P. 1


# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 2 ) ll-A- 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:18 AM

Sheet 2 of 147V 1



### - IV; PB8J-11597 2 •."';,tE>'..»i '



# Analysi s o f v£~ ^ Ne wSource Revie

w(NSR ) ^ ^ Permittin g Experience 

# msM

• .<«_«!__» < •^^^^^^^^^^1^ ^ 

### asp-* ' •' "

## -SftftSto * 

# "am 

# m

-rt-r-£X.. 

### BIBLIOGRAPHI C INFORMATIO N

PB83-11597 2 Analysi s o f Ne

w Sourc e Revie

w (NSR ) Permittin

g Experience , Au g 8 2 L . Hayes , w . Warren-Hicks , L . Bravo , J . Avery , an d J Shumaker . PERFORMER : TRW , Inc. , Durham , NC .

Contrac t EPA-68-02-317 4 SPONSOR : Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Washington , DC . Economi c Analysi s Div . Pursuan t to th

e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 197 7 EPA , i n 1978 , revise

d it s Ne

w Sourc e Revie

w (NSR ) regulations . Th e revise dPreventio

no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) regulation s wer e mor e extensiv e tha nthei r predecessor s i n tha t man

y mor e source s wer e subjec t to PS D requirements . Th e NS Rregulation s wer e agai nrevise d i n198 0 a s a resul t o f litigation . Thi s repor t deal s witha sampl e o f th e pre-constructio

npermit s issue

d under EPA' s post-197 7 NS R regulations . Th

e dat a an

d informatio

ncontaine

d i nthi s repor t summariz e result s o f a stud y directe

d a t assessin

g th e experienc e o f EPA' s Ne w Sourc e Revie

w (NSR ) Program . Informatio

nextracte

d fro m Preventio

no f Significan t Deterioratio

n(PSD ) an

d non-attainmen t permi t file s augmente

d b y dat a obtained fro

m compan y representative s hav e bee ncompiled , analyze d an d interpreted . A

nautomate

d (computer ) dat a bas e ha s bee nconstructed containin g relevant dat a fo

r eac ho f mor e tha

n28 5 PS D an

d non-attainmen t permit s issue d sinc e 1978 . KEYWORDS : *Licenses , *Ai r pollution , *Regulations , *Ne w sourc e review , *Ai r quality . Availabl e fro

m th e Nationa l Technica l Informatio nService , Springfield , Va . 2216 1 PRIC E CODE : P

C All/M F A0 1 

# rap



# f f _4_E\Smj S 

# mm

mm



# K

;MWWWV» ' I*.**1 wiwmmtmimACKNOWLEDGEMEN T

1 # 7 Thi s repor t wa s prepare dfo r th e Ai r Economic s Branch , Economic s Analysi s Division , Offic e o f Polic y an d Resourc e Management , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Washington , D.C ; b y TR W Inc. , Environmenta l Division , unde r Contrac t Numbe r 68-02-3174 . Th e EP A Projec t Office r wa s Mr . Ale xCristofaro . Dat a an d analyse s presente di nthi s report , i nman y cases , wer e extracte dfro

m project s performe db y TR W unde r Contrac t Numbe r 68-02-3515 , fo r whic hMr . Jame s Weigold , an dMr . Mik e Trutna , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standards , Durham , Nort hCarolina , wer e th e EPA Projec t Officers . I

naddition , th e analyse s fo r Sectio n3 o f thi s report . Permi t Applicatio nProcessin g Times , wer e performe db y TR W unde r separat e Contrac t No . 68-01-5838 , fo r whic hMr . Scot t Flamm , Offic e o f Polic y

an dResourc e Managemen t wa s th e EP A Projec t Officer . Th e TR W Projec t Manage r wa s Mr . L . Hayes . Principa l investigator s wer e Messrs . W . Warren-Hicks , L . Bravo , J . Avery , J . Shumaker , P . Gunthorpe , an

d Ms . D . Wells .

.,» - >»..»w<»M«W<TW< (. l"Jx. 

## •a s & * 5 

# I P

I K •_-• ? NOTIC E Thi s repor t i s divide d int o thre e mai n sections : • Executiv e Sunmary ; • Ful l Report ; and • Appendices . Th e Executiv e Summar y i s a brie f summar y

o f the highlight s o f th e repor t finding s and , i nadditio nt o bein g th e firs t sectio n(1.0 ) o f thi s report , i t ha s als o bee nprinte dandboun dseparately . Ihe body o f th e repor t present s al l analyse s and explanation s ar e provided , a s necessary , t o allo w the reade r to bette r understan dtho significanc e o f th e results . Description s o f analytica l method s use d an dgreate r detail s o f th e dat a are containe dinth e respectiv e appendices : A throug hG . Th e subsection s o f th e Executiv e Summar y correspon dt o the section s o f th e ful l report . Fo r instance . Subsectio n1. 2 o f the Executiv e Summar y andSectio n2. 0 o f th e repor t bot hdea l wit hdescription s o f th e dat a base ; Subsectio n1. 3 o f th e Executiv e Sunmar y and Sectio n3. 0 o f the repor t bot h dea l wit hpermi t applicatio nprocessin g times , and s o on .

V, % A 

### $

i l^^^^i,..»..._« . t«~,_«•. • >_JI_»J « mi — 1 win. • ••IgWIj.lllB—l-J' l .._.«.». . H,H M .

p. - -t i

• 4 '
... . TABL E 0 1 CONTENT S Pag_ e 1. 0 EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y1 1 . 1 INTRODUCTIO N 1 Backgroun d1 Projec t Objective s 2 1. 2 DAT A

BAS E O F PS D PERMI T APPLICATION S 2 Dat a Bas e Sourc e Type s 2 Dat a Bas e Emission s Summary 2 PS O Applicatio nSubmittal s 5 1. 3 PERMI T APPLICATIO N PROCESSINGTIME S 5 Summar y o f PS D Permi t Processin g Time s 5 Tota l Processin g Tim e 5 Applicatio nCompletenes s 8 Permi t Processin g Tim e From Receip t o f Complet e Applicatio n11 Effec t o f Sourc e Typ e an d Siz e o nProcessin g Time s .. . 1 1 Effec t o f Pre-Applicatio nMeeting s o nProcessin g Time s . 11 Permi t Processin g Time s fo r Application s Subjec t t o Bot hPS D and Non-Attainmen t Revie w 1 1 1. 4 PS D AND NON-ATTAINMEN T REVIEW APPLICABILIT Y1 4 Emission s Subjec t t

o Revie w 1 4 Permi t Application s Eliminate dFro m Revie w a t Variou s Threshold s 1 4 1. 5 ANALYSI S O F BAC T AN D LAE RASSOCIATE D WIT H FINAL PERMI T EMISSION S LIMITATION S 1 8 Technolog y

Review s 1 8 Effect s o f NSP S an

d NESHAP S onBAC T an dLAER1 8 Emissio nUnit s 1 8 Allowabl e Emission s 2 1 I1AC T vs . LAE R2 3 Effec t o f Emissio nUni t Siz e o nBACT-Permitte d Emission s andEmission s Reduction s BeyondNSP S 2 9



### i n

## S3 $

tn^'-'* * ft** ,'« , ,ir/»VT"VH^V , ) l



### TABL E O F CONTENT S (Continued ) Pag e Emissio nReduction s From Propose d BAC T Emissio nLevel s 3 5 Effec t o f PS DonAllowabl e Emission s 3 5 1. 6 ANALYSI S O F AI RQUALIT YIMPACT S 3 7 Frequenc y

o f Ai r Qualit y

(A/Q ) Analyse s 3 7 Effect s o f Allowabl e PS DIncremen t Constraint s 3 8 Effect s o f Constraint s Cause db y Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y

Standard s (NAAQS ) 3 9 Effec t o f A/ Q Constraint s o nEmission s Reduction s Beyon dNSP S 4 0 1. 7 MISCELLANEOU S ASSOCIATE DANALYSE S 4 0 Effec t o f Clas s I Allowabl e SO - Incremen t o nPowe r Plan t Sitin g 4 0 Effec t o f Alternativ e Clas s I Incremen t System o nEmission s Nea r Clas s I Area s 4 3 Cos t t o Prepar e a PS DApplicatio n4 3 2. 0 DAT A

