--:. \\..1), 

## \S U )1 ...., 

## , 

# MAR 3

- 2008 : 

# F**~.J,..:.=.-** 

## \

# ,-\

I I 

# ASH GROVE CEMENT COMP --------1( 

# =)1--------

I • '.1' WESTERN REGION 100 HWY. Sl8 CLANCY, MT 59634-9701 PHONE 406/ 44'2-e855

FAX 

# 40eREDACTED COpy All eBI-Ciaimed Pages (Attaehments Band C) have been redacted February 28, 2008 VIA EMAIL



### Ms. Callie A. Videlich, Director Air and Radiation Program 

### United States Environmental Protection Agency 

### Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver. Colorado 80202-1129



### RE: Ash Grove Cemenl

. Montana City 

### Plant Response to COllullcnls on Best Availablc**I~ctrofil** 

### Technology (BART) Analysis

Dear Ms. Vidctich:

Ash Grove Cement Company (Ash Grove) has reviewed the letter dated November 26. 2007, in 

### which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 8 provided comments on Ash Grove's 

### BARTFive FactorAnalysis dated June 2007. Ash Grove is providing the following responses and additional information.

Confidential Business Information

Ash Grove is claiming confidential business information ("CBI") status for several of the documents included in this response. 

## cm materials provided in this response comply with 40 CFR 

### §§ 2,203(b) and 2.301. The specific documents containing CBI have been separated from the non-confidential information. Ash Grove has also marked each page ofthe mmcrials in the response that conl:lins CBI 

### "Confidential." Specifically, materials included in Attachmcnt Band Attachment C contain CBI. Unless otherwise noted, the entirety of any page marked confidential is to 

### be considered 

## cm.
Generally, Ash Grove claims that all manufacturing COSI information and vendor bids for equipment CBI. The identified information is eligible for CBllreatment under 40 CFR 

### § 2.208 for the following reasons: (a) this claim ofconfidentiality has nOI expired by its own leons, been withdrawn, or waived; (b) Ash Grove does not release the information claimed as CBI to nonemployees; only limited authorized employees have access to the financial information and production information claimed as CBI; Ash Grove intends to continue 10 keep internal distribution of this material limited and external distribution ofthis material prohibited: (c) the information is not obtainable without Ash Grove's consent; (d) there is no statutory obligation 10 disclose this information; and (e) disclosure of this information would harm Ash Grove's compctitive position by making capital investment, cost ofproduction, and operating information, not otherwise available, potentially known to Ash Grove's competitors. The cement business isMs, Videtich, February 28, 2008 Page 

### 2

intensely competitive as manufacturers compete for shares in a limited market. The market is increasingly threatened by the import ofoversea.

.. products and by new competitors. Consequently, information related to manufacturing cost and vendor bids. ifdisclosed to compctitors can reveal critical data regarding Ash Grove's ability to compete in the market.**SO~** 

### Emissions and 

### Controls



## • EPA Comment: The analysis used 10 years as the basis for the remaining uscfullifc ofthe scrubber. howevcr the uscfullife ofthese control technologies is expected 10 be 15 years based in information from the EPA Control Cost Manual ("EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manu:!I", Sixth cd" EPA-452-02·001. January 2002. Section 5,2, Chapter I, pagc 1·28), Ash Grove necds to reanalyze lhe annualil.cd costs for lhe scrubber using fifteen years as provided in the EPA Control Cost Manual.
Respo/lse: The remaining IIsefllllife of the scrubberhas bu" illaeasedfrom 10 to 15 Y('(lr.r. The i"aMse in the remainillg It.'iefllllife dropped rhe WIll/wI (.·apiwl rectJl'ery m.rt for the grubber from $2, 102, 168 to $1.62/,090 ami dmpped the (.'O.Sf e!Jh'lil'ene:.'sfol' Iht, ,l'Cl'ubber from $3, 716//(In S02 removed 10 $3,1 72/toll S02 removed. NOIe Ihm while Ihe co,W has gOlle down. the vi.ribility improl'el1lelll associull'd with Ihe cOllfral has lIot dUlIl,'{ed. Illstal/aliOll of a sCl'llbber ispredicted 10yield WI incremental I.isibility imprcH'emem of ollly 0.24 dllo.....Qllly (III 

### 8.39% improvemelll, III derermilling ",i1m cOli/rol met!u Iile definition of BART for S02. the millimal I'isibility improl'emellfassocill1ed with Iile operalioll oj (I scrubber eli",illmed this technologyJrom being**cOII.~idered** (I,r BAln: 

## nle ("0051 oj$3, 172/1011 S02 and $13.6 miflio/l/dv impl'Ol'emenr (Ire too expellsil'f:for (j scrubber to be consideredBART

• EPA Commcnl: The efficiency for Ihe wet scrubber is estimated al 90% in the analysis. Generally, wei scrubbers can achieve an efficiency greater than 

### 90% ("EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual". Sixth cd" EPA-452·02·001. January 2002. Scction 5.2. Chapler 

### I. p:lgc 1-3). Pleasc provide the data or analysis uscd tojustify the 90% efficiency for the WCI scrubber.
ResfJonse: Ash Grove beliel'es thm 90% is all tII'erage level of emissio/ls redllctio/llhm wouldbe achiemble on WI ongoillg basis when ('(msiderill,'{ ,Ill' scrubberd01ll1l time (!lIe 10 c1eallillg (lmlfI/(limemlllce. IV/.-S' is a high lIlaifl1efUlIlC('process wilh high rates ojdowmime expecledm'lhe scrubber**/Il(llure.~** (If/{I corrosion ojCO/llluJ/!('IllS become.l· 1/ scriou.rproblem, Ash Gro\'e i.l' (I\I'(lre ,hat Ihe EPA source .\'1I88e.l'I.I· ,hat weI ,\'('/'Il/)/Jl'I'S
Cl/II acllicl'e (I ("olltro/ efficiellcy of greater,hall 90%. Howel'er, {/( all optimistic projecu'd IIplime oJ95%. Ihe actu(li comrol efficiency would he 90%.

A.lh Grove al,m lIote.r t/,m a scrubber open/ring witll 95% renUH'ol efficiency doe.r ,,0/ c:/ulllge ourdetermillClfioll Ihotfuel swilching alld/lot a s(.'rllbbermeeTs Ille defillilioll oj BAUTJorS02, AT 90% comro/, Ihel'e i.I' (/11 8.39% improvemenl ill visibilily. whereas

m 

### 95% colltrol there is WI 

### 8.53% improl'emellfill visibility, 71/11s, (lfil'e percf!JIl illcrease ill S02 reductiofl does /lot sig/lificamly change the visibility improvemelll.

