Exhibit CC 02-07-2012 Item No. 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Letter February 7, 2012
Jack Broadbent, Director BAAQMD
939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109
Dear Director Broadbent,
We understand that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) is
considering adoption of Regulation 9, Rule 1310 achieve the"maximum feasible, cost
effective emissions reductions" of oxides of nitrogen(NOx) and particulate matter(PM)
in concert with efforts to bring the Lehigh facility into compliance with limits for toxic
air contaminants (TACs) consistent with the federal National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP). This council agrees with BAAQMD's objective in
order to protect the health of our citizens.
Many of our citizens complain, and provide evidence of detrimental health effects from
the emissions from the plant. The Bay Area is in"non-attainment" for ambient levels of
ozone and PM. Because NOx contributes to the formation of ozone, and SO2 and PM
contribute to increased levels of PM, reducing emissions of these pollutants would help
the Bay Area achieve attainment status. This would make the air we breathe healthier for
everyone.
It is the opinion of this council that maximum feasible, cost effective emission limits for
the Lehigh facility can be found in EPA's new source performance standards for new and
modified existing cement plants. These limits are achievable and cost effective at both
new and existing cement plants. Regardless of whether Lehigh meets the legal definition
of a modified existing plant, EPA's new source performance standards provide well-
supported examples of emission limits that can be economically achieved. The emission
limits in the new source performance standards should be required at Lehigh's facility
because they are more protective of public health, and meet BAAQMD's achievability
and cost-effect objectives, not because they are necessarily required by the new source
performance standards themselves.
Air pollution drives up health care costs and causes unnecessary human suffering. By
applying the emission limits found in the new source performance standards to Lehigh,
we believe these impacts to our citizens would be reduced.
On behalf of the Cupertino City Council, I wish to express our city's support for
BAAQMD to apply the highest possible regulatory standards to the Lehigh cement plant
that is immediately adjacent to our community.
The support and ongoing work of the District and its staff is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mark Santoro Mayor
cc #2(
Summary of Comments to Cupertino City Council on February 7, 2012
Gary Latshaw
Air Quality Chairman of Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club
1. Staff Letter. The City should strengthen the language of the staff letter to indicate
the harm that many residents of Cupertino are suffering due to the emissions from
the Lehigh Cement plant. The recommended stricter emission standards, which
are legally binding for new and modified cement plants, were developed after
extensive feasibility analysis and measurements at other cement plants. They are
within the state-of-the-art.
2. Importing Limestone. The City should demand that Lehigh explain the sudden
importing of limestone from Davenport. This is particularly disturbing since the
cement plant in Davenport was closed because of high chromium content in the
limestone there. Lehigh owes the community a complete disclosure of all the
materials and the composition of those materials that they import for processing.
There Title V Permit Application does not refer to any importing of limestone.
3. Survey Residents. The City should survey Cupertino residents about the impact
that they believe the cement plant has on their health. Over the years the council
has certainly heard from some who have taken the time to come to council
meetings and/or contact councilmembers individually. The survey would indicate
the overall sense of the community and possibly indicate where there might be
"hot spots."
4. Local Measurements at potential"hot spots." The City should request the
BAAQMD to perform measurements at or near the homes of residents who
believe they are impacted by the cement plant. Meteorological conditions in
combination with an unfortunate location of emissions can result in localities with
exceptionally high pollution levels. Since these"hot spots" are difficult to predict
by modeling,the City should request that measurements be taken where the
pollution impacts appear the most serious.
Kirsten Squarcia
From: Susan Sievert[spsievert@gmail.corn]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:56 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Written Communication for Item 26
February 7, 2012
Written Communication for Item 26: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District requesting that the District reconsider the designation of Lehigh cement plant, so that the
plant would be regulated in a manner appropriate to a new or remodeled facility
Dear City Council.
Please consider including/attaching to your letter specific examples of the cement plant being both new and
modified.
New: "A $112 million program was launched in 1977 to replace Permanente's six kilns with a single dry-process
one. It would be equipped to burn coal as well as fuel oil and natural gas." Source, Lehigh Permanente:
http://www.lehighpermanente.com/#/1970s/4537361257
"By March, 1981, the new plant was complete, boasting the largest single preheater kiln in the U.S. and an
annual capacity of 1.6 million tons." [emphasis added] Source, Lehigh
Permanente: htto://www.lehighoermanente.com/#/1980s/4537474904
Modified: "This NOV/FOV concerns a series of physical modifications made to the Facility from 1996 through
1999. Lehigh subsequently operated the facility with the codified equipment which resulted in significant net
emission increases. As a result, the projects, either individually or in appgregate, caused an increase in
production of cement and an increase in emissions of air pollutants to the atmosphere from the
Facility." [emphasis added] Source: March 10, 2010 EPA Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation
("NOV/FOV"), page two, paragraph
two: http://www.cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.asox?documentid=4958
Thank you! [emphasis added]
Susan Sievert
•
1
cc c/---/—(d, 02(40
Grace Schmidt
From: David Knapp
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:14 AM
To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks
Cc: Grace Schmidt; glatshaw @gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: FYI: Letter sent to council members
Attachments: Revised Letter to BAAQMD draft.docx; ATT00001..htm
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gary Latshaw<glatshaw @gmail.com>
Date: February 5, 2012 6:18:30 PM PST
To: Rick Kitson <RickK @cupertino.org>, Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager @cupertino.org>
Subject: FYI: Letter sent to council members
Mr. Knapp and Mr. Kitson: For your information I have sent the attached letter to all the council
members for consideration in the discussions at this upcoming council meeting. I am the chair of
the air quality committee of the local Sierra Club. The letter will be finalized this week and sent
under Club letterhead.
Gary
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on
foreign oil; reduce military requirements
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
408-499-3006
1
DRAFT
Public Information Officer
Ms Kristina Chu
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Reference: Proposed Regulation 9, Rule 13, posted 11/18/2011
Dear Ms Chu:
Writing on behalf of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Air Quality
Committee we wish to provide you with the following comments:
The proposed rule by BAAQMD in their Workshop Report November 2011 does
not adequately protect the public health and it is not in compliance with the Federal
Regulations for allowable emissions from new cement plants. The Federal Regulations
were developed with extensive analysis of feasibility and health risks. The emissions
from Lehigh must reflect that it is in a in a non-attainment air basin for Qzone (NOx is a
precursor to ozone production) and Particulates (PM) based on BAAQMD own reporting
(see Appendix A). Moreover, this Cement Plant is the only one in the entire nation
located near a large metropolitan region. This region has persistent inversion layers and
the surrounding mountain ranges trap the emissions in a confined volume. Moreover,
many residents near the plant have asserted that the pollution from the plant has gotten
worse in recent years.
This table, which was derived entirely from material in the workshop document,
reveals the severe impact that the cement plant emissions are having on our air quality:
BAAQMD Draft vs. Sierra Club Recommendations
Emissions are in lb/ton of clinker production
Ratio of Ratio of
Current Current
Pollutant Current BAAQMD Emissions Sierra Club Emissions
Emissions Draft
to to
BAAQMD BAAQMD
NOx 4 2.3 114 1.5 2.67
SO2 1.15 none N/A 0.4 2.88
PM 0.014 0.04 0.35 0.01 1.40
Mercury 0.00035 0.000033 10.61 0.000021 16.67
DRAFT
DRAFT
3. The rules should be expanded to include SO2 emissions. The federal regulations
require for new and modified cement plants 0.4 lb/ton of clinker or 90%
reduction. Lehigh emitted 181 tons of SO2 and produced in 847,000 tons of
clinker in 2010 for a ratio of 0.427 lb/ton. Thus, Lehigh is close to this
requirement already and it very well might be achieved as a bi-product of these
other measures. So it should be a stated emission limit.
4. The rule for mercury emissions should be 0.000021 lb/ton of clinker.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The list of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) on page 16 of the Workshop Report
primarily identifies categories (mercury without stating its chemical form, and Total
Organic HAP) of contaminants and not the specific chemical. This is a serious oversight
that does not distinguish between relatively benign chemicals and very toxic ones such as
chromium VI, benzene, methyl mercury, and arsenic. Without this information, a credible
Health Risk Assessment Report cannot be produced. The TACs must be controlled and
monitored by chemical type, as they will vary depending on the particular materials
mixed with the limestone to create the clinker and the fuel contaminants.