BAS E O F PS DPERMI T APPLICATION S 4 7 2. 1 INTRODUCTION

4 7 2. 2 DATA

BAS E SOURC E TYPE S AN DPROJEC T DESCRIPTION S ... . 4 7 Sourc e Type s 4 7 New Majo r Source s andMajo r Modification s 4 9 Projec t Description s 4 9 2. 3 POLLUTAN T APPLICABILIT Y5 0 2. 4 NONATTAINMEN T REVIEW 5 0 2. 5 DAT A BAS E EMISSIO N

UNIT S 5 1 2. 6 DATA

BAS E EMISSION S SUMMARY5 1 2. 7 AI RQUALIT YDATA

5 1 2. 8 PS DAPPLICATIO N

SUBMITTAL S 5 3 2. 9 PS DREVIEW

AUTHORIT Y5 5

i v, J 'l^ft^.*. *



### TABL E OF CONTENT S (Continued ) Pag e 3. 0 PS DPERMI T PROCESSIN GTIME S 5 6 3. 1 INTRODUCTIO N

5 6 3. 2 SUMMARYO F PS DPERMI T PROCESSIN GTIME S 5 7 Tota l Processin g Tim e 5 7 Applicatio nCompletenes s 5 7 Permi t Processin g Tim e fro m Receip t o f a Complet e Applicatio n6 1 3. 3 COMPONENT S O F PS DPERMI T PROCESSINGTIM E B YPERIO DO F APPLICATIO N SUBMITTA L 6 5 3. 4 EFFEC T O F SOURC E SIZ E AN DTYP E O N PROCESSIN GTIME S .. . 6 5 3. 5 EFFEC T O F PRE-APPLICATIO N CONTAC T O N

PROCESSIN GTIME S . 6 9 3. 6 PERMI T PROCESSIN GTIME S FORAPPLICATION S SUBJEC T T O BOT H PS DANDNONATTAINMEN T REVIEW 6 9 4. 0 ANALYSI S O F PS DAN DNONATTAINMEN T REVIE W APPLICABILIT Y.. . 7 2 4. 1 INTRODUCTIO N

7 2 4. 2 DISTRIBUTIO N

O F CRITERI A

POLLUTAN T EMISSION S 7 2 4. 3 POLLUTAN T REVIEW S AN DEMISSION S COVERAG E A T VARIOU S THRESHOLD S 7 9 4. 4 PERMI T APPLICATION S ELIMINATE DFROM REVIEW AT VARIOU S THRESHOLD S 8 5 4. 5 ELIMINATIO N

O F NON-CRITERI A

POLLUTANT S TRO

M I'S O REVIEW 0 9 5. 0 ANALYSI S OF BAC T ANDLAE RASSOCIATE DWIT H FINAL PERMI T EMISSION S LIMITATION S 9 2 5. 1 INTRODUCTIO N

9 2 5. 2 TECHNOLOGYREVIEW S 9 2

# 1

TABL E O F CONTENT S (Continued )

5. 3 EFFECT S O F NSP S AN D NESHAP S O N BAC T AN D LAE R9 4 Emissio n Unit s 94 Allowabl e Emission s .. . 9 6 5. 4 BAC T VS . LAE R9 9 5. 5 EFFEC T O F EMISSIO N UNI T SIZ E O

N BACT-PERMITTE D EMISSION S AN D EMISSIO N REDUCTION S BEYON D A NSP S ... . 10 6 5. 6 PROPOSE D VS . PERMITTE D BAC T 11 3 5. 7 EFFEC T OF PS D ON ALLOWABL E EMISSION S 11 3 6. 0 ANALYSI S O F AI RQUALIT YIMPACT S 11 6 6. 1 INTRODUCTIO N

11 6 6. 2 FREQUENC YO F AI RQUALIT YANALYSE S 11 6 Sourc e Applicabilit y 11 6 Pollutan t Applicabilit y 11 7 Frequenc y

o f Require dMonitorin g Dat a 11 9 6. 3 ANALYSI S O F ALLOWABL E PS D INCREMENT S 12 0 Incremen t Consumptio n12 0 Clas s I I Incremen t Consumptio nImpact s b y Sourc e Typ e andEPA Regio n12 7 Effect s o f Allowabl e PS D Incremen t Constraint s ... . 12 7 Rol e o f Incremen t Impact s Analyse s onSpecifi c Project s 12 9 6. 4 ANALYSI S O F NATIONAL AMBIEN T AI RQUALIT Y STANDARD S IMPACT S 13 4 NAAQ S Impac t Analyse s .... . 13 4 Effect s o f Constraint s Cause db y Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y

Standard s (NAAQS ) 13 8 6. 5 CLAS S I ARE A

IMPACT S ANALYSE S 13 9 6. 6 EFFEC T O F A/ Q CONSTRAINT S O N EMISSION S REDUCTION S BEYON D NSP S 13 9

v i

### «•%>- ; 

# r if - •fy—:«»* , v"* ! 'j r JM*»-vrr*->- > " ' r '



### TABL E O F CONTENT S (Continued ) Pag e 7. 0 MISCELLANEOU S ASSOCIATE DANALYSE S 14 2 7. 1 EFFECT S O F CLAS S I SO. , INCREMEN T ON POWERPLAN T SITING14 2 Introductio n14 2 Result s 14 2 Analyse s Approac h14 5 7. 2 EFFEC T OF ALTERNATIV E CLAS S I INCREMEN T SYSTEM O N EMISSION S NEA

RCLAS S 1 AREA S 14 9 7. 3 TIM E AN DCOST S T O PREPAR E A PS DAPPLICATIO N

15 5 APPENDI XA

- DISCUSSIO N

O F MAJO RCHANGE S I N

APPLICABILIT Y O F PS DAN DNON-ATTAINMEN T REGULATION S AN D T H E EFFEC T O N

PERMIT S I N

TH E DAT A BAS E A- l APPENDI XB - DAT A

BAS E O F PS DPERMI T APPLICATION S B- 1 APPENDI XC - PS DPERMI T PROCESSIN GTIME S C- 1 APPENDI XD- ANALYSI S O F PS DAN DNON-ATTAINMEN T

REVIE W APPLICABILIT YD- 1 APPENDI XE - ANALYSI S O F BAC T AN DLAE RE- 1 APPENDI XF - ANALYSI S O F AI RQUALIT YIMPACT S F- l APPENCI XG- EXAMPL E SOURC E DAT A AN DCODIN GFORM S G- 1



### v n



# r y».w . rm»m**fup. u* »1. 0 EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y 1 . 1 INTRODUCTIO N Backgroun d Pursuan t t o th e Clea n Ai rAc t Amendment s o f 197 7 EPA , i n 1978 , reviser ! i t s Ne wSourc e Revie w(NSR ) regulations
. Th e revise d Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) regulation s wer e mor e extensiv e tha n thei rpredecessor s i n tha t man ymor e source s wer e subjec t t o PSD requirements
. Th e NS R regulation s wer e agai n revise d i n 198 0 a s a resul t o f litigation
. Thi s repor t deal s wit h a sampl e o f th e pre-constructio n permit s issue d unde rEPA' s post-197 7 NS R regulations
. I n th e year s 1978 , 1979 an d 1980 , &1*mmmmFfmmmmMfmmmmmia*m immm* il ^^0HH_HP____________|___H__HH_______HH^-^^^^TO^^^^^rron Th e dat a an d informatio n containe d i n thi s repor t summariz e result s o f a stud ydirecte d a t assessin g th e experienc e o f EPA' s Ne wSourc e Revie w(NSR ) Program
. Informatio n extracte d fro m Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) an d non-attainmen t permit'file s augmente d b ydat a obtaine d fro m compan yrepresentative s hav e bee n compiled , analyze d an d interpreted
. A n automate d (computer ) dat a bas e ha s bee n constructe d containin g relevan t dat a fo reac h o f mor e tha n 28 5 PSD an d non-attainmen t permit s issue d sinc e 1978
. Th e dat a bas e permit s wer e subjec t t o tw o differen t PS D Regulation s (197 8 an d 1980 ) an d on e "interim " applicabilit ycriterio n tha t bein g th e post-Alabam a Powe r"stay " o f PSD Regulation s i n effec t betwee n Februar y5 an d Augus t 7 , 1980
. Thes e regulation s are comple xan d contai n differen t regulator yrequirements
. A n understandin g n f thes e reg u I. i tion s i s extremel yhelpfu l i n readin g an d interprotin q thi s report , l o rtha t purpose , a brie f descriptio n o f th e CS n an d non-attainmen t regulation s an d th e majo rdifference s betwee n th e 197 8 an d 19H 0 version s i s provide d i n Appendi xAo f th e ful l report .

