fingers
and toes.
A number of studies have found an
association between mercury concentra-
tions and heart attacks in adults. In one
of those studies, the authors reported a 69
percent greater risk of heart attack and
a 93 percent greater risk of premature
death in individuals with hair mercury
concentrations of 2.0 ppm or more, com-
pared with those with less than 2.0 ppm."
It is well documented that mercury
pollution is currently a major problem for
many states, with nearly all states having
at least some fish consumption warn-
ings for particular waterbodies. Across
the United States, in 2006, mercury was
known to have contaminated more than
14 million acres of lakes and 882,963
river miles. In 2006, 48 states issued fish
consumption advisories, warning citizens
to limit how often they eat certain types
of fish caught in state waters because they
are contaminated with mercury, 23 states
issued statewide advisories for mercury
in freshwater lakes and/or rivers, and 12
states have statewide advisories for mer-
cury in their coastal waters, including all
states on the gulf coast and the majority
of the eastern seaboard.'"
Kilns in close proximity to water bod-
ies are a serious health concern. A study
conducted by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection modeled
the contribution of local atmospheric
mercury concentrations to measured
mercury levels in fish. A correlation
was found between levels of mercury
found in locally caught fish and recently
mandated emission reductions in local
municipal and medical waste incinera-
tors. At one location, 92 percent of the
observed total mercury deposition could
be accounted for by local sources.35
Not surprisingly, a disproportionate
number of states bear the burden of the
industry's capacity. As shown in Table 4:
Where Cement is Made, in 2006, 44 per-
cent of clinker capacity is found in just
five states.36
According to the Portland Cement
Association, clinker capacity in the
United States is expanding and contin-
ued growth is expected in the coming
years.3' In 2006, capacity reached an
all-time high. Additional gains of nearly
Earthj ustice has ad-
vertised in newspapers
and on billboards across
the country about the
dangers of mercury
from cement kfZns. The
ad shown here, which
ran in a newspaper
in Midlothian, 7Y.xas,
notified Zocai residents
of potential changes [o
a cement kiln operating
permit and the need
for public comments.
Similar ads appeared
in Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania, Florida,
and Colorado, telling EPA
to clean up mercury from
cement kilns.
15
S
sa
Y~
2.5 million metric tons are expected
between 2006 and 2010.30 Unless appro-
priately regc~~lated, as capacity increases,
mercury emissions will also increase.
16
`c
U
L
.y
L`
~<
C
17
YG
y4
An Overview of the Federal
Regulations
After years of foot-dragging by EPA,
Congress identified 189 hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) in the 1990 Amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act. Mercury is
one of those Congressionally listed air
toxics.'s Today, the primary way that EPA
regulates air toxics such as mercury is
through Maximum Achievable Control
'IZ;chnology (MACT) standards.4O
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to
identify categories of facilities that are
major sources of these air toxics and to
set emission standards for each category,
such as cement kilns."'
When EPA issues MACT standards for
an industrial category, such as cement
kilns, it must set standards for each
hazardous air pollutant that category
emits.42 For each HAP, these standards
must require the maximum reduction in
emissions that is achievable considering
cost and other factors."' Well aware of
EPA's tendency to cave to industry pres-
sure and issue weak environmental stan-
dards, Congress also included absolute
minimum stringency ("floor") provisions
in the Clean Air Act that apply without
regard to cost or EPA's views about what
is achievable.44 For the existing plants in
any category-, EPA's standards may not be
less stringent than the average emission
level achieved by the
12 percent of sources
with the lowest emis-
sion levels."s For new
plants, standards may
not be less stringent
than the emission
level achieved by the
single lowest emitting
source.46
Congress enacted
this law in 1990, and re-
quired EPA t~~ complete
its MACT standards for cement kilns no
later than 1997. In direct violation of this
law -and in defiance of repeated federal
18
.L
^c
court orders, EPA has yet to set any mer-
cury standards for existing cement kilns.
Thanks to EPAs recalcitrance and neglect,
uncontrolled emissions from cement
kilns have continued unabated for the last
decade, at a rate of approximately 23, 000
pounds a year.
Years of EPA Delay
Three times in the last ten years, federal
courts have ordered EPA to set emis-
sion standards to control cement kil ns'
mercury emissions. But EPA has ignored
these orders or sought to evade then2.
In 1990 Congress amended the fed-
eral Clean Air Act to require EPA to set
standards for the emissions of air to:cics
from cement kilns. The standards were
due in 1997, but EPA failed to act, and in
1998 Earthjustice filed suit on behalf of
the Sierra Club to force EPA into action.
In 1999 EPA did adopt a rule regulat-
ing toxics from cement kilns, but in
that rule EPA failed to set a limit for
mercury."' EPA wrongly claimed that
because it found no cement plants us-
ing control technologies specifically
for mercury, it did not have to set a
mercury limit.
EPA's cement kiln regulations were
unlawful.48 In particular, the D.C. Court
of Appeals found that EPAs failure to set
emission standards for mercury flatly
violated the federal Clean Air Act.
Five years after the D.C. Court of
Appeals found EPA's failure to regulate
FIGURE 4. TIMELINE OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITY
.c'Yx ~yi s feF p. zl7 ~j'~.z~`dC
Cfn~'S~s1011 ~'OT tO I 8 d ryrt ~ ~.5- '.-:' x ~~a.~..i„ n ° #~ a ,, s 6"y ~',1,+ »LUr t b- t
G .~1 #~,: 1 CU ~;
T v, A,a ~
"f y ~, , .* ,~ ~ T y
mx ?fit kM_ i
°
pollutants~'~ncludlrig , ; ~ ~ ~
~ ~orrl en
ts « r
~
~ ~ hyd~o~ari~oFi~
(
mercury from~cemeni
-
.. FA
'
•.
kilns
Assn: propdsed
rule again fails to
establish emission;. ,
.-~- ,~ .a f.V L v fit., rPt~X ^s -
t0]Cltdrd'~'C`2[rC~` w x a ~ y ~ 2" vr- ~~'{ hx .~h, t-i ?s'~ ~" x' i$ F ~~~ # `~`.:
_. .-
' '- a ,. ~' .. t
a > ~ ~.,t p
~ ~~' '.~
mercury emissions from cement kilns a
clear violation of the Clean Air Act, and
despite a 2005 court order requiring EPA
to propose rules, EPA yet again refused to
set regulations to control mercury emis-
sions from this country's existing kilns.49
EPA's scofflaw approach to toxic
emissions from cement kilns has drawn
increasing attention from states that are
grappling with their mercury pollution
and from citizen groups whose members
are affected by this pollution. Nine
states and seven environmental groups
combined to challenge EPA's most recent
refusal to set mercury standards in a 2007
lawsuit before the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. SO
Under intense pressure from states
and local and national environmental
kilns eYnit and orders
EPA to set the missing
standards (case
referred to as National
LimeAss'nv.EPA)
and public health groups, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency finally
indicated that it would set mercury emis-
sion standards, as stated in papers filed
on February 20, 2008, in a fourth case
brought by Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra
Club, Downwinders at Risk (TX), Friends
of Hudson (N`~), Montanans Against
lbxic Burning, Desert Citizens Against
Pollution (CA), and the Huron Environ-
mental Activist League (MI). The States
of Michigan, New Jersey, the Pennsylva-
niaDepartment of Environmental Protec-
tion, New Yorlc, Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts also
filed suit. EPA's announcement marks a
dramatic shift in EPA policy which, until
now, had beers to resist requiring mercury
controls for cement kilns.
19
io
o'
y-
-~.,.., ~, ~~ -°~ ~> rn= ~ o ,ry .;,,.~ y ..
m ,,; 'courts 2C2oo orae[;rn'
'
... ~ ;. .. .
. ~_..,~
., ~ NAtibnol Li»-ie'AS4M'
,~ F_
ns
uit~E$"7ifi"f
Ci~ ~~,~ .'~a w
' ,, f 1 ~'- of i~~$riE ~ x v ~~- ~ ,~;i r y.. ~, r~a,~
' s
~
` ^` ~ '~[
~ ~ :~a..:s„ `~el~"as ` eiti'i t d"`t "
~
~ g
,
rc
t
that EPA has^plain
,_
u ~
~ .
.,.
`~`t~i~~ards'fof~ct~me_nt _`=' . ;,,
,
: _ a To`xiG Legat:y'~'
statutory duty to set kilns in zbo9 document~ng~mercury
~missidr5'stahdards .,~ ~ emi5s_iori '~roirr
s
for each•ltiazi;~dous,
~; ,
y
_cement kilns across- "~
' air pollutant that an E
'' the country
industry emits ;
20
c
x
y
>c
EPA must foZZow through on its cosvtmit-
ments. In a recent court document, EPA
stated that it would release a proposal for
a cement kiln mercury standards' This
is the first time that EPA has publicly
acknowledged that it will finally abide by
court orders requiring it to set a cement
kiln standard for mercury and that it
will comply with the Clean Air Act. EPA
must now follow through on this pn~posal
and release a final rule in 2009. EPA.'s
proposal must not repeat its past litany of
complaints as to why such regulation is
too complicated. It is not.
States should require specific testiseg for
mercury emissions. Even once a st.m-
dard is set by EPA, it is incumbent that
states implementing permitting programs
across the country have access to u7~-to-
date information. Source tests will t>enefit
both the public and permitting authori-
ties. Neighboring residents will be getter
informed of health risks. Permittin€;
authorities (the states) will have be~cter
N~".
~..
_~
information with which to set permit
limits and take enforcement actions.
Monitoring must be added. Continuous
Emissions Monitoring Systems (GEMS)
should be required for mercury on all
kilns. GEMS will provide real-time data
on emissions at the cement kilns. This
technology should be promptly installed
at kilns nation-wide.
