Displaying items by tag: Environmental Protection Agency
Short cuts and shutdowns
16 October 2013If you try visiting the website of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) this week you are going to be disappointed.
As part of the on-going US federal government shutdown the site has been marked as 'unavailable'. Anyone in search of US cement data and a raft of other national and international statistics will have to wait. Ditto the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although its website is still live, its last tweet on 1 October 2013 was, 'The federal government is currently shut down.'
Some cement producers in the US may be relieved that the EPA is on a hiatus. However if you cast your mind back to the Portland Cement Associations' (PCA) optimistic growth forecast in September 2013 you may remember the following from PCA chief economist Ed Sullivan. "Assuming Congress has learned its lesson from the fiscal cliff and will take a more rational approach with the upcoming debt limit discussions, political uncertainty and its adverse impact on the economy is expected to dissipate."
Whoops.
The construction industry will be watching carefully to see how planned future infrastructure spending emerges from the debacle. If it gets cut in the horse-trading then US cement consumption growth will take a blow. Meanwhile, if the residential construction market takes a knock due to all the uncertainty and general reduction of money in the economy from federal employees not working then cement consumption gets hit immediately. Hence Sullivan's get-out comments about Congress.
Perhaps what will really concentrate minds on the fragile state of the US construction economy is if a Chinese company buys into the cement industry, as is happening elsewhere around the world. As reported this week, the state-owned Chinese aerospace and defence company AVIC International made an offer to shareholders to take over German cement plant builder KHD Humboldt Wedag.
The US federal government needs to get back to work.
US: Lafarge North America has agreed with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Justice and New York State to provide US$1.5m towards projects to reduce air pollution in the community surrounding its Ravena cement plant. The agreement also grants Lafarge additional time, until 1 July 2016, to reduce air pollution from the cement plant.
"This agreement will reduce the pollution limits required by the settlement at this facility by providing a significant amount of funding for projects that will improve local air quality," said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A Enck.
A March 2010 settlement between the federal government and Lafarge North America over violations of the Clean Air Act required that the cement producer either install controls on two kilns at its Ravena plant or replace those kilns with a lower emitting kiln by 1 January 2015. In return for the deadline extension, Lafarge has committed to interim air pollution limits at the existing kilns intended to result in the same or higher reductions as would have been required by the original agreement in addition to funding local air pollution reduction measures.
US House approves Cement Sector Relief Act
07 October 2011US: The US House of Representatives approved the Cement Sector Relief Act of 2011 (H.R. 2681) on 6 October 2011. The House voted 262-161 in favour of the bill, with 25 Democrats in support.
If the bill becomes law the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be forced to repeal existing rules for toxic emissions from cement kilns and revise them. The bill would also give those facilities at least five additional years to comply.
The White House and top Senate Democrats strongly oppose the bill, but some Democrats in the Senate have supported delaying the cement regulations, leading supporters of the bill to be optimistic even though passage through the Senate appears unlikely.
Supporters of the bill say that the EPA has set emissions targets that will be difficult to achieve in practice and cause some cement manufacturers to close or scale down production during a recession. The Portland Cement Association stated that about 18 of 97 cement plants in the US would have to close as a result of the rules. By contrast the EPA said that 10 US cement-manufacturing facilities would have to be idled after the rule goes into effect in 2013, unless market conditions changed.
Several congressmen said during a debate on the bill that cement plants in their states could not meet the EPA requirements. "We want a regulation to be promulgated that you can actually achieve with real-world technology," said Texan Republican Representative Joe Barton.
Public-health groups and the EPA also argue that the bill directs the EPA to set standards that are less burdensome to the industry, limiting the agency's ability to impose tough rules if it believes they are necessary. The White House has said it strongly opposes the legislation and that US President Obama's advisers would recommend a veto.
US Representatives call for simpler emissions rules
01 August 2011US: The US House of Representatives has introduced the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 (H.R. 2681). The proposal directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop 'achievable and workable standards' for the nation's cement manufacturing facilities and replace a series of complex rules affecting the sector that are projected to impose significant cost increases, forcing plant shutdowns and job losses. The bill was offered by a group of both Republican and Democrat Representatives from across the US.
Members introducing the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 issued the following statement, "Cement is essential for the construction of our nation's buildings, roads, bridges, tunnels and crucial water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. This is a sector that provides jobs here at home, jobs we could lose in the face of regulations that are technically or economically unachievable."
"The EPA's current rules threaten to shut down 20% of the nation's cement manufacturing plants in the next two years, sending thousands of jobs permanently overseas and driving up cement and construction costs across the country. Our goal is to ensure effective regulations that protect communities both environmentally and economically."
"This legislation would give the EPA time to develop achievable standards that protect public health without threatening jobs or the global competitiveness of America's industries. We look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the administration to see this legislation become law."
The Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act would; 1) Provide EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalise achievable rules for cement manufacturing facilities; 2) Extend compliance deadlines from three to at least five years to allow facilities adequate time to comply with standards and install necessary equipment; 3) Direct the EPA, when developing the new rules, to adopt definitions that allow cement-manufacturing plants to continue to use alternative fuels for energy recovery and; 4) Direct the EPA to ensure that new rules are achievable by cement manufacturing facilities in the US and impose the least burdensome regulatory alternatives consistent with the President's Executive Order 13563.