### Ms. Videtich, February 28, 2008 Page 3

• EPA Comment: CtlJculatiolls for fuel switching in thc analysis arc based on reducing the coke consumption rclative to the coal consumption. Another option would be 

### to look at the reductions that can be 

### achieved using bOlh a low sulfur coke and a low sulfur co<1.1. Wc ask that you provide an analysis ofthe maximum sulfur reduction that can be 

### achieved by using both a low sulfur coke and a low sulfur coal without limiting the analysis to a 50% reduction in**SO~** 

### ifa higher reduction in 

### S02 can be achieved.
Re.l"polI.l"e: 711is COllllllent**as.Hlme.~** rlull a direc:/ corre/mion between 

### a reduction in the .1'If1f"rcOli/em ill thefile! alld (/ ret/llc/iO/l 

### i/1 S02 emi!>'siollsfrom the wet killl mAsh Grol'l! 

### 's Mol1tana Cityplam has been demonstrated (i.e. Ihm dropping the sulfur COlllem of the incomingfllel by 50% woultl res,,11 in (/ 50% reduction in S02 emissions), This corre/mion has 1101 been (Iemotlslrated. As YOli know, a cement killl i,,"eretltly (lct.r as WI 502 scrllbber, since ,wme of the sulfur thm is oxidized to S02 is absorbedby Ihe alke,Ii COmIJOIlIld!>' ill the raw II1merialfed to ti,e kiln.

71,e S02 ab,wJl1Jtioll ('apacity of the killl (Iepends. 

### ill part, Oil tIJe ex("('s,\' alkali ('OIllIJOIIII(/.\· (lI'(lilablefor absorpriol1. Ifrhe kifn 

### is opermillg (Iforabove the abso'1uioll capacil)' (i.t', low alkali to .ntlfllr ratio), lhen reduclions in Ihe .ntlfurcall/em of Ihefllel sllOuhl reduce lhe S02 emissiollsfrom Ihe kifll. Iflhe kiln is opuating with excess (lbsorptiotl capacity. thell reduclions illIhe slIlfur contelll of thefllel would likely do lillie f() reduce S02 t:missio!lS. Ash Grove believes that lhe Moma"a Ciry kill! operales close to iI's (lbsorptiol1 calmcity bill no' (It capaci'y, such Ihat reductiolls ill the slllfllr COIl/elll ofthe file! will reduce some of the 

### S02**el1lissioll.~.** However, the lel'el of 502 reductioll firm ('(Ill be achiel'ed for specific lel'els of rc(III(:tioll 

### ill lI,e slllfllr fuel contell/ is ullkllOWII.

The 50% reduction ill S02 emissions represellls 

### a lel'el ofCOll1rolllwr Ash Grove beliel'es wOllldbe acllievable based 011 

### a redllctioll ill Ihe fOwl sltlfllr ill thefuel (ei'her by chaf/gillg Ihe cO(lVcoke blend or changing ti,e coaVcoke slIpply 10 lowerslIlfllr f/lel.r). Since lhe submittal of the BARTallaly,\'is, Ash Grove ha!>' re-el'a/twte(llhefile!**,~\I'itdlillg** cos/s ba.l·ed upon I\VO optiofl.\". Theflrsr optioll w'sllmed the lise of the currellt coal and ('oke, bw/I/ax;mi;.e(/ the lise of the low !>'II/fur coal. The ,\'ec:ond opTion (/.I'SlImes the flse of I()()pen:elll of It dijJerelll low sulfilr coal. As wil" the original BART(IIwly.ri.\·, fllel (IIul emissions da/(lfor 2006 were miliz.ed for the baseline emi.uiolls alld cosl,r,
[Jllrillg 2006. SO! inlJIllS iII/a rhe kiln were asfollows:
S(hfrom cool SO!/rom C'oke SO!from kUllfeed SOlfrom water Towl 

## so] "in" 61 I toilS (bm-ed 011 J8,I78 toilS ("()ol (I/ 0.8% sulfur) 3,227 toilS (based 0/1 

### J 1.033 fOilS ('oke (1/ 5.2% sulfur; 1.140**/(m.~** (ba,red 011 527,615 /OlUfeed al 0.27% 503) I I tOilS (based all 174, I I

### J lOllS \IImeral82 ",gil. S04) 4.989101IS

11le EcoC1Iem analyzerdmafor 2006 indicale t1lm rhe (lct/wl allnllal**emi.rsioll.~** of SOl \Vere 981 tpy. 711erefore rhe if/herem dry scrubbing of the kifn is 80% (01989-98114989 

### * 100 

### = XO.3%).

### Ms. Videtich. February 28. 2008 Page 4

For thefilet switchillg opriolU there will 

### be flO challge ill 

### Ihe sulfur CO/lfellT uf the raw mmedals or waler. n,uefore. Ihere will be no decrease ill thefTactioll of the S02 emissions resultingfrom these fIla/erials whicll represent 230 tlJY of the 9811py tottll SO! 

### I(1140+11 )*(

### 100-80% absorption) = 

### 230.2 tpy.

The Cllrreflfcoal, a IOw·.Wl/fllr Powder River Basin coal, htls a low**~'I//fllr** 

### colltem of 0,8 percellt. bill tllso has a high mnistllre comellt (jllll a low lJtll 

### vallie. Bcc{//l.I'e of rile moistllre audheatillg l'flllIl", coke mllsl be mixed with the coal to

### provide ellolfgh energy 1II thefrom end of the kiln to 

### creare tlJe helllllecessary for the propersirllerillg of Ihe clinker, Also, the killl requires IIlat (1/1 

### equivale/ll altlOIl'" of sulfurbefe(1 to 

### the kiln to 

### balallce the alkllii compounds in the kiln. 

### If the sulfurdrops roo low, the slllfllr/alkali ralio in Ihe killl will be Ollt of balance and this would introduce operlllional**is.flle.~**

### for the kifn,

nil! 