PoZZution controls must also be added.
State regulatory agencies should not wait
for EPA to set standards, but should imme-
diately require the kilns within their juris-
diction to install pollution control devices
specifically designed to capture mercury,
such as activated carbon injection.
EPA claims that it will propose a
standard to limit mercury emissions
from cement kilns in 2008. Any failure
to issue such standards must be viewed
critically by the public and prompt public
officials to ask why we must continue to
be exposed to this toxic pollution.
Notes
' EPA's current regula[io ns distinguish between
cement kilns that burn hazardous wastes as a
fuel source and those that do not. This report
addresses EPA's failure to regulate mercury
emissions from non-hazardous waste burn-
ing cement kilns. EPA's own Tbxics Release
Inventory (TRIG does not distinguish between
hazardous and non-hazardous waste burn-
ing cement kilns. The 2006 figure of 11,995
pounds includes both types of kilns, making
the. new finding on non-hazardous waste
burning kilns at nearly 23,000 pounds all [he
more significant.
` See Appendix A, for this industry-wide emis-
sion estimate. As reflected in the appendices,
this number is based on a mix of data from
TRI, source tests, and input data. While the
input data numbers are probably skewed to a
high-end, assuming 100 percent pass through
of the mercury contained in the kiln fuels
and Feedstock, it is also likely [hat emission
data reported to TRI and through source tests
are in some instances underreported.
' Janet Raloff, Mercurial Risks from Acid's Rain,
139 SCI. NEWS 152, 153 (1991).
' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2003. Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Avail-
able at http://www.edc.gov/nceh/dls/ner.
H[m. EPA used the CDC data to estimate
number of newborns at risk. See Mahaffey,
K., et al., 2004. "Blood organic mercury and
dietary mercury intake: National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and
2000," Environ Heath Perspect, 112:562-570.
http: //ehp. niehs. nih.gov/docs/2003/6587/
abstract.html.
Cement kilns are sources of air pollution For
mercury and many other toxic air pollutants.
Cement kiln systems release numerous haz-
ardous air pollutants into the environment,
including acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene,
cadmium, chromium, chlorobenzene, diben-
zofurans, formaldehyde, hexane, hydrogen
chloride, lead, manganese, mercury, naph-
thalene, nickel, phenol, polycyclic organic
matter, selenium, styrene, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlo-
rodibenzo-p-dioxin, toluene, and xyle nes.
In addition, the Hazardous air pollutants
released from other components of the kiln,
such as the clinker coolers, raw mills, finish
mills, storage bins, conveying system transfer
points, bagging systems and bulk loading and
unloading systems include arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, and selenium. See National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Proposed Standards For Hazardous Air Pol-
lutants Emissions from the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry, 63 Fed. Reg. 14,182,
14,183 (Mar. 24, 1998).
° See Appendix C, July 2008 EPA data sum-
mary. Please note that this re Elects non-
hazardous waste burning kilns only.
' U.S. and Canadian Portland Cemett[ Industry
Plant Information Summary, December
31, 2006, pagers 2-3. These industry wide
numbers refie:ct both hazardous and non-
hazardous waste burning kilns.
° See February, 2008 Declaration of Peter
TSirigotis, Director of the Sector Policies and
Programs Division of EI'A, filed before the
D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals in pending
Cause No. 07-1046, Consolidated with Nos.
07-1048, 07-1C49 and 07-1052.
' All production capacity numbers come from
the U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement In-
dustry, Plant Information Summary, Decem-
ber 31, 2006, Portland Cement Association
Economic Research Department, Table 13.
See also, Appendix A.
1O Hanson Permanete Cement is listed in Ap-
pendix A as Lehigh-Hanson Permanence
Cement. Leh .gh purchased this plant in 2007.
See, U.S. and Canadian Portland Cemert[
Industry, Plan[ Information Summary, De-
cember 31, 2(106, Portland Cement Associa-
tion Economic Research Department, Table 3.
According to the Portland Cement Associa-
tion, in 2006, this plant ranked 42 out of 112
U.S. cement kilns for capacity to produce
clinker. This rank includes hazardous
waste-burning kilns. See, U.S. and Canadian
Portland Cement Industry, Plant Information
Summary, December 31, 2006, Portland Ce-
ment Association Economic Research Depart-
ment, "Fable ] 3.
For a discuss ion of [he planned expansion,
see U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement
Industry Plant Information Summary,
December 31, 2006, page 4.
Information on South Carolina mercury
advisories can be found at: http://
wwwscdhec. ne [/environment/water/ fish/
downloads. hcm.
U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry,
Plant Information Summary, December 31,
2006, Portland Cement Association Economic
Research Department, page 1.
" See U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement In-
dustry, Plant Information Summary, Decem-
ber 31, 2006, Portland Cement Association
Economic Research Department, page 1.
's U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry,
Plant Information Summary, December 31,
2006, Portland Cement Association Economic
Research Department, "Fables 2 and 3.
's See Appendix A for the following values:
19 ibs. from one TXI kiln, 31 lbs. from three
Ash Grove kilns, and 146 ]bs. From cwo Hol-
cim kilns.
" Non-hazardous waste burning kiln sites
in California include: CEM EX's kilns in
victorville a(Id Davenport, Lehigh's kilns in
'Ibhachapi attd Redding, California Portland
Cement's kilns in Colton, Aill ito, and Mojave,
and the Hanson Permanete Cement kiln in
Cupertino.
21
re
y^
22
c:
'" With regard to clinker capacity, this is one
of the largest plants in the country. See, U.S.
and Canadian Portland Cement Industry,
Plant Information Summary, December 3'.,
2006, Portland Cement Association Economic
Research Department, 'Fable 13. Note that the
capacity ranking includes hazardous was G;
burning kilns.
'" http://wwwswrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/
water_issu es/programs/tmdls/
sfbaymercu rytmdl. shtml.
3O "lbxas Aggregates and Concrete Associationz,
"Frequently Asked Questions" at
http://tx-taca.org/uploads/files/
Concrete 96 20and 96 20cement 96 20faq. pdf.
" Portland Cement Association, "Cement and
Concrete Basics" at http://www.cement.
org/basics/cementindustry.asp.
Portland Cement Association, "Cement and
Concrete Basics" at http://www.ce ment_o rg/
basics/ce me ntindustry. asp.
" Portland Cement Association, "Cement and
Concrete Basics" at http://www.ce menc.o rg/
basics/ce men[industry.asp.
2° 70 Fed. Reg. 72330, 72333 (Dec. 2, ZOOS).
'~ See Docket A-92-53, Item II-A-46 at App. P..
zs 70 Fed. Reg. 72330, 72333 (Dec. 2, 2005).
" Glenn Rice Fr James K. Hammitt, Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management,
Economic Valuation of Human Health Be.~-
efits of Controlling Mercury Emission from
U.S. Coal-Fired Power plants (2005) [hereinaf-
ter "Harvard/N ESCAUM study"] a[ 5.
2H Washington Department of Health, Statewide
Bass Advisory, September 2003, citing EPi1.
1999. The National Survey of Mercury
Concentrations in Fish. Data Base Summary
1990-1995. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Water. September 1999.
EPA-823-R-99-014.
" Washington Department of Health, Statewide
Bass Advisory, September 2003.
'" http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/
mercury/effects.asp.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2003. Second National Report on Human
Exposure m Environmental Chemicals. Avail-
able at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/ner.
htm. EPA used the CDC data to estimate
number of newborns at risk. See Mahaffe,;/,
K., et al., 2004. "Blood organic mercury and
dietary mercury intake: National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and
2000," Envimn Health Perspect, 112:562-570.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/dots/2003/658T/
abstracthtml.
" Palmer, R.F., et al., Proximity to point sources
of environmental mercury release as a pr~-
dictor of autism prevalence. Health Fr Place
2008), doia0.7016/j.healthplace.2008.02.077,
citing National Academy of Sciences, 200(1.
'Ibxicological Effects of Methyl-mercury.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
" "Harvard/N ESCAUM study" at 37-48 (citing
Salonen et al., Mercury accumulation and
accelerated progression of carotid atheroscle-
rosis: Apopulation-based prospective 4-year
follow-up study in men in Eastern Finland,
148 Atherosclerosis 265 (2000)).
J° U.S. EPA Fact Sheet, 2005/2006 National
Listing of Fish Advisories (July 2007). Also
at, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/
advisories/2006/tech. pdf.
'~ Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Integrating Atmosphere Mercury Deposi-
tion with Aquatic Cycling in Soutlt Florida:
An approach For conducting a'Ibtal Maximum
Daily Load Analysis for an atmospherically
derived pollutant (2003), pages 56-57.
's U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry,
Plant Information Summary, December 31,
2006, Portland Cement Association Economic
Research Department, Table 11. Note that
these capacity numbers reflect kilns chat also
burn hazardous wastes.
U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry,
Plant Information Summary, Dece mbez 31,
2006, Portland Cement Association Economic
Research Department, 'Fable 2.
1B U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry,
Plant Information Summary, December 31,
2006, Portland Cement Association Economic
Research Department, page 1.
39 See the list of hazardous air pollutants at
Clean Air Act § 112(b).
°O when the EPA sets MACT standards For
pollutants at particular sources, these stan-
dards are referred to as National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or
NESHAPs. State and local environmental
agencies may obtain approval from the EPA
[o run programs that administer MACT
standards. For a state or locality to run a
MACT program, it must demonstrate that the
state or local MACT requirements are just as
stringent as the federal MACT requirements.
