# PECHAN

5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151 703-813-6700 telephone 703-813-6729 f

acsimi le

3622 Lyckan Parkway Suite 2002 Durham, NC 27707 919-493-3144 telephone 919-493-3182 f

acsimi le

P.O. Box 1575 Shingle Springs, CA 95682 530-672-0441 telephone 530-672-0504 f

acsimi le 

## M ARKET 

## T RADING 

## F ORUM 

## N ON 

## -U TILITY 

## S ECTOR 

## A LLOC ATI ON 

## F INAL 

## R EPORT

FROM THE 

## A LLOCAT IONS 

## W ORKING 

## G ROUP

Prepared

for: Western Governors’ Association 1515 Cleveland Place Denver, CO 80202 Prepared by: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

November 2002

WGA Contract No. 30204-48 Pechan Rpt. No. 02.11.001/9422.000iii 

## CONTE NTS

Page TABLES

......................................................... ........... v ACRONYMS AND A BBREVI ATI ONS

.......................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

..................................................... ix CHAPTER I INT RODUCTI ON

......................................................... . . I-1 A. ANALYS IS METHODS

............................................... I-1 CH AP TE R II PETROLEUM REF INI NG

................................................... II-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............. II-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

....................... II-1 1. Sulfu r Re cove ry U nits

........................................... II-1 2. Fu el G as C om bus tion U nits

...................................... II-2 3. Cata lytic Crackers

.............................................. II-3 4. Flares

........................................................ II-3 C. FLOOR ALLOCATION RESULTS

.................................... II-3 D. COMPARI SON WI TH HIS TORI CAL EMI SSI ONS

...................... II- 10 E. EXAMPLE CAL CULATI ON

......................................... II- 10 1. Sulfu r Re cove ry U nit

........................................... II- 10 2. Fuel Gas Com bustion

.......................................... II- 10 3. Cata lytic Crackers

............................................. II- 12 4. Flares

....................................................... II- 12 CH AP TE R III LIME MANUFA CTURI NG

.................................................. III-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............. III-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

....................... III-1 CH AP TE R IV INDUS TRI AL BOI LERS AND COGENERATORS

............................... IV -1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............. IV -1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

....................... IV -1 1. Co al F ired U nits

................................................ IV -2 2. Oil F ired U nits

................................................. IV -2 C. FLOOR ALLOCATION RESULTS

.................................... IV -3 D. COMPARI SON WI TH HIS TORI CAL EMI SSI ONS

....................... IV -3 E. EXAMPLE US E OF CAPACI TY UTI LIZ ATI ON DATA FOR F LOOR ALLOCATI ON ESTI MATES

......................................... IV -3 CHAPTER V PULP AND P APER I NDUSTRY

............................................... V-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

.............. V-1 1. Recovery Furnaces

............................................... V-1 2. Lime Kil ns ..................................................... V-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

........................ V-2 1. Recovery Furnaces

............................................... V-2 2. Lime Kil ns ..................................................... V-2 C. FLOOR ALLOCATION RESULTS

..................................... V-2 D. COMPARI SON WI TH HIS TORI CAL EMI SSI ONS

........................ V-4iv 

## CONTE NTS (conti nued)

Page CHAPTER VI CEMENT MANUFACTURI NG

............................................... VI -1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............. VI -1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

....................... VI -1 C. FLOOR ALLOCATION RESULTS

.................................... VI -1 D. COMPARI SON WI TH HIS TORI CAL EMI SSI ONS

....................... VI -4 CH AP TE R V II NATURAL GAS PROCESSI NG PLANTS

..................................... VI I-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............ VI I-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

...................... VI I-1 C. FLOOR ALLOCATION RESULTS

................................... VI I-2 1. Ge nera l Plan ts

................................................ VI I-2 2. Spe cific Exa m ple

.............................................. VI I-3 D. COMPARI SON WI TH HIS TORI CAL EMI SSI ONS

...................... VI I-3 CH AP TE R V III ELEMENTAL P HOSPHORUS PRODUCTI ON

............................... VI II-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

........... VI II-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION P ROCEDURES

................. VI II-1 CH AP TE R IX GLASS MANUFACTURI NG

................................................. IX-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............. IX-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

....................... IX-2 CHAPTER X COPPER S MELTERS

....................................................... X-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

.............. X-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

........................ X-1 C. COMPARI SON WI TH HIS TORI CAL EMI SSI ONS

........................ X-2 CHAPTER XI ALUMINUM PROD UCTI ON

................................................ XI-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............. XI-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

....................... XI-2 CH AP TE R X II SULFURIC ACI D PLANTS

................................................. XII -1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

............ XII -1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

...................... XII -2 CH AP TE R X III METALLURGI C COKE PRODUCT ION

..................................... XII I-1 A. SECTOR DESCR IPTION AND SIGNIFICANT SO 2 SOURCES

........... XII I-1 1. By Prod uctCoke Ovens

........................................ XII I-1 2. Rotary Calcine rs .............................................. XII I-1 B. FLOOR ALL OCATI ON ESTI MATION METHODS

..................... XII I-2 C. COMPARI SON WI TH HIS TORI CAL EMI SSI ONS

..................... XII I-3 CH AP TE R X IV FLOOR ALL OCATI ON SUMMARY

.......................................... XIV -1v 

## TA BLES

Page I-1 Methodology for the Calculati on of the FloorAllocat ions forNon-Utili ty Sources I-3 II-1 Sulf

ur Plant s - RequiredMinimum SO 2 Em ission Re duction E fficiency

...... II-2 II-2 Petroleum Refining FloorAllocat ion Calculat ion

......................... II-4 II-3 Petro leum Refi neri es – Hist ori cal Emissio ns – 1990 t o 2000

.............. II- 11 III-1 Emiss ion Fa ct ors fo r Li me Manufac tur ing

.............................. III-3 III-2 Lime Manufacturing - Histo ric al Emissi ons - 1990 to 2000

................. III-4 IV -1 Assumed Level of ControlforSO 2 Floor Alloc ation

....................... IV -2 IV -2 Facilit y SO 2 Floor A llocation E stimation for ICI Bo ilers

................... IV -5 IV -3 Comparison o f SO 2 Floor A llocation w ith Historical E mission s for ICI Bo ilers

. IV -7 IV -4 Exam ple Use of Capacity Utili zation Data forFloor Alloc ation Esti mates

.... IV -9 V-1 Facilit y SO 2 Floor Alloc ation Esti mation for Pulp and Paper Faciliti es

Based on Unit Capacity Values

........................................ V-3 V-2 Facilit y SO 2 Floor Alloc ation Esti mation for Pulp and Paper Faciliti es

Based on FuelThroughput

............................................ V-3 V-3 Pulp and Paper- His tor icalEmissio ns - 19 90 to 2000

...................... V-5 VI -1 Floo r Al loc ati ons ................................................... VI -2 VI -2 Cement Manufacturing - Histo ric al Emissi ons - 1990 to 2000

.............. VI -3 VI -3 Exam ple Calculation

................................................ VI -4 VI I-1 Sulf

ur Plant s - RequiredMinimum SO 2 Em ission Re duction E fficiency

..... VI I-2 VI I-2 Pos sible F loor - N atura l Ga s Pro cessin g U nits

.......................... VI I-4 VI I-3 Oil and Gas Pr oduct ion - Histo ric al Emissi ons - 1990 to 2000

............. VI I-6 VI II-1 Elemental Phosphorus Production - Histo ric al Emissi ons - 1990 to 2000

... VI II-2 IX-1 Glass Manufac turi ng - His tor icalEmissio ns - 19 90 to 2000

................ IX-3 X-1 Copper Smelt er SO 2 Em issi on Project ions (tpy)

........................... X-2 X-2 Recent His tor icalCopper Smelt er SO 2 Emiss ions

......................... X-3 XI-1 Aluminum Pl ant Dat a Used t o Est imat e Flo or Al loc ati ons ................. XI-4 XI-2 Aluminum Smelting - Histo ric al Emissi ons - 1990 to 2000

................. XI-5 XII -1 Sulfu ric Acid Pla nts

................................................ XII -3 XII I-1 Histo ric al SO 2 Em issi on s a t P 4 P rod uc tion , Ro ck S pri ng s, W Y

............ XII I-2 XII I-2 Coking Plant- His tor icalEmissio ns - 19 90 to 2000

..................... XII I-3 XIV -1 Stat e/Se cto r Summary of SO 2 Floor A llocations (tons pe r year)

............ XIV -2 XIV -2 Facilit y-LevelSO 2 FloorAlloc ati ons - Comparison wi th Year 2 000

SO 2 Em issions (tons pe r year)

........................................ XIV -3vivii 

## A CRONYMS A ND A BBREVI A TI ONS

BACT Best Available Contr ol Technology BART Best Available Retr ofitTechnology BLS Black liquorsoli ds CAA Clea n A ir Act CWPB cente r-wo rked preb ake cells DCE Directcontactevaporator dscf dry st andard cubic f oot ESPs electrostatic precipitators FCCU fluid ca talytic cra cking un it GCVTC Grand Can yon Visibil ity Transport Comm issi on H 2 S hydrogen sulfi de HSS horizon tal stud Sod erberg ICI industrial , c ommercial , and i nstitut ional kg kil ogram LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Reduction lbs/M M Btu pou nds per m illion B ritish th erm al un its Mg megagram MTF MarketTrading For um NO x oxides of nitrogen NSPS New Sou rce Perf ormance Standards ppm parts permillion pp mv pa r t s p ermi l l i on vo l ume PTE poten tial to em it RE CL AIM Regional Clean Air Incentives Market SCC Source Classific ation Code SIC Standard Indust rialClassif icat ion SIP Stat e Implementation Plan SO 2 sulfurdioxide SRU Sulfu r Re cove ry U nit SWPB side-w orke d pre bak e cells tpy tons p er year VSS vertical stud So derberg WGA Western Governors’ Assoc iati on WRAP W estern Re gion al A ir Pa rtners hipviiiix 

## EXECUTI VE SUMMA RY

Th is stud y w as pe rform ed for a W orkin g G roup of the W estern Re gion al A ir Part ners hips ’ (WRAP) MarketTrading For um. I t pr ovi des acur rent , b estest imat e of the floor allocation for n on-utility sources in the region that w ould b e establish ed if western Stat es and t ribe s adopta regi onal, backst op tr ading pr ogram forsulf ur di oxide (SO 2 ) to meet the r equir ements of Sect ion 309 of

the r egionalhaze rul e. The majo r SO 2 emit ti ng non- uti li ty s ourc e cat egor ies eval uate d in this st udy i ncl ude t he f oll owing: pet rol eum refi neries, lime manufacturing, industr ial boi lers and c o-generat ors, pulp and paper manufac tur ing, cementmanufac tur ing, natur al g as pr oce ssi ng and o iland gaspro duction, elem enta l pho sph orus prod uction , glass m anu facturin g, alu m inu m sm elters, su lfuric acid plants, and coke production. Of these industry sectors, phosphoru s, aluminum smelters, sulfuric acid plan ts, and coke production plants w ere no t considered in the origin al source categor ies f

or the Market Trading Forum. The fl oor contr ol tec hnology (or emiss ion rate or SO 2 controleff

ectiveness) was deter mined by evaluating the emissi ons perfor mance of other sources in that source category in the western States. The floor is defi ned to be best available control technology (BAC T), best available retr ofit t echnology (BA RT), or lowest achievable emissi on rate (LAE R) for exist ing sources . For some sources , EPA has not deter mined what thes e leve ls of emissi ons are . SO 2 flooralloc ations were computed f or each of about 200 majo r non- utilit y sourc es in the wester n Stat es, where major is d efi ned as tho se so urce s em itting gre ate r tha n 1 00 ton s pe r ye ar (tp y). While this analys is uses pl ant and process -levelinfor mation to est imate fl oor all ocat ions, if

the bac ksto p tr ading pr ogram is tr igger ed, SO 2 all owance s unde r t he tr adi ng progr am will be alloc ated bythe parti cip ati ng tr anspor t r egion St ates and Tribe s at that time. This s tudy is onl y an approximation of how the all ocati ons might be made based upon the limited i nformation thatwe have today. Itis expec ted thatthe Statesand Tribes would be able to obtai n more detailed i nformation about cur rent emissi ons and control s for these non -utility sou rces th an h as b een ava ilable for the curren t project. The floor al locat ion analysishas been performed separat ely foreach of t he 12 ma jor non-util ity s ource cat egories in the west. The textbelow summ arizes the key findings for each source c ategory. To simplify the analys is, itwas dete rmined t hat Califor nia SO 2 sources ar e already highly co ntr oll ed. The California f loo r al loc ati on of

27, 335 t py i s bas ed on the opt -i n/o ut 2018 SO 2 all ocation that ha s bee n estimat ed pr evi ousl y by t he WRAP Market Tr adi ng Fo r um. Pe tro leu m Re fini ng : There are t en petrol eum ref ineries outs ide Cali fornia i n the WR AP transport r egion. Data were rec eived from all of t hese refi neries f or the all ocati on proc ess. These f

loorall ocat ions wer e computedforeach of the f our majorSO 2 emit ti ng process es at ref

ineries : sul fur pl ants, flui dized cat alyti c crac king units ( FCC Us), f uel combusti on units , and f lare s. The SO 2 flooralloc ation f or these t en refi neries i s 11,418 tpy, or about 5,400 tpy less than historic emissions during 199 6 to 2000. This is one of the best characterized source categories. Ce m en t Man ufa ctu rin g: The control t echnol ogy analy ses f or c ement kil ns showed t hat ther e was no demonstr ated SO 2 cont roltec hnique atwester n Stat e sourc es t hat co uld be appli ed to r educe SO 2 acro ss t he sourc e popul ati on. Ther e are wid ely varying SO 2 emi ss io ns ra te s f

ro m th es e kiln s, andth e p ro ce ss it se lf re move s s ul fu r f

ro m th e of

f gas . As a re su lt, th is se cto r’s flo or a llo cat ion of 7 ,76 1 tp y w as ba sed on rec en t hi sto ric e m issi on s. Th e ana lysis for lim e m anu facturin g reach ed th e sam e conclu sion a s that for cem ent. The lime manufacturing f loor al locat ion is 2, 103 tpy.x

Bo ilers a nd Co -gen era tor s: The fl oor f or boi ler s and co -gener ator s at industrial fac il it ies was est imated byapply ing t he equival ent of 85 perc ent SO 2 contro l to coa l and oilfir ed sources notalready at, or near, this c ontrol l evel. Average capacity fact ors were used to estim ate b oiler u tilization for estim ating the floo r with a 5 p ercen t grow th m argin . This ass umpti on iscons is tentwit h thatusedin the ut il it y boi lerfl oorall ocations . S ome nonutil ity boi lers ar e operati ng at low util izati on rates. The industri al boil er and cogenerator flooralloc ation is7,910 tpy. Pulp and Paper Industr y: Recovery fur naces andli me kilns a re t he SO 2 sour ces at the Kraft pulp mills i n the west. Most of these mill s are in Oregon. Floor all ocati ons for recoveryfurnaces and l ime kilns are based on st andard U.S. Environmental Prot ecti on Agency ( EPA) emissi on fac tor s and 100 percentcapac it y uti li zati on (orrec ent annual throu ghp ut, if capa city estim ates w ere n ot av ailab le). Th e pu lp an d pa per floo r alloca tion is 7,184 tpy. NaturalGas Proce ss ing Pla ntsand Oil

and Gas Produc ti on:SO 2 emissions f rom natur al g as pr oce ssi ng pl ants res ultfr om combustion o f s our g ases . I t was dec ide d th at the curre nt Ne w Sour ce Per fo rmanc e St anda rd(NS PS) woul d se rv e as thefl oor . The NSPS req uire s a v aria ble sulfu r rem ova l efficie ncy ba sed on the hy dro gen sulfi de (H 2 S) cont ent of the a cid ga s an d the am oun t of sulfu r in the gas. If a fa cility ha d curre nt con trol leve ls highe r than th e assu me d floor, the actua l averag e em issions ove r the past thre e yea rs were usedto e st imat e thefl oor . S inc e emis si ons f rom f laring o per ati ons bo th i n the pla nt and the well f

ield ar e not amenable to control , f loor emissi ons are assumed to be the average of the e m ission s in th ree re cent y ears. D ata a vaila bility w as a significa nt issu e in determ ining the floor allocations for som e gas pla nts. The floor allocation for this sou rce categor y is 28, 884 tpy. Ele menta l Pho spho rusProduc ti on:One of the two U.S. ele mentalphos phor us producti on faciliti es is i n Idaho. Because of the uniqueness of thi s facility, no fl oor contr ol tec hnology was i denti fi ed. The fl oor al loc ati on is s et atyear 2000 S O 2 em issions, wh ich were 15,861 tpy. It i s expect ed that t he State of Idaho will perform a more detailed evaluation of

this f acil ity during preparation of i ts regional haze Stat e Implementation Pla n (S IP). Glass Manufactur ing:The major so urce o f SO 2 emiss ionsin the gl ass indu st ry i s t he glass melting operation. There are only two act ive glassmanu fact uring fac ili ties in the 8 non-Califor nia WRAP States. With a la ck of inf ormati on about SO 2 contro l techn ique s in prac ti ce, the f

loorall ocat ion f

or gl ass manufac turi ng plant s was setacco rdi ng to hi sto ric al SO 2 emissions. The glass manufacturing f loor al locat ion is 368 t py. Cop per Sm elters:Be cau se of th e un ique nes s of the existin g cop per sm elters, retro fit techno logy an alysis m ust be pe rformed on a sm elter-by-sme lter basis. A dou ble conta ct acid p lant is co nside red th e ap prop riate re trofit contro l equ ipm ent. A ll coppe r sm elters in the wes ter n Sta tesare c urr ently equi ppedwit h doubl e co ntac t ac id p lant s. The current year SO 2 alloca tion for the six copp er sm elters in the 9 -State re gion is 86,0 00 to ns. T his all ocat ion i s red uced t o 78,00 0 tons by 2013 and i s the s ame in 2018. Alumi num Produc ti on:There are only 2 pri mary aluminum plants i n the study regi on and both ar e loc ated i n Oregon. The pri mary SO 2 sour ce i n alumi num prod uct ion i s t he sulfurin the coke, and the coal t ar pit ch binder used t o produce the anodes. The floor controltec hnolo gy f

or aluminum smelt ers was det ermi ned by eval uati ng th e emis si ons perf ormance atthe t wo Oregon fac il it ies. One facili ty use s a wet s crubbe r t o achi eve a 70 perc ent SO 2 emissi on reduc ti on. Ther efor e, a wetscr ubber with a 70 perc ent SO 2 reducti on was select ed as the fl oor tec hnology for al uminum smelters. The aluminum smelter f loor alloc ation is2,076 tpy. Sulfuric Acid P lants: The only sign ificant source of air em issions from a conta ct sulfu ric acid p lant is th e tail ga s leav ing th e fina l abso rbing tow er. Th is gas conta ins sm all amounts of

SO 2 and eve n sm aller a m oun ts of sulfu r trioxide , sulfuric v apo r, and sulfu ricxi

acid m ist. Bas ed o n th e info rm ation ava ilable for the 4 su lfuric acid plan ts in th e w est, it was d ec id ed thatthefl ooral lo catio n sho uldbe e st imat ed b y ap pl yi ng t he NSPS requirements t o each sulf uric ac id plant . Achievi ng this st andard requires a conversi on eff ici ency of

99.7 p erc ent i n an uncontr oll ed plant , orthe equivalentSO 2 coll ecti on mechanism in a c ontr oll ed fac il it y. However , r ecenthist ori cal SO 2 emissions for these fac il it ies were l ower than theNSPS emis si on ra te times c apac it y estimat ed values, so the sulf uricaci d plantfl oor was es ti mated usi ng thes e hist ori cal SO 2 emiss ion v alue s. The result ing fl oor all ocati on for t hese sulfuric aci d plants i s 5,386 tp y. Metal lur

gi c CokeProduc ti on:SO 2 em ission s from coke ove n op eratio ns pr ima rily resu lt from combustion of the byproductcoal gas i n the oven. There were three c oke producti on fac il it ies o perat ing i n the westduri ng the 1990s . Coke product ion has r ecent ly c eased at two of the se facilities . The only facility tha t contin ues to ope rate is a rotary calcine r in Wyom ing. Because of the uniqueness of this operat ion, the flooralloc ation isbased on rec ent hi sto ricSO 2 emissions, and is 631 tpy. Th ere are tw o b en ch m ark s th at c an be us ed to p ut t he floo r al loc ati on s in pe rsp ect ive

. One is year2000 hist ori c emiss ions andthe other i s the no n-ut il it y SO 2 emissions forecast for2018. The f

loorall ocat ion es ti mate in t his r eportis abo ut 2, 500 tons higherthan year 200 0 his torical e m ission s. Ho we ver, this com pariso n of th e resp ective e m ission totals is skewed by t he fac t t hat year2000 copp er smel teremissi on were aboutone-hal f of the 78 thousand ton allocation for this sector. Wh en copper sm elters are removed from the totals, the floo r al loc ati on is a bo ut 4 5 th ou sa nd ton s lo w er t ha n y ea r 20 00 em issi on s. A compari son of

the f loorall ocat ion with the SO 2 emissions i n the 2018 opt-i n/out emissi on alloc ations s hows that the fl oor all ocati on is approxi mately the same.xiiI-1 

## CHA PTER I IN TRODUCT IO N

This rep ortdesc ribes a n anal ysi s t hat was pre pare d f or a Wor kingGroup o f the Weste rn RegionalAirPart ners hip’ s (WRAP) MarketTrading For um (MTF). Itpro vid es the curre nt be st estim ate o f the floo r alloca tion for non -utility sou rces in the re gion that w ould be establi shed if western Stat es and tribes adopt a regi onal, backs top tr ading program for sulf ur di oxide (SO 2 ) to m eet th e req uirem ents o f Section 309 of the regio nal h aze rule. N ote thatthi s does not es tabl ish f inal all ocat ions f

or so urcesin t he regi on. Eac h Stat e and tribe will d eterm ine th e ap prop riate floo r leve l for sou rces w ithin th eir jurisd iction, an d w ill inclu de th is inform ation in the ir State or triba l imp lem enta tion p lan. T he p rogra m is voluntary f

or western St ates and tribes. Informati on is provi ded to assi st el igibl e States and tr ibes evaluat e the i mpacts of the progr am, but de cis ions to participate i n the pr ogram wil l be made by ea ch s epar ate juris dic ti on. The distribution of

regi onal SO 2 allowances to ex ist ing sourcesin the nine Comm issi on Tr ans port S ta te s i s c ompo se d o f two po rtio ns: f lo orandre duc ib le al lo ca ti on. The re ar e t wo com pon ents o f the floo r alloca tion - a n allo cation for the Ca lifornia Re gion al C lean Air Inc entives Mar ket(RECLAIM) p rog ram, and so urc e-s pec if icfl oorall ocationsfo r nonREC LAIM sources. The floor allocation is a min imum allocation for allexisting sources, whic h wil l be cal cul ate d toensur e tha t wel l- control ledsour ces wil l r ece ive a full al loc ati on. Calif orni a RECLA IM Program: 3,462 S O 2 allow anc es w ill be in clude d in th e C aliforn ia budget forREC LAIM sources. These credit s will be a s ubset of the existi ng source pool f or the S tate o f Ca lifornia and , hen ce, will n ot con sum e an y ex tra cred its from the to tal cred it poo l. Sour ce- spec if

icFloo r Al loc ati on: A fl oorall ocation wi llbe ca lc ulat ed f or all ex is ti ng sources i n the region based on some speci fied l evel of c ontrol (e.g. , Best Avail able Control Tec hn olog y [BA CT ], Best A vaila ble R etrofit T echn olog y [BA RT ], Low est A chiev able Em ission Reduction [LAE R]) for non-utility sources. The sources aff

ected by the backstop t rading progr ams are all those s tati onary sources in par ti cip ati ng Stat es and t ribe s thatemit SO 2 in an amount gr eaterthan orequal t o 100 tonsperyear(t py) . The 100 t on cutof f wi llbe as ses sed a t t he pl ant l evelto c orr espo nd with the methodology used in the 1990 em issi ons inventory. Amon g the source types cov ere d by this def

ini ti on ar e utili ty a nd in dustri al bo il ers , r efineri es, smelt ers , p ulp a nd paper mills , cement and li me kilns, and allof the other source c ategori es li sted i n secti on 16 9(g)(7 ) of th e C lea n A ir A ct (C AA ). In this report , t he geographic area of analysis i s defi ned to be the nine Comm issi on Transport Region St ates, which are Arizona, Californi a, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, andWyoming. Facili ti es inc luded i n the anal ysisare t hose t hat emitt ed 100 tp y or more o f SO 2 som etime during the period 1990 to 2000 . Plants tha t are electri c utili ties are excluded from this analysis. 