DRAFT
C
c (r,
a) J
ag
E c
co y
N C
co V
V1
U
C 10
N
10 C
L. .,
a) VI
0 -
u_
L a) 0
+■ 1
O w y
J., R
T 10 iJ
L
C L 4t
N c C a) l 7 Ool d O u C E C a.+v ,`, C o Y a) a)
L E < z o a a D < a a a z a s E
I.-. u
7
aL' N u
IA L
N C TO a)
L O L n
U O) n) M O a1 E
- 13 O. CO (In 10 2 .-1 C
o a l0 C
E E E a� aE E a� o.E E o E E
nlco C d7 n nE0) no10-010.01n-- m E E p a II
O N 0 u in E E o Eoa- r) 0- in J'0 7 S rntL 1 z E
y. .l C N n 0. 0 a) In 0 cr In N t0 M 1 J. a) u1
N .1T+ > 10 Q 0 n O 0 .1 y O 0 .-1 M 0 Cl 0 0 0 In In a) v1 •.-1 m•y o O Z 0 O 01...M O O...O O..O .I .-1 co V) .-� O a.
CO Q E
N .6-._
C
a
O C C
O
N o E d o
>.0 • E
To o C_ = on ow o- L u yy�1 C�o
L •O � icy./ O >
10 '6 0 a V1 z z < < a < a z z z a = z a1 D
C U - 0
- o-2 's
a N o
C
fAt vi 10 03 _ .. _ _ .. .- so'en
o.
CA c`' C C aEE� E EE& aEE� E E EEaE b
t
�.+ v;° 0 y n� a 01 E ch E cn O 01 n� 0.01 0.01 E E E E a
n1n nJ. 0Tn . a J. � n� O
C rnm u 0 z nE a. 0 J_ of 01 01 rn co m nn.0 a I° 9 II
40 aa N C N n 01 0 n CO Cl m 1-u1 V1 In 3 7. 7. 7_ M "'I a/ a) E
OM oas 00 M .-IM ON 00 N Ln 1 1 ON 0
L7 a O '-' -1i O.Ni .ni '-' up 0 O N IA V a) i�, n
J (.� V O O 01 N O O O O N In .. N N O O (n •; O.
7 N N—
•r c
� 0.7
vv u
in u u u u a C
4, a) 0.") iu aa)) a) 0.L, o II
.a .,a E E 1= E co a) o o• D
vl a O) L L ;� r .V ... y+
-o 00 c L Y 1. c > v . () d v
�a m a a <L _ a a r,-,• 1) v E
1A C 10 L L. L ,_ J 1- -- J 7 7 >. U OI pl L J t_0 E a)
d 1A Gl E JO 0 0 0 0 7 0 = 0 7 0 i, 0 = J C 0 0 v N c ,- 0 0 0 0 C E
'' wa) E x x x S x cm x cm 1= � c � = v x xol- M u
CC - >. . C a) V C a) r a) d' C W 7 V o a) 0 > V' ..V)
^M D C 0. F 00 •-I 00 .-1 .-I 0.E N .-I 0.E <(E N a E N N M U 0r a .-I N 00..n. ICI L
C >,a) CO
..d IA N M Z d
'^ II
Vl L a) H y∎- yyL a) OI Z VI
4.-o L : U # 1, y -o a) c
U Y m
c = C
...I co 5C-
0 x0 -0 ..' E E.. 0 7 U C d O1
CI 1n 4.1 C .x C IA LL V) 'C a) a)•C 0
O Ou u .N,N c oL 0e C E
OZ� R f c p o m �E a) a) a) L a) .v 'q II
'To 3 a) CO al L u- V o U tea., 1) O U `O -U E
vc _ o o 7a) .. w o ) o n a �
L. 0 0 M 10 = o m a M c j w C in II OI
of d. 0 U z (t a..., 0.w to � I 5.. > a a E
Appendix B—Copied from EPA Emission Standards on 12/30/2011
(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=89b4beea1 ed85cac063f598d91 e24c7f;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A
6.0.1.1.1.17;idno=40;cc=ecfr)
§ 60.62 Standards.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
§60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the atmosphere from any kiln any gases
which:
(1) Contain particulate matter(PM) in excess of:
(i) 0.30 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the kiln commences after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
(ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. An operating
day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln
operates and excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour period when the
kiln was not operating.
(2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity, except that this opacity limit does not apply to
any kiln subject to a PM limit in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that uses a PM
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEM S).
(3) Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NO):) per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day
rolling average if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commences
after June 16, 2008, except this limit does not apply to any alkali bypass installed on the
kiln. An operating day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during
which the kiln operates and excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour
period when the kiln was not operating.
(4) Exceed 0.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2) per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day
rolling average if construction, reconstruction, or modification commences after June 16,
2008, unless you are demonstrating a 90 percent SO2emissions reduction measured across
the SO2control device. An operating day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-
hour period during which the kiln operates, and excludes any measurements made during
the daily 24-hour period when the kiln was not operating.
(b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
§60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the atmosphere from any clinker cooler
any gases which:
(1) Contain PM in excess of:
(i) 0.10 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the clinker cooler commenced after August 17, 1971 but on or before
June 16, 2008.
(ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the clinker cooler commences after June 16, 2008. An
operating day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which
CC 2-1 — /„
Grace Schmidt q.(p
From: Rod Sinks [rodsinks @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:17 PM
To: City Clerk; Grace Schmidt
Cc: David Knapp
Subject: Public Input on Feb 7 Council Agenda Item 26
Attachments: consultant_report#2.doc
Hi Grace,
The attached letter was presented by QuarryNo spokesman Bill Almon at a meeting held at Los Altos Hills last
night. Bill is unfortunately unable to come this evening, but wanted to get the letter before the council for
consideration. Several paragraphs address air quality, which is the topic on our agenda tonight.
Would you please distribute this to council members and get this into the public record for the meeting?
Thanks much- see you later,
Rod
1
QuarryNo
10570 Blandor Way
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
The Los Altos and Los Altos Hills Councils are to be commended for their efforts to guard the
Health of their residents. They retained an outside consultant to examine the environmental
impact of the Lehigh operation and we now have his report. Given the limited resources
available he had no choice other than to mainly vet the work the Regulatory Agencies had
already done and conclude there is no adverse health risk as the Regulatory Agencies have
continued to tell us.
This is not apparent. While the Consultant concluded that the wind dispersion model used was
correct the Air District in November said it is flawed and that they are now looking for better
models of the complex terrain surrounding the Lehigh Facility. Consequently we really do not
know where the toxic emissions fall. The Air District says don't worry because the emissions
expected do not suggest more than one death per million residents for either cancer or non-
cancer risks. We say redo the Health Risk Assessment (HRA).
Lehigh is today the largest source of Nitrogen Oxides in the Bay Area that does not have modern
mitigating controls. They must reduce Nitrogen Oxide emissions by 58% in order to meet new
EPA standards set to protect our health. Until that reduction takes place we have an adverse
health risk according to EPA standards. It appears that Lehigh is also close to exceeding the one
hour national standard for Sulfur Dioxide emissions. We say redo the HRA.
We are certainly concerned with mortality rates but also related health issues such as the impact
on school children of toxic emissions. The Air District says that 261 pounds of Mercury were
emitted by Lehigh last year. Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, has repeatedly testified that
exposure to Mercury reduces the intelligence of children. Even a trace amount over a brief
period at a young age will have an effect. We are apparently trading off 10 points on a SAT test
for a readily available source of cement.
In addition this HRA"all clear"only applies as long as production(951,790 tons of clinker) does
not increase. Lehigh can increase production at any time and the only proviso is a new HRA
must be written. Past Mercury projections have been very high when Lehigh was forced to use a
mass balance estimating approach which they derided but now they use these numbers to show
the effectiveness of their mitigating efforts.
There is only passing mention in the Consultant's Report of the Hexavalent Chromium coming
from the Lehigh operation. High levels of Hexavalent Chromium were found by Lehigh in Water
Tests on January 13, 2010 (2.0 ug/liter), August 30. 2011 (12 ug/liter) and September 21, 2011
(7.6 ug/liter). This is well above the current Public Health Goal (PHG) of.02 ug/liter which will
soon become the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
Grace Schmidt
From: Tim Brand [timothy.bace @gmail.corn]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:31 PM
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: HRA documents from BACE
Attachments: MarkChernaikaveragemercurycontentoflimestone.gif.pdf; ATT00001..txt; Reply to BAAQMD
response.doc;_ATT00002..txt; Scott Lutz reply of 27 May 2011.docx; ATT00003..txt; Final
Evaluation of the Health Risk Assessment.doc; ATT00004..txt; Mark Chernaik_Hg in
limestone data.xls; ATT00005..txt
Dear council member,
I am forwarding some new documents for your review regarding the Lehigh Cement Health Risk Assessment.
These include an independent analysis of the HRA (with a seperate graph and spreadsheet), and
correspondence between the BAAQMD and the independent consultant (1 document each). This review is
provided by Bay Area for Clean Environment, Inc. - a non-profit, public charity, IRS 501c3 Tax Exempt grassroot
organization.
I hope you will take some time to review them as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
Tim Brand
Cupertino resident
Average Mercury Con lord of Llanesions
1200 03 .