°1 For hazardous air pollutants, the Clean Air
Act defines a major source as any stationary
source of emissions that has the potential to
emit at least ten tons per year o£ any single
hazardous air pollutant or at least 25 tons per
year or more of any combination of hazard-
ous air pollutants. Clean Air Act § 112(a)Q ).
In 1992, EPA published an initial list of major
source categories chat includes Portland Ce-
ment Manufacturing. 57 Fed. Reg. 31576 (July
16, 1992). For the requirement [hat the EPA
set standards for each source category see,
Clean Air Acc § 112(d)(1) and Nat'Z Lime Assn
v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 628 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
amended on den. o£ reh'g 2/14/2001.
°2 Clean Air Act § 112(d)(1 ). See also, Nato Lime
Assn v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 628 (D.C. Cir.
2000), amended on den. of reh'g 2/14/2001.
O3 Clean Air Act § 112(d)(2).
Clean Air Ac[ § 112(d)(3).
°s Clean Air Ac[ § 112(d)(3)(A). Note that in
source categories where there are fewer
Chan 30 sources, the limit may not be less
stringent than the average achieved by the
best five performing sources. Clcan Air Act §
112(d)(3)(8)~
°" Clean Air Act § 112(d)(3).
°' EPA published its final rule that failed to set
any limits on kilns' emissions of mercury,
hydrochloric acid, and toxic hydrocarbons.
See, 64 Fed. Reg. 31,898 (.lu ne 14, 1999).
°a Na[Q Lime Assn u. EPA, 233 E3d 625 (D. C. Cir
2000), amended on den. of reh'g 2/14/2001.
O9 70 Fed. Reg. 72330 (Dec. 2, 2005). The 2006
final rule did contain mercury standards
for "new" cement kilns, those for which
construction or reconstruction begins after
December 2, 2005, but EPA immediately
commenced reconsideration proceedings on
this aspect or the rule. 71 Fed. Reg. 76518,
76524 (December 20, 2006). Those proceed-
ings are still pending.
so See EPA's February 20, 2008 Motion to Govern
before the D C. Circuic Court of Appeals in
Cause No. 07-1046, Consolidated with Nos.
07-1048, 07-1D49 and 07-1052.
s' See February', 2008 Declaration of Peter
'ISirigocis, Director of the Sector Policies and
Programs Division of EPA, filed before the
D.C. Circuic :ourt of Appeals in pending
Cause No. 07-1046, Consolidated with Nos.
07-1048, 07-1 D49 and 07-1052.
23
-24-- Appendix A
__~.
KILN DATA ANALYSIS
;a
Capacity Study
= in t,ooos Study Range-
: of metric zoo6 Range- High
Dry/ tons/yr TRI Hg Low Hg Hg High EPA
"' Company Kiln Location ST ZIP Kiln IR Wei ~n clinker (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (ib/yr) Basis Scrubber Resp?
k 4 N r n r ++^' a. ~ i a + ~x rt~ yr ?fi + n9 N~ F ~ '~~ ~ L C ~ a:.
Ai`m~,tron " r~, ~a ~({ `ay"£ ~ap'~~ ,,r+~aK~ ! ~5 y( ~;q~~1~y(i u~^yga.~) d~' gy~~ f~a."~ h a r~..~ 1ai p,g #PP taa~ Tr a ~ryµb.
^.$ 6 ~` °' ~ {{.gg0~~~".a~g;'"9p~i"' "~ y ' , CS ~'°£} y ~ y .Ar nn^rYr~,~~ O r R 'C.N~1F'. S~y¢ 'M, .~ Ieµti1 P W~.ab~:~ S c `~
v ....
Ce 2~t M'h.~21 Y"^f.~M'rM hrv s,~ }K'P ., mM''m tt,. ~.1P ~ ~Jifl '.F nL W.n. nr~ I'FNr~ " rr f;. .:. ~ ,eP -
Ash Grove Durkee OR g7go5 t Dry 894 z,58t z.58t 3.788 Test Yes
F :. ^_,~a BM1 ?r+ti a i y~r ~y Q, SR: w $M ~ f r3 Y Aa .~ ~ PouS d"a A e5 ~ ~'~ 9~ a t ,
ASh~4rbVe ~` Inkbr(i-irs ~`~17~a ~. IS3~~?"F,~yAFm ;.. ~}w~$d ~k~~~~~, ~ ~¢^, ,, ~0~.~s s~r+,_~~"~, q~.w~ ...t <r nr fi '!.;l'e5^ .
Ash Grove Inkom ID 83245 z Wet t44 ~" °i" r; 0 5 " ~aq #~G ~. " r , I ~ Yes
N ro4" #'PS M.^'°'N x . x N JN k~ Gw =' Lr v A°~' Tp F ~: e i : ~a-0t f F "s N _ VS R'^ ~;~~ p 5 v "1:
Ash ~roye :r otllsLl~e.,i5 .„~V ~,r ~,aF~w ?<, F.:'`'"~r-~.'~l*,': ~~'9t~r'?.;, ,cam +~.~«~ h"37 .'. '~~~°,~'n, a. .'F•-~ i D ~ P Yes.
.. A ~ aw ".arx, an ~.~~~wsi Sc~u ''
Ash Grove LouisvPlle NE 68037 z Dry 55t v . a 7 06 ~ + +~-,~,~T, >f ~ b~i4g,." Yes
~y rpr q ~.'~I v 4 84~~° k~ r %a ~~r+' .. Pa,++a ~~4 C aaz ~ Qsxr~~P +' S x ~~ r" I `' °K erA`=
. n+k '~ ~~'1Y~i~ry„~'t a'`~ ~fi~ 4 }. k°~y h, .,N d . t e • 4a ~tlr Y r l'Y ~ d F,{ "5'.` a ~^' ^N4~wi ,ac . ,
Ash V`$ve `e'~`",~y `b ~~Vt~a°"~"" n ~"1"'~''~ ~~~3{~~nt c~ G ~~t4, ~+{z~'~ k',a, " (V°o ~itl 2 Y`",• y I~put '' Yes
Ash Grove Nephl UT 84638 t Dry 833 t53 t53 t67 Input Yes
(LeamPngton) „
Ash GYOVtl ," Sea![)e i- 'VVAs, ~ .~~~~ ".. 04 '~~ ~ ., ; a~ "'fir !t 6Y5'~"^ 't+ ~ t,'2 ~ ~W~2i ra +~' ~2 !:' ~I iipuY i a? : ;~~ a ~.: ..Y~^s+. .
Ash Grove Midlothian TX 76065 t Wet z9t t.5 Yes
Ash Grove . .~:MFdlbthia~ . ,TX~;I ~~o65`s.. x 3="r ~~E. ~., x^Z~~? ^,^,; 3t t Y>%?; 3t TRI t" °i`"s ~"" "Yes'
Ash Grove Midlothian TX 76065 3 Wet zgt t.7 Yes
Buzzi Chattanooga TN 37405 t Dry 8t6 No TRI
Buzzi Fustus MO 63028 2 Dry
537 '.
"
ZZ{~ W
S~~ yyrr .2 l'U uh i~P. u~ t ~,b4 Ti4b V r+~, 5
%1.+,$7 '
'exl"~~
ry~:
,
~~~!''n
~
N~'A$~~.
~
7~~
a
.
BI
l .11t
5A j.,
""
.
:: e:.
`!
a: „
,
:>
,
Buzzi Independence KS 673ot z Dry 8t '
Buzzi itldepende''1ce w . ~b['y ~ ` $t~'~' ~
f:"~o1 ;
y'
~
^
*.
't,
" ,
r
,
,
,~
~
^
Buzzi Independence S 673ot 4 Dry 8t ~.
K
BuY2~l~ e5L7y
~gI
~ y
+-':s 4
.
'~ d~:y~~~k'"T idfi %:iJ
~L!~,Y ~~~R
~~
~
'~'!
~
4~
,
X; »
> _
v a
.
.
.
:
. v
,
Buzzi Pryor OK 74362 t Dry t9o
i
'z w x Kan w
`d~a°
''
P 3 r ! Q t w:.
~~r t8§ura::
~ Di•
± ~
'~'"i'~~
~~' #"n5r~
+.,
Bi.
z y.
,ry 2
.
,
wr_ .
Buzzi P
ry
o
r 6
2
OK 7
3 Dry 274
4
3
}
w,
ryry~~
.pµ.~
i
I
~'
~)
~
i'R 11
b¢
~
y
C 9yF
~S
*
'j
M1
Kt$
28 ?~
~I
~
~~
BU;,zlr .
trf
te
Y
QW
~ .
yj~~~k
.
y v
V
YAn
x.wn .. ~
r~$~
«la.Sr
Buzzi Stockertown PA t8o83 z Dry 558
Buzzi ~ _ M aryneal TX 79535 z Dry
Buzzi. Mir~neab~„,~ ,7X .R.7R~~~'d.~P'^"~" °n~D, 7P:~:%
California
Portland Mojave CA g35oz t Dry
Cement
2?
??
a>
a ,a ;
x~"~k ~
+P
e s
"?}
°~
rt
"" .. .
:jetx.
d
]>
No
'++?' + i
1
pj S
r -x i
No
! ~ `
a ~~T
u
9
'
1rM,
=
'~"
~
x xe•
No
' ' . r ~~
g~+" N o
'
~:
~~' pia »~
o•
rv•~
a a'1 N
' a
(x '{~ ,Y hi .t tl { a2.(
t „
...
..w ... 1.M
t5o
t.375 t3 t3 zo Test Yes
25
=i
io
S
is
California
Portland Rillito AZ 85654 4 DrY 969 °'t sxr 'O'
Cement '' ~' ii".
~} ~5 L J" o 14 P r 4 ~, FI ~~Y~,~,x• ~ s+9Ty a 4 ~ I '°' ~ b l i r 1 a ~ s - ~~~ ~ ,
r _.