### coke**l/(/,~** (l 

### significantly higher Brll c01lTelll. bill cOlI/ains 5,2 

### pacelli .1'111 fur.**A~h** 

### Grol'e has delermined thlllihe mw:imwll coalleoke ralioforproper clinkerproduction is 62/38. Option I onlhe spreadsheel includedasAllachmelllA to 

### rhis letter repre,wmts tltt' SOl emissiolls reductions related to thisfllel combination. Optioll I resl/lts in a reduelion ill 

### SO) emissiolU, using the 80percelll kiln sCTllbbing comrol efficiency. of163 'IJV (a 17pel'('('1It emissions reductionfrom/he C/lrrCIII 981 rpy). This oplion re.I'lI/I,,' in WI 

### increasedflll'l CO.l"/ of $-/87,876 

### or $2,995

### per IOn of so! removed.

In order to increasefhe reductio/l iI/fife! sulfur. thefacility wouldhe required/() Iltili::.e a low-sulfur (l1Il1 high-Bill coal supply. Option 

### 2 on the spreadsheet incll/dedasAt/admlem A 

### ro this leuer relJreSelllS the SO!**emis,~i(ms** 

### redllctions rt!lated to 

### Ihe**cambu~'ti(ln** 

### of the lower-sulfllr. higher 81/1 coo!. The lise of100pen'em oflhis alternate coal. (/I'ai/able (/I


### a cos/of $7711011. 1I'00llcl 

### result in a reductio/l in SO!**eflli.~siOI/S** 

### of 584 tl)y below the currenl ba,,'eline. However, tlri.\' .Hl'irch would iI/creasefuel cosls by over $2,9 

### million per yearand rem/l ill 

### a co.\'! of $4,978

### per rOil of SO] removed. Option 2 

### represcllI,\' approximarely (/ 60peTcem reduction ill 

### SOt emiJ'sio/l.I'!rom Ihe currelll baselim' achiel'edby iI/herem dry scmbbing. This represents Ihe maximum S02 emis.\'iofls redflction possiblefromfilel switching.
Fl/el.Hvitchillg SIIOUIct nor be considered/JART(Iue 10 the signific(llll economic' impact il would Irm'e Oil 

### /he p/alll while genermil/g lit/Ie visibiliry improvemcfll. EPA rCl'ogllizl'd ill 

### rhe BART Gllidelinespreamble tl1m the BARTprocess .I'hould nnT resul/ in excessive ('Colwlllic illlpacu. There i/ 

### was stalNI t!l(/l:

"/lYlc recognize there moy be ,mll.nUlIn'rCII/lISf(lIICeS rll(l1justify wkillN imo c(msi(leralioll the conditions of the IJ1c1ll1 andIhe economic**efft'cl.~** 

### of requiring Ihe liSt' of (/ given comrollcchnology. n,ese effel'ls would indllde effel'ls (m IJrodlu,tprices. Ille market**sll(tr(~** 

### amI the IJrojiwbilily of fill' .\'Ollrcl'. We did nol intelld.fiJl' exam{Jle, rhmlhe mosr .I'/I'ingelll altenwtil'e 11I11.1"1 

### alll'(ly.\' be selecled 

## if

### Ms, Vidctich. February 28. 2008 Page 5

[hm level 1I'01lidcalise aplalll [0 shill dOWIl, \l'hile (j**.~lightly** lesser dexree of CO/lfrolwoultll1()/ Have If/is effecl

. .. 

## n,t' il/creasedfllel cost for bOTh Optioll I and Oprio/l 

### 2 ha,f1I signijicall1 impacl onlhe coslofprodllctioll. AsII Grove h".fcondllcted (lI! (malysi,fofrhis increased cost alld ir is indl/derl ;" AlIrlchlllt'nt 

### 8 of Ihis leller, Please nOll' Ihar III, produ('(irm COSt i,f cOllfidemial busille.u ;1I{omwlioll, andshould/101 be jncluded (IS 1m" o(rhe public rl'conl {or the Ash Grove HAHTprojecl. Ash Gnwt' sells a commOl/ityprmlilci into (I m(lrkel where differences of 1Ifl!w dollars per ron make a sigllijicallt diffaence, III(TNUing Ihe prof/IIC/ioll costs by ,H'I'erafdollar.fper loll will severely impact Ihe pia", 's prodl/{:tprice. marker ,I'hare mulprojiwbilily. A.I'fhe ollalyJis ill Af/achmem HdemfJ/lSlrtltes, I'I/quirillg Ash Grove 10 implell/emflle! swiu:hingforS02 cOlllrol 1I'(}lIldJUll'e**~'eriolls** economic ramijicmiollJ alld 'herl!fore shollldnor be considered HARTahsem t'lear evic/ellce tllm f/lel sll'irclling would elramatically improl'e visibility jll/pain1lem,

Whilefllel switching mflYbe an 0IJtionfor refl/lcing S02 emissiollS, Jwilchi"gfilets is "01 I'ery effective at redllcing visibilily;mIJainnelll. A 50% reductio/l ;n IOwl S02**em;.\'~'iOl/s** as Ihe resllb of file/**~'I\'ilchillg** ispredicled ro yield (/ visibilily improveme", of oilly 0, 17 dl'-only a 6.05% i"'/J/'Ovemelll over bfl.I'elille, III determillillg whM colltrolmeel.\'lhe dejillilioll ofBARTforS02, rhe minimal visibifily improvemellfa,I·.wdllled wirhfllel Sll'ilChillg elimin(/(efJ litis Iccllno/aNY from being cOlI,l'ideredas IJA NT**Thi~'** i.I' parlic/llarly Irlle ill light of the subsla/l/ial "egatil'e economic IOJJ thatfitel.nvitchi"g l\'o/lld impose 011 Ihe ('t'O/wlllic viability of Ihe plall/. As EPA dearly sUlIed, thi' I/Iosl slr;"Nerlt allemm;lIefleed "Ot be selectedas BARTifthmlevellVOItidcause all e.t..ccssiw! imlxlCI OlllJrodllctprices, market share orprofiwbility of the sOllrce, bill (I**~'IiNIII/y** lesser degre,. of colllrol wOllld/lOf, Fue/switchillg \l'oll/el sel'erely c"aJJellNe rhe cOlI/illllefl viabiliry of thephlllr II'IIile the slightly lesser de,f(ree of con/ral (i.e., i"herem dry**,~(."rubbi/lg)** wouldnot. 'I1lerefore, BARTis approprialely esrabli,\'hedba,I'('(/011 rlri'**("()lIlillll('(llI.~e** ofillh/'rt'l1lilry scrubhing alld 1101**bll.~ef/** (mflle! swilching.



