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 DALLAS 
Ms. 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 categorized 
Ms. 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 if 
Ms. 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 _I 
essentially 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 facilities 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.eling 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 Resources. 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. ~~ 

~~·preheater ;li The total sulfur shall not 

dioxide 

exceed 

emissions 

250 pounds 

from 

per 

the 

hour. 

dry process kiln and ~ -:;:::..-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~: of pressure alleviation system{s) controlled ~~s~·~~~~1~~,o~; by dust collection ~~ans '( ~ equipment. 

Applicant 

Sulfur (TRS) 

shall 

analyzer 

not operate 

is installed 

this facility 

on the kiln 

unless 

exhaust 

a Total 

stack. 

Reduced ~' ~· 

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 80 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 
EXHIBITF 
vvr 

[ 

K 

N 

D 

R 

us ts$ 

CHARLEVOIX: Medusa C?rp. officials announced here Thursday night that they are doubling their original 

$25 mi!!ion investment in Charlevoix's South Point plant with a $50 million conversion to dry-cement 

manufacture. From left are Scott Rogers; corporation president: E!ery Sedgwich, a member of the board of 

directors who was instrumental in locating the p!ant at Charlevoix 12 years ago; Jack lrmscher, president of 

the Cement Division; and Elbert Kaiser. plant manager. I NEWS photo by Bob Clock) 

. Vol. 101 No. 245 

MillionExp 

Charlevoix Pla

i . . 

Converted to Dr

By BOB CLOCK 

C!!ARLEVOIX- Medusa.Gorp. announced Thursday night that 

i( is doubling its investment ln <;:harlevolx ·with a $00 million 

construction project that. wiil change the method of manufaC> 

turing· cement from the wet process to the dry process. 

Work on the changeover. is expected to provide jobs for an 

• eStimated 800 people, starting neXt spring and continuing for 

two years .. 

·Fw:fuerm

offensive to 

will be cut 

plume at t

Work on 

with dedicato $25 milli

over the 

When the conversion is completed, the company expects to add equipment 

from 12 to 20 employes to its present workforce at South Polnt 

The .Plant presently employs about 100 persons. The mos

. Announcement of the plans was made at a civic dinner at Grey 28o-foot-hlg

Gables, hosted by Medusa officials fr.om the hoine office in limestone b

Cleveland· and the Charlevoix plant. Guests included city, county over the pr

and township officers and industry representatives. Because

company pointed out that the project is part of Medusa's .present, th

overall program to meet the Federal Energy Administration's Howlett s

goal of reducing fuel consumption !8 percent by !982. be fully en

Theproposedchangesalsowilldoublethecapacityoftheplant· He added 

·the largest in Medusa's stable of cement facilities- and result in under wra

a more uniform product with no sacrifice in quality. ·Scott Ro

Of the total cost, $5 million will go toward modern particulate company d

precipitation equiprnent·Which will reduce emissions from the investigate

stack by 20 percent with only four of the five units in operation. which has 

Charles Howlett, vice president-operations, said will more odor 

be well within limits of the tough new federal air pollution code. , 

arl

·i;;as.will