Appendix R 

Holcim-Clarksville BART Draft Consent Agreement 

August 18, 2008 
AUG 1 8 Z008 

Mr. Alan Greer 

Plant Manager 

Holcim - Clarksville 

14738 Highway 79 

Clarksville, MO 63336 

Re: 	 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) finding and Consent Agreement for 

Clarksville's kiln system 

Dear Mr. Greer: 

The following is a summary of the Department of Natural Resources finding for BART on the 

Clarksville kiln system. With respect to oxides ofnitrogen (NOx), the department has received a 

portion ofthis study from CINAR Company detailing the emission reductions achieved by midkiln firing oftire-derived fuel (TDF). The department is requesting the full study to complete the 

necessary technical review. Based on confinnation ofthe results from this study, the department 

will likely find that mid-kiln firing ofTDF will result in a cost-effective control on NOx that will 

satisfy BART for Holcim-Clarksville. This finding is supported by the following: 

(1) the kiln system already utilizes 10w-NOx burners in the kiln; 

(2) the kiln system already utilizes cenlent kiln dust insufflation for NOx control; 

(3) the department concurs with the finding oftechnical infeasibility for flue gas 

recirculation and selective catalytic reduction due to lack of commercial application 

for these technologies on the type of kiln system operated at Clarksville (long, wet); 

(4) the department concurs that selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and mid-kiln 

firing oftires are technically feasible (with some caveats regarding SNCR 

perfonnance in a long, wet kiln system); and 

(5) the cost effectiveness ofthe mid-kiln firing NOx control and the increased certainty 

of emission reduction supports its choice over SNCR in this specific case. 

The evaluation for control of sulfur dioxide (S02) for the Clarksville kiln system included fuel 

substitution, raw material substitution, dry scrubbing, and wet scrubbing. The department 

concurs with your finding that fuel substitution and dry/wet scrubbing are technically feasible for 

S02 control. The department has some reservations with the scrubbing technology cost analysis 

used in your proposal. However, the departnlent's analyses demonstrate the cost of scrubbing 

technology would significantly impact the Clarksville kiln's ability to compete in the cement 

production market (e.g. nearly $20/ton clinker produced). Therefore, the department has found 

o 

Recycled Paper 

••~. A_ ' 
Mr. Alan Greer 

Page Two 

that switching to a lower sulfur fuel with the use ofTDF will satisfy the S02 BART requirements 

for the Clarksville kiln system. 

The enclosed draft consent agreement documents the department's findings for BART. The 

department has determined the emission limits in the agreement should be expressed as 30-day 

rolling averages to allow for operational variability in the kiln system and to remain consistent 

with the averaging time utilized by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) presumptive 

BART findings for electric generating units. This draft agreement has not been shared with EPA 

Region VII staff and will undergo their review before signature to ensure it is "approvable" for 

inclusion in the regional haze State Implementation Plan. 

There are two specific issues in the agreement for your technical review: (1) missing continuous 

emission monitor data substitution and (2) calibration/quality assurance ofthe emission 

monitoring system. These two provisions have been designed to encourage a discussion between 

Holcim and the department regarding these important monitoring issues. 

Overall, Holcim's willingness to provide the necessary information to address the federal 

regional haze requirements has been encouraging. At this point, we look forward to finalizing 

the agreement and incorporating it into the regional haze State Implementation Plan. If you have 

questions about the emission limits or other technical details, please contact Jeffry D. Bennett 

with the department's Air Pollution Control Program at P.o. Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 

65102 or by telephone at (573) 751-8406. If you have questions regarding the legal requirements 

ofthe agreen1ent, please contact Sarah Callier with the department's Division ofEnvironmental 

Quality at (573) 522-9911. 

Sincerely, 

es L. Kavanaugh 


lfector 


JLK:jbt 

Enclosure 

c: Ms. Sarah Callier, Division ofEnvironmental Quality, Legal Counsel 
REGIONAL HAZE A'-JI.a'-lL.:l.&JJ.)I 

The parties hereto, the Missouri Department of N Holcim (US) 

Incorporated- Clarksville, having agreed that ent1rNd[~ffis Rej~dII~~e Agreement 

(hereinafter "Agreement") is in the best interest th and 

the environment, hereby represent and state as 

1. 	 The Missouri Department of N 

duly authorized state agency crea 

Missouri (as amended) to admini 

environmental control and the conservati 

2. 	 Chapter 643 of the 

Director of the 

3. 

..v.................... 


