Sources that are Potentially Major Sources for PSD

This list is not an applicability determination for any source. It is intended to be a list of sources that may potentially be affected by the federal NSR reform program.

This list does not include new sources that have not yet begun operation. Sources that had low emissions during the screening years may not be included on this list.

Sources that are already allowed to use actual to projected actual test under WEPCO NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

1 Intermountain Power Service Corporation Intermountain Generation Station X X X X X

2 PacifiCorp Hunter Power Plant X X X X X

3 PacifiCorp Huntington Power Plant X X ? X X

4 PacifiCorp Carbon Power Plant X X ? X X

5 PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant X X

6 Sunnyside Cogeneration Associates Sunnyside Cogeneration Facility X ? X X

7 PacifiCorp Currant Creek

NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

8 Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation N Concentrator,Power Plt, Lab, Tailings ImpoundmntX X X

9 Tesoro West Coast Salt Lake City Refinery X X X X

10 Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation Smelter, Refinery X X X

11 Brigham Young University Main Campus X X

12 Payson City Corporation Payson City Power X

13 Provo City Power Power Plant X

14 Geneva Nitrogen Inc. Geneva Nitrogen Plant X

15 Silver Eagle Refining - Woods Cross Inc. Petroleum Products Refining X

Sources in PM10 Nonattainment or Ozone Maintenance Area that are not initially affected by 

changes to PSD rule
Sources that are Potentially Major Sources for PSD

This list is not an applicability determination for any source. It is intended to be a list of sources that may potentially be affected by the federal NSR reform program.

This list does not include new sources that have not yet begun operation. Sources that had low emissions during the screening years may not be included on this list.

NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

Sources that have undergone PSD Review

1 Graymont Western US Incorporated Cricket Mountain Plant X X X X

2 Ashgrove Cement Company Leamington Cement Plant X X X

3 Nucor Steel Nucor Steel X X X X

4 ATK Thiokol Propulsion Promontory Plant X

5 Holcim (US) Inc Devil'S Slide Plant X X X X X

6 Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation West Desert Operation - Salt & Potash Plants X

7 Holly Refining and Marketing Company Phillips Refinery X X X X X

Sources that have been regulated under minor source NSR, SIP, or other regulatory programs NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

8 US Magnesium LLC Rowley Plant X X X

9 Questar Pipeline Company Kastler/Marushack Compressor Station X X

10 Chevron Products Co - SL Refinery Salt Lake Refinery X X X X X

11 EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Incorporated Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant X X X

12 Flying J Incorporated Flying J Refinery (Big West Oil Co.) X X X X

13 Chemical Lime Company Grantsville Plant X X X

14 St George City Power Red Rock Power Generating Station X

15 Deseret Chemical Depot Deseret Chemical Depot (South Area) X

16 Vulcraft, Division of Nucor Corporation Steel Products Manufacturing X

17 Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Company Pipe Casting Plant X X

18 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC Zirconium/Halfnium Production Plant X

19 University of Utah University Of Utah Facilities X X

20 Interstate Brick Brick Manufacturing Plant X

21 Wasatch Integrated Waste Management Energy Recovery Facility (Dcerf) X
Grandfathered Sources (Most of the plant not covered by AO) NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

22 Pacificorp Little Mountain Power Plant X

23 Canyon Gas Resources LLC San Arroyo Plant X

24 El Paso Field Operations Company Bluebell Gas Plant X

25 El Paso Field Operations Company Altamont Main Gas Processing Plant X X

26 Canyon Gas Resources LLC Westwater Compressor Station X

27 Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation Bridger Lake Plant X

28 El Paso Field Operations Company Altamont South Compressor Station X

29 El Paso Field Operations Company Altamont East Compressor Station X

8 Sources with emissions > 1000 tpy any pollutant

11 Sources with emissions <300 tpy any pollutant
y the federal NSR reform program.

years may not be included on this list.

1999 Emissions

Comment NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

 28,261 1,943 158 3,698 1,312

 20,305 2,269 127 7,045 1,057

 15,019 1,592 88 13,901 740

 2,980 196 <50 4,388 63

 200 <50 <50 <50 154

 460 72 <50 1,059 95

 - - -

1999 Emissions

Comment NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

 2,202 167 <50 2,818 115

 534 89 246 1,107 71

 216 281 <50 789 127

 76 <50 <50 124 55

 61 <50 57 <50 <50

 15 <50 <50 <50 <50

 76 <50 <50 <50 <50

 100 <50 102 <50 <50
y the federal NSR reform program.

years may not be included on this list.

