## Technical Analysis for Arizona and Hawaii Regional

**Haze FIPs :**  **Task 9**  **: Five**  **- Factor**  **RP Analyses Contract No:**  EP - D - 07 - 102 **Work A ssignment:**  5 - 12 **Version: 1**  **Prepared for:** Thomas Webb

Air Planning Office U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 **Prepared by :**  Uma Shankar , Elizabeth Adams, Mohammad Omary ,

Brian Naess and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute for the Environment University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Mark Lee , Juanita Haydel and Thomas Meyers ICF International Jim Staudt Andover Technology Partners **Date delivered**  **:** October 3 , 20 1 2EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 ii October 3, 2012 

## Contents **Figures ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **iii Tables**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............ iv**  **Document Change Record ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **........... v**  **1 Introduction**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ............................**  **1 2**  **Work Performed and Deliverable Summary ................................**  **................................ ......**  **1** 2.1 General Considerations for Visibility Modeling ................................ ............................. 2 2.2 Five - Factor Anal ys es ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3 2.2.1 CalPortland Cement Rillito Plant Units 1 - 4 ................................ ...................... 4 2.2.2 Phoenix Cement Plant Unit 4 ................................ ................................ ............ 10 2.3 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 **References ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **18 Appendix A**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.... 1**  Emissions Data Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1 **Appendix B ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ....**  **1** Andover Technology

Partners Report Chapter 5: Reasonable Progress Analy sis .................. 1EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 iii October 3, 2012 

## Figures Figure 4. Kilns at the CalPortland Cement Rillito Plant ................................ ................................ . 4 Figure 5. Phoenix Cement Plant, Clarkdale, AZ ................................ ................................ .......... 11EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 iv October 3, 2012 

## Ta **bles** Table 1. CIAs Within 300 km of the Five RP Facilities. ................................ ................................ 2 Table 26. CalPortland Kiln Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4 Table 27. Estimated Emissions and Production Rates for CalPortland Cement Kilns 1 - 4 ............. 4 Table 28(a). NO x Control Technologies for CalPortland Kilns 1 - 3 ................................ ............... 6 Table 28(b). NO x Control Technologies for CalPortland Kiln 4 ................................ .................... 6 Table 29. Base and Control Scenarios for NO x Used in CalPortland Units 1 - 4 RP Analy ses ....... 7 Table 30. Stack Parameters for CalPortland Units 1 - 4 ................................ ................................ ... 8 Table 31. 98 th Percentile Visibility Impairment (  - dv) for CalPortland Units 1 - 4 Base Case and Control Scenarios: (a) IMPROVE Me thod 6(a); (b) IMPROVE Method 8(b). ............................. 9 Table 32. Visibility

Benefits (dv) for CalPortland Units 1 - 4 for the Control Scenarios Corre sponding to Table 31. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9 Table 33. Control Effectiveness (million $/dv) for the Calculation Methods of Table 31 ........... 10 Table 34. Summary

of Control Effectiveness for the Calculation Methods of Table 31 ............. 10 Table 35. Phoenix Cement Kiln Data ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 Table 36. Estimated Emissions and Production Rates for Phoenix Cement Kilns 1 - 4 ................. 11 Table 37. NO x Control Options for Phoeni x Cement Kiln 4 ................................ ........................ 13 Table 38. Base and Control Scenarios for NO x Used in Phoenix Cement Unit 4 RP Analyses ... 14 Table 39. Stack Parameters for Phoenix Cement Kiln ................................ ................................ . 14 Table 40. 98 th Percentile Visibility Impairment (  - dv) for Phoenix Cement Base Case and Control Scenarios: (a) IMPROVE Method 6(a); (b) IMPROVE Method 8(b). ........................... 15 Table 41. Visibility

Benefits (dv) for Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 for the Control Scenarios Corresponding to Table 40 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Table 42. Control Effectiveness (million $/dv) for the Calculation Methods of Table 40 ........... 16 Table 43. Summary

of Control Effectiveness for the Calculation Methods of Table 40 ............. 16 Table A - 4(a). NO x , SO 2 and PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for CalPortland Cement Units 1 - 3 and Unit 4 visibility modeling ................................ ................................ .......... 2 Table A - 4(b). Speciated PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for CalPortland Cement Units 1 - 3 and Unit 4 visibility modeling ................................ ................................ .......... 2 Table A - 5(a). NO x , SO 2 and PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 visibility

modeling ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Table A - 5(b). Speciated PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 visibility

modeling ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 v October 3, 2012 

## Document Change Record **Revision Date**  **Remarks** 0.1 October 3 , 2012 Draft version submitted to EPAEMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 1 October 3, 2012 

## 1 **Introduction** This report describes the 5 - factor anal ys es of all technicall y feasible NO x control options on the applicable units at the five facilities as listed below :  CalPortland Cement Rillito Plant Kilns 1 - 4  Phoenix Cement Plant Kiln 4 The five factors considered in these anal ys es are as follows: 1. Cost of compliance; 2. Energy

and non - air quality

impacts of compliance; 3. Any existing pollution control technology in use at each source ; 4. R emaining useful life of the source , and 5. D egree of visibility

improvement that may be reasonably expected from the use of emissions controls. Andover Technology

Partners (ATP) estimate d the cost of compliance for these units using EPA Control Cost Manual (EPA, 2002) , cost estimation methods based on the latest Integrated Planning Model [IPM] ) documented online b y EPA (2010) , and other reasonable engineering approaches . The control options were analyzed not only for th e feasibility of implementation but also the first four factors listed above to estimate the total cost per ye ar of each control technology , and the cost of emission reductions in $/TPY for each . Once all the feasibl e c ontrol options were identifie d, EPA reviewed and recommended control configurations on all applicable units to examine the visibility impact s of their emissions . UNC performed the se impact assessment s using the base configur ation of existing controls as well as all EPA - approved control configurations for each BART facility at all Cla ss IAreas (CIAs) within a 300 - km radius through the use of dispersion modeling. Per EPA requirements the se anal ys e s used the following models and processors , and EPA - provided meteorological inputs available from a previous BART analy sis done by ENSR (2009) using CALMET version 5.8 :  CALPUFF version 5.8 (v5.8) level 070623 puff dispersion model was used to estimate concentrations of visibility- impairing pollutants emitted by each facility at the relevant CIA s.  The POSTUTIL utility version 1.56 was used to adjust these concentrations for the phase - partitioning of HNO 3 between gas and particle based on additional input information .  The adjusted concentrations were used in the CALPOST visibility post - proc essor version 6.221 (v6.221) to calculate the visibility impairment in deciview (dv) relative to the background visibility at each CIA . The change in deciview, or delta - dv , corresponding to the NO x emission reduction for each control option relative to the base configuration was used along with the yearly cost of control to estimate the control option cost effectiveness in $/dv at each CIA, as a maximum of all the CIAs, and as a total over all the CIAs. 