Cap)°~'y ~ ~ ~SY't~"J["n~99~"~'~"~.'.~` ,7$i~1"~~~~ o~ ~~1"~ Fr~eWe`E~„ ~91ir'"s ~.!') i .t~' Wit I ' t ,l No? _"
Capitol San Antonio TX 78zt7
Aggregates z Dry 6oq ~' No
~ ~'
~
-.
C@inEx ~~ BrooksvillE`" ".FL: ~~ :;q61 r, ,,'. ~rj~.,~ li r~629: „~ - "6.. _.;. Nb.
Cemex Brooksville FL 34614 z Dry 629 ~~i wQ le~~ No
`~ ~ ~wP "~ " "'~' r 5 tl> ': ,> 1 ~' A ~~g yI SLS µ nbw Y ~ 4 ~i ~ i ..
Ce~dR ~w k~~ w :~'1 k T<v qg,~~., +r ~`l ~~p r ° We r3_gdpyi, .i
t4~~ ~ d r is ~ 1`+
~M°~ -~.~ °~..d4w§ F ?dS,+afid.~'~'J~'n'"~ rwl~w~+,"^'r ,J s'u''..?,'2r
Cemex ~ Clinchfield 'GA 3i ot3 t Dry .755 g 38 No
Cemex Demopolis AL g673z t Dry $53 pNv~o TR..hy No
~.. N%n'- 0 ~t q~ ~cm 3. <Y y 5Z ~'d y.AAUi ~W Pb' °i ~' ~. T pVA-~L~~ l6 .y N.1 +~
~4h'1K~d~e~"~ci ~ .. ~.-...'y„" «. ... ,,. ~^ ..:..a!9F _.s ..u. '~~.. .:. ,.". r,. s <:~.,,. ... iw -4a~ .~~w r, ~~-.,N°h " _.+,rb r`ti i7;'%fi7x ,~.9 , V -
Cemex Louisville KY ~ 4oz7z t Dry t,4o7 36 No
., .,~ °.
- ~ ,~~" ~ ~ ~ i~~ ,. m '~zc". ' b'" a `.v ~$ r,'e¢ ~~ ~3, ~ i °^' '~""~' x*~`6~~-'f~, ,,~ r »a ~"~a~. ~ ' u~i "~t:~t~"b`
Ceme>t ..t Lyons ,~:_ e. O,= ,SO~:,: i e. ry ''. '~~7 ~ '' v "s,. i ... .: r, . ~ ., _ .~.+ .~...
..w,..
Cemex
- Rinker Miami FL 331 8z
t Dry 985 z5 No
Materials
i ^r w,:' N1W, J t ~. (': "U. t'{ry`
~e4 i "l,
Cet~SekF 1 eM, -O'@~e~~'$~..+,~w 9r an'SC'''`w'N'~~~Y~G
9
7
6
6
Cemex Odessa ~ TX ~ 7 _
S S ~.~ } ~ '~i t ~' 'MN' 9b~y 7 _ N n"{k~
~~,~~ CN IV
,~l<k~~.,~:w~u~~XS ,,` „~'3,5'll .~`~'~ ~'~.»'; ~"._ ~''. .i`~~ ~.}'~ o
+'' a '~'~ No
z
87
z D
ry
yn
~
~
u
Cemex' ~.VieTalYllle?,~'ti ~A ".~7~y<3P+"~,~
..
Cemex ~Victorville CA 92394 r
,
~
y~
~-., k~rX.3.:~x1 o49^:i~u+" ". .. :.,. ;No
a 3 2~'7 ~ ~ No
z Dry 1,668 ,~.i5 5~; ;~ _ _ _. _ .
Cemex Wampum PA 16157 2 Dry z5t 'ale, '}~ i'y ~"~.. No
. ,. ,.. ,
" .. ..
- . ~.
Ceniek ' '"VV°atl'iPu'm~;° P/~~:~- ~ 1~G'i $y~~:~ 3 x~i r brky' x~gi~: ~ epma~.1.'.:. .. ~''~Y, No
`:,r ~. ~ . . .. -
Cemex Xenia' OH 45385 t Dry 692 z4 No
4 u N r hi .w a _ ^iu ~ .:, n f ~ "? 1 ~ c .- i ~lx„~^ x. i L " i+~. i9~' ~^~
Dragbn + ~ ~ a ~'F i ~. _.~ rr.Yk .~r,7 ro ~+W ~ t: a ~ J, s d" ir~u, . ~ ""7 v' ~~,T ^
t~ ~' ~*F ~x^'y .~y' .,$, 'rf~a~;am +,~:~~ri~"r~" ~ .~ No
Prod(Ycts ~' Y~O/r1$SL {7 Fi V lv ~'(' ~ r~ ~ ~~ ov~ ~r31.1 GTE .,.4914 '.~ ~;~ ', 4 s"~. +..
.. i ~ '~+ a c ~ n ~ .J £ 'Iw T~~ n u
QOm rl d axe p~" ~'~~$4 n~nMiw ~ ~''~bAd~~~A.^y,"~~F~,°~.~YS$+xi `emu p'~i~x ',~i_~.w~+a!. -~`n'r ~,rGT"r ;r,a-. , ~~' ~'h :<'~C`,.,,,~
P,? Y _t -. s~ ~ <, q.Mw. ~ 4Rh, Y~ IxYN Sin
Eagle Fernley NV 89408 t Dry 226 No
Materials
Mit.4~C vrx~aa b' ~ . '..' ~m'. ..~.:. ~~,.' y~-*-* '~:+~i1T> .4~:~ ~'ua ~. W~~ .~tn, rx' # .,'.`
Eagle La Salle IL 6t3ot t Dry 6oz to No
Materials
4 x~a ~ec a ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ '~ -i ~~~°` ~i B ww~~' i ~.~ ri "~k " !c
Ma 6Idj.~ar a>.~ .. t:;fl i, .. ;M~ ,. ..._ .+~,.F "~'~t w ^4 ~~~~X`~'~r
g 'r ~~ ~ No
Ea le Laramie WY Szo7o z Dry 4ot o ~'t'~
Materials ~ x '11y"'
Essroc ;="Bessemer PJ1~ 26113;'" ,. j~ " /elk, a~.#~7 ~. ~ ~ '.,d5`~~ ., a.~~,."+"c "FRIh":.: ~ Yes
:, ,v" , . `. i ,tit' `" ~ 2'$f ',
Essroc Bessemer PA t6nz z Wet 368 9t Yes
Capacity Study
in t,ooos Study Range-
ofinetric zoo6 Range- High
Dry/ tons/yr l-RI Hg Low Hg Hg High EPA
Company Kitn Location ST ZIP Kiln # Wet in clinker ~Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) Basis Scrubber Resp?
yg Capacity Study
..... in t,ooos Study Range-
ofinetrtc zoo6 Range- High
Dry/ tons/yr TRI Hg Low Hg Hg High EPA
s Company Kiln Location ST 21P Kiln # Wet in. clinker (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) Basis Scrubber RespT
E°IssroG '~:'1=r~`dePl~k~z:r ~TM`i)" ~ti'>b~+% rota ~~x,~~'~"~VVeh`~~i, Y~.
.t54;. ~, ~~
',u`
~'~ ~ t~~'Rl.~;: ~
~ ~F~ n
49
~ , wVes
, y
3~~
.~
3~
i~
~ t""'
Essroc Frederick MD m7o; z Wet t54 "~
~,
.., ,
' ~ . Yes
-' E9sroc ~:,`Marttnsbu.~g" WV' z54br' :"•r :` ~ Wet ~ ' •<•.
_zo8" -
'z , " r: ''t,Rl-2 ,'
~ .":o
Yep
_
,r Essroc Martinsburg WV z54ot z Wet zo8 tqg ,": z ~' . ,Iq.g. Yes
^Essroc.
~y„
klarkiYisbifrg
~
z5'q~'ir'
%-3" -~ yi/et~
'~'t" z-
~
;?
~
~ a
u
+~~~r~s" ~~'`! ~ 6 r r ~'"~'~
~ w
3
"
+~~Y~'s3` -
LL
,
.n s'~ 5
d
:
.
~. Y> r~:
r
. .
I,a
1~
4.4a a 4v ae d1. x. .. Y.q}a
~ _
= Essroc .Nazareth PA t8o64 t Dry t,z8o t6; No
5,
..
s ~ Est h~ ~tl " . ,w~awi+~ ~u..: _
~
arc: , m R:-w
~ . .
.. " i : x "9 r~: ..
,, a4.1 f"tYt"1 r"~: .
Essroc Speed IN 47t7z 2 Dry 62t , 56 Yes
GCC of
America Rapid City SD 577oz t Wet. t48 No
" '" i`.,k ,'..',- :.uM, ~ 3''. „'^. W°'~ v*'r S ». aW i J~~ a ~I"`.:, -: >r ~ r
. Americ~~ ~>•,^zRapid'tity SIS" 57'>oz?,~ ~~'~"^" ~I¢x~~i e;a"h t~$}""`*~- t8 '. uFx ,t~*k.if}"d'v ,~'~ < Nb
GCC of
America Rapid City SD 577oz 3 Dry 602 No
i'i i .. , r , x ,. xxn ~, ,
GCC Of ~`„ ry " + u.. „ 3,.,~ Y cur
Ar,Her~>"a' `a~'[Ylera;j '.. NM,{~~87b59~~.,ha D~i 9,,~ 21d "ta j~~9 ; `. ia. x "~~~ .~. +. m'°~..,~4
`e y'r .~, rSJ ~J'~`' µ ... ..t r, cr eM~.i 7 i, . 'i. r, a r 1. ~'' ~~':~, e„'da ' '' n : "^, ~ '
r,J~r ~a x.