1999 Emissions

Year PSD Permit Issued Comment NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

1979 (new source), 1996 1,203 256 220 275 436

1980 (new source), 1995, 1996, 2005 1,367 113 <50 <50 13,352

1982, 1994, 1997, 2001 Began operation in 1980 237 92 52 60 1,670

1988, 1995, 2002 (new units - test shuttle motors DAQE-AN0009086-02) 158 838 75 <50 110

1996, 2001, 2002 1,258 240 <50 276 1,539

1996, <50 253 <50 <50 <50

2005? (source also addressed in PM10 and ozone SIPs) 640 117 260 787 780

Comment NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

MACT (Cl2, HCl), BACT 1124 713 384 <50 316

NSPS(Subparts GG, KKK, Kb), BACT 772 <50 51 <50 67

PM10 SIP, Ozone SIP 584 126 276 792 362

BACT, NSPS (Subparts Dc, LLL, KKK) 432 <50 74 1349 556

PM10 SIP, Ozone SIP 215 <50 413 442 209

BACT (a portion of the crushing and handling equipment is grandfathered) 124 86 <50 <50 82

BACT 119 <50 <50 <50 <50

BACT, NSPS (Subparts Dc, EEE) 74 <50 <50 <50 <50

BACT for major VOC emission sources <50 <50 441 <50 <50

PM10 SIP, CO SIP, BACT <50 <50 286 <50 1269

BACT <50 <50 <50 <50 2191

PM10 SIP, NSPS (Subpart Dc), BACT 107 <50 <50 <50 63

PM10 SIP, BACT <50 97 65 <50 88

BACT, State Plan for Desig. Fac. 292 <50 <50 51 <50
Comment NOx PM10 VOC SO2 CO

18 MW gas turbine/generator grandfathered 259 <50 <50 <50 63

3 compressor engines grandfathered 391 <50 <50 <50 57

6 compressor engines grandfathered 579 <50 55 <50 182

8 compressor engines grandfathered 403 <50 110 <50 339

2 of 3 compressors engines grandfathered 56 <50 <50 <50 282

5 of 8 compressor engines grandfathered 230 <50 <50 <50 228

3 compressor engines grandfathered 205 <50 <50 <50 79

4 compressor engines grandfathered 156 <50 64 <50 66
Emission Changes that would occur in Utah due to the adoption of the NSR Reform Provisions for PSD

Scenario

Would the change be 

a major modification 

under the current 

PSD rules?

Would the change 

be a major 

modification under 

NSR Reform PSD 

rules?

Would the change 

be reviewed under 

Utah's state NSR 

program?

Modeling required 

by State modeling 

rule to determine 

impact on NAAQS?

Net change in actual 

emissions due to 

adoption of NSR 

Reform

A. New major source Yes Yes Yes Yes 0

B. Big project at an existing major source (production 

increase, big new unit, major change in process) Yes Yes Yes Yes 0

C. New unit added at a major source that emits 100 tons/yr 

NOx. The major source has had a series of emission 

increases and decreases over the last 5 years. The 

combination of emission increases and decreases equals + 

39 tons/yr NOx. No No Yes - BACT required Yes 0

D. An existing major source has fluctuating emissions and is 

currently operating well below its permitted capacity. Most of 

the emissions come from one big emissions unit. No 

changes are made at the source, but market conditions 

improve and so the source increases to full capacity resulting 

in a large increase in emissions. No No No No 0

D.1 Source in scenario D adds a new emergency generator 

that emits 10 tons/yr NOx. No No 

Yes - BACT required 

on new generator No 0

D.2 Source in scenario D makes a modification to improve 

efficiency by 30%, leading to a permitted emission increase 

of 10 tons/yr. Yes No Yes - BACT required No 0

D.3 Source in scenario D makes a modification that reduce 

permitted NOx emissions by 30%. Assume BACT would 

reduce NOx emissions by 50%. Yes No No No

possible increase in 

emissions, more likely 

emissions will 

decrease because 

disincentive is no 

longer there

D.4 Source in scenario D waits 2 years and then installs low 

NOx burners that reduce NOx emissions by 40% (800 

tons/yr). Assume BACT would reduce NOx emissions by 

50% (1000 tons/yr). No No No No 0
E. New Synthetic Minor. A new source that has the capability 

to emit 300 tons/yr NOx agrees to an enforceable production 

limit so that the source's PTE is 249 tons/yr NOx. No No Yes - BACT required Yes 0

F. An existing minor source that has a PTE of 200 tons/yr 

NOx installs a new emission unit that has a PTE of 200 

tons/yr NOx. No No Yes Yes 0

G. An existing minor source that has a PTE of 200 tons/yr 

NOx installs a new emission unit that has a PTE of 300 

tons/yr NOx

Yes - the new unit 

would be subject to 

PSD review, but not the 

existing source

Yes - the new unit 

would be subject to 

PSD review, but not 

the existing source Yes Yes 0

H. Source with a large amount of headroom. An existing, 

major source has an emission unit with a PTE of 400 tons/yr 

NOx. The source has been operating for the last 20 years 

with actual emissions of around 250 tons/yr because the 

source doesn't operate at full capacity 365 days/yr. The 

source wants to modifiy the existing unit to improve efficiency 

and increase production. The PTE of the modified project will 

increase to 420 tons/yr NOx. Projected future actual 

emissions are 270 tons/yr.

