--:. \\..1), \S U )1 ...., ,

MAR 3- 2008 :

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

\

,-\

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 BART Five Factor Analysis 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 of the 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 of confidentiality 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withdrawn, or waived; (b) Ash Grove does not release the information claimed as CBI to nonemployees; only limited authorized employees have access to the financial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 of this 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 of production, and operating information,

not otherwise available, potentially known to Ash Grove's competitors. The cement business is
Ms, 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 of oversea... products and by new competitors.

Consequently, information related to manufacturing cost and vendor bids. if disclosed 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 of the

scrubber. howevcr the uscfullife of these 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 ofthe scrubber has 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 grubberfrom $2, 102, 168 to $1.62/,090 ami dmpped the (.'O.Sf e!Jh'lil'ene:.'sfol' Iht,

,l'Cl'ubberfrom $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 ofa sCl'llbber is predicted 10 yield WI incremental I.isibility

imprcH'emem ofollly 0.24 dllo.....Qllly (III 8.39% improvemelll, III derermilling ",i1m cOli/rol

met!u Iile definition ofBARTfor S02. the millimal I'isibility improl'emellf associll1ed with

Iile operalioll oj(I scrubber eli",illmed this technology Jrom 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 considered BART

• 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 to justify the 90% efficiency for the WCI

scrubber.

ResfJonse: Ash Grove beliel'es thm 90% is all tII'erage level of emissio/ls redllctio/llhm

would be achiemble on WI ongoillg basis when ('(msiderill,'{ ,Ill' scrubber d01ll1l time

(!lIe 10 c1eallillg (lml fI/(limemlllce. IV/.-S' is a high lIlaifl1efUlIlC(' process wilh high rates

ojdowmime expecled m'lhe scrubber /Il(llure.~ (If/{I corrosion ojCO/llluJ/!('IllS become.l· 1/

scriou.r problem, 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 ofgreater ,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 our determillClfioll Ihot fuel swilching alld /lot a s(.'rllbber meeTs Ille defillilioll oj

BAUTJor S02, AT 90% comro/, Ihel'e i.I' (/11 8.39% improvemenl ill visibilily. whereas

m 95% colltrol there is WI 8.53% improl'emellf ill visibility, 71/11s, (l fil'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 of the 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~ if a 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"r cOli/em ill the file! alld (/ ret/llc/iO/l i/1 S02 emi!>'siolls from the wet killl mAsh

Grol'l! 's Mol1tana City plam has been demonstrated (i.e. Ihm dropping the sulfur COlllem

ofthe incoming fllel 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 ofthe sulfur thm is oxidized to S02 is absorbed by Ihe alke,Ii

COmIJOIlIld!>' ill the raw II1merialfed to ti,e kiln.

71,e S02 ab,wJl1Jtioll ('apacity ofthe killl (Iepends. ill part, Oil tIJe ex("('s,\' alkali ('OIllIJOIIII(/.\·

(lI'(lilable for absorpriol1. Ifrhe kifn is opermillg (If or above the abso'1uioll capacil)' (i.t',

low alkali to .ntlfllr ratio), lhen reduclions in Ihe .ntlfur call/em ofIhe fllel sllOuhl reduce

lhe S02 emissiollsfrom Ihe kifll. Iflhe kiln is opuating with excess (lbsorptiotl capacity.

thell reduclions ill Ihe slIlfur contelll ofthe fllel 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 of the

file! will reduce some ofthe S02 el1lissioll.~. However, the lel'el of502 reductioll firm ('(Ill

be achiel'edfor specific lel'els ofrc(III(:tioll ill lI,e slllfllrfuel contell/ is ullkllOWII.

The 50% reduction ill S02 emissions represellls a lel'el ofCOll1rolllwr Ash Grove

beliel'es wOllld be acllievable based 011 a redllctioll ill Ihe fOwl sltlfllr ill the fuel (ei'her by

chaf/gillg Ihe cO(lVcoke blend or changing ti,e coaVcoke slIpply 10 lower slIlfllrf/lel.r).