•
1000 oa
a tx)
fco co
5
r X00 •
t
••~
oco r4•***rr**ss+•rrE#Ntrrw►ry+r*r r*i r+rw rr,0s'r+�tarrss�►rrrrtrrr*rr**r
rr**rrrrr*r
0 10 20 00 40 50 00 TO !O 94 t04
Figure 1 . Average Mercury Concentration of Limestone
Average Mercury Conant of Limeslonc
Figure 1 . Average Mercury Concentration of Limestone
25-Mar-09 0.394
0.396
26-Mar-09 0.774
0.780
27-Mar-09 1.440
1.420
28-Mar-09 0.401
0.397
29-Mar-09 0.302
0.306
30-Mar-09 0.298
0.295
31-Mar-09 0.328
0.328
1-Apr-09 0.483
0.480
2-Apr-09 0.272
0.271
3-Apr-09 0.346
0.342
4-Apr-09 0.384
0.384
5-Apr-09 0.263
0.264
6-Apr-09 0.279
0.283
7-Apr-09 0.340
0.341
8-Apr-09 0.382
0.384
10-Apr-09 0.243
0.243
11-Apr-09 0.253
0.255
12-Apr-09 0.446
0.446
13-Apr-09 0.261
0.261
14-Apr-09 0.263
0.262
15-Apr-09 0.247
0.249
16-Apr-09 0.351
0.352
17-Apr-09 0.238
0.238
18-Apr-09 0.267
0.267
19-Apr-09 0.200
0.200
Dear Scott,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply to the evaluation. What follows are some additional
comments and questions that I hope will enhance the understanding of Lehigh's March 2011
Health Risk Assessment.
1. Mercury content of Lehigh's limestone
You wrote: "Lehigh indicated that there were analytical anomalies for two sampling days (of 30)
in question and requested that they be excluded from the 30-day average; this is often done for
questionable data."
Could you please specify the nature of the analytical anomalies that justify exclusion of this
data? The nature of these analytical anomalies is not specified in the Health Risk Assessment.
You indicate that Lehigh requested that this data be excluded from the 30-day average. Could
you please share all of the correspondence between Lehigh and BAAQMD regarding the
treatment of the sampling data in question?
You wrote: "The 30-day averaging protocol was developed by USEPA and the District believes
this methodology is appropriate for estimating emissions from this facility." Could you please
provide a citation to or copy of the USEPA protocol used by Lehigh that specifies the
methodology for analyzing the mercury content of Lehigh's limestone and the treatment of
analytical results?
There is nothing analytically anomalous about the data for these two sampling days that is
readily apparent. Two runs were made on each day of sampling. The mercury contents of the
two runs made on March 26 and 27 differ by only a few percent(March 26, run 1 =0.774 ppm,
run 2 = 0.780 ppm; March 27 Run 1 = 1.44 ppm, Run 2 = 1.42 ppm), consistent with the small
differences in the mercury contents for all of the other sampling days. Even if we exclude data
from March 26 and 27, there is substantial variation in the mercury content of Lehigh's
limestone, ranging almost two-and-half-fold, from a minimum of 0.20 ppm to 0.48 ppm. This
substantial variation in measurements from the other 28 days of sampling further suggests that
the measurements of March 26 and 27 validly reflect an inherent variability of the mercury
content of Lehigh's limestone. Finally, when the U.S. EPA promulgated the new Portland
Cement NESHAP in September 2010, it stated:
"Industry commenters stated that we should account for additional sources of variability
in this floor determination, namely intra-quarry variability and variability of the mercury
content in local coals which kilns could utilize. As explained below, beyond those
situations where commenters documented that sources actually used inputs with greater
mercury content than used during the 30-day test period (see note 11 above), or where
further intra-quarry mercury variability could reasonably be estimated, we did not do so.
"EPA is of course aware that limestone quarries are immense, and are customarily used
from periods of 50 to 100 years. Taking the average of 30 days of sampling data from one
part of the quarry would not necessarily encompass all of the different mercury levels
throughout the quarry."
The U.S. EPA also supplied a graph depicting the average mercury content of limestone used by
U.S. Portland Cement plant. See: average mercury content of limestone.gif One U.S. Portland
Cement plant uses limestone with an average mercury of more than 1.1 ppm. One of the two
quarries with the highest mercury content of limestone in the U.S. is Lehigh's quarry in
Tehachapi, California, about 200 miles from Lehigh's quarry in Cupertino. Therefore, there is
nothing inherently anomalous with the measurements of March 26 and 27 showing mercury
contents from 0.77 to 1.44 ppm.
Without further justification of why the data from March 26 and 27 should be excluded,
BAAQMD's decision to exclude this data seems arbitrary.
2. The District's recent issuance of a permit for the kiln with an hourly mercury emission
limit of 0.064 lb/hr
It is the contention of No Toxic Air that when predicting maximum hourly ambient air
concentrations of mercury under the 2010, 2011 and 2013 production scenarios, the HRA should
assume a clinker production rate of 200 tons per hour (which requires the consumption of 289
tons of limestone per hour) and a maximum mercury content of limestone.
It is the contention of No Toxic Air that, according to the mercury analysis that Lehigh
performed in 2009, the maximum mercury content of limestone is 1.43 parts per million -the
average mercury content of limestone that Lehigh sampled on March 27, 2009.
If the district can demonstrate that there are analytical anomalies that justify exclusion of this
data(and the data from March 26, 2009), then it is the contention of No Toxic Air that,
according to the mercury analysis that Lehigh performed in 2009, the maximum mercury content
of limestone is 0.482 -the average mercury content of limestone that Lehigh sampled on April 1,
2009.
You wrote: "The District has recently issued a permit for the kiln with an hourly mercury
emission limit of 0.064 lb/hr (permit is for a carbon sorbent injection system installed to reduce
mercury emissions); this is the emission rate used in the HRA for the 2011 production scenario
and will be enforced using a 30-day rolling average based on material balance until the CEM is
operational later this year."
As you know, the District has issued two permits for the facility, a Major Facility Review Permit
that was noticed by the District on January 7, 2011 and a Minor Revision of a Major Facility
Review Permit that was noticed by the District on May 10, 2011.
It is my understanding that none of the limits on mercury emissions contained in the Major
Facility Review Permit that was noticed by the District on January 7, 2011 come into effect until
September 9, 2013.
The Minor Revision of a Major Facility Review Permit that was noticed by the District on May
10, 2011 does contain the following limit(on page 24):
"The owner/operator of S-154, S-171 and 5-172 shall not emit more than 261 lbs/yr(12-
month rolling average) and 0.064 lb/hr(3-hour rolling average) of total mercury during
normal operation. These mercury limits may be revised based on a new stack or other
modifications that Lehigh will be making, which could affect the Health Risk Analysis
results. (Basis: H&S Code 44300 et seq.)"
You wrote that the new hourly limit on mercury emissions would be: "enforced using a 30-day
rolling average based on material balance until the CEM is operational later this year."
Does the Minor Revision of a Major Facility Review Permit that was noticed by the District on
May 10, 2011 contain a deadline by which Lehigh must make CEM of mercury emissions
operational?
Until Lehigh does make CEM of mercury emissions operational, how would enforcement of the
hourly limit "using a 30-day rolling average based on material balance"prevent gross
exceedances of the hourly limit?
For example, let us suppose that Lehigh is operating at a maximum production capacity of 200
tons per hour of clinker(289 tons per hour of limestone) and is using limestone that contains a
mercury content of 1.43 ppm. Potential mercury emissions might be 0.826 lbs/hour(289
tons/hour x 2000 lbs/ton x 0.00000143). The Minor Revision of a Major Facility Review Permit
explains that: "the 2011 Production scenario represents the implementation of the Activated
Carbon Injection system (subject of this application) and an hourly emission rate of 0.064 lb/hr
of mercury (approximate 65%reduction from baseline)." If we apply a 65%reduction of
mercury emissions because of the implementation of the Activated Carbon Injection system, then
Lehigh might still emit 0.289 lbs/hour for a substantial period of time. However, these elevated
emissions would be completely masked by an enforcement mechanism that uses a 30-day rolling
average based on material balance.
Finally, would you agree that the new mercury limit contained in the Minor Revision of a Major
Facility Review Permit that was noticed by the District on May 10, 2011 has no bearing on the
analyses in the HRA on prior year(2005, 2009/2009, and 2010) Production Scenarios?
3. Comparison of predicted ambient air levels of arsenic, manganese and mercury to 8-hour
Reference Exposure Levels
You wrote: "Formal guidance from OEHHA is not yet available, however, OEHHA provided
interim guidance to air districts on April 19, 2010. This guidance indicates that an 8-hr REL
should be compared to the annual-average concentration for continuously emitting sources, and
that the annual-average concentration should be adjusted by considering the operating schedule
for non-continuously emitting sources (e.g., a factor of 4.2 for a source that operates 5 days a
week, 8 hours/day). Since Lehigh's kiln is operated more than 4000 hours/yr, the adjustment
factor would be about 2.2."
