FREDRICK J. DINDOFFER
FDINDOFFER@BODMANLAW.COM

313-393-7595**~DOMAN** PLC

6TH FLOOR AT FORD FIELD

1901 ST. ANTOINE STREET
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226

313-393-7 579 FAX

313-259-7777


# bodman

ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS November 12, 2012

Ms. Pamela Blalcley, Chief U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Control Strategies Section Air Programs Branch (AR-18) 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604

Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief and Mr. John Summerhays Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section Air and Radiation Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590

Re: EPA Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2010-0954 Supplemental Comments of St. Marys Cement, Inc. (U.S.) Regarding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Published at 77 Fed. Reg. 46912-46928, Dated Monday, August 6, 2012

Dear Ms. Blalcley, Mr. Aburano and Mr. Summerhays:

As you are aware, St. Marys Cernent, Inc. (U.S.) ("SMC") ftled comments to the above-captioned NPRM on September 5, 2012, asking that they be placed in the public record and be considered by USEPA in its deliberations concerning the referenced NPRM.

Subsequently, on October 10, 2012, USEPA and MDEQ met with SMC at the Region 5 Headquarters in Chicago to discuss the BART matters addressed in the NPRM, and then followed up that meeting with exchanges of email and other correspondence and a telephone conference call on October 24, 2012. Then, a further meeting was held among USEPA, MDEQ and SMC on November 2, 2012
at the Region 5 Headquarters in Chicago. SMC requests that all of that subsec1uent correspondence and related documents also be placed in the public record docket for this NPRM and be considered by USEPA in arriving at its final action on the
matter.

This letter is submitted to USEP 1\ as further supplemental comments to the same NPRM to assure that the administrative record for this NPRlvl is complete. These
comments should be considered additional to and not in place of earlier comments

DETROIT TROY ANN ARBOR CHEBOYGAN DALLASMs. Pamela Blakley, Chief Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief Mr. John Summerhays November 12,2012 Page 2

submitted by SMC. During our conference call and meetings, USEPA agreed that SMC may supplement the record in this way.



### Executive Summary

As explained and demonstrated below, SMC's Charlevoix facility is not BARTeligible. Therefore, because the BART requirements do not apply to the subject facility, USEPA should take a final action on the subject NPRM which does both of the following: (1) Disapproves the portions of the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) that sought to impose BART emissions limits on SMC's Charlevoix facility; and (2) Determines not to impose the proposed BART emissions limits under a federal Implementation Plan on SMC's Charlevoix facility.



### Discussion

1. The BART requirements do not apply to the Charlevoix, Michigan cement plant- key dates.

As we have discussed with USEPA previously, SMC acquired the cement manufacturing plant in Charlevoix, MI in 2005 from CEMEX. CEMEX previously acquired the plant from Southdown, which had purchased the plant from Medusa Cement Company. The following is based on a review of Charlevoix plant records and flies, documents obtained from the state of Michigan, interviews of long term plant employees and the public record concerning the Clean Air Act and its regulations.



### A. BART -Eligible Sources under the Clean Air Act.

On August 7, 1977, visibility protection provisions, requiring emissions lirnitations reflecting use of the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BJ\RT) were adopted as part of the Clean Air Act amendments. See, 42 U.S.C. 7401, ct seq. and particularly sections 7491 and 7492. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 7491Q))(2)(A) required BART emissions llinits for each m.ajor stationary source that began operation after August 7, 1962 and was in existence on August 7, 1977, if that source might reasonably be anticipated to cause impairment of visibility in certain class I areas. Other sources (that came into existence outside of that time window) are not BART-eligible.Ms. Pamela Blakley, Chief Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief Mr. John Summerhays November 12, 2012 Page 3

At 40 CFR 51.300

- 51.309, and at Appendix Y to those regulations, USEPA's regulations spell out how to determine if BART will apply to a particular source ("BART-eligible"). In particular, as provided at 40 CFR 51.301, and in Appendix Y, "Existing stationary facility means any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants, including any reconstructed source, which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be counted." Furthermore, the term "in existence" in that provision is defined as follows: "In existence means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site constmction of the facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which
cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time."

Appendix Y to Part 51- "Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule" explains these requirements in greater detail and provides several key examples to help in making the determinations. As stated at section I.C. of Appendix Y: "***The CAA requires only sources which were put in place during a specific 15-year time interval to be subject to BART. The BART provision applies to sources that existed as of the date of the 1977 CAA amendments (that is, August 7, 1977) but which had not been in operation for more than 15 years (that is,
not in operation as of August 7, 1962)." Appendix Y also states: "Major stationary

sources which commenced construction AFTER August 7, 1977 (i.e., major stationary sources which were not "in existence" on August 7, 1977) were subject to

new source review (NSR) under the PSD program. Thus, the August 7, 1977 "in existence" test is essentially the same thing as the identification of emissions units that were grandfathcrcd from the NSR review requirements of the 1977 CAA amendments."

More specifically, Section II of Appendi" Y describes a detailed three-step process to determine if a source is "BART-eligible". Step 2 of that process is germane to this discussion. The entirety of Step 2 is quoted in Exhibit A to this letter. Importantly, 

### the following portions of Step 2 make clear that a Reconstructed Source for which reconstruction began after August 

### 7, 1977 is not BART-eligible. The following are significant quotes fi-om that section of Appendix 

### Y:Ms. Pamela Blakley, Chief Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief Mr. John Summerhays November 12, 2012 Page4

"What is a "reconstructed source?"