Since lhe submittal ofthe BART allaly,\'is, Ash Grove ha!>' re-el'a/twte(llhe file! ,~\I'itdlillg

cos/s ba.l·ed upon I\VO optiofl.\". Theflrsr optioll w'sllmed the lise ofthe currellt coal and

('oke, bw /I/ax;mi;.e(/ the lise ofthe low !>'II/fur coal. The ,\'ec:ond opTion (/.I'SlImes the flse of

I()() pen:elll ofIt dijJerelll low sulfilr coal. As wil" the original BART(IIwly.ri.\·, fllel (IIul

emissions da/(l for 2006 were miliz.edfor the baseline emi.uiolls alld cosl,r,

[Jllrillg 2006. SO! inlJIllS iII/a rhe kiln were asfollows:

S(h from cool

SO!/rom C'oke

SO!from kUllfeed

SOl from 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 /OlU feed al 0.27% 503)

I I tOilS (based all 174, I IJ lOllS \IImer al82 ",gil. S04)

4.989101IS

11le EcoC1Iem analyzer dma for 2006 indicale t1lm rhe (lct/wl allnllal emi.rsioll.~ ofSOl

\Vere 981 tpy. 711erefore rhe if/herem dry scrubbing ofthe kifn is 80% (01989-98114989 *

100 = XO.3%).
Ms. Videtich. February 28. 2008

Page 4

For the filet switchillg opriolU there will be flO challge ill Ihe sulfur CO/lfellT ufthe raw

mmedals or waler. n,uefore. Ihere will be no decrease ill thefTactioll ofthe S02

emissions resulting from these fIla/erials whicll represent 230 tlJY ofthe 9811py tottll SO!

I( 1140+11)*(100-80% absorption) = 230.2 tpy.

The Cllrreflf coal, a IOw·.Wl/fllr Powder River Basin coal, htls a low ~'I//fllr colltem of0,8

percellt. bill tllso has a high mnistllre comellt (jllll a low lJtll vallie. Bcc{//l.I'e ofrile

moistllre aud heatillg l'flllIl", coke mllsl be mixed with the coal to provide ellolfgh energy

1II the from end ofthe kiln to creare tlJe helllllecessary for the proper sirllerillg ofIhe

clinker, Also, the killl requires IIlat (1/1 equivale/ll altlOIl'" ofsulfur be fe(1 to the kiln to

balallce the alkllii compounds in the kiln. Ifthe sulfur drops roo low, the slllfllr/alkali

ralio in Ihe killl will be Ollt ofbalance and this would introduce operlllional is.flle.~ for the

kifn,

nil! coke l/(/,~ (l significantly higher Brll c01lTelll. bill cOlI/ains 5,2 pacelli .1'111fur. A~h

Grol'e has delermined thlllihe mw:imwll coalleoke ralio for proper clinker production is

62/38. Option I onlhe spreadsheel included as Allachmelll A 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 80 percelll kiln sCTllbbing comrol efficiency. of 163

'IJV (a 17 pel'('('1It emissions reduction from/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 ofso! removed.

In order to increase fhe reductio/l iI/fife! sulfur. the facility would he required /() Iltili::.e a

low-sulfur (l1Il1 high-Bill coal supply. Option 2 on the spreadsheet incll/ded as At/admlem

A ro this leuer relJreSelllS the SO! emis,~i(ms redllctions rt!lated to Ihe cambu~'ti(ln ofthe

lower-sulfllr. higher 81/1 coo!. The lise of 100 pen'em oflhis alternate coal. (/I'ai/able (/I

a cos/ of$7711011. 1I'00llcl result in a reductio/l in SO! eflli.~siOI/S of584 tl)y below the

currenl ba,,'eline. However, tlri.\' .Hl'irch would iI/crease fuel cosls by over $2,9 million per

year and rem/l ill a co.\'! of$4,978 per rOil ofSO] removed. Option 2 represcllI,\'

approximarely (/ 60 peTcem reduction ill SOt emiJ'sio/l.I'!rom Ihe currelll baselim'

achiel'ed by iI/herem dry scmbbing. This represents Ihe maximum S02 emis.\'iofls

redflction possible from filel 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 Gllidelines preamble tl1m the BART process .I'hould nnT resul/ in excessive

('Colwlllic illlpacu. There i/ was stalNI t!l(/l:

"/lYlc recognize there moy be ,mll.nUlI n'rCII/lISf(lIICeS rll(l1 justify wkillN imo

c(msi(leralioll the conditions ofthe IJ1c1ll1 and Ihe economic efft'cl.~ ofrequiring

Ihe liSt' of(/ given comrollcchnology. n,ese effel'ls would indllde effel'ls (m

IJrodlu,t prices. 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'01lid calise a plalll [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,f 1I signijicall1 impacl onlhe

coslofprodllctioll. AsII Grove h".f condllcted (lI! (malysi,f ofrhis increased cost alld ir is

indl/derl ;" AlIrlchlllt'nt 8 ofIhis leller, Please nOll' Ihar III, produ('(irm COSt i,f

cOllfidemial busille.u ;1I{omwlioll, and should /101 be jncluded (IS 1m" o(rhe public rl'conl

{or the Ash Grove HAHT projecl. Ash Gnwt' sells a commOl/ity prmlilci into (I m(lrkel

where differences of1I fl!w dollars per ron make a sigllijicallt diffaence, III(TNUing Ihe

prof/IIC/ioll costs by ,H'I'eraf dollar.f per loll will severely impact Ihe pia", 's prodl/{:t price.

marker ,I'hare mul projiwbilily. A.I' fhe ollalyJis ill Af/achmem H demfJ/lSlrtltes, I'I/quirillg

Ash Grove 10 implell/emflle! swiu:hingfor S02 cOlllrol 1I'(}lIld JUll'e ~'eriolls economic

ramijicmiollJ alld 'herl!fore shollld nor be considered HART ahsem t'lear evic/ellce tllm

f/lel sll'irclling would elramatically improl'e visibility jll/pain1lem,

While fllel switching mflY be an 0IJtion for refl/lcing S02 emissiollS, Jwilchi"g filets is "01

I'ery effective at redllcing visibilily;mIJainnelll. A 50% reductio/l ;n IOwl S02 em;.\'~'iOl/s

as Ihe resllb offile/ ~'I\'ilchillg is predicled ro yield (/ visibilily improveme", ofoilly 0, 17

dl'-only a 6.05% i"'/J/'Ovemelll over bfl.I'elille, III determillillg whM colltrolmeel.\'lhe

dejillilioll of BARTfor S02, rhe minimal visibifily improvemellf a,I·.wdllled wirh fllel

Sll'ilChillg elimin(/(efJ litis Iccllno/aNY from being cOlI,l'idered as IJA NT Thi~' i.I'

parlic/llarly Irlle ill light ofthe subsla/l/ial "egatil'e economic IOJJ thatfitel.nvitchi"g

l\'o/lld impose 011 Ihe ('t'O/wlllic viability ofIhe plall/. As EPA dearly sUlIed, thi' I/Iosl

slr;"Nerlt allemm;lIe fleed "Ot be selected as BART ifthmlevellVOItid cause all e.t..ccssiw!

imlxlCI OlllJrodllct prices, market share or profiwbility ofthe sOllrce, bill (I ~'IiNIII/y lesser

degre,. ofcolllrol wOllld /lOf, Fue/switchillg \l'oll/el sel'erely c"aJJellNe rhe cOlI/illllefl

viabiliry ofthe phlllr II'IIile the slightly lesser de,f(ree ofcon/ral (i.e., i"herem dry

,~(."rubbi/lg) would not. 'I1lerefore, BART is approprialely esrabli,\'hed ba,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 of d: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 daw from the /lew

ww/y:.er collected from April /4, 2006 to December 31, 2006. The m"ge ofthe 2-1-llOlIr

(lI'erage emission rafes for thi.~ time perioe/wm J.85 ppm (1.07 Ibillr) TO 882.92 IJlml

(473,N7Ihlhr) willi (I s/(/ildard deviarioll of222.8 pplll (/28.3/ Iblhr), TIJe airflow rale 15

58,735.72 fr31min (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 bidfor Ille scrubber is il/clllded as A11(1chme1l1 C to this leiter. Ple(lSe

IIOfe tl"l/ the bid is c(JIIfide1l1iaf busilless illformalioll, alit! should nOI 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

/hejinaf offer 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 ofIhe

proposal, Tile copiwl cost used ill the cost ejJeclivelless calculaliollsfor BART assumed

111m theft/wi jJllrclwse price woult/ be 1.25 times Ihe budgetary price (S7,OOO.OOO· 1,25

= $8,750.(00). Since Illis price 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

Colltmf Manllar Methot/sfor estill/tiling imwlfed COSI ((U a percenwge ofIht, 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/ cost for Ille .fcmbber of$5,6H7.500 ($8, 750,000 • 35%·$8,750,000 =

55.687.5(0).