## 2 **Work Performed**  **and Deliv erable Summar** **y** In the five - factor anal ys is performed in this task ATP examined NO x control options and their costs for each of the five facilities considering the first four factors listed in Section 1. TheseEMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 2 October 3, 2012 cost estimates have been used along with the visibility impac t assessment s performed b y UNC for each facility to estimate the control option effectiveness in a combined metric specified by EPA, namely , $/dv . The overarching considerations for the visibility impact assessments, including the CIAs that are potentially affect ed b y these facilities are provided in Section 2.1 . T he five - factor anal ys es for each plant are described in Section 2.2. 

### 2.1 **General Considerations for Visibility Modeling** In Task 4 of this WA we used GI S software to determine the nearest distance s to the boundaries of CIAs within a 300 - km radius of the major emitting facilities in Arizona . T he 19 CIAs and their nearest mean distances (as determined in the Task 4 screening) from the applicable fa cilities identified for Reasonable Progress analysis are listed in Table 1 . The domain description, Lambert Conformal grid specifications and meteorological inputs to CALPUFF required for this anal ys is are from CALMET v5.8 inputs and outputs provided by EPA from a BART analy sis for 200 1 - 2003 performed by EN SR Corporation for the Navajo Generating Station (ENSR, 2009).

**Table 1**  **.** C IA s Within 300 km o f the Five RP Facilities . **CIA Short** 

**Nam e**  **State** Bandelier NM band NM Bryce Canyon brca UT Capitol Reef care UT Chiricahua NM chir AZ Chiricahua chrw AZ Galiuro gali AZ Gila gila NM Grand Canyon grca AZ Mazatzal maza AZ Mesa Verde meve CO Mount Baldy mo ba AZ Petrified Forest pefo AZ Pine Mountain pimo AZ Saguaro sagu AZ San Pedro Parks sape NM Sierra Ancha sian AZ Superstition supe AZ Sycamore Canyon syca AZ Zion zion UT The CALPUFF model set - up for the five facilities followed the guidance of the modeling protocol that was initially delivered to EPA on March 19, 2012 as a Task 5 deliverable. This modeling protocol invokes almost all the model input settings provided in the WRAP BARTEMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 3 October 3, 2012 Subject Protocol provided in its Appendix A. Differences in model set - up from the recommendations of th e WRAP protocol due to the CALPUFF version used, or other direction from the EPA are noted in this protocol. UNC verified and reconciled any discrepancies in the CALPUFF inputs through a series of test runs. Of note, CALPUFF modeling used a constant value of 1 ppb throughout for ammonia per EPA guidance . Further facility- specific details on the visibility

analy sis performed under Task 9 are provided in Section 2.2 . 

### 2.2 **Five -**  **Factor Analyses** This section describes the control options anal ys is, followed b y the det ails of the visibility modeling and the results of the five - factor anal ys is for each facility . The visibility modeling used combinations of control technologies (control “scenarios”) specified by the EPA with respect to the emissions inputs , which were als o provided by the EPA with extensive source documentation . The costs of compliance and visibility impacts for each scenario were estimated based on the following assumptions:  The costs and emission reductions (in tons reduced) for the individual technologi es that make up each control configuration are additive, i.e., the control scenario costs and emission reductions can be expressed, respectively , as the sum of the component technology

costs, and the sum of the associated emission reductions (in tons reduc ed) .  The control efficiencies determined in the cost of control anal ys es are applicable to the baseline emission values used in the visibility modeling.  The baseline periods used vary by source and unit, in order to account for differences in dates of in stallation of controls . This approach reflects a more realistic assessment of “ existing pollution control technology in use at each source ” than using a uniform baseline for all units.  The baseline emissions used in the CALPUFF modeling are not identical to those used in the control option s analy ses because the BART Guidelines on which these anal ys es are based provide different methods for calculating baseline emissions for these two purposes .  The baseline emission inputs for NO x for the electricity gener ating facilities use the 24 - hour average emission rate from the highest emitting day of a representative most recentl y available baseline period (excluding start - up, shutdown or malfunction). These data were extracted from the Clean Air Market Division ( CAMD ) Continuous Emission Monitoring Sy stem (CEMS) database . CEMS data are also used for the cement kilns , as indicated b y the Emission Inventory submittals.  The baseline emission inputs for PM and SO 2 for purposes of visibility modeling are derived from th e hourl y plant heat input (from the CAMD CEMS database) multiplied by emission limits specified in ADEQ’s BART determinations for these units .  The control costs analy s es use the annual average emission values in tons per year (TPY) based upon actual emiss ions from baseline period s that reflect future anticipated annual emissions . Specifics of the emissions used and the visibility impacts of base case and control scenarios are discussed in the sections on visibility and control effectiveness anal ys is for each facility .EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 4 October 3, 2012 **2.2.1 CalPortland**  **Cement Rillito Plant Units**  **1 -**  **4** Formerl y known as Arizona Portland Cement, the CalPortland Cement Rillito P lant (Figure 4) has three long kilns and one precalciner kiln . The ty pe and rated capacities are shown in Table 26 . It is currently

understood that these kilns have fabric filters, but have no SO 2 or NO x controls. Itis understood that the three smaller kilns are not currentl y being operated and it is unclear if the se three kilns will b e operated in the future. However, all 4 kilns are being included in this RP analysis.