### A. ANALYSIS METHODS
The f loo r al loc ati on anal ysi s f or the non- uti li ty s ect or was per for med usi ng th e following steps:
1. It was assumed thatthe SO 2 sour ces in the St ate of Cali fornia a re alread y atthe floor. Th is is exp ected beca use of the stringe ncy o f the a ir em ission regu lation s in that Stat e.I-2

2. Becaus e co ppersmelt er alloc ati ons f or 20 18 have alr eady b een de ter mined, no additiona l analyse s were perform ed for coppe r sme lters. Smelter alloca tions are pr ese nte d i n Chap te r X.
3. The foc us of

the anal ysiswas on non-Cal if orni a, non- smelte r f acilit ies that had at leas t 100 t py of

SO 2 em issi on s du rin g a t lea st o ne ye ar i n th e p eri od 19 90 to 2 00 0. States included in t his analysi s were Arizona, Color ado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyom ing.
4. The major SO 2 emitti ng non-util ity s ource cat egories evaluated in thi s study included the f

oll owing: petr oleum ref iner ies, li me manu fac turi ng, i ndustrial boiler s and co-gener ators, pulp and paper manufacturi ng, cement manufacturing, natur al g as pr oce ssi ng and o iland gaspro duction, ele mentalphos phor us pro duction, gla ss manuf act uri ng, alumi num smelt ing, sul furicaci d pr oduc ti on, and metal lur gic al c oke pr oduc ti on. 5. The fl oor c ontr ol t echnol ogy or e missi on rat e or SO 2 cont roleff ect ivenes s was deter mined by eval uati ng the emis sionsperf ormance of

othersourc es in that source c ategory i n the western Stat es. The fl oor is d efined t o be BAC T, BART , or LA ER for exis ting sou rces. Th e floor fo r each of the ma jor sou rce cate gorie s is summarized i n Table I- 1. 6. The pri mary sourc e of e missi ons inf ormati on forthe west ern St ates is the 1996 WR AP point source i nventory. The 1996 em issi on estimates were pr epared under contra ct to the W estern Go vern ors’ A ssocia tion (W GA ) by P acific E nviro nm enta l; Servi ces andEaster n Researc h Group, Inc. under c ontr actto t he WGA (PES, 2001) . Howev er, thi s dat a setwas notsuf fi ci ent f or p rov idi ng al l of

the inform ation nee ded to com pute the floo r alloca tion for each sou rce. Th e Sta te air pollu tion co ntrol a gen cies in e ach of the 8 Sta tes w ere co ntacte d to ob tain supplementary data. For most source c ategori es, this additional inf ormation included es timates of unit capacities . This c ould be eit her the desi gn capacity for boilers, orthe production capacity for i ndustrial processes.
7. Once data was received f rom the State agenci es, it was used to estimate the fl oor alloca tion b y sou rce an d facility b ased on th e con trol tech nolo gies liste d in T able I- 1 and the uni t orplant -sp eci fi c inf ormati on about ex isting c apaci ti es and SO 2 control techniques. The chapters t hat fol low explain the f loor al locat ion analyses f or each of the key industrial sect or source categories in the western United States.I-3 

### Table I-1 Methodol ogy

for the Calculationof the F loor Allocations f or Non-U tility

Sources

Sou rce C ateg ory Technol ogie s or Sta ndar d for

Flo or Co pp er Sm elters Due to t he uni queness of t he exist ing smelters, retrofi t technolog y ana lysis m ust b e pe rform ed o n a s m elter-b y-sm elter ba sis. Current ly , t he Hidal go smelter is t he onl y BART-el igi ble sou rce on the l ist in t his category . A doubl e-cont act aci d plan t wi ll be co ns ide re d th e a pp ro pr iate ret ro fit c on tro l eq uip m en t (a ll sm elte rs in the re gion are c urre ntly equ ippe d with d oub le-co ntac t acid p lants)

. On August 21, 2000, New Mexico completed an eng ineer ing analysis t hat ve ri fi ed earl ier deter minati ons by the MTF thatthe fugi ti ve SO 2 capture system at Hidal go sati sfi es BART at 96% overal l capt ure. Refineri es There are fou r sou rces o f SO 2 emissions at the refi nerylev el. Floor based upon N ew Sou rce Perform ance S tandards (N SPS ) where appli cable.

Descript ion Assum ed Average Cont rol Level Sul fu r Re cov eryUni t (SRU ) Meet NSPS Subpart J or the equ ivalent o f 3-s tage Clau s un its with a tai l gas unit

(NSPS and the tail gas unit do es n ot ap ply to Cla us u nits sm aller t han 20 long tons /day or l ess). Fu el gas com bus tion un its Fix at the NSPS emission li mit rate of 0.027 poun ds per mil li on Bri ti sh ther mal units (l bs/MMBtu) assuming fu el g as inp ut a nd no t fu el o il. Catalyti c crack ers NSPS (J) sel ecte d 9. 8 l bs of SO 2 per 1,000 l bs of coke burn ed. Flare s Ba sed upo n av erag e of th e last 5 years' emissi on, AP42 factors for calcul ated. No addit ionalcontrols. Natural Gas Process ing Descript ion Assum ed Average Le vel of Control Process Emissions R ed uc tion to s atis fy N SP S. V ar iab le reduct ion de pending on hy drogen sulfide (H 2 S) c onte nt an d plan t size. Flari ng Ba sed upo n av erag e of th e last 5 years' emissi on. Oil & Gas Product ion Descript ion Assum ed Average Le vel of Control Flari ng Ba sed upo n av erag e of th e last 5 years' emissi on. Lime Plants No addit ionalreduct ion. Approxi mately50% control inherent i n the proce ss. Addi ti onal SO 2 co ntr ols are no t in p lac e a t lim e p lan ts in the western Sta tes.

### Table I-1 (continued)

Sou rce C ateg ory Technol ogie s or Sta ndar d for

Flo or

I-4 Industri al Boil ers (Cogens) T ec hn olo gy d ete rm ina tion de pe nd en t up on cu rre nt le ve l of c on tro l. Descript ion Assum ed Average Le vel of Control Un con trolled U nits 85% Units controll ed at l ess than 70% Treat as u ncontrolled (see above ).

Units controll ed between 70-80% Increase redu ctions by 5% (i.e., i f a unit is at 7 2% , wou ld be a ssu m ed to control to 77%). Units controll ed greater than 80% No addit ionalreduct ions. Pulp and Paper Sulfur sources are recoveryfurnaces and boi lers. Boi ler discussi ons covered wi th i ndustr ial boil ers. RecoveryFurnaces: No addit ionalreduct ion. Low emissions coupled wit h lack of

more than one example of scrubbi ng. Cem ent Plan ts No addit ionalreduct ion. Approxi mately70-90 percent cont rol in heren t i n th e pro cess. Addi ti onal SO 2 co ntr ols are no t typic ally appli ed to t hese le vel s of proce sses. Alum inum Sm elters A wet scrub ber wi th a 70 percentSO 2 emission reducti on sele cted as the floo r ba se d o n a ch iev ed co ntr ol le ve ls a t N W Alu m inu m in Oregon. Sulfuric Acid Plants No add itional red uction . Exis ting un its are alrea dy co ntrolled to NSP S levels (4 lbs per ton of 100% acid produce d). Coke Product ion O nly o ne fac ility is s till op er atin g. B ec au se of t he un iqu en es s o f th is rotary cal cin er, the fl oor a ll ocat io n i s est abl ish ed athi storic SO 2 emission l evel s.II-1 

## CH APT ER II PETROL EUM REFI NI NG

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
Th e pe troleu m refinin g ind ustry in volv es n um erou s proce sses th at con vert cru de o il into more than 2,500 prod ucts, includi ng gasoline, liquef ied petr oleum gas, kerosene, jet fuel , di eselfuel , other f uel oi ls, lubricat ing oi ls, and fee d st ock f or t he petr ochemic al industr y. Petr oleum refinery ac tivities include the storage of crude oilat the ref

inery, petro leum han dling and refinin g op eratio ns, an d stora ge o f the re fined prod ucts prio r to shipment. As of

January 1990, there were 189 operating refi neries i n the United Stat es with a totalcrude capac ity of 15.4 milli on barrels percalendar day. Re m ova l of sulfu r from refine ry strea m s is a pa rt of refinin g. It wo uld b e de sirab le to rem ove all su lfur com pou nds befor e an y crud e pro cessin g be gins, b ut be cau se this is impractical, s ulfur is removed through out the refining process. There are several reasons, besid es air p ollutio n con trol, for rem ovin g su lfur from interm edia te fraction s an d pro ducts of crude oil. Sulfur removal reduces corrosion, odor, breakdown frequency, catalyst poisoning, and gum formation and improves oc tane rati ng, col or, and l ube oil life. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA

TION ESTIMATION METHODS
There arefourpossible uni t t ypes ( SO 2 em ission poin ts) with in a re finery , as no ted in the metho dology for the calculation of the floor allocati ons for non-utility sources. These fourSO 2 sour ces are: (1) the S RU; ( 2) f uel g as c ombust ion un it s; (3) cat aly ti c c rac kers ; a nd (4) fl ares. The approac h forest imati ng SO 2 fl oorall ocationsis uniquefo r each of thes e f our SO 2 source types within t he refi nery. Floorcalcul ation methods are pr esented below for each of these four source types. 

### 1. Sulfur Recovery Units
Su lfur r eco ver y re fers to con ver sion of H 2 S to ele m en tal su lfu r. H 2 S is a by produc t of process ing natural gas and refi ning high sulf ur crude oi ls. The m ost common conversion m etho d use d is the Cla us pr ocess . App roxim ately 90 to 95 p ercen t of recov ered sulfu r is pro duce d by the Clau s pr oce ss. The Clau s pr oce ss typi cal ly r eco ver s 95 t o 97 pe rc ent o f the H 2 S f ee d s t r ea m. The average producti on rate of a sulfurrecover y plant i n the United Stat es varies from 51 to 203 megagram s (Mg) ( 56 to 224 tons) per day. Some of the small to mid- sized refineries i n the we stern States have sulfur plant capacities that are lower than these average value s. The SO 2 fl oorall ocation f or S RUs depe nds o n the si ze of the s ulf

ur pl ant. For s ulf

ur plan ts of 20 long tons p er da y or la rger, the NS PS requ ire a 3 -stage Cla us u nit w ith a ta il gas unit. Existi ng NSPS limit sulfuremissions f rom Claus sulfur r ecovery pl ants of gr eater than 20.32 Mg (22.40 tons) per day capacity to 0. 025 percent by vol ume (250 parts per million vol ume [ppmv]). The NSPS and tail gas unitdo not apply t o Claus units smaller than 20 l ong tons per dayor l ess. For t hese small er sulfurplant s, the SO 2 fl oorall ocations are es ti mated as 95 pe rce nt SO 2 contro l. Table 8. 13-1 i n AP-42 provides the f oll owing SO 2 emiss ion f act ors fo r modi fi ed Cl aus Recovery P lants:II-2 Em ission Fa ctors for M odified C laus Su lfur Recov ery Plan ts SO 2 Emission s Nu m ber of Catalytic Stages Average % Sulfur Rec overy Kilo grams (kg)/Mg of Sulfur Produced lbs/ ton of Sulfur Produced 1, Uncontrol led 93 .5 139 278 3, Uncontrol led 95 .5 94 188 4, Uncontrol led 96 .5 73 145 2, Control led 98 .6 29 57 3, Control led 96 .8 65 129 The SO 2 em issi on fac tor for 9 9.8 pe rce nt s ulfur rec ov ery is 8 lbs /ton an d fo r 96 .8 perce nt su lfur reco very is 132 lbs/ton of sulfu r prod uced . This e m ission factor va lue is multipli ed by the sulf ur plant c apacit y in tons perday, 365 days per year , and 1 ton per 2,000 lbs to arrive at an annualSO 2 emiss ionsfl oorest imat e. Equati on ( 1) b elo w shows the above des cri pti on as a f ormula:

For refine ries with su lfur plants sm aller than 20 lon g tons pe r day, an d lowe r H 2 S cont ents i n thei r aci d gas, an SO 2 control level of 9 6.8 percen t ma y not be achieva ble. In thatsi tuation, an al ter native way t o calcul ate the f loo r i s t o use the s ulf ur f eed r ate and t he H 2 S cont ent of

the ac id gas of the aff ect ed fac il it y to c ompute the a pprop riat e minimum SO 2 red uct ion e ff

ic ienc y usi ng th e re lations hipsshown i n TableII -1. This tabl e is fr om the NSPS fo r ons hore natur al g as pr oduc ti on. 

### Table II-1 Sulfur Plan ts - Requ ired Minimu m SO 2

### Emission Red uction Ef ficiency

H 2 S Conte nt of Acid Ga s (Y ), % Sulfur Feed Rate (x), Long To ns per Day 2.0 < X < 5.0 5.0<X < 15.0 15.0<X < 300 .0 X> 300 .0

Y > 50 74.0 . . . . . . . 85. 35X 0.0144 Y 0.0128

. . . . . . . or 99. 8, whi chever i s smaller

20 < Y<50 74.0 . . . . 85.35X 0.0144 Y 0.0128

. . . . or 97. 5, whi chever i s smaller 97.5

10 < Y<20 74.0 85.35X 0.0144 Y 0.0128
or 90. 8, whi chever i s smaller 90.8 90.8 Y<10 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 

### 2. Fuel Gas Combustion Units Fuel g as c ombust ion un it s i n ref ineries were d efined t o inc ludeallpro ces s heat ers and boil ers, and thei r co mbined oiland gas c ombustio n capac it y. SO 2 floor allocations a re est im ate d a s th e co m bin ed oil a nd ga s co m bu stio n c ap aci ty m ult ipli ed by 0.0 27 lbs /M M Bt u. This emis sion r ate i s an appr oximati on of the SO 2 emission fac tor f or a fuel gas combustion unit mee ting the NSP S of 0.10 grains H 2 S per dry st andard c ubic f oot ( dscf

) as requi red by 40 CFR 60 Subpart J. This H 2 S value i s conve rte d to an SO 2 emission rat e in lbs/MM Btu using the equation bel ow:II-3

In the fl oor all ocati on estimates f or fuelgas combustion units , t he fuel gas c ombustion capac it y is based on r eport ed value s fo r t he ref iner ies in Colorad o, New Mexico , and Ut ah as wellas f

or Wyoming Refi ning and Fro ntie r Refi ning i n Wyoming. Where thi s val ue has not been r eport ed, itis e sti mated to be 5 perc ent of the c rude oil pr oces sing c apaci ty atthat ref inery. The ind ust ry no rm is rep ort ed t o be i n the rang e of 5 to 10 per cent . The 5 per cent value wa s used b ecause it is the averag e valu e for the w estern Sta te refineries for wh ich data on fuel gas combustion capacity were provi ded. 

### 3. Cataly

tic Crackers
The SO 2 fl oorall ocation f or c atalytic c rac kersat p etr ole um ref ineries is comput ed us ing the NSPS for fl uid catalyticcracki ng units ( FCC Us). The NSPS for FCCUs w ithout add- on cont rol s is 9.8 kgSO xper 1,000 kg coke burn- off. For FCCUs without add-on contr ol devic es, EPA decidedthatthe r egulat ed pol luta nt shoul d be SO x , bec ause SO 3 could constit ute a s igni fi cant p ort ion of the t otalSO 2 emissi ons f rom FCCUs using SO xreducti on cataly sts. Th e stan dard for FC CU s with out a dd-on contro ls requ ires the use of M etho d 8 to deter mine the t otalSO xemissions from affected facil ities. One of t he iss ues in ap plyi ng the NSPS emiss ion r ate t o est imate t he SO 2 floor allocation is the availab ility of information abou t the am oun t of coke bu rn-off for each FCCU. T he So urc e Cl ass if ic at io n Code (S CC) u nit s us ed i n emi ss io n in vent or ie s, and AP42 SO 2 em ission factors, are exp resse d as lb s/1,000 barre ls of fresh feed. T here fore, it is necess ary t o devel op a conve rsi on fac torto go f rom an emissi on li mit expr essedas an SO x emi ss io n r at e p er1, 000 kg c oke bur n- of f to an e mis si on l imi t e xp re ss ed in AP- 42 o r S CC units i f the c oke burn rate isnot availabl e for a r efinery. In order t o apply the NSPS SO2 em issi on rate to es timate the f loor al locat ion for FCCUs, i nfo rmati on aboutthe c oke bur n rat e was nee ded f or e ach r efinery . Fo r 10 o f the Western State r efiner ies l ist ed in Table II- 1, estimates of the coke burn rate i n pounds per hourwereavaila bl e f ro m a dat a se t thattheAmeri canPet ro le um Ins ti tut e pr ovi dedto EPA as par t of

the MACT standard set ti ng proc ess. These cok e burn rat es arebased on 1997 operation s. For the refine ries with F CC Us a nd n o coke b urn rate availab le, the coke b urn rates were es timated using the relati onship between the FCCU feed capac ity i n barrels per calen dar d ay a nd th e cok e bu rn ra te (pou nds per h our) for the 1 0 w estern refine ries w ith report ed values. The relati onship used was 16 pounds coke per barrelof oil . Refi neries wh ere this defau lt value w as app lied include d the tw o Co lorado refine ries and F lying J, Inc. in Uta h. Wyomi ng Re fini ng p ro vi deda de si gn c oke bur n r at e f orit s FC CU. 

### 4. Flares
Flar es ar e co mmonly use d f or the di spos al o f was te g ases duri ng pr oce ss up set s and em erge ncies . The y are bas ically sa fety de vices th at are also u sed to destro y org anic constit uents i n waste emis sion s tre ams. The AP-42 SO 2 emission fac tor f or a vapor recoverysystem and flaring is 26. 9 lbs per 1, 000 barrels r efinery feed. This emission f actor is ap pli ed to e sti mate the SO 2 emissions f loor f or fl ares at eac h refi nery. 

### C. FLOOR ALLOCA

TION RESULTS
Table II -2 i ncl udes the f loo r al loc ati on ca lc ulation f or the re fi neri es i n the 8 nonCalifor nia Western Regional Air Part nership (WR AP) States. The Oil & Gas Journal WorldwideRefi ning Surv ey f or 2000prov ided th e va lues for sulfu r plan t capa city, cataly tic cracki ng unit capacity, and crude capacity li sted i n Table II-2 where they were not otherwise pr ovided by Stat e air agenci es or ref inery companies. Fuel gas combustion capa cities in M M Btu /hou r (hr) are estim ated usin g info rm ation prov ided b y Sta te air pol lut ion c ontr ol a genc ies . S inc lai r Cor por ati on pr ovi ded d ata f or its two Wyoming refin erie s (G ree ne , 200 2).II-4 

### Table II-2 Petroleum Refining Floor Allocation Calculation

Pl an t Na me City State Source Ty pe Plan t/Unit C apa city Capacity Not es Floo r Al locat ion Em ission Ra te Emissio n Ra te U nits Floo r al locat ion tons/ year Cono co Inc. Co m m erc e C ity CO Su lfur R eco very U nit 70 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 8 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 10 2.2

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 11 2.9
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 955 MMBtu/hr FCCU 12,666 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 55 4.8

Flares 57,500 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 28 2.3

All Sources Combined 1,0 52 .2

Colorado Refi ning Denver CO Su lfur R eco very U nit 4 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 96 .4

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 60 .2
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 509 MMBtu/hr FCCU 5,333 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per coke burn off 23 3.6

Flares 35,000 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 17 1.8

All Sources Combined 56 2.0

Giant Refi ning Co. Blo om field NM Su lfur R eco very U nit 2 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 48 .2

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas 328 MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 38 .8
Oil MMBtu/hr

### Table II-2 (continued)

Pl an t Na me City State Source Ty pe Plan t/Unit C apa city Capacity Not es Floo r Al locat ion Em ission Ra te Emissio n Ra te U nits Floo r al locat ion tons/ year

II-5 Tot al 328 MMBtu/hr FCCU 5,400 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 23 6.5

Flares 18,500 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 90 .8

All Sources Combined 41 4.3

Giant Refi ning Co. Gall up NM Su lfur R eco very U nit 2 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 48 .2

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 37 .3
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 315 MMBtu/hr FCCU 8,200 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 35 9.2

Flares 32,200 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 15 8.1

All Sources Combined 60 2.7
Navajo Refini ng Co. Arte sia NM Su lfur R eco very U nit 140 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 8 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 20 4.4

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 10 9.3
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 924 MMBtu/hr FCCU 13,000 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 56 9.4

Flares 70,000 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 34 3.6

### Table II-2 (continued)

Pl an t Na me City State Source Ty pe Plan t/Unit C apa city Capacity Not es Floo r Al locat ion Em ission Ra te Emissio n Ra te U nits Floo r al locat ion tons/ year

II-6 All Sources Combined 1,2 26 .7

BP/now Tes oro Pet rol eum Sa lt La ke City UT Su lfur R eco very U nit 17 .4 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 41 9.2

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 10 0.0
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 846 MMBtu/hr FCCU 14,000 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 61 3.2

Flares 52,000 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 25 5.3

All Sources Combined 1,3 87 .7

Chevron Product s Co. Sa lt La ke City UT Su lfur R eco very U nit 22 .4 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 53 9.6

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 14 5.9
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 1,234 MMBtu/hr FCCU 6,500 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 28 4.7

Flares 55,000 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 27 0.0

All Sources Combined 1,2 40 .3
Silver Eagle Refining Inc. W ood s Cro ss UT Su lfur R eco very U nit 0 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 0.0

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 15 .6

### Table II-2 (continued)

Pl an t Na me City State Source Ty pe Plan t/Unit C apa city Capacity Not es Floo r Al locat ion Em ission Ra te Emissio n Ra te U nits Floo r al locat ion tons/ year

II-7 Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 132 MMBtu/hr FCCU 0 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 0.0

Flares 12,500 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 61 .4

All Sources Combined 77 .0
Flyi ng J Inc. Sa lt La ke City UT Su lfur R eco very U nit 7 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 16 8.6

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 57 .8
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 489 MMBtu/hr FCCU 7,533 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn 32 9.9

Flares 24,000 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 11 7.8

All Sources Combined 67 4.2

Phil li ps Pet rol eum Co. W ood s Cro ss UT Su lfur R eco very U nit 14 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 33 7.3

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 83 .4
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 705 MMBtu/hr FCCU 5,000 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 21 9.0

Flares 25,000 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 12 2.7

### Table II-2 (continued)

Pl an t Na me City State Source Ty pe Plan t/Unit C apa city Capacity Not es Floo r Al locat ion Em ission Ra te Emissio n Ra te U nits Floo r al locat ion tons/ year

II-8 All Sources Combined 76 2.4

Frontier Refini ng Inc. Cheyenne W Y Su lfur R eco very U nit 110 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 8 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 16 0.6

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 15 5.5
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 1,315 MMBtu/hr FCCU 7,330 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 32 1.1

Flares 46,000 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 22 5.8

All Sources Combined 86 3.0

Sincl air Oil Corp. Casper W Y Su lfur R eco very U nit 21 .7 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 52 2.8

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 77 .1
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 652 MMBtu/hr FCCU 7,590 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 33 2.4

Flares 22,000 Based on 2001 operat ions (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 10 8.0

All Sources Combined 1,0 40 .3

Sincl air Oil Corp. Sin clair W Y Su lfur R eco very U nit 52 .6 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 8 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 76 .8

Fuel Gas Combusti on

### Table II-2 (continued)

Pl an t Na me City State Source Ty pe Plan t/Unit C apa city Capacity Not es Floo r Al locat ion Em ission Ra te Emissio n Ra te U nits Floo r al locat ion tons/ year

II-9 Gas MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 11 9.9
Oil MMBtu/hr Tot al 1,014 MMBtu/hr FCCU 13,120 Co ke B urn R ate (lbs/h r) 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burn off 57 4.7

Flares 60,000 Based on 2001 operat ions (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 29 4.6

All Sources Combined 1,0 66 .0

W yomi ng Refi ning Co. Ne wca stle W Y Su lfur R eco very U nit 3 Su lfur pla nt c ap ac ity tons sul fur

per day 132 lbsof SO 2 per ton sulf ur produced 72 .3

Fuel Gas Combusti on Gas 0 MMBtu/hr 0.027 lbsof SO 2 per m illion Btu 51 .6
Oil 0 MMBtu/hr Tot al 43 6.6 MMBtu/hr FCCU 6,0 28 .5 Data provid ed by W yomi ng Refi ning (lbs/hr) de sign c oke burn rate 20 lbsof SO 2 per ton coke burned 26 4.0

Flares 12,500 From t he December 2000 Oil and Gas Jour nal (bbl s/c d) 26 .9 lbs/ 1,000 bbl refiner y f eed 61 .4

All Sources Combined 44 9.3 Total Floor A ll ocation ( CO, NM, UT, WY) 11,418II- 10



### D. COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL EMISSIONS
Table II -3 s umm ariz es his tor icalSO 2 emiss ionsfr om pet rol eum ref ineries loc ate d in the 9 WRAP Stat es. Cali fornia r efineri es ar e inc lude d in this tabl e. This tabl e pr ovi des apoi nt of c omparis on with the fl oor al loc ati ons shown in Tabl e II- 2. 