GCC of Tijeras NM 87059 z Dry zt6 (i t~k `'~' No
America r ,,r. Kt,3,
Ci).~Iryt~rN fG '4w4- h Vic- ,R s~[s$~~'L~'i~~ p"t~'~ i, .''~4~a ~. 'ar ~"3~y~~'Y r. ~~""3ii ~*~,M~ Na ~ea~ x ~'r' i' r F° av`.' , '!
~e t,~ i 4:a:m ~~1 ~ 4 "a`5 ~ r ~+~ ~ ~, ~' z F ~ ~~ x a ~ S ~ « ~ ~ J ~ "P70` '.
t efu~t~ +. e~ if ~ %~, `~ d6 ?~ „y j~s w}. }~ ~' +)k+u utX •~ y w„a i sF^ ,#~ rp ;. > -~-
..'9 3i. ~ n. .7 ~ t m na.ta .v'e ~ 1.. Ey'at ~~~ "Y~~-n ~"ai.~+~:.,~t+~.), w. ~'3~"~"
Holcim Ada OK 7g8zo t Wet z5z No
` Holcrf '~'~' 7ida " '' a ~ ,.an ~ ~~tr .~rr.w x=m s t,vr , ,_ 65 x e • parrs ., a r
... ~I~`"" i ~4$zony S~' .unyt~'. c zb~2~, ~"y,n.~~e.r .~,, ~"g ~`; r ,y y,, r, s a "~'~, .
Holcim - St. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ `
Lawrence Catskill NY tzgt4 t Wet 58o t No
Cement 5
Company
Ho1Ci Nt .'?:u'`ro':~~', D,U 7~dee `; .+.H,,,iv1•,, .~' ,,+99 ~ A 'i "-5 ° e '~~~ ~y~ fit.,;, ,~ "~~' 'i'a t `~ ~.?rYy ~ rr^ ay.~ r.,~9try. a~ Te, sh" ?' '~a"~s:,
T ~ '~ni..` ~~sT k,~~'Rar.. ..Mv»' ¢ ''d+.l~'1.., _ rJ,tw ..; ~.._ t^ r Y -wt x° i
., .a, w.':Kt ..
Holcim Dundee MI g8t3t t Wet Ott ~,~-~ay' No
Hblckk~f~w„w y5c'r y ~.a~^ .,F^.• .....:. ~' ^~ M_ ~ ~W ~ °. f~~,+~r"~.. . ~ ,~r ~~+~'~aq a yrrct~ "mC~~es "
.,xN:. ~p^ v ,w a,e.. ~y 3 i+ ~°~ _,r fi.` ,:d m~ ~Cf~r, r.tt~4"M~e ~dw, t' ui~^ o-e.'~^
Holcim - St.
Lawrence Hagerstown MD zt7gz t Dry 548 48 No
Cement
Company
Holcim Mason City IA 5ogot z Dry
3
5
0 W~ .~"rot~''~9y~^~ No
I-fale[n'1 ~~iltdltlt}l~~'ri' ,
µ
8
,,
~;;~ ~O~f` ~a'L~rv`~ r"~uryw'" `;"4°.9a7 "~"lx
'1'~
'"
~
'' lira sA.°.,.~ ~ r 34 q„~,,,L ~ ': t Yea' ;
'
e3i
`
?
°F~
i
- ~ .:. _. ,
..
Na.x _ .+n re ._ <
~ i1X ,
U 4~~ .
:
^
,
~
• Y'2% „u ..
Holcim Midlothian TX 5ogot z Dry t,oz8 ~;`., nz Test Yes
~
^~-1o14j~'rr`i;,... -~~r8a.~e.. i, r'll~d``~i ,8A.0$O"~. .~~ ~ ~„a ~fi°x~z?a .qit :~,I . n '.~'k~ .. I~JO~•
E^
Holcim Theodore AL ;658z t Dry t,gg7 7; No
Holcim r
~brk3 a
'aThM~e
~fv1T "°
S9xSz'! k ~
zy7tx~
'Wet' '
~
7
~ ~~', N`e.`.
<.
,, , _
, y
t .
Lafarge Alpena Mt 4g7o7 t Dry ;go 54 Test Yes
r, q
'
~
... eg . i - ~!p`$"'C,
v ..., .. , o. ..
: .:~~.
.... .+. -.'..'N n , rvr: ,... M . ,. :a Mi? •;:: t r` ..P
... ~.., ar:^# Y, ~. ,
~
Lafarge Alpena MI 4g7o7 3 Dry 387 360 360 50
Test Yes
t:afa~~e~ 4
~~y/j
~
na w;,..
~'~°~ ~Aa ~
Mf :;
~~ 078:, '"~ta"'4 E
~+ ~""~;@s'~
G"`tzg~:; ~ 'Y'es ~`~k~r
::..,
:
. ;
, " ,
.
Lafarge Alpena MI gg7o7 5 Dry 5
4
4 to8 Test Yes
Lafa7geu x^ ~ '13fiffalo t1A .~.~
5zyi~~,
ta~ ~
y+
~
;~@
'~rY w~
~
~'r '")"' '"{"p"'C, 1zg"
22'x
x
f}# v.~i "t"'~ '`x Yestl
in
~
.
y
a ~
:
a.
75
.. ,
~~
,
.,
;
Lafarge Calera AL 35040 t Dry t,467 36 78 z58 Input Yes
Capacity Study
in t,ooos Study Range-
o£metric zoo6 Range- High
Dry/ tons/yr TRI Hg Low Hg Hg High EPA
Company Kiln Location ST ZIP Kiln # Wet in clinker g (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) Basis Scrubber R,e~sp?
La argrw&~ a ~ ~~p4 *' "~.+ r f~. "S~~a'-a la''~ r "'~*"'~~ -"~Tfe~ tr~:.
-_:.; ~'F i 'p'~'h, a ~;iy,.; < 4 :rr. ,,. +;, ...,.d,w .'~R .d'~i ~a.o h ,. _ wt `~ .~'/ `~},rya ~. yw`A ~ +r", "MI", ,m 4,qi"~; ry+~r.+..,'
Grand Chain r -'~"'~"'(# .i I ~~~' ~~' x ~~ `
Lafarge IL 62941 z Dry 549 ~~~"~?.^~ .~~~ s ~ ~'~ Yes
OoPPa) 'r n ia.xk~`
Lefart~ e, > I-`aYl ~ r~~S ~ xl "c~ D r"~* ~ tLr .,~r `h ~.° r,. YaYi.` 5np1i~ ~v1~eSt„`:
Lafarge Ravena NY tzt43~ t Wet 847 No
LaPa':. a kave~ ~~ NYd. t~54 ~ ~ ' z e3' '' ' ~4~ 400 . . .~ ~ z~~> ~ , ` ., ~ ~o-.'.q;.
_.. .5~,. .g ~..~ ~ . raw ~, ..~
Lafarge Seattle WA 96to6 t Wet 387 30 30 39 Test Yes
.t Sx x t~• m° x .+5 ° a ~5 aye a "v.w n Ax a ~ x rz .,t '. ~~N n°y.~ w ~ rr ' ~ tv,
Lafarge'"M .~5'd$`~(~`~i2e~l,~~Ot ,~~~.~.5 ~r~~~ " r~,'~>, ~~~u ~~%~,~., ~ h~~~a .', ,r.3G~3„d •r atl'"e$t.:' ~'e's°, ..
Lafarge Tulsa OK 74116 t Dry z95 No
r',~k: rl^~# r k ~c e rA' *W"u au 7~r kr~ z k.~r r ~, 't "~ ~ ~ ' '.,No
Lafarge=.~^' .. '1'4jSal;~?;"A '~~.k: r~ yr4,'. ~.YeP~~~eo"~.,~~- »,-:n fi.~~, t ',t:, ..T ~r ~#.„`*s'Y~~irFd. .. .. w9.,::. , ..a ,.
Lafarge Whitehall PA t8o5z t Dry 419 z4 TRI Yes
t a , . w ~~'~ 3 w w I° a ~"9k '^.a3,kt~!' & '; 'r+ b°ii;;,~ 6i w r bt + ^`
Lafa"r8e . n 'ikttehal~7~ ~ j , PA's "" 2`M$'~,g~'Ai p..+ . ? ~~' ~ ~. t ~,z l!. ~6 ~~. .. .. '"Yes'
Lehigh - Buda TX 786to t Dry 1,134 t6 No
Texas-Lehigh
~ . a x * ° Yi a y n~~,'' ^e°~ ~i '3 ! C { ' o i'1 + ~ ,_ M* '",~- ni F9 '.,~ ~ . ~r ~ -.
LeltlBh ~ ~ it ~ L s/~ ' na" a +a,,x~3 a ^tr rk'n m ~ wa ~,F a; ~ygt~. 4 ti ~ y, c4 t ry4 ~a N_µ F .
I-(9i136ri, >j i,..~, rr rr'•~ 4 " P dS ix+ -x ~ ~, wra ,~R' ' ~* g~~- s 1 in ~ ' ~ 1V0
A ,$7
k F V e Y 4 S AS t I tY~jY b b ~, 5 7+, rr r~ V P~ l 4
pkey ~ p Girl c ~ r w T v(' b,'~.!e .vim u a '~" 'f a .r' ~{ Ft + h t i "
PerIY1A,~'Irkeiiog, r tt°w vau± y~vr ~~ ~ hK ,z r. i h ~ C5.7~ ~ ya ~• ~ .Va , ~r ny^~ ~ w~ ~'h u
H 4 r y~ 7F t~.