## ***

"2. Under the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.301, a reconstruction has taken place if "the fDced capital cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable entirely new source." The rule also states that "[a]ny final decision as to whether reconstruction has occurred must be made in accordance with the provisions of§§ 60.15 (f)(1) through (3) of this title." "[TJhe provisions of§§ 60.15(£)(1) through (3)" refers to the general provisions for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Thus, the same policies and procedures for identifying reconstructed "affected facilities" under the NSPS program must also be used to identify reconstructed "stationary sources" for purposes of the BART requirement.


## ***

"4. The "in operation" and "in existence" tests apply to reconstructed sources. If an emissions unit was reconstructed and began actual operation before August 7, 1962, it is not BART-eligible. Similarly, any emissions unit for which a reconstruction "commenced" after August 7, 1977, is not BART -eligible." Emphasis supplied.

Significantly, as demonstrated in the following section, the Charlevoix plant was reconstructed in 1978 and therefore is not BART-eligible.

B. Facts of Operations and late 1978

- 1979 Reconstruction at Charlevoix.

At some point in the 1960s, Medusa Cement Company established a cement making operation in Charlevoix Michigan. That plant manufactured Portland
cement using what is referred to as a long, wet kiln cement manufacturing process.

In a November 3, 1977 letter [See Exhibit B], Medusa flied a permit application. This was flied after the August 7, 1977 date on which BART eligibility ended. This letter asserts that the project should not be considered a "reconstruction" under the Clean Air Act regulations because allegedly the fixed capital costs of the project would not exceed 50% of the costs of a new facility. No supporting documentation is contained in MDEQ's flle to demonstrate that to be true. As stated in the letter, Medusa was asserting that position in order to avoid having the plant be categorizedMs. Pamela Blakley, Chief Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief Mr. John Summerhays November 12,2012 Page 5

as an "affected facility" under 40 CFR 60.1S(a). While Medusa's purpose was not explained further, the only logical reason for Medusa taking that position would be that it hoped to avoid imposition of NSPS on the plant [See, 40 CFR 60.1 and 40 CFR 60.60- 66.]

The Permit Application [See Exhibit 

### C] also contains several key points. It shows the following:

a. The basic manufacturing process was being changed from a long wet rotary kiln to an in-line kiln system consisting of a 

### dry process with a calciner (or flash furnace) and a shorter rota1y kiln;

b. The production capacity was being nearly doubled from 727,200 tons per year 

### (fPY) to 1,364,000 

### TPY;

c. 

### All of the major systems of the cement manufacturing process were being replaced or rebuilt;

d. The cost of 

### this in 1978 dollars was to be $49 million; and

e. The cost of air pollution controls for the systems was to exceed $14 million.

Actual Suwannee Plant construction Costs show Medusa's posxtxon was incorrect. In 2002, SMC constmcted an entirely new cement plant in Suwannee florida, as part of a joint venture. The actual fixed capital costs of the Suwannee plant clearly demonstrate that Medusa's position was not correct. Attached, as Exhibit D, is a series of Spread Sheets that both summarize and then detail the costs of the Suwannee project. These do not include either the costs of land acquisition or quarry costs. SMC submits this Exhibit D as "Confidential Business Information" and requests that this information not be made publicly available, because this would provide a competitive advantage to others in the industry.



### REDACTED: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

The $49,000,000 cost of Medusa's project would have been more than enough to build an entirely new cement plant in 1978! Subsequent sheets in this exhibit show the detail underlying the summarized numbers.

### Ms. Pamela Blakley, Chief Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief Mr. John Summerhays November 12, 2012 Page 6

The same conclusion is reached when the fixed capital costs of only the major plant components that comprise the Kiln Process are considered. The Kiln Process includes: Raw Material Transport; Raw Material Transport Bin System; Raw Material Grinding; Raw Meal Transport; Raw Meal Homogenization Storage; Preheater/Kiln Feed Systems; Preheater/Kiln System; Clinker Transport and Storage; Coal Transport & 

### Grinding; and Electrical & 

### Instrwnentation. As shown in 

### the same summary sheet of Exhibit D, the fixed capital cost for the «Kiln Process" was in 2002 dollars; or nearly

.. million in 1978 dollars. Again, the above numbers show that no matter how the $49 million spent by Medusa is viewed, those
amounts .must have exceeded SO% of the costs of a new facility.

·.Moreover, Medusa's goal was irrelevant in light of the fact that, despite Medusa's

hopes to the contrary, the Staff Activity Report and the Permit as issued show that Medusa's position was rejected; and show that the underlying facts as set out in 

### our correspondence, demonstrate that the project was indeed a «reconstruction". In February 1978, the new Permit to Install was issued to Medusa by the state of Michigan. A copy of the Permit is shown 

### in Exhibit C. Subsequent pages in the Permit show that, before construction, it was Revised on May 15, 1979. The Permit in fact contains several provisions that specifically refer to compliance. with the federal Clean Air Act requirements concerning standards for New Stationary Sources. Specifically, "Special Conditions" 12, 13, 14 and 17 all explicitly require emissions to comply with then applicable NSPS. Importantly, this demonstrates that the state did not accept Medusa's position that the project was not a "reconstruction". If the state had accepted that position, the question at issue would have been whether the project constituted

a Major Modification under the CAA, ·and if so only the incremental increase in 

### emissions potential would have been subject to New Source PSD review. However, the NSPS in this case were applied to all 

### of the emissions from the plant.

The MDNR Staff Activity Report supporting tlus permit [See Exhibit E] further supports the conclusion that this was treated as a "reconstruction". It shows that, in the end, all of the emissions from the plant were required to be significantly lower than had been true before the reconstruction. In other words, this was not a case in 

### which only the incremental emissions caused by the project were required to be controlled by BACT controls

.. NSPS were applied across the board. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations were not explicitly referenced. However, it is clear that MDNR's staff considered the PSD requirements and concluded that all 

### requirements had been satisfied. Pages 2 and 3 of that report make clear that (1) NSPS were applied (certainly a more than adequate substitute ifMs. Pamela Blakley, Chief Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief Mr. John Summerhays November 12,2012 Page 7

BACT otherwise might have applied); (2) all plant emissions will be lower than before the plant reconstruction; (3) dispersion modeling was performed that showed lower impacts on air quality (addressing any concerns with use of air quality increments); and (4) the report concluded-- "Based on our evaluation, staff is of the opinion that the installation of the proposed equipment will not have a significant impact on maintaining air quality standards nor cause substantial deterioration of the air quality." This is clearly a reference to the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" requirements of the Clean Air Act. Based on this analysis, MDNR determined that there would not be any such deterioration.