The fuel 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' inelllded as 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 of 7,740 hrslycar. Both the cost and cost effcctivencss analysis should be bascd on the

s;lIne number of operating hours. Ash Grove should revise the analysis so the operating

hours used arc consistcnt.

Re.fpOl/St·: The cost ejJet:riv/!nes,f Ofwly.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,u from $3, 7161wlI 10 $3,493/1011. Ash Grove JlOle~' IIItIl (I '\"C'nrbbcr w{/.\"

illt'll/ded in rhe (ll/lIly,\'is liS till optiOIl for 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 of visibility 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 RTfor thisft/citity.

NO.... Emissions and Controls

• EPA Comment: In scction 5.2.4 you eliminate the option to use mid-kiln firing of tires. The

reason provided is thai you foresee a lack of availabililY of lires 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 of supply. 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 NOx 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 reviewed Mr. Hansell's paper and mher {/milable information.

Mr. /lll/ISt'1I suggests ill the I)(lper thm fllel.r, other thllll tires, can be injected mid-kilil.

While in theory this appellrsfeasible, with the exception ofsome short-term trial:.' /Ising

bagged IlImlJ coal, these altematil'es have n01 been IIsed on a commerciaf blUis, Dilly

111'0 f/lel.\' have been roll1illely injected mid-killl--tires and contaillcrized haz.anlolls wane

fllef,l' (HWF), As discussed in Ash Grove's BART sllbmil1al 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 ofHIVF at Ash GrOl't! 'sfacitity would

require (II/ air permit to COIlS!n/Ct 'heft/citities mId to combl/sl f/WF ill Ihe /.:.ill1. n,t!

facility would also need to acquire a RCRA permit to constTllct {lIId operate lhe HWF

IUllldlill/( (lIul storage facilities. 77/cse permits require a {eng/hy pemlil revicw afl{1 public

Imrtici{J(/fion process prior to Ihe J'Wrt of construction ofthe 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-kiln firing ofI/lVF. /n addition, the lise of

HWF mid-kiln is nm a viable alternaril'e for the same reason that the use oftires i.r 11m

viable, (Ill adequate Sl//Jply simlJly does 11m ~XiSI, Celllefll kilns thm art' currl'l/fly

IJermittnl to bum HIVF are faced wirh 1I dwilldling sl/pply, alld mOllY are n01 (,/lTremly

able to (U'qllire f/lels III slIpply their pall/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/-kiln firing offllel.~, e.~/,eci{/fly those

111m IUII'e oilly been II/ili:ed 011 1I short-term trial basis, is 1/01 a I'iable /lART op'ion for

the Monllllla City plmlt, Furthermore, the proposed BART option, the lise ofSNCR alit/

low No.t bumers, is lIted,!'ically viable option Ilult will remit in the same lel'el ofNo.t

emi,rsions redl/C/iolls as that which would be lIchieved by the //,re oflllid kilfljiring,

• 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 of the 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 10 prehealer alltl {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 ofSNCR 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, one fJOim 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 IIIICOIltrolfed NOx 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'ioll factors for prehemer alld pn'he{//erlpr/'{'alr'iI1l'!r kilns

.nwll a.\' tlw,~e discl/.ued ill Ihe article, 711is is primarily relmed 10 the differe/lces in

(1flcienc:y and Ihe resl/lting redl/Clio/1 ill the fut'l required per toll of('linker prodllt_·t'd for