### E. EXAM PLE CALCULA TION
This sec ti on pr ovi des a n exampl e calcul ati on of the r efineryfl oorall ocation us ing the data provi ded for this proj ect by Wyoming Refining. This r efinery is l ocated i n New castl e, Wyo mi ng . Th i s s ame i nf or mat i on c an be f

ou nd i n Tabl e I I

- 2 i n c on de ns edf or m. 

### 1. Sulfur Reco

very Unit
The SO 2 fl oorall ocation f or the SRU is base d on t he ca pacity o f the uni t. Becaus e the capa ci ty o f the Wyoming Ref ini ng sulfurpla nt i s l ess than 2 0 lo ng to ns pe r da y, a sul fur rec overy ef

fi ci encyof

96. 8 per centis appl iedin the f loo r c alc ulation. (I f the sulfurpla nt was lar ger than 20 long t ons perday, a 99.8 p erc ent sulfurrec overy v alue would be ap plie d.) The SO 2 emissi on fac torfor96.8 p erc ent sulfurrec overy i s 132 l bs SO 2 perton o f s ulf ur pr odu ce d assh own b el ow:

Then, t he SO 2 flooralloc ation isthe sulf ur plant c apacit y (3 shorttons per day) multipli ed by the SO 2 emission factor and 365 da ys per year, as foll ows:



### 2. Fuel Gas Combustion
The SO 2 fl oorall ocation f or f uel g as c ombust ion i s bas ed on the co mbined b oil er an d proc ess heat er c ombustio n capac it y with each ref iner y. Wyoming Ref iningest imates that its totalboilerplus proc ess heater f ired dut y capacity at the ref inery is436.6 MM Btu per hour. The SO 2 flooralloc ation isesti mated to be the combined oiland gas combustion capac it y multi pli ed by 0. 027 lbs /MMBtu.II- 11 

### Table II-3 Petroleum R

efineries – H istorical Emi ssions – 1990 to 2000

Sta te Sta te

ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li ty Name (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2tpy 1990 SO 2tpy

1996 SO 2tpy

1998 SO 2tpy

2000 AZ 4 005 0001 42 2911 6 Oil/Gas Intermounta in Refini ng 803 0 0 0 CA 6 037 800012 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas AR CO (NS R U SE ON LY ) ARCO PRODUCTS CO 1,919 2,359 1,706 2,315 CA 6 037 800030 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas CHEVRON U. S. A. I NC ( EI S USE) - EL SEGUNDO CHEVRON PRODUCT S CO. 833 1,795 938 1,208 CA 6 013 10 11 2911 6 Oil/Gas CHEVRON USA I NC - RI CHMOND CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY 1,291 1,018 1,413 1,244 CA 6 095 15 11 2911 6 Oil/Gas EX XO N C OR PO RA TIO N - B EN ICIA 4,922 6,042 5,779 5,779 CA 6 029 37 13 2911 6 Oil/Gas KE RN OIL & R EF ININ G C O. 319 425 443 364 CA 6 037 800089 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas MOBIL OI L CORP ( EI S USE) - TORRANCE MOBIL OI L CORP ( EI S USE) 256 807 725 1,018 CA 6 013 32 11 2911 6 Oil/Gas PACI FI C REFI NING COMPANY NOW PLANT ID 11587 278 290 0 0 CA 6 029 25 13 2911 6 Oil/Gas SAN JOAQUI N REFI NERY SAN JOAQUI N REFI NING COMPANY 337 313 138 0 CA 6 013 11 11 2911 6 Oil/Gas SHELL O IL COMPAN Y - MARTINEZ MARTI NEZ REF INI NG COMPANY 2,790 2,518 2,374 1,159 CA 6 037 800223 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas TEXA CO REF I NI NG & MAR KETI NG I N - WIL MI NGTON 546 727 590 953 CA 6 029 33 13 2911 6 Oil/Gas TEXAC O REFINING AN D MAR KETING - BAKE RSFIELD EQUILON ENTER PRISES LLC 471 190 94 72 CA 6 013 12758 11 2911 6 Oil/Gas TOSCO CORP AVON REFI NERY 7,661 4,459 5,422 5,422 CA 6 037 800026 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas UL TR AM AR INC (NS R U SE ON LY ) 341 959 669 620 CA 6 037 800144 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas UNION OIL CO OF CAL (NS R USE O TOSCO REF INI NG COMPANY 724 1,005 806 806 CA 6 079 4 13 2911 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL CARBON TOSCO SANT A MARI A REFI NERY 0 0 0 0 CA 6 079 4 13 2911 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL CHEM DI V-UN OCAL CORP -ARROYO GR TOSCO 3,034 3,950 0 0 CA 6 013 16 11 2911 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL CORPORA TI ON - RODEO TOSCO RODEO REF INE RY 584 728 675 615 CA 6 037 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL REF INI NG & MARKETI NG CO TO SC O R EF ININ G (L .A.) 0 343 508 587 CA 6 079 13 13 2911 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL-SANTA MARI A REFI NERY TOSCO SANT A MARI A REFI NERY 647 225 3,501 3,727 CA 6 037 800047 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas FLET CHER OI L & REF CO ( EI S USE 107 0 0 0 CA 6 037 800184 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas GO LD EN W ES T R EF CO (EIS US E) 232 0 0 0 CA 6 037 800103 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas PO W ER INE OIL CO (EIS US E) 196 0 1 1 CA 6 037 800115 14 2911 6 Oil/Gas SHELL OI L CO ( EI S USE) - CARSON SHELL O IL PRODUC TS 778 0 0 0 CO 8 001 0004 53 2911 6 Oil/Gas COLO REFI NING 632 664 526 545 CO 8 001 0003 53 2911 6 Oil/Gas CONOCO DENVER 2,336 2,610 2,496 1,972 CO 8 077 0001 55 2911 6 Oil/Gas LANDMARK PET ROLEUM 157 0 0 0 NM 35 045 0023 60 2911 6 Oil/Gas GIAN T I NDUSTRI ES/ BLOOMFI ELD REF 676 772 920 920 NM 35 031 0008 61 2911 6 Oil/Gas GIAN T REFI NING/CINI ZA REF INE RY 1,346 1,115 1,779 1,779 NM 35 015 0010 65 2911 6 Oil/Gas NAVAJO REF INI NG/A RTESI A REFI NERY 1,549 1,552 969 980 UT 49 035 0004 32 2911 6 Oil/Gas Am oco Pe troleum Pro duc ts TESORO PET ROLEUM 6,701 983 1,116 1,368 UT 49 011 0003 31 2911 6 Oil/Gas Chevron Prod ucts Company 2,424 1,116 845 1,242 UT 49 011 0008 31 2911 6 Oil/Gas Flyi ng J I ncorpor ated 312 574 225 300 UT 49 011 0013 31 2911 6 Oil/Gas Phil li ps 66 Company 5,672 864 862 601 W Y 56 021 0001 9 2911 6 Oil/Gas FRONTI ER OI L & REF INI NG - CHEYENNE 1,521 1,769 1,422 1,396 W Y 56 025 0001 9 2911 6 Oil/Gas LI TTL E AMERI CA REFI NING COMPANY SI NCLAI R - CASPER 1,899 1,629 1,305 1,458 W Y 56 007 0011 9 2911 6 Oil/Gas SIN CL AIR @ SIN CL AIR 5,917 3,990 3,524 3,407 W Y 56 045 0001 9 2911 6 Oil/Gas WYOMING REF INI NG CO WY OMING R EFINING - NEWC ASTLE 630 930 804 876 W Y 56 025 0002 9 2911 6 Oil/Gas AMOCO REFI NERY 1,153 0 0 0 Tota ls 61,994 46,721 42,575 42,734II- 12



### 3. Cataly

tic Crackers
The SO 2 fl oorall ocation f or c atalytic c rac kersis base d on t he co ke bur n rat e atthe FCCU an d the NSPS SO 2 emission rat e. The FCCU for Wyoming Refining has a design feedrat e of 5, 300 barr els p er day, or 6, 029 lbs per hour . The NSPS SO 2 emissi on rat e is 20 lbs SO 2 per ton cok e b urn -off.



### 4. Flares
The SO 2 floor allo cation for the flares a t W yom ing R efinin g is estim ated accord ing to the to tal crud e pro cessin g cap acity o f the facility . The estim ated crude proce ssing capa city for Wyoming Refining is 12, 500 barrels percalendar day. This capaci ty value i s multipl ied by the AP- 42 SO 2 emission fac tor f or a vapor rec overy syst em and flaring of 26.9 lbs per 1,000 barrel s ref

inery f eed.

REFERENCES 40 CFR Part 60, 2001a: Code of Federal Regulati ons, “ Subpart J - St andards of Perf ormance f

or Pet rol eum Refiner ies, ” ( 60.100- 60.109) , 2001. 40 CFR Part 60, 2001b: Code of Federal Regulati ons, “ Subpart LLL - Standards of Perf ormance f

or Onshor e NaturalGas Proce ssi ng: SO 2 Emissio ns, ” 2001. EP A, 19 89: U .S. En viron m enta l Prote ction A gen cy, “Sulfu r Ox ides E m ission s from Flu id Catalyti c Cracking Unit Regenerat ors – Background Infor mation for Promulgated Sta ndar ds – Fi nal EI S, ” EPA- 450/ 3-8 2-0 13b, Off ic e of AirQuali ty Pl anningand Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, Apri l 1989. EPA , 1993: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “Compilation of Air Pollut ant Emission Fact ors (AP- 42) , S ection 8 .1 3 Sul furRecov ery ,”Off ic e of AirQuali ty Pl anningand Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, 1993. EPA , 1995: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “Compilation of Air Pollut ant Emission Fact ors (AP- 42) , S ection 5 .1 Petr ole um Refi ning, ” Of fi ce o f Ai r Qual it y Pla nningand Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, 1995. Greene, 2002: Lett er fr om Sam uel B. Greene, P. E., Si nclairOil Corporat ion, Sal t Lake City, UT , to Jim W ilson, E .H. P echa n & Asso ciates, In c., Spring field, VA , Re: Sin clair O il Co rpora tion W estern Re gion al A ir Pa rtners hip - M arke t Tra ding For um , Non -Utility SO 2 FloorAlloc ati on Study, Transmit talof Reques ted I nfor mation, Septe mber 30, 200 2. O il & G as Jo ur na l, 20 00 : Oil & Gas Journal , “ 2000 W orldwide Refi ning Survey,”December 18, 2000, Volume 98.51, 2000.III-1 

## CH APT ER III LI ME MANU FA CTURI NG

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES Lime is the high temperatur e product of the calc ination of

limestone. Although limestone deposits are f ound in every State, only a small portion is pur e enough for indu strial lim e m anu facturin g. Th e Sta nda rd Ind ustria l Cla ssification (SIC ) code fo r lime manufact uring i s 3274. The six- digit SCC forli me manu fac turi ng is 3- 05-016. The hear t of

a li me plantis the k il n. Thepre val ent type o f kiln i s t he ro tary ki ln, accou nting for ab out 9 0 pe rcent o f all U.S . lime prod uction . This k iln is a lo ng, cylin drical, sli ghtly i nclined, refr actory -li ned furnace, through which the li mestone and hot combustion gases p ass concu rrently. Coa l, oil, and n atural ga s ma y all be fired in ro tary kilns. Prod uct cooler s and kiln f

eed preheaters of vari ous types ar e common ly used to r ecover heat f rom the hot li me product and hot exhaust gases, respectively. Th e n ex t m ost com m on typ e o f kil n in the U nit ed Sta tes is th e v ert ica l, or sh aft, k iln

. Th is k iln can be de scri be d a s a n u pri gh t he av y st ee l cy lin de r lin ed w ith refr act ory m ate ria l. The li mesto ne ischar ged atthe top andis cal ci ned as itdesc ends sl owly t o di sc harg e atthe bottom of t he kiln. A primary advantage of verticalkilns overrotar y kilns i s higher average fuel ef

fic iency. The primary disadvantages of verti cal kil ns are theirrelat ively l ow pro duction r ate s and the f actthatcoalcanno t be usedwit houtdegr adi ng th e qual it y of the lime produced. There have been few recent vert icalkiln inst allat ions in t he United States because of high produ ct quality requirements. O the r, m us t les s co m m on , kil n ty pe s in clu de rot ary he art h a nd flu idiz ed be d k iln s. Both k il n typ es c an achi eve hi gh pr oduc ti on ra tes , b ut ne it her c an oper ate wit h coa l. The “calcim atic” kiln , or rotary hea rth kiln , is a circula r kiln w ith a slo wly revo lving dou ghn utsha ped hea rth. In flu idized bed kilns , finely d ivided lime stone is brou ght in to con tact w ith hot c ombust ion a irin a turbul ent z one, usual ly a bove aper for ate d gr ate . Bec ause o f the amount of lime car ryoverint o the ex haust gas es, dust col lec ti on equipment mustbe instal led on fl uidized bed ki lns forprocesseconomy. SO 2 emiss ionsare infl uence d by s ever al f act ors , i ncl udin g thefue l s ulf ur c onte nt, the sulfurcontent and numeralogicalform (pyrite orgypsum) of the s tone feed, the qualit y of li me being pro duced, and the type of kil n. The dominantsourc e of SO 2 emiss ionsis the kiln’s fu el, an d the vast m ajority o f the fu el sulfu r is no t em itted be cau se of re action s with calc ium oxidesin t he kil n. SO 2 emissions may be furtherreduced if the poll ution equipment us es a wet p roc ess orif itbri ngs cal cium oxi des and SO 2 into in tima te con tact. Table II I- 1 provi des SO 2 emi ss io n f ac to rs f orli me manu fa ct ur in g. Thi s t abl e s hows thatther e is a wide rang e of SO 2 emissions per formance depending on the kil n type, pollu tion co ntrol e quip m ent, fee dstock , and fuel. Because o f diff

erences in the sulfur content of the raw m aterial and fuel and in process operation s, a ma ss balan ce on su lfur ma y yield a m ore represe ntative em ission factor for a specifi c facility than AP-42 e mission factors. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA

TION ESTIMATION METHODS
With the wide rang e of SO 2 emissi on fac tor s fo r li me manu fac turi ng, the SO 2 control that is in here nt in th e lim e m anu facturin g pro cess, an d ad dition al con trols are not ty pically appli ed to lime plant s, the SO 2 fl oor al loc ati on forli me plants willbe based o n hist ori calIII-2

em issi on s. T he his tor ica l em issi on s fo r th e 1 99 0 to 20 00 pe rio d a re l iste d in Ta ble III-2

. The cale ndar year2000 SO 2 emission total for li me m anufacturing is 2,316 tons. REFERENCES AW M A, 2 00 0: A ir & W as te M an ag em en t A sso cia tion , “A ir P oll uti on En gin ee rin g M an ua l,” 2 ndedition, edit ed by Wayne T. Davi s, 2000. EPA , 1998: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “Compilation of Air Pollut ant Emission Fact ors , AP- 42, Sec ti on 11: 17: Lime Manufa ct uri ng, ” Of fi ce o f Ai r Qual it y Pla nning and Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, 1998.III-3 

### Table III-1 Emission Factors for Lime Manufacturing a

Source SO 2 b Emiss ion Fact or Ra ti ng Coal-fired rotarykil n (SCC 3-05-016- 18) 5.4 D Coal-fired rotarykil n wit h fabri c fi lter (SCC 3-05- 016-18) 1.7 D Coal-fired rotarykil n wit h wet scr ubber (SCC 3-05- 016-18) 0.30 D Gas-fired rotarykil n (SCC 3-05-016- 19) ND Coal- a nd gas-fi red rotarykil n wit h vent uri scrubber (SCC 3-05-016- 20) ND

Coal- a nd coke-fi red rotarykil n wit h vent uri scrubber (SCC 3-05-016- 21) ND

C oa l-fir ed rot ar y pre he ate r k iln w ith d ry P M co ntr ols (SCC 3-05-016- 22) 2.3 E

C oa l-fir ed rot ar y pre he ate r k iln w ith m ultic lon e, w ate r s pr ay, and fabr ic fil ter (SCC 3-05-016- 22) 6.4 E

Gas-fired calci matic ki ln ( SCC 3-05-016-05) ND Gas-fired paral lel fl ow regenera ti ve kil n wit h fabri c fi lter (SCC 3-05-016- 23) 0.0012 D

Product cooler

(SCC 3-05-016- 11) ND

NOTES: a Factors represent uncont rol led emissi ons unle ss other wise not ed. Fact ors are lbs/ton of li me produced unl ess noted. ND = no data. Cl assificat ion Code. b Mass balance on sul fur may yield a more representat ive emissi on factor for a speci fi c faci li ty.III-4 

### Table III-2 Lime Manuf

acturing -

Historical Emissions - 1 990 to 2000

Sta te Sta te

ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 Floor

All ocati on* AZ 4 025 0011 41 3274 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls CHEMI CAL L I ME ( CHEMSTAR) CHEMI CAL L I ME CO -NELS ON PLANT 141 122 562 702 632

AZ 4 003 0003 47 3274 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls CHEMI CAL L I ME ( DOUGLAS) CHEMI CAL L I ME CO - DOUGLAS PLANT 212 634 724 742 733

CA 6 053 12 12 3274 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls NATIONA L REFRA CTOR IES&MINERALS CHEMI CAL L I ME CO - NATI VI DAD PLANT 243 <100 69 82 76

NV 32 003 0003 22 3274 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls CHEMSTAR APEX CHEMI CAL L I ME CO - APEX PLANT 783 175 210 193

NV 32 007 0261 3274 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls CONTI NENTAL L I ME I NC., PI LOT PEAK PLANT GRAYMONT WESTERN US I NC, PI LOT PEAK PLANT <100 136 235 249 242

UT 49 027 35 3274 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls CONTI NENTAL L I ME I NC., CRI CKET MOUNTAI N PLANT GR AY MO NT W ES TE RN US , INC ., CRI CKET MOUNTAI N PLANT 115 297 275 331 303

Tota ls 1,594 1,289 2,040 2,316 2,179

NOTE: *Ba sed on 199 8 an d 20 00 h is to ri calSO 2 emission esti mates.IV -1 

## CH APT ER IV IN DUSTRI A L BOI LERS A ND COGENERATORS

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
Industri al, c omm erci al and instituti onal (ICI) boiler s produce s team or heat water for use in industrial pr ocesses, elect ric al/mechanicalpower generation, or space heat ing. Some have a dua l functionality su ch as the cogen eration o f steam a nd electricity. Aux iliary boilers provid e back up po wer a nd po wer for startu p/shutdow n of large u nits. Large b oilers ( 

### $ 150 MM Btu/hr) are generall y fiel d-erec ted unitswhile small boil ers are pr eassembled, packaged units. The design of an indivi dual ICI boil er is of ten dependant on the appli cati on of stea m and the sp ace lim itation s in a particu lar pla nt. ICI boilers generate steam at low er temperatures and pressures than utility boilers , theref ore, their heat i nputs are smaller . Industrialboiler s generall y have heat input rat es ran gin g fro m 30 to 2 50 M M Btu /hr, b ut m ay be as h igh as 1 ,500 M M Btu /hr (E PA , 199 4). Comm erc ialand instit utio nal boi ler s ty pic all y have heatinputrat es ranging f rom 0.4 t o 12 MMBtu/hr , butmay b e as hi gh a s 1 00 MMBt u/hr ( EPA, 199 4)

. The ove ra llpo pul at io n of ICI boi ler s have smallheatinpu ts , wi th 80 per centof the p opul ati on ope rat ing a t l ess than 5 MM Btu/hr per boiler (STAPP A, 1994). Over 80 pe rcent of the ICI boilers burn oil and gas. The remaining boilers burn primarily c oal, with a small numb er burning biomass, waste or othe r non- fos si l f

uel. ICI c ombust ion un it s of ten b urn a mi xtur e of conv enti onalfue ls and bio mass orwast e. Pulve ri zed c oal -f ir ed uni ts acc ountfo r ap pro ximat ely1 per centof the tot al ICIboil er pop ulat ion. However, they have lar ge heat i nputs, great er t han 100 MM Btu/hr , theref

ore, they r epres ent 14 percentof the tot al ICIboil er c apaci ty. Oil and g as fi red I CI boil ers ar e small er i n siz e than c oal- fi red boiler s, typi cally les s than 250 MM Btu/hr. The use of

ICI b oil ers vari es wi th the ind ust ri al ap plicat ion. In ad dition, the application o f steam from an ind ustrial boiler can chan ge w ith the sea sons, an d can v ary thro ugh the c ourse o f a dayas well , de pending o n the pr oces ses and ac ti vit ies und erway at a given mom ent and their demand for steam. Therefor e, ICI boilers may have a much lower an nu al o pe rat ing loa d o r ca pa city fac tor tha n a typ ica l ut ility bo ile r. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA

TION ESTIMATION METHODS The analysi s was li mited t o fac il it ies whi ch emitgreat er t han 100 tpy o f SO 2 in tota l, and/orindividualunitswhich emitgreat er t han 25 tpy of SO 2 . In ad dition , only co al an d oil fir ed units were analyzed. Auxiliary boilers were i ncluded in t he flooralloc ation estimation if the unit had a potenti al to emit (PTE) greater t han 25 tpy. This i ncludes boil ers lar ger than 5 MM Btu/hr f

iri ng fossil fuelwith a sulf ur content of

1 percent ormore. The a irpo ll ut io n ag enc ie s f oreac h WRAP St at e p ro vi dedin fo rma ti on f oreac h I CI boilerbeing analyzed. This infor mation included the boiler des ign capaci ty, annual fuel consumpti on forrec ent c alendaryears , f uel t ype ( coalor oi l) , f uel sulfurcont ent, SO 2 control devic e inf

ormati on, and the cont roldevic e SO 2 cont roleff ici ency, or per mitt ed SO 2 em ission s lim it for each un it. The SO 2 flooralloc ations ar e calcul ated foreach facility based on the curr ent levelof contro l. An a vera ge le vel o f contro l is then assu m ed for e ach facility, acco rding to Ta ble IV- 1 be lo w:IV -2 

### Table IV-1 Assu med Level of Con trol for SO 2

### Floor Allocation

Current Faci li tyLevel of Cont rol Ass umed Ave rag e Leve l of Control for Est imat ing the Floo r Uncontrol led, 0% 85% Reduction Units controll ed at 0% to <70% 85% Reduction Units controll ed at 70% to 80 % Incre ase reduct ion by 5% Units controll ed at 80% or greater No addit ionalreduct ion
Floor all ocati ons for i ndustri al boil ers/cogenerator s were also based on t he average capa city utiliza tion d urin g the mo st recen t calen dar y ears. S om e Sta tes w ere a ble to provide as many as five years worth of boilerutil izati on data. The recentyears of boiler util izati on (fuelconsumption) dat a were used to esti mate an average capacit y fact or for eachunit . Thi s ave ragecap aci ty f act or was used , a longwit h a 5 percentmargi n fo r gr owth, in t he SO 2 floor allocation calcu lation for each boiler/cogen erator. 

### 1. Coal Fired Units
Coal f ire d unit s were as sumed to f iresubbituminous coalwith a heating val ue of 9, 000 Btu/lb (18 MMBtu/t on) of coalburned, unless a spec if ic c oal t ype or heati ng value was reported (A WM A, 200 0). The IC I boilers in the WR AP States w ere assu me d to burn subbituminous coal since it has a l ow sulfur cont ent. I n additi on, a lower grade of subbituminous coal, class C coal, was assumed to be used f or ICI applicati ons. The fuel su lfu r co nte nt u sed to c alc ula te th e flo or a llo cat ion w as fac ility -sp eci fic, w he re a va ila ble

. For f aci li ti es that d id no t r epor t s ulf ur c onte nt, an aver age s ulf ur c onte nt ( 1 per cent) f or the type of co al b ein g fire d w as u sed (AW M A, 2 00 0). The SO 2 emissi on fac torforsubbituminous coalfi red boiler s in po unds of SO 2 emitted per ton of coal burned is given in AP -42 as:

wher e S i s the p er ce nt age su lf ur co nt entof

th e c oalbur nedby e ac h c ombus ti on u ni t ( EPA, 19 98 a). 