Actual plant reconstruction began later, and ultimately the dry kiln replacement for the entire long wet kiln process was completed. The old plant was then shut down in October 1979. The new dry process kiln then began operation on December 17, 1979.

As shown in the Permit, the cost of the new dry process system was $49 million in 1978. By contrast, as shown in the news article, attached as Exhibit F, the entire
cost of the original wet process plant had been $25 million. Moreover, as shown by SMC's actual costs in Suwannee, the amount spent by Medusa in 1978 was enough
to physically replace the entire plant. This project was a Reconstruction under the Clean Air Act, both because the entire plant was physically replaced and because the financial tests were met. Moreover, as noted, the Permit explicitly applied New Source Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act.

Conclusion

Based on the above, the SMC Charlevoix plant is not a BART-eligible facility. Accordingly, USEPA should take a fmal action on the subject NPRM which does both of the following: (1) Disapproves the portions of the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) that sought to impose BART emissions limits on SMC's Charlevoix facility; and (2) Determines not to impose the proposed BART emissions limits on SMC's Charlevoix facility under a federal Implementation Plan.Ms. Pamela Blakley, Chief Mr. Douglas Aburano, Chief Mr. John Summerhays November 12, 2012 Page 8

Please inform me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, 

# J{.)

# ~)~_,___
Fredrick 

## J. Dindoffer



### FJD/ttv Enclosure

# EXHIBIT A

### Excerpt from Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51

- Step 2 from Section II. "How To Identify BART-Eligible Sources"

2. Step 2: Identify the Start-Up Dates of the Emission Units

1. Emissions units listed under Step 1 are BART -eligible only if they were "in existence"

on August 7, 1977 but were not "in operation" before August 7, 1962.

What does "in existence on August 7, 1977" mean?

2. The regional haze rule defines "in existence" to mean that:

"the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has ( 1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be canceled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time." 40 CFR 51.301.

As this definition is essentially identical to the definition of "commence construction" as that term is used in the PSD regulations, the two tem1s mean the same thing. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1 )(xvi) and 40 CFR 52.21 (b )(9). Under this definition, an emissions unit could be "in existence" even if it did not begin operating until several years after 1977.

Example: The owner of a source obtained all necessary permits in early 1977 and entered into binding construction agreements in June 1977. Actual on-site construction began in late 1978, and construction was completed in mid-1979. The source began operating in September 1979. The emissions unit was "in existence" as of August 7, 1977.

Major stationary sources which commenced construction AFTER August 7, 1977 (i.e.
, major stationary sources which were not "in existence" on August 7, 1977) were subject to new
source review (NSR) under the PSD program. Thus, the August 7, 1977 "in existence" test is

Dctroit_I238489 _Iessentially the same thing as the identification of emissions units that were grandfathered from the NSR review requirements of the 1977 CAA amendments.

3. Sources are not BART-eligible if the only change at the plant during the relevant time period was the addition of pollution controls. For example, if the only change at a copper smelter during the 1962 through 1977 time period was the addition of acid plants for the reduction of S02 emissions, these emission controls would not by themselves trigger a BART review.

What does "in operation before August 7, 1962" mean?

An emissions unit that meets the August 7, 1977 "in existence" test is not BART-eligible if it was in operation before August 7, 1962. "In operation" is defined as "engaged in activity related to the primary design function of the source." This means that a source must have begun actual operations by August 7, 1962 to satisfy this test.

Example: The owner or operator entered into binding agreements in 1960. Actual on-site construction began in 1961, and construction was complete in mid-1962. The source began operating in September 1962. The emissions unit was not "in operation" before August 7, 1962 and is therefore subject to BART.

What is a "reconstructed source?'

1. Under a number of CAA programs, an existing source which is completely or substantially rebuilt is treated as a new source. Such "reconstructed" sources are treated as new

sources as of the time of the reconstruction. Consistent with this overall approach to reconstructions, the definition of BART-eligible facility (reflected in detail in the definition of "existing stationary facility") includes consideration of sources that were in operation before August 7, 1962, but were reconstructed during the August 7, 1962 to August 7, 1977 time period.

2. Under the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.301, a reconstruction has taken place if "the fixed capital cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable entirely new source." The rule also states that "[a]ny final decision as to whether reconstruction has occurred must be made in accordance with the provisions of§§ 60.15 

### (f)(l) through (3) of this title." "[T]he provisions of§§ 60.15(£)(1) through (3)" refers to the general

2 Detroit_1238489 _I

### provisions for New Source Perfom1ance Standards (NSPS). Thus, the same policies and procedures for identifying reconstructed "affected facilities" under the NSPS program must also be used to identify reconstructed "stationary sources" for purposes of the BART requirement.

3. You should identify reconstructions on an emissions unit basis, rather than on a plantwide basis. That is, you need to identify only the reconstructed emission units meeting the 50 percent cost criterion. You should include reconstructed emission units in the list of emission units you identified in Step 1. You need consider as possible reconstructions only those emissions units with the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of any visibility-impairing pollutant.

