### Operating company **Ash Grove Cement**

**Facility Montana City**  **State MT/EPA R-8**  **Contact Vanessa Hinkle**  **EPA R8**

**Distance to nearest Class I Area (km) 30**  **Gates of the Mountains WA # of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km**  **1 of 12**

**Proposed BART Control Option for long, wet kiln LNB&SNCR**  Current Emissions (tpy) 1,891 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Capital Cost 1,191,633 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules O&M Cost 1,989,187 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Total Annual Cost 2,238,892 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Reduction 58% Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Reductions (tpy) 1,088 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules New Emisison Rate (tpy) 803 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 2,058 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules

**Proposed BART limit for long, wet kiln 8.0**  lb NOx/ton clinker (30-day rolling average) Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules **Visibility analyses** Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 4.446 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.198 calculated from EPA report Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.248 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 1,793,984 $ calculated from EPA report Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0011 calculated from EPA report Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 8.279 calculated from EPA report Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 5.508 calculated from EPA report Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 2.771 calculated from EPA report Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) 807,973 $ calculated from EPA report Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0025 calculated from EPA report

### hinkle.vanessa@epa.gov (303) 312–6561

**Gates of the Mountains WA**

Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules

lb NOx/ton clinker (30-day rolling average) Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules calculated from EPA report Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report**Operating company CEM**  **EX Facility**  **Lyons State**  **CO Contact** 

**Distance to nearest Class I A rea (km)**  **# of Class I A reas evaluated/within 300 km**  **2 of 2**

**Proposed BA RT Control Option for preheater/precalciner kiln**  **SNCR** Current Emissions (lb/ton clinker) 7.39 Current Emissions (tpy ) 1,747.1 Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Annual Cost 1,636,636 $ Reduction (annual average) 48.4% Reductions (tpy ) 846.1 **New Emisison Rate (lb/hr on a 30-day rolling average) 255.3**  New Em isison Rate (tpy ) 901.0 Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 1,934 $

**Visibility analyses** Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.76 Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.38 Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.38 Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 4,306,937 $ Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00045 Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 0.95 Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 0.48 Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.48 Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) 3,445,549 $ Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00056

The Ly ons plant was originally constructed by

Martin Marietta in the late 1960’s and utilized a long dry kiln to produce Portland cement. During the 1980’s the plant was operated by the Southdown Corporation and was later acquired by

CEMEX in 2000. In 1980 a flash vessel was added to the kiln system, which destroys organic material (kerogen) present in the limestone and allows some of the calcination process to occur prior to entering the kiln. Along with this change the kiln was cut in half. The flash vessel was installed to allow kerogen to be combusted such that it is not vaporized and then emitted to the atmosphere where it can condense forming fine particulate matter that can result in a blue haze. Cemex has a single stage preheater/precalciner ty pe system. Particulate emissions are controlled by fabric filter baghouses and wet dust suppression techniques.

NOx: Installation of selective non-cataly tic reduction (SNCR) on the kiln system to reduce existing actual NOx levels by 40% on a 30-day

rolling hourly

average basis. This is approximately 60% below the existing permit lim it. Compliance will be demonstrated by use of a continuous emission monitor as defined in the operating permit. The Division is also aware that Cemex may be able to do better than 40% and will require that 50% reduction be met on an annual ton per y ear (rolling 12-month) basis. The Division will propose that the 12-month rolling total emissions be reduced 50% from the 2005-2006 annual average total of 1801.5 tons of NOx to 901.0 tons of NOx per y ear (12-month rolling total). This means that there will be a 40% reduction required on 30-day

rolling hourly

average and a 50% reduction on a 12-month rolling total basis from actuallevels. These reductions are also 66% lower than the current allowable NOx limit contained in the operating permit. The Division also notes that the flash vessel at Cemex is unique and may affect how well SNCR will perform at the plant. Because of this uncertainty the Division will not specify the ammonia injection or slip rate but will allow Cem ex to meet the NOx limits through SNCR technology and process controls. Improving process controls may

allow Cem ex to limit formation of NOx in the kiln and thus meet the NOx limits while reducing ammonia use.

SO2: No additional control because the cement manufacturing process inherently controls SO2 through interaction of sulfur compounds with the limestone in the kiln and the dust cake inside the fabric filter baghouses. New allowable em ission rates will be established based on the process control of SO2. Compliance will be demonstrated by use of a continuous emission monitor as defined in the operating permit.