Could you please share the interim guidance that OEHHA provided to air districts on April 19,
2010? I looked carefully for the document on OEHHA's website, but could not find this interim
guidance.
In developing the 8-hr REL for mercury, OEHHA stated:
"The 8-hour Reference Exposure Level is a concentration at or below which adverse
noncancer health effects would not be anticipated for repeated 8-hour exposures (see
Section 6 of the Technical Support Document)."
So, I agree with you that my analysis was too simple: predicted maximum 8-hour exposures at
schools and other relevant receptors may not be similar to repeated 8-hour exposures.
However, I have concerns that an adjustment of the annual-average concentration of mercury is
an appropriate method of comparing predicted 8-hour exposures at schools and other relevant
receptors to the 8-hour Reference Exposure Levels considering the strong tendency of mercury
to bioaccumulate (because of its well-known avidity for sulfhydryl and thiol groups in biological
material). As OEHHA has noted:
"The half life of elimination of mercury in humans following a single inhalation exposure
of 14-24 min. was 21 days from the head, 64 days from the kidney, and 58 days from the
body as a whole (Hursh et al., 1976). Urinary elimination among workers occupationally
exposed for several years had an elimination half-life of 55 days (Sallsten et al., 1994).
Thus, since mercury is only slowly eliminated, the intervals between daily 8-hr
exposures, and between weeks are not long enough for the elimination of significant
amounts of the metal and it will accumulate in the body with repeated exposure."
Considering that the half-life of mercury following a single inhalation exposure is so long (58
days), multiple exposures to mercury over a period of only several days would result in a nearly
cumulative dose of mercury and may exert a profound toxic effect on the nervous system.
4. Maximum 1-hour concentrations of Hg under the 2013 production scenario
For the 2013 Production Scenario, I did in fact consider that a much taller stack and higher flow
rates would enhance dispersion. For example,the HRA indicates that maximum hourly
emissions of arsenic would be the same under the 2005 and the 2013 production scenarios
(compare tables 5A and 25A). The HRA predicts that maximum 1-hour concentrations of
arsenic under the 2005 production scenario would be 4.04 E-3 at the MEIR, and roughly the
same, 3.58 E-3, under the 2013 production scenario. So, clearly the tall stack and higher flow
rates are not having much of an effect on particle-bound pollutants. For the various Production
Scenarios, what assumptions are being made about the speciation and fraction of particle-bound
mercury in overall mercury emissions from the kiln?
Dr. Chernaik —
Thank you for providing comments regarding the Lehigh HRA. However, it is the District's •
preliminary conclusion that the HRA was prepared in accordance with our direction and the
OEHHA AB2588 HRA guidelines. In addition, District staff have conducted AERMOD
dispersion modeling to verify the results. The District is anticipating formal comments from
OEHHA and will consider them before making a final decision about the approval of the HRA.
Please consider my responses to your comments
• You state that a greater average mercury content should be used. Lehigh indicated that
there were analytical anomalies for two sampling days (of 30) in question and requested that
they be excluded from the 30-day average; this is often done for questionable data. The 30-day
averaging protocol was developed by USEPA and the District believes this methodology is
appropriate for estimating emissions from this facility until Lehigh installs a continuous
emissions monitor (CEM) later this year in order to demonstrate compliance with the Portland
Cement NESHAP. The District has recently issued a permit for the kiln with an hourly mercury
emission limit of 0.064 lb/hr (permit is for a carbon sorbent injection system installed to reduce
mercury emissions); this is the emission rate used in the HRA for the 2011 production scenario
and will be enforced using a 30-day rolling average based on material balance until the CEM is
operational later this year.
• Your simple analysis regarding the 8-hour Hazard Index is flawed: you assumed that the
overall maximum 8-hour concentration should be compared to the 8-hour REL —this is a
common misconception. OEHHA indicates that the 8-hour REL is to be compared to repeated
long-term daily 8-hour exposures (e.g., for off-site workers and children at schools or day-care
facilities). Formal guidance from OEHHA is not yet available, however, OEHHA provided
interim guidance to air districts on April 19, 2010. This guidance indicates that an 8-hr REL
should be compared to the annual-average concentration for continuously emitting sources, and
that the annual-average concentration should be adjusted by considering the operating
schedule for non-continuously emitting sources (e.g., a factor of 4.2 for a source that operates 5
days a week, 8 hours/day). Since Lehigh's kiln is operated more than 4000 hours/yr, the
adjustment factor would be about 2.2. The maximum annual-average concentration for a
worker (MEIW = receptor 5076, Table 8B) for 2008/09 production is 4.2E-3 pg/m3, the average
exposure for a worker at the MEIW using the factor of 2.2 would be about 9E-3 pg/m3. The 8-
hour REL is 0.06 pg/m3; therefore the 8-hr HQ for Hg for 2008/09 is about 0.15 - essentially the
same as the chronic HQ of 0.14. In addition, current emissions of mercury are about 65% lower
than in 2008/09. Mercury is the predominate contributor for chronic hazard index and would
also be for the 8-hour hazard index; therefore, the 8-hour HI would not be significant. Because
the revised HRA guidance document is not yet available and the 8-hr RELs have not been
incorporated into HARP, most districts have deferred implementation of these new RELs, CARB
and OEHHA have concurred with this policy.
• You state that the maximum 1-hour concentrations of Hg under the 2013 production
scenario are inconsistent with emission rates for other scenarios. However, you failed to
consider that improved dispersion will be achieved with the proposed new stack (see Section
6.0, page 58 of 194) that will be installed to meet requirements of the NESHAP. The much taller
stack and higher flow rates will enhance dispersion, therefore the risk estimates are not
inconsistent -that's why we do detailed dispersion modeling. Although the 2013 concentration
of mercury was not presented in the main report, the 2013 scenario is an optional future
alternative analysis, therefore the District chooses to be less stringent in the presentation of
results. Once the new equipment and stack are actually installed in 2013 and the new OEHHA
HRA guidelines are adopted, the District can perform an updated risk analysis (including 8-hr
HI).
Scott
May 26, 2011
Evaluation of
The Revised AB2588 Health Risk Assessment for 2005, Average 2008/2009
and 2013 Production Scenarios
for the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company facility in Cupertino, California.
No Toxic Air reviewed the Revised AB2355 Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for 2005, Average
2008/2009 and 2013 Production Scenarios for the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company facility in
Cupertino, California. What follows is a discussion of major flaws contained in the HRA.
1. By excluding its own data, the HRA underestimated the mercury content of
limestone used by the Lehigh facility
Pre-blend stone (limestone) is the predominant raw material for the manufacturing of cement.
Lehigh consumes more than one million tons of limestone per year, which it mines from a
nearby quarry. The mercury content of this limestone is the main variable that determines
mercury emissions from Lehigh's facility.
Appendix A of the HRA presents an analysis of the mercury content Lehigh's limestone
performed over a 30-day period in March-April 2009. The data is presented in Table 1 of
Appendix A.
The data shows substantial variability of the mercury content in Lehigh's limestone that is likely
due to the heterogeneity of mercury in limestone. The lowest measured mercury content was 0.2
micrograms per gram (= 0.2 ppm) and the higher measured mercury content was 1.44 ppm. The
average mercury content of Lehigh's limestone is 0.36 ppm. See attached spreadsheet: Hg in
limestone data.xls.
However, AMEC does not use an average mercury content of 0.36 ppm for determining mercury
emissions from Lehigh's facility. Instead, AMEC uses an average mercury content of 0.31 ppm
by excluding four measurements (replicate analyses of limestone samples performed on March
26 and March 27, 2009) as `outliers." However, AMEC does not provide any basis for why
these measurements should be excluded as outliers. There is nothing to indicate that the
measurements were invalid because of the analytical method: the measurements from 26 and
March 27, 2009 have the exact same reproducibility as the other measurements in the dataset.
There is nothing to indicate that the mercury content of the samples analyzed on 26 and March
27, 2009 are beyond the mercury content that can be found in limestone. One cement facility in
the U.S. uses limestone with an average mercury content of 1.15 ppm and another facility uses
limestone with an average mercury content of 0.63 ppm.1 The four measurements from 26 and
March 27, 2009 are what they are, and should have been retained in calculations for the average
mercury content of the limestone the Lehigh facility uses.
U.S. EPA(August 9,2010)"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants."at page 43.
2. By ignoring the heterogeneity of the limestone used at the Lehigh facility, the HRA
grossly underestimates maximum 1-hour ambient air concentrations associated with
emissions from the facility
Even if we were only to use data not excluded by AMEC, there is substantial variability of the
mercury content in Lehigh's limestone. For example, on April 1, 2009, limestone used at the
Lehigh facility had a mercury content of 0.48 ppm.2
However all of the maximum 1-hour ambient air concentrations contained in the HRA for the
Lehigh facility are based on the assumption that at all times the facility is using limestone with
the average mercury content of 0.31 ppm.3 Production rate (capacity) was the only variable that
AMEC adjusted in the HRA when predicting maximum 1-hour ambient air concentrations of
mercury.