4. The "in operation" and "in existence" tests apply to reconstructed sources. If an emissions unit was reconstructed and began actual operation before August 7, 1962, it is not BART-eligible. Similarly, any emissions unit for which a reconstruction "commenced" after August 7, 1977, is not BART-eligible.

How are modifications treated under the BART provision?

1. The NSPS program and the major source NSR program both contain the concept of modifications. In general, the term "modification" refers to any physical change or change in the method of operation of an emissions unit that results in an increase in emissions.

2. The BART provision in the regional haze rule contains no explicit treatment of modifications or how modified emissions units, previously subject to the requirement to install best available control technology (BACT), lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) controls, and/or NSPS are treated under the rule. As the BART requirements in the CAA do not appear to provide any exemption for sources which have been modified since 1977, the best interpretation of the CAA visibility provisions is that a subsequent modification does not change a unit's construction date for the purpose of BART applicability. Accordingly, if an emissions unit began operation before 1962, it is not BART -eligible if it was modified between 1962 and 1977, so long as the modification is not also a "reconstruction." On the other hand, an emissions unit which began operation within the 1962-1977 time window, but was modified after August 7, 1977, is BART-eligible. We note, however, that if such a modification was a major modification that resulted in the installation of controls, the State will take this into account during the review process and may find that the level of controls already in place are consistent with BART.

3 Detroit_l238489 _I

# EXHIBITS

# MEDUSA CEMENT COMPANY

DIVISION OF MEDUSA CORPORATION

LEE AND MONTICELLO • CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO • 216/371·4000

S. l. STILES VICE PRESIDENT- ENGINEERING November 3, 1977

Air Quality Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources P, 

### o. Box 30028 Lansing, Hichigan 48909

Attention: Mr, Richard Johns Chief, Permit Section 

### Air 

### Pollution Control 

### NOV 0 

## 8 1977

Subject: Application to the Air Pollution Control Commission Charlevoix Plant, Nichigan

Gentlemen: MAIL ADDRESS P.O. BOX 5668 CLEVELAND 44101

Attached per our discussions in your office on October 20r 1977 is an application in triplicate for our Charlevoix project and applicable Exhibit A materials in duplicate.

In response to the question you raised at our October 20, 1977 conference regarding the Federal concept of "reconstruction" as defined in Section 60.15 (b) of Title 40

- Code of Federal Regulations, we are submitting, as
an attachment to this letter, a cost comparison in duplicate covering (a) new
vs converted kiln and (b) new vs modified cooler. It should be noted that each cost comparison clearly demonstrates that the fixed capital cost of the converted kiln and cooler components does not exceed 50 per cent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct comparable entirely

new kiln and cooler facilities. Therefore, the proposed conversion and expansion of our Charlevoix plant does not constitute "reconstruction" and the existing Charlevoix plant facilities which are the subject of this Application do not become "affected facilities" under 40 CFR, Section 60.15 (a),

We again offer to provide a slide presentation on the converted Charlevoix process for the DNR Regional Engineers at their convenience.

Thank you for your cooperation and the conference on October 20, 1977. We

are available to meet again or provide further information for the application if necessary. Sincerely,

# ).J.~ s. L. Stiles Vice President, Engineering

SLS/mc

# EXHIBITC

### .**~** 

### -· .. 1/ AIR QUALllY 

### UlVlSIOH '/. 

## r------- MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

# / P.O. BOX 30028 •.**LANSING~** MICHIGAN 48909 

### p II

.. 

### · A1r o 

### urron Control
o\PpiLJCATIOH TO THE AIR POLLUTION COMTROL COMMI$SIOM 

### \



### . NUV 

## 0 8 1977 lOt**aut~** il)l.- lo construct,**if~~~~~~~~** 01 ah<H
or.d fOf**~~it** to OP<>roh•**ptec<~IIB,** hwll ,bwnif11i, n•fuu lwrflir-9**all<i/~** oir polluticm c:onirol lllqUipt;»l'\1

I. i>Q:-IT TO lilt I"UI:O TO: (B...,U.u• Lo.c,,...a H...- of**C~~ Ptui...,•li.p,J...J~I**  O......t, eo-,.,._.......t Afl"J><:'/}

. . .. !>ledusa Cement O:?mperri, Division. i:,f**~** 

### CorPo'FltJ..oo ".·" · ... ).**"'<~.,-.--** 

# .... ;

a. lo1AII.IMO AODAlltU:.· (H_...r. Str<l.t, Cuy**.-Vi~,** Zi/J Ct..h}
_,_, -, . . . , p.·. 

### o

.. Btu. 5668.,· 

### Cl.evW.and>.Cftdt:.·.**,·Mloi;,;r.:~·J** 

## :·**;':..•i~;~R;~·~:::=·** 

## .. ,\ 

### .·

:a. r:ou•-•

... ,. o" ""oce:ss**L.oc:Ano~o~:** -**iN~** •• 

### s-

.... cuy**""vu.~.art.** r

.......... J.4o,. :t.4> Ct>J.ttJ t·

.... ":

.. ·**-~:·** .... ,.·.·.,**·~·>'-:=··** 

## _. ..... _ .. ,.,. ·;,;

. ., .. 