**Figure 4.** Kilns at the CalPortland Cement Rillito Plant **Table 26.** CalPortland Kiln Data 1 **Year on Line Fuel**  **Type Capacity, TPD**  **Capacity, 1000 TPY**  1949 CGk Long DRY 408 121 1951 CGk Long DRY 408 121 1955 CGK Long DRY 408 121 2002 CGKA PreCaliner 3084 969 Fuels: C=Coal; G=Gas; K=Coke; A=Alternative Facility emissions data developed b y EPA for this facility are presented in Table 27. Annual emissions estimates and emission rates were determined by estimating a representative output (tons of clinker per year) from reported data and multiplying by representative emission rate in lb/ton. With regard to existing controls, kiln number 4 is new enough that it likely has some form of low NO x combustion controls, but it is unlikely that kilns 1 - 3 have any

NO x controls **Table 27.** Estimated Emissions and Production Rates for CalPortland Cement Kilns 1 - 4 **Kilns1 -**  **3 (each)** * **Kiln 4 Units**  **Source**

1 Portland Cement Association, “US and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information Summary”, December 31, 2006.EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 5 October 3, 2012 NO x Rate 8.70 3.59 lb/ton clinker EPA 6 TPY clinker 121,000 969,000 Ton/yr PCA 5 TPY clinker 143,157 1,053,932 Ton/yr EPA 6 TPY NO x 623 1,894 Ton/yr Calculated * Data for kilns 1 - 3 is per kiln, not total. 

### 2.2.1.1 **NO x**  

### Control Options Analysis **2.2.1.1.1 Available NO**  **x** 

### Control Technologies Available Technologies include MAT, LNB, mid - kiln firing, SNCR, and SCR, and combinations of these technologies. In addition, kiln 4, as a precalciner kiln, could implement low NO x combustion controls in the calciner. Thus low NOx cal ciner is another option for kiln 4. The cost of a L ow NOx C alciner (L NC) is expected to be in the same range as MAT 7 . 

### 2.2.1.1.2 **Feasible NO x**  

### Control Technologies All of the technologies cited above are feasible. mid - kiln firing provides similar levels of reduction as other combustion technologies such as MAT , but is more costly than MAT unless alternative fuels are available. Since information regarding the availability of alternative fuels (such as tires) was not available, m id - kiln f iring was not evaluated. LNC is feasible for kiln 4. SCR, while available, has had very limited use on cement kilns and will not be evaluated further. For kiln 4, it is unclear if it currentl y has LNB with indirect firing . If it already has such controls, it could likely

still achieve f

urther NO x reductions through MAT or LNC. 

### 2.2.1.1.3 **Evaluation of Control Technologies** Tables 28 ( a ) and 28(b ) show estimated cost of controlling NO x from the CalPortland Cement Kilns. L NB is more expensive than MAT or LNC for kiln 4 and it would therefore be conservative to use that as the basis for 30% reduction, although MAT may be applicable at a lower cost. SNCR can be used to provide 50% NO x reduction whether used alone or in combination with combustion controls (assumed here to be LNB, although MAT m ay be applied at a lower cost). The cost and emissions information on Table 28(a) is per kiln .

6 RP_Cement_modeling_runs - EPA 20120912.xlsx 7 Memo from J. Staudt to R. Srivastava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: Costs and Performance of Controls

– revised from comments, March 10, 2009 at page 14EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 6 October 3, 2012

**Table 28 (a)**  **.** NO x Control Technologies for CalPortland Kilns 1 - 3

(a)

**Table 28 (b)**  **.** NO x Control Technologies for CalPortland Kiln 4

(b)



### 2.2.1.1.4 **Energy and Environmental Im**  **pacts** All these technologies can have a modest impact. MAT can have a beneficial impact on CO and SO 2 emissions. SNCR and SCR can result in ammonia slip, which is generally well controlled , and therefore not a major concern . 

### 2.2.1.2 **Visibility Modeling** The modeling included emission inputs from all four kilns. However, due to special requirements for capturing the output concentration files from CALPUFF for later sensitivity studies that may

be done by

EPA, the CALPUFF setup involved two streams of dispersio n calcu lations. The calculation steps are described in Section 2.2.4.2.2. For Kilns 1 - 3, maximum 24 - hr average b aseline emissions needed for the visibility modeling are based on NO x and SO 2 emission factors representing the highest value s reported over 20 05 - **MAT LN**  **B SNCR**  **LNB and S NCR**  cap ita l $676,001 $2, 708, 493 $383, 535 $3, 092,028 Annua lized Cap ita l $63,810 $255, 663 $36, 203 $291,866 FOM ( in cl . ad mi n, insur, ta xes) $102,045 $183, 345 $90, 347 $198,686 Reag en t $115, 120 $80,584 Tot al Cos t, $/year $165,855 $439, 008 $241, 669 $571,136 Perc en t R educ ed 30% 30% 50% 51% to ns reduc ed 187 187 312 318 $/to n re duc ed $887 $2, 349 $776 $1,798 In cr em en ta l $/to n (c om pa red to M AT) $608 $3,098 In cr em en ta l $/to n (c om pa red to LNB) ($ 1, 584) $1,010 lb/h r em issio n ra te 111 111 79 77 **MAT or L**  **NC LNB**  **SNCR LN**  **B an d S**  **NCR** cap ital $1, 188, 275 $3, 427, 320 $1,336,373 $4, 763,693 Annua lized Cap ita l $112,165 $323, 515 $126, 144 $449,659 FOM (inc l. a dmin, insur, ta xes) $122,536 $212, 098 $128, 460 $265,553 Reag en t $349, 978 $244,985 Tot al C os t, $/year $234,701 $535, 613 $604, 583 $960,197 Perc en t Redu ced 30% 30% 50% 51% to ns reduc ed 568 568 947 966 $/to n re duc ed $413 $943 $638 $994 In cr em en ta l $/to n (c om pa re d to MAT ) $976 $1,824 In cr em en ta l $/to n (c om pa re d to L NB) $182 $1,067 lb/hr emissio n ra te 336 336 240 235EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 7 October 3, 2012 2007, which was the most recent 3 - ye ar period of continuous operation . Annual emissions needed for the control cost estimates on these units were based on the NO x and SO 2 emission factors representing the average over the reported emission inventory (E I) values for 2005 - 2007 . For Kiln 4, the maximum 24 - hr average emission inputs needed for the visibility modeling were taken from the WRAP BART modeling for this facility , and converted from g/s to TPY. T he annual emission values used in the cost estimates for this unit are based on emission factors for NO x and SO 2 that represent the average of values reported over the entire 2005 - 2010 period. Due to the installation of a baghouse (FF) on each kiln per a Consent Decree of January 11, 2011, the filterabl e PM emission rate is limited to 0.008 gr/dscf. The EPA 6 provided a conversion of this value into lb/hr and g/s using stack exit temperatures and flow rates. PM emission factors for Kiln 1 - 3 used the NPS spreadsheets for a dry cement kiln with FF, and for Unit 4, the spreadsheet for a precalciner with FF. The emissions for the NO x control cases are specified below , and tabulated in Table 29; in the base and control scenarios , EPA specified that the emissions of Units 1 - 3 should be lumped together as one source due to identical stack parameters and control technology on each .  Ctrl2 - 1uses L