Particulate Matter: Cemex will continue to utilize particulate controls including fabric filter baghouses and dust suppression techniques, currently required to meet the MACT standard for Portland cement plants. Compliance will be demonstrated by continuous opacity

monitors, periodic stack testing, and work practice requirements.**Rocky M ountain National Park** 

**single-stage flash calciner preceding dry kiln** CDPHE report CDPHE report not available not available CDPHE report CDPHE report CDPHE report CDPHE report Accordingly , as part of its five factor consideration the state has elected to generally CDPHE report em ploy criteria for NOx post-combustion control options to aid in the assessment and CDPHE report determinations for BART – a $/ton of NOx removed cap, and two minimum applicable Δdv im provement figures relating to CALPUFF modeling for certain emissions control ty pes, as follows. CDPHE report - For the highest-performing NOx post-combustion control options (i.e., SCR CDPHE report systems for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant CDPHE report reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit calculated on 0.50 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that level of control is calculated generally viewed as reasonable. calculated - For lesser-performing NOx post-combustion control options (e.g., SNCR calculated technologies for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of calculated pollutant reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled calculated visibility benefit of 0.20 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that calculated level of control is generally viewed as reasonable.

The Ly ons plant was originally constructed by

Martin Marietta in the late 1960’s and utilized a long dry kiln to produce Portland cement. During the 1980’s the plant was operated by the Southdown Corporation and was later acquired by

CEMEX in 2000. In 1980 a flash vessel was added to the kiln system, which destroys organic material (kerogen) present in the limestone and allows some of the calcination process to occur prior to entering the kiln. Along with this change the kiln was cut in half. The flash vessel was installed to allow kerogen to be combusted such that it is not vaporized and then emitted to the atmosphere where it can

NOx: Installation of selective non-cataly tic reduction (SNCR) on the kiln system to reduce existing actual NOx levels by 40% on a 30-day

rolling hourly

average basis. This is approximately 60% below the existing permit lim it. Compliance will be demonstrated by use of a continuous emission monitor as defined in the operating

that 50% reduction be met on an annual ton per y ear (rolling 12-month) basis. The Division will propose that the 12-month rolling total emissions be reduced 50% from the 2005-2006 annual average total of 1801.5 tons of NOx to 901.0 tons of NOx per y ear (12-month rolling total). This means that there will be a 40% reduction required on 30-day

rolling hourly

average and a 50% reduction on a 12-month rolling total basis from actuallevels. These reductions are also 66% lower than the current allowable NOx limit contained in the operating permit. The Division also notes that the flash vessel at Cemex is unique and may affect how well SNCR will perform at the plant. Because of this uncertainty the Division will not specify the ammonia injection or slip rate but will allow Cem ex to meet the NOx limits through SNCR technology and process controls. Improving process controls may

allow Cem ex to limit formation of NOx in the kiln and thus meet the NOx limits while

SO2: No additional control because the cement manufacturing process inherently controls SO2 through

Particulate Matter: Cemex will continue to utilize particulate controls including fabric filter baghouses and dust

Compliance will be demonstrated by continuous opacity

monitors, periodic stack testing, and work practiceAccordingly , as part of its five factor consideration the state has elected to generally

em ploy criteria for NOx post-combustion control options to aid in the assessment and determinations for BART – a $/ton of NOx removed cap, and two minimum applicable Δdv im provement figures relating to CALPUFF modeling for certain emissions control

- For the highest-performing NOx post-combustion control options (i.e., SCR systems for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant reduced by

the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit on 0.50 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that level of control is

- For lesser-performing NOx post-combustion control options (e.g., SNCR technologies for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant reduced by

the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit of 0.20 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that**Operating company Holcim Cement**  **Facility Florence**  **State CO**  **Contact**

**Distance to nearest Class I A rea (km)**  66 **# of Class I A reas evaluated/within 300 km** 

**Proposed RP Control Option for Preheater/Precalciner kiln SNCR**  Current Emissions (tpy ) 2,628 Current Emissions (tpy ) 3,186 Capital Cost 1,000,000 $ O&M Cost Total Annual Cost 2,520,000 $ Reduction 45% Reductions (tpy ) 1,099 New Em isison Rate (tpy ) 2,087 Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 2,293 $