## c!W:levOh**~~ ·:.~~;·~-:~.iehl.qan**  

## ;**49720~~~~~~~!:l~ .:·.~,··.·~** **(~;;·~~~~~~~:·~~~~~f.-~t:.~:·;::~i·:£;,~~~~~**

If.**tt.Oul~.~** .0

...**~.".!~~~~~!;~;; AHitc~l.~_111i.~y**  ......... ,;..;;-i-<al"a'-.,. c_.-.:t,**~II** w el+w .,.ql t9**~·tw** 

### *-' kllq>WIAf**~i**

# ··:~~t~~;~=-~:~~~~~~-~~~·;i:J~~~~-~;1~::;~-.~. the 

### wet 

### 'tn ·:the Q:ry**m2rmi~Ct:url·n;g·· ~**  

## :- 

## Ana:.m**'~':its· &8~~~-:capaati**  

### :.:§
:f'%cEa 

## '1Z1r"200**abol:t<tow:q;ier:~·~tO·~~~:shol:t** 

### ..**tom.~::year.·(4;4oo** 

### .. .ahQxt 

### mns·:f?ar '·**~::.\:** day**~·:no** 

### &i.:ys**pOO::~::o:t'·eBwc;..:..r,·~iha~ajor' «M:C<~Joenta**  .. indl:ods.one-·rav·**~ .;·;;'-:..::.::-~.**  •

.. .• •'4."'

. .**~** •

. . . . . ..**"~** •. • .• l • • • ,41. '•**.~.:.** •.• 'ldl.l.;·CI:)8**~ion** preheator.wii::h**~ ~-U.ncl.nding**  kiln oonlfel:aion)',-··a**:~:** }[-'·:::.:' 'blQ'QcUng**-~** utilhi09 

### two**~-~·s.ln:l::ry** 

## i:.a:nkit'oo. ·finish grinding mlll'·tconve.rtaa::.r

nM mill) •. 

### additionB.**to~** 

### ·cHnJcar and 

### cement st:ora9e facl.llti.es to**a~b.** 

### ·.;:'·:·: suHia.Lmtly the**.i.ncn:e~ ~.,~:and.'btelve**  dust**~:rs~** .all**of~whieh ~·**  .:, ·· .. ··.**~** to in the attached Exhibit A., 

### which by th.i.s**~ce** .iss**~** £ul.ly 

### a ·part**h~:,**



# ·:

..**·.··ii~~t[:-.J;~\-f~_(\~~t~~Ji~~~!F:,~~-;~~f{fr.t\:!~-~~;:~~~;M~~t:** 

# ;:· 

# J

'J· ESTIIIIATII:D COllY:. • h.·.

l!>. '<AWl! 01' PRIOI'l OWNER AS IN Ill AtiOY£. ANO I"PUOI'l AIR l"'¢l..LUTION COHTI'IOL PI!I'IWIT NUNIIJi:PI, II' AMY:

. f/'1,._) 

### N/A : '.

. .. ·>-

. . . : · . · : (p,....."**H·~J**

10.

11. PI$1'0SITIOH 01' AP'I"L.ICATIOWI

### 5it~tw•----~-------------------------

'Of\ II A,._l I W 0/U EXHIBIT A-1

### SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT 

### No. 700-77

Medusa Cement Company Charlevoix, Michigan· (Revised May 15, 1979)



### GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all Commission rules and 

### w1th all specific conditions of this permit prior to issuance of the Permit to 0perate.


### 2. The restrictions 

### and conditions of this Permit to Install shall apply to any person or legal entity which now or shall hereafter own o.r operate the facili

### ties for which this Permit 

### to Install is issued. The Applicant shall immediately notify 

### the Commission of such change 

### 1n ownership 

### or principal operator status 

### of this facility.

3. 

### Act No. 53- Applicant shall notify any public 

### utility of any 

### excavation, tunr.el

### ing and discharging of explosives or demo1it1on of buildings which may 

### affect said utility's 

### facilities in accordance with Act No. 53 of the 

### Public Acts of 1974, being 

### Sections 460.701 to 460.718 of 

### the Michigar. Compiled Laws and comply with 

### each of the 

### requirements of that Act.


### 4. Rule 

### 21(4) -Trial operation 

### of the equipment is permitted until the Commission acts upon the Permit to Operate.


### 5. Rule 29(2)

- Not more than 30 days after completion of the 

### installation, the Applicant shall apply, in writing, to the Commission for a Permit to Operate. Completion of the insta11at1on is deemed to occur not later than commencement of a trial operation pursuant to Rule 21(4). Written application should be sent to: Chief; Permit Uryft, 

### Air Quality Division, Department of Natural Re
### sources. P.O. Box 30028. Lansing, Michigan 48909.

6. Rule 29(3b) -Operation of this facility 

### shall not interfere with the 

### attainment or maintenance of the air quality standard for any air contaminant.

7. 

### Rule 29(3d) -Operation of this facility shall not resu1t in substantia1 deterioration of air quality.


### 8. Rule 46- Operation of this facility shall not result in the emission of an air contaminant which causes or 

### will cause 

### detriment to the 

### safety, health, welfare
or 

### comfort of 

### any person or 

### which causes or 

### will cause damage to property or business.

9. Rule 21

- 

### Applicant shall 

### not reconstruct, alter, modify, 

### expand or relocate this facility unless plans, specifications and ar. application for a Permit to Install are submitted to and approved by 

### the Commission.

10. 

### Approval of this 

### permit does not obviate the 

### necessity of obtaining such permits
or 

### approvals from other units 

### of government as required by 

### law.

ll. Notification of any malfunction of process or control equipment resulting in

, 'bll'emissions in violation 

### of the Coamission 

### rules or 

### of any permit conditions**~L.Re~C~'** 

### should be 

### made to the District Engineer. Such notice**should~** 

### made as soon 

### Jot•.f'l

. as possible but not later than 9:00A.M. of the next working day. The notice**~~«~** 

### shall include a program of corrective act1on and shall be 

### confirmed in writing.

v.(**~** C..t

.... 