S_W^.f. l Wft!l_l».W^W'_«>.>!«-^.l l ai'll_l>'l'l. l XV9-9-999 

# w i j *' E ' •'' . V v-,**'•!*?gW<WSaFJ^W»iMUil.ijp i IJ l ,_in i i»iiny< "



# i

5 i Projec t Objective s Th e primar yobjectiv e o f thi s projec t wa s t o produc e dat a tha t characteriz e recen t experienc e wit h implementatio n o f EPA' s NSR Regulations
. Th e dat a extracte d an d compile d wa s fo rth e purpos e o f representin g a cross-sectio n o f PSD an d non-attainmen t permit s issue d pursuan t t o th e Clea n Ai rAc t Amendmen t o f 1977
. Th e result s describe d i n thi s repor t ar e no t intende d a s a n assessmen t o f th e effectivenes s (o rlac k thereof ) o f th e NS R program . Th e analyse s performe d an d th e presentatio n o f result s ar e fashione d t o allo wth e reade rt o formulat e hi s o rhe row n opinions
. Stringen t qualit ycontro l procedure s wer e use d fo reac h ste p o f thi s project.
. Accurac ycheck s wer e mad e b yattemptin g t o arriv e a t th e sam e valu e b ytw o o rmor e independen t methods
. I f result s o f tw o method s differe d b ymor e tha n 37. , investigation s o f th e cause(s ) wer e conducte d unti l th e differenc e becam e les s tha n 3"
. 1. 2 DAT

ABAS E OF PS D PERMI TAPPLICATION S Dat a Bas e Sourc e Type s Th e dat a bas e consist s o f HjgmjgggjangHMMagM F fro m th e te n EP Aregions
. Tabl e 1- 1 present s a summar yo f th e dat a bas e industria l sourc e categorie s include d i n th e sampl e b yEP Aregion
. Th e dat a boj e application s are

groupe d int o th e "named " 2 8 PSD source s an d "other " PSD sources . Th e "named " 2 8 source s ar e subjec t t o a 100 tons/yea rmajo r sourc e threshol d a s define d i n th e PS D regulations
. Th e "other " sourc e categorie s ar e subjec t t o a 25 0 to n pe ryea rmajo rsourc e threshold
. Petrochemica l an d petroleu m relate d source s (108 ) suc h a s refineries , terminals , compresso rstations , etc . constitut e 38. " o f th e dat a bas e followe d b yelectri cutilitie s (147)
. Dajt a Bas e Emission s Sunmary Tabl e 1- 2 present s a n emission s suiiinar yo f PM , S0 2 > N O , C O .in d VO

C emission s fro m al l dat a bas e applications
. Ni cemission s presente d are th e "ne t emission s changes " an d "BACTan d I.AL R permitte d emissions"
. Th e ne t emission s change s o f a pollutan t ar e calculate d a s th e differenc e betwee n th e gros s increase s an d gros s decrease s o f th e pollutan t fo ral l dat a bas e applications
. Mos t emission s limitation s i n PSD permit s ar e a resul t o f case-by-cas e applicatio n o f eithe rBes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y(BACT ) f o r"attainment " pollutant s o rLowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rat e (LAER ) fo rt*&mm»&**'p.iVA!*klXP .WjLWijW

l iiu.|i|iw.|i*_^|i.iMrT))witj i •« • flii'W ^ wwawwyip w •(••HII'IU' I i m*nv**»m»JtHl f.FCTWBWflWgtfifff !

Tabl e 1-1 . DAT

A BASE PS D APPLICATION S 

### B YEPA REGION AN DSOURC E CATEGOR Y

Sourc e Categor y A . Name

d 2 8 PS D Source s Electri c plant s wit h greate r tha n 25 0 MH8tu/h r hea t Inpu t Coa l cleanin g plant s ("H h therma l dryers ) Kraf t pul p mill s Portlan d cemen t plant s Smelter s Non-metalli c minera l proces s plant s Carbo n blac k

plant s Chemica l plant s Petroleta a refinerie s Othe r - municipa l Incinerator , cok e oven , fue l conversion , secondar y metal , petroleu * transfe r an d glas s fibe r plant s Subtota l 8 . Othe r PS

O Source s Minin g operation s Asphal t productio n plant s Natura l ga s an d crud e oi l piaapln g station s Natura l ga s processin g plant s Lumbe r an d woo d product s manufacturin g Autoootlv e par t manufacturin g Foo d processin g Brewer y Glas s manufacturin g 1

1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 s

1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1

1 0 1 0 3 0 0 8 1
0 1 4

3 S 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 I I I

4 0 1 0 2 0 0 

### « 2
2 1 7

1 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 EP

A DECIO N I V

6 0 6 0 3 5 0 9 }
0 3 2

0 0 1 0 1 t 4 0 0 V

s 2 0 0 1 2 0 3 0
4 1 7

1 2 4 0 1 4 0 1 1 V I

4 0 1 2 0 1 2 7 6
1 2 4

0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 V I I

5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
1 1 1

0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 VII I

5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1
0 9

2 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 I X

s 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
0 1 3

1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 X

3 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 3
1 1 3

0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Tota l

3 9 2 1 1 5 1 1 9 3 3 6 2 6
1 0 15 5

9 1 6 4 3 3 8 7 6 5 

### < Municipa l Incinerator s capabl e o f chargin g les s tha n 25 0 MMBtu/h r hea t Inpu t Miscellaneou s manufacturing/productio n - computers , electrodes , textiles , fertilizer , salt , kaolin , geotherma l power , printin g Rubbe r and plasti c productio n plant s Othe r - Includin g militar ybases , laboratorie s Subtota l 0 0 1 1 2

17 4 1 0 1 6

3 0 1

0 4
1 3

3 0 3 2 0 1 3

4 5 1 0 0 1 6

3 2 0 0 0
I S

3 9o oo
4

I S 0

0 1 17

26 2

0 2 1 0

23 0 0 2 1 5

28 1 1

3 1 0 130

28 S

# >r ~

* w «

Tabl e 1-2 . EMISSION S SUMMARYO F PM , SO ? , NO , C O an dVO C EMISSION S FROM

AL L DAT A

BAS E APPLICATION S

Pollutan t 

### P M 

## so 2 

### NO x 

### C O VO C Ne

t Emission s Change s (tons/year )

57.00 0 722.00 0 709,00 0 -107,000 a -13,000 b BAC T an dLAE R Permitte dEmission s

57,00 0 777,00 0 713,00 0 162,00 0 16.00 0 Thi s valu e include s emission s reduction s o f 299,00 0 tons/yea r o f C O from two carbo nblac k plants . Thi s valu e include s emissio nreduction s o f 22,00 0 tons/yea r o f VO C fro m on e carbo nblac k plan t andon e kraf t pul pmill .xi-xx ^/Klrxi^ x Hy. •* JLI.X u s oi'«i«« i wco««l»c i SrlMUIll- . Ik. Mil l 

# ; 

# y^^^^^^M^^^^^^^^^^^^^^w^

non-attainmen t pollutants . Thos e dat a bas e emission s tha t resulte dfro m eithe r BAC T o r LAE Rrevie w ar e presente di nth e tabl e a s "BAC T an d LAE R permitte demissions" . Inth e cas e o f CO , larg e reduction s a t tw o carbo n blac k plant s resultin g fro m combustio no f proces s ga s ar e greate r than th e C O increase s i nth e remainde r o f th e dat a base . Similarly , VO C emission s indicat e a ne t decreas e fo r the dat a base . However , many PS D permit s suppl y

onl y estimate dVO C emission s an di nsome cases , VO C emission s wer e no t quantifie da t all . Therefore , VO C emission s dat a ar e no t accurat e an

d cautio nshoul db e use di nassessin g thi s data . PS D Applicatio nSubmittal s Figur e 1- 1 show s a chronolog y o f dat a bas e PS D application s b y submitta l date . I t appear s tha t "surges " o f PS D applicatio nsubmittal s occurre da t time s o f actua l o r anticipate dchange s i nPS D requirements . Th e firs t surg e occurre djus t prio r t o th e Augus t 7 , 197 8 expiratio no f the monitorin g exemption . Th e secondan dthir dsurge s occurre djus t prio r t o th e Alabam a Powe r decisio nan d expiratio no f th e "stay " o f PS D regulations , respectively . Overall , th e dat a bas e consist s o f JM___________H9__H_S____ep s .wM W ^iWW-WBEWPw l O f the 28 5 dat a bas e applications , 21 5 wer e reviewe d unde r th e 197 8 regulation s an d 7 0 wer e subjec t to the 198 0 (post-Alabama Power ) regulations . 1. 3 PERMI T APPLICATIO N PROCESSINGTIME S Summar y o f PS D Permi t Processin g Time s Tota l Processin g Time . PS D permi t processin g time s varie dwidel y amon g dat a bas e applications . Th e time betwee ninitia l applicatio nsubmitta l an d permi t issuanc e range dfro m 1. 4 t o 51. 3 months . Tabl e 1- 3 summarize s b y EP A regio nth e tota l processin g time (fro m initia l applicatio nsubmitta l t o penni t issuance ) o f al l dat a bas e applications . By