Yes, unless the source 

agrees to an 

enforceable limitation 

that would reduce the 

PTE of the emissions 

unit to 289 tons/yr or 

less (a 39 tons/yr 

increase under the A to 

P test).

No (source would 

probably need to 

lower their PTE to 

demonstrate that their 

future actual 

projection was 

reasonable - 

otherwise, why would 

they need so much 

headroom?)

Yes - BACT required 

(UDAQ would likely 

tighten up the permit 

to remove excessive 

headroom) No 0

I. A source that is currently operating below capacity is 

gradually increasing production due to demand growth. The 

source makes a modification that decreases the PTE of the 

source by 20 tons/yr NOx. Yes No No No

possible increase in 

emissions, more likely 

emissions will 

decrease because 

disincentive is no 

longer there

J. A WEPCO Source makes a change that would be a 

singificant increase under the actual to potential test, but not 

under the actual to future actual test.

No (WEPCO sources 

are already using the 

actual to future actual 

test) No

It would depend on 

the modification as 

described in the 

above examples 0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario D

Headroom

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario D2

Due to project

Headroom

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions

A to P test

Increase = 

535 tons/yr
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario D2

Due to project

Headroom

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions

A to A test

Increase of 10 

tons/yr 
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario D3

Due to project

Headroom

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions

A to P test

Increase of 

325 tons/yr
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario D3

Due to project

Headroom

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions

A to A test

Emission 

decrease of 200 

tons/yr
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario D4

Due to project

Headroom

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions

A to P Test

Emission 

decrease of 

175 tons/yr
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario I

Headroom

Demand Growth

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions

A to P Test

Emission increase 

of 143 tons/yr
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Scenario I

Headroom

Demand Growth

Projected Actuals

Actual Emissions

A to A test

Emission 

decrease of 20 

tons/yr
Scenario Data

Year

Actual 

Emissions

Permitted 

PTE

Projected 

Actuals

1992 375 625

1993 390 625

1994 400 625

1995 600 625

1996 600 625

1997 500 625

1998 375 625

1999 300 625

2000 100 625

2001 100 625

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006 650

Scenario D

Year

Actual 

Emissions Headroom

Projected 

Actuals

1992 375 250

1993 390 235

1994 400 225

1995 600 25

1996 600 25

1997 500 125

1998 375 250

1999 300 325

2000 100 525

2001 100 525

2002 25 600

2003 25 600

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Scenario D.2

Year

Actual 

Emissions Headroom

Projected 

Actuals

Due to 

project

1992 375 250

1993 390 235

1994 400 225

1995 600 25

1996 600 25

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Basic Chart
1997 500 125

1998 375 250

1999 300 325

2000 100 525

2001 100 525

2002 25 600 10

2003 25 600 10

2004

2005

2006 600 10

2007

2008

Scenario D.3

Year

Actual 

Emissions Headroom

Projected 

Actuals

Due to 

project

1992 375 250

1993 390 235

1994 400 225

1995 600 25

1996 600 25

1997 500 125

1998 375 250

1999 300 325

2000 100 525

2001 100 525

2002 25 400

2003 25 400

2004

2005

2006 25 400

2007

2008

Scenario D.4

Year

Actual 

Emissions Headroom

Projected 

Actuals

Due to 

project

1992 375 250

1993 390 235

1994 400 225

1995 600 25

1996 600 25

1997 500 125

1998 375 250

1999 300 325

2000 100 525

2001 100 525

2002 600 25

2003 600 25

2004 25 400
2005

2006 25 400

2007

2008

Scenario K

Year

Actual 

Emissions Headroom

Projected 

Actuals

Demand 

Growth

1992 275 375

1993 300 350

1994 325 325

1995 350 300

1996 375 275

1997 400 250

1998 425 225

1999 450 200

2000 475 175

2001 500 150

2002 125 480 25

2003 100 480 50

2004 75 480 75

2005 50 480 100

2006 25 480 125

2007

2008
Actual Emissions

Permitted PTE

Projected Actuals