**Visibility analyses** Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.814 Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.526 Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.288 Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 8,750,000 $ Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00026 Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)**Great Sand Dunes**

CDPHE report permit limit--CDPHE report CDPHE report

CDPHE report CDPHE report CDPHE report CDPHE report CDPHE report

CDPHE report CDPHE report CDPHE report calculated calculated**Operating company Holcim Cement**  **Facility Trident**  **State MT/EPA**  **R-8 Contact**  **Vanessa Hinkle EPA**  **R8**

**Distance to nearest Class I A rea (km)**  **Gates of the Mountains WA # of Class I A**  **reas evaluated/within 300 km 2** 

**Proposed BA RT Control Option for long, wet kiln**  **SNCR** Current Emissions (tpy ) 1,112 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Capital Cost 5,698,107 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules O&M Cost 447,946 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Total Annual Cost 985,845.00 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Reduction 58% Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Reductions (tpy ) 645 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules New Em isison Rate (tpy ) 467 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 1,528 $ Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules

**Proposed BA RT limit for long, wet kiln**  **5.5** lb NOx/ton clinker (30-day rolling average) Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules **Visibility analyses** Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.980 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.556 calculated from EPA report Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.424 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 2,325,106 $ calculated from EPA report Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00066 calculated from EPA report Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 1.391 calculated from EPA report Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 0.796 calculated from EPA report Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.595 calculated from EPA report Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) 1,656,882 $ calculated from EPA report Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00092 calculated from EPA reporthinkle.vanessa@epa.gov (303) 312–6561

**Gates of the Mountains WA**

Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules

lb NOx/ton clinker (30-day rolling average) Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules calculated from EPA report Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday , April 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report calculated from EPA report**Operating company LaFarge North A**  **merica (cement)**

**Facility Al**  **pena State**  **MI Contact** 

**Distance to nearest Class I A rea (km)**  **250 Seney NWR**  **# of Class I A reas evaluated/within 300 km**  **1 of 1**

**Kiln #19 Kiln #20**  **Proposed BA RT Control Option for long, dry process kilns**  **SNCR SNCR**  Current Emissions (tpy ) 3,459 3,459 Reductions (tpy ) 1,210 1,210 Reductions 35% 35% Capital Cost 2,526,285 $ 2,526,285

$ O&M Cost 323,804 $ 323,804

$ Total Annual Cost 884,867 $ 884,867

$ Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 731 $ 731

$

**New Emisison Rate (lb/day)** New Em isison Rate (tpy )

**Visibility analyses** Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)**LaFarge North A merica (cement)** 

**Kiln #21 Kiln #22**  **Kiln #23 Kiln #22**  **Kiln #23**

**SNCR SNCR**  **SNCR wet FGD**  **wet FGD Totals**  3,459 5,742 5,742 12,093 12,093 46,046 $ 1,210 2,297 2,297 10,884 10,884 29,992 $ 35% 40% 40% 90% 90% 2,526,285 $ 2,250,080 2,250,080 63,136,000 $ 63,136,000

$ 138,351,015

$ 323,804 $ 516,011 516,011 1,503,034 $ 1,503,034

$ 5,009,502

$ 884,867 $ 1,143,871 1,143,871 11,830,426 $ 11,830,426

$ 28,603,195

$ 731 $ 498

$ 498

$ 1,087

$ 1,087

$

1.301 0.746 0.555 51,537,288 $ **NOx Controls SO2 Controls** calculated

calculated company

report company

report company

report sum of company

reports company

report

company

report company

report calculated calculated**Operating company St. Mary's Cement** 

**Facility Charlevoix**  **State MI**  **Contact**

**Distance to nearest Class I A rea (km)**  **# of Class I A reas evaluated/within 300 km**  **1 of 1**

**Proposed BA RT Control Option for preheater/precalciner kiln**  **existing LNB** Current Emissions (tpy ) 5,243 Reductions (tpy ) Reductions Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Annual Cost Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

**New Emisison Rate (lb/day)** New Em isison Rate (tpy )

**Visibility analyses** Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 5.26 Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)**St. Mary's Cement**