# -t ,,.., to•**..J_\,:...~ \-\\)-~-** 

### . '

.



### Medusa Cement Company Permit 

# No: 700-77 Page 2 

## MAY 1 5 

## 1979

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

12. The particulate emission rate from the clinker cooler shall not exceed 0.10 

### pounds per ton of dry feed. This limit is based on the federal Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart F.
13. The particulate emission rate from the dry process kiln and preheater shall not exceed 0.30 pounds per ton of dry 

### feed. This limit is based on the federal Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sourcest 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart F.
14. Federal Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources limit visible emissions to an opacity of less than 20% for the dry process kiln and preheater and 10% for all other dry process sources as 

### I
i



### specified in 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart F.**~~** 

## ;li The total sulfur dioxide emissions from the dry process kiln and

# ~**~~·preheater** 

### shall not exceed 250 

### pounds per hour. 

## -:;:::..-1/ M-f



### 17. 

### Rules 51, 52 & 

### 54

- Verification of

# partic~late and sulfur dioxide 

# te/d(**~~** emission rates by testing, at owner's expense, in ac.cordance with Me**'~-,** 

### Commission requirements will be required for operating approval. Stack testing procedures and the location of stack testing ports must be approved, in writing, by the Commission or its authorized representative.

18. Applicant shall not operate this facility unless a program which fl 

### describes the abatement measures and reporting procedures to be**~-~** 

### undertaken in the event of an ESP malfunction has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the District Engineer.
19. All source operating data shall be kept on file and made available to the District Engineer upon request.
20. The dry process kiln and preheater exhaust gases shall be discharged unobstructed vertically upwards to the atmosphere from stacks with maximum diameters of 6.5 and 11.0 feet, respectively, and at exit points not less than 225 and 323 feet above ground level, respectively.
21. Applicant shall not operate this facility unless opacity monitoring instrument(s) are installed on the kiln and preheater exhaust stacks. These monitors must conform to specifications outlined in 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix B. Performance Specifications. A report on occurrences and conditions responsible for opacities in excess of the allowable limits of 20% shall be submitted, in writing. to the District Engineer
on a monthly basis. 13**~L'- ~o..\\**  · -'.:
• 

### ...



### Medusa Cement Company Permit 

### No. 700-77 Page 3 

## MAY 1 5 1979

22. 

### Applicant shall not operate this facility unless a Malfunction·
,,

# ~**-·~** Abatement Plant to prevent. detect, and correct malfunctions or

## ~

23.

24.



### 25. 

### equipment failures resuJting in 

### emissions exceeding any applicable emission limitation has been submitted to and approved, in 

### writing, by 

### the Commission or its authorized representative. Applicant shall not operate this facility unless a program for**~ ~·**  

### maintaining aggressive yard maintenance and roadway**stabilization~-~** 

### to minimize wind borne dust emission has been submitted, in writing,

# ;~~.;;;;o;;:~;~~~:;r;;~~;;:;~;~;:~;;;~f~:**~~s~·~~~~1~~,o~; ~~ans**  '(

# ~ of pressure alleviation system{s) controlled by dust collection equipment. Applicant shall not operate this facility unless a Total Reduced

# ~' Sulfur (TRS) analyzer is 

### installed on the kiln exhaust stack.**~·** 

### Data from this monitor shall be maintained' at the plant and available for inspection by the staff upon request.
26. 

### Applicant shall not operate this 

### facility unless the oil firing, combustible analyzing, and related equipment described in Appendix A have been installed. · 27. 

### Within six months after start-up of this facility, the applicant shall complete testing of 

### the combustion analyzer instrumentation and shall implement the start-up procedures outlined in Appendix 

### B.

28. 

### For the period immediately after start-up of 

### the new facility (not to exceed six 

### months) the applicant shall attempt to minimize excessive emissions during a 

### start-up of 

### the kiln by following the prqcedures outlined in Appendix C. · 

### GLA:mb' 

# . Medusa Cement Company Permit No. 700-77 Page 4

APPENDIX A

1. 30,000 gallon oil storage tank

2.

3.

4. Unloading pump 200 gpm

- Truck to tank

- Transfer pump

- Tank to Burners

- 60 gpm

Oil distribution system

Instrumentation

- 0 2 & combustibles analyzers at

stage I exit ( 

### vJ'oT 'j

# Oo~) kiln exit, stage IV exit, and 

# l___ Te. te.!.'lv..e> o .V 

## o"d.t.v.

- Temperature sensors at kiln exit, stage IV exit, and stage I exit**~**
5. Flash furnace system

-2 oil burners

- 90 rmn BTU/hr, 10 gpm each -2 primary air blowers -controls

- pressure regulator

6. Kiln System burner control valves safety shut-off valve manual shut-off valves pressure switches and gauges primary air damper

\

- Combination coal and oil burner

- 225 mm BTU/hr 25 gpm oil

- Primary air blower for oil

- Controls

- pressure regulator

January 22, 1979 burner control valve safety shut-off valve manual shut-off valves pressure switches apd gauges primary air damper ·

### Medusa Cement Company Permit No. 700-77 Page 5

APPENDIX B

A No. 2 oil torch will be used to preheat and start the kiln system. Once the kiln system is stabilized, the oil feed will be reduced and coal feed started at a low rate. The coal feed will be increased while simultaneously reducing the oil feed until the kiln is operating entirely

on coal. The precipitator will remain in operation during the entire start up except for a brief period when the No. 2 oil torch is initially ignited to start the preheat.

However, to prevent a fire or explosion in the precipitator during start up
or during normal operation, combustible analyzers will be installed at the kiln exits, stage IV exit and stage I exit. The analyzers will be preset to alarm at a level of combustibles concentration in the gases. (Initially this value will be approximately 0.6\ but may be adjusted after some experience has been gained in operation.) When the alarm sounds, the kiln operator will take irnrnediate.action to reduce the combustible concentration.