This is an unreasonable assumption. Clearly there are days during when the Lehigh Facility is
using limestone with a mercury content 50% (or more) than the average mercury content of such
limestone. All of the maximum 1-hour ambient air concentrations contained in the HRA for the
Lehigh facility need to be adjusted to correct this unreasonable assumption.
3. By ignoring 8-hour Reference Exposure Levels, the HRA fails to derive accurate
hazard quotients and total health indices for exposure to arsenic, manganese and
mercury
The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 states:
"Health risk assessments required by this chapter shall be prepared in accordance with
guidelines established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment."4
The OEHHA guidelines for the preparation of health risk assessments states:
"The output of an air dispersion modeling analysis will be a receptor field of
concentrations of the pollutant in ambient air. These concentrations in air need to be
coupled with Reference Exposure Levels and cancer potency factors to estimate the hazard
indices and potential carcinogenic risks."5
Contrary to these guidelines,the HRA for the Lehigh facility failed to compare concentrations of
the pollutant in ambient air with Reference Exposure Levels (RELs)that all pertain to the short-
term impacts of arsenic, manganese and mercury on the nervous system.6 These RELs are:
2 HRA at Appendix A,Table 1.
3 HRA at Appendix A,Table 3.
4 California Health and Safety Code Section 44360(b)(2).
5 OEHHA(2003)"Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines"at page 4-4.
6 See: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Inorganic Arsenic 8-Hour REL
Reference Exposure Level 0.015 µg/ As/r3
C'�'iFica! effect(s) Decreased intellectual function in 10 year old
children
Ha_ard Index target(s) Development; cardiovascular system; nervous
system: lung; skin
Manganese 8-Hour REL
Reference Eyosiire. Level 0.17 fig/m3
0.itical effect(s) Impairment of neurobehavioral function in
humans
Ha=ai'd index target Nervous system
Mercury 8-Hour REL
Reference Eposure. Level 0.06 µg Hg/m 3 (0.007 ppb Hg°)
Critical effects) impairment of neurobehavioral functions in
humans
IIa_ard Index target(s) Nervous system
The HRA for the Lehigh facility used an air dispersion model to predict only very short-term(1
hour) and very long-term (annual) concentrations of arsenic, manganese, and mercury. For
example, the HRA contains the following predictions of 1-hour maximum concentrations of
arsenic, manganese and mercury at the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR):
Arsenic Manganese Mercury
HRA, maximum 1-hour concentration at MEIR, 2005 production' 0.004 0.003 1.050
HRA, maximum 1-hour concentration at MEIR, 2008-9 production8 0.004 0.003 0.966
HRA, maximum 1-hour concentration at MEIR, 2010 productions 0.004 0.003 0.677
HRA, maximum 1-hour concentration at MEIR, 2011 production10 0.004 0.003 0.336
HRA, maximum 1-hour concentration at MEIR, 2013 production11 0.004 NR 0.002
'HRA at Table 9A, Receptor 2040
8 HRA at Table 9B, Receptor 2040
9 HRA at Table 9C, Receptor 2040
1°HRA at Table 9C,Receptor 2040
II HRA,Appendix J,2013_Rep_Acu_Rec2041 AllSrc_AIICh_ByRec_ByChem.txt
The HRA for the Lehigh facility only compares these predicted concentrations of arsenic,
manganese, and mercury to very short-term (acute, 1-hour) and very long-term (chronic)
Reference Exposure Levels adopted by OEHHA in deriving total hazard indices.
Even though the air dispersion model used in the HRA for the Lehigh facility only predicted 1-
hour(and annual) concentrations of arsenic, manganese, and mercury, there is a means of
predicting 8-hour concentrations based on such data. The Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidelines for the preparation of health risk assessments contain a
recommended procedure for"Estimating Concentrations of Longer Averaging Periods from the
Maximum One-Hour Concentration for Screening Purposes."12
This recommended procedure involves the application of conversion factors according to the
following table found on page H-2 of the OEHHA guidelines for the preparation of health risk
assessments.
Table H..1 Recommended Factors to Convert Maximum 1-hour Avg. Concentrations to Other
Averaging Periods(U.S.EPA,1992:ARB, 1994).
Averaging Time Range Typical Recommended
3 hours 0.8- 1.0 0.9
8 hours 0.5-0.9 0.7
24 hours 0.2-0.6 0.4
30 days 0.2-0.3 0.3
Annual 0.06- 0.1 0.08
Application of these conversion factors to the predicted 1-hour maximum concentrations
contained in the HRA allow an estimation of the following maximum 8-hour concentrations of
arsenic, manganese and mercury at the MEIR.
Arsenic Manganese Mercury
8-hour concentration at MEIR, 2005 production 0.003 0.002 0.735
8-hour concentration at MEIR, 2008-9 production 0.003 0.002 0.676
8-hour concentration at MEIR, 2010 production 0.003 0.002 0.474
8-hour concentration at MEIR, 2011 production 0.003 0.002 0.235
8-hour concentration at MEIR, 2013 production 0.003 NR 0.001
If, as required by the OEHHA guidelines, one compares these maximum 8-hour concentrations
of arsenic, manganese and mercury at the MEIR to the 8-hour Reference Exposure Levels for
arsenic, manganese and mercury, then one obtains the following hazard quotients and total
hazard indices:
12 OEHHA(2003)"Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines"at Appendix H.
Arsenic Manganese Mercury Total HI
Hazard quotients at MEIR, 2005 Production 0.19 0.01 12.25
Hazard quotients at MEIR, 2008-9 Production 0.19 0.01 11.27
Hazard quotients at MEIR, 2010 Production 0.19 0.01 7.90 1
Hazard quotients at MEIR, 2011 Production 0.19 0.01 3.92,,, u §'
Hazard quotients at MEIR, 2013 Production 0.17 NR 0.02 0.18
The total hazard indices for 2005 and 2008-9 production scenarios are not only above the public
notification threshold (hazard index=1), but are above the threshold the BAAQMD uses as a
criteria for requiring a facility to reduce emissions.
These hazard quotients and total hazard indices do not reflect the fact that the HRA for the
Lehigh facility underestimates the average mercury content of the limestone it uses and ignore
the heterogeneity of mercury content in this material. Had the HRA for the Lehigh facility
correctly inputted data about the mercury content of the limestone it uses and compared
maximum 8-hour concentrations of arsenic, manganese and mercury at the MEIR to the 8-hour
Reference Exposure Levels for arsenic, manganese and mercury, then even higher total hazard
indices would have been derived.
4. Derived 1-hour maximum concentrations of mercury under the 2013 production
scenario are inconsistent with emission factors provided in the HRA.
The HRA for the Lehigh facility provides information about mercury emissions under the
various production scenarios (2005, 2008-2009, 2010 and 2013) it inputted into the air dispersion
models for predicting 1-hour maximum concentrations of mercury.13 These emission factors are
as follows:
2005 Production Scenario: 0.2 pounds per hour
2008-2009 Production Scenario: 0.18 pounds per hour(90% of 2005 level)
2010 Production Scenario: 0.14 pounds per hour(70% of 2005 level)
2013 Production Scenario: 0.011 pounds per hour (5.5% of 2005 level)
For the 2005, 2008-2009 and 2010, the HRA for the Lehigh facility discloses the predicted 1-
hour maximum concentrations of mercury at the MEIR that are consistent with the decline in
mercury emissions for these years. They are as follows:
2005 1-hour maximum [mercury]: 1.06 µg/m3
2008-2009 1-hour maximum [mercury]: 0.966 µg/m3(91% of 2005 level)
2010 1-hour maximum [mercury]: 0.677 µg/m3(63% of 2005 level)
The body of the HRA for the Lehigh facility does not disclose the predicted 1-hour maximum
concentration of mercury at the MEIR under the 2013 production scenario. However, consistent
with the claim that mercury emissions under the 2013 production scenario would be
approximately 5-6% of mercury emissions under the 2005 production scenario, one would
13 HRA at Appendix A,Table 3
expect that the predicted 1-hour maximum concentration of mercury at the MEIR under the 2013
production scenario would be approximately 0.058 µg/m3.
Although the body of the HRA for the Lehigh facility does not disclose the predicted 1-hour
maximum concentration of mercury at the MEIR under the 2013 production scenario, Appendix
J of the HRA for the Lehigh facility - HARP Modeling Input and Output files, 2013 Production
Scenario.