### • EPA COll1mcnt: Is thc 2006 average 24-hout 

### S02 cmission r:lIe hourly cqlliv:llcnl (253.52 lblhour) based on one YC:lr 

### ofd:lIa from the SO:!NO,'( 

### analyzer that was installed 011 

### the kiln cxhaust? Please provide::lll average and ::I 

### r.lnge for the sulfur dioxide cOl1celllr.lIioli in the kiln exhaust gas along with thc exhaust gas now r.lte.

ReslXJlue: The 2006 Ul'emge 24·1IO/lr emissioll rale is based Oil dawfrom the /lew ww/y:.er collected from April 

### /4, 2006 to December 31, 

### 2006. The m"ge of the 2-1-llOlIr (lI'erage emission rafesfor**thi.~** time perioe/wm J 

### .85 ppm (1.07 Ibillr) TO 

### 882.92 IJlml (473,N7Ihlhr) willi (I s/(/ildard deviarioll of222.8pplll (/28.3/ Iblhr), TIJe 

### airflow rale 

### 15 58,735.72fr31min (bmwl 011 the lIIosl recell1 swck test),



### • EPA Comment: The derived costs for fuel substilution and wei scrubbing that arc provided appear reasonable on :. dollar per ton reduced emissions basis, but the BART Guidelincs do specify that sources need to provide data supplicd by a vendor to estimate costs, or sources necd to evaluate costs using tcchniques developed in the EPA Control Cost Manual or other

### Ms. Vidclich. February 28. 200K Page 6

rcfcrenccd documents. Ash Grovc needs 10 provide documentation tl1:1l verifies !he**co~ts** 

### thilt
wcre used for fuel switching and wei scrubbing.

Respollu: nle bidforIlle scrubber is il/cllldedas A11(1chme1l1 

### C to this leiter. Ple(lSe IIOfe tl"l/ the bid is c(JIIfide1l1iafbusilless illformalioll, alit! shouldnOI 

### be included(IS part offhe tmblic record {(Jr Ihe Ash Grove BARTwojea 

### The /Owl budgewry IJrice il/ciluletl ill Ihe bid (caIJita/ COSI.I· plus some illstaf{alion COSI:.) was $7,000,000**plu,~** 30%pending /hejinafoffer 10 sell, The blldgewry IJric:e doe,\'/lol inc/llde Ihe eX/WI/,I'1 stack. rheJifler Imilding, fOlllulllliollS. elecrrical, (lml other items tU' specijie(1 ill Seclioll 

### 3.9 of Ihe proposal, Tile copiwl cost used ill the cost ejJeclivelless calculaliollsfor BARTassumed 111m theft/wijJllrclwseprice woult/be 1.25 times Ihe budgetaryprice (S7,OOO.OOO· 1,25



### = $8,750.(00). Since Illisprice includes some bill not all oflhe illSWUlIIioll cost.f, tile iru/(illmioll COSl,f were removedfrom the price al/(I reapplied**lISill.~** Iile OAQPS COSI ColltmfManllar Methot/sfor estill/tiling imwlfed COSI ((U 

### apercenwge of Iht, I'lIrt:hll.l'ed l'ljllil'lIIel1l em'l). The ill.l'llIffmiOIl cosl.l· were a,I'.I·Hllledlo be 

### 35% ofrhe CO,I·I. Tlli.I'method re.mlls 

### ill a ':apiw/ costfor Ille .fcmbberof $5,6H7.500 ($8, 750,000 • 35%·$8,750,000 = 

### 55.687.5(0).

Thefuel co:.'ts IIsed ill ti,e analysis**ar~** asfollows: Coke = $16.381toll delivered. illclmles freight, Coal 

### = $35..13/1011 deliverell, incllldesfreighi. Docllmelltarion o/Iheflle!pric:illX 

### i.l' inellldedas Auachmelll D to tllis feuer.



### • EPA Commcnt: The cost an:llysis assumes the wet scmbber runs 24 Ius/day for 365 days/ycar, (8,760 hrslyc:lr), however, the COS! effectivcncss values arc based on an opcr:tting ye:lr of7,740 hrslycar. Both the cost and cost effcctivencss analysis should be bascd on the s;lIne number ofoperating hours. Ash Grove should revise the analysis so the operating hours used arc consistcnt.
Re.fpOl/St·: The cost ejJet:riv/!nes,fOfwly.fis /W.f been revise(l/o include 7,740 opermiflg
{UIIII'S TIIlher Ihan 8,7fiO. Decrea,\'illg Ihe operalinK hoursfrom 8, 760 10 7,740 tlecrc(lsed Ihl' em·t ejJcclil'elle,ufrom $3, 7161wlI 10 $3,493/1011. Ash Grove**JlOle~'** IIItIl (I '\"C'nrbbcr w{/.\" illt'll/ded in rhe (ll/lIly,\'is liS till optiOIlfor 

### S02 ("olltrol, hUlI/1t1t a scrllbber only rc.wllS ill
(III 8% improl'emell1 ill Ihe visibililY impain"enr, Ash GrO\'e does 110/ belie"'! 111m this lel'el ofvisibility imIJrO\'ement is adequme 10}lIslify Iile Irt'11lendo/ls t'llpital lIlItl ofJt!rll1ing
costs assodmed with {/ wei scmhher lIIId therefore 1I wet scmbber CWIIIOI be cmuidered IJA RT for thisft/citity.

NO

.... 

### Emissions and Controls

• EPA Comment: In scction 5.2.4 you eliminate the option to use mid-kiln firing oftires. The
reason provided is thai you foresee a lack ofavailabililY oflires because the Hakim plant is pursuing a permit to burn tires. Whilc a pennit for Hokim 10 

### bum tires at its plant in Thrce Forks may make burning tires cost prohibitive for Ash Grove because of kick ofsupply. Ihcre
arc othcr fuels that potcll1i:llly could be 

### used in mid kiln firing to aehicve rcductions in the 45% range (See 

### lI,msen, Eric R, Technical Consultant, Cadence Environmcntal Energy Inc, "St;l\ed Combustion for NO

### x Reduction Using I[igb Pressure Air Injection." IEEE2002),Ms. Vidctich. February 28. 2008 P<lgc 7

Ash Grovc should provide:1ll nnalysis for other fuels that could be used in mid-kiln tiring.