Should the concentration of combustibles increase further to a preset value (initially, this value will be approximately**0.8~** but may be adjusted after

some experience has been gained in operation), the precipitator will be automatically de-energized to prevent a fire or explosion.

The kiln operator will restart the precipitator within 2 minutes.after the combustible analyzers indicate that combustibles are no longer present in the gases. The operator will have the ability to start the precipitator from the central control room in order to minimize the precipitator off time. 

### \

January 22, 1979.• '

. 

### Medusa Cement Company Permit No. 700-77 Page 6 APPENDIX C

1. Precipitator to be energized no later than two minutes after the kiln oil torch is Ht (using the existing No. 2 oil light-off torch), the flame is stabilized and the instrumentation shows the kiln system is purged of combustibles. (Time off not to exceed 25 minutes)

2. Precipitator will be energized during the several hours required to get the kiln hot." There will he no feed to the kiln**durin~** this period. The kiln will be rotated as required to provide proper heat distribution to prevent kiln thermal distortion.

3. Precipitator will remain energized a·s kiln feed is started.

4. Precipitator to be de-energized while the precalciner No. 2 oil burner is lit and. stabilized •. Precipitator will be again energized two minutes after the instrumentation shows the kiln system is purged of combustibles. (Total time off not.to exceed 15 minutes.)

5. Precipitator will continue to he energized as kiln feed is increased and kiln operation is stabilized.

6. Precipitator will be de-energized while the coal fired burners are ignited and stabilized. Precipitators will he again energized two minutes after the instrumentation shows the kiln system is purged of combustibles. (Total time off not to exceed 10 minutes each for kiln burner and precalciner burner.)

7. Precipitator will not be de-energized except by.automatic safety controls while kiln sysjem is brought to full production levels, run,**an~** shutdown.

8. The entire period of time that the precipitator is de-energized during start-up will range from 15 minutes to one hour.

January 22, 1979

# EXHIBIT D

ACTUAL COSTS OF 2002 CONSTRUCTION OF SUWANNEE, FLORIDA PLANT; AND WITH SUMMARY REDUCED TO 1978 DOLLARS FOR COMPARISON

(WITHOUT LAND ACQUISITION COSTS AND QUARRY COSTS) 

# REDACTED: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

# EXHIBITE

### MICHIGAN**DEPARTM~NT** 

### OF NATURAL RESOURCES AIR QUALITY DIVISION STAFF ACTIVITY REPORT February 21, 1978·**~JD.j** 

### cant 

### Medusa Cement Company Division of Medusa Corporation Charlevoix Township Charlevqix County, Michigan

Permit to Insta11 No. 700-77



## .?J..9DJ**fi..££!lL~te.~-** 

### November 8 0 

### 1977 · -- Application**receiv~d.** 

### December 6, 1977 

### January 3**~** 1978



### Proposed 

### Facilities District 

### Engineer approved site**loc~tion.** 

### Applicant subm'ltted a 

### waiver of the 

### 60-day time 

### limit for permit 

### action.

The applicant 

### is proposing to install the equipment 

### necessary to convert the existing plant from the \vet 

### to the 

### dry process. 

### ·This new equipment consists 

### of shortening the kiln and installing a preheater 

### with a new electrostatic ptecipitator, 

### modifications to the clinker cooler and the installation of a gravel bed filter,


### one new roller mill. 

### several new raw material 

### storage**silos~** 

### one new blending silo,
one clinker**storag~** 

### dome, 

### the conversion of the wet raw ball mill to a finish mill, and severa·1 new cement storage 

### silos. lhe 

### material handling and sforage 

### equipment 

### will be contro 11 ed by bag fi 

### 1 ter co 11 ectors.

This conversion will 

### increase the cement p1·oducti 

### on rate from 

### 2,400 tons 

### per 

### day to 4,800 tons per day and the coal usage will increase from 

### 20 tons per day to 24 l/2 tons per 

### day. lherefo1·e, this 

### conversion will increase the production and decrease the 

### energy usage per ton of product produced.

Analysis of Impact
The following 

### list gives the allowed emission 

### rates fo1n 

### the major pollutants 

### for the existing and proposed 

### equipment:

. :·**~**

### ,. 

### Staff Activity Report

- page two !Vledusa 

### Cement Company February 21, 1978



### Existing Equipment Proposed Equipment Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Equipment Pollutant Pounds/Hour Tons/Year Pounds/Hr. Tons/Year


### Kiln and proposed Particulate 288 1.071 99' 368



### preheater

- Sulfur dioxide 1 '184 

### 4,404 250·*·- 930 

### Nitrogen oxides 580 

### 2,158 237 

### 882


### Clinker cooler

- Particulate 173 758 

### 33 145 

### Proposed 

### storage and

handling equipment

- 

## (not app1icab1e) 65 285



### Staff's evaluation indicates that the two electrostatic precipitators for the exist- ·ing l<i1n and proposed preheater and roller mi11 are adequate to control particulate**emissiot:~s** 

### so as to comply with the Federal New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) of 

### 0.30 pounds of particulate per ton of dry 

### feed with one of the 

### five fields 

### not functioning and that the 

### gravel bed filter will be adequate to control the particulate ,emissions from the clinker cooler to less than 0.10 pounds of particulate per 

### ton of dry feed which is also the NSPS limit. Staff's evaluation also indicates that the two precipitators, the gravel bed filter and the proposed bag filter collectors for the miscellaneous material handling and storage equipment will be suitable to comply with 