EP A region , processin g time s average d11. 0 month s an d range dfro

m 8. 0 t o 14. 6 months . A s show no nTabl e 1-3 , th e averag e processin g time b

y affiliatio no f th e applicatio nreviewe r (EPA , Stat e o r loca l agency , o r contractor ) varie dbetwee n10. 5 month s fo r EPA personne l t o 12. 9 month s fo r contractors . Contractor s wer e use db y EPA an d Stat e agencie s t o assis t i nreviewin g an d processin g NS Rpermi t applications . Base donth e limite damoun t o f dat a fo r contracto r an dStat e agenc y•_Wll«!J_U._feWHW^»^ ^

t J,
u

_ 3 C7 1 

# a

fuoiinuaa vos a »•- • -r **f < • •*•«iWT*'?- ' jmiMtiMi>fiiiMHVN**iwsi*>*>& ,m


### Tabl e 1-3 . SUMMAR YO F PS D PERMI T PROCESSIN GTIM E (INITIA L APPLICATIO N SUBMITTA L T O PERMI T ISSUANCE ) B YEP A REGIO N AN O APPLICATIO N

REVIEWE R

tPA Regio n 

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### 8 9 1 0 TOTA L EP A Personne l No . o f Application s Reviewe d 

### 1 7 3 0 2 9 1 3 2 0 I S 2 4 2 1 2 8 19 7 OVERAL L AVERAG E PROCESSIN G

### Tir

e (MONTHS ) RANG E O F PROCESSIN G TIM E (KWTKS ) Averag e Processin g Tim e (months ) 

### 8. 0 9. 8 11. 6 

### 1.6 11. 9 

### N/ A 11. 6 

### 8.9 10. 9 

### 9. 4

10. 5 1. 4 - 51. 3 PS O AppHcat l o nReviewe r Stat e Agenc y Personne l No . o f Application s Reviewe d 

### 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 Averag e

Processin g Tim e (months ) 

### N/ A N/ A N/ A 10. 3 

### N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 26. 9 

### N/ A
10. 8 2.9-32. 1 Contractor s

No . of Application s Reviewe d 

### 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 9 0 2 1 

### 0 5 4 Averag e

Processin g Tim e (months ) 

### N/ A N/ A 6. 5 13. 9 

### N/ A 13. 9 

### N/ A 22. 8 

### 9. 3 N/ A

12. 9 3. 8 - 37. 5 Tota l

Permit s Issue d 

### 1 7 3 0 3 0 4 5 3 2 3 9 1 5 2 6 2 3 2 8 28 5 Overal l Averag e Processin g Tim e (months ) 

### 8. 0 9.8 11. 4 11. 1 11. 9 12. 4 14. 6 

### 9.9 11. 5 

### 9. 4

11. 0 Rang e o f

Processin g Tim e (months ) 

### 2. 9 - 15. 3 1. 4 - 20. 8 3. 6 - 37. 7 2. 9 - 32. 1 4. 9 - 24. 6 5. 7 - 37. 5 2. 2 - 31. 6 3. 5 - 27. 5 2. 6 - 51. 3 3. 0 - 19. 5

1. 4 - 51. 3



# m**m• »myiiU»_»»W»J»jll. l . l -18 l !(WS i

reviewers , i t doe s no t appea r tha t processin g time s wer e greatl y influence db

y reviewe r affiliation . A s ca nb e determine dfro m Figur e 1-2 , 25 % o f the dat a bas e permit s wer e processe dwithi n6 months ; 68 % withi non e yea r an d88 % withi n1 8 month s from th e time o f initia l submittal . I t mus t b e recognize dtha t th e samplin g procedur e itsel f create da potentia l bia s tha t ma y caus e result s o f process ing time analyse s t o b e misleadin g whe nattemptin g t o appl y thes e result s t o al l NS Rpermits . Permit s wer e selecte dfo r inclusio nbase do nrevers e chronologica l orde r o f permi t issuance . Therefore , permi t application s submitte dearl y

andprocesse dquickl y andapplication s submitte dlat e an d no t processe dquickl y woul dno t hav e bee nselected . Thi s potentia l bia s i s furthe r discusse di nSectio n3. 0 o f the report . Applicatio nCompleteness . Sixty-si x(23% ) dat a bas e application s wer e deeme dofficiall y "complete " upo ninitia l applicatio nsubmittal . Th e remainde r (219 ) wer e require dt o submi t additiona l informatio nfo r thi s determination . Ina few cases , thi s require dmor e thantw o year s fro

m th e dat e o f initia l submittal . Overall , i t too k a naverag e o f 3. 7 month s fro m initia l submitta l t o submitta l o f a "complete " application . Figur e 1- 3 show s the distributio no f dat a bas e application s b y the time betwee ninitia l submitta l an ddeterminatio no f "completeness. " A s show nbelow , th e fractio no f PS D application s tha t wer e deeme d complet e upo ninitia l submitta l varie dfro m 0 % o f th e application s i n EP A Regio nI t o 52 % i nRegio nIX . Application s Determine d"Complete " Upo nInitia l Submitta l EP A Regio n 

### I I I II I 

### I V V V I VII VII I 

### I X X Tota l Numbe r

o f Dat a Bas e Application s i nRegio n 

### 17 3 0 3 0 45 3 2 3 9 1 5 26 2 3 2 8 Numbe r 0 1 1 1 1 8 %

inRegio n 0 3 7 3 4 0 

### 3 2 3 9 1 5 26 2 3 2 8 8 1

5 1 1 0 12 7 3

1 3 7 3 7 5 2 26IIMW I i iwpgwiPI B

xy-x

_ r o

a . a .

co

_ c FIGUR E 1-2 . DISTRIBUTIO N O F PERMI T PROCESSINGTIME S B Y6 MONT H INTERVALS . 

# 3 140
13 0
12 0
110
10 0


### 90
8 0
7 0
6 0
5 0
40
30
20 71

1 0 - 

### 12

4



### 5 5

1 9 1 0 50

4 5

4 0

3 5

30

2 5

2 0

1 5

1 0

- 5

0- 6 ' 6-1 2 ' 12-1 8 ' 18-2 4 ' 24-3 0 ' 30-3 6 ' 36-4 8 '

TOTAL PERMI T PROCESSINGTIMC , MONTH S (APPLICATION

SUBMITTAL T O PERMI T ISSUANCE ) o

<_ : co rX. a

o 

# j

V 

# i i i X 'i A 

### \

# ti&kf 

# i *". ? y

• i<n» , .«»_>••;'. " 

### FIGUR E 1-3 . DISTRIBUTION OF.THE PROCESSINGTIM E BETWEEN INITIA L APPLICATION

SUBMITTAL ANDSUBMITTAL O F A

COMPLET E APPLICATION

B Y1 " MONT H INTERVALS .

a. 