NB or MAT controls (as both have the same control efficiency) on each of Units 1 - 3, and baseline emissions on Unit 4.  Ctrl2 - 2 uses SNCR controls on each of Units 1 - 3, and baseline emissions on Unit 4.  Ctrl2 - 3 uses baseline emissions on Units 1 - 3, and LNB or MAT controls on Unit 4.  Ctrl2 - 4 uses baseline emissions on Units 1 - 3, and SNCR control on Unit 4.  Costs are shown separately in the last two columns of Table 29 for MAT and for LNB for Ctrl2 - 1 and Ctrl2 - 3; the control cost is repeated in these columns for Ctrl2 - 2 and Ctrl2 - 4 strictly for consistency , as the onl y control for these scenarios is SNCR. **Table 29.** Base and Control Scenarios for NO x Used in CalPortland Units 1 - 4 RP Analy ses



### 2.2.1.2.1 **Stack Parameters** Stack parameters for CalPortland were taken from the facility’s Kiln 5 Class permit application, Appendix G, Table G3 - 1, and provided to us by EPA. They

are listed in Table 30.

6 RP_Cement_modeling_runs - EPA 20120912.xlsx Bas e 0 0 0 $0 $0 Ct rl2- 1 LNB or MAT 561 0 561 $497,565 $1,317,024 Ct rl2- 2 SN CR 936 0 936 $725,007 $725,007 Ct rl2- 3 0 LNB or MAT 568 568 $234,701 $535,613 Ct rl2- 4 0 SN CR 947 947 $604,583 $604,583 **$/y ear**  **if us**  **in g**  **MAT Contr** **ol Op**  **tio n**  **$/y ear**  **if us**  **in g**  **LNB Al**  **l U ni**  **ts Cont**  **ro l**  **Uni t 4**   **- Emi**  **s ( TPY**  **)**  **- Emi**  **s**

**(TPY )**  **Cont ro**  **l Uni**  **ts 1- 3**   **- Emi**  **s (TPY** **)**EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 8 October 3, 2012

**Table 30.** Stack Parameters for CalPortlan d Units 1 - 4



### 2.2.1.2.2 **CALPUFF and POSTUTIL**  **Inputs** The EPA specified emission requirements for the CALPUFF modeling. The emissions data are also documented in Appendix A, and in the supporting spreadsheet documentation for this report. We performed extensive QA of these inputs using customized Unix scripts to ensure compliance with the data on the spreadsheets provided by EPA 6 . Per EPA’s specification the emissions of Units 1 - 3 were combined in CALPUFF inputs as a single source. Also, as separate CALPUFF output con centration files were requested b y EPA for the resulting two sources (Units 1 - 3 and Unit 4) we set up CALPUFF run directories for CalPortland in two streams, one for each source. The rest of the CALPUFF input preparation for the 2001 - 2003 modeling period f ollowed the procedure used in the Task 7 and Task 8 visibility anal ys is of six BART facilities under this WA. Discrete receptor data for the CIAs within the 300 - km radius of the CalPortland plant were obtained from NPS. The two sets of CALPUFF outputs were combined first in POSTUTIL for each scenario, and the nitrate was repartitioned between gas and particle phases in a subsequent POSTUTIL run for each scenario. 

### 2.2.1.2.3 **CALPOST Setup** We followed the modeling protocol delivered with the Task 5 report in setting up the CALPOST inputs for each of the 12 CIAs within 300 km of the CalPortland Cement Rillito plant. Results are available for each of the ye ars 2001 - 2003 and the composite period 2001 - 2003 using four visibility methods. They are reported here for Method 6(a) and Method 8(b) for the composite period. Due to the large number of post - processing runs required, we used customized scripts to extensively QA the CALPOST inputs. 

### 2.2.1.2.4 **Extraction of Visibility Results with POSTCALPOST** Table 31 summarize s the results for the 98 th percentile visibility impairment due to CalPortland within the composite three - year period from 2000 - 2003 at all the affected CIAs for the base case and control options . Table 32 summarizes the visibility benefits for the control scenarios.

6 RP_Cement_modeling_runs - EPA 20120912.xlsx **Unit #**  **LO N**  **LAT**

deg deg ft m ft m ft m F K ft/ s m/ s Un it 1- 3 -111.14965 32.40767 75.0 22.86 2060.0 627.89 10.0 3.05 425.00 491.48 52.70 16.06 Un it 4 -111.14977 32.40760 75.0 39.62 2060.0 627.89 16.0 4.88 399.99 477.59 47.83 14.58 **St ack He**  **ig ht**  **St ack El** **ev ati** **on St**  **ack Diam et**  **er Stack T**  **em**

**pe ra**  **tu re**  **Ex it**  **Ve lo**  **ci**

**ty**EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP -D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 9 October 3, 2012 **Table 31**  **.** 98 th Percentile V isibility Impairment (  - dv) f or CalPortland Units 1 - 4 Base Case and Control Scenarios : ( a) IMPROVE Method 6 (a); (b) IMPROVE Method 8(b).

(a) (b)

**Table 32**  **.** Visibility

Benefits (dv) f

or CalPortland Units 1 - 4 for the Control Scenarios Corresponding to Table 31.

(a) (b)

Table 31 shows the greatest impairment due to CalPortland at Saguaro for both visibility methods. The differences in impairment when applying the same control technology on Units 1 - 3 vs. Unit 4 are slight, and the impairment is greater in the case of controls on Unit 4 than o n Units 1 - 3. Table 32 shows the greatest visibility benefits, as expected, at the most significantly impaired CIAs, namel y, sagu, gila and gali, with the controls on Units 1 - 3 providing greater vi sibility benefits than on Unit 4 using the same technology. 