Ihe prehe/l/er and preheater/preca/ejnu kilns, n,erefore. el't!lI will, the same emi,uiOlls

rel/llction achieved by SNCR. theftnal cOllcentrmiollsfrom a long wet kiln will be

six"ijicalltly higher Ihallihose from a preheater or II prehemer/pnocclfci"er kiln. Tile

miticl! NOx cOl/centrationsfor the German kilns wcre not.~pecifiel/. so il is nat pa,\'.\'ible t()

deterlllillt, lite actual pcrcel1l ofNOx emissioJ/s reductiol1 achieved by lhe SNCR 0/1 t!Jose

kifm',

77,ere iof Dilly olle facility lIIit1l long \IIet kilns locllfed in Europe for which there is Imy

long-term operational experience wi'" SNCR. TllOse killls hal'e bet'll operatillg at a NOx

(Omission rate of 1,200 mg/NmJ. Ifyotl lise 1,200 mglN",J lIS the emission rate after the

11/JIJ!icmioll ofSNCR (lnd the Clirrel1l emi,ui/Jll cIJl/cemrm;on (I( MIJIlul//a City of 1.950

II1g//I/ Ille rel/uelion expected from tile SNCR would be 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'ery similar 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 ofIhe SNCR. 77luefore. based on Ihe daw III'aj((llJIe for the Imt

lonK wet kiln ill Europe utilizing SNCR. and more imporumtly based 011 Ash Grewe's 011'1/

e.\perieflce ill Te:((j,~. the 35% NOx rel/llct/cm proposed by AI'II Grol'e rel/1ains Ille 1I10.W

(1('('lIr(/fe e,willUltf' ofIhe NOx emis,l'ions redll('tiol1S thar ('WI rea~'OIwbll! be expe('/('(I Ill/he

MOl1lml(/ City facilit),.

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 of additional controls :llld increased performance of the existing equipmcnt.

ReSIJOllse: Tile killl ESP and clinker cooler baghouse stack parameters are IJro\'icJed ill

Sectioll 3-9 oftile BART report. AsII Grove detennj"ed tllat changes to the PM ('(}Iltrol

devices lire 1/ot needed to satisfy BART sillce the PM colltriburjoll to visibility ;5 very

,fIIUll! r('latil'e 10 Ille colltribllliolls ofother pOllllllllllS. "I1lis is ill large part due to the fO('1

Ihat /"e plolll f'urrelltly applies ,I'tate oftile 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 ifallY further red/lctiolU 10 killl alld/or clillker cooler PM

emissiolU cOllld be achieved, they wOllld 1I0t reSlllt iff allY appreciable reductioll in the

overall ,'isibility impairmelll. The polli/tant-specific comriblltioflS 10 visibility are

provideil ill the table belolV. With PM10 ollly comribmillg 10 1.28% ofllu: 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 replaccmem for

Table 6-2 thai Wi/.f illc/llded ill Ash Grove '.\' original BART relJort. 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 PMlOl

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 of the 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 DygowskiofEPA Region 8 il/dietl/ed ill a

IJ/lOlle disCllssioll \Vilh Kasi DI/bbs ofTrillity COIUIIIl(lIIts that moddi"g ofadditiollal

Clas..... I art'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 ofNOI•

Emi.uio/l.l' ReduClio/l Strtllegiesfor Cemelll Kiflls - 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· ofthe C'(lII\'('r,~i(}1I ofIhe

killl from h'et to dry or semi·tlry. JJART is defilled liS "t/ll emission limitmioll IN/sed Oil

the degru {Jfretllfctitm lIchiemble throllgh the appliemioll ofthe best system of

cmllilllWIlS emission redllctionfor each POllllUlllfwhich is. emitted by an existinK

,~tlllion(lry SOl/rce," "Existing sltltiollary sOl/ret!" is defilled liS a facility 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 JJART emissioll 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 ofredesign or com'asion, The

Clean Air Act wu/ the fet/eral BART regullltiolls 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

IJART determi,wtioll for a coal{ired powerIJlom would nud ({) include the fJD.fsihifity of

cmn'erting it to {lnatf/ral gas·fired or en!n allliclear power plallt, EPA lacks ttl/thority

to requirl' such WI el'all/wiofl f/nder rhe BART program,

There is decade.l· oj I~PA precedelll thw the e,\wlJfishmclIl ojall ellli,I',~ioll,l" limilalioll