Response: Ash Grol't! has reviewedMr. Hansell'spaperandmher {/milable information. Mr. /lll/ISt'1I suggests ill the I)(lper thmfllel.r, other thllll tires, can 

### be injectedmid-kilil. While in theory this appellrsfeasible, with the exception of some short-term trial:.' /Ising bagged IlImlJ coal, these altematil'es have n01 been IIsed on a commerciafblUis, Dilly 111'0f/lel.\' have been roll1illely injectedmid-killl--tires and contaillcrized haz.anlolls wane fllef,l' (HWF), As discussed in Ash Grove's BARTsllbmil1al dated JWIt! 3D, 2007, Ash GrO\'e beliel'es that adequate lires will not be amilable 10 Ash Gro\'e ami therefore eliminated this control option. The combustion of HIVF at Ash GrOl't! 'sfacitity would require (II/ airpermit to COIlS!n/Ct 'heft/citities mId to combl/sl f/WF 

### ill Ihe /.:.ill1. n,t! facility wouldalso need to acquire a RCRA permit to constTllct {lIIdoperate lhe HWF IUllldlill/( (lIul storagefacilities. 77/cse permits require a {eng/hypemlil revicw afl{1 public Imrtici{J(/fion processprior to Ihe J'Wrt of construction of the equipment /leas,wry 10 combusl HWF mid-kiln. Even aSSIImillg rlulllocal cilizell,\' do IlOt (!clay Ihe COlIStl'lfC/ioll through permit appel/Is alld liligmioll, it wOl/ld be sel'eral years before AJ'h Grove wOllld be able to redllce NOx emissiolls /I,\'illg mid-kilnfiring of I/lVF. /n addition, the lise of HWF mid-kiln is nm a viable alternaril'efor the same reason that the use of tires 

### i.r 11m viable, (Ill adequate Sl//Jply simlJly does 11m**~XiSI,** Celllefll kilns thm art' currl'l/fly IJermittnl to bum HIVF arefaced wirh 1I dwilldling sl/pply, alldmOllYare n01 (,/lTremly able to (U'qlliref/lels III slIpply theirpall/il/ed t'(Jlldmstioll capacities, A,I'/1 GnJl'I'**',~** Monwllll Ci/)' ki/II, which i.I' well awa.\'from largl' mallufacluring**fo('ari(lll,~.** \VOltltl find i/ ('\'e/lllllJre di,Dil'lIlr 10 acquire (/llequllle I/\VI-' to operale II mid-ki/ilfil'illg syslem. 77/erefore,**A.~" Gml't~**  COll/inlles to**belit~\'e** that mit/-kilnfiring of**fllel.~, e.~/,eci{/fly**  those 111m IUII'e oilly been II/ili:ed 011 1I short-term trial basis, is 1/01 a I'iable /lARTop'ionfor the Monllllla Cityplmlt, Furthermore, theproposedBARToption, the lise of SNCR alit/ low No.t bumers, is lIted,!'ically viable option Ilult will remit in the same lel'el of No.t emi,rsions redl/C/iolls as that which would be lIchieved by the //,re oflllidkilfljiring,

• EP/\ Comment: With regan.! to the erticiency ilnd NOx emission reductions Ill<lt can be achieved by SNCR. a n:cent <lrticlc indicates th<lt SNCR ColD rcliably attain a NOx cmission r.ltc of 800 mglm3. and inmost cases altain a rate of 500 mglm3 (See Scur. P. Cemex Ost7.cment, Rcdersdorf, Hoppe, Dr, Forchunginstitut der Zcmentindustrie, Dusseldorf. "The Present State of NOx Abatement with the SNCR Process," Cement International No. 212006. Volume 4

.. ISSN 1610-6199). Using d<lta provided by Ash Grove. we have calculatcd the currcnt NOx cmission concentration as approximately 1.950 mgfm3 (See Leiter from Joseph 

### L. Schceler Environment:!!. He:llth and Safety M<ln<lger, Ash Grove Cement Company to LOlurd Dygowski. U,S. EPA Region 8,**Reqlle.~1** for Be.I'/AvlIilable Retmjil Techl/ology IlIfol'lllllliol/ Pur.want 10 the Regiol/al /laze Rule, October 12, 20(6), Achieving:1ll 8(X) lI1g/m3 concentration wuuld be equiv<llcnt to a 60% reduction in NOx emissions from just the SNCR. Installation ofthe low NOx burner <lnd SNCR is eltpccted to providc an even greater reduction. Please :malyLc the SNCR and low NOx bunter scen:!rio with lhe bcM reduction :n:hiev<lble without limiting the analysis to a 35% reduction.**RI"I'fJ(}lI,~e:** AI'h Gro\'(' hlls reviell'e(1 ,IJe referel1ced article alld has determined Ihl/! the l/I'licfe disc/I,I's/'s th/' applicllfiol1 ojSNCR 10prehealeralltl {JI'ehcarel'lprecalcilll'l' kill1s.

### Ms. Vidctich. February 28. 2008 Page 

### 8

Ash**Gr()l'e·.~** Mon/(/l1a City kiln i.\' a 10/lg wet kif", 71lerefore, the compariso/l oft"e application of SNCR to lire Gerlllall kill! discllssed ill**Ih~ articl~**  10 Asir GnJl'e's kiln is imllJIJropr;are alld**tlr~** conclusions reaclred in**th~** article are not tnmsferrable 10 Ash**GrO\'~·.f** MOllulIIa C;IY kil". Howeva, onefJOim**mad~** ill**th~** article;s relel'{lIIl, IIIllI the IlIrgel NOx vallie Ihm Clln 

### be achieved is dependelllufJOn**Ih~** il/ilial NOx COl/celllral;oll.**A~ i,~**  illustrated

### ill Table 11.6-8 

### ill AP-42. the IIIICOIltrolfedNOx emissions rlltes \'(/ry for dijJerem killllypes, 71,e /ll1comrolled emi.uiol1factorfor weI kilns. the 1.1'1)/' {II Monf(/Il{/ Ci/,\'. is /,54-/,76 liml'S the emi,B'iollfactorsfor prehemeralldpn'he{//erlpr/'{'alr'iI1l'!r kilns .nwll a.\'**tlw,~e** discl/.ued 

### ill Ihe article, 

### 711is isprimarily relmed 10 the differe/lces in (1flcienc:y andIhe resl/lting redl/Clio/1 ill thefut'l requiredper toll of ('linkerprodllt_·t'd for Ihe prehe/l/erandpreheater/preca/ejnu kilns, n,erefore. el't!lI will, the same emi,uiOlls rel/llction achievedby SNCR. theftnal cOllcentrmiollsfrom a long wet kiln will be six"ijicalltly higherIhallihosefrom apreheaterorIIprehemer/pnocclfci"erkiln. Tile miticl! NOx cOl/centrationsfor the German kilns wcre**not.~pecifiel/.** so il is natpa,\'.\'ible t() deterlllillt, lite actualpcrcel1l of NOx emissioJ/s reductiol1 achieved by lhe SNCR 0/1 t!Jose kifm',