### the New Source Performance Standards for opacity emissions. There are no by-

· passes for any of the collectors.
The expected sulfur 

### dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions 

### ay·e based on test data submitted by 

### the applicant for similar dry process**ceme~t** 

### plants located in Japan. Existing**~mission** 

### rate data is also based on stack test data.
rhe staff's dispersion analysis indicates that the ground level concentrations of**particulate~** 

### sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide resulting from the proposed equipment 

### will be 

### significantly 

### less than 

### the existing concentrations due to 

### ·the large reduction in the emissions of these pollutants. The location of the existing plant has been proposed as attainment for all pollutants.

rhe 

### applicant has 

### estimated that the**modifi~ations** 

### should decrease the potential odor emissions from that 

### plant by 75% or 

### more. Wh'ile 

### the staff has beer. unable to quantify the potential odor reduction. the staff does agree with the applicant that there should be a reduction in the odor emissions since (a) the preheater and roller mill will act as a dr·y 

### scrubber for the sulfur compounds, (b) a larger 

### percentage of the combustion gasses will be exhausted from a higher stack and (c) since the new process should be more stable than the conventional wet process. At present, staff does not consider the cement plant to be causing an odor problem.
Based on our evaluation. staff is of the opinion that the installation of the pro- posed equipment will not have a significant impact on maintaining air quality standards nor cause substantia1 deterioration of the air quality.

### Staff Activity Report

- page 

### three Medusa 

### Cement**~ompany** 

### February 21 2 

### 1978

Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of Permit to Install No, 700-77 subject to the 

### conditions specified in the attached supplement,

Submitted by: Jerry Avery 

### January**23~** 

### 1978 

### JA:jh


### Attachment

# EXHIBITFvvr[KNDRusts$CHARLEVOIX:MedusaC?rp.officialsannouncedhereThursdaynightthattheyaredoublingtheiroriginal$25mi!!ioninvestmentinCharlevoix'sSouthPointplantwitha$50millionconversiontodry-cementmanufacture.FromleftareScottRogers;corporationpresident:E!erySedgwich,amemberoftheboardofdirectorswhowasinstrumentalinlocatingthep!antatCharlevoix12yearsago;Jacklrmscher,presidentoftheCementDivision;andElbertKaiser.plantmanager.INEWSphotobyBobClock).Vol.101No.24528PagesfridaySeptember16.1977Petoskey,Michigan.20¢MillionExpll!l\lns1nCharlevoixPlantWillbei..•ConvertedtoDryProcessByBOBCLOCKC!!ARLEVOIX-Medusa.Gorp.announcedThursdaynightthati(isdoublingitsinvestmentln<;:harlevolx·witha$00millionconstructionprojectthat.wiilchangethemethodofmanufaC>turing·cementfromthewetprocesstothedryprocess.Workonthechangeover.isexpectedtoprovidejobsforan•eStimated800people,startingneXtspringandcontinuingfortwoyears..·Fw:fuermore,sulphuroXideemissionswhichsometimesareoffensivetoCharlevoixanswhenthewindisinthewrongdirectionwillbecutinhalfbyswitchingtothe.dryprocesS.Thesteamplumeatthemouthofthestackalsowilldisappear.WorkonthepresentMedusaplantwasstarted.inJuly,!965,withdedicationin.August,1967.C<lStoftheoriginalfacilitycameto$25million,alth9ughsevera1improvementshavebeenmadeovertheyears,includbgmoresophisticatedprecipitationWhentheconversioniscompleted,thecompanyexpectstoaddequipmentandconstructionofaLargeclinkerstoragebtiilding.from12to20employestoitspresentworkforceatSouthPolnt280FootTowerThe.Plantpresentlyemploysabout100persons.Themostobviousfeatureofthenew·improvementswillbea.AnnouncementoftheplanswasmadeatacivicdinneratGrey28o-foot-hlgh·pre-heattowerwhichwillheatandcalcinateGables,hostedbyMedusaofficialsfr.omthehoineofficeinlimestonebeforeitthekiln.ThenewstructlU'el'<illtowerCleveland·andtheCharlevoixplant.Guestsincludedcity,countyoverthepresentsiloson-theslip,whichareonly200feethlgh.andtownshipofficersandindustryrepresentatives.Because.thelimestonewon'thavetobedriedasslurryisatcompanypointedoutthattheprojectispartofMedusa's.present,thelengthofthekilnwillbereducedbyone-hall.overallprogramtomeettheFederalEnergyAdministration'sHowlettsaidaSO·foot·highrollermillalsoisplannedwhichwillgoalofreducingfuelconsumption!8percentby!982.befullyenclosedtoreducenoisepollution.Theproposedchangesalsowilldoublethecapacityoftheplant·HeaddedthataUraucousoperationsattheplantwillbeput·thelargestinMedusa'sstableofcementfacilities-andresultinunderwrapsasanoiseabatementmeasure.amoreuniformproductwithnosacrificeinquality.·ScottRogers,MedusaCOrp.president,·saidthatbeforetheOfthetotalcost,$5millionwillgotowardmodernparticulatecompanydecidedtoconverttheCharlevoixplanttoitprecipitationequiprnent·WhichwillreduceemissionsfromtheinvestigatednewtechnolDgydevelopedinEuropeandJapanstackby20percentwithonlyfourofthefiveunitsinoperation.whichhasmadethenew'methodmoreeconomical,cleaner·andCharlesHowlett,vicepresident-operations,saidwillmoreodorfreethanthewetprocess.Dbewellwithinlimitsofthetoughnewfederalairpollutioncode.,SeeMedusapage2QU€_,arlorsWillbe·,tations·i;;as.willbesold!bebul!ding,althoughBarnessa!d