### 2. Oil Fired Units
Oil fired units were assume d to have a h eating value of 0.15 M MB tu/gal unless a specif ic oi l type orheating value was report ed (AWM A, 2000). The fuel sulf ur content us ed to c alc ulat e thefl oorall ocation was fac il it y- spec if ic . Fo r f

aci li ti es no t r epor ti ng sulfur con ten t, an av era ge s ulfu r con ten t for th e typ e of o il be ing fired wa s us ed (A W M A, 2 00 0). The SO 2 emission fac tor f or No. 2 and No. 6 oilfir ed boiler s in pounds of SO2 emitted per 1,000 gallons of oil burned is given in AP -42 as:

wher e S i s t he pe rc ent age sul fu r c ont entof theoi l b urn ed b y ea ch c ombus ti on unit ( EPA 19 98 b).IV -3

Un its that b urn natu ral ga s an d oil a re ass um ed to b urn natu ral ga s as a prim ary fu el, if the emis sion d ata i ndic ated SO 2 emiss ion < 5 tp y. If natur al g as i s t he pr imaryfue l, no alloc ations ar e computed. 

### C. FLOOR ALLOCA

TION RESULTS
Table IV- 2 summari zes the f loo r al loc ati on ca lc ulation f or the ICIboi ler s i n the 8 nonCalifornia Western R egional Air Partnership (W RAP ) States. 

### D. COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL EMISSIONS
Table IV- 3 summarizes hi sto ric al SO 2 em ission s from indu strial bo ilers loca ted in Arizona, Color ado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This table pr ovides a poi nt of com parison w ith the floor allocation s show n in T able IV -2 and h istorical emission s at each facility. Note that the histori cal emissions are the total plant emissions, not just those result ing fr om operation of the boiler. In general, boiler s which current ly have a scrubber are abl e to meetthei r SO 2 floo r al loc ati on s b as ed on his tor ica l em issi on s. 

### E. EXAM PLE USE OF CAPA CITY UT ILIZA

TION DA

TA FOR FLOOR

AL LOCA

TION ESTIMA TES
The f loo r al loc ati on es ti mati on metho d f or bo il ers and c ogene rat ors tak es i nto a cc ount util izati on of these f uel combustion unitsin the most rec ent hist oric al years. This sect ion provi des an exampl e of how t he capac it y fac torcal culation was perfor med for o ne boil er at Abitibi Consolidat ed in Ari zona. In order t o esti mate the average annual capacity fact ors of each unit, Pechan requested the actualfuel throughput data forthe last5 years foreach boiler . The data was suppli ed by the air pol lution agenci es f or eac h WRA P Stat e. The f uel t hroughputdata s uppli ed by the Ari zona DEQ for AbitibiConsoli datedis list ed in Tabl e IV-4. Fuel throughputfo r al l f uel types , c oal , o iland nat uralgas wer e use d toest imat e the annualheatinpu t f

or e ach unit us ing the f oll owing e quat ion:

where: Q annual = a nn ua l he at in pu t for e ach bo iler (M M Btu /yr), T = thr oughputfo r given f uel type, and HC = heat content f or a given f

uel type. M ost Sta tes did not sp ecify th e he at con tent for e ach fuel, the refore, th e follow ing d efau lt values were used: Coal Heat content = 18. 0 MM Btu/ton Oil Heat cont ent = 0. 15 MM Btu/g al NaturalGas He at conten t = 1,020 M MB tu/MM scf Th e bo iler des ign ca pacity at A bitibi P ow er bo iler #2 is 1,13 2 M M Btu per h our. In this exe rcise, the ann ual fu el con sum ption is com pare d w ith this boile r desig n ca pacity to est imate t he perc entage o f t otalcapac it y thatis us ed in eac h year. The Arizona DEQ was ab le to pro vid e fu el th rou gh pu t, or fue l co ns um ptio n, e stim ate s fo r fou r ca len da r ye ars : 1998 through 2001. This part icularunit burns coaland oil, but not naturalgas. Fuel cons umpti on es ti mates were p rov ide d by the St ate in t ons f or c oaland gallonsfo r oil. The average heat c ontent s of thesetwo fue ls ar e li ste d in Tabl e IV-4 a nd are use d to c ompute an All Fuels Combi ned Throughputvalue in col umn J. Column K contains the boil er desig n capac it y value c onvert ed to a n annual equiv alent . The c apaci ty f act or f or eac h cale ndar year is c omputed (in col umn L) as the r atio of column J to column K. For AbitibiPower boile r #2, th ese ca pacity factors ra nge from 60 to 70 p ercen t, with a n av erag e cap acityIV -4

fact or of 64 per cent. The 64 percent average capac ity f actor value is used i n the floor alloc ation estimate. (Note that duri ng a leap year (2000) , t he potentialhours of oper ation are gre ate r.) This aver age capac it y fac toris us ed to c alcul ate the SO 2 floor allo cation . This v alue is multipli ed by 1 .0 5 topro vid e some mar gin f or f utur e inc reas es i n oper ati ons. Only the primary fuel(coalin this example) is as sumed to burned by the boilerin the f loor al locat ion est imati on. The SO 2 all ocat ions ar e cal culat ed usi ng the as sumed cont roleff ici ency ( 85 perc ent) as spe cif

ied i n Table IV- 1. The SO 2 fl oorall ocation i s c alc ulat ed us ing the followi ng equation:

where: SO 2 = SO 2 floor allo catio n (to ns/y r), Q design = a nn ua l he at in pu t (M M Btu /yr), HC prime = h ea t co nte nt o f pri m ary fue l (M M Bt u/to n, M M Bt u/g al), EF = SO 2 em issio ns fa ctor (lb /ton , lb/ga l), CF = aver age c apac it y f act or ( %), and CE = re qu ired con trol e fficien cy (% ). For AbitibiPower boiler #2, the appropri ate values f or the above equation ar e: Q design = 9,916, 320 HC prime = 18 EF = 35 CF = 0.64 CE = 85 As is s hown in col umn P of Table IV- 4, the SO 2 fl oor al loc ati on est imate f or Abitibi Power boiler #2 is978 tpy. REFERENCES AW MA , 2000: Airand Wa ste Managem ent Associ ation, Davis, Wayne T. ed., “Air Pollution Engineeri ng Manual,” Second Edi ti on, John Wil ey and Sons, Inc. , New York, 2000. EPA , 1994: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “Alter native ControlTechniques Doc ument– NO xEmis si ons f ro m Ind ustri al/ Commer ci al/ In st itut io nalBoi le rs , ” E PA453/R-94- 022, Emiss ion S tand ardsDivi si on, Off ic e of AirQuali ty Pl anningand Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, March 1994. EPA, 199 8a: U.S. Envir onmentalProt ection Ag ency , “ Compil ati on of AirPoll utant Emissio n Factor s (AP- 42), Sect ion 1. 1 Bituminous And SubbituminousCoal Combustion, ” Off

iceof Ai r Quali ty Pl anning and St andards , Rese arch Tr iangl e Park, NC, 1998. EPA, 199 8b: U.S. Envir onmentalProt ection Ag ency , “ Compil ati on of AirPoll utant Em ission Fa ctors (A P-42 ), Section 1.3 F uel O il Co m bus tion,” O ffice of Air Q uality Planning and S tandar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, 1998. STAPPA, 19 94: Sta te a nd Ter ri torialAirPoll uti on Pro gram Admini st rat ors (STAPPA) and Asso ci ati on of

LocalAirPoll uti on Cont rolOff ic ial s (ALAPCO), “ Contr olling Ni tr ous Oxides, ” Jul y 1994.IV -5 

### Table IV-2 Facility SO 2

### Floor Allocation Estimation for ICI B oilers

Fac ility Un it Ca pac ity in MM Btu/hr Fuel Sulfur Content Current SO 2 Co ntro ls Percent

Reduction SO 2 Lim it Average Ca pac ity Factor ( % ) Assumed

Percent Reduction Floor

All ocati on (tpy) Arizona Abiti bi Consol idated No. 2 Power Boi ler 1,132 Coal 1.0 None 0 64 85 978 Colorado TR IGE N - C olora do E nerg y Co rp Boil er #3 225 Coal 0.39 0 43 85 TR IGE N - C olora do E nerg y Co rp Boil er #4 360 Coal 0.38 0 62 85 TR IGE N - C olora do E nerg y Co rp Boil er #5 650 Coal 0.43 0 59 85 387 Idaho Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa S-B 1 105 Coal 1.0 None 0 34 85 Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa S-B 2 105 Coal 1.0 None 0 35 85 Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa S-B 3 250 Coal 1.0 None 0 43 85 242 Amalgamated Sugar Company, Paul S-B 1 200 Coal 1.0 None 0 35 85 Amalgamated Sugar Company, Paul S-B 2 200 Coal 1.0 None 0 23 85 155 Am alg am ate d S ug ar C om pa ny, T win Fa lls P-B 1 280 Coal 1.0 None 0 30 85 Am alg am ate d S ug ar C om pa ny, T win Fa lls P-B 2 285 Coal 1.0 None 0 24 85 203 Oregon Boise Cascade c Power Boil er 6- 9 N/A Oil 2.0 No 0 4125 tp y -- 85 411 Amalgamated Sugar B& W Bo ilers 204 Coal 1.5 W et Scr ubber 45 200 tpy 12 85 Amalgamated Sugar Foster Ril ey Boi ler 136 Coal 1.5 0 265 tpy 20 85 Amalgamated Sugar Foster W heeler

Boil er 300 Coal 1.5 0 775 tpy 21 85 74 Georgia Pacifi c W est Power Boil er #1 Unknown Oil 2.0 None 0 429.6 tpy -- 85 143 Pope & Talbot Power Boil er #1 Unknown Oil 2.0 None 0 391 tpy

-- 85 107 W est Li nn Paper Co. Boi le rs 1 & 2 Oil 2.0 None 0 492.74 tpy 46 85 211 Georgia -Paci fi c W auna Power Boil er Unknown Oil 2.0 None 0 641.1 tpy -- 85 Georgia -Paci fi c W auna Package Boil er Unknown Oil 2.0 None 0 0.5 t py 0 85 277 W eyerh aeu ser S pring field Power Boil er Unknown Oil 2 None 0 590 tpy

-- 85 W eyerh aeu ser S pring field Package Boil er Unknown Oil 0.55 None 0 73 tpy

-- 85 W eyerh aeu ser S pring field Package Boil er 16 Oil 2 None 0 39 tpy 0 85 362 Utah Sunnysi de Cogenerat ion Assoc iates FBC Boiler #1 700 Coal 1.0 Scrubber 86 462 lb s/hr 84 86 1,270 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp N . Co nce ntato r Un it 1 431 Coal 0.68 None a 0 1258 tp y 41 85 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp N . Co nce ntato r Un it 2 431 Coal 0.68 None a 0 1258 tp y 33 85 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp N . Co nce ntato r Un it 3 431 Coal 0.68 None a 0 1258 tp y 28 85 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp N . Co nce ntato r Un it 4 838 Coal 0.68 None a 0 2445 tp y 39 85 700 Brigh am You ng U nive rsity Units#2, #3 , and # 5 128 Coal 0.70 None a 0 217 tpy 0 85 Brigh am You ng U nive rsity Auxil iar y #7 5 Oil 1.5 0 6 85 0 Brush Wellman Inco rporated S-11 - Main Boi ler 81.2 Oil 1.5 None 46 0.85 lb/MB tu 32 85 Brush Wellman Inco rporated S-10 Backup Boil er 12.66 Oil 1.5 None 46 0.85 lb/MB tu 19 85 23

### Table IV-2 (continued)

Fac ility Un it Ca pac ity in MM Btu/hr Fuel Sulfur Content Current SO 2 Co ntro ls Percent

Reduction SO 2 Lim it Average Ca pac ity Factor ( % ) Assumed

Percent Reduction Floor

All ocati on (tpy)

IV -6 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 1 411 Coal/ Gas 1.0 None 0 4 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 2 411 Coal/ Gas 1.0 None 0 4 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 3 411 Coal/ Gas 1.0 None 0 4 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 4 205 Coal/ Gas 1.0 None 0 0 Geneva Steel Power Boil er 5 205 Coal/ Gas 1.0 None 0 520.2 tpy 0 96 17 Wyoming Solvay Minerals, Inc. Boil er #18 350 Coal 0.7 Scrubber 85 0.2 62 85 Solvay Minerals, Inc. Boil er #19 350 Coal 0.7 Scrubber 85 0.2 61 85 294 General Chemical Bo iler C 534 Coal 0.5 No 0 1.2 74 85 General Chemical Bo iler D 880 Coal 0.5 No 0 1.2 71 85 750 Holly Sugar- Torri ngton Pl ant 221 .2 Coal 0.7 No 0 None 17 85 23 FMC Corp - Green River Plant Boil er #6 887 Coal 0.5 Sc rubb er b 0 1.2 70 85 FMC Corp - Green River Plant Boil er #7 887 Coal 0.5 Sc rubb er b 0 1.2 70 85 956 University of

W yoming Cent ral Heati ng Plant Boil er #2 73.1 Coal 0.5 No 0 1.2 18 85 University of

W yoming Cent ral Heati ng Plant Boil er #3 73.1 Coal 0.5 No 0 1.2 25 85 22 University of

W yoming Cent ral Heati ng Plant Boil er #4 73.1 Coal 20 FMC Granger Boil er #1 358 Coal 1.0 Scrubber 99 0.2 lb/M Mb tu 48 99 FMC Granger Boil er #2 358 Coal 1.0 Scrubber 99 0.2 lb/M Mb tu 48 99 305 Total Floor All ocati on 7,910

NOTES: a Natural gas i s fi red duri ng winter months per SIP requir ements. b Sc rubb er is for the entire p lant no t just the b oiler.IV -7 

### Table IV-3 Comparisonof SO 2

### Floor Allocation with Historical E missions fo r ICI Boil ers

His to ri calSO 2 Emissions Fac ility Un it Capacity ( MM Btu/hr) SO 2 Floo r Allo catio n (tpy) 199 0 (tpy) 199 6 (tpy) 199 8 (tpy) 200 0 (tpy) Arizona Abiti bi Consol idated Power Boil er #2 1,132 978 2,455 2,448 1,893 Colorado TRIGEN - Colorad o Energy Corp b Boil er #3 225 TRIGEN - Colorad o Energy Corp b Boil er #4 360 TRIGEN - Colorad o Energy Corp b Boil er #5 650 387 2,675 3,708 2,583 Idaho Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa S-B 1 105 Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa S-B 2 105 Amalgamated Sugar, Nampa S-B 3 250 242 1,008 1,660 1,787 1,697 Amalgamated Sugar Company, Paul S-B 1 200 Amalgamated Sugar Company, Paul S-B 2 200 155 608 306 217 1,322 Am alg am ate d S ug ar C om pa ny, T win Fa lls P-B 1 280 Am alg am ate d S ug ar C om pa ny, T win Fa lls P-B 2 268 203 599 1,364 1,053 1,053 Oregon Boise Cascade c Power Boil er 6- 9 N/A 411 2,453 685 746 1,834 Amalgamated Sugar c B& W Bo ilers 204 Amalgamated Sugar c Foster Ril ey Boi ler 136 Amalgamated Sugar c Foster W heeler

Boil er 300 74 594 625 1,235 987 Ge orgia Pa cific W est c Power Boil er #1 Unknown 143 Pope & Talbotc Power Boil er #1 Unknown 107 39 161 W est Li nn Paper Co. a Boi le rs 1 & 2 365 211 Georgia -Paci fi c - Wauna c Power Boil er Unknown Georgia -Paci fi c - Wauna c Package Boil er 18 277 254 165 W eyerh aeu ser S pring field Power Boil er Unknown 297 W eyerh aeu ser S pring field Package Boil er Unknown 65 W eyerh aeu ser S pring field Package Boil er 16 0 Utah Sunnyside Cogenerati on Associates b FBC Boiler #1 700 1,270 0 1,006 970 1,054 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp, N . Co nce ntato r b Un it 1 431 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp, N . Co nce ntato r b Un it 2 431 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp, N . Co nce ntato r b Un it 3 431 Ke nne cott U tah C opp er C orp, N . Co nce ntato r b Un it 4 838 700 2,905 2,141 2,200 2,534 Brigh am You ng U nive rsity Units2, 3, and 5 128 Brigh am You ng U nive rsity Auxil iar y #7 5 0 248 90 158 125 Brush Wellman Inco rporated S-11 Main Boil er 81.2 Brush Wellman Inco rporated S-10 Back-up Boil er 12.66 23 161 175 208 179

### Table IV-3 (continued)

His to ri calSO 2 Emissions

Fac ility Un it Capacity ( MM Btu/hr) SO 2 Floo r Allo catio n (tpy) 199 0 (tpy) 199 6 (tpy) 199 8 (tpy) 200 0 (tpy)

IV -8 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 1 411 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 2 411 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 3 411 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 4 205 Geneva Steel Po wer B oiler 5 205 17 8,473 2,020 881 979 Wyoming So lvay M inera ls, Inc. b Boil er #18 350 So lvay M inera ls, Inc. b Boil er #19 350 294 101 72 52 Ge ne ral C he m ical b Bo iler C 534 Ge ne ral C he m ical b Bo iler D 880 750 4,196 5,651 4,538 5,000 Ho lly Sug ar-T orring ton P lant b 221 .2 23 374 266 154 178 FM C C orp - G reen Rive r Plan t b Boil er #6 887 FM C C orp - G reen Rive r Plan t b Boil er #7 887 956 4,795 5,256 4,533 4,901 Un iversity of W yom ing C entra l Hea ting P lant a Boil er #2 73.1 Un iversity of W yom ing C entra l Hea ting P lant a Boil er #3 73.1 22 152 154 223 193 Un iversity of W yom ing C entra l Hea ting P lant a Boil er #4 73.1 FMC Granger Boil er #1 358 FMC Granger Boil er #2 358 305 475 473 149 212

NOTES: a Fac il it

y wi th boi le rs as onl y SO 2 source

. b Fac ility has m ultiple so urce s, em ission s are total plan t. c Fa cility ha s m ultip le so urc es , em issio ns are boile rs on ly.IV -9 

### Table IV-4 Example Use of

Capacity

Utilizati on Data f

or Floor Allocation Estimates

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Coal Oil Natural Gas

Fac ility Un it Year Throughput (ton/yr) Heat Value

(MMB tu/ton) Throughput

(gal/ yr) Heat Value (M M Btu /gal) Throughput

(MM cf/y r) Heat

Value (M M Btu /ft 3 ) Throughput

All Fu els Com bined (MM Btu/yr) Design

Ca pac ity (MM Btu/yr) Ca pac ity

Factor Primary

Fuel Sul fur Content ( % ) SO 2 EF

(l b/t on) SO 2

Reduction ( % ) SO 2

All ocati on (t ons) Arizona Abiti bi Consol idated Power Boil er # 2 1998 387,532 18.0 44,000 0.15 0.0 6,982, 176 70% 1,132 MMBtu/hr 1999 353,163 18.0

- 0.15 0.0 6,356, 934 64%

2000 350,531 18.0 29 0.15 0.0 6,309, 562 64% 2001 327,428 18.0 193,000 0.15 0.0 5,922, 654 60% 18.0 9,916, 320 64% 1.00 35.0 85.0 978

NO TE : Thro ugh put is th e an nua l fuel co nsu m ption in the ca lend ar year.IV-10V-1 

## CHA PTER V PULP A ND PA PER I NDUSTRY

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
Th e pro cessin g of w ood for a va riety of p rodu cts is on e of th e ten large st indu stries in the U nited State s. To p rodu ce pa per o r pap erbo ard, w ood mu st be p ulpe d first. In ge nera l, the p ulp a nd p ape r prod uction proce sses ca n be divide d into three steps: pu lp m akin g, pulp processing, and paper/paperboard processing. The three basic types of pulping processes, which arethe majorsourc es of SO 2 , are ch em ical pu lping , me cha nical p ulpin g, an d sem ichemicalpulpi ng. Chemic al wood pul ping i nvolvescooki ng wood chi ps orsawdustin an aqu eous ch em ical solution to disso lve the lign in that bin ds the cellulo se fibers togeth er. Th ere a re tw o m ajor typ es of ch em ical pu lping use d: Kra ft/soda p ulpin g an d sulfite pulp ing. Kraf

t pu lpi ng ac count s f

or o ver80 per centof the chemic al p ulp p rod ucedin the United States. Sourc es of

SO 2 in a Kr aftmillinc lude : ( 1) b oil ers gener ati ng st eam forpowerand heat, usin g coal, oil, natural ga s, or bark/wo od w aste as fue l; (2) recovery furnace s wh ere SO 2 emiss ionsocc ur f rom t he oxi dat ion o f r educ ed su lf ur c ompounds ; a nd ( 3) lime ki lns when fuel oil i s being combusted. All ocationsfo r boiler s ar e di sc usse d in Cha pte r I V, " Indus tr ialBoil ers and Co gen erato rs." Floo r alloca tions fo r recov ery fu rna ces an d lim e kiln s are d escribe d in th is chapt er. Note t hat t he cal culations f or t hese sources ar e the s ame as thoseforli ke configurations set f

orth in other chapters. 

### 1. Recovery

Furnaces
After the cooking peri od, t he pulp and the liquor in which it c ooked are separat ed, the spent liquor (black liquor) i s evaporated and con centrated to about 65 percent solids. Con centrated b lack liquo r is then spra yed into th e furna ce and the orga nic com poun ds are combuste d. The c ombustio n of bl ack l iquorin a re covery fur nace re sult s in SO 2 emiss ions thatvarywit h li quorpro per ti es (i. e. , s ulf idity, heatval ue) , c ombust ion a irand l iquo r f ir ing patterns, f

urnace design an d operational patterns. SO 2 reducti on is achieved by alteri ng the proces s, r ather than applyi ng control tec hnolo gy. Str ate gie s t o lo wer l iquo r s ulf idity a nd optimiz e co mbusti on and f ir ing p att erns in such way that yiel ds maximum and uniform temperatures i n the lower fur nace are used to mini mize SO 2 em issions. Flue gas desu lfurization is en ergy inten sive an d its efficiency uncert ain, consi deri ng the gene rally low co ncentr ati ons and f luctuati ng level s of

SO 2 in the furnace flue gases. 

### 2. Lime Kilns In a pul p and paperli me kiln, the i norgani c molt en smeltthatfor ms and col lec ts at the bo ttom of the furnace is w ithdraw n throu gh spo uts into a sm elt-dissolving tan k wh ere jets of w ater a re us ed to q uen ch th e m olten sm elt, form ing g reen liquo r. The gree n liqu or is t he n c omb in edwi t h qu ic kl ime ( CaO) , re su ltin g i n a w hi t e l iq uo r s ol ut io n c on t ai ni ngNaOH, Na 2 S an d l ime mud p re ci pi ta te ( mai nl y Ca CO 3 ). This li me mud is was hed, dri ed and calcine d in th e lim e kiln to rege nera te qu icklim e. Th e reg ene rated quick lime in the kiln acts as an in -situ-scru bbin g ag ent a nd th e V entu ri scrub ber th at us ually follow s the k iln fur therreduc es SO 2 levels. Em issions from sme lt-dissolving tank s and lim e kilns are generally negl igibl e.V-2



### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS The analysis was limit ed to pulp and paper f acil iti es that emitgreaterthan 100 tpy of SO 2 from all processes. There are seven pulp and paper f acil iti es evaluated – six locat ed in t he Stat e of Or egon and one i n Idaho. The Oregon Depart ment of Envi ronmental Quality provi ded data on the unit c apacit y for eac h Oregon facil ity. How ever, the data given were the p ermit ted SO 2 em ission levels a nd the design ca pacity of produ ction of each rec overy f

urnac e orkil n. Abitibi in N avajo C oun ty, Arizona no lon ger ope rates a recov ery furna ce. They are no longer pulpi ng and have converted to r ecycl ed paper proc essing. Therefore, they receive no f loo r al loc ati on f

or r eco ver y f

urnac e ope rat ion. 

### 1. Recovery

Furnaces
The floor allocation for rec overy furnaces is determined assum ing that the process provi des suf

fi cie nt SO 2 reduc ti ons. No further SO 2 reducti ons will be r equired when esti mating the fl oor all ocati ons. Pechan esti mated the flooralloc ation using the emission fact or given in AP-42 in lbs/ai r-dried ton of pulp (ADT) and the designed pul p product ion capac it y. The SO 2 fl oorall ocationsare give n by t he equation:

where: A F = SO 2 all ocation f or r eco ver y f

urnac es i n the fac il it y, and EF SO2 = AP-4 2 emi ss io n fact or= 7 lbs/ ADT. For f acilit ies wher e pulp p roduc ti on capac it y was not given, butfuelthro ughput was reported i n it s pl ace, SO 2 all ocationsare e st imat ed as the f uel throughputmultipli ed by the EPA AP -42 SO 2 em ission factor. 

### 2. Lime Kilns
The floor allocation for lim e kilns is determ ined in th e sam e m ann er as recove ry fur naces. The fl oor al loc ati on forli me kilns a ssumes no f urtherSO 2 reduc ti ons wil l be requ ir ed when es ti mati ng th e f loo r al loc ati ons. Usingthe e miss ion f act or f or lime ki lns given i n AP-42, the SO 2 flooralloc ation equati on for l ime kilns isgiven by:

where: A K = SO 2 all ocation f or lime ki lns in the f aci li ty, and EF SO2 = AP-4 2 emi ss io n fact or= 0. 3 l bs/ ADT. For f acilit ies wher e pulp p roduc ti on capac it y was not given, butfuelthro ughput was reported i n it s pl ace, SO 2 all ocationsare e st imat ed as the f uel throughputmultipli ed by the EPA AP -42 SO 2 em ission factor. 