### <

•x. = 3 IV



### 6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

2 0

1 0



## n 6 6

-

- 2 7 5 1

3 6

2 3

9 1 6 1 1 9 -

3 7

- 

### 2 5

- 2 0

- 1 5

- 1 0

- 5

0 ' 0- 1 ' 1- 2 ' 2- 3 ' 3- 4 " 4- 5 ' 5- 6 • 6- 7 ' 7- 8 GREATE R THA N 8 PROCESSINGTIME . MONTH S (INITIA L APPLICATIO N

SUBMITTAL T O SUBMITTAL OF A COMPLET E APPLICATION )



### 1 0 xA cr >

U _ 

### oy^fi&XtHli&Kami&m
Permi t Processin g Tim e From Receip t o f Complet e Application . Th e averag e permi t processin g time fro m dat e o f "completeness " t o fina l permi t issuanc e wa s 7. 1 months . B y EP A regio nthi s averag e range dfro m 5. 3 t o 9. 3 months . A s show ni nFigur e 1-3 , almos t 90 % o f th e dat a bas e application s wer e processe dwithi non e yea r o f submitta l o f a "complete " application . Effec t o f Sourc e Typ e an dSiz e onProcessin g Time s Fro m dat e o f initia l submittal , utilit y powe r plant s application s too k considerabl y

longe r t o proces s tha nal l othe r sourc e type s combined . Abou t 50 % o f non-utilit y application s wer e processe d(tota l time ) i nles s tha nnin e month s wherea s onl y 16 % o f utilit y

application s wer e processe d withi ntha t time . Furthermore , almos t 60 % o f utilit y application s require d mor e tha non e yea r t o proces s (tota l time ) wherea s onl y 27 % o f the non-utilit y

source s require dmor e tha non e year . I t appear s tha t application s fo r majo r modification s require dslightl y mor e processin g time tha nthos e fo r new majo r sources . A

nanalysi s showe d tha t fo r majo r modifications , a direc t relationshi pexist s betwee nth e lengt ho f applicatio nprocessin g time an dth e amount s o f pollutant s increase d(tons/year) . Thi s same relationshi pwa s no t foun dt o b e tru e fo r new majo r sources . Effec t o f Pre-Applicatio nMeeting s onProcessin g Time s Fo r application s submitte di n1978 , 197 9 an d1980 , thos e tha t wer e precede db

y meeting s betwee nth e applican t an dth e reviewin g authorit y appeare dt o hav e experience dshorte r tota l penni t processin g time s tha n thos e tha t di dnot . Tabl e 1- 4 show s tha t thi s differenc e average d7. 5 month s i nth e las t hal f o f 197 8 an d. 8 month s i nth e firs t hal f o f 1980 . Th e tabl e als o show s thi s differenc e t o graduall y disappea r i n1980 . Thi s ma y

indicat e tha t pre-applicatio ncontact s wer e beneficia l a t th e inceptio no f th e program , bu t a s peopl e becam e mor e awar e o f th e regulation s an

dprocedures , pre-applicatio ncontac t diminishe di nvalu e a s fa r a s processin g time s ar e concerned . A surve y o f EP A regiona l offic e file s show s tha t abou t 30 % o f th e dat a bas e permit s involve dpre-applicatio n contac t betwee nth e applican t an dth e reviewin g authority . Permi t Processin g Time s fo r Application s Subjec t t o Bot hPS D an d Non-Attainmen t Revie w Twenty-thre e (23 ) application s wer e foundt o b e subjec t t o simultaneou s PS D andnon-attainmen t review . Fo r thes e 2 4 permits , th e time require dt o obtai nbot hth e PS D an dnon-attainmen t permit s range dfro m 3. 7 t o 3 7 month s andaverage d14. 4 month s fro m dat e o f initia l submitta l t o permi t issuance . 1 1 - i . i •
4WPMrnBanranaommi M



# K B FIGUR E 1-3 . DISTRIBUTION OF TH E PROCESSINGTIME BETWEE N SUBMITTAL OF A COMPLET E APPLICATION

ANDPERMI T ISSUANC E B Y6 MONT H INTERVALS . 15 0 

### 14 0 13 0

XA Z o 

### < (_ )

_J o . G . 

### < o IA a. u . o c e UJ 

## s ? 2 12 0 11 0 10 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 

### 1 0 14 5

10 9

20 - 3 0



# ±=± 5

0

40

2 0

1 0

0- 6 ' 6-1 2 ' 12-1 8 ' 18-2 4 ' 24-3 0 ' 30-3 6 ' C J CL . o _ rX

UO



### PROCESSINGTIME , MONTH S (SUBMITTAL O F A

COMPLET E APPLICATION

T O PERMI T ISSUANCE ) 

### 1 2^?W^W*^J..«. , *WJ , PWH l *»M.iu^*wW-»*- . • _-»^.r^^«'r^^w^W*»*^\^ lMll l WWM i

No . o f Permit s Wit hPre submitta l Contac t Tabl e 1-4 . COMPARISON OF AVERAG E PERMI T PROCESSINGTIME S FO RPS D PERMI T APPLICATION S WIT H AND WITHOU T PRE-APPLICATIO N MEETING S

Averag e Tim

e Spa n Betwee nPre-submitta l Contac t an

dFina l Permi t (months ) Averag e Permitting * Tim e (months ) fo r Source s Wit h Pre-submitta l Contac t No . o f Permit s Withou t Pre submitta l Contac t

*Fro m applicatio nsubmitta l t o fina l permit . Averag e Permittin g Time * (months ) fo r Source s Withou t Pre-submitta l Contac t

^ 1s t hal f 197 8 2n dhal f 197 8 1s t hal f 197 9 2n dhal f 197 9 1s t hal f 198 0 2n dhal f 198 0 

### 2

8 1 4 1 7 1 0 2 14. 0 16. 0 10. 5 12. 0 12. 2 

### 8. 0 11. 0 11. 0 

### 7. 3 7. 6 8. 6 7. 0 

### 7

2 4 3 0 1 9 4 3 18 ! 23. 9 18. 5 

### 7. 8 9. 5 9. 4 7. 0

••-"-•"i'«iiim"ili.vW«l ^E"MS»V . •—MfCWf-T!—« > (Ji*! ' wtfWf««<BW»««*M W , »MHaw«LJ('*!iC£ , .'*T , >' )



### *

1. 4 PS D AN D NON-ATTAINMEN T REVIEW APPLICABILIT Y Tabl e 1- 5 show s th e amount s o f criteri a pollutan t emission s reflecte d i nth e dat a bas e PS D an d non-attainmen t permits . Th e values , shown i nthi s table , conside r onl y those dat a bas e permit s tha t indicat e ne t pollutan t emissio nincreases . Thi s table , therefore , mor e closel y depict s th e applicabilit y criteri a o f th e 198 0 NS Rregulation s which , unlik e th e 197 8 regulations , generall y d o no t appl y

t o ne t pollutan t decreases . Thi s table als o categorizes , b y pollutan t an

d siz e category , th e permitte demission s increase s fo r eac happlication . A s ca nb e seen , mos t o f th e permitte dSO- . N O , an d C O emission s wer e cause db y appli cation s involvin g mor e tha n100 0 tons/y r increas e o f thes e pollutants . Thi s i s predominantl y th e influenc e o f utilit y powe r plant s and othe r very larg e sources . Ove r 90 % o f th e utilit y powe r plant s increase d emission s o f a t leas t on e pollutan t b y mor e tha n100 0 tons/yr . Shown belo w ar e th e relativ e contribution s t o tota l permitte demission s b y utilit y and non-utilit y

(source s othe r tha nelectri c utilit y generatin g stations ) sources : Distributio no f Dat a Bas e Permitte dCriteri a Pollutan t Emission s P M Utilit ySource s 617
. Non-utilit ySource s 397
. 

## so 2 777
. 237
. Permi t Application s Eliminate d Fro m Re N O X 787
. 227
. me wa t V

a C O 397
. 61 % riou s T h VO

C 677
. 33 7 reshold s Figur e 1- 4 show s th e relationshi pbetwee nth e numbe r o f dat a bas e permi t application s tha t woul db e eliminate dfrom review and alternativ e applicabilit y

thresholds . Thes e threshold s assum e unifor m "new majo r source " (tons/yea r potentia l emissions ) and "deminimis " value s (tons/y r increas e i n"actual " emissions ) fo r majo r modifications . Tabl e 1- 6 show s th e percentag e o f application s eliminate dfro m revie w a t unifor m applicabilit y

threshold s o f 100 , 50 0 and100 0 TPY . Als o show no nthi s table ar e th e percentage s o f pollutan t review s andemission s eliminate d from revie w a t eac hthreshold . Thes e latte r item s shoul dno t b e construe d


### 1 4

O OS
-< jK»j^'jWffi^o*9>sYjrec:B^M%»y^*<^ ^ -,-..•—•;«* - -•»"•• -


### Tabl e 1-5 . DISTRIBUTIO N O F PERMITTE DEMISSIO N INCREASE S O F PM , S0 2 

### , NO x 

### , C O AN D VO C A T VARIOU S APPLICATIO N SIZ E CATEGORIE S

Emission s Siz e Cateqor y (Permitte d Emission s Increase , Tons/Y r Pe r PS D Application) a 0 - significan t leve l Significan t leve l - 10 0 10 0 - 50 0 50 0 - 100 0 Greate r than100 0 TOTAL P M t/y r % o f (lOOO's ) tota l