77,ere 

### iof Dilly ollefacility lIIit1l long \IIet kilns locllfed in Europefor which there is Imy long-term operational experience

# wi'" SNCR. TllOse killls hal'e bet'll operatillg at a NOx (Omission rate of1,200 mg/NmJ

. Ifyotl lise 1,200mglN",J lIS the emission rate after the 11/JIJ!icmioll ofSNCR (lnd the Clirrel1l emi,ui/Jll cIJl/cemrm;on (I( MIJIlul//a City of1.950 II1g//I/Ille rel/uelion expected from tile SNCR wouldbe abolll38%, However. a.\'**~'lar/'d** i/1 As" Gnll'("s origi/1ol III/al)'si.\', Ash Grove**IUl~'** been opermillg a SNCR ,1J'Slelll 011 a 10118 WCI kifn (If ils MidlOlhiall, TexasfacililY. 'I1lis kiln**i.~** I'erysimilar is si:e to tIl(' kifn

lit MlmulIICl Cit)'. The Texas kiln lUIs been achieving a 35·40% redllction ill NOx emiuioflS lIS a remll of Ihe SNCR. 77luefore. basedon Ihe daw III'aj((llJIefor the Imt lonK wet kiln ill Europe utilizing SNCR. andmore imporumtly based011 Ash Grewe's 011'1/ e.\perieflce ill**Te:((j,~.** the 35% NOx rel/llct/cm proposedby AI'II Grol'e rel/1ains Ille 1I10.W (1('('lIr(/fe e,willUltf' of Ihe NOx emis,l'ions redll('tiol1S thar ('WI**rea~'OIwbll!** be expe('/('(IIll/he MOl1lml(/ Cityfacilit),.**I)~rliculatc 1\'1~lIcr**  (PM) Emissions and 

### Controls

• EI)A Commem: Ash Grove did not provide any design parameters for the exisling PM control lechnologics for the ESP on the kiln and the baghouse on the clinker cooler. It is possibk that BART for PM for these two uniL'i could include addition:ll controls :llUUor**incrca,~ed** 

### performance of the existing tcchnologies, We ask that Ash Grove submit the design p:ltilllleter information for PM comrols on the kiln and clinker cooler lind evaluate the possibility ofadditional controls :llld increased performance of the existing equipmcnt.

ReSIJOllse: Tile killl ESP and clinker coolerbaghouse stackparameters are IJro\'icJed ill Sectioll 

### 3-9 of tile BARTreport. AsII Grove detennj"ed tllat changes to the PM ('(}Iltrol devices lire 1/ot needed to satisfy BART sillce the PMcolltriburjoll to visibility 

## ;5 very ,fIIUll! r('latil'e 10 Ille colltribllliolls of otherpOllllllllllS. "I1lis is 

### ill large part due to thefO('1 Ihat /"e plolll f'urrelltly applies ,I'tate of tile arl colltrols to Ihe kil" and clinker coola (lml ,1'0**iIll/JrOVelllem.~** 

### ill ('()Il/rol ejJic:ie/U-'y ol'er Ih(' C'lIrre11l amfigllrariol1 wOl/ld lJe e,l'Ireme!)'

### Ms. Videtich, February 28. 2008 Page 9

dijJicllltlO reali:e. EW!II 

## if allY further red/lctiolU 10 killl alld/or clillker cooler PM emissiolU cOllldbe achieved, they wOllld1I0t reSlllt iff allYappreciable reductioll in the overall ,'isibility impairmelll. Thepolli/tant-specific comriblltioflS 10 visibility are provideil ill the table belolV. With 

### PM10 ollly comribmillg 

### 10 1.28% of llu: OI'emll "i.\·ibility imp(lClS. 

### a small change i/l the 

### PM/

### oemi.l'.fion mte 

### W01/1d have 

### I/O appreciable affeclof! overall impacts. Nvre Ilwl the table belolV**~1101fld** serve w' a replaccmemfor Table 

### 6-2 thai Wi/.f illc/llded ill Ash Grove '.\' original BARTrelJort. The data ill Table 6-2 llull lI'as illclllded ill rhe origillal report lVas im:orrect.

TAUU: 6-2 (Rt:VISEIJ). VAl' VISIBILITY IMI',\I KMt:r-.'T CONTRIBlrnONS AT GA

## n:.s Qt'TIIt: MOUNTAINS

98' I 

### Percentile Visibility Impairment Visibility Impairmen1 Visibili1y Impairmell1 Imp:lCt AltributOlblc to**SO~I** 

### AlIributOlble 10 

### NO/ Attribulable to PM lOl

It\ dv} CO.) CO.) ('>j 2.874 19.58 79.14 1.2K



## . I**l"h~ ~,,,b,tny** **,mp~,ml"m** allnOOl3ble 10 SO, 's pnm3nly rmm SO, emllh<lOns. II**~ery** .mall pol"UIIfl ,. from SO, emulI'"
as condcn.abk ",,",culaIC 2 Thc**~is;bill\y** impairme"l allr;buWblc 10**NO,;~ ~ll1ircly**  from NOx**em,ssion~.** 1 The**~isjb;IIlY** impa;rlnclIl aUribulablc lO I'M,.,s**IIl~** sum or Ill"**~ls,bllllY** impairment**~llnb"t3ble** hi allllludelcd pnmary I'M spc:c'eJ (I'Mc.I'Mr. lie.:mIl SOli).



### O"craJl Commcnts

• EPA Comment: We want to 

### ueknow1cdge the modeling work that W;JS 

### donc by Ash Grove to· refleci lllOTC 

### currelll daw and higher emission rates from the CEM rather than thc st:lck lest. The**rc.~ults** 

### from lhe modeling that Ash Grove performed using the higher emission rales from the CEM rather than the stack leSt arc providcd for Gates ofthe Mountains but nOt othcr ClOlSS I areas. In ordcr for us to fully analY-l"..c thc impacts from Ash Grovc, we rcquc.