/fllda tilt' Clerl/1 Air A(:t dOe,l"lIut inclllde tIlt! el'a/llmiOlI ofrile source d('~'iXIl. Under Ihe

PSIJ program /:..'PA has been evalllmillg Best Al'ailable C011lrol Tl'chf1ology (lMenfor

thirty years. COllsistemly the {lgellcy has stated that BACT is based Oil the SOf/rce

presemedfor revil'll' alld that rhe agellcy Itu.:ks awhority to i"dud/' ill the BAcrtllfalysis

the evalulI/ioll ofchallges in design rhat would alter the facility itself. JI/st a few fl/tmths

ago. EPA sl/ccessflllly argued thi,f I'uy poilll /() the Sevemh Circuir COllrt ofAppeals,

st/yill,!] .. its CO/lstructioll ofthe starure 1I0t 10 require BA cr evaluatioll ofC0I11ml 0IJliol/s

that fimdamentally retlejine the proposed facility is consi,Wellt with IOllg,l·tanding f:PA

guidallce and a IOllg lille ofprior decisions ofthe £AB allll the EPA Administrlltor, "

EPA Briefin 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 ofthe BAcr

proceS,f EPA cal/not require the source LO be redesigned. EPA's allthority is re,ftricletlto

reqlliring alJprolJrill/e emissiol/levels based 011 the proposed sOl/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 ofthe

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'

tlifJerefll possibilitie,\· i1l determillillX BARTfor its \\let kiln. IJtlSed 011 tI /Oll.1t lille tlf('ourt

dedsiOlI.'i lI/lf1 EPA precetlem recelllly ,wmll1ari:.ed by 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 till
Ms. Videtich. February 28, 2008

P:lge II

obligtltiOIl weu reqllired, Ihe IremelllJOIu COSI ofSIIdi 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 ofthe 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% ofthe PM Ifull is emilled

by the kil,,). allli does I/or emil NO:c or 502. Ihe clinker cooler af!>'o ",akes llllegligible

impact 011 Ille OI'erall visibilily impairmellt.

• On page 4-2 the sulfur COlllent of the petroleum coke is listed as approximately 4.5%. On

page 4-9 in the text. the sulfur content of the 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 ofthe lec/lIIicaf (IIwly,\'is

relied on II sulfur COlllelll of4.5 percelll. 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 COll1ellt for coke of5.2 percelll.

• Reference 13 un p:lge 5-10 is incomplete, We hnve a document from Schreiber. Russell

and Evers titled Hvallllll;on ofSII;/lIbililY ofSeleuivt! 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 reviewed journal'!

Response - 77'e dOClimelif. reference /3 iJ lilh-d "F;I'lihUlliOfl ofSlIiUlbility ofSele('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 appfiClIliol1 for their pm/)()sed Moapa 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 ofthese papers, Irtll'elell to Ct'mumy /() .W!t' I"t'

SCR system III Soillhofen. A IJlIIJer titled "]1,e experience ofSCR 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~'eflledtil rhe lIIne 2006 A 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 lower NOx emission rtllt' Illall ,!ltII which ca" be achieved willi SNCR

relllaill.f Ihe Sllllle iI/till t!OCl/lllt'I!tS. Illftlct, the Sofnllofell dOCIlIIIl'1If {'omaills

documell1a1iofl thm when lhal kiln swilchedfrom 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 nOT peer 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 90 perc: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 efficiency for UJBlSNCR

,~hOliltl be 50%. All of",e reclmiCllI llllalysis 1f.I'ed 50% COlltrol for LNBlSNCR, 'I1le

(,(JIllra' efficiencies documented ill/hefaalnoles should match Ihe cOlI/rol,\'!isfed illlhe

body of lite 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 Analysis
oo

,,,-.

~.I fl" ;~ ~,-- 1-

;.) ~. ~& §!.-;i "'.-;

~.~ III it :!

..

i"" >

! =::i n .~a. i••

!;~ ,

~. .,

Iii~ •!••

!~~.- -'l- ..ci "';

••

i~ .,

-,~ •••

~~§

;;;SN ~~",2.·. - ...

i ••

~"'Gi ".- j,st1 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