### . 7 3. 3 11. 0 12. 0 35. 0 62. 0 

### 1

5 1 8 1 9 57 100 S O t/y r (lOOO's )



### . 6

. 8 10. 3 13. 0 708. 0 732. 7 Pollutan t (tons/year ) 

### h o f tota l


### < 1 < 1 1 2 9 7 10 0 NO

v t/y r % o f (lOOO's ) tota l



### . 3

. 8 15. 9 27. 0 665. 0 709. 0 

### <

1 < 1 2 4 94 10 0 C O

t/y r % o f (lOOO's ) tota l 

### 2. 1 NA C 14. 0 14. 0 218. 0 243. 1 

### 1

6 6 8 7 10 0 VO C

t/y r % o f (lOOO's ) tota l 

### 1. 2 1. 3 7. 0 4. 0 9. 0 22. 5 

### 5

6 3 1 18 4 0 10 0

a 

### Emission s fro

m application s wit hpermitte dne t decrease s ar e no t include di nthe table ; emission s ar e discret e value s withi neac hcategory . Significan t level s a s define dinthe 198 0 PS D regulation s (tons/year) : P M = 25 ; S0 2 

### = 40 ; N O = 40 ; C O = 100 ; VO C = 40 . '10 0 tons/yea r emissio nincreas e i s th e significanc e leve l fo r C O emissions . be .

### 'ml

*•<

/ /$fayit'MkWWIf.VV9*''WVX'*n*nxv •• xm :•»-• . -y.r-.r ^9 V r^rr.rVrJirnir!SVS»C^gSSe^



### Figur e 1-4 . DAT A

BAS E APPLICATION S ELIMINATE DFRO M PS DREVIE W A T VARIOU S APPLICABILIT YTHRESHOLD S

CUMULATIVE NUMBE R O F APPLICATION S (NE W MAJORSOURCE S AND MAJO RMODIFICATIONS ) ELIMINATE DFROM PS O REVIE W CUMULATIV E PERCENTO F TOTA L APPLICATION S (NE W MAJOR SOURCE

S AN D MAJOR MODIFICATIONS ) ELIMINATE D FRO H PS O REVIE W

90 0 100 0 APPLICABILIT YTHRESHOLD - MAJO R SOURC

E THRESHOLD FO

R NE W MAJO R SOURCE

S AN D SIGNIFICAN TEMISSIO N LEVE L FO R MAJO R MODIFICATION S (tons/yea r o f th e larges t pollutan t emissio n rat e fo r ne w majo r source s an d th e larges t pollutan t ne t emission s

increas e fo r majo r modifications )

. . ».i.i--«ii»_«_»iin«_«_______tfcM<t>__M_'t t

### jlllpqqflBi^pwW^ ^

Tabl e 1-6 . TH E NUMBE RO F CRITERI A POLLUTAN T REVIEW S AN

DAMOUN T O F ASSOCIATE D EMISSION S ELIMINATE DAT SELECTE DUNIFOR M APPLICABILIT YTHRESHOLD S Emission s Threshol d (TPY ) Pollutan t % o f Pollutan t Review s Eliminate d % o f Emission s Eliminate d % o f

PS DApplication s Eliminate d 10 0

50 0

100 0 

### P

M 

## so 2 NO * 

### CO * VO C P M 

## so 2 

### N O ; C0 X 

### VO C P M S0
- NO * 

### C0 X 

### VO C 4 5

8 7 N A 4 3 8 0 3 4 4 0 5 5 8 4 9 1 4 7 6 1 7 2 9 4 6 < 1 < 1 N A 8 2 5 2 2 6 4 0 4 4 3 6 1 1 6 0 7

3 3

5 1



### i\-&faix&^?&'i&Mt•E i 

# = 1 tAj 1 JMWWH . 1 ' iimmup»ii_i_i>i i



# i t o represen t eliminatio no f the complet e NS Rapplicatio nfro m review . Thi s simpl y

i s the eliminatio nfro m revie w o f on e o r mor e pollutant s pe r applicatio nou t o f severa l pollutant s tha t ma y b e subjec t t o review . Fo r instance , a t a uniform "deminimis " threshol do f 10 0 ton s pe r year , 7 % o f th e application s tha t woul dotherwis e b e subjec t t o PS Drevie w woul db e exempt . A t thi s level , 45 % o f th e particulat e matte r (PM ) review s woul d b e eliminated . Thi s mean s tha t th e PM emissio nincrease s subjec t t o PS D revie w i n45 % o f th e dat a bas e application s wer e les s tha n10 0 ton s pe r year . Th e P M

emission s increas e associate dwit hthes e application s i s onl y 6 % o f th e tota l dat a bas e PM emissions . Incontrast , a t a uniform 10 0 TP Ydeminimu s threshold , onl y 8 % an d 7 % o f th e SO 2 andNO reviews , respectively , woul db e exempt . Th e SO , andNO emission s increase s associate dwit hthes e review s ar e eac hles s tha n1 % o f the tota l SO , an dN O emission s i nthe dat a base . 1. 5 ANALYSI S O F BAC T AN DLAE RASSOCIATE DWIT H FINA L PERMI T EMISSION S LIMITATION S Th e emission s value s presente di nthi s sectio nreflec t onl y thos e tha t wer e subjec t t o andpermitte daccordin g t o BAC T (Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology ) an dwher e applicable , LAE R(Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rate) . The y

d o no t includ e emission s reduction s resultin g fro m equipmen t shutdown s andsimila r situation s no r d o they includ e permi t limitation s tha t wer e specifie dsolel y fo r the purpos e o f issuin g federall y enforceabl e permi t condition s fo r exemptio npurposes . Technolog y

Review s Tabl e 1- 7 shows , b

y pollutant , th e numbe r o f dat a bas e application s andemission s unit s tha t wer e subjec t t o BAC T o r LAER . A s ca nb e seen , N

O emission s wer e foun dt o b e the pollutan t mos t frequentl y

subjec t t o BACT ; VO C emission s wer e mos t frequentl y subjec t t o LAER . Onl y

fiv e o f th e nin e non-criteri a pollutant s wer e subjec t t o BACT . Effect s o f NSP S an

dNESHAP S o nBAC T an

dLAE R Emissio nUnits . Tabl e 1- 8 show s the numbe r o f dat a bas e emissio n unit s tha t wer e subjec t t o a nNSP S (o r NESHAP ) and receive demission s limitations : • A t th e maximu

m emissio nrat e allowe db y the liSPS ; an

d • A t a nemission s rat e mor e stringen t tha nthe maximu m allowe d b y th e NSPS . 1 8

HVK-.J> •".•IM11 ' " wm i % J_0MmM_I V tm999-9 99 _•!»•_*_* • gejnOTSMP-fl'nWS'^ W

I I • ! - . . 1. ...y.y-.r,-^.- ...^^ya.^irp.^^t^.^ll^r^^^-l^'^V^^?^: f.\ mill . IUHIIIIHU.IIMUI.i l i » " "*•' -



### Tabl e 1-7 . DAT A

BAS E BAC T ANDLAE

RAPPLICABILIT YB

YSOURC E ANDEMISSION

UNIT S

Pollutan t Numbe r o f Application s (Sources ) Subjec t to BACT * Numbe r o f

Application s (Sources ) Subjec t t o LAER * Numbe r o f

Emissio n Unit s Subjec t t o BAC T Numbe r o f

Emissio n Unit s Subjec t t o LAE R Particulat e Hatte r (PH ) Sulfu r Dioxid e (S0 2 

### ) Nitroge nOxide s (N0 X 

### ) Carbo nMonoxid e (CO ) Volatil e Organi c Compound s (VOC ) Fluoride s (F ) Viny l Chloride s Tota l Reduce dSulfu r (TRS ) Hydroge nSulfid e (H 2 

### S ) Sulfuri c Ad dMis t

Tota l Technolog y Review s 

### 16 3 15 7 18 6 9 5 4 3 9 1 3 2 3 1

5 6 3 6 2 6

-

-

-

-

- 58

9 429 727 42 7 14 4 1 8 4 6 2 4 235 0 

### 3

5 9 6 1 2 4 0

-

-

-

-

- 10 2
Mos t application s (sources ) wer e subjec t t o eithe r 8AC T and/o r LAE Rfo r mor e tha non e pollutant . Therefore , the su

m o f thes e column s i s greate r tha nthe numbe r o f dat a bas e sources .^HK»Hiijnmmn,_T>,wt»n | t"i»wi« w••Miwuitijui.wiii i •= • yr^. m .r*>M < ,..n.-yr. y,-&fTrvrr— . ..9*,Tyr.TX^9V^9X-.