..t thaI you submit the modeling results for other Class I arcas. specifically Scapegoat and Boh Marshall.
ResfJOIue: 

### 011 November, 29, 

### 2007, Lal/rel Dygowskiof

### EPA Region 8 il/dietl/ed 

### ill a IJ/lOlle disCllssioll \Vilh Kasi DI/bbs ofTrillity COIUIIIl(lIIts that moddi"g of additiollal Clas

..... Iart'as Wtl

..... II(}/necessar)'.



### • EPA Comment: Your analysis did not include a conversion from a wet kiln 10 a semi-dry or dry kiln. Several documents in the liter:llure indicate thal both of1hcse options would offer substantial emissions reductions at potenti:llly reasonable costs (See AHc.umCIII of

### NOI• Emi.uio/l.l' ReduClio/l Strtllegiesfor Cemelll K iflls

- Ellis COl/ill)'

- Filial Report. 

### Prepared by ERG. Inc. for Tcxalo COlllmission on Environmental Quality. TECQ Cmmct No. 582-{)4- 65589. Work Order No. 05-06. July 14.2006 and A Uniqut'Approach. 

### Menke. T., 

### Jepsen, D.L.. and Keefe, B.P. Review No. 136. Reprint from IEEE-IASfPSCA 2001 Cement industry Technical Conference M.ty 2001 and published in Intcrnational Cement Review, July 200 I). Please include :1Il 

### analysis that addresses a conversion from a wet kiln to a semidry or dry kiln.

### Ms. Vitlctich.**~ebruary** 

### 28. 2008 Page 10**Re,~prJII.l"e:** Ash Grove respecrjidly declilies to ill(:lude (Ill (I/1aly.l"i,l· of the**C'(lII\'('r,~i(}1I** of Ihe killlfrom h'et to dry orsemi·tlry. JJARTis defilled liS "t/ll emission limitmioll IN/sed Oil the degru {Jfretllfctitm lIchiemble throllgh the appliemioll of the best system of cmllilllWIlS emission redllctionfor each POllllUlllfwhich is. emittedby an existinK**,~tlllion(lry** SOl/rce," "Existing sltltiollary sOl/ret!" is de filled liS afacility that ClJmmem:etl opertltion between 1962 and 1977, 'I1fe Mon/{Illtl City wet killl is till exi,wing sltltiOlwry

source thar was in existence 011 Augusl 

### 7, 1977 bill was IIOt ill opermioll Oil A/lgu.I't 7, /962. 'I111!refore, the \\let 

### ki/Il is lI'hm /lli/st he evt/llllltet/ ill order to de/ermine WI t/pproprime JJARTemissioll limitalion,

Alt/IOII.J:h the MOlllalw City wet kiln is required to be evaluated in relatioll to emission limitations, it is nOl reqaired to be em/limed ill tenns of redesign or com'asion, The Clean AirAct wu/thefet/eral BARTregullltiolls are clear tlltlt the emission limiwtioll /lllIst be eva/limed ill relation to the existillg swtionary source, For the Mrmtwltl Cily pla!l/, the exi,ffillK stll/iollary ,l'OIlfce is a wet kiln. The evaluation m' to IVII{/( "emi,I',I'ioll limilmioll" is appropritlle IIIm"t be made ill relatiolllO rhe existillg ,'miliollary mllrce alltl C{llInot incilide a requiremem to chal/ge that sOl/rce. Ifrhis were 1I0t tire ClUe, every IJARTdetermi,wtiollfor a coal{iredpowerIJlom wouldnud ({) include thefJD.fsihifity of cmn'erting it to {lnatf/ral gas·fired oren!n allliclearpowerplallt, EPA lacks ttl/thority
to requirl' such WI el'all/wiofl f/nder rhe BARTprogram,

There is decade.l· oj**I~PA** precedelll thw the e,\wlJfishmclIl ojall**ellli,I',~ioll,l"** limilalioll /fllda tilt' Clerl/1 AirA(:t dOe,l"lIut inclllde tIlt! el'a/llmiOlI of rile source**d('~'iXIl.** Under Ihe PSIJprogram /:..'PA has been evalllmillg BestAl'ailable C011lrol Tl'chf1ology (lMenfor thirtyyears. COllsistemly the {lgellcy has stated that BACTis based Oil the SOf/rce presemed for revil'll' alld that rhe agellcy 

### Itu.:ks awhority to i"dud/' ill the BAcrtllfalysis the evalulI/ioll of challges in design rhat wouldalter thefacility itself. JI/st afewfl/tmths ago. EPA sl/ccessflllly argued thi,f I'uypoilll /() the Sevemh Circuir COllrt of Appeals, st/yill,!]

..its CO/lstructioll of the starure 1I0t 10 require BA crevaluatioll of C0I11ml 0IJliol/s thatfimdamentally retlejine the proposed facility is consi,Wellt with IOllg,l·tanding f:PA guidallce anda IOllg lille of priordecisions of the £AB allll the EPA Administrlltor, " EPA Brief in Sierra Club v, EPA at41 (March 

### 23, 2(07). The Sel'enth Circuil accepted EPA's argulllelllal/d upheld rhe agellcy's IOllgstanding position thm as Imn of the BAcr proceS,fEPA cal/not require the source LO be redesigned. EPA's allthority is re,ftricletlto reqlliring alJprolJrill/e emissiol/levels based 011 the proposedsOl/rce lype

..')·ie..!.!Q..(Juh 1'. I:'PA, Sel'emh Circllir (Allg, 24, 2(07), Gil'en that EPA has arguet/to thl'**COII"',~** that il /ad.l· tlullwrity to require a source redesign ill tI,e COl1lext oIdelerminillK HAC?: III/!rc is
/w rCllsO/whle argl/mellf for hall' EPA co1/1t1 daim tIIl/lw/'ity In require the retlesigu of the

source 

### ;/1 determining IJART.

nu'- M(mulI/a City kiln is a \l'el kiln, Ash Gro\'t! recogni:e.\' irs obliglllioll /() l'l·tlll/tlll' tlifJerefllpossibilitie,\· 

### i1l determillillX BARTfor its \\letkiln. IJtlSed 011 tI /Oll.1t lille tlf ('ourt dedsiOlI.'i lI/lf1 EPA precetlem recelllly ,wmll1ari:.edby EPA i/1 the Sierra Cluh v, I:'PA ('lise.**A.~h** Grove doe,l' not helieve Ihm il/leeds to c{}!Hider remov{/I ojirs existillg kiln alld rf'p/uc;lIg ilwith mll'l1Iirely dijJerem ,l"Ource type. We IIOfe thm el'ell if.l'1Idl tillMs. Videtich. February 28, 2008 P:lge II

obligtltiOIl weu reqllired, Ihe IremelllJOIu COSI of SIIdi a rebllild would efimil/llIe fi,e option based Otl t.'osl-effecfi,·elless.