One of the files (2013_Rep_Acu_Rec2041_Al1Src_A11Ch_ByRec_ByChem.txt) in Appendix J
allows one to calculate the predicted 1-hour maximum concentration of mercury at the MEIR
under the 2013 production scenario that the HRA does not reveal in its body. This file calculates
an acute hazard quotient for mercury of 0.00252 in comparison to the acute Reference Exposure
Level for mercury of 0.6 µg/m3. This allows one to calculate that the HRA for the Lehigh
facility assumes that under the 2013 production scenario, the predicted 1-hour maximum
concentration of mercury at the MEIR would be 0.0015 µg/m3.
This predicted 1-hour maximum concentration of mercury at the MEIR under the 2013
production scenario is only 0.15%of the predicted 1-hour maximum concentration of mercury at
the MEIR under the 2005 production scenario and, therefore, is glaringly inconsistent with the
claim that mercury emissions under the 2013 production scenario would still be roughly 5-6% of
mercury emissions under the 2005 production scenario. Therefore, the HRA for the Lehigh
facility needs to explain why predicted 1-hour maximum concentration of mercury at the MEIR
under the 2013 production scenario are a 99.85%reduction of predicted 1-hour maximum
concentration of mercury at the MEIR under the 2005 production scenario.
25-Mar-09 0.394
0.396
26-Mar-09 0.774
0.780
27-Mar-09 1.440
1.420
28-Mar-09 0.401
0.397
29-Mar-09 0.302
0.306
30-Mar-09 0.298
0.295
31-Mar-09 0.328
0.328
1-Apr-09 0.483
0.480
2-Apr-09 0.272
0.271
3-Apr-09 0.346
0.342
4-Apr-09 0.384
0.384
5-Apr-09 0.263
0.264
6-Apr-09 0.279
0.283
7-Apr-09 0.340
0.341
8-Apr-09 0.382
0.384
10-Apr-09 0.243
0.243
11-Apr-09 0.253
0.255
12-Apr-09 0.446
0.446
13-Apr-09 0.261
0.261
14-Apr-09 0.263
0.262
15-Apr-09 0.247
0.249
16-Apr-09 0.351
0.352
17-Apr-09 0.238
0.238
18-Apr-09 0.267
0.267
19-Apr-09 0.200
0.200
20-Apr-09 0.232
0.232
21-Apr-09 0.216
0.217
22-Apr-09 0.274
0.273
23-Apr-09 0.326
0.325
24-Apr-09 0.295
0.296
Average 0.360
QuarryNo
10570 Blandor Way
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
The Los Altos and Los Altos Hills Councils are to be commended for their efforts to guard the
Health of their residents. They retained an outside consultant to examine the environmental
impact of the Lehigh operation and we now have his report. Given the limited resources
available he had no choice other than to mainly vet the work the Regulatory Agencies had
already done and conclude there is no adverse health risk as the Regulatory Agencies have
continued to tell us.
This is not apparent. While the Consultant concluded that the wind dispersion model used was
correct the Air District in November said it is flawed and that they are now looking for better
models of the complex terrain surrounding the Lehigh Facility. Consequently we really do not
know where the toxic emissions fall. The Air District says don't worry because the emissions
expected do not suggest more than one death per million residents for either cancer or non-
cancer risks. We say redo the Health Risk Assessment(HRA).
Lehigh is today the largest source of Nitrogen Oxides in the Bay Area that does not have modern
mitigating controls. They must reduce Nitrogen Oxide emissions by 58% in order to meet new
EPA standards set to protect our health. Until that reduction takes place we have an adverse
health risk according to EPA standards. It appears that Lehigh is also close to exceeding the one
hour national standard for Sulfur Dioxide emissions. We say redo the HRA.
We are certainly concerned with mortality rates but also related health issues such as the impact
on school children of toxic emissions. The Air District says that 261 pounds of Mercury were
emitted by Lehigh last year. Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, has repeatedly testified that
exposure to Mercury reduces the intelligence of children. Even a trace amount over a brief
period at a young age will have an effect. We are apparently trading off 10 points on a SAT test
for a readily available source of cement.
In addition this HRA "all clear" only applies as long as production(951,790 tons of clinker) does
not increase. Lehigh can increase production at any time and the only proviso is a new HRA
must be written. Past Mercury projections have been very high when Lehigh was forced to use a
mass balance estimating approach which they derided but now they use these numbers to show
the effectiveness of their mitigating efforts.
There is only passing mention in the Consultant's Report of the Hexavalent Chromium coming
from the Lehigh operation. High levels of Hexavalent Chromium were found by Lehigh in Water
Tests on January 13, 2010 (2.0 ug/liter), August 30, 2011 (12 ug/liter) and September 21, 2011
(7.6 ug/liter). This is well above the current Public Health Goal (PHG) of.02 ug/liter which will
soon become the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
However it will not be addressed by the Regulatory Agencies until it becomes the MCL. By then
it is too late as the Reclamation Plan will have been approved and the Agencies can only wring
their hands and feel our pain. Is this part of the rush to get the new Reclamation Plan approved?
Maybe not as the State has already given Notice to Lehigh that they will be taken off the list of
companies authorized to sell minerals to the State unless they quickly get a Reclamation Plan in
place. Santa Clara County is the regulator (lead agency) for the Reclamation Plan. The Water
Board is responsible for Permanente Creek regulation. The Cement Plant operates under a Use
Permit from Santa Clara County. Lehigh says they are a single united facility and exploit the
regulatory confusion around them.
A good example is the HRA approved by the Air District stating there is no adverse health risk.
That is because the Air District, as the Consultant noted, has excluded all the diesel trucks
servicing Lehigh. They are not included in the HRA or even in the draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) issued by Santa Clara County. The County says they cannot be included because
they service the Cement Plant not the Quarry. The Air District says they cannot be included
because they are not owned by Lehigh. Just in case you are confused by now let me reconfirm
that the Cement Plant operates under a Use Permit issued by the County.
So what does 100,000 Diesel Truck trips per year mean to our health? They have the same
impact as the Cement Plant! When added to the Health Risk Assessment they blow it out of the
water.
Let me take one pollutant called PM 2.5. It stands for Particulate Matter 2.5 being 2.5 microns in
size, very small. Currently Santa Clara County is categorized by the EPA as nonattaining the
safe level of PM 2.5. The Lehigh Cement Plant and the Diesel trucks servicing it are one of the
reasons. They are one of the largest emitters of PM 2.5 in the County if not the largest. It comes
from the kiln as well as the tailpipes of the diesel trucks. It does not come from common dust.
PM 2.5 , according to the Air District, is the most harmful air pollutant in the Bay Area. It
aggravates asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments and leads to hardening of the
arteries while triggering heart attacks consequently decreasing life expectancy by years.
In a September 2011 study by the Air Quality District Santa Clara County gained the greatest
benefit from reducing PM 2.5 emissions to the tune of$2.965 Billion (not millions but billions).
This is from just this one pollutant not from them all such as Benzene, Mercury, Arsenic etc.
Consequently we find the Health Risk Assessment flawed and the statement now repeated by the
Consultant that there is no adverse Health Risk from the Lehigh Quarry and Cement Plant to be
wrong. The Health Risk Assessment must be redone.
Bill Almon
QuarryNo.com
DRAFT
Public Information Officer
Ms Kristina Chu
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Reference: Proposed Regulation 9, Rule 13, posted 11/18/2011
Dear Ms Chu:
Writing on behalf of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's Air Quality
Committee we wish to provide you with the following comments:
The proposed rule by BAAQMD in their Workshop Report November 2011 does
not adequately protect the public health and it i is not in compliance with the Federal
Regulations for allowable emissions from new cement plants. The Federal Regulations
were developed with extensive analysis of feasibility and health risks. The emissions
from Lehigh must reflect that it is in a in a non-attainment air basin for Qzone (NOx is a
precursor to ozone production) and Particulates (PM) based on BAAQMD own reporting
(see Appendix A). Moreover, this Cement Plant is the only one in the entire nation
located near a large metropolitan region. This region has persistent inversion layers and
the surrounding mountain ranges trap the emissions in a confined volume. Moreover,
many residents near the plant have asserted that the pollution from the plant has gotten
worse in recent years.
This table, which was derived entirely from material in the workshop document,
reveals the severe impact that the cement plant emissions are having on our air quality:
BAAQMD Draft vs. Sierra Club Recommendations
Emissions are in lb/ton of clinker production
Ratio of Ratio of
Current Current
Current BAAQMD Sierra Club
Pollutant Emissions
Emissions Draft Emissions Recommendation o
BAAQMD BAAQMD
NOx 4 2.3 1.74 1.5 2.67
SO2 1.15 none N/A 0.4 2.88
PM 0.014 0.04 0.35 0.01 1.40
Mercury 0.00035 0.000033 10.61 0.000021 16.67
DRAFT
DRAFT
The Sierra Club's recommendations are based on the available technology as
discussed in the Workshop. In addition to the specific emission standards, it has come to
the club's attention in the last few weeks that limestone is actually being shipped INTO
the plant for processing. There have been emails from John Marvin of BAAQMD and a
phone conversation with me. Such shipments undermine the credibility of having the
plant near a dense metropolitan area as the justification for the plant has always been the
societal value of the local limestone to the community. This is particularly noteworthy as
the limestone is from Davenport, where there have been rumors of high levels of
chromium VI in that material.