Cerrlent, a . ~ ~.;ia~~ F,x~,S "~'i~ ~x~tz'"r `~,5. '~„ .. ~ ~., ~ ~' *w"~~.~ ~.., ~*" *' W;:e.. .::P~,.~~. ~- x> '~rkr ~,~,
Lehigh Fleetwood PA 19522 t Dry 533 66 Test Lime Yes
W~yy~ .r+~ ~ - i ,., .. - S6 86 `~ .. ;, ~'+,,:% Injection t~„'T~ v
~ ~"~' ~n4~3a~'l y. :'. ~ :~~" ~, ew'.« in BH ~'Mt„.., ;,
Test/ Lime
Lehigh Glen Falls NY tz8oi t Dry 586 tz tz t2 TRI Slurry Yes
y y~ Injection
+3tt~ :k~;d'kti ° Su'~~1 i"`LS li ~~~~~ '~' e ¢-.~!i ~"'~°~ ~w S~yNM k` 1~~~,''(rr~. 6'*~~ +'~d .:,u1~5 P 3~~rw7,pr./ t`'~ e~
_ . ,~< ,. Mxa ,~ ., ~.
Le17iBM n.` .: ,~'.e'~Sttwt, . rux.•s. fi . t~.. m" r., iu..4~ . °~~ir-x' S' - # rG s ..~.. ~.. ,. ~ .. ~~. ~-~
c
Lehigh Mason City IA 5o4ot t Dry 731 184 148 184 Test FGD Yes
*'` Cra ~"° m„x x M1` wip y~~„d~x +,~`y,n+ e~3',` r ~'~~ ~ ~ ~~cu.
L!°(i'igpp , 5 Mi'tc ~I.T~'-'a^.t~a 4~j~`ik1 ~ l~~, ~. ~&~'~ ~~,~,x ~~D ~ytr.fi+r ~ ~^t. qyy ~+ 33~ " .~ ~ ~ r<'j'RI'_ 1 Yes `
Lehigh Mitchell IN 47446 z Dry 251 }, , is~, ~° 33 '*t~.g ,. ~ Yes
Lel`i'(gh "i Mitc)ta ~4 ~' _`I'~I~"~.. ~47~~$+' .~';'' I7!Y'Y.',<. 27!~ "b^' _ ,1• 3 r:. .. . •~,
dge MD zt7yt t Dry ~ 1,996 - 35 35 1.539 Input Yes
Lehigh Union Brie
ur.. ~, ai+'E ~~xrtc '` r x,~ i~ .; e~F k `ti ~,p' a:x NO~TIF z ` s ` T`e3ti' r Yes '
LeF~gh sWaeo .;. "r, >m.{' it' ~~~j °. , r t ~~ .~.. ... , ( _.
Lehigh Redding CA 96003 t D7 592 9z No
,~uu iy tt o, = y W tt n _ 1 S ; ,t: e. r r ~ ylx _. y n n„' _at w ~1r ra F >.~ .~ + ~w :
,Le'hfgh,fi f_ ~.,u~~Ue~a~~ ~~a~~, awj4t."F~~~6~k~~~~.1!" x~r'r3;.rs~,5~ rN6.r"5~S': ,...58¢s a,1 ~48,.. Input g~'~'.M^yS;i,, -,Yes-",
Mitsubishi
Cement Lucerne Valley CA 92356 t Dry 1.543 t6o No
Corp
,, r+V"t { r tt v , +6Po • y r r.~ ~` y ~1 Y+^:; ':` X nJ : e w x `. + t>e,u '•4 '''~ ~ w l~' ty~ two y ,~ 6
Monarch r r '~¢ r ; } ti r r ~+?y' gL5 ,~ ~x F dr n ^°,°y~ r y, to 4, ~ ~~ s ' r `~l~ ` _
C!" qnL 'H~$i4''t6bl t r~~,~"9:~ .~b~yB t C~!l l~ ~~i ~, ~~R}~ wr tt .a/ a ~ I
} , v i, r x ;
cort+anY_. .: i~a ~.~~ ~~p~w"aS ir'"~y~ Nr ~ ~=t wW w~+1] i _y . ~~a .,gp,•yeG~ ~ ..rr,. ~•~.` •=,g'_ ~ ~'/'~ ...
Monarch ~ ill~iv No
Cement Humboldt KS 66748 2 Dry 449 ;~ .
Company ~ ,;,~,}_ _
27
~'
s
o'
xc
National
Cement Co. Encino Lebec CA 91436 t Dry t,o33 59 No
California
28
c`t
_~
Gipacity
in t,ooos
of metric zoo6
Dry/ tons/yr TRI Hg
Company Kiln Location 5T ZIP Kiln lF Wet in clinker (tb/yr)
Study
Study Range-
Range- High
Low Hg Hg High
(Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) Basis Scrubber
EPA
Resp?
St. Marys: Dixon IL 6tom t Dry t6t No
Cement
St"'(vlSu~~..~~~ e fil` .~ r".~~k4 n<}iy ~ nar ~)~'~r~kp"$w~ r ~~5~' ~ s~ r ~+M'~ =' t{ t~..s~`-~ ~ ~' - ° y:4 ~.,,~.~:.
L`CMGI'1Yd v g 1~~i1f1~r~, J;y.h Lvp. n ~ ~Nuz,~ ~." »^~~ rt m^ 5 ~k. ~~~~,. ~ ,6
. M?r..w , ,+, .#.: ir~'1 t r his ., t5 t» , , ~. x
St. Marys Dixon IL 6tozt ; Dry t6t No
Cement 9~[, ~p ~y,
r ay' ~
St %'aY dF"e~~ '~,~4y r ik3 d, ~' S ? ~g `~' ~ ~ ~ dy„~',,,n ~~ex~,.r ~>~°~fjaw ~Y~~ rR"9fa
y~C .i `P'Ny n ''' : 4~ '~7 ~ J u f' i x51y ) )Aru .~~0.
%~Ckn~i'~,°`"f7"a~kbt1,~.. 1.~~I; eu ~~;i r'" ,~~a .I r x-,''~".'? ~ ~..'~~.. ~F~ - _ as» .r. d„f"`r ,
Suwanee
American Branford FL 3zoo8 t Dry 8zo 55 No
Cement
'TXI' ~.+,~v1id~O~Fplari, ar +yfi06 :rti .~ 'a, QtYs Y196gs,"' + t~°' ~ ~''i~'05",tf b
_ ..1a.-"" .u~~E :Sa`:. S,! ,ff~rkcY,,~~.' ,u ~~ ._..~ ~ Tr. . 41"PIN '.~`.. ~ .33 C, Gk.4 ~ .k' Fr .:~:
TXI New Braunfels TX 78t3z t Dry 780 87 No
n c w~n r' ~1 rm^`Y%w x T u~" ~~e}~nx X26„}' ro°~r .w h;a~" .~:w~ :i~°°N~"',
+^tTX~u~u ,~ ~t,e,~Vf~a[~„l~~i, to ~. at 3~~~~~ 't~~oS4 ru .4n~ •...~.. _rd ~0i. ~s;s S~~1, ;:r i^ „- ~:" ,« .. ..°.
TXI Oro Grande CA 9zg68 2 Dry t6t ~nrL,~n~wr"_
y,~ q a ~~ g y;~ +~ No
l'SC~1., .,... k~.C`S"t~ G~rB'fk~~e'~a ~~Gc•,~'s' `~.~~°,$~~' w"~~~+'~`s~-" .H~.l,Z~~.rt'. "~`,'~~Fr'1,~'~"~~#,~kv"~ ~ 'i+ . , .F ... ~ No
TXI Oro Gratn~de CA gz368 4 Dry L t6t •* ~`3r" ~ No
~ : r r ' "u~~d0~i~ v ' ~ ~~ nic ~ 1,~,3~~ "~ ~ .. ~ r ~ 'htn {." ~` :,~~~. < ,A napy ~.
",`T~CI. r ', S7r~ 4AC"u r9.v,.a.~~~~~ ri( X;~ ' o~w'"'~' :~~r ~.e.,.`:~,',» w'~.'.$... ~. _,S:o t» .::w . #".b h:r-'w<~ 1 a1~.Ntp,r ~~.
TXI Oro Grande CA gz368 6 Dry t6t No
t`'~"x`~7C~~.I+~x'1'»r,.... ,, ~I~r, ~,,:.n: .. .. W ~i ~ d,, ~`~~,'~?~ n;. kS~ilSuf~~n a"~~s'r`~~6 t,aw e.,~', ~~..» ~'.. .,~ir~i.'..
TXI Riverside CA 925og~~ t ~'~~ Dry 43 ~~ . ~ ~" No
1. W ~ ~ xarl ~ yy 12 ~, WW `Q 'H&' 'fib ~ t' ~iF Frv r.: `a.'de".i~"' w~rtakua ark», -;.
y~~,~g~'- ply far ~,,, s '~Q Y ~S
~?;`4:.,I,M?c. ;'`' '~~efsl~~'v 5r ...,~,.,e;. °~''~~ ,~a. d%!',.• ^~u~iR. 7~"A~~~d`,~~. °~yn^u+,: d.., •'1~°r.''J. ~ "`~k.e %`.. i ~. a.-.'~~''. ~`. ~.. ~~ .. 5~ ,fir
Titan Troutvilie VA 24175 t Dry 1,238 6 No
America
x«, u ~ w s~ ~ ~I~~ 4 . ~ t r'i"y"i r " r u: *rrvA ,.u ` a ;~ r u nM ~ ~ r ` ` a4 ~x~ ^ t~''~' zu'v~. w~ v a!