• EPA Comment: There arc also several locations in the document that may have typographical errors.

• In the lirsl fOOlnotc on page I-I the document states "till/s it was cOl/dllded tlllll the C01ltn'hulioll of the lion-kiln (lnd clinker cooler SOllrces 10 I'isibilily impaimU'1It i.f Ilegligible." This should be revised 10 remove the reference to the clinker cooler. as only thc non-kiln sources have a negligible contribution to impairment.

Re.I'IHJII.I'e

- 

### AI' lite clinker coofer olily emilS PM (and only 16.7% of the PM Ifull is emilled by the kil,,). allli does I/or emil NO:c or

### 502. Ihe clinker cooleraf!>'o ",akes llllegligible impact 011 Ille OI'erall visibilily impairmellt.

• On page 4-2 the sulfur COlllent ofthe petroleum coke is listed as approximately 4.5%. On page 4-9 in the text. the sulfur content ofthe petroleum coke is listed as 3%. Please revise the alUllysis so that the number uscd for the sulfur contcnt is consistent.
Respo/lst!

- Tire 3% rlllll is lisred on Page 4-9 is a Iypo. All of the lec/lIIicaf(IIwly,\'is relied on II sulfur COlllelll of 

### 4.5percelll. Aslr Crove has since delermined Ihat Ihe 111'0 year lwerage sl/lfllr coil/em in the coke is 5.2 percelll. n,e opriolLf {)II

### fiud switchillg presemed ill this letter have been based Oil .nt/fllr COll1elltfor coke of 5.2 percelll.

• Reference 13 un p:lge 5-10 is incomplete, We hnve a document from Schreiber. Russell and Evers titled Hvallllll;on of SII;/lIbililY of Seleuivt! Ca1Ol)'lic Reducl;(}//(l1Il1 ,liell't"lil'(' Non-ClIlaf)'tic rnillctilmfor lI.fe;1I Porrlalld Cemell1ll1dllslry. Is this the same documcnt'! 

# Ir so h:ls it been published in :l peer reviewedjournal'!
Response

- 77'e dOClimelif. reference 

### /3 iJ lilh-d "F;I'lihUlliOfl of SlIiUlbility of Sele('fi"e CaUlfytic Nedlll'lion/or V,W! ill POl'lfalld Cl'/l1elll Malllt/aclllrinf{. whicll II'IIS referenced (/1/(1 included in Ash Grol'{! '.I" PSf) pamil appfiClIliol1for theirpm/)()sedMoapa plallt ill Newula. The llOCllmelllllrlll YOlllrtll'e i,l' a flller expanded versio/l which addell a di.H·/lssiollabolfl Selecri"e NOIl-Cawlylic Neduclioll. SI/bseqllem 10 these t!lKlimefl/s. fJob Schreiber a/l{l Chrisw RI/ssel/, COlllllhors of thesepapers, Irtll'elell to Ct'mumy /() .W!t' I"t' SCR system III Soillhofen. A IJlIIJer titled "]1,e experience of SCR at Solflhofel/allli its Ap/Jlicability to U.S. Cement Plants" by Mr. Raben 1. Schreiber, Jr. P.E, Ms. Chrism O. Ru,uell, was IJeer reviewed and**/Jre~'eflled** til rhe lIIne 2006A WMA meeting hy Mr. Schreiber. n,e conelll,l·iol/.l· reached ill 'he original dOL'/lIIlelll, IlItII Ihe SCR (/I Sofllhofen doe,f /l0( result ill a lowerNOx emission rtllt' Illall ,!ltII which ca" be achieved willi SNCR relllaill.fIhe Sllllle iI/till t!OCl/lllt'I!tS. Illftlct, the Sofnllofell dOCIlIIIl'1If{'omaills documell1a1iofl thm when lhal kiln swilched from SCN to SNCR Ihey aCflwlly tlchie\'ed thl' Sllllle emissioll rate morl! reliably t!tal/ witlr 

## seR. Therefore. although the originally cited dOC/llllellf WllS nOTpeer reviewed, tlte s/lbseqllem dOClllllCIII was lIlId 

### it rem'lled the same conclusion.

### Ms.**VirJ~tich.** 

### February 28, 2(X)8**Pag~** 

### 12

• Table 5-3 li:;ts the LNB and SNCR as achieving approximately 35% control. Is lhis**int~ndcd** 

### to be 

### 50%? All three footnotcs to wble 5-3 state 'The 

### 90perc:elll reductio" I\·ll.\" appliedro**th~** 

### 2006 average
.. ,' 

### Arc these statements accunl.1e?

RespolI.Ji!

- 

### TI,e 15% thllt is i"c/llded

### ill Table 

### 5·3 as llle co",rol efficiencyfor UJBlSNCR**,~hOliltl** be 50%. All of",e reclmiCllI llllalysis 1f.I'ed 50% COlltrolfor LNBlSNCR, 'I1le (,(JIllra' efficiencies documented ill/hefaalnoles shouldmatch Ihe cOlI/rol,\'!isfed illlhe body oflite lab/e.

If 

### you have any qucstions concerning the responses to comments, please feel free to contact me at 

### 406-4-12-8855.

Richard Johm.on
Plant Manager-Molllana City

## Attachment A Supporting Data for Fuel Switching Analysiso

o



# -. ,,,**~.** I 

# fl"**;~**

## ~,-- 1- 

### ;.)

### ~.**~&** 

### §!.-;i "'.-;

## ~.~ III it :!



# .. i""
> 

# ! =::i 

# n**.~** 

# a. i ••**!;~**



# ,**~.**

# ., Ii

# i~ • 

# ! ••**!~~**



# .-



# -

.. 'l- ci "';



## ••**i~** 

# .,**-,~** 

# •••**~~§ ~~",2.·.**  ;;;SN

- ... 

### i ••**~"'Gi** 

# ".- j



# , s t1 

# i·· ,

# ..

## Attachment D Supporting Data for Fuel Costs

### Coal

$1910 

### per car and 95 tons/car 

### = $201 ton

Rail transport =$13.87/ ton

Total 

# = $33.87/ton plus there is a fuel surcharge for diesel from the railroad

- 1.56/lon

Total =:: $35.43/ton