In developing the Title V application, Lehigh had a Health Risk Assessment
(HRA) done. Using the composition of the Lehigh site limestone, the HRA concluded
that the region was below the standards at which BAAQMD would declare an advisory to
residents. However, if the plant were operated at full permitted capacity (1.6 million tons)
rather than current levels, which are about 60% capacity levels, or the constituents of the
input material were to contain higher levels of toxic contaminants, then the plant
operations could easily result in the BAAQMD issuing warnings
The Sierra Club respectfully request that the following revisions to the draft rules.
These requests are based on existing and proven technologies.
1. The rule for NOx emissions should be changed to 1.5 lb/ton of clinker rather than
the proposed 2.3 lb/ton of clinker (page 15 of the BAAQMD Workshop Report).
This more stringent requirement can be achieved by the use Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) or Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to reduce the
emissions of NOx emissions to 1.5 lb/ton of clinker The EPA has determined that
1.5 lb/ton of clinker is obtainable with current technology and has stipulated that
value in their regulations (Appendix B). This would result in a 40% reduction in
NOx emitted into our polluted region.
2. The rule for PM emissions should be changed to 0.01 lb/ton of clinker rather than
the proposed 0.04 lb/ton of clinker(page 15 of the BAAQMD Workshop Report).
This more stringent requirement can be achieved by the use of the Best Available
Fabric Filters. The EPA has determined that the 0.01 lb/ton of clinker is
obtainable with the current technology and has stipulated that value in their
regulations (Appendix B). This would result in a 75% reduction in particulates
emitted into our region.
Regarding particulate emissions, it is imperative that the chemical composition of
the particulates themselves be analyzed. The health effects of the particulates are
dependent on their composition.
DRAFT
DRAFT
3. The rules should be expanded to include SO2 emissions. The federal regulations
require for new and modified cement plants 0.4 lb/ton of clinker or 90%
reduction. Lehigh emitted 181 tons of SO2 and produced in 847,000 tons of
clinker in 2010 for a ratio of 0.427 lb/ton. Thus, Lehigh is close to this
requirement already and it very well might be achieved as a bi-product of these
other measures. So it should be a stated emission limit.
4. The rule for mercury emissions should be 0.000021 lb/ton of clinker.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The list of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) on page 16 of the Workshop Report
primarily identifies categories (mercury without stating its chemical form, and Total
Organic HAP) of contaminants and not the specific chemical. This is a serious oversight
that does not distinguish between relatively benign chemicals and very toxic ones such as
chromium VI, benzene, methyl mercury, and arsenic. Without this information, a credible
Health Risk Assessment Report cannot be produced. The TACs must be controlled and
monitored by chemical type, as they will vary depending on the particular materials
mixed with the limestone to create the clinker and the fuel contaminants.
DRAFT
DRAFT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules. Although the cement
products produced at this facility are of value to the community, it is essential that they
be produced in a fashion that does not cumulatively degrade our community health.
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Air Quality Committee
Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club
Contact: glatshaw @gmail.com
DRAFT
L
Y
cu)
al J
E c
10 Y
C
O
Y vi
c co
10 L C
N
a) v)
1
LL
CU gi
O a)
w
Y CO
Y
C C a1 U
J 0 aJ Y0 0
U c E c c
C Y
C 0 o
N 1O U JO-+
v v w " E
FLO- E Q Z In Q Q 7 Q Q Q Q _ 7 Q Z Q Q - u_
J
J L.+ 1• N 1 U
CO y L
L C a)
U 0t C O N
0_ a C .. E
m
Y
rn
+°1+ 1O +`+ E E °C E E E E E E^ +c+ E
o c 11 C 0. E E a+-+ a∎ E a� a E E O E E
a+ C u In E E ---- a.0 aaE0- mJ' aain a0 = rn rnLL �_ 1 II
° na a+ C N O. O. 0 a) In 07 LA r.o M a 7. (I) L E
Y T a) 10 O 0 a 0 to 0 .-1 a)0 0 .-1 M 0 al 0 0 0 rn to a) VI .-1 \01
'� o Z 0 O 01 M O O O O • .-i .i M(!) 1 - 6 0.
O J L '—
L O'
lOn L H
1- 113- C
'C f0
Y - E C Q
0 10 a,
Y 0 •c E
7 c c
0- L w rO a+
ro1ay 4U) Z z < < < Q Q z D
c U 1_ 01
al
3 C . C
Q d N O
o
`n Q a.• @ C 0 E
MI vi R RI _ .� .. ..ci,C%] ` 'C C 0-.... E---- ,,E E E E� nE E� E . c a t
A..1 C1O i aarnE� ama, arnaor E °
a 01N w U 0 a1 o.E aO a_=0 01 a10. . \O7 l°L 9 II
I) co- C ^^ 00 aE cm 00 M 1V.In in In 7. W al E
L.r OM o0 00 0M .-IM OIL 0o NU1 a) 1 0.
G, > iO O O
�' (,) V O� O� 01� NNOMO�.O.�iO N y
•ow 7 N A—
O-C
.0 ar u
C
'(a U U U U L .,
% • 0)i U v v a -C 0 II
.a o Q E E E E L° 7 Co 00 a'+
m C N L Y Y al • x rl C
U L L L >
CC C Q L Q Q L Q L Q M y L
Y
co) 113 c m L L L J L J J J >. o a L J L o''' CC a)
6as d J J J J J M O J M 0 0 0 O O m c c t J0 o O C E
a 4) E 0 0 0 0 o c x 0 cc mx cc x x w 0 '
m �� y,_ x x x x c - v x xoHA
cceim Cv Caly ca) a v o 10 0 > a
,-Irnz �
10 D C Q I- 0 .i 0 .-1 .-I Q f N .-I <X Q f N Q f N N M U a< .-1 N CO...O. ra 7
C > C u; O L
fC m Z a)
N N rn II N
`m w w a) '" La) aal :: a) c Z E
L L +o
•'�� c Y X al 0) (00 (00 0 - a) a1 aCi rn ro�n a+ 0 o X ° f ern cn � w w E =
C O C v v t oc
C O Y Y Y N c O Y C
c RI c Ia_ co f a v v L v Ti to II
+, c a. ° J J a v 01 0 0
a L v 0 m u_ u� Z E
7° ' L LL O Y O L V
.�'r o c o ° - N Ex E a) ‘.-
a ° cr y Q rn
Qu0 O N Lm JN ma m� w > u m
o f G. O U z to.. a a of x '> > a Q E
0
w .i
>,U v O1 E o V1 L 7
±'maw a) i0 a ? v ~ m w r
— 0 7.c w ti L.— C 01 CO >
L 7-
V u w > w to V1 • O w .i-
a) vip o' t0 0 V N >.01 NY W pi_
•5 w L o - L u C
�.0• , c 3 >u) � 0 � � ao) v v C
to 0 >,C C o= V) C N L= E ' 0 u< U
yu, o O o TU w Y O` o t 7 L 4`' E w W C
p ° E v C '' u V t/1 V u V1 O V V
E C aN+_W O D.w V) u o >a) > t ° O a VI
a `pwto vw �olo � m n oc OcE .- .0 a"i
rn
,.. w E o co L tu0 ° t0 X N'E 0 O 0 T C U
E w°,L+ > w a.) 0 a ON- a) rn 3 t
0 o N a o o 1- y a m 0- y C L 4,N u Tao ai
E E v 0 L w C N > W C. C . X C O t• u L 7= a) w N C
+w'- EiO �'O�' V C!4 L L E inHti+, o L
c w N m D 00 tcp o ~ 30 ova c° w a) 0
V U ° o w w co O t0 ( a u o N Em ED V) w w L
f E c w
o C VI V u 01 I`0 , 0 W a w O a 0- °
p_t0 C c “o tL a) C --, rn t^ E a'�, a) c ° a)_ E)
r--
O a) o an a' Cl)
v a,L,uvl V > 10 E C CO a-'''4- - y aL o 0 `) n2 C >
v .O EMI ,- w � �°_ 0 ._ to wtp >.1p a) 7 a
C 0'O U o w w ° -CM N 12 w > o u L >.D o
0 a) aY > w Hm ,- t0 a=10cvQm ,_ N c•
V C-0 0 ai .111.0 ail 0 1:2
(' CT 0 E 0- c 0 7 y•7 a) C L C O C ,_' C _C N w 0 E w W w N.i
N p o~ N 0 L U V1 C 01 N O 0 N C a(n ?...0 t0 0 if u o
E73 rl 0 N
'X= 7 0 ° L.L L > a) E 0 C o >•C a),L, 0 u 7 N L 03
C' .0 = ' ern oL° to' � ° Npf C ' co 04, Uo
a) a)0H +' N a) a) U > U 0 N L 0 t00 0°0 E 0 0 L O
of .-I .�L-+ Ip to L o o a) to U*+L V) V 3 N
OC a 1O +'u °E N N C Ou -6 C•01,1 Q io.o W L 7 °N
0
c of 1, m �_� o v v > ° t/7 0 �+ E a
C „
° v v w M t Y c o w m w w _� v w w
° E C-C4.4 u o > u L 3 V }'if X w w N a L o L w 7 C
La O U O o CO w YL-L a) w�7 m Y o V a) ; p 0
N0 V E C„ w w�u o t w-c) o E o °L X C
c C L >.w , N E L t/ C 7 N d w Cn
Ipw,Qj 0 , 0M V- .yE O 7Eco,w ,a0 QQ ow
H
7L O. 03 C10 w w' w E 0'� o•NUL L, N rT
o co w w Z'C ,L, V) w 7 a C , 0.In Cl) 0 0'-1 N Z > o (QS^7�
L F- V p• 7 7 C a) 01 o a E O °-E O•O u N E N N N C
' 0 a) a) L-'� O w;, 1L0 C 0_
.0 u• 0 Q t_ 7 7 0.-1 U(�
wDv) w�aa3 UOV1 > U c,W WTNX Q_NLO-I 17
R vi , ct c o•Dnj ,w,-0 ° E•1-"�o wa E >L =LN
7
U j a) .02,i".'10L C E O w o ' o > C1NL N >- ti a r-,'1'u-
=un rn O.N a) Ou0 Na aC 00 C Oa C u C•- 0NLTC"'1
j V1 w N ° L 7 L C ui C O U °mE L 4,N w D.INO,L,_o
V)w t0 7 ,w, o o U °u C O C .•1 0 f! L - 'O a W O L.