r o o Tabl e 1-8 . TECHNOLOG YREVIEW S SUBJEC TTO NSP S (O R NESHAP ) PERMITTE D FO R BACTATNSP S (O R NESHAP ) RAT E AN D

BELO WNSP S (O R NESHAP ) RATE *

NSP S ( o r NESHAP

) Pollutan t

Numbe r o f emissio nunit s permitte dfo r BAC T a t NSP S (o r NESHAP ) rat e Numbe r o f emissio nunit s permitte dfo r BAC T belo w

NSP S (o r NESHAP ) rat e XNSP S (o r NESHAP ) unit s subjec t t o BAC T permitte d belo w NSP S (o r NESHAP ) rat e Rati o o f BAC T t o NSP S Allowabl e Emissio nRat e fo r Emissio nUnit s Permitte dBelo w USP S Rat e Particulat e Hatte r (PM )
Tota l

7 5

3 4

31 X

.4 9 Utilitie s onl y

3 1

I S

32 X

.5 0 Sulfu r

Dioxid e 

### (so 2 

### )

Tota l

107

5 1

32 X

.4 5 Utilitie s onl y

3 5

26

43 X

.4 4 Nitroge n

Oxide s (N0 x )

Tota l

13 5

2 4

I5 X

.7 9 Utilitie s onl y

4 5

20

30 X

.7 9 Carbo n

Monoxid e (CO )
lota l

7

2

22 X

.5 2 Utilitie s onl y

0

0 Hydroge n Sulfid e (H ? S )

Tota l

1

0

O X Fluoride s

(F )

Tota l

1 4

4

22 X

.4 4 Reduce d

Sulfu r (TRS )

Tota l

3

1

2 5 X

.8 4 Viny l Chlorid e

Tota l

4

0



## o x H-S0 . Mist *

Tota l

2

1

33 X

.6 7 •A n emissio n uni t subjec t t o NSP S fo r 2 pollutant s i s considere d t o underg o 2 technolog y reviews . Note : Mos

t VO C NSP S (o r NESHAP

) ar e work

practic e o r equipmen t standard s - unabl e t o quantif y emissions .

'__•__>_ . . ruvxm-jitiM. * a >vt nu n i , .r.Tir- i n « i afc i iix'SiviiiiUMI_UMW.lJMU.lW I



### Simila r statistic s specifi c t o utilit y source s ar e als o shown . Fo r al l dat a bas e emissio nunit s subjec t t o NSP S (o r NESHAPS) , 27 % wer e issue demissio n limit s mor e stringen t tha nth e applicabl e NSP S (o r NESHAP ) woul dallow . Thi s valu e i s 36 % fo r utilit y powe r plan t sources . Ona criteri a pollutan t specifi c basi s fo r al l dat a bas e sources , thi s valu e range dfro m 15 % fo r NO emission s t o 32 % fo r SO- . Fo r utilities , thi s valu e range dfro m 30 % fo r NO emission s t o 43 % fo r SO - emissions . Th e bottom

lin e o nTabl e 1- 8 shows , fo r emissio nunit s permitte d mor e stringen t tha nth e applicabl e NSPS , the rati o o f the averag e BACT permitte demission s rate s t o th e averag e o f th e maximum emission s rate s allowe db

y th e applicabl e NSP S (o r NESHAP) . Allowabl e Emissions . Tabl e 1- 9 show s a distributio no f al l BACT permitte demission s b

y utilit y an dnon-utilit y

source s includin g thos e BACT-permitte demission s subjec t t o NSP S (o r NESHAP) . Als o show nar e emission s reduction s beyon dNSP S (o r NESHAP ) resultin g fro m emission s limitation s bein g mor e stringen t tha nth e applicabl e NSPS . A s ca nb e seen , th e majorit y

o f emission s reduction s beyon dNSP S occurre da t utilit y sources . Note , however , tha t th e majorit y o f BACT-permitte d emission s subjec t t o NSP S als o occurre da t utilit y sources . Thi s relationshi pi s show

nbelo w fo r PM , SO, . NO andCO emissions :

Pollutan t P M SO , NOE ; 

### c o x Relativ e Contributio n

Emissio n Reduction s Beyon d NSP

S Utilit yHon-util i Source s Source s 79 % 96 % 98 % 0 % 2 1 %

4 % 2 % 100 % t o

t y Relativ e Contributio n t o

BACT-Permitte d Emission s Subjec t t o NSP

S Utilit yNon-utilit y Source s Source s 79 % 93 % 90 % 0 % 21 %

7 % 10 % 100 % 

### I t appear s tha t th e distributio no f emissio nreduction s beyon dNSP S i s fairl y

consisten t wit hth e distributio no f BACT-permitte demission s subjec t t o NSP S fo r utilit y an dnon-utilit y

sources .

2 1 _

.

wmmmt-LimxLutmm i uiimumixixmmxmxmxixx «IUH» U ,»,«_»,JW > iMmw^W.^f-VlE^Mff

W f

\>Ha_a_iMM» i i n — ..- ^ _,„__.,—___. . ---'••- j '-~"-••••- • "-^-•'••••i ^

•-*» / '•'^rT^T ^ 

### jm*&mv*)i***rw* •«wwn«.if......_ * .•»•_• - « v-> »

id e Tabl e 1-9 . TOTA L BACT-PERMITTE D POLLUTAN TEMISSIONS , EMISSION S SUBJEC TT O NSP S (O R NESHAPS ) AN D EMISSION S REDUCTION S BEYON D NSP S (O R NESHAPS ) bYUTILIT YPOWER PLAN TSOURCE S AN D NON-UTILIT YSOURCE S

PS O Pollutan t

BAC T permitte d eaission s fo r non utilit y

source s - tons/y r

r o BAC T permitte d eaission s fo r utilit y

source s - tons/y r
Tota l BAC T permit te d eaission s - tons/y r
BAC T permitte d eaission s reduc tion s beyondNSP S b y non-utilit y source s - tons/yr
BAC T permitte d eaission s reduc tion s beyondNSP S b y utilit y

source s

- tons/yr
Tota l BAC I permit te deaissio nreduc tion s beyon dNSP S - tons/yr Particulat e Natte r (PM )

lota l

72.80 0

11.40 0

=4,20 0



### -

-

- Subjec t t o NSP S
7,40 0

27.80 0

35.20 0

1.60 0

6.10 0

7.70 0 Sulfu r

Dioxid e (SO, )

Tota l
192,40 0

569.40 0

761.80 0



### -

-

• Subjec t t o NSP S
41,SO O

S61.90 0

603,40 0

8 , SOO

210,20 0

218.70 0 Nitroge n

Oxide s (N

O )

Tota l
162,SOO

S49.90 0

712,40 0



### -

-

- Subjec t t o NSP S

63.70 0

S42.60 0

606.30 0

1,20 0

53.20 0

54.40 0 Carbo n

Monoxid e (CO )

Tota l
97,60 0

61,50 0

159.10 0



### -

-

- Subjec t t o NSP S
7,50 0

0

7,50 0

2,97 0

0

2.97 0 Volatil e

Organi c Compound s (VOC) *

lota l
9,20 0

4,50 0

11,70 0



### -

- Hydroge n

Sulfid e (H 2 S )

lota l
70 0

0

70 0



### -

-

- Fluoride s (F ) Subjec t t o NSP ! lota l
58 0

0

58 0

0

0



### - 30 0

51 0

81 0



### -

-

74 0 Subjec t t o NSP S
30 0

0

30 0

24 0

0



### - Tota l

Reduce d Sulfu r (IRS )

lota l
1,16 0

0

1.16 0



### -

-

1 Subjec t t o NSP S
6 0

0

6 0

1

0



### - Viny l

Chlorid e

Tota l
11 0

0

11 0



### -

-

0 Subjec t

t o NESHAP S
11 0

0

U O

0

0



### - H,S0 4

Mis t

Tota l
18 0

0

18 0



### -

-

2 Subjec t t o NSP S
12 0

0

12 0

2

0

I *V0 C NSPS' s ar e generall y wor k practic e o r equipmen t standards
. Unabl e t o quantil yVO C emission s subjec t t o N.PS
.V&Wmmt»**>r!m**KiKmm rtxmmmmrm imi .
Fo r al l pollutants , on a percentag e basis , mor e utilit y emission s ar e subjec t t o NSP