### 2.2.1.3 **Control Effectiveness Results** The results of the control effectiveness in $/dv (millions) for CalPortland are presented in Tables 33 and 34. Table 34 presents the control effectiveness at each CIA , and Table 34 summarizes the results for the CIA with the maximum deciview impact, and for deciview impact summed over all CI As.EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP -D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 10 October 3, 2012 **Table 33.** Control Effectiveness (million $/dv) for the Calculation Methods of Table 31

(a) (b)

Table 33 and 34 separate ly report the control effectiveness between MAT and L NB controls due to their difference in cost. They show that the greatest effectiveness is for MAT on Unit 4, followed b y SNCR on Unit 4 . Table 3 3 shows that the control effectiveness for MAT is the greatest at the most significantly impaired CIAs nearb y (sagu, gila and gali) and much less at the CIAs farther away such as pefo and Sierra Ancha (sian) ; LNB on Units 1 - 3 is the least effective. Method 8(b) is more effective than Method 6(a) due to its greater vi sibility benefits. **Table 34**  **.** Summary

of Control Effectiveness for the Calculation Methods of Table 31

(a)

(b)

**2.2.2 Phoenix Cement**  **Plant Unit 4**  At Phoenix Cement, one new precalciner kiln replaced older kilns and is the only kiln in operation at this site. The facility as seen in Google Maps is shown in Figure 5. Data from the Portland Cement Association 8 on kiln capacity and chara cteristics are shown in Table 35 .EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 11 October 3, 2012 **Figure 5.** Phoenix Cement Plant, Clarkdale, AZ **Table 35 .**  Phoenix Cement Kiln Data 5 **Year on L ine**  **Fuel Type**  **Capacity, TPD Capacity, 1000**  **TPY** 2002 CK PreCaliner 2721 912 Fuels: C=Coal; G=Gas; K=Coke; A=Alternative The reported emissions and kiln data are shown in Table 36. Annual emissions and emission rates were estimated using a representative output (tons of clinker per year) from reported data and multiplying by

representative emission rate in lb/ton. Existing controls likely

include some form of combustion controls since the kiln is only ten ye ars old, but it is unclear at this time if L NB with indirect firing is currently utilized at the kiln. **Table 36.** Estimated Emissions and Production Rates for Phoenix Cement Kilns 1 - 4 **Kiln 4 Units**  **Source** NOx Rate 3.25 lb/ton clinker EPA 2 TPY clinker 888,680 Ton/y r PCA 5 TPY clinker 996,265 Ton/y r EPA 6 TPY NOx 1,620 Ton/y r Calculated

8 Portland Cement Association, “US and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information Summary”, December 31, 2006. 2 US EPA, RP_Cement_modeling_runs - EPA 20120912.xls 5 Portland Cement Association, “US and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Inf ormation Summary”, December 31, 2006.EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 12 October 3, 2012 

### 2.2.2.1 **NO x**  

### Control Options Analysis **2.2.2.1.1 Available NO**  **x** 

### Control Technologies Available technologies include MAT, LNB, Mid - Kiln firing, LNC, SNCR, and SCR, and combinations of these technologies. 

### 2.2.2.1.2 **Feasible NO x**  

### Control Technologies All of these technologies are feasible except possibly L NB, if it is already deployed. Mid - kiln firing provides similar levels of reduction as other technologies such as MAT but is more costly than MAT unless alternative fuels are available, which can make mid - kiln firing very attractive. Since information regarding the availability of alternative fuels (such as tires) was not available, mid kiln firing was not evaluated. SCR, while available, has had very limited experience on cement kilns and a more comprehensive technical review should be performed prior to using this approach. It is unclear if the kiln currentl y has L NB with indirect firing. If it already has such controls, it could likely still achieve further NO x reductions throu gh MAT or LNC. 

### 2.2.2.1.3 **Evaluation of Control Technologies** Table 37 provides NOx control technologies and cost estimates for Phoenix Cement Kiln 4. In formation on the type of NO x control technolo gi es currently deployed on this kiln was not available. It is likely

that the kiln uses some form of low -NOx technology , although it is unclear what form is used.. Shown in this table are MAT or LNC, LNB, SNCR alone (50% reduction) and LNB plus SNCR. MAT or LNC and LNB are both shown to provide 30% NO x reduction, although fo r cost estimations L NB is more conservative. For 50% NO x reduction, both SNCR and SNCR in combination with combustion controls (in this case LNB, with MAT or LNC as a less expensive alternative) are shown. SNCR is by itself expected to be capable of 50% NO x reduction; therefore in combination with combustion controls it should certainly be capable of that level of reduction (given a 30% reduction from combustion controls and an additional 30% from SNCR). Thus a more conservative control cost estimate for 50 % reduction would result from LNB in combination with SNCR.EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 13 October 3, 2012

**Table 37**  **.** NO x Control Options for Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 Item **MAT	or	LNC LNB**  **SNCR LNB	and	SNCR**  capital $1,155,839 $3,300,783 $1,268,764 $4,569,547 Annualized Capital $109,103 $311,571 $119,762 $431,333 FOM $121,239 $207,037 $125,756 $257,787 Reagent $299,348 $209,543 Total Cost , $/year $230,342 $518,607 $544,866 $898,663 Percent Reduced 30% 30% 50% 51% tons reduced 486 486 810 826 $/ton reduced $474 $1,067 $673 $1,088 In cremental $/ton (compared to MAT) $971 $1,964 In cremental $/ton (compared to LNB) $81 $1,117 lb/hr emission rate 288 288 205 201 

### 2.2.2.1.4 **Energy and Environmental Impacts** Each of the evaluated control measures has a modest energy impact. MAT can have a beneficial impact on CO and SO 2 emissions. SNCR and SCR can result in ammonia slip, which is generall y well controlled . 