The new rule is in response to the EPA's three 'interrelated, complex rules' impacting the nation's 100 cement plants. While the EPA estimates that the MACT Cement Rule (dealing with hazardous pollutants in airbourne emissions) will impose USD2.2bn in total capital costs when it is introduced in 2013 but the Portland Cement Association (PCA) estimates that the capital costs for MACT could exceed USD3.4bn, more than half of the industry's annual income (USD6.52bn) and that the 'Standards of Performance and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units,' (CISWI) rules would impose costs of another USD2bn, causing 18 plants to close with the loss of 3000 - 4000 direct jobs and a further 12,000 - 19,000 in the wider construction sector.
Efficiency improvements in the US
13 July 2011US: A Duke University study prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that the cement industry reduced its energy intensity by 13% between 1997 and 2007, averaging improvements of more than 1%/yr. These energy savings equate to a reduction of almost 1.5Mt of energy-related carbon. The study showed the gap between the best-performing cement plants and others narrowed and the performance of the industry as a whole improved.
"The decade studied by Duke was one of unprecedented growth for the cement industry, yet Portland Cement Association (PCA) members demonstrated their commitment to environmental stewardship by building sound strategies for energy management and investing in their facilities with state-of-the-art technologies that significantly improved the industry's energy-efficiency and reduced emissions," said Brian McCarthy, PCA CEO and president. "The US cement industry was among the first major industries to tackle the issue of climate change and this study illustrates that it has remained at the forefront of developing policies and improving the manufacturing process."
The study was commissioned by the EPA to measure the change in the cement industry's energy efficiency curve. The energy management approach promoted by the EPA's 'Energy Star' programme, which benchmarks plant energy performance against peers over time and certifies plants that achieve the best enviornmental performance, was an important factor in enabling the industry to improve its energy performance.
The Energy Performance Indicator (EPI) scores the energy efficiency of a single cement plant and allows the plant to compare its performance to that of the entire industry. The tool is intended to help cement plant operators identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve conventional energy supplies and reduce production costs.
EPA rules to be discussed in October 2011
29 June 2011US: A federal appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for 11 October 2011 in pending litigation challenging EPA's air toxics and criteria pollutant rules for the Portland cement industry, giving activists a chance to argue for the inclusion of greenhouse gas (GHG) limits in the criteria pollutant rule and for industry to highlight what it says are major flaws in both rules.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for the suits challenging EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) for criteria pollutants and a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for air toxin emissions.
The court recently granted the cement industry's request to sever and hold in abeyance several aspects of its pending lawsuits challenging key provisions of the two rules, following an agency decision to issue a partial denial and partial granting of several petitions for administrative reconsideration of the rules. The oral arguments will focus on suits challenging other provisions of the two rules. For example, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and other industry petitioners will likely ask the court to vacate both rules due to what they say are numerous faults and errors in the final versions.
In the fight over the NSPS rule, industry filed a brief on 16 May 2011 taking issue with, among other things, the rule's new limits on particulate matter (PM) emissions, particularly its limit of 4.5g (0.01lb) of PM per tonne of clinker. Producers argue that the EPA 'simply adopted' the same PM limit that it set for the air toxins rule, at odds with Clean Air Act requirements for setting NSPS.
In their brief in the MACT suit (16 May 2011), the producers argue that the EPA failed to address the overlap between the cement rule and a recent EPA emissions rule for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI). On 21 March 2011 the EPA issued a memo trying to clarify the number of cement facilities that would be subject to the final CISWI rule but the producers said that the memo did not resolve their concerns and sought to have the question addressed through an administrative reconsideration of the rule. This request was subsequently denied by the EPA.
The PCA and others in the industry have also continued to express concerns over whether some cement kilns burning alternative fuels that may fall under a recent final EPA rule defining non-hazardous solid waste would fall under the cement MACT or under the CISWI rule issued in February 2011 and how that would impact on the MACT baseline emissions limits that the agency used when it developed the cement air toxins regulation.
The rules were amendments to existing NSPS and MACT standards for the sector and industry only wants the court to vacate the 2010 amendments and not the rules that were in place prior to the new rules. If the court vacates the amendments, the rules could revert to the older regulations, a cement NSPS set in 1988 and the MACT rules from 2006.
Environmentalists meanwhile will likely use the oral arguments to push their legal fight that is trying to have the court force the EPA to... ...include GHG limits in the cement NSPS. Environmentalists have filed briefs in the cement litigation arguing that GHGs meet the EPA's two-part criteria for determining whether to regulate new pollutants under NSPS. When the EPA issued the cement NSPS alongside an air toxins rule for the sector in September 2011 it said that CO2 standards 'may be appropriate' for the sector, but chose not to include GHG limits in the final rules, because it had not included GHG limits in the proposed version of the rule. The agency said that it needed, "additional information on site-specific factors that affect performance of these controls, where they are currently applied, and control costs," for reducing CO2 from the Portland cement industry. This is a point that environmentalists are disputing.
In a brief issued on 16 May 2011 Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others argue that the EPA's decision not to include GHG limits in the NSPS while saying such limits 'may be appropriate' for future action 'is particularly egregious' given that the EPA's findings in the proposed and final versions of the rule point toward inclusion of CO2 standards and that the agency has already determined that CO2 negatively affects public health.