### C. FLOOR ALLOCA TION RESULTS
Ta ble V -1 pres ents th e floor a llocatio n ca lculatio ns for p ulp a nd p ape r plan ts in Ore gon bas ed o n th e pe rm itted cap acity o f the re cove ry furn aces a nd k ilns. U nit cap acity values were gi ven in ai r- dri ed tons of pul p per d ay. Forthe f loorcal culations, itwas assumed that the fur nace was operated 365 days per yearat 100 percentcapacity.V-3 Table V-2 presents the fl oor all ocati on for f acil iti es where the pulp produc tion capa city w as n ot give n, bu t fuel th roug hpu t wa s repo rted in stead . The Potla tch facility listed in T ab le V -2 is lo cate d in Ida ho . All o the r pu lp a nd pap er m ills liste d in Ta ble s V -1 and V-2 are in Oregon. Theref ore, the computed flooralloc ations by St ate are 1, 807 tpy for Idah o, and 5, 377 t py f or Or egon. The California a ll ocation f or p ulp/paperis base d on t he 1996, 199 8, and 20 00 hist ori cal SO 2 emissions dat a in Table V-3, and is324 tpy. 

### Table V-1 Facility SO 2

### Floor Allocation Estimation for Pulp a nd Paper Faci lities

Based on Un it Capacity Values

Facility Un it Cap acity* (ADTP/d ay) SO 2 Allocations (tpy) Boise Cascade Corporati on RecoveryFurnace#2 450 575 RecoveryFurnace#3 700 894 Lime Kil n#4 1,150 63 G eo rg ia- Pa cif ic (W au na M ill) RecoveryFurnace 1,015 1,297 Lim e K iln 1,174 64 W eye rh au se r S pr ing fie ld #3 Recovery Boil er 1,150 760 #4 Recovery

Boil er 1,150 790 Lime Kil ns 2,156 118

NOTE: *Design and a ctual capacity are unknown, the values given are the permitted level s. 

### Table V-2 Facility SO 2

### Floor Allocation Estimation for Pulp a nd Paper Faci lities

Based on Fuel Throughput

Facility Unit Fuel Throughput SO 2 Allocati ons (t py) Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. Recovery F urnace#1 DCE-BLS 242,725 tpy 129 Nat. gas Recovery F urnace#2 DCE-BLS 242,725 tpy 129 Nat. gas Lime Kiln#2 Nat. gas 553.7*10E6 ft3 /y 0 RFO #6 oil Lime Kiln#3 Nat. gas 553.7*10E6 ft3 /y 0 RFO #6 oil Willamette Industries, Inc. Recovery F urnace#5 BLS 495,000 tpy 235 Nat. gas 350 MMft3 0 No.2 fuel oil 1E06 gal/y 39 Lime Kiln #3 Oil/nat.gas/LPG 1.35E05 ton lime mu d/y 36 Pope & Talbot, Inc. Recovery F urnace BLS 461,081 tpy 67 Oil 1.2E06 gal/y 173 Lime Kiln CaO 55,536 tpy 0 Oil 1.8E06 gal/y 1 NCG/CaO 5,662 tpy 7 Potlatch #4 Recovery Boiler BLS 117,113 tpy 410 #5 Recovery

Boiler Pulp 393,548 tpy 1,377 #2 Lime Kiln CaO 10,247 tpy 2 #3 Lime Kiln CaO 61,467 tpy 9 #4 Lime Kiln CaO 60,147 tpy 9V-4



### D. COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL EMISSIONS
Table V-3 s umm ariz es his tor icalSO 2 em ission s from pulp and pap er facilities. T his tab le pr ovi des a po int o f com pa rison wi th th e floo r allo catio ns s ho wn in T ab les V -1 a nd V-2 and hist ori cal emissi ons at each f acilit y. Not e thatthe hi sto ric al emis sionsare t he tot al pl an t emi ss i on s, no t j us t t ho se r es ul t i ngf r om o pe r at i on of

t he r ec ov ery f

ur na c e a nd l i me kil n. REFERENCES AWM A, 20 00: Airand Wast e ManagementAsso ci ati on, “Ai r Pol lut ion Eng inee ri ng M anu al,” 2 ndedition, Chapter 18 -Wood Proc essi ng Industry, 2000. EPA , 1998: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “Compilation of Air Pollut ant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stati onary Point and Area Source, Secti on 10.2 Che mical W ood Pu lping,” Off ice of Air Quality Planning an d Standards, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, 1998.V-5 

### Table V-3 Pulp and Paper - Histo rical Emissions- 1990 to 2000

Sta te Sta te ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS

Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 AZ 4 017 0007 43 2611 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp STONE CONTAI NER ABI TI BI 8,536 2,455 2,448 1,893 CA 6 023 21 10 2611 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp SIMPSON PAPER CO MPANY SI MPSON PAPER CO 1,021 315 315 CA 6 089 23 2611 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp SHAST A PAPE R- ANDERS ON 216 CA 6 013 3257 11 2611 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp GAYLORD CONT AI NER CORPORATI ON 263 0 0 CA 6 023 37 10 2611 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp LO UIS IAN A-P AC IFIC C OR P. 302 <100 42 42 CA 6 077 191 11 2621 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp NEW ARK SI ERRA PAPERBOARD CORP

. 270 0 0 ID 16 045 2611 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp BOISE CASCADE -EMMETT 252 ID 16 069 0001 3 2621 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp POTLATCH 1,379 700 700 1,694 OR 41 009 1849 6 2621 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp Boise Cascade Company 2,453 685 746 1,834 OR 41 041 0005 5 2631 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp Georgia-Pacific W est, I nc. 56 207 322 452 OR 41 019 0036 5 2631 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp Internat ionalPaper 874 602 1,006 0 OR 41 007 0004 5 2621 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp James R iver I I, Inc. Ge org ia- P ac ific (W au na Mill) 331 573 617 643 OR 41 043 3501 5 2621 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp Pope & T albot Pulp, Inc. 485 133 92 293 OR 41 071 6142 5 2621 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp Smurfit Newspri nt Corp orat ion 2 592 368 461 519 OR 41 043 0471 5 2631 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp W il lamette I ndustri es, I nc. 396 54 485 327 OR 41 039 8850 5 2631 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp Colli ns Products LLC W eyerhaeuser Co. (Par ti cleboa rd) 202 0 3 1,721 OR 41 047 5398 5 2621 3 W oo d/P ap er/P ulp Ogden Martin Systems of Mari on, I nc. Covanta Marion, I nc. 127 18 22 17,287 6,210 7,259 9,886V-6VI -1 

## CHAPT ER VI CEMENT MA NUFA CTURI NG

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
The ce ment i ndustry i nvol ves the ca lc ini ng of li mesto ne in cl inke r andthe subsequent crushi ng of the clinker int o cement. Cement man ufacturing activiti es incl ude the process the mining a nd m ixture of raw materials such as limestone a nd other m aterials, the p ryo pro ces si ng of the r aw mater ial s i nto acl inke r, and t he gr indi ng of the c li nkerand other m aterials such as silicates into the fina l ceme nt. As of D ecem ber 20 00, there w ere 201 kil ns wit h a tot al c apaci ty of 84 mill ion t py. The kil n is a p redominat e sourc e of SO 2 emissi ons. The SO 2 emiss ionsres ultfr om the c ombust ion o f the sulfurin the f uel a nd t he sulf ur ( general ly i n the f orm of py rit e) that ca n occurin t he feed sto ck. Kilns generally take five forms:



### ! we t (wh ere the feed stock con tain s up to 4 3 pe rcen t wa ter); 

### ! dry; 

### ! semi-dry; 

### ! dry w ith a pre-he ater; 

### ! and d ry with a pre-calciner. SO 2 emiss ionsvaryby ki ln t ype g ener ally bas ed on ho w eff ective ly the ki ln t ype mi xes the SO 2 containi ng gases with the al kaline cal cium compounds. The pre-heaterand precalc inerkil ns can r emove 90+ perc ent of the SO 2 in the gas stream w hile the dry process kil n removes about70 perc ent. In addi ti on, the type of parti culat e cont roldevic es can impactthe amount of SO 2 remove d in the pr oce ss. Fabri c f il ter s, bot h bec ause they mixthe SO 2 conta inin g ga ses w ith the particle s collecte d on the filter, a nd b ecau se the y op erate at a general ly l ower te mperatur e then el ect rost ati c par ti cip ator s (ESPs) , c oll ectmore SO 2 than ESP s. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS
Esti mation of

the f loorall ocat ion pr ocedur e forthe c ement indus tryposes sever al dif fi culties. Firs t, ther e is no demonstr ated c ontr ol t echnol ogy f or c ontr ol of

SO 2 emiss ions fr om cementkil ns. Sec ond, emiss ionsfr om kil ns vary co nsi der ablydue t o numerou s vari ables including ki ln t ype and sulfurcont ent of feed sto ck. Accor ding t o EPA AP-42 emi ss io n f

ac to rs , emi ss io ns ca n va ryby a s muc h as a f ac to r o f 20. Emis si on d at a f ro m two si mila r ki lns in Ut ah shows thatchang es i n fe edstock c an caus e a ch ange i n emiss ionsup to afac torof

100. Becaus e of

thi s variabili ty a nd la ck of pre dic tabili ty o f e miss ions , the fl oor al loc ati on was based on the averageemissi ons f rom each pl ant overthe pas t se veral years. 

### C. FLOOR ALLOCA TION RESULTS
Table VI-1 shows the all ocati on result s of the emissions to eac h plant. As discuss ed above, the data are ba sed on the em issions reported in State i nventories unless otherw ise indi cat ed (Se e Table VI- 2). Severalof the sourc es addednew kilns in t he pastsever al yea rs. For th ese so urces only em ission data after th e ne w k iln w ere in clude d. Pe rm itVI -2 

### Table VI-1 Floor Allocations

State Pl an t Na me SO 2 Floor Allocation (tpy) State T otals (tpy) AZ Phoenix Cement

Portl and Cem ent Pl ant 320 1
320 CO Holci m Portland 3,374 CO Ho lcim Lap orte 1,402 CO Cem ex 160 4,936 ID Ash Grove Inkom 522 522 NV Nevada Cem ent 305 NV Royal Cem ent 143 2 448 NM Rio Grande 1,103 3 1,103 UT H olc im 267 2 267 W Y Centex 165 4 165 TOTA L 7,761 7,761

NOTES: 1 Pe rm it lim ited po ten tial to em it.

2 Onlytwo years a fter new k il n inc luded. 3 Onlyone ye ar of

data a vail able. 4 New kil n in 199 7.VI -3 

### Table VI-2 Cement Man ufacturin g - Histo rical Emissions- 1990 to 2000

Sta te Sta te

ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 AZ 4 019 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete Arizona Port land Cement 101 13 10 8 AZ 4 025 41 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete Phoenix Cement <100 197 339 539 CA 6 029 9 13 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete CA L P OR TL AN D C EM EN T C O. 429 245 245 245 CA 6 029 20 13 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete CALAVERAS CEMENT CO 286 286 286 286 CA 6 085 17 11 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete KAI SER CEMENT CORPORA TI ON HANSON PERMANENT E CEMENT 474 464 416 474 CA 6 087 11 11 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete LONE STAR I NDUST CEMENT PLANT RMC P ACIFI C MATE RIALS 250 286 393 314 CA 6 071 7000000 15 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete MI TSUBI SHI CEMENT 28 574 946 298 CA 6 071 1200003 15 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete RI VERSI DE CEMENT COMP ANY 0 527 527 164 CA 6 071 100005 15 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete CEMEX- CALI FORNI A CEMENT 0 0 0 427 CA 6 071 15 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete SOUTHW ESTERN PORTLAND CEMENT C SOUTHDOWN-VI CTORVI LLE PLANT 108 0 0 0 CO 8 069 0002 52 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete HOLNAM LAPORTE H O LC IM 623 623 375 404 CO 8 043 0001 58 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete HOLNAM PORT LAND H O LC IM 4,069 3,615 3,219 3,288 CO 8 013 0003 53 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete SOUTHWEST PORTLAND CEMEX- LYONS PLT. 967 160 160 50 ID 16 005 0004 7 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete ASHGROVE CEMENT 790 200 200 1,327 NV 32 019 0387 20 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete NEVADA CEMENT COMPANY FERNLE Y PLA NT 360 340 346 172 NM 35 001 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete RI O GRANDE PORTL AND CEMENT 0 0 0 1,103 UT 49 029 0001 31 3241 4 Ce m ent/C onc rete Holnam Incorporated H O LC IM 911 3 247 288 9,496 7,533 7,709 9,387VI -4

limitswere select ed, si nce the kil n is under constructi on and there was no actual emissi on dat a. Table VI- 3 pr ovi des a n exampl e of thi s c alc ulation. 

### Table VI-3 Example Calculation

Facility SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 Floo r

Estim ate 1 Nevada Cem ent 340 346 172 286 Ho lcim Lap orte 632 375 404 470

1 Floor esti mate base d on the average o f these 3 years. 

### D. COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL EMISSIONS Table VI-2 shows a comparison of emissions t o the hist oric al emissions bas ed on Stat e emissi ons inve ntor ies. Sincethe f looris bas ed on his tor icalemissi ons, the gener al match isvery c lose , butforany individualplant , the fl oor may be higher orlower than recent emissions. REFERENCES EPA , 1995: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “Compilation of Air Pollut ant Emission Fa ctors (A P-42 ),” Cha pter 1 1.6, C em ent M anu facturin g, Office o f Air Q uality Planning and S tandar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, 1995. PC A, 200 1: Portland Cem ent A ssociation, U.S. an d Ca nadia n Po rtland C em ent Ind ustry PlantInf

ormat ion S ummary, Data asof December31, 2000, PortlandCement Associ ati on, Eco nomic Resear ch Depart ment, 2001.VI I-1 

## CH APT ER VII NATURAL GA S PROC ESSING PLANTS

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
SO 2 emiss ionsfr om natur al g as pr oce ssi ng pl ants res ultfr om the c ombust ion o f s our gase s. Sou r gase s m ay co ntain less th an 1 perce nt H 2 S to o ver 2 0 pe rcent H 2 S. H 2 S is remove d f

rom t he nat uralgas b y sc rubbi ng with an amine s olution. The amine solution isheated to reg enerate the amine solut ion. Heati ng the amine also produces a very concent rated H 2 S stream. This H 2 S st ream c an be t reat ed t o pr oduc e sul fur . The most co mm on tr eatment i s by usi ng a Claus pl ant. The Claus pl ant ca n conver t about80- 98.6 perc ent of the H 2 S to sulf ur depending on the number of stages and the concentration of H 2 S. The ave rage r ecovery perc entage f or a 3- stag e Claus pl ant would beabout 96 perce nt, on ave rage . The residu al H 2 S after the C laus plan t is eithe r flared o r conv erted to additional sulfur in a "tai l gas" treatment plant like the SCO T or Stretford- Beavo n process. H 2 S con versio n efficien cies of u p to 9 9.9 pe rcent a re po ssible . Resid ual H 2 S may be flared. In addi ti on to the planttai l gas fl are, SO 2 emissions als o resultfrom upset cond it ionsat the pl ant, or i n the wellfi eld , o r emi ssi ons when ne w well s ar e bro ughtin. Upsets at the plant cause the sulfur r ecovery pl ant to be bypassed and the H 2 S is flare d to produc e SO 2 . Upse ts in th e w ell field m ay re sult in sou r na tural g as b eing flared a s a sa fety pre cau tion to re du ce e xpo sur e to t oxi c lev els o f H 2 S. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS
Th e re qu irem en ts for, a nd the eco no m ics of, s ou r ga s con trol a re a fun ction of a nu m be r of v aria ble s, inc lud ing the am ou nt o f H 2 S in the of fg as, the s izeand age of the fac il it y, andthe ai r pol lution cont rolrequi rements in exis tenc e at the ti me the fac il it y was built. Exis ti ng so ur ga s pr oce ssi ng pl ants may have be en bui ltin s it uati ons wher e no regulati ons exist ed, under t he 1987 NSP S, or under a BACT review under prevention of signific ant deterioration regulations. It was decided that the current NSP S wou ld serve as the floor. The N SPS requ ires a variable s ulfur r emoval effi ciency based on the H 2 S co nten t of the a ci d gas and t he amount of sul furin the gas . The requ ir ed emis si on re duction f or e ach f

aci li ty was base d on t he equa tions in T able V II-1 since these are the lon g term reduction s called for in the N SPS . If a faci lity had current c ontrol l evels higherthan the assumed floor , t he actual average emissions over the past thr ee years were assumed to be the f loor. Since emissi ons from flaring operati ons, bot h in the plant and t he well fi eld, are not amenable to contr ol, floor em ission s will b e ass um ed to b e the ave rage of thre e ye ars em ission s, wh ene ver th e da ta is available.VI I-2 

### Table VII-1 Sulfur Plan ts - Requ ired Minimu m SO 2

### Emission Red uction Ef ficiency

H 2 S Conte nt of Acid Ga s (Y ), % Sulfur Feed Rate (x), Long To ns per Day 2.0 < X < 5.0 5.0<X < 15.0 15.0<X < 300 .0 X> 300 .0 Y > 50 74.0

. . . . . . . 85. 35X 0.0144 Y 0.0128

. . . . . . . or 99. 8, whi chever i s smaller 20 < Y<50 74.0

. . . . 85.35X 0.0144 Y 0.0128

. . . . or 97. 5, whi chever i s smaller 97.5

10 < Y<20 74.0 85.35X 0.0144 Y 0.0128
or 90. 8, whi chever i s smaller 90.8 90.8

Y<10 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Dat a a va i l ab i l i t y w as a s i gn i f i c an t i ss ue i n d et er mi ni ngt he f l oo r al l oc at i on f

orso me plan ts. The data from Ne w M exico wa s no t ade qua te to distin guish betw een proce ss plan t, upset flare, and well fiel d emissions. 

### C. FLOOR ALLOCA TION RESULTS 1. General Plants
Table VII- 2 shows the f loo r al loc ati on ca lc ulation f or the nat uralgas p roc ess ing plants in the 8 non-C alifornia Western Region al Air Partnership (WR AP) States. In T able VII-2 , the pla nt n am e an d SC C co de a re tho se pro vided in the State inven tory. The e mission source colu mn (process or flare) notes w hethe r the em issions are likel y to come fr om the normal processing of natural gas (process ) or the resultof upsetor wellfi eldemiss ions(f lar e). The di st inc ti on was made o n the basi s of commentsin the em ission inve ntory an d confirm ed in con versation s with th e State. Cu rrent em issions are ba sed on the av era ge o f sev era l ye ars d ata (20 00 , 199 8, 19 96 ) if av aila ble , an d on on e ye ar's data if that was allthat was availabl e. In some cases , new plants were under c onstruction and pe rmitlev els were us ed i n li eu of act uals . Cur rentred uct ionswere b asedon dat a in the State inventories and confirmed via conve rsations with State agencies. Floor emissi ons vary by the H 2 S cont ent of the gas , the amount of s ulf ur pro duced by the p lant, th e ag e of th e pla nt (olde r plan ts are n ot sub ject to the NS PS ), and S tate regulati ons. In Wyoming, alt hough individual pl ants vary, the average H 2 S content of natur al g as i s hi gherthan in oth er S tat es andthe d egr ee of controlrequ ir ed unde r t he NSPS is gr eat er . In add itio n, newe r p la nt s t endto be l ar gerandhav e un der gon e a B ACT re vi ew. In New Mex ic o, th e r el at iv el y l ow H 2 S cont ent means t hat l ess c ontr ol may be required under the NSPS. This is due both to the H 2 S co nten t as wellas t he smal l amount of su lf ur pr odu ce d byth e p ro ce ss in g p la nt s. Howev er , a St at e r ul e ( 20. 2. 35 NMAC) requires a minimum of a 90 perc ent reduct ion forplants that releas e more than 5 tons per day of sulf

ur from existing plants regardl ess of the H 2 S content of the gas. The le velof

controlass umed to be t he f loo r will be the mos t s tr inge nt of allof the potenti al regulat ory requir ements. However, the appl icat ion of the potentialfloor proc edures can re sultin no SO 2 control s having to be appli ed on some sources. For example, the Duke Energy Artesia pl ant in New M exico pr ocesses less than 2 long tons per day of sulf ur (thisis e quival ent t o about 1, 600 tpy o f SO 2 emiss ions ) andther efo re the NSPS does not apply. St ate regulations do not appl y, si nce the sulf ur throughput i s below the r egul ato ry thres hold . The fl oorfo r t his pla nt i s bas ed on the aver age emi ssi ons o verthe past three years.VI I-3



### 2. Specific Examp le
The Burli ngton Northern LostCabin fac il it y in Wyoming pro videdadditional inform ation nee ded to dem ons trate h ow the floo r calcu lation s cou ld be app lied to a specific facility. Th e Lo st Ca bin fa cility con sists of tw o ex isting g as pro cessin g line s with a cap acity of 133 MM CF/day and has one new trai n with a capacity of 133 MM CF/day. Both li nes processa gas with a methane concentrati on of 68 percent , a carbon dioxide conc entrati on of 20 per cent , a nd an H 2 S con tent o f 12 p ercen t. Ea ch train is con trolled b y a th ree sta ge C laus un it follow ed b y a S CO T tail g as u nit. The unit is requ ired to hav e a con version e fficiency of 99.8 percen t. Plantw ide em issions are limited to 642 lbs/hr and 1,367 tpy. The pl ant und erwenta BACT revi ew underPSD and exc eeds allrequ ir ements of the NSPS. Under the NSPS, a red uct ion o f 97 .5 per centwould have be en re quir ed since the H 2 S co nten t of

the a ci d gas st ream i s 37 p erc ent (whic h is def inedas t he gas st ream l eavi ng the am ine reg en era tor a nd can be calcu late d as the ratio of th e a cid g ase s [H 2 S an d CO 2 ] in the in put g as stre am ) and the su lfur pro ductio n ex ceed s 30 0 lon g ton s per d ay (se e Ta ble VII- 1). Sinc e therequ ir ed r educ ti on exc eeds the f loo r l evel , the per mitt ed l evel s r epr esent the floor. Sinc e much of

the p lantis new, n o dat a on ups et e miss ionsis avai labl e. Emiss ions from w ell-field activities are very varia ble. We lls are very larg e at this plan t and on e very larg e well c an have up to 1,000 t ons of emissi ons. The plantest imates thatannual SO 2 emissions of

about 500 tpy fr om w ell f ield ac tivities can be expected. 