### 2.2.2.2 **Visibility Modeling** The visibility

modeling considered the single kiln that is being evaluated for NO x controls at Phoenix Cement Plant. The NO x an d SO 2 emission rates for this plant for the maximum 24 - hour average were based on the highest value from the entire 2005 - 2010 period of available data from the facility ’s EI submittals. Annual emission s needed for the cost estimates were also based on emis sion factors representing the average over this entire period. However the average clinker production rate used in converting these emission factors to annual emission rates for SO 2 and NO x excluded the lower production rates from 2008 - 2010 as not being representative of future operations. PM emission rates were calculated b y the EPA using the PM emission factors averaged over the EIvalues for the years 2005 - 2010, and the flow rate and stack parameters from the facility EI submittals. PM speciation used the NPS spreadsheet for a precalciner with FF. The emissions for the NO x control cases are specified as follows, and tabulated in Table 38; in the base and control scenarios:  Ctrl - 1 uses LN B or MAT on Kiln 4 (they both have 30% control efficiency).  Ctrl - 2 uses SNCR on Kiln 4.  Costs are shown separately in the last two columns of Table 38 for MAT and for LNB for Ctrl - 1; the control cost is repeated in these columns for Ctrl2 strictly for consistency , as the only

control for this case is SNCR.EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 14 October 3, 2012 **Table 38.** Base and Control Scenarios for NO x Used in Phoenix Cement Unit 4 RP Analys e s



### 2.2.2.2.1 **Stack Parameters** Stack parameters for Phoenix Cement were provided by EPA from the Title V permit application Permit No. 35426, submitted June 29, 2006. They are shown in Table 39. **Table 3 9**  **.** Stack Parameters for Phoenix Cement Kiln



### 2.2.2.2.2 **CALPUFF Emissions Inputs** The EPA specified emission requirements for the CALPUFF modeling. The emissions data are also documented in Appendix A, and in the supporting spreadsheet documentation for this report. We performed extensive QA of these inputs using customized Unix scripts to ensure compliance with the data on the spreadsheets provided by EPA 6 . 

### 2.2.2.2.3 **CALPOST Setup** We followed the modeling protocol delivered with the Task 5 report in setting up the CALPOST inputs for each of the 12 CIAs within 300 km of the Phoenix Cement Plant. Results are available for each of the years 2001 - 2003 and the composite period 2001 - 2003 using four visibility methods. They

are reported here for Method 6(a) and Method 8(b) for the composite period. We used customized scripts to extensively QA the CALPOS T inputs. 

### 2.2.2.2.4 **Extraction of Visibility Results with POSTCALPOST** Table 40 summarizes the results for the 98 th percentile visibility impairment due to Phoenix Cement within the composite three - ye ar period from 2000 - 2003 at all the affected CIAs for the base case and control options. Table 41 summarizes the visibility benefits for the control scenarios.

6 US EPA, RP_Cement_modeling_runs - EPA 20120912.xls **Cont ro**  **l**  **- Emi**  **s ( TPY**  **) if** **u sin**  **g MAT**  **if u**  **sin g**  **LNB** Base 0 $0 $0 Ct rl- 1 LNB orMAT 486 $230,342 $518,607 Ct rl- 2 SN CR 810 $544,866 $544,866 **Cont ro**  **l Op tio**  **n Uni**  **t 4 $/y**  **ear**

**Un it**  **# LO**  **N LAT**  deg deg ft m ft m ft m F K ft/ s m/ s Ki ln 4 -112. 08302 34.77763 213.25 65.0 3816.57 1163.29 9.09 2.77 211.73 373.0 66.6 20.3 **Stack H ei** **gh t**  **St ack Ele**  **vati on**  **Stack Di am**  **eter St**  **ack Te mp**  **er at**  **ur e**  **Exit Ve lo**  **cit y** EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP -D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 15 October 3, 2012 **Table 40**  **.** 98 th Percentile V isibility Impairment (  - dv) f or Phoenix Cement Base Case and Control Scenarios : ( a) IMPROVE Method 6 (a); (b) IMPROVE Method 8(b).

(a) (b)

Table 40 shows the greatest visibility impairment due to Phoenix Cement at Sy camore Canyon for all scenarios and both methods. The impairment is greater for Method 8(b) than for Method 6(a). SNCR controls provide the greatest benefit of all technologies, as confirmed b y the results in Table 41. **Table 41**  **.** Visibility

Benefits (dv) f

or Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 for the Control Scenarios Corresponding to Table 40

(a) (bEMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP -D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 16 October 3, 2012 

### 2.2.2.3 **Control Effectiveness Results** The results of the control effectiveness in $/ dv (millions) for Phoenix Cement are presented in Tables 42 and 43 . Table 42 presents the control effectiveness at each CIA, and Table 43 summarizes the results for the CIA with the maximum deciview impact, and for the deciview impact summed over all CI As. **Table 42.** Control Effectiveness (million $/dv) for the Calculation Methods of Table 40

(a) (b)

**Table 43.**  Summary

of Control Effectiveness for the Calculation Methods of Table 40

(a)

(b) Table s 42 and 43 separate ly present the control effectiveness for MAT and L NB due to their difference in cost. They

show that the great est effectiveness is for MAT , followed by SNCR. Table 42 shows that the control effectiveness for MAT is the greatest , i.e., has lowest $/dv values at the m ost significantly impaired CIAs ( Sycamore Canyon ) and much less at the farther CIAs such as sagu and sian . LNB is found to be the least effective control technology due to itsEMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 17 October 3, 2012 relativel y high cost . Method 8(b) is found to be more effective than Method 6(a) due to its greater visibility

benefits. 

### 2.3 **Conclusi ons**  The five - factor BART analy sis of the five facilities that we anal yz ed led to the following conclusions:  The visibility

i mpacts are greatest for each facility at the nearest CIAs, and the control options are least effective (greatest in million $/dv) at the farthest ones. T he CIAs which experience the greatest visibility impacts and show the greatest benefits are listed belo w for the respective facilities ; the number of CIAs with impairment > 0.5 dv due to that facility , averaged over all scenarios , is listed in parentheses o for CalPortland, Saguaro ; Gila in the case of controls on Kilns 1 - 3 using Method 8(b) (3 of 12) , and o f or Phoenix Cement, Sycamore Canyon ( 2 of 12)  Table s 9, 17, 25, 34, and 43 summarize the aggregated results for each facility as a sum over all the relevant CIAs of the $/dv (in millions) for each control option for Method 6 (a) and Method 8(b) . In general , the control effectiveness increases for o the nearest CIAs o SNCR control compared to L NB and SCR o MAT control compared to L NB and SNCREMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 18 October 3, 2012 

## References EPA, 2010: Documentati on of EPA’s IPM Base Case v4.10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa ipm/BaseCasev410.html#documentation EPA , 2002 : EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (Sixth Edition) , Report No. EPA/452/B 02 - 001 , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . ENSR, 2009: Revised BART Analysis for the Navajo Generating Station Units 1 - 3 , ENSR Corporation, Document No. 05830 - 012 - 300, January 2009, Salt River Project

– Navajo Generating Station, Tempe, AZ. Staudt, J., and C. Erickson, 2008: Selective Catalytic Reduction System Performance and Reliability

Review . Presented at the 2008 International Power Generation Conference, December 2 - 4, 2008, Orlando, FL . Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), 2006: CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States . Western Regional Air Partnership Air Quality Modeling Forum, Regional Modeling Center, August 15, 2006; http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf

## Ap **pendix A**  **Emissions Data Tables**EMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 A - 2 October 3, 2012 This appendix provides the emissions data for CALPUFF modeling of the base case(s) and control scenarios anal yz ed for the three EGU facilities. These data were extracted from a master spreadsheet that is being delivered as part of the documentation for thi s task.