4Y Rte- x Nn n x A"M1mA +qp, ~ '~. ~~ ")V
rrxr'~I'~ ~m t.. Medle7~.~ x ;~~.~^+~qd78;~p~ ~~~.e'" ~r ~~ , ~~ ~ d~Y~4 y, s~„. ,~...~ r .*f ~p~ rr ; ,.`, +. b.:.
America, )a_ y,_ .w,..!.»~ as .av+Y'~r -. ~ a.'-~ _rf;, ~.~ .. W .,.~kr~w.~,...r n4,.,. ~, s,. >.-~, w t ~,.d.. ~^t~:t.,
Totals 252 ~ 82.512 4.692 9.829
? r ~ ~23.43~ 27.5?t
Notes
1. 'IWO plants in Puerto Rico not included. 'Ibtal number of A.ilns = 151. Tocal clinker ca pacify = 81,512,000 metric cons/
yr.
2. Data ocher than TRI was available for kilns with roughly 35 percent of the clinker capacity of non-hazardous waste
kilns.
3. TRI data do no[ appear to be reliable.
4. Current best estimate for na[io nal (48-state) mercury emissions from non-hazardous waste kilns is between 6-13
tons/year.
5. Analysis is based on best available data; however, significant data gaps exist.
Apend ix B
Kiln Data Analysis Methodology
Data Sources Considered and Methodology
Data on mercury emissions were as-
sembled and estimated from a review of
the following sources:
a. U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement
Industry Plant Information Summary,
December 31, 2006, which provided
lists of U.S. cement plants and kilns,
including clinker production capaci-
ties. This report also identified certain
kilns as burning only waste and these
were excluded from the analysis;
b. List of hazardous waste burning kilns
from EPA (2005). These kilns were
excluded from the analysis.
c. Data obtained from EPA on several
large cement company kilns in re-
sponse to EPA's information collec-
tion request. These data generally
included:
(i) source test reports including
mercury tests. However, in many
cases, source test data were over
five years old. Only source tests
that were no more than five years
old were considered. In the vast
majority of cases, clinker produc-
tion during source test time periods
were not provided and mercury
emissions were reported on a di-
rect mass rate basis (i.e., lb/hr,
etc.). The methods used to test for
mercury also varied. Older tests
generally used EPA Method 29
while some o£ the more recent tests
used the Ontario Hydro or similar
methods. Representativeness of test
data, extrapolated to annual operat-
ing periods, is often questionable.
All of these issues notwithstanding,
source test data, where available,
were u::ed to estimate annual
emissions, assuming that kilns op-
erated 1'or 90 percent of all hours in
the year. If separate emissions rates
were measured with raw mills on
and off, these were accounted for
in the calculation.
(ii) data on mercury content in input
(raw) materials to kilns for an
approximate 30-day period dur-
ing 2007. Although the mercury
speciation data for 30 days was
provided in several cases, in many
cases, actual mercury values were
noted a.s Non-Detect. These data
often c~~uld not be used since cor-
responding detection limits were
often not noted. Also, in most
cases, the mercury speciation of
the clinker or baghouse dust was
not available.
d. Data on mercury air emissions sub-
mitted to the EPA as part of the TRI
Form A re~~orting. TRI data were used
only if additional (i. e., mass input or
source tesr) data were also available.
The calculation methodology for TRI
air emissions data are not readily
apparent. In some cases, there were
obvious pz~oblems with the TRI data
(such as air emissions reported as
zero, while source test data indicated
non-zero values).
e. Title V air operating permits for
various operating kilns. These were
reviewed to determine if there were
specific mercury limits for particular
kilns. Witri almost no exceptions, cur-
rent Title 'V permits for kilns consid-
ered in this study do not contain limits
on mercury emissions.
29
Y.
:~
30
m:
=c
Uncertainties
Data from these various sources, wher-
ever comparable were not generally
consistent. Therefore, to provide an
idea of the uncertainties in emissions
estimates, low and high ranges for
expected annual mercury emissions
are provided. While, in some cases, ~.he
spread between the high and low values
is not significant, in a few notable crises,
this spread is exceptionally large, re fleet-
ing large uncertainties as to underlying
data or kiln operational details. All emis-
sions data are reported as total mercury
emissions; however, it should be no~=ed
that based on the test methods used, it
is not clear if all mercury species were
completely measured. Thus, one area
of possible uncertainty is the fracticn
of mercury emissions emitted that are
actually measured.
Separate from emissions uncertainty,
a couple of additional areas of uncer-
tainty include:
Kiln size (clinker capacity) was not
always consistent considering similar
data in the PCA report and that sub-
mitted to EPA (even accounting for the
fact that PCA report capacities are in
metric tons and data reported to EPA
was in either metric or U.S. customary
(short) tons).
n, Whether or not a particular kiln burns
hazardous waste was, in some cases
ambiguous. 'lb the extent possible, the
analysis attempts to conservativcay
exclude any kiln that may burn haz-
ardous waste from this analysis.
Overall, mercury emissions datrx, sub-
ject to the caveat relating to speciation,
were estimated for roughly 35 percent
of kilns (based on clinker capacity). The
emissions for the universe of kilns in the
U.S. (excluding two kilns in Puerto Rico)
were then extrapolated using clinker
capacity. While this extrapolation •ar
scaling is admittedly a rough attempt
to estimate the U.S. kiln mercury emis-
sions, at this time, there does not appear
to be a more reliable method to prepare
this estimate, other than relying on TRI
data which has some clear flaws and
therefore seems unreliable.
Recommendations
Recommendations for improving the
mercury emissions estimates include
the following:
a. Clear identification of kilns that burn
hazardous versus non-hazardous
wastes;
b. Completion of source tests under
documented representative conditions,
using standard methods that account
for all species of mercury likely to be
emitted; such source tests should also
document the underlying production
levels at the time of the test(s);
c. Obtaining the data above from all kilns
in the U.S. EPA's attempt to focus on
the larger, national cement companies,
while a good start, left out many com-
panies that may be smaller or regional
but still operate very large kilns;
d. Inclusion of requirements to conduct
source tests in facility operating
permits such as Title V permits;
e. Increase standardization and
transparency of TRI data submittals;
f. Improve the ability to conduct mass
balance calculations by inclusion of
mercury data in all input and output
streams from the pyro-processing
system, over time periods that reflect
representative, relatively steady-state,
operations of the system. If mercury
is not detected in a particular stream,
the appropriate detection limit should
also be reported.
Appendix C
NORMALIZED MERCURY EMISSIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW CEMENT KILNS"
Hg Emissions
(Ib/t,ooo,ooo ions '
FacID KiInID total feed) Kiln Capacity (tpy) Kiln Type Alkali Bypass CKD Wasted
4: t 4 ,, r m`M Se y[i-0 JLb 4 ti•^~Y Y kf` ~~'VVi ~'~fi ~i i u } j[ A ~~i°'~.I~h'Mh yp.~ ~t~~' s ~
$
~
.a
~~3
~
3
~
`
~~
~
~ f w ~
5
~
~
~
,
W
~
J.. .iV"~ .}
, s. .e C..l.n ~.i
l~ .Qia{t
a~k"",.
+vi U..Fvl~'
5 .. zh
W ' m1 YU I.
~'.c f• { .
~ v ...
4.v n
2.35 t56,
z
36 wet
6 z
y
~y
4 :Mr~r+"y ~4wR~ ~+6'~f x i4r.,~~; >, ~?~ kc1 ~$°~:,p~ ~ :,,.
~
Q y vo lm A~4 d~7
Qt
:
-
~a
"°R
~
b ~
~
~
"
'
~~
'
r
,. "sfi. r.-P
n
E.~^a.,.~. i.,+., va...
... .~
i
rr-,~~d^
~r3
t. .3aa
~ 3».+
n FA
~4as~,. .~
T
.cs~s
.
~
z6 r 2.43 340,956 preheater
a`.
:'vYeL
:" ° ,
,~}
z?!
~;~
~
y
}§•8~~~85 ~~
gx~~~~b
~'~
54
~
~l
~
~
y ~"
~~~ '
~ s
,y
,
~
.5. _~
+
r
y
w
y..
M
L
..
`,
,.
t
.
~'. .
.. .~.
,. I
5 ~ 2.65 334•t 6t wet
~ ,_ . t
z6 2 7.55 602,434 preheater/calciner
~`
+f :l0{1$ dXy "`
z5
°" ~Ktt
i
%33i?~t
~
:
7~~ ~ `
~
~
~"
'
' a
,
:
.
:
,.
t
. r, rx ., ~
,
.
i~
.
.
,~
36 Kiln t tzg6 652,568 preheater
~ ,M-~x
r '~p'~$~
~jsng~S)Ii'f
ICfln t" ~~87~ .°r ~
'~~
'
x X •.
'
i
.
.
-x
39
.
°
I ,
,.
. ...
39 Kiln z 23.87 420,480 long dry X
~m~
i K
l
~tv
~
."x
""`
~;'~~~4~»
(~°
°
:'
`
«
~"~
2 ' ~'
?
;~`~
~
"
r~
?
~~r
~
~
.
~
ti
3
,
.:;
. .
ak ~>
.F
~.~
x
. ~.,,wrL~
9:
^ ~,
~5
~i
~r~
~"
s.
# .~#
s ,
a
, .~
3z Kiln z z4.7t r6g,756 wet X
~'~ ~. ,. r.,:`- ~ ,,..
~:~:
,
k~
r t4
w
-
I''
(
t
~
I
~ "~'~
dlr "x,}~F
'
~
C'W
~'~y
.
:
+
..,
w?Xv?>
S~,..o:..:.
.,?.
A .
.
.
...
