Subject:	Meeting with Portland Cement Association (PCA)

Location:	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC

Date: 		March 15, 2010

Participants:	

Industry

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

Jason Morin, Holcim

Curtis Leslie, Ash Grove (by telephone)

Mike Pelan, Lafarge

John Holmes, Lafarge

Craig Campbell, Lafarge (by telephone)

Dan Nugent, Buzzi

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Peter Tsirigotis

Steve Fruh

Keith Barnett

Elineth Torres

Steve Silverman (by telephone)

RTI International

Mike Laney

Roy Neulicht

Breda Munoz



Representatives of the portland cement industry met with EPA to discuss
the status of THC and HCl data collection efforts and other technical
rulemaking issues under both the NESHAP and NSPS. An outline of the
items discussed is summarized in the attached agenda.

Attachment

EPA – PCA Meeting

Technical Rulemaking Issues

March 15, 2010

RTP, NC

12:00 – 2:30 p.m.

Tentative Agenda

(Draft, 3-10-2010)

(888) 387-8686, then 4089494

I.	Introductions

II.	Discussion of PCA comments

	A.	Mercury

		1.	Kiln Surveys and Variability Analysis 

			a.	Brief review of survey and findings

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps

		2.	Statistical Review of Variability in Mercury Data

a.	Brief review of PCA's technical comments and statistical
methodologies

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps

		3.	Subcategories

a.	Brief review of PCA's technical comments and statistics showing need
for subcategories

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps

	B.	THC

		1.	Brief review of PCA's technical comments

		2.	PCA review of status THC testing program

		3.	EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps

	C.	HCl

		1.	HCl Technology issues

			a.	Brief review of PCA technical comments

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps

		2.	Ongoing HCl Testing Program

			a. 	Brief review of PCA's data collection efforts

b.	EPA's current thinking on how it might use data

c.	EPA’s thoughts on the Rfd threshold approach and the 112(d)(4)
alternative

d.	EPA’s timing of final rule given new HCl testing program; need to
incorporate data into rulemaking; OMB review; and possible notice and
public comment on the new HCl (and perhaps THC) data

	D.	PM

		1.	Brief review of PCA technical comments

		2.	Issues with use of 99% and possible violations

		3.	EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps

III.	Other Business

	A.	EPA's current thinking on and schedule for NSPS

	B.	Next Steps

IV.	Adjourn