**Table A -**  **4 (a).**  NO x , SO 2 and PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for CalPortland Cement Units 1 - 3 and Unit 4 visibility modeling

**Table A -**  **4 (b).**  Speciated PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for CalPortland Cement Units 1 - 3 and Unit 4 visibility modelingEMAQ LOE (EPA Contract EP-D - 07- 102) WA 5 - 12: Task 9 Five -Factor Analyses for RP Facilities

UNC -EMAQ 5 - 12 - 025 .v 1 A - 3 October 3, 2012 **Table A -**  **5 (a).**  NO x , SO 2 and PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 visibility modeling

**Table A -**  **5 (b).**  Speciated PM emission inputs for base and control scenarios for Phoeni x Cement Kiln 4 visibility modeling

## Ap **pendix B**  **Andover Technology Partners Report Chapter**  **5 :** 

**Reasonable Progress Analysis**UNC

-EMAQ 5 - 12. 025.v1 B - 1 October 3, 2012 **5. Reasonable Progress A naly** **sis Task 9: Conduct Reasonable Progress A**  **nalysis for Four Class I A reas**  Under this task, Andover Technology Partners conducted a four- factor analysis of sources to identify whether there are additional reasonable NOx controls available. Cost estimates performed in this section utilize methods consistent with the US EPA Control Cost Manual, 3 cost estimating methods used in EPA’s latest Integrated Planning Model (IPM) methods 4 , and other reasonable engineering methods and are described in greater detail in associated spreadsheets provided with this document.

3 EPA. 2002. EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (Sixth Edition). EPA/452/B - 02 - 001 4 Documentation of EPA IPM Base Case v4.10. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa ipm/BaseCasev410.html#documentationUNC

-EMAQ 5 - 12. 025.v1 B - 1 October 3, 2012 **5.1 Ar**  **izona Portland Cement Company**  **, Rillito, A Z**  This facility, shown in Figure 5 - 1 has three long dry kilns and one precalciner kiln. The type and rated capacities are shown in Table 5 - 1. It is currently understood that these kilns have fabric filters, but have no SO2 or NOx controls. It is understood that the three smaller kilns are not currently being operated and it is unclear if these three kilns will be operated in the future.

**Figure 5 -**  **1. A rizona Portland Cement Company**  **, Rillito Plant** .

**Table 5 -**  **1. Kilns at the A**  **rizona Portland Cement Plant 5**  Year on Line Fuel Type Capacity, TPD Capacity, 1000 TPY 1949 CGk Long DRY 408 121 1951 CGk Long DRY 408 121 1955 CGK Long DRY 408 121 2002 CGKA PreCaliner 3084 969 Fuels: C=Coal; G=Gas; K=Coke; A=Alternative Facility emissions data was developed by EPA, and this is shown in Table 5 - 2. Annual emissions estimates and emission rates were determined by estimating a representative output (tons of clinker per year) from reported data and multiplying by representative emission rate in lb/ton. Wi th regard to existing controls, kiln number 4 is new enough that it likely has some form of low NOx combustion controls, but it is unlikely that kilns 1 - 3 have any NOx controls. 5 Portland Cement Association, “US and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information Summary”, December 31, 2006.UNC

-EMAQ 5 - 12. 025.v1 B - 1 October 3, 2012 **Table 5 -**  **2. Estimated emissions and production rates for A** **rizona Portland Cement Kilns 1**  **- 4**  Kilns 1 - 3 (each)* Kiln 4 Source NOx Rate 8.70 3.59 lb/ton clinker EPA 6 TPY clinker 121,000 969,000 Ton/yr PCA 5 TPY clinker 143,157 1,053,932 Ton/yr EPA 6 TPY NOx 623 1,894 Ton/yr Calculated * Data for kilns 1 - 3 is per kiln, not total. **5.1.1 NOx Controls** Available Technologies Available Technologies include MAT, LNB, Mid Kiln firing, SNCR, and SCR, and combinations of these technologies. In addition, kiln 4, as a calciner kiln, could implement low NOx combustion controls in the calciner. So, low NOx calciner is another option for kiln 4. The cost of a low NOx calciner (LNC) is expected to be in the same range as MAT. 7 Feasible Technologies All of these technologies are feasible. Mid Kiln firing provides similar levels of reduction as other combustion technologies such as MAT but is more costly than MAT unless alternative fuels are available. Since information regarding the availability of alternative fuels (such as tires) was not available, Mid Kiln Firing was not evaluated. LNC is feasible for kiln 4. SCR, wh ile available, has very limited experience on cement kilns and will not be evaluated further. For kiln 4, it is unclear if it currently has LNB with indirect firing If it already has such controls, it could likely still achieve further NOx reductions through implementation of MAT or LNC. Evaluation of Technologies Tables 5 - 3a and 5 - 3b show estimated cost of controlling NOx from the Arizona Portland Cement Kilns. LNB is more expensive than MAT or LNC (for kiln 4) and it would be conservative to use that as the basis for 30% reduction, although MAT may actually be applicable at a lower cost. SNCR can be used to provide 50% NOx reduction whether used alone or in combination with combustion controls (assumed here to be LNB, although MAT may be applied at a lower cost). The cost and emissions informaton on Table 5 - 3a is per kil n, not total for the three kilns.