### D. COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL EMISSIONS
Table VII -3 s umm ariz es his tor icalSO 2 em ission s from natu ral ga s proce ssing plan ts locate d in th e 9 W RA P S tates. C aliforn ia facilities are in clude d in th is table . This ta ble provides a point of

comparison with t he flooralloc ations s hown in Tab le VII- 2. For Wyom ing, the histor ic emissi ons are cl ose to f loor f or most sourc es due to the hi gh level of control . However, a dir ect c omparison is di ff icultsince the histor icalemissions may include well fi eld and upset emissi ons. Two New M exico sour ces willrequire addi tional c ontrol or additional emission allocations.VI I-4 

### Table VII-2 Possible Floor - Natural Gas Processing Units

State Plant SCC Emissio n Source (Proc ess vs Fl are) Current% Reducti on Pe rm it Emissio ns Floo r

Emissio n Reducti on Po ss ible

SO 2 Floo r (tpy) NM Conoco-Maljamar 31000028 Plant 0 3,574 87 222 NM W estern Gas Reso urces 31000208 Plant 90 3,127 90 3,127 NM Agave Energ y 31000205 Plant 0 2,983 86 .3 365 NM Duke Energy

Eunice 31000208 Plant 90 2,756 90 2,250
NM Duke Energy

Arte sia 31000208 Plant 0 1,459 0 1,192
NM Dynergy Mi dst ream

Monument 31000208 Plant 90 1,431 90 675
NM Dynergy Mi dst ream

Sau nde rs 31000208 Plant 90 1,387 90 163
NM Duke Energy

Pla nt 5 31000205 Plant 96 .4 1,300 96 .4 1,181
NM Sid Ri chards on 31000201 Plant 91 .7 1,206 91 .7 1,206 NM JL Davi s Gas Proc essi ng

Denton Pl ant 31000205 Plant 0 1,158 0 840
NM M ara thon Oil 31000201 Plant 90 1,100 90 665 NM Duke Energy

Lee Gas 31000299 Plant 93 818 93 0 4
NM ARCO Permian

Empire Abo Pl ant 31000208 Plant 96 565 96 431
NM Duke Energy

Bu rton Fla ts 31000205 Plant 0 246 0 164
NM Duke Energy

Dagger Draw Pl ant 31000208 Plant 98 243 98 218
NM Duke Energy

Huber Gas Pl ant 31000205 Unknown 0 231 0 163
UT Tom Brown- L isbo n Plant Plant 95 1,593 2 95 1,593 W Y Ho we ll Pe troleu m - Elk B asin 31000205 Plant 93 .5 1,200 93 .5 1,200 W Y Burl ington Resourc es

Lo st C ab in Plant 99 .8 1,367 2 99 .8 1,367
W Y Burl ington Resourc es

Lo st C ab in Flare 0 500 1 0 500
W Y KC S M ou ntain

Ains worth Flare 31000205 Flare 0 843 0 843
W Y KC S M ou ntain

Ru shm ore F lare 31000205 Flare 0 118 1 0 118
W Y Ma rathon Pitchfo rk Ba ttery 31000205 Flare 0 61 1 0 61 W Y Exxon Shute Creek 31000205 Plant 99 .7 1,206 99 .7 1,206 W Y Exxon Shute Creek 31000205 Flare 0 330 1 0 330 W Y Amoco W hit ney Canyon 31000205 Plant 99 5,379 99 5,379 W Y Amoco W hit ney Canyon 31000205 Flare 0 223 1 0 223 W Y Texaco Byron 31000205 Plant 0 200 0 200

### Table VII-2 (continued)

State Plant SCC Emissio n Source (Proc ess vs Fl are) Current% Reducti on Pe rm it Emissio ns Floo r

Emissio n Reducti on Po ss ible

SO 2 Floo r (tpy)

VI I-5 W Y Chevron Carter Creek 31000205 Plant 99+ 0 3 0 W Y Chevron C arter Creek 31000205 Flare 0 200 0 200 W Y Hall wood Petr oleum Federal Packsaddl e 1-24 31000205 Flare 0 133 0 133
W Y Hall wood Petr oleum Federal Packsaddl e 1 31000205 Flare 0 960 1 0 960
W Y Oregon Basi n Gas Plant 31000205 Plant 90 391 90 391 W Y KC S G old E agle Flare 31000205 Flare 0 790 0 790 W Y Interenergy

Hil and Gas Pla nt 31000205 Flare 0 281 1 0 281
W Y M ara thon Oil

MillIron 31000205 Flare 0 247 0 247
Em iss ion To tals 39,606 28,884

NOTES: 1. Only

one yearof d at a avai lab le; 2. Fl oorbased on per mitle vel s; 3. Pla ntdoes n otin ci ner at e t ailgas -no SO 2 emitted; 4. Pl ant ha s no emis sion s li ste d for the past t hree years. Sta te SO 2 floor alloc ations bas ed o n the e stima tes in this tab le are N M (1 2,862 tpy), UT (1,5 93 tpy), an d W Y (14,42 9 tpy).VI I-6 

### Table VII-3 Oil and Gas Pr

oduction- Historical Emissions - 1990 to 2000

Sta te Sta te ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS

Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000
CA 6 029 1141 13 1311 6 Oil/Gas SANTA FE ENE RGY TEXACO CAI NC 1,539 855 2,050 2,050
CA 6 029 1129 13 1311 6 Oil/Gas TEXACO E XPL OR & PROD I NC 1 89 112 63
CA 6 029 206 13 1311 6 Oil/Gas BERRY PETR OLEUM COMP ANY 237 0 0 0
CA 6 019 71 12 1311 6 Oil/Gas CHEVRON USA I NC. - COALI NGA 809 0 0
CA 6 029 272 13 1311 6 Oil/Gas M H WHITTI ER SENECA RESOURCES 347 0 0
CA 6 053 19 12 1311 6 Oil/Gas MOBI L OI L COR P -SAN AR DO AERA E NERGY 304 0 1 6
CA 6 029 1135 13 1311 6 Oil/Gas SHELL KERNRI DGE AERA ENER GY LLC 294 <100 82 55
CA 6 019 64 12 1311 6 Oil/Gas SHEL L WESTERN E &P I NC. - COAL I NGA 144 0 0
CA 6 029 331 13 1311 6 Oil/Gas SW EPI -WEST COAST DI VI SI ON AERA ENER GY LLC 775 <100 10
CA 6 053 30 12 1311 6 Oil/Gas TEXACO I NC - SAN AR DO 100 <100 36 32
CA 6 029 299 13 1311 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL -BAKERSFI ELD UNOCAL OI L & G AS DI VI SI ON 159 0 0
CA 6 059 42775 14 1311 6 Oil/Gas W EST NE W PORT OI L CO 297 <100 10 11
CO 8 045 24 51 1311 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL RETORT-PARACHUTE 679 0 0 0
CO 8 045 0025 51 1311 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL UPGRADE 177 0 0 0
NM 35 015 0024 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas AGAVE ENERGY/ YATES PL ANT 962 962 962 2,983
NM 35 015 0002 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas ARCO PERMI AN/ EMPI RE ABO GAS PL NT 700 565 565 565
NM 35 015 0006 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas GPM GAS/ I NDI AN HI LLS AMI NE PLNT 900 450 450 900
NM 35 025 0046 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas GPM GAS/ LEE GAS P LANT 818 0 818 818
NM 35 025 0007 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas J. L. DAVI S GAS P ROCESS/DENTON 385 890 891 1,158
NM 35 025 0052 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas TEXACO/ EUNI CE NORTH GAS PL ANT 673 1,076 1,346 673
NM 35 025 0051 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas TEXACO/ EUNI CE SOUTH GAS PL ANT 4,019 4,386 3,355 5,476
NM 35 015 0003 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas TRANSWESTERN PIP E DUKE ENERGY/ HUBER GAS 221 231 231 231
NM 35 041 0001 63 1311 6 Oil/Gas W ARREN PETROL EUM/ BLUI TT GAS PL ANT 270 3,348 582 270
NM 35 025 0061 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas W ARREN PETROL EUM/ MONUMENT PL ANT MONUMENT PL ANT 1,460 1,709 1,432 1,432
NM 35 045 0247 60 1311 6 Oil/Gas W ESTERN GAS PROCES SORS/ SAN JUAN R VR 5,475 980 980 3,138
NM 35 025 0128 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas CI TATI ON/A NTELOPE RDG GAS PLANT 291 0 NA
NM 35 025 0118 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas CON OCO /BELL LAKE 2 W ELL #6 129 0 NA
NM 35 015 0125 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas FEAGA N ENE RGY/W DAGG ER DR AW GAS P LT 240 0 NA
NM 35 005 0050 65 1311 6 Oil/Gas YATES PET ROLEUM/ PATHFI NDER AMI NE 227 57 57

### Table VII-3 (continued)

Sta te Sta te ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS

Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000

VI I-7 UT 49 037 35 1311 6 Oil/Gas UNOCAL CORPORA TI ON TOM BROWN - LI SBON PLANT 1,575 1,391 1,478 1,252
W Y 56 029 0012 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas AM O C O - E LK BA SIN H O W EL L P ET R O LE U M - EL K B AS IN 1,096 1,218 1,422 2,638
W Y 56 041 0012 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas AMOCO -WHITNE Y CAN YON 6,401 5,835 11,130 6,889
W Y 56 041 0009 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas CHEVRON - CARTER CREEK 1,537 1,165 3,330 2,096
W Y 56 023 0013 8 1311 6 Oil/Gas EXX ON - SHUTE CREEK 1,078 1,999 2,015 1,383
W Y 56 1311 6 Oil/Gas EXXON BLAC K CAN YON DE HY & W ELL FIELD 167
W Y 56 017 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas KCS MO UNTA IN RESOU RCES - GOLDEN E AGLE 558 942 17
W Y 56 003 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas KCS MOUNTAIN RESOURCES - AI NSW ORTH 807 845 0
W Y 56 029 0007 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas MA R AT H O N G AS PL AN T - O R EG O N BA SIN 406 456 388 358
W Y 56 017 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas MARAT HON OI L -MI LL I RON 234 260 0
W Y 56 003 0012 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas TEXAS- BYRON PL ANT BI G HORN GA S PROCE SSI NG - BYRON 192 169 605 257
W Y 56 037 0008 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas UNI ON PAC - BRADY RME PETRO LEUM - BRADY 415 331 576 300
W Y 56 013 008 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas DEVON S FS OP ERATI NG CO. BEAVER CREEK 831
W Y 56 037 0014 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas COLORADO I NTERSTATE GAS - TABLE ROCK 522 20 39
W Y 56 003 0013 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas MARATHON OI L COMPANY- GARLAND 257 7 10
W Y 56 013 9 1311 6 Oil/Gas LO U ISIA N A L AN D & E XP LO R - LO ST CA BIN BU R LIN G TO N RE SO U R C ES -LO ST CA BIN 4,547 1,336 1,700 36,111 34,735 38,346 37,749VI I-8VI II-1 

## CH APT ER VIII ELEMENTA L PHOSPH ORUS PRODUC TI ON

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
P4 Pro ductio n h as a n ele m enta l pho sph orus facility n ear S oda Sprin gs, Ida ho. T his is one of the two el emental phos phorus p roduc ti on fac il it ies in the Unit ed Stat es. Year 2000 SO 2 emissions f rom this f

acil ity ar e esti mated to be 15,861 tpy. This ref lect s incr eased utilization c ompared wit h 1996 and 1998 oper ati ons. This f acilit y has no SO 2 emiss ions limit in its ope rating perm it. The Idah o D epa rtme nt of E nviro nm enta l Qu ality is cu rrently evaluating t his f

acilit y’s SO 2 emissions situation. For the purposes of thi s report , t he floor all ocat ion f

or P4 Prod ucti on is s et atit s year2000 SO 2 em ission s leve l of 15 ,861 tons. It is exp ected that th e Sta te of Ida ho w ill perform a m ore d etaile d ev alua tion o f this facility du ring pre pa ratio n o f its reg ion al h aze Sta te Im ple m en tatio n P lan (SIP ). 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMAT ION PROCED URES
Recent hi sto ric al emis sionsforP4 Production ar e li ste d below i n Table VII I- 1.VI II-2 

### Table VIII-1 Elemental Phosphorus Production - Historical Emissions - 1 990 to 2000

Sta te Sta te

ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 ID 16 029 0001 7 2819 5 Chem icals/Plasti cs MONSAN TO/ P4 P RODUCTI ON P4 P RODUCTI ON 7,543 7,988 7,601 15,861IX-1 

## CH APT ER IX GLA SS MA NUFA CTURI NG

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
The air e missi ons f

rom glas s manufacturing a re i n threezones: (1) raw materi al blen ding and trans port, (2) m elting , and (3) form ing a nd fin ishin g. Th e m ajority o f air emiss ionsare in the melt ing f urnac e ope rat ion. Melt ing f

or c onta inerand f

latgla ss i s gen erally c onduc tedin a c onti nuous reverbatory furnace f ired by natur al gas or oil. Electric boostfurnaces have been introduced in some o perations to minim ize flue gas emissions. The major so urce o f SO 2 emiss ionsin the gl ass indu st ry i s t he gl ass melt ing oper ati on. Formi ng and an neal ing o per ati ons ar e minorsour ces . Fur nace emiss ions app ear to be a ttributa ble to both the m anu facturin g pro cess a nd th e fue l burn ed. F uelderived SO 2 emissions are l ower from natural gas- fir ed furnaces than from oil- fir ed fur naces, unless the oi l has be en desul fur ized . Fl ue gases fr om furnac es burni ng natura l gas have bee n repor ted t o cont ain 2 par ts p er mil li on (pp m) SO 2 , or l ess. About 600 ppm SO 2 can beexpe ct ed i n fl ue gas fr om a fur nace burni ng f uel o ilcont aini ng one p erc ent sulf ur. Greateruse of

elec tric f

urnacesor el ect ricboost ing may decr ease SO 2 emissions. Proces s modif

ications that may reduc e SO 2 emissi ons inc lude al ter ing t he raw material charge to reduce the sulfur content or to increase the fracti on of recycled glass, changing the furna ce controls or equipment, and altering the pull rate. Process mo difications that redu ce the salt cak e conten t in the raw batch ca n significan tly reduce SO 2 em issions. For ex am ple, one C alifornia flat-glass plan t reportedly redu ced furna ce emissi ons of

SO 2 by 78 pe rce nt from 2.1 to 0 .5 k ilo gra m s pe r m eg ag ram (kg /M g) (5 .0 to 1.1 lbs/ton) by reduc ing t he saltcake i n the r aw batch 60 pe rce nt (fr om 12 to 5 kg/Mg, 30 to 12 lbs/ton of san d). Sim ilarly, an othe r Ca lifornia flat-glass plan t has repo rtedly re duce d its SO 2 em issions 75 percent (from 1.6 to less than 0.4 kg/M g, 4 to less than 1 lbs/ton of ba tch cons tituen ts) by re ducin g the inpu t of salt ca ke. G lass q uality wa s no t com prom ised in either c ase. The salt c ake c annotbe re duce d bel ow certai n minimums wi thou t ef fec ti ng glass qua lity. Th e m inim um salt cak e req uired varie s dep end ing u pon furna ce type , pull rate, glass type, and other variables. Fuel change s have al so been s hown to red uce SO 2 emissions. These include swit chi ng tonatur al g as orlow- sul furfue l oil, switchi ng toall -el ectri c mel ti ng, and us ing elec tric boos ti ng formelti ng. El ect ricmelter s si gnif icantly r educe SO 2 , NO x , a nd particu late e m ission s beca use they elim inate the co m bus tion o f fossil fuels . Electric melti ng alsois r eport ed to mini mize SO 2 and other gaseous los ses from the vaporizati on of raw materials because the surface of the melt is insulatedby a semisolid c rust. Gases dis ch arg ed thr ou gh the cru st o f th e m elt c on sist m ain ly o f ca rbo n d iox ide an d w ate r. Today, boro si li cat e, opal , a nd gr een gl ass are p rod ucedwit h ele ct ri c f urnac es. The capa cities of su ch furn aces a re ab out 1 00 to 110 M g/day (110 to 12 0 ton s/day). E lectric melters have n ot been dem onstrated for larger operati ons, such as large container furnaces, the nom inal capacities of which are ab out 220 M g/day (240 tons/day), and flat -glass furn ace s, w hich ran ge fr om ab ou t 60 0 to 80 0 M g/da y (66 0 to 88 0 to ns/d ay ). Several emissi on controlsystems thatare availabl e to the gl ass indust ry for part icul ate c ontr ol ar e als o capabl e of ac hievi ng vari ous le vels of s econdary SO 2 con tro l. For example, a ventur i sc rubbersyst em can cont rolSO 2 emissions from com mercial glass plants. Th e system includes a packed tower w here p art of the sulfate p articulates are removed f

rom the hotfur nace f lue gas es, a dual- thro at vent ure sc rubber , where SO 2 andIX-2

add itiona l particu lates a re rem ove d by alka line w ash ing, a nd a cyclon e for fina l particu late collection . Cur rently , only th e con taine r glass segm ent o f the gla ss ind ustry is repo rted to use scrub ber sy stem s for em ission contro l. Injectin g a so rben t such as alu m ina, lim eston e, or n eph eline syen ite into a fab ric fi lt er sy ste m can eff ect ively remove SO 2 fr om furnac e fl ue gases . The s pent s orbentmay be landfi lled orpossibly recyc led. One pat ente d sy st em of d ry r emovalinvo lve s t he co mbined u se of hydr ate d li me and nep helin e sye nite for acid g as n eutra lization and fine p article a gglo m eratio n. In th is system , hot furnace flue gas is first mixe d with q uen ch w ater, hydrate d lime for prima ry SO 2 removal, and sec ondary air t o coolthe gas str eam to a te mperatur e range of 94 o to 427 o C (200 o to 800 o F). Next, ne pheline syenite is ad ded to the gas stream to capture resi dual SO 2 and su bm icrome ter particulates. Th e gas strea m e nters the fab ric filt er wh ere the soli d productis removed foreither r ecycl ing to t he furnace or l andfil ling. Dry sorbent sy ste ms at sev eralcommerci al gl ass f urnacesreduc ed SO 2 by 80 to 9 5 perc ent ata cont ainerglas s fur nace, 50 to 90 p erc ent ata fibergl ass f urnace, and 88 to 98 percent ata flat -glas s furnace. Mist eliminat ors ap parent ly have no e ff ecton SO xgases. One sam pling test indi cat ed no dec rease in SO 2 and SO 3 co nc ent ra ti ons th ro ugh th e c ont ro l d evice ( EPA, 19 81 ). 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS
It i s expect ed that t he flooralloc ation f or glass manu fact uring plantswill be set acco rdi ng to r ecenthist ori cal SO 2 emissi ons f rom thesefac il it ies. These SO 2 em issions are li ste d in Tabl e IX- 1. REFERENCES AWM A, 20 00: Airand Wast e ManagementAsso ci ati on, “Ai r Pol lut ion Eng inee ri ng M anu al,” 2 ndedition, Chapter 15 - Miner al Prod uctsIndustry, 2000. EPA , 1981: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “ControlTechniques for Sul fur Oxide Em ission s from Statio nar y So urces ,” Secon d E dition , EP A-4 50/3 -81-0 04, O ffice of Air Qualit y Planning and Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, Apri l 1981.IX-3 

### Table IX-1 Glass Manufacturing - Historical Emissions - 1 990 to 2000

Sta te Sta te

ID Co unty

ID Fac ility

ID IAS Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 Floor All ocati on CA 6 037 106797 14 3221 8 Glass BALL -F OSTER GLASS CONTAI NER CO SAI NT- GOBAI N CONTAI NER <100 <100 166 174 CA 6 099 1662 11 3221 8 Glass GALLO GLASS CO 61 271 269 440 CA 6 039 801 12 3221 8 Glass MADERA G LASS COMPA NY 108 170 190 104 CA 6 077 593 11 3221 8 Glass OW ENS I LLI NOI S OW ENS- BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAI NER 319 285 218 248 CA 6 037 7427 14 3221 8 Glass OWENS-BRO CKWAY GLAS S CONTA I NER -VERNON 193 323 280 435 CA 6 001 2086 11 3221 8 Glass ANCHOR GLASS CONTAI NER CORPORA 119 0 0 CA 6 001 30 11 3221 8 Glass OW ENS- BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAI NER - OAKLAND 122 128 64 57 CO 8 059 0008 53 3221 8 Glass COORS GLASS ROC KY MOU NTAIN BOT TLE 159 221 234 255 237 OR 41 051 1876 5 3221 8 Glass Owens-Brockway Glass Container, I nc. 103 169 116 108 131 1,284 1,667 1,537 1,821IX-4X-1 

## CHA PTER X COPPER SMEL TERS

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
Prim ary co ppe r sm elters in the W RA P S tates p rocess copp er su lfide ore conce ntrate to produce anode c opper. There are six primary copper smelt ers in the WR AP region. Five of th e p rim ary cop pe r sm elte rs a re n ea r th e co pp er m ine s in the sou thw est U nit ed Sta tes

. These smelters use a batch copper conver ting pr ocess (either Pi erce- Smith or Hoboken conve rter designs) to prod uce blister copp er. Curren tly, only two o f these sm elters are producing c opper (the ASAR CO sm elterin Hayden, Arizona and the Phelps Dodge smelter in Miami, Arizona). The other three smelt ers have suspended operations and are not producing c opper at this ti me. The sixth pri mary copper smelterin the WRAP States i s the Kennecott Utah Copper Corpor ati on near Garf iel d, Ut ah. The Kennecott smel terwas buil t dur ing t he mid-1990s (rep lac ing the ex istin g sm elte r at the site ) an d u ses a fla sh cop pe r co nv ert ing tec hn olo gy . This technology allow s blister c opper to be produced in a con tinuous process. All primary c opper smelte rs i n the r egion c ontr ol SO 2 emiss ionsby r outi ng th e proce ss off-gas es from the sm elting and conv erting proce sses to dou ble co ntact s ulfuric a cid plants. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS Because of the uniqueness of the existing copper s melters, retr ofittechnology analysis must be per formed on a smelter- by-smelterbasis. Currently, the Hidalgo smelter is t he only BAR T-eli gible sour ce in thi s category. A double cont act aci d plant i s consid ered the a ppro priate retrofit con trol eq uipm ent (a ll sm elters in the w estern State s are cu rrently equippe d with do uble c ontac t ac id pl ants) . On August21, 2000, New M exic o complet ed an engineering anal ysisthatveri fi ed earlierdeter minati ons by the MTF that the f ugit ive SO 2 capt ure sys tem at Hida lgo s ati sfi es BART at 96 perc ent over allSO 2 capture. The A nne x t o t he Gr andCany on Vi sibi lityTr ans port C ommi ss io n’ s ( GCVTC) rec ommendations de fi nes st epped r educt ion mil est ones t hrough 2018 f or SO 2 emiss ions fr om lar ge i ndustri al s ourc es i n the 9-S tat e Commiss ion Tr anspo rtRegi on. The current year SO 2 alloca tion for the six copp er sm elters in the 9 -State re gion is 86,0 00 to ns. T his all ocation i s r educ ed t o 78, 000 t ons by2013 andis the s ame in 20 18. For the re cent Emissio n Forecas ts t o 2018 analys is, the pl ant- leveldif fer ence SO 2 em issions difference between 86,000 tons and 78,000 tons was si mulated by subtracting 2,000 tons each from the four l argest s melters, which are ASAR CO-Hayden , BHP-San M anuel, Phelps- Dodge Chino Mines, and Phelps Dodge-Hid algo. The resul ti ng all ocat ions o f 2018 SO 2 emiss ions by fac il it y are s hown in Table X- 1. Not e thatthe 78, 000 tons of SO 2 alloc ation f or copper sm elters is a n ag greg ate v alue for the regio n, rath er tha n a re quire m ent fo r each sm elter to reduc e emissi ons topres cribed lev els. Table X- 1 il lustrat es one way t hat t his r egional alloc ation might be met. Many other examples are pr ovided in the EPA regional haze r ule.X-2 

### Table X-1 Copper Smel ter SO 2

### Em is si on Pr oje ct io ns (tp y)

State Fa ci l i t y Na me 2018 AZ ASARCO Smelter- Hayden 21,000 AZ BHP-San Manuel 14,000 AZ Cyprus Mi ami Mine 8,000 NM Phelps Dodge- Chino Mine s 14,000 NM Phelps Dodge- Hidal go Smelter 20,000 UT Kennecott

Utah Copper Corp. 1,000 Total Copper Smelter 78,000 

### C. COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL EMISSIONS
Table X- 1 SO 2 em ission estim ates ca n be com pare d w ith rece nt h istorical (1 990 to 2000) emis sionsforthosesmelt ers s hown in Table X- 2.X-3 

### Table X-2 Recent Historical Copper Smelter SO2

### Emissions

State State

ID Co unty ID Fac ility

ID IAS Region SIC MTF

Sector Sector

Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) CurrentFaci li tyName (i f di fferentfro m 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 Smelter

Sector AZ 4 007 0004 45 3331 2 Copper ASARCO SMELTER - HAY DEN 29,814 33,124 22,077 16,753 AZ 4 021 0032 46 3331 2 Copper BHP (Magm a Metals) BHP - San Manuel 15,900 16,678 10,409 0 AZ 4 007 0006 45 3331 2 Copper CYP RUS MI AMI MI NE 5,676 5,737 6,097 6,810 AZ 4 019 0040 46 1021 2 Copper Cyp rus Sie rrita 800 548 <100 <100 NM 35 017 0001 64 3331 2 Copper PHELPS DODGE/CHI NO MINES 28,058 14,784 15,685 11,420 NM 35 023 0003 64 3331 2 Copper PHELPS DODGE/HI DALGO SMELTER 41,433 32,121 29,188 0 UT 49 035 0030 32 3331 2 Copper Kennecott Utah Copper Cor p. 26,829 1,556 762 937 148,51 0 104,54 9 84,218 35,920X-4XI-1 