**Seney NWR**

**rejected SNCR EPA**  **SNCR** 5,243 company

report 2,518 EPA 5/24/12 10% company

report 50% EPA FR Notice 524 company

report 1,259 EPA FR Notice 3,470,224 $ company report 4,979,017

$ EPA 5/24/12 2,486,096 $ company report 541,063

$ EPA 5/24/12 3,967,626 $ company report 1,237,597

$ calculated 7,568 $ company report 983

$ EPA FR Notice

company

report

0.4 EPA FR Notice

3,093,993 $ calculated**Operating company Facility**  **State Contact** 

**Distance to nearest Class I A rea (km)**  **# of Class I A reas evaluated/within 300 km** 

**Proposed BA RT Control Option for wet process kiln**  Current Emissions (tpy ) Reductions (tpy ) Reductions Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Annual Cost Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) **New Emisison Rate (lb/day)** New Em isison Rate (tpy )

**Visibility analyses** Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)**LaFarge North A merica (cement)** 

**Seattle WA**  **Al Newman**  **360-407-6810 anew461@ecy.wa.gov** 

**53 Al**  **pine Lakes WA 1 of 9** 

**NOx SO2**  **SNCR or mid-kiln firing of whole tires dry sorbent injection**  **WA Ecology report**  2,172.5 570 WA Ecology report 869 142.5 WA Ecology report 40% 25% WA Ecology report 1,499,410 $ 6,090,000 $ WA Ecology report 1,082,997 $ WA Ecology report 1,224,541 $ 574,896 $ WA Ecology report 1,409 $ 4,034 $ WA Ecology report **22,960 8,620**  WA Ecology report 4,190 1,573 calculated from W A Ecology report

**combined NOx + SO2 controls** 2.96 WA Ecology report at Oly mp ic NP 1.937 WA

Ecology report at Oly mp ic NP calculated from W A Ecology report 1,758,980 $ calculated from W A Ecology report 0.00101 calculated from W A Ecology report 12.96 calculated from W A Ecology report 8.254 calculated from W A Ecology report 4.706 calculated from W A Ecology report 382,371 $ calculated from W A Ecology report 0.00465 calculated from W A Ecology report 1.02$/ton
Essroc Cement PA Kiln #5 long, wet 35% 1,014 $ Lehigh Cement/York PA white cement 35% 1,505 $ Lehigh Cement Company/Evansville PA Kiln #1 dry preheater 60% 627 $ Lehigh Cement Company/Evansville PA Kiln #2 dry preheater 60% 627 $ Lafarge Corporation/Whitehall PA Kiln #2 dry preheater 25% 1,804 $ Lafarge Corporation/Whitehall PA Kiln #3 dry preheater 25% 2,144 $ Cemex/Wampum PA Kiln #3 long, dry kiln 35% 1,014 $ Keystone Cement PA Kiln #2 long, wet kiln 35% 1,014 $
Ash Grove Cement MT long, wet kiln 58% 2,058 $
CEMEX CO preheater/precalciner 48% 1,934 $
Holcim Cement CO preheater/precalciner 45% 2,293 $
Holcim Cement MT long, wet kiln 58% 1,528 $ LaFarge North America (cement) MI Kiln #19 long, dry process kilns 35% 731 $ LaFarge North America (cement) MI Kiln #20 long, dry process kilns 35% 731 $ LaFarge North America (cement) MI Kiln #21 long, dry process kilns 35% 731 $ LaFarge North America (cement) MI Kiln #22 long, dry process kilns 40% 498 $ LaFarge North America (cement) MI Kiln #23 long, dry process kilns 40% 498 $ St. Mary's Cement MI preheater/precalciner 50% 983 $ LaFarge North America (cement) WA we t process kiln 40% 4,190 $ Company Kiln Type BART Unit SNCR Reduction % SNCR Cost
State$/dv

7,494,026 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 10,606,000 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 8,094,250 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 8,094,250 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 27,177,065 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 24,336,753 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 4,678,401 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 23,431,248 $ Seasonal NO Xcontrols 1,793,984 $ LNB&SNCR 4,306,937 $ SNCR 8,750,000 $ SNCR 2,325,106 $ SNCR

SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR 3,093,993 $ EPA SNCR 1,758,980 $ SNCR or mid-kiln firing of whole tires BART SNCR Cost