I
iii .
e~.
a
.fAH
~ X
r8 3 34.37 1,oz8,57o preheater/calciner X
x+},,p+
p
~~ppQpp~~qp
" `~F R":A
~: rroW, k::
,y~@
`R .,,
L 1:Y.%a
,•
6" ~ • ~
9
M~
~~
"~
FM"~9C 94'4. ~
t~'„v.
~*
*~. ~'.~i
~'~
~ C
g
"
y,•-
r
7
11 .. s.:.. ..:. Y..M,>.i a f.r.
.
. ~
,'~
.a..H ~ i'YykT'.
~ .5 :.. ::wr r& '..,.uv .. ._
:
.. .~:-,.:; ~'Fk
' ~
d
i
x
.l
~
34 Kiln 7 37-78 zzg,z8t wet X
Ip
+K• 3! T pp~~y.u Y:' S ~, rytryt~q~ •. f' e3~F:Y +~ aGi ~. X..+~4 Y'~~ ~ ~ q, F 1 E'{" ~, :4 ~ F w4~' y
~ '
:
b
~-
~
~
~
'~g
f R
~A^r
~
~
~
~
~
"
""
~
~ Gµ1 w"ri-'! F
A J
l
.;
+
-
NMi;
~
_
"^'G
. ..,•, i.,
.,
,
e
;
~~^.~
" ,;h
J: ,'..&;. .~. uv ,
. r :~~ .w.
+4dL
'
'Y
"ax .
,
z2 z 43.74 t•t 25.746 wet long X X
z -. ~I~i[ni " .. ~d7.3`9 .., 6oo,b`tSt~ pre7teaEe~ ", . ". ,'''' ~.°~
z Ktlnz 47.59 600,000 preheater
30 :. t 49'97~~i'~ 3. ',rx , ^~b74c;8~ja ~ . i~"r'lcalcfher".'.k ~ ,l;'~~ ~Ia ~ ~ -.
34 Kiln 8 48.ot z29,28t wet X
w. ~,
Wk x (~' ~ k+ P Pi ! 1 A W a 4~ yY i 'M• 'Sy M A~ A. I.,P 9 4 1 % -f j^{ I ~, ~
°~ .
~i9r x w~ 3
~">. x .a
6:{~~__~~44 I ". "ryet )dreg " r ~ ~
32.`- nv
, ,I. . ~ ~~ t 93
^ti~
"
~
Q
' Z . I '
~,;x .
,
,
i
, ~
"7
.
r.,.
a ..,.
sd k,: Jal .. z+
~w ~'W.K 1 fi
Nn,~Y kr.. 4 ~ a ~ ..l_.ri .
37 Kiln t 5r_r6 328,489 long dry
..^~: kr J.~h"4 xi c rwsx ,~ r~ s'r 4 ~~,`„ r r, v'.
a59~_,xu
.
''i~'t;~34jr~37r~'~n~ e~~ `Net}
;'
tz-.. v~3~:
fi
:
''~
~
'+w~
^
~
^
A
' °, .._
.::
:
, ~
.'i
.
,
.
.~
,
--
,~.
er:
~. a
.
, r
"sir<
ater
e
53-zg t,4i 0,958 preh
35 Kiln r
~A
yy~
~.~]
J
$~l f 3~~ fi~A
~Y~~~ ~ ~ II'~ ~I~
dyy ~'~
~" ~~ ~
~ s
"
~
~''
$
? ~
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
"
~ X
~~
~~+~.
r
o
3
,
r
O
.
& _ +
B
r.,v x. ,
,tii -n
'. A
., N
R. a
l
. +tit
. a
'r•az ,:n
GP n~a:... k
~+. ~ . 4I ,
~
l a~
~ ~ ~?F •
,
/...
-
38 22 54•t6 768,048 long dry X
38 :.'R3 '" ,t" r~4~•t~~~. S ~ s ~766~'u.~~F ~ 'long dry ... r„ X.
38 zo 54n6 g4o,857 long dry X
r
yo'ilg'dr~~"`ii
t'~r~~~~~
38
31
~,
s
F
7g "~
°-
~a "~~5
r
~
.
.
A..y.i
- " .
, _
i „•v
.a v'b ,v'am
.,.
:_b
: ,~ ..
.~. .
,
37 Kiln 2 58.79 684.535 preheater X
.q^y .9` ,~..yy S w p~ 1y~X K }MxA.. ~.~~LL..+,,~M ! MahH'4y~~.:. .`~y'+i *35CW1~y~sl^~ Cc y~FYi Wb~ 5 3n I'ryMy~~yg~,~y~yy~y~` ~u+P' I '7"N ."F• , pMC 1b:.
r. .. ,
, } ~.
lO
~4 J' '.
'
'
"
~
"
~
~ ~
~~
~~
N
"~
~
b
~ ,~ ::
'~' ~
~
f
"~
'
~'
'~
a
z5
~+~
IRZ
.
S
i4~"o, ~
.
-.v
'K-~N
', /
.9~.'8A1
,
u~ u.*'~f1F;+xal
'h5u u~~,". ,~r.
; .
~n~i a. ~iN~
/" u.'fi
. 9 x.r r.~ .J..?I
wvxJ
..a.414 ua+ {
I ~
~
sai
h
,
v. G
,
M
i
ro t 66.39 600,000 preheater
31
~:
70
:.T.
' Consist of data for 54 kilns where no claim of confidentiality was made b,y [he submitting company.
Note: EPA provided the data included in Appendix C, identifying particular kilns by their Facility ID number only, refer-
enced here as "FacI D."
32 Hg Emissions
_ , _ _ , (Ib/t,ooo,ooo tons
FacID KiInID total f.~eed) Kiln Capacity (tpy) Kiln Type Alkali Bypass CKD Wasted
",¢xz4'.~`a ~ „a4iKdrt,3 M+. v"~~~.°'r7Sdi~S+S.oil;'~~~':e,T.~'„M~2.....,»~(it~5~ i,~~'^~y ~1 "P.ief~ea4er "i.' ,'-~ ~~',. ,;"1T. ~.u7•-1•
~s z4 Kiln z 66.59 +~~y 540,!44 preheater
t ~z~"~;?; fF~. r&~~1 ~k75~Z~'~r<~#t' M ~~,~ m. ~~i't~~,.~j1Y e~V"e5t~r/ta~Cf•1~eF ^I' "~~ )~ ~<YS `x r ,.k
- 3i Kiln i 76.y9~~zr yzi 8,z58 ,~„~ wet X
16 - a"kx°m ~ z .: ,i°ak&~P., :M~'~~JY?'~Y,~"m'F~t ~"^. "aid' *~,,~i~:U». ''t3~ ~~8~` 15~:"i a '4~°1''.~~4')TC~a~e~". ":.. ~ ,. ~.~. '~.X :Errs
3i Kiln z 8z.oo zi S,z58 wet X
s E i d WY G 4 i, ,. y '. 3
•
i
_ i6, in ~,y t ', "i ,`'~ ~° r ~:.~ '~.; Bj~AY., lad ~'.~'3 ~'~ r327 7R~5 . Y ~~~'.t '41. r~'TPrefti`"A~el" ds"' .. M"inei.. F,$"~ a`JC ~ ~
_ ,
`. ~9 ~ 83.83 i,og5,ooo preheater/calcner
it " i 88.0. i `66".531 .x'(?re~e3tby ::. ' ,
z~ 5 88.33 i,56o,00o preheater/calciner
4 Y tMep 4L '(," ~.:mE + vxk a fed„ r' a - p 'y
33: bm I~, f!rKll(i'4° W,.. -." ;". 9K'+~,a'~~ E.' . g'#'''?1 n 26«i~A r .. ' ~ ,'na we~ e+ a~ ru^ :j vu~ W, ~:,w a ;i~~ •.• ~ ,.,~. _
.;iM rn- ~ ISM S. z_. •' ,.d~ - "n^
233 Kiln i io8.t5 5Yi,374 wet
Y7 vt°~^~r rw~,.w ue4 v u' ,~vw..:eu" :... ::~. ~ .. F....<a.. ,d ~ ~_~~~II;Ief~C .. ..~! i,§v lL ~~`~ti ~~'" ( Fs.,.v a"r„1"Y:5 s".,~N
i3 Eoz-ooi ~ izo.88 z,zzo,9i4 preheater/calciner
y31 N~:<`~ ° ~ Y a iUiia?.~^~t ~ =w p ~1p~~{ ~ ~gtF ~s.,~ Wv,. 55 Ri r r a.i i ry ~,.. ~'~ ~», a,~w f .''. ~ ..
n 33 '~.:yt"~'Rr N~#y~)n~Y"~ak ~1v'~'~S„w~N~ ~,. ~P. .P,. , ~~tlNF7k°'°rM"'.~~'r ~''?~ ~~' f ~. S.vs,. !`y.. ~r >
9 8 zzo.44 985.:73z preheater/calciner X X
i ~ "~ d ,""'s ~~~< F ~ J ~'pi ,~~ ~r;R ' ~ ` ,f '• ~ `rc .~ q ~ w'i r ~» uu. ~ry ~. i • y`.
9... ,-. _~~~,.fr~9'~a'~7.. ~.. mn4~»~'~r..°.r.~<B#Sae,E'#r~'7i~anEt -did, r_
z8 i i,98z,oi g66,~5gz precalciner
Total Capacity (tpy clinker) 3z,o8•;,6i4
',Totaf,MCr~u;ryBr,~tssioia"7(fbJyr) '~~."~'!~.jr7~c oo , .. ,.
Mercury Emission Factor (Ib/tpy capacity) o.ooo
'Estimai6d=,Natia"nwt°de (v5ert'~C.iy~E"ir'tisisrt~s'`tlti/~+~'~~a~r~ ~';'"~2'i~ cli8'~