"Department") is a 

Revised Statutes of 

ed to it related to 

of natural resources. 

provides that the 

Conservation 

Missouri in 

Conservation 

is the legal and rightful 

4. 	 .ty and jurisdiction to issue 

by the Department to 

to contest the authority or 

t, it is the mutual objective of the Department and 

tions of emissions from the facility, listed in 

at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, Hercules 

Buffalo Wilderness Area (in Arkansas), and to 

... .LV'..""......... 
 will achieve reductions in air pollution 

emissions pollutants. This Agreement establishes 

enforceable to the Department's requirements to comply 

with· the regional identified in this Agreement which require the 

use of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to applicable emission 

sources. This Agreement is not the result of any enforcement action or alleged 

non-compliance with any law, regulation, permit, or order and will enable Holcim 
to timely comply with the Environmental 

Department deadlines for BART and other un~"""~1W'I 

7. 	 This Agreement shall apply to and 1:) 

successors, and assigns and upon a 

under or for either the Department 

8. 	 The parties agree to undert~~r... 

conditions ofthis Agreeme ~ri" 

9. 	 Notwithstanding the terms of a 

with this Agreement and for insuri 

this Agreement. 

10. 	 The activities co 1tQl[eJ~:(1 

Department. HOl"' l1" '-1"!~"'~'-''-4!!...«U''''' aJIJ"' -I.leas Dna 

information corls1 sten~ 

11. 

Agency (EPA) and the 

. es, their agents, 

ultants acting 

esponsible for compliance 

ors and agents comply with 

. eet to approval by the 

vide all necessary 

... ~~1I"hn ent. 

out as a party of any contract 

pursuant to this Agreement. 

In 1977, ~.n~·ess~a.J1)tt~(1 §169 (42 U.S.C. 7491) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), setti ibility goal of restoring pristine conditions in 

national parks an{NIU'lldiem.ess designated as Class I Areas. When the CAA 

1990, Congress added §169B (42 U.S.C. 7492), 

e!'~~ and regular assessments of the progress made for 

13. 	 40 CFR51.308 (Part P), was adopted July 1,1999 

rml''' eJTel~-'; f'll August 30, 1999. The Regional Haze Rule aimed at 

'ty goals by 2064. This rulemaking addresses the 

combined visibili of various pollution sources over a wide geographic 

region. The 1999 Regional Haze Rule also singles out certain older emission 

sources that have not been regulated under other provisions of the CAA for 
additional controls. Therefore, older 

impainnent in Class I areas are required to 

14. 	 On May 24, 2002, the u.s. Court of 

challenge brought by' the American 

Regional Haze Rule of 1999. Ame 

F.3d 1. The Court denied the 

the Regional Haze Rule and rem 

EP A proposed revisions to the 

15. 

to visibility 

·ct Court ruled on a 

against EPA's 

v. EPA, 291 

lenge to 

and, 

Haze Rule, includ 

nder the Regional Haze 

16. 


t~q~bl.ld~~ilil1fhg which older sources may 

identify sources 

cat~ej;w.nes~ including 

whether the 

impact. In addition, the 

were evaluated and were 

Department requested ail evaluation of BART 

and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emissions at 

K'1 l1!8eJ»~ was submitted by Holcim on April 20, 2008. 

we~ m)~icjed which resulted in three additional 

and explore additional control options. 

provided to ask for clarification of some additional 

..., ........~,... ...t, Holcim has now provided sufficient information 

""f'"ll:."''!'' ''' finding at the Clarksville facility for the kiln system 

1"\'UJ'l ....'l'~ ~i\Ii (.'sion point ID). 

18. 	 The Department T finding is based on the use of mid-kiln firing of tires 

and reduced sulfur fuel sources (coal, tires, and synthetic fuel) to control NOx and 

S02 respectively from kiln operation. 
AGREEMENT AND COMPLJAl1~~I!t'P 

19. Holcim agrees to fire fuels containing les A1 l,fee"lV'IotJ ercent sulfur by weight at 

20. 

21. 

all times in the Clarksville kiln system. 

Unless otherwise specified in th ...~. 

following emission limits for the 

no later than five years after appr 

A. NOx ­ 42.287Ib/day 

B. S02 - 58, 787lb/day =-r- .~nL 

~I· le, but 

be based on the 

loyed as of the effective date 

1'lI"'II"''''~rI by Holcim that has been 

. . ed in subparagraphs A "'''~''''''- missing CEM data 

urposes of this 

".l ~""':;"'1!. kiln is heated 

~I~~,~ el is being fired 

....'.....c"'.LJl.L.L""'L.L.L hourly emissions in 

~~I1Jl ~rr each missing hour; 

in'a:Xi'lhniril5lfdfirly emissions in the preceding 12 

SSliODlmCl.nitoring system shall be calibrated quarterly for S02 

W~~.n in accordance with an approved Quality 

submitted no later than 90 days after the 

The QAPP shall address collection of all 

~'VJl~·IJITn,~T rn _T-&_,_&ate S02 and NOx emissions, including flow-rate 

t'QI,,-Pnnllutants in the exit stream (measured in, parts per 

23. 

peratj'()tll~ftUt';U~(~ for Holcim - Clarksville. 