## CHAPT ER XI A LUMI NUM PRODUCTI ON

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES Primary aluminum product ion pl ants i n the Unit ed Stat es pr oduce al uminum m etal by elec tro lyt ically r educi ng alumina t hat have bee n ref ined f rom bauxit e ore. There are23 primary aluminum plants in the United St ates. There are only 2 plantsin the st udy region and both are loc ate d in Or egon. Alu m inu m prod uction is carried out in a sem ibatch ma nn er in la rge e lectrolytic ce lls cal led po ts w ith a d ire ct cu rre nt i np ut o f up to 2 80 ,00 0 a m pe res at a bo ut 5 vo lts. T he po t, a rect angular steelshell r anging in size f rom 30-50 feet l ong, 9-12 f eet wide, and 3-4 feet high, is lined w ith a refractory insu lating she ll on w hich carb on blo cks are pla ced to form the cathode. An alumin um pot wi lltyp ic ally emit20- 35 kg p er met ri c t on of gase ous and particu late flu oride and roug hly a n eq ual a m oun t of particu late m atter. T he N SP S lim its emissions t o no more than 1 kg fluoride/ Mg (2.0 lbs/ton) of

aluminum produced f or potr oom groups at Sode rber g plant s, 0.95 kg/Mg (1. 9 lbs/ton) of al uminum produced atpre- bake plants, and 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 lbs/ton) of aluminum equivalent for anode b ake plants. The r edu ctio n c el ls inus e f oral umin um pr odu ctio n i n t he Un it ed St at es ar e of two basic types – prebak e and Soderb erg. The re are tw o types of So derberg cells that are desi gnat ed ac cor dingto the manner o f mount ing the st ud inthe c arbo n anode : v ertic al s tud So der be rg (V SS ) or h oriz on tal stu d So der be rg (H SS ). Preba ke ce ll s ar e so n amed bec ause the anod es ar e pr efo rmed andthenbakedin a sepa rate fa cility often referre d to a s an ano de b ake plan t. The ano des a re the n m oun ted in the ce ll and are co nsu m ed in the a lum inu m prod uction . The ano de b utts, w hich rem ain after the anode is consum ed, are recycled f or use in the preparation of new anodes. In t he Sod erbe rg p roc ess , c onti nuously f ormed, cons umable an odes are u sed. The ano de pa ste is ba ked by th e he at ge nera ted in the re ductio n cell. The pr imarysour ce o f s ulf ur ox ide emiss ionsin al uminum pro duction i s t he sulfur in t he co ke ( normal ly p etr ole um coke) and t he co al t ar p it ch bi nderusedto p rod uce the anodes. In the prebake process , t he combustion fuel t o bake the anodes may be a signifi cant S O 2 em ission sou rce. Petroleum coke u sually con tains 2.5 to 5 percent su lfur, but may v ary f

rom 1. 5 to 7 per centsul fur . Pitc h normal ly c onta ins about0. 5 per cent sul fur . The sul furcont ent o f the co ke dep ends on th e cr ude pe tr ole um sto ck andthe tend encyof

the s ulf

ur t o co ncentrat e in the stil l bo tt oms atthe r efineryand t hus i n the coke. As t he co ke i s pr oce sse d ( duri ng pr ebake) or c onsumed i n the red uct ion c ell , s ulf ur oxides are r eleased. The em issi ons include those from the anode prebake operat ion (pre ba ke ), the “prim ary ” em issio ns (w hich are cap ture d by the pot h ood exh au st sy stem ), and the “sec ondary” emissi ons (which esc ape the primary exhaust s ystem and exit t hrough the r oof monit ors) . The gr eat majorit y of SO 2 emissions are c ollec ted by the pothood ex ha us t sy st em. One sourc e reports unc ontr oll ed SO 2 emi ss i on s f r om a no de ba ke pl an t s r an ge f r om 5 to 47 pp m, which i s 0. 7 to 2 kg SO 2 /Mg aluminum produc ed (1. 4 to 4 lbs SO 2 /t on al uminumXI-2

produc ed). Other dat a indi cat e thatemissi ons are in t he range of 0.09 t o 1.7 k g SO 2 /M g aluminum produc ed (0. 18 to 3. 4 lbs S O 2 /ton alu m inu m pro du ced ). The tot al amount of SO 2 gener ate d perunitof alumi num prod ucedis ess enti ally the same for the prebake, VSS, and HSS cases. The “pri mary” cellhooding confi guration f or col lec tion of p roc ess fum es i s a ffec ted by the ch ara cte rist ics o f th e d iffer en t ce ll ty pe s. There are two types of prebake cell s, c enter- worked prebake cell s (CWPB ) and side- worked preb ake cells (SW PB ), as we ll as the two Sod erbe rg pro cesse s, VS S an d H SS, w hich are in use by th e do m estic alu m inu m indu stry. Inform ation from seve n prim ary a lum inu m plan ts indicat es the f

ollowing:
Cell Type Primary Hood Collecti on Efficie nc y, % Prim ary C ollector Ex hau st Ra te (10 6 sq ua r e c ub i c fee t pe r t on of al umi nu m) CWPB 65 to 98 (4. 11 to 5. 05) SWPB 85 (3. 44) VSS 81 (0. 67) HSS 80 to 95 (5. 06 to 7. 85)
Th is in form atio n in dica tes th at th e ga s vo lum e a ssoc iate d w ith th e pr odu ction of a fixed amount of al uminum is i n the range of 5 t o 12 times (aver age 8 times) gr eater f or CWP B, SWPB, or HSS t han forVSS. Conseque ntly , the conc entr ati on of SO 2 in a volume of exhaust gas in t he primary coll ectorsystem can be expect ed to be about 8 ti mes greater f or a VSS unit than for other units. Report ed dat a on uncont rol led “pri mary” exhaus t sy ste m SO 2 emissi ons are as follows:

Un it Source SO 2 Concentrati on, ppm TotalSO 2 emissions, kg SO 2 /Mg Al uminum (lbs SO 2 / t on al umi nu m) Pre bak e C ell A 5 Not report ed

B Not report ed 20.9 t o 23.4 (41. 7 to 46. 8) [ave rag e of 2 2.4 (4 4.8)] C Not report ed 30 (60) [ 3% sulfur in t he coke] VS S C ell A 80 Not report ed

B 200 to 300 17.5 t o 25 (35 t o 50) C 200 (average) Not report ed

Th e tr en d in con stru ctio n o f ne w alu m inu m pla nts is to w ard pre ba ke sys tem s. A m ajor fac tor influ encin g this tre nd is th e low er po we r requ irem ent o f the pr eba ke ce ll compared with Soderberg c ells . Itis rep orted that 9 of t he 11 aluminum plants opened since 1960 are of the prebak e type, and 99 percent of the 324 G igagrams (357 ,000 tons) capa ci ty a ddedsi nce 1 973 has been atpre bake f aci li ti es. Of t he 23 primaryalumi num production plants in th e Un ited States, 18 u se the pre bake process an d 5 use the Sod erberg process. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS
Th ere a re tw o alu m inu m sm elters lo cated with in the study regio n, an d the y are both locate d in O rego n. Th e da ta pro vided by th e O rego n D epa rtme nt of E nviro nm enta l Qu ality on the uni t c apaci ti es and SO 2 em ission s pote ntial fo r these two sm elters is p rovid ed in Table XI- 1. Thi s tabl e shows t hat t he SO 2 em ission s pote ntial fo r Re yno lds M etal, if operat ed at its d esig n capac it y, i s 4, 700 tpy. This i s the s ame as thei r per mitt ed SO 2 emissi on li mit. For NW Aluminum, the SO 2 emissions pot ential i s 518 tpy.XI-3 The NSP S for primary aluminum plants limits f luoride emiss ions, but does not aff ectSO 2 emissi ons. Washington i s the o nly St ate that has es tabl ishedan SO 2 emission limit sp ecifically fo r prim ary a lum inu m plan ts. The rule lim its the m axim um allow able tot al SO 2 emiss ionsfr om allsour ces wit hin the pl ant t o 60 lbs pe r t on of alumi num produc ed on a monthlybasis . Base d on the SO 2 emission rat es by proces s forReynolds Metal, which i s 65. 3 lbs S O 2 per ton of aluminum produced, applying t he State of Washington rule would o nly pr ovide an 8 perc ent r educt ion i n SO 2 emissions. Comparing t he capac it y-bas ed SO 2 emiss ion e st imat es i n TableXI- 1 wit h rec ent hist ori cal emissi ons ( see Tabl e XI- 2) s hows thatrec ent hi sto ricSO 2 emissions f rom Reynolds Metals ar e consi derably below t heircapac it y/p ermit ted emis sion limit , and that they vary consi derably fr om year-to-ye ar. NW A luminum SO 2 emissi ons in the peri od 1996 to 2000 average about 80 percentof tot al capacity. The f loo r c ontr ol t echno logy f or aluminum smelt ers was det ermi ned by eval uati ng the emissions performa nce of Reyno lds Metals and N W A luminu m. NW Alum inum uses a wet sc rubberto ac hieve a 70 p erc ent SO 2 emission reduction. Theref ore, a wet s crubber with a 70 pe rce nt SO 2 red uct ion was sel ect ed as the f loo r t echno logy f

or aluminum smelters. The effectof thi s fl oor tec hnology applic ation isshown in the rightmost c olumn of Table XI- 1. REFERENCES CFR , 2001: Code of

Federal Regulati ons, “ Subpart S - St andards of Perf ormance for Primary Al uminum Plants ( 60.190- 60.195) ,”July 1, 2001. EPA , 1981: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “ControlTechniques for Sul fur Oxide Em ission s from Statio nar y So urces ,” Secon d E dition , EP A-4 50/3 -81-0 04, O ffice of Air Qualit y Planning and Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, Apri l 1981.XI-4 

### Table XI-1 Aluminum Plant Data Used to Estimate Floor Allocations

Company Em iss ion s U nit Fuel Typ e Act ual Ca pac ity Ca pac ity

Un its Control

Devi ce SO 2 Emissio n

Factors (l bs/ton) SO 2 Contro l

Eff ici ency SO 2 Emissio ns

Actua l Cap acity (tons/yr) Floo r Al locat ion

at 70% Cont rol (tons/yr) Re ynold s M etals Carbon bakes Potroom fugi ti ves Potroom emissi ons Backup fuel Plant total Natural gas

N/A N/A #2 fue l oil N/A N/A 0.18- .19 2.5 62 .5 0.105 N/A

N/A 27 177 4,488 7.5 4,700 27 177 1,346. 4 7.5 1,557. 9 NW Alumin um Cell li ne Cell li ne Casthouse furnace Plant total N/A

Propane Natural gas 97,500

144,00 0 80,000 ,000 TA P/yr

ga llon s/yr cu bic fee t/yr W et s crubbe r

No No 0.7 N/A N/A 517

<0.1 1 <518 517 <0.1 1 518 Total 5,218 2,076

NOTES: Cont ro l Devi ce: Whi l e t here are no phy si cal con trol dev i ces , t he mo stef fe ct i ve f

or m ofSO 2 control i s li miti ng the amount o f sul fur in fuel oi l. For example, the sul fur con te nti n di st i l l at e f uel oi l sol d i n NW usu al l y av erage s much l ess th an 0 .1 , wh ereas th e r ul e l i miti s 0. 5. Act ual Capa ci tyEmis si on i s l i mited b y t he SO 2 PSEL. SO 2 emission f

actors are i n lbs per ton of aluminu m produced.XI-5 

### Table XI-2 Alu minum Smelt ing - Historical Emission s - 1990 to 200 0

Sta te Sta te

ID Co unty

ID Fac ility

ID IAS

Region SIC MTF Sector Sector Descri pti on Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName (i f di fferent from 1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2

tpy 1996 SO 2

tpy 1998 SO 2

tpy 2000
100 tp y or More SO 2 OR 41 065 0001 5 3334 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls Northwest Aluminum Com pany, I nc. 423 448 375 397
OR 41 051 1851 5 3334 10 Me tals /Min ing /Min era ls Reynol ds Metal s Company 3,340 0 503 1,510 3,763 448 878 1,907XI-6XII -1 

## CH APT ER XII SULFURIC ACID PLANTS

Sulfu ric acid is th e m ost w idely u sed in dus trial che m ical. Th e chie f uses of sulfu ric aci d ar e in p rod uct ion o f f ertil ize r, manufac tur e of chemi cal s, oilref

ini ng, pig ment produc ti on, iron and st eel pr oces sing, synthe ti c f iberproduc ti on, and met all urgi cal operation s. The pre dom inan t process use d for the prod uction of su lfuric acid is the contact process. The entire discussion in this c hapter focuses on the contact process. Sulf uricaci d is produc ed by burni ng sulf ur or s ulf

ur- beari ng materi als t o for m SO 2 . Sourc es of

SO 2 include: (1) elemen tal sulfur; (2) spent acid; (3) smelter off -gas; ( 4) pyrites; and (5) waste gas from fossil-fuel- fired boilers

. 

### A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
Contactsulf

uricaci d plant s are c lass if ied as hot gas (sulfurburning) or c old gas (metallur gicaland spent acid) systems. Plants operating on elemental sulf ur receive hot SO 2 gas di rec tl y fr om the sul furburner andwaste heatrec overy s yst em. When SO 2 gas from a m etallurgical operati on or other byprodu ct source (s uch as spent acid or iron pyrites) is used, itis received cold f rom the w et scrubber-cooler and purific ation systems. A basic variation of the contact process i s the double absorption techniqu e, also known as double catalysi s. This design islargel y based on the need to meet air p ollut ion control regulations. The onl y si gnif

ic ant s ourc e of

airemiss ionsfr om a cont actsul furicaci d pl ant i s t he tai l gas leavi ng the f inal absorb ing t ower. This gas cont ains s mall amounts o f SO 2 and even smalleramounts of

SO 3 , sulfuric v apo r, and sulfu ric acid m ist. SO 2 emissions are det ermined primaril y by overallplant desi gn (e.g. , number of cataly st pass es, am oun t of cataly st, dua l or sing le ab sorptio n, etc.). Ne w p lants are u sua lly desig ned to m eet N SP S em ission limits u sing th e du al ab sorptio n pro cess. In ce rtain situ ati on s, pl an ts ca n a ch iev e b ette r th an N SP S li m its u sin g th e d ua l ab sor ptio n p roc ess . For example, in a metal lurgicalaci d plant , l ower SO 2 emissions can someti mes be achieved cat alyt ically i f t he proc ess gasfr om a smelterhas a suf fi cie ntlyhigh oxyg en-t o-SO 2 rat io. Prop er c atalystvol umes and i nterpass coo li ng ca n be i ncor por ate d into theini ti al d esi gn, however. Existing pl ants that ar e requi red t o reduc e thei r SO 2 em ission s usu ally ch oose to conve rt to dual ab sorption or in stall a tail gas scrub ber. Dual absor pti on has been gener all y acc eptedas BACT. Concept ually , dual ab sorp tion is th e a ddit ion of an oth er co nv erte r an d ab sorb ing tow er o n th e ta il en d of a single abs orption plan t (with app ropria te he ating and coolin g of the gas s tream ) so the re is no new technology involved. Only sulfuri c acidis pr oduced in the dual absorption equ ipm ent. Various scr ubbing, or t ailgas, tec hnologi es areavail able f or r emoving SO 2 fr om gas stream s. Tail g as trea tme nt is ra rely u sed to ach ieve NS PS limits fo r new plan ts. A tail gas proce ss at the en d of a du al abso rption plan t ma y be the preferred techn ology w here local regulations require substantially l ower than NSP S em ission rates. Tailgas p roc ess es that p rod uce aby- pro ductthatcan berec ycl ed t o theaci d pl ant (e.g., wea k su lfuric acid ) are o f specia l intere st beca use they elim inate the n eed for off-site by-pr oductdis posal . Two suc h proc essesare hydr ogen per oxide scr ubbing and SO 2 oxi dat ion wi th ac tivat ed c arbo n.XII -2



### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS
Based on t he inf

ormati on avail able f or sulfur ic a cidplant s in the west, itwas det er minedtha t it i s ap pr opria te to estimat e t he f lo oral lo catio n by a pplyi ng t he NSPS requ irem ents to each sulfu ric acid p lant. Su bpa rt H - S tand ards o f Perform ance fo r Su lfuric Acid Plan ts 60.82 Standa rd f

or Sul fur Diox ide On or after the date on w hich the perform ance test required to be con ducted b y Sec. 60.8 is com pleted, no ow ner or operator su bject to the provisions of this subp art shall cause to be d is cha rged i ntotheat mosp here f ro m any aff

ec te d f ac il it y anygas eswhic h co nta in SO 2 in excess of

4 lbs pe r ton of

acid produced. Achi eving t his standard requires a c onversion ef fi ci enc y of 99. 7 pe rc entin an uncont ro lled p la nt, ortheequ iv al entSO 2collect ion mechanism in a controlled fac il ity. Table XII-1 l ist s the sulf uric ac id plant s, their charac teri sti cs, and the esti mated annual SO 2 fl oor al loc ati ons. An init ialSO 2 fl oorall ocation was est imat ed by mul ti ply ing the daily t hroughputli mit by the NSPS emissi on rat e (4 lbs SO 2 per ton 100 perce nt acid produce d), times 365 days pe r year, conv erted from lbs to tons by dividing b y 200 0. In equation form, this is:

This bas ed on thr oughput i niti al f loorall ocat ion was f ound to ex ceed the annual SO 2 permit limits for each of these units. Therefore, the estimated floor allocati ons for these sulf uricaci d plant s was est abli shed usi ng rec ent hi sto ricSO 2 emissions data. These hist ori c emiss ion val ues are allsli ghtl y below t he annual SO 2 permit limits. REFERENCES AWM A, 20 00: Airand Wast e ManagementAsso ci ati on, “Ai r Pol lut ion Eng inee ri ng M anu al,” 2 ndedition, Chapter 12 - ChemicalProces s Indus try , 2000. CFR , 2001: Code of

Federal Regulati ons, SubpartH - Standards of Performance for Sulf uricAcid Pl ants ( 60.82) , Jul y 1, 20 01. Idaho DEQ , 2002a: St ate of I daho, Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Tier 1 Operat ing Per mit, J.R. SimplotCo. - Don SidingPlant, 2002. Idaho DEQ , 2002b: St ate of I daho, Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Tier 1 Operating P ermit, Nu-We st Industries, Inc.; Agrium Conda Phosph ate Operations, 2002.XII -3 

### Table XII-1 Sulfuric Acid Plants

State Fa ci l i t y Na me Start Da te Su lfur ic Ac id

Pla nt ID Process Control Techni que Ann ual SO 2 Pe rm it Lim it (t ons) Da ily

Through put Limi t ( tons) Based on

Through put SO 2 Floo r Alloc atio n (tp y) Floo r Al locat ion Us ing His tor ic Emissio ns Ave ra ge (tpy)
Idaho Nu-W estIndus tr ies East NA NA 945 1,550 1,131 612
Idaho JR Simplo t 300 Single contact 2 st age scr ubber s ystem 750 1,750 1,277 1,939
400 Doub le contact Doub le contact with mist eli minat or 1,458 NA 1,458

W yom ing SF Pho sphates, Inc. 1995 Source 9b MEC 96 3.6 1,320 964 1,638
1984 Source 9a Lurgi 1,387 1,900 1,387
W yom ing Koch Sulfur

Pro du cts EU -1 NA 719 NA 719 1,197

EU -5 NA 721 NA 721

NA = not avai labl e.XII -4XII I-1 

## CH APT ER XIII META LLURG IC COKE PRODUC TI ON

A. SECTOR DESC RIPTION AND SIGNIFI CANT SO 2

### SOURCES
M eta llu rgi cal cok e is de riv ed from coa l an d u sed in i ron an d st ee l in du stry pro ces ses . Coke is m anufactured by pyrolysis, the heating of coal in the absence of air. In this pr ocess, high grad e, bitum inou s coal is hea ted in a en closed cha m ber to app roxim ately 105 0°C (192 5°F ), which rem ove s all vo latile co m pon ents o f the co al. Th e resu lting p rodu ct is a solid mater ialcons is ti ng of ele mentalcarbon and a ny miner als thatwere no t vo latil ize d in the heating process. 

### 1. By Product Coke Ovens In a ty pic al c oking op erat ion, 35 to 100 c oke ovens a re l ocat ed in a r ow refe rre d to as the oven ba ttery. Each ove n has three m ain parts: coking chambers, heating cham bers, and regenerativ e chambers. The coking chamber has port s in the t op for c harging (l oading) of the coal. A typicalU.S. coke oven produces 7.5 tons to 39 tons of coke per cycle. Most coke plants are co-located with iron and steel production facilities. Al l ov en s cu rre ntl y o pe rat ing in t he U nit ed Sta tes are by -pro du ct re cov ery ov en s. The se oven s operate b y reusin g gase s (volatiles) emitted b y the h ot coal. In by-prod uct recovery o vens, the v olatiles from th e coal are collected and sent to a b y-product recov ery pla nt. The of

f g as i s c ondens ed andsepa rat ed i nto ali quidfr act ion (coaltar) anda gas eous frac tion (coal gas) . The coal gas contains a number of cont aminants includi ng hydrogen sulfide . Som e by -produ ct recov ery p rocess es rem ove the su lfur from the g as prio r to combustion. Approxi mately 33 percent t o 40 percent of the clean c oal gas isthen returned to the oven batt ery to be used as f uel. The remaining coalgas can be used as fuelfor other processes at the plant or sold to ot her facili ties. Emissio ns of

SO 2 fr om coke ovens oper ati ons p ri marily re sul t f rom co mbusti on of

the byprod uct c oal gas in t he oven. A small porti on of SO 2 emissions comes f rom uncontrolled “char ging” , the proc ess of loadi ng coalint o the ov en. Cont rolof SO 2 fr om combusti on of c oal gas is primarily ac complished by; (a) r emoving the sulfur f rom the gas priorto combustion or (b) util izing l ow sulfur coalin the coki ng process. There are a numb er of methods f or removing sulfurfrom the coalgas, s uch as wet scrubbi ng. 

### 2. Rotary

Calciners There is only one known rotary c alci ner used forcoke production in the United States, P4 P roduction in Ro ck Spring s, WY . It uses a Sale m B rosius, 65 foot dia me ter, continuous f

eed rotary hearth calc iner. Basically, t he process involves feed ing a mixture of coal a nd p etrole um (pet) cok e on to a ro tating table locate d insid e a fu rna ce. Th e coa l is heat ed t o a hi gh te mperat ure a s i t r ota testo p rod uce c oke. The co ke exits the h earth and ente rs a coo li ng cha mber. Like bypr oduc t r eco ver y ove ns, the f urnac e ope rat es byreus ing the v olatile g ases em itted from the co al. H ow eve r, in this p rocess , the furn ace is in itially st art ed with natur al g as. Once s tarted , the co al g as be ing e mitt ed during the co king process is utilized a s fuel directly. The w aste gas is th en du cted to an in cinerator. Byp ro duc tsof

th e p ro ce ss in cl ude f in e c oke , as h, CO 2 , SO 2 , and r ock. Emissio ns of

SO 2 from a rotary hearth calc iner are primarily due t o the volat iles from the h eat ed c oal . The wast e gas is duct ed t o an i nci nera torand baghouse pri or t o bei ngXII I-2

emitted t o the atmosphere. There is no desulf urizati on of the waste gas. The am ount of SO 2 em itte d fro m the fac ility is a fun ctio n o f th e p rop ert ies of th e fe ed coa l. 

### B. FLOOR ALLOCA TION ESTIMATION METHODS The analysi s was li mited t o fac il it ies whi ch emitgreat er t han 100 tpy o f SO 2 in t ota l. Th ere a re thre e facilities w hich hav e be en id entified . Tw o are cokin g pla nts, A staris Co king Pla nt in W yom ing a nd G ene va S teel in Uta h. Th ere is o ne ro tary ca lciner in Wyom ing, P4 Product ion, Rock Spr ings Coal Calci ning Plant. The airpollut ion agencies f or Wyom ing and Utah provided inf ormation on the coking and cal cining f acil iti es for est im ati ng floo r al loc ati on s. AstarisCoking Plant was shut down in April of 2001. Therefor e, t his fac ili ty does not r eceive an SO 2 all oca tion

. Geneva Steelhas committ ed to c easi ng allSO 2 emiss ionsfr om the c oke ov ens and the sint er plant. These emissions have been banked for fut ure use or tr ading as prec ursor pol lut ant s wi thi n th e c urr entlo calUtahCount y PM 10 SIP. Th e Uta h A ir Qua lity Board approv ed thi s change o n June 5, 2002. Sincethe SO 2 emissi ons f or c oking and s inte ringat the pl ant ar e now essent ial ly ze ro, the SO 2 floo r al loc ati on for c ok ing is a lso ze ro. Th e third facility is P 4 P rodu ction, R ock S pring s Co al C alcinin g Pla nt. Th e pla nt is de sig ne d to pro ces s 2 20 ,00 0 tp y o f fee d m ate ria ls to pro du ce 1 10 ,00 0 tp y o f cok e p rod uc t. Th e pla nt op erate s for up to 8,00 0 ho urs p er ye ar. Th is wo rks ou t to a de sign p rocess rate of 27. 5 to ns pe r hour(t ph) or 66 0 to ns pe r da y ( tpd) o f f eed. Acc ord ing t o theoper ati ng perm it, the tota l facility po tentia l to em it is 2, 841.1 tpy of SO 2 base d on 8, 760 ope rat ing hours. There areno NSPS requir ements t he fac il it y must co mply wit h forSO 2 . This rotary coke r wa s bu ilt in 19 72 a nd th us is "g ran dfath ered " from the W yom ing A ir Qu ality Div ision's p erm it requ irem ents. T he h istorical e m ission s for this fa cility are prese nted in Table XII I- 1.