ow w VO O Y 1 o U U' O
C1L. ww wa 7 C � �a ° C0a;,
�� 01 0 u0 ao, (n n,, > E H C W ^L O'-U w M D UI N 23-o C O W
F- C co o - V t_ V1 o w E.. co+'u1 w 00 ,_,°+E E C V1 C m C C
w y0,' N 3 w w p 0 t ra•,w+ w >`O O N V >,7 <L w t`) o t/1 E p1
o w o w •co N Yo >�U N>, a w U W C a o C w L a a) O 7 C v
J L C w 0 R a L V1 01' w o a 7 cc Z�'.1 a t. C 0 p L-
4...)H 7'E U I 7 t_r1- > w Q E(/j E' .. 0. U 0 L O tCO VI u
w U L t_ _ 70 70 w C w > C >'7 C V)C v Q tk0 ICON W L y - o•X'wO V B U L N L C N N w 0 >,o f.i w w O1 V•01 ..I a Q u C >
`-'w N17 co•-I V w 'O tu0 NaL t0'O 03 n3 0 m L ,L, 00 ,_L 3 aX .. °
wU ,_m.6Dw'0NL7 u Vpc +' >wN 4)a+ w0w0w
:0X W o m L o w C C •a 0 C y u.)..)..z ,--0•0 o u L O C MO a;_' @ °
C d L t4-, o N tco a�~ a) o 0-o V) o 0 g,, 0 0• w U.,_ U 01 D O W o > o cla° O ,L., VI o w (, V1 C V o C w L C C o u0 ° C w w L c cn(n U o D
E y0�� E �t 0 @L N�w 00 N tTCI-•o a.LO > •t/-1 y,do c
CC '5 w o'a uOO'0„ wu C 03 w0 wU ain W-0o L�Q p C
a° pj�_ Uw vtc ,L, wo vvYtpC o ° 1_ ,`0' v 0 °
I- w t C > 0 0 V) �- j w w J w t/1 N w'O o N Z E 7
o o,-I X L L O L0 a-° lull w 3 w'> O L. C u C 3 a N T w L N C M O
w+'u C o a0 (1.)-° 0 C L C V)a a'- V1 O a j 0 O
„ t o ut tp �„ mv w t p w w v,� �' C a to > c ,o
a.)o w w V)to C o-m v) a0 0 3 L V• 7 C yto,
p+-' p o4 o,”' Oro 7w V) L.- 0 o= w -0 L L N L W C 0 CC °
N w N y_c C `1 i' U CO+'o w L)L v o C o-0 u (n O L o 01
t.p C w ° 0 0+-' a N to o N o'-1 N N a 1l., C 1uoi1 N C1 =N H o
'� o ' 3 L E C a w„O w ° >`y o 4, w'V) > o a)y-, w o 01
>U W''' N.0 Una(0 >'-' 1n N u co a:,c N c.0 0.) 0 u c 0 U C N
U w N 7 c•O D C 0 t_ O o w N N O O w 6 u L N U w w,o' O V C w '0' U1 VI
•00 N in 0 CO 10 N V O O i:, o ° o N N L U N ° - ,L, ..•,. C L .�.�
C 'O 1:3c V >.V)L tO w 01 7 ' C t 0- < w„ w V)O N °V u C U
o w w w a x L C >`w ar.a O-0 N tY C U 3 0 >E 8 y.. w o C
ut V u E y w 7 1.0 N 0 M N i' 0 01 O> w 0 w w u N N? 0_ w 0
Io o"w"' o o L L O w,L, w 7 fO yw,' C O N-0 L, O Q N U',N c E C trp o P
, aU 7� COE 10_I-- O u V C a�tuO_ w 3d L W'°i0 ,N7X °Lp U'
0
(/1 O C1a1 V o °u 7 C T W O V) w C a 7 yw,0 0 V) >- o ^ 0 N m i, Y
W'Iuwru -noC EwMaw0 lmc�ta^,'9N L7t$ 31°- fOOErn¢Z Cam`
Cva°iXcmzyMomXEwZOt- . . . . . .0 + mN � writ/ 0
Z.-I 2 w'-, C N to E V a W N U ri V to Ir)IO IN CO J-'01.-I a)<.•1,,•-■U U,-1'-1 0<
Appendix B—Copied from EPA Emission Standards on 12/30/2011
(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=89b4beea1 ed85cac063f598d91 e24c7f;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A
6.0.1.1.1.17;idno=40;cc=ecfr)
§60.62 Standards.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
§60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the atmosphere from any kiln any gases
which:
(1) Contain particulate matter(PM) in excess of:
(i) 0.30 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the kiln commences after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
(ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. An operating
day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln
operates and excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour period when the
kiln was not operating.
(2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity, except that this opacity limit does not apply to
any kiln subject to a PM limit in paragraph(a)(1) of this section that uses a PM
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).
(3) Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NOx) per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day
rolling average if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commences
after June 16, 2008, except this limit does not apply to any alkali bypass installed on the
kiln. An operating day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during
which the kiln operates and excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour
period when the kiln was not operating.
(4) Exceed 0.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2) per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day
rolling average if construction, reconstruction, or modification commences after June 16,
2008, unless you are demonstrating a 90 percent SO2emissions reduction measured across
the SO2control device. An operating day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-
hour period during which the kiln operates, and excludes any measurements made during
the daily 24-hour period when the kiln was not operating.
(b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
§60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the atmosphere from any clinker cooler
any gases which:
(1) Contain PM in excess of:
(i) 0.10 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if construction, reconstruction, or
modification of the clinker cooler commenced after August 17, 1971 but on or before
June 16, 2008.
(ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the clinker cooler commences after June 16, 2008. An
operating day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which
Appendix B—Copied from EPA Emission Standards on 12/30/2011
(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=89b4beea 1 ed85cac063f598d91 e24c7f;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A
6.0.1.1.1.17;idno=40;cc=ecfr)
the kiln operates, and excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour period
when the kiln was not operating.
(2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater, except that this opacity limit does not apply to
any clinker cooler subject to a PM limit in paragraph(b)(1) of this section that uses a PM
CEMS.
(3) If the kiln and clinker cooler exhaust are combined for energy efficiency purposes and
sent to a single control device, the appropriate kiln PM limit may be adjusted using the
procedures in §63.1343(b) of this chapter.
(4) If the kiln has a separate alkali bypass stack, you must combine the PM emissions
from the bypass stack with the PM emissions from the main kiln exhaust to determine
total PM emissions.
(c) On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
§60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the atmosphere from any affected facility
other than the kiln and clinker cooler any gases which exhibit 10 percent opacity, or
greater.
(d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a different emission limit or
requirement for the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, you
must comply with the most stringent emission limit or requirement and are not subject to
the less stringent requirement.
[75 FR 55034, Sept. 9, 2010]