Agreement shall be incorporated into any construction 

24. This Agreement be proposed by the Department for incorporation into the 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Missouri. 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 


25. 	 Holcim is a person within the meaning ofRS ~~tr-'. 

26. 	 RSMo 643.060.4 provides that the 

Natural Resources is responsible for <:IIn'l"'l"'1n ll~ 

Conservation Law, investigating complaUl~) 1K1.1ng 

necessary to implement the Missouri 

provides that the Director is aut 

necessary for carrying out the 

In addition, the Missouri Air 

authority under RSMo 643.05 

. into agreements to control air po 

27. 


Department of 

Missouri Air 

all actions 

.060.2 

th~~~~e~~l()~al judgment of 

tive date of this 

ated to the 

to the 

there is a 

n, then the 

as it deems 

haze regulations, provided that 

and an opportunity to submit 

Holcim further reserves the 

:errten1rs under this Agreement within the 

~"'~l herein the performance is prevented or delayed 

ev(mt5bJ'i'~:n constitute a force majeure. For purposes of this 

orl~~l11'-leu:re is defined as any event beyond the control of 

'-A1l'iIt..... ,. be overcome by due diligence and which delays 

perto~LMJ.qe by a date required by this Agreement. Such 

incUl(le b'c]rea:sed costs ofperformance or changed economic 

caused in whole or in part by action or inaction 

or · federal regulatory authorities or third parties 

unrelated to shall be considered a force majeure and shall not be 

deemed a violation of any obligation required by this Agreement. 
B. Holcim shall have the burden of provi v ....., • .L.L.LU of force majeure. 

Failure to comply by reason of force mateUlre I not be construed as a 

violation ofthis Agreement. 

c. 	Holcim shall notify the DepartmentA.tlb..W1rJtlIU!. W1t1t1ur..ten (1 0) days aft~r 

becoming aware of an event ly should 

have known constituted force . ate the 

anticipated length of delay, its the 

delay, and an estimated im~~~!~JUr 

Failure to comply with the 

waiver of Holcim's ri 

grounds for the D~O:::l rMi\1I 

extension oftime for perfo 

D. 

the Departmen 


occurred or if 


dispute shall be 


E~ 

n f'Clif....~iHerr notice from Holcim· of a 

-.. -~ __'t".~.':l~ l'Io..:Holcim of the extent to 

~~~I~!lr.....In the event that 

event has 

";{~~~~~~1' ''''.L.L'o.>.L'''''.L.L' the 

mtltuaFaJ;~e(~me~nt ofthe Department 

iU1~iiDmq~~Jl shall have as their 

!I~~I~~~~~~~~ mH:~ by both parties and shall 

may arise between them regarding 

as herein set forth or other terms or 

parties will endeavor to settle it by informal 

~rJlltemlselves. If the parties cannot resolve the issue 

_.. _ ..... ...., ..........U' ...... 
period of time, either of the parties may 

ting stating its position with regard to the dispute 

fore. A party receiving such a notice of dispute will 

within ten (10) days stating its position. The 

Department or cim shall then have an additional ten (10) day period or 

such longer time as the parties agree to respond. If the parties are still 

unable to reach an agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Director 
of the Division of Environmental Quality, decide the matter and 

provide a written statement of his decis;'11W ' l!Pl7tri"l"h shall be incorporated 

into the Agreement 

B. 	 This dispute resolution procedure i~;~:'~':~I;~ direct recourse to court if otherwisell~iWlble 

30. 	 Nothing in this Agreement shall S1\)lllSti1Jj'te 

claim, cause of action or aetn~l.(I;~; UlI any person, 

partnership, or corporation notqolDllflat!;>ry for any liability it 

may have arising out ofor relating 'A' -":~~~~" ~;""":;..L t. 

31. 	 This Agreement 

. Missouri Department 0~~~~~~~5~ 

32. 	 by a future 

"---'~~~l~~~ equivalent or t't'1,...lt-taon notice to 

~~",,~·an"'''.... n,hl'':r withheld. 

33. 	 dates inserted below to 

The signatories to this 

auunOrlZea-t1~:xe(;ute and to legally bind the