### Table XIII-1

Historical S O 2

### Emissi ons at P4 Pro ducti on, Rock Sp rings , WY

Hist ori cal Emissi ons of SO 2 (tpy) Average Annual SO 2 Em issions (tpy) 1990 1996 1997 1998 2000 1996 - 2000 933 663 586 642 633 631
As sta ted pr evious ly, the SO 2 emitted is a function of the feed coal. The plan t uses a ble nd of

coaland pe tr ole um coke (petcoke ). The 1994 a nnual invent oryshowedthatthe pet c oke blendwas 7.2 p erc ent f or t he year, with SO 2 emiss ionsof 420. 0 tp y; up 15 pe rc ent fr om the 36 5. 6 tp y emit tedin 19 93, when st rai ght c oalwas use d as 1 00 per centof the feedst ock. The most rec ent year' s data shows that the pet coke blend was 25 percentfor 1998, the maximum allowable amount t o maintai n compli ance with the SO 2 emiss ions limit. The procedure foresti mating the fl oor all ocati on for P4 Productions is di ff icultfor several rea sons. First, there are no iden tified control techno logies ava ilable for the rota ry calcine r. Secon d, there are n o N SP S req uirem ents. T hird, P 4 P rodu ction h as a poten tial to emit 2, 841.1 tpy based on 8,760 ho urs of operation. This i s much higherthan t he annual emissi ons rep ort ed by t he plant . Lastly, the SO 2 emissions f rom the rotary c alci ner are a function of the sulfur content of the feed wh ich varies over time. Since the coking process at P4 Pr oduc ti on isuniqueand c annotbe co mparedwit h emiss ionsfr om othe r f aci li ti es, the SO 2 alloca tions fo r P4 Pro ductio ns w ill be b ased on its a vera ge a nn ual e m ission s. Th is isXII I-3

consist ent with the al locat ion approach devel oped for s ource cat egories with no technology available f

or reduci ng sulfur and vari able sulf ur content in the feed suc h as flaring. The all ocat ion f

or P4 Prod ucti on willbe based o n emissi ons of SO 2 fr om years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000. Averaging hist oric al emissions r esults in a fl oor all ocati on of 631 tpy of SO 2 forthe P4 Prod ucti on fac il it y. As stat ed pre vious ly, the SO 2 flooralloc ations f or Astarisand Geneva Steel are zero. 

### C. COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL EMISSIONS
Table XII I- 2 pres ents the hist ori cal SO 2 emissi ons and t he SO 2 flooralloc ations f or allthre e coki ng fac il it ies. Note t hat Geneva St eel has an SO 2 allocation for its boilers, whi ch is di sc uss ed in Sec ti on IV.


### Table XIII-2

Coking Plan t - Histo rical Emissions- 1990 to 2000

Sta te Co unty

ID Fac ility

ID SIC MTF

Sector Sector

Descript ion Facil ity Name (1990) Current Faci li tyName

(i f di fferent from1990) SO 2 tpy 1990 SO 2 tpy

1996 SO 2 tpy

1998 SO 2 tpy

2000 SO 2 Floor

All ocati on W Y 037 0003 10 Metal s/Mi ning/ Min era ls Sweetwater

Resources P4 Production - Rock Sprin gs 933 663 642 633 631
W Y 023 001 10 Metal s/Mi ning/ Min era ls FMC Coking Plant Astar is Coki ng Plant 1,194 1,413 1,454 1,409 0
UT 049 0027 3312 10 Metal s/Mi ning/ Min era ls Geneva Steel 8,473 2,020 881 979 0
REFERENCES AWM A, 20 00: Airand Wast e ManagementAsso ci ati on, “Ai r Pol lut ion Eng inee ri ng Manual,” 2nd edition, Chapter 14 - Metal lurgicalIndustry, 2000. EPA , 1981: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “ControlTechniques for Sul fur Oxide Em ission s from Statio nar y So urces ,” Secon d E dition , EP A-4 50/3 -81-0 04, O ffice of Air Qualit y Planning and Standar ds, Researc h Triangl e Park, NC, Apri l 1981. EPA , 1998: U. S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, “Compilation of Air Pollut ant Emission Factors, ” AP-42, Fif

th Editi on, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Source, Secti on 12.2 C oke P roduction ” Office of Air Qu ality Plan ning a nd Sta ndard s, Resea rch Triangl e Park, NC, 1998.XII I-4XIV -1 

## CH APT ER XIV FLOORA LLOCATI ON SUMMA RY

Table XIV- 1 summarizes the SO 2 fl oorall ocation e st imat es f rom al l of

the p rev ious chapters by State and by sector. Californi a estimates list ed in Table XIV-1 are based on average SO 2 emiss ionsin these sec tor s f rom 1996 , 1 998, and 2000 . Ta ble XIV- 1 shows the est imated SO 2 floor allocation for n on-utility sources in the 9-State C om mission Tran sport Region t o be about 195 thousa nd tons . I f c opper smelte r SO 2 allocations in 2018 are subtracted from this am oun t, the floor allocation is 11 7 thou sand to ns. The non -smelter, non-Califor nia SO 2 emissions total is 89,000 tons. Table XIV- 2 provi des a c omplete li st o f t he fac il it y-l evel SO 2 fl oorall ocations , a nd includes year2000 SO 2 emiss ionsas a p ointof comparis on.XIV -2 

### Table XIV-1 State/Sector

Summary

of SO 2

### Floor Allocations (tons per

year)

Sectors
States Refiner ies L i m e Manufacturi ng* Indust rial Boilers Pulp and

Paper Cement

Manufacturi ng Natural Gas

Processing Elemental

Phosphorus ** Glass

Manu facturi ng*** Copper Sm elters Aluminum

Pla nts Su lfuric

Acid Plan ts Coke

Producti on Total Ariz ona 1,365 978 320 43,000 45,663 Ca liforn ia 27,335 Colora do 1,614 387 4,936 237 7,174 Idah o 601 1,807 522 15,861 2,551 21,342 Nevada 435 448 883 New Mexico 2,244 1,103 12,862 34,000 50,209 Oregon 1,585 5,377 131 2,076 9,169 Utah 4,142 303 2,010 267 1,593 1,000 9,315 W yom ing 3,418 2,350 165 14,429 2,835 631 23,828 Total 11,418 2,103 7,911 7,184 7,761 28,884 15,861 368 78,000 2,076 5,386 631 194,918

NOTES: *Ba sed on 199 8 an d 20 00 h is to ri calSO 2 emission esti mates.

** Base d on y ear

200 0 SO 2 emission esti mates for P4 Producti on, which are substanti ally higher than 1996 or 1998 emissions.
** *Ba sed on 199 6, 199 8, and 200 0 hi st or ic al SO 2 emission esti mates.XIV -3 

### Table XIV-2 Facility-Level SO 2

### Floor Allocations Comparisonwith Year 2000 SO2

### Emissions (tons per y ear)

State Facility

ID Sector Description Facility Name (1990) Current Facility Name In Current Report Comments SO 2 Emissions Year 2000 SO 2 NonBoiler Allocation SO 2

Boiler Allocation Total

SO 2 Allocation State

Totals AZ Cement/ Concrete Arizona Portland Cement X 320 0 0 AZ 0011 Metals/Min ing/M inerals CHEMICAL LIME (CHEMSTAR) CHEMIC AL LIME - NELSON X 702 632 632 AZ 0003 Metals/Min ing/M inerals Chemical Lime (Douglas) X 742 733 733 AZ Cement/ Concrete Phoenix Cement X 539 320 320 AZ 0007 Wood/Paper/Pu lp STONE CONTAINER ABITIBI X 1,893 0 978 978 AZ 0001 Oil/Gas Intermou ntain Refining X Closed 0 0 0 AZ 0004 Copper ASARCO SMELTER - HAYDE N X 16,753 21,000 21,000 AZ 0032 Copper BHP(Magma Metals) BHP - San Manuel X 0 14,000 14,000 AZ 0006 Copper CYPRUS MIAMI M INE X 6,810 8,000 8,000 AZ 0040 Copper Cyprus Sierrita X 0 0 0 45,663 CO 0048 Metals/Min ing/M inerals CFI 267 0 CO 0004 Oil/Gas COLO REFINING X Refinery 545 562 562 CO 0003 Oil/Gas CONOCO DENVER X Refinery 1,972 1,052 1,052 CO 0008 Glass COORS GLASS ROCKY MOUNTAIN BOTTLE X 255 237 237 CO 0002 Cement/ Concrete HOLNAM LAPORTE HOLCIM LAPORTE X 404 1,402 1,402 CO 0001 Cement/ Concrete HOLNAM PORTLAND HOLCIM PORTLAND X 3,288 3,374 3,374 CO 0097 Misc. METRO WASTEWATER 56 0 CO 0003 Cement/ Concrete SOUTHWEST PORTLAND CEMEX -LYONS PLT. X 50 160 160 CO 9 Misc. GENERAL SERVICES ADM INISTRATI ON 0 0 CO 0001 Oil/Gas LANDMARK PETROLEUM 0 0 CO CHP TRIGEN-COLORADO ENERGY CORP. X 2,583 0 387 387 CO 24 Oil/Gas UNOCAL RETORT-PAR ACHUTE X 0 0 CO 0025 Oil/Gas UNOCAL UPGRADE X 0 0 CO 0001 Food WESTERN SUGAR 1 19 0 CO 0002 Food WESTERN SUGAR 2 0 0 7,174 ID Wood/Paper/Pulp/Cogeneration Tamarack Energy 117 0 ID 0004 Cement/ Concrete ASHGROVE CEMENT X 1,327 522 522 ID Power Avista 130 0 ID Food Basic American Foods (Shelly) 149 0 ID Wood/Paper/Pu lp Boise Cascade - Em mett 252 0 ID 0001 Misc. DOE-INEEL 460 0 ID 0005 Chemicals/Plastics FMC ASTARIS 0 0 ID Food MAGIC VALLEY FOODS 0 0 ID 0001 Chemicals/Plastics MONSANTO/P4 PRO DUCTION P4 Product ion X Elemental Phosphorus 15,861 15,861 15,861 ID 0003 Chemicals/Plastics NU WEST INDUSTRIES Sulfuric acid plants 86 612 ID 0001 Wood/Paper/Pu lp POTLATCH X Paper Mill 1,694 1,807 1,807 ID Misc. RICKS COLLEGE 0 0 ID 0006 Chemicals/Plastics SIMPLOT Sulfuric acid plants 543 1,939 ID 0010 Food TASCO (NAMPA) Amalgam ated Sugar (Nampa) 1,697 242 242 ID 0001 Food TASCO (PA UL) Amalgamated Sugar (P aul) 1,322 155 155 ID 0001 Food TASCO (TWIN) Amalgam ated Sugar (T

win) 1,053 203 203 ID Food Ida ho Su pre me 0 0 ID 0001 Misc. MTN. HM . AFB 144 0 21,341 NV 0003 Metals/Min ing/M inerals CHEMSTAR APEX CHEMICAL LIME CO-APEX PLANT X Lime plant 210 193 193 NV 0387 Cement/ Concrete NEVADA CEMENT COMP ANY FERNLEY PLANT X 172 305 305 NV Cement/ Concrete Royal Cement Not in previous report 143 143

### Table XIV-2 (continued)

State Facility

ID Sector Description Facility Name (1990) Current Facility Name In Current Report Comments SO 2 Emissions Year 2000 SO 2 NonBoiler Allocation SO 2

Boiler Allocation Total

SO 2 Allocation State

Totals

XIV -4 NV 0261 Metals/Min ing/M inerals GRAYMONT WESTERN US INC PILOT PEAK X Lime plant 249 242 242 NV 0451 Metals/Mining SANTA FE PACIFIC GOLD CORP TWIN CREEKS/NEWMONT MINING CORP 113 0 NV 0433 Metals/Min ing/M inerals BASIC INC.(Now PREMIE R CHEMICALS LLC) PREMIER SERVICES (Gabbs Facility) 0 NV 0863 Misc. HAWTHORNE ARMY 0 NV Metals/Mining Independence Big Springs ANGLO GOLD 0 NV 0019 Metals/Min ing/M inerals TITANIUM METALS 0 883 NM 0024 Oil/Gas AGAVE ENERGY/YATES PLANT Agave Plant X 2,983 365 365 NM 0002 Oil/Gas ARCO PERMIAN/EMPIRE ABO GAS PLNT X 565 431 431 NM 0004 Oil/Gas CONOCO/MALJAMAR GAS PLANT MALJAMAR GAS PLANT X 3,574 222 222 NM 0023 Oil/Gas GIANT INDUSTRIES/BLOOMFIELD REF X Refinery 920 414 414 NM 0008 Oil/Gas Giant Refining/Ciniza Refinery (Gallup) X Refinery 1,779 603 603 NM 0044 Oil/Gas GPM GAS EUNICE GAS PLANT VERSADO GAS PR ODUCERS

LLC X 2,759 0 NM 0011 Oil/Gas GPM GAS/ARTESIA GAS PLANT DUKE ENERGY/ARTESIA GAS PLANT X 1,459 1,192 1,192 NM 0006 Oil/Gas GPM GAS/INDIAN HILLS AMINE PLNT 900 0 NM 0046 Oil/Gas GPM GAS/LEE GAS PLA NT Duke Energy Lee Plant X 818 0 0 NM 0035 Oil/Gas GPM GAS/LINAM RANCH GA S PLANT Duke Energy Plant 5 1,304 1,181 1,181 NM 0007 Oil/Gas J.L. DAVIS GAS PROCESS/ DENTON X 1,158 840 840 NM 0008 Oil/Gas MARATHO N OIL/INDIAN BSN GAS PLT X 1,100 665 665 NM 0010 Oil/Gas NAVAJO REFINING/ARTESIA REFINERY X Refinery 980 1,227 1,227 NM 138 Oil/Gas PAN ENE RGY/BUR TON FLATS G

AS PLT Duke Energy Burton Plant X 246 164 164 NM 0285 Oil/Gas PAN ENE RGY/DAGG ER DRAW GAS PLT DUKE ENERGY/DAGGER DRAW X 247 218 218 NM Cement/ Concrete RIO GRANDE PORTLAND CEMENT X 1,103 1,103 1,103 NM 0008 Oil/Gas SID RICHARDSON GASOLINE /JAL#3 X 0 1,206 1,206 NM 55 Oil/Gas TEXACO/BUCKEYE GASOLINE PLANT DYNERGY 673 0 NM 0052 Oil/Gas TEXACO/EUNICE NORTH GAS PLANT X 5,476 0 NM 0051 Oil/Gas TEXACO/EUNICE SOUTH GAS PLANT X 231 0 NM 0003 Oil/Gas TRANSWESTERN PIPE DUKE ENERGY/HUBER GAS X 270 163 163 NM 0001 Oil/Gas WARREN PETROLEUM/BLUITT GAS PLANT X 1,226 0 NM 0060 Oil/Gas WARREN PETROLEUM/EUNICE GAS PLANT Duke Energy EUNICE GAS PLANT 2,756 2,250 2,250 NM 0061 Oil/Gas WARREN PETROLEUM/MONUMENT PLANT Dynergy MONUMENT PLANT X 1,387 675 675 NM 0063 Oil/Gas WARREN PETROLEUM/SAUNDERS PLANT Dynergy SAUNDERS PLANT 0 163 163 NM 0064 Oil/Gas WARREN PETROLEUM/VADA GAS PLANT 3,138 0 NM 0247 Oil/Gas WESTERN GAS PROCESSORS/SAN JUAN RVR Western Gas Resourc es X 3,127 3,127 NM 0128 Oil/Gas CITATION/ANTELOPE RDG GAS PLANT X 0 NM 0118 Oil/Gas CONOCO/B ELL LAKE 2 WELL #6 X 0 NM 0125 Oil/Gas FEAGAN E NERGY/W DAGGE R DRAW GAS PLT Duke Energy Dagger Draw X 0 NM 0050 Oil/Gas YATES PETROLEUM/PATHFINDER AM INE X 0 0 0 NM 0001 Copper PHELPS DODGE/CHINO MINES X 11,420 14,000 14,000 NM 0003 Copper PHELPS DODGE/HIDALGO SMELTER X 0 20,000 20,000 50,209 OR 0002 Food Amalgam ated Sugar C

ompany,The X 987 0 74 74 OR Wood/Paper/Pu lp X Not in previous report 0 OR 1849 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Boise Cascade Company X 1,834 1,532 411 1,943 OR Oil/Gas X Not in previous report OR 0005 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Georgia-Pacifi c West, Inc. X 452 258 143 401 OR 0007 Metals/Mining Glenbrook Nickel C ompany 0 0 OR 2125 Metals/Min ing/M inerals Globe Metallurgi cal Inc. 197 0 OR 0036 Wood/Paper/Pu lp X 0 0 OR 0004 Wood/Paper/Pu lp James River II, Inc. Georgia - Pacific (Wauna

Mill) X 643 1,361 277 1,638 OR 0001 Metals/Min ing/M inerals Northwest Aluminum Company, Inc. X 397 518 518 OR 1876 Glass Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. X 108 131 131

### Table XIV-2 (continued)

State Facility

ID Sector Description Facility Name (1990) Current Facility Name In Current Report Comments SO 2 Emissions Year 2000 SO 2 NonBoiler Allocation SO 2

Boiler Allocation Total

SO 2 Allocation State

Totals

XIV -5 OR 3501 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Pope & Talbot Pulp, Inc. X 293 248 107 355 OR 1851 Metals/Min ing/M inerals Reynolds Me tals Com pany X 1,510 1,558 1,558 OR 6142 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Smurfit Newsprint C orporation 2 X No longer pulping 519 0 0 OR Wood/Paper/Pu lp West Linn Paper Co. X Not in previous report 0 211 211 OR 8866 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Weyerhaeuser Com pany SierraPine, Ltd

. X 0 0 0 0 OR 0471 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Wil lamette Industries, Inc. X 327 310 310 OR 8850 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Collins Products LLC Weyerhaeuser Co. X Weyerhaeuser S pringfield 1,721 1,668 362 2,030 OR 5034 Misc. Cascade Steel Rolling Mil ls, Inc. 0 0 OR 2028 Oil/Gas Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P X OR 0041 Chemicals/Plastics Georgia-Pacifi c Resins, Inc. 0 OR 0013 Wood/Paper/Pu lp J. Peterkor t & Company Collins Products LLC 0 OR 5398 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Ogden Martin Systems of Marion, Inc. Covanta Marion, Inc. X 0 OR 2050 Misc. Oregon Health Sciences University OHSU X 0 0 OR 0015 Wood/Paper/Pu lp Weyerhauser - Coos Bay Hog wast e-fired boiler 882 0 9,169 UT 10572 Copper Kennecott Utah Copper C orp. X Smelter 2,534 1,000 700 1,700 UT 10096 CHP Sunnyside Co generation Ass

ociates X 1,054 1,270 1,270 UT 0004 Oil/Gas Amoco Petroleum Products Tesoro X Refining 1,368 1,388 1,388 UT 0004 Misc. Brigham Y oung University X 125 1 1 UT 0001 Metals/Min ing/M inerals Brush Well man Inc. X 179 23 23 UT 0003 Oil/Gas Chevron Prod ucts Company X Refining 1,242 1,240 1,240 UT -9902 Metals/Min ing/M inerals Continental Lime Inc. Graymont X Lime 331 303 303 UT 0008 Oil/Gas Flying J Incorpora ted X Refining 300 674 674 UT 0027 Metals/Min ing/M inerals Geneva Steel X Shutdown coke ovens

and sinter plant 979 17 17 UT 0001 Cement/ Concrete Holnam Incorporated Holcim X Cement 288 267 267 UT 0013 Oil/Gas Phillips 66 Com pany X Refining 601 762 762 UT Oil/Gas Silver Eagle Refini ng Inc. X Not in previous report (Refining) 77 77 UT -9901 Oil/Gas Unocal Corporat ion Tom Bro wn-Lisbon Plant X Natural gas processing 1,252 1,593 1,593 UT 10676 Utelite Corporation 133 0 0 9,315 WY 0012 Oil/Gas AMOCO - ELK BAS IN HOWELL PETROLE UM - ELK BASIN X 2,638 1,200 1,200 WY 0012 Oil/Gas AMOCO - WHITNEY CANY ON X 6,889 5,602 5,602 WY 0009 Oil/Gas CHEVRON - CARTER CREEK X 2,096 200 200 WY Cement/ Concrete Centex X Not in previous report 165 165 WY 0013 Oil/Gas EXXON - SHUTE CREEK X 1,383 1,536 1,536 WY Oil/Gas EXXON BLACK C ANYON D EHY & WELLFIE LD 167 0 WY 0010 Metals/Min ing/M inerals FMC - GRA NGER (TEX

AS GULF) X 212 305 305 WY 48 Metals/Min ing/M inerals FMC - GREEN RIVER X 4,901 956 956 WY 0001 Metals/Min ing/M inerals FMC COKING PLANT ASTARIS COKING PLANT X Shutdown April 2001 1,409 0 WY 0001 Oil/Gas FRONTIER OIL & REFINING - CHEYENNE X Refining 1,396 863 863 WY 0002 Metals/Min ing/M inerals GENERAL CHEMICAL X 5,000 750 750 WY 0001 Food HOLLY SU GAR - TORRINGTON X 178 23 23 WY Oil/Gas INTERENERGY - HILAND WILDHORSE ENERGY - HILAND X 269 281 281
WY Oil/Gas KCS MOUNTAIN RESOURCES - GOLDEN EAGLE X 17 790 790 WY Oil/Gas KCS MO UNTAIN RESOURCES - AINSWORTH X 0 843 843 WY 1 Oil/Gas KCS Mou ntain Resource s Rushmore X 118 118 118 WY 0005 Chemicals/Plastics KOCH SULFUR PRODUCTS COMPANY PEAK SULFUR X Sulfuric acid plants 1,245 1,197 1,197 WY Oil/Gas LOUISIANA LAND & EXPLOR - LOST CA BIN b BURLINGTON RESOURCES - LOST CABIN

b X 213 1,867 1,867 WY 0007 Oil/Gas MARATHO N GAS PLANT - OREGON BAS IN Oregon Basin Gas Plant X 358 391 391 WY Oil/Gas MARATHO N OIL - M ILL IRON X 0 247 247

### Table XIV-2 (continued)

State Facility

ID Sector Description Facility Name (1990) Current Facility Name In Current Report Comments SO 2 Emissions Year 2000 SO 2 NonBoiler Allocation SO 2

Boiler Allocation Total

SO 2 Allocation State

Totals

XIV -6 WY 1 Oil/Gas Marthon Oil Pitc h Fork Battery X 61 61 61 WY 0003 Metals/Min ing/M inerals SWEETW ATER RESOURCES P4 PRODU CTION - ROCK SPRIN GS X Rotary coker 633 631 631 WY 0022 Chemicals/Plastics SF PHOSPHATES, INC X Sulfuric acid plants 1,790 1,638 1,638 WY 0001 Oil/Gas LITTLE AMERICA REFINING COMPANY SINCLAIR - CASPER X Refining 1,458 1,040 1,040 WY 0011 Oil/Gas SINCLAIR @ SINCLA

IR X Refining 3,407 1,066 1,066 WY Oil/Gas SNYDER OIL - RI VERTON DOME DEVON SFS - RIVER TON DOME 492 0 WY Metals/Min ing/M inerals SOLVAY MINERA LS X 52 294 294 WY 0012 Oil/Gas TEXAS-BYRON PLANT BIG HORNGAS PR OCESSIN G - BYRON X Texaco 257 200 200 WY 0008 Oil/Gas UNION PAC - BRADY RME PETROLEUM - BRADY X 300 0 WY 0005 Misc. UW CENTRAL HEAT PLANT X 193 22 22 WY 0001 Oil/Gas WYOMING REFINING CO WYOMING REFIN ING - NEWCASTLE X Refining 876 449 449 WY 008 Oil/Gas DEVON S FS OPERA TING CO. BEAVER CREEK X 831 0 WY 0003 Metals/Min ing/M inerals AMERICAN COLLOID - WEST COLONY 0 WY 0002 Oil/Gas AMOCO REFINERY Closed 0 0 WY 0001 Metals/Min ing/M inerals BENTONITE CORPORA

TION LOVELL 0 0 WY 0014 Oil/Gas COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS - TABLE ROCK 0 0 WY 0013 Oil/Gas MARATHON OIL COMPANY - GARLA ND 0 0 WY Oil/Gas Hallwood Pet roleum-Federal Packsaddle 1- 24 X Not in previous report 133 133 WY Oil/Gas Hallwood Pet roleum-Federal Packsaddle 1 X Not in previous report 960 960 23,828 TOTALS 170,226 167,583 167,583

a SO 2 Allocation based on histo rical emissions. b Plant has j ust added capacity and allocat ion is based on current (July 2002 capacity).