6 US EPA, RP_Cement_model ing_runs - EPA 20120912 .xls 7 Memo from J. Staudt to R. Srivastava, S. Vijay, E. Torres, Re: Costs and Performance of Controls – revised from comments, March 10, 2009 at page 14UNC

-EMAQ 5 - 12. 025.v1 B - 1 October 3, 2012 Energy and Environmental Impacts of NOx Control Measures Each of these measures has a modest energy impact. MAT can have a beneficial impact on CO and SO 2 emissions. SNCR and SCR can result in ammonia slip, which is ge nerally well controlled. **Table 5 -**  **3a. NOx Controls for Kilns 1 -**  **3 (values shown are per**  **kiln) MAT**  **LNB SNCR**  **LNB and SNCR** capital $676,001 $2,708,493 $383,535 $3,092,028 Annualized Capital $63,809.67 $255,663 $36,203 $291,866 FOM (incl. admin, insur, taxes) $102,045 $183,345 $90,347 $198,686 Reagent $115,120 $80,584 Total Cost, $/year $165,855 $439,008 $241,669 $571,136 Percent Reduced 30% 30% 50% 51% tons reduced 187 187 312 318 $/ton reduced $887 $2,349 $776 $1,798 Incremental $/ton (compared to MAT) $608 $3,098 Incremental $/ton (compared to LNB) - $1,584 $1,010 lb/hr emission rate 111 111 79 77 **Table 5 -**  **3b. NOx Controls for Kiln 4 MAT or LNC**  **LNB SNCR**  **LNB and SNCR** capital $1,188,275 $3,427,320 $1,336,373 $4,763,693 Annualized Capital $112,165 $323,515 $126,144 $449,659 FOM (incl. admin, insur, taxes) $122,536 $212,098 $128,460 $265,553 Reagent $349,978 $244,985 Total Cost, $/year $234,701 $535,613 $604,583 $960,197 Percent Reduced 30% 30% 50% 51% tons reduced 568 568 947 966 $/ton reduced $413 $943 $638 $994 Incremental $/ton (compared to MAT) $976 $1,824 Incremental $/ton (compared to LNB) $182 $1,067 lb/hr emission rate 336 336 240 235UNC

-EMAQ 5 - 12. 025.v1 B - 1 October 3, 2012 **5.2. Phoenix Cement, Clarkdale, A Z**  At Phoenix Cement, one new kiln replaced older kilns, so that only one precalciner kiln remains in operation at this site. The Phoenix Cement facility is shown in Figure 5 - 2 and data from the Portland Cement Association on kiln capacity and characteristic s are shown in Table 5 - 4 **Figure 5 -**  **2. Phoenix Cement, Clarkdale, A Z** 

**Table 5 -**  **4 Phoenix Cement Plant Kiln 8**  Year on Line Fuel Type Capacity, TPD Capacity, 1000 TPY 2002 CK PreCaliner 2721 912 Fuels: C=Coal; G=Gas; K=Coke; A=Alternative The reported emissions and kiln data are shown in Table 5 - 5. Annual emissions estimates and emission rates were determined by estimating a representative output (tons of clinker per year) from reported data and multiplying by representative emission rate in lb/ton. Existing controls likely include some form of combustion controls since the kiln is only ten years old, but it is unclear at this time if LNB with indirect firing is currently utilized at the kiln.

8 Portland Cement Association, “US and Canadian Portland Cement Industry: Plant Information Summary”, Dece mber 31, 2006.UNC

-EMAQ 5 - 12. 025.v1 B - 1 October 3, 2012

**Table 5 -**  **5. Estimated Uncontrolled Emission s Rates**  NOx Rate 3.25 lb/ton clinker EPA 9 TPY clinker 888,680 Ton/yr PCA 8 TPY clinker 996,265 Ton/yr EPA 2 TPY NOx 1,620 Ton/yr Calculated **5.2.1 NOx Controls**  Available Technologies Available Technologies include MAT, LNB, Mid Kiln firing, low NOx Calciner (LNC), SNCR, and SCR, and combinations of these technologies. Feasible Technologies All of these technologies are feasible except possibly LNB if it is already deployed. Mid Kiln fi ring provides similar levels of reduction as other technologies such as MAT but is more costly than MAT unless alternative fuels are available, which can make mid kiln firing very attractive. Since information regarding th e availability of alternative fuels (such as tires) was not available, Mid Kiln Firing was not evaluated. SCR, while available, has limited experience on cement kilns and a more comprehensive technical review should be performed prior to utilizing this ap proach. It is unclear if the kiln currently has LNB with indirect firing If it already has such controls, it could likely still achieve further NOx reductions through implementation of MAT or LNC. Evaluation of Technologies Information on the type of NOx control technologies currently deployed on this kiln was not available. It is likely that the kiln utilizes some form of low NOx technology, although it is unclear what form is used.. Table 5 - 6 shows estimated cost of controlling NOx from the Phoenix Cem ent kiln. Shown here are MAT or LNC, LNB, SNCR alone (50% reduction) and LNB plus SNCR. MAT or LNC and LNB are both shown for 30% reduction, although for cost estimating LNB should be used since it is more conservative. For 50% NOx reduction, both SNCR and SNCR in combination with combustion controls (in this case LNB, but MAT or LNC are possible alternatives that would be less expensive) are shown. Although SNCR is generally expected to be capable of 50% NOx reduction alone, in combination with combust ion controls it would certainly be capable of 50% NOx reduction (30% reduction from combustion controls plus an additional 30% from SNCR). Therefore, a more conservative estimate of control costs for 50% reduction would result from the combination of LNB with SNCR.

9 US EPA, RP_Cement_modeling_runs - EPA 20120 912 .xlsUNC

-EMAQ 5 - 12. 025.v1 B - 1 October 3, 2012 Energy and Environmental Impacts of NOx Control Measures Each of these measures has a modest energy impact. MAT can have a beneficial impact on CO and SO 2 emissions. SNCR and SCR can result in ammonia slip, which is generally well controlled . Table 5 - 6 shows the results of a cost analysis for Phoenix cement.

**Table 5 -**  **6. NOx Control options for Phoenix Cement**

**MAT or LNC LNB**  **SNCR LNB and SNCR**  capital $1,155,839 $3,300,783 $1,268,764 $4,569,547 Annualized Capital $109,103 $311,571 $119,762 $431,333 FOM $121,239 $207,037 $125,756 $257,787 Reagent $299,348 $209,543 Total Cost, $/year $230,342 $518,607 $544,866 $898,663 Percent Reduced 30% 30% 50% 51% tons reduced 486 486 810 826 $/ton reduced $474 $1,067 $673 $1,088 Incremental $/ton (compared to MAT) $971 $1,964 Incremental $/ton (compared to LNB) $81 $1,117 lb/hr emission rate 288 288 205 201