S tha n non-utilit y emissions :
BACT-Perm1tte

d Emission s (TPY

) Subject t o NSP

S I o f Emissio n Reduction s Total Dat

a Bas e Beyon

d NSP S (TPY ) Total Oat a Bas e Tota l •Hypothetical " DSP S Allowabl e Emission s (TPY

) Utilit y Source

s 1.220.00 0 Non-utilit y Source

s 487,00 0 1.130.OOO

121.00 0 93 1

25 1 270.OU O 14.SO O 1.400,00 0 135,50 0 Tota l 1.707.00 0 1.251.00 0 -94.50 0 1.535,50 0 Fo r al l sources , 73

% o f th e BACT-permitte d emission s wer e subjec t t o NSPS . Twenty-fiv e percen t (25% ) o f non-utilit y source emission s ar e subjec t t o NSP

S (o r NESHAP) , whereas 93 % o futilit y source emission s ar e subjec t t o NSPS

. BAC Tvs . LAE

R O f th e 28

5 PS D applications , 3

5 wer e subjec t t o non-attainmen t revie w fo r certai n pollutants . The dat a wer e extracte d fro m EP

A file s which , i n mos t cases , d

o no t contai n LAE

R technolog y dat a sinc e LAE R review s ar e performe d b

y Stat e agencies . Therefore , sufficien t LAE R contro l technolog y dat a ar e availabl e fo r onl y 1 5 o fth e 3 5 PS D application s t o compar e wit h BAC Tdata . The 1 5 application s includ e 2 6 emission s unit s subjec t t o LAE R technolog y revie wfo r one o r mor e pollutants . The tota l numbe r o f LAE R technolog y review s i n thes e applications , determine d b y countin g th e numbe r o f non-attainmen t pollutant s review s fo r eac h emissio n unit , i s 54 . Tabl e 1-1 0 list s range s o f typica l ranges o f BAC Temission s limit s fo r compariso n wit h th e 5 4 LAE R revie wemissio n limits . Th e uppe r and lowe r ends o f thes e range s d o no t represen t th e extreme s fo r al l BAC T determination s made . Rather , the y represen t "typical " determinations based on BAC

Tlimit s fro m th e dat a base (285 ) PS O permit s an d EPA' s Compilatio n o f BACT/LAE R Determinations . Comparison s o f LAE

R allowabl e emissio n rate s wit h BAC Tranges sho

w tha t LAE

R emission s ar e generall y i n th e lowe r portion s o f th e BAC Tranges . However , i t doe

s no t appea r tha t LAE R produces a distinguishabl e leve l o f stringenc y ove r BACT .

2 3

'tW^WtBBfW'^rmfm * MfJW J I * ?*<»< * fWMH H

### >(gTiy»w.>wwi"w****< 1 

### 'pas! ff 

### ''' k 

### ''* ? 

### ""'''' * * ~

Tabl e 1-10 . LAE RTECHNOLOG YAN DEMISSION S DAT A FO RDAT A BAS E PS DSOURCE S SUBJEC T T O NON-ATTAINMEN T REVIEW FO RON E ORMOR E POLLUTANTS 3

•t e Applicatio n

1 . 2 .
3 .

4 .

S . PP G Industr y 7 9 U V 0 6 Genera l Motor s Corp . EPA-5-A-80-1 2 Genera l Motor s Corp . EPA-5-A-80- 6

Muscatin e Powe r an d Wate r
Tennesse e East-na n TN-06 5 Regio n

4
S


### s

7

4 Emission s Uni t

Descriptio n Boile r - 24 3 MHBtu/h r 1.7 XS . 14.3 Xas h bituminou s coa l Boile r •IS O MMBtu/h r 0.7 XS fue l oi l
2 - boilers . 1S 6 KMBtu/h r each , 0.87 X S , 10Xas h coa l Coa l storrg e pil e fugitive s Electri c stea m generato r - 154 6 MMBtu/h r (166MW) , 3.I XS . 8.7 Xas h coa l 2 - boilers , 78 0 KKBtu/h r each , lo w sulfu r coa l Non-attainmen t Pollutan t P M 

### so 2
P M
P M
P M

P M Selecte d

LAER Contro l Technolog y Baghous e
Lo wSulfu r Fue l
Baghous e

Surfactan t Spra y Suppressio n Baghous e

ES P LAE R Emission s Limi t 0.04 2 lb/MMBt u
1. 0 lb/MMBt u

0.0 6 lb/MMBt u

Non e
0.0 3 lb/MMBt u (20 3 TPY )

0.01 8 lb/MMBt u (12 3 TPY ) Applicabl e NSP S Limi t Non e
Non e

Non e

None
0.0 3 lb/MMBt u (20 3 TPY )

0. 1 lb/MMBt u (68 3 TPY ) I s BAC T Technolog y Typicall y Use d Fo r LAER ? Ye s Ye s
Ye s
Ye s Ye s

Ye s BAC

TRang e 0.01 6 t o >0 J 1b/MMBtu c 0. 5 t o 1. 2 lb/MMBt u
0.01 6 t o >0 J 1b/MMBtu c N/ A
.01 5 t o .0 3 lb/MMBtu e

0.01 6 t o 0. 1 lb/MM8tu e Coa l pil e fugitive s P M Chemica l

Surfactant s Non e Non e Ye s N/

A

. • . _. rfrmim_ta_.r-________ H

### ilSPWIWBW^ ^ ' i..- 9y

v ..yvrK.'^,i^<f!!l^m*l<^'^flS!^


### Tabl e 1-10 . LAE RTECHNOLOGYANDEMISSION S DATA FO RDATA BAS E PS DSOURCE S SUBJEC T T O NON-ATTAINMEN T REVIE W FO RONE O RMOR E POLLUTANTS 3 

### (continued )

Applicatio n 6
. Gilma n Pape r GA-07 1

7
. Fireston e Tir e Co
. GA-06 8

8
. Fireston e Tir e Co
. GA-067 9
. Ashlan d Petroleu n KY-15 5 Regio n

4

4

4
4 Emission s Uni t

Descriptio n Coal/wood/oi l boile r- 58 7 MMBtu/h ro n coa l (1.5 X S ; 12

X ash ) an d 94 1 MMBtu/h ro n woo

d (<0.1 X S) ; fue l oi l sulfu rconten t i s abou t thre e percen t Tir e sealan t line s (2) , capacit yI s confi dential
. Fugitive s fro m warehous e ventilatio n Boile r- 96. 4 MMBtu

/ hr ; 1 1 S oi l o rgas fire d Reduce d crud e conversio n syste m 55,00 0 BBL/day Non-attainmen t Pollutan t P M so 2
VO C

VO C C O
P M SO , VO C Selecte d

LAE R Contro l Technolog y ES P Causti c Scrubbe r Carbo n Adsorptio n Minimu m 90

X Efficienc y N o Contro l Combustio n Control s LAE R

Emission s Limi t 0.0 7 lb/MMBt u (22 7 TPY

) Wood/Coa l - 1. 2 lb / MMBt u (214 3 TPY

) Wood/01 1 - 0. 8 lb / MMBt u

Ventur i Scrubbe r Ventur i Scrubbe r Waste C O Bol l Incineratio n e r 7. 4 lb/h r

5 8 lb/h r 0.0 8 lb/MMBt u
0.4 5 lb/100 0 l b cok e burnof f (29 9 TPY

) 43 7 lb/MBB L Feed 8 PPM V Applicabl e

NSP S Limi t 0. 1 lb/MMBt u (32 4 TPY

) 1. 2 lb/MMBt u (214 3 TPY

) 0. 8 lb/MMBt u

• None

Non e Non e
1. 0 lb/100 0 l b cok e burnof f (64 4 TPY

) Non e Non e I s BAC T Technolog y Typicall y Use d Fo rLAER

? Ye s Ye s

N o

Yes Ye s Ye s N o Ye s BAC

TRange b .01 6 t o 0. 1 lb/MMBtu e .3 3 t o 1.2 e lb/MMBt u Unabl e t o fin d BAC

T comparison
. Incineratio n i s typica l VO C BACT
. N/ A 0.0 3 t o 0.4 1 lb/MMBtu " 0. 5 t o 1. 0 lb/ ' 100 0 l b cok e burnof f 50 0 t o 110 0 lb/MBB L Fee d Unabl e t o fin d BAC

T comparison
. C O boile ri s typical
.

M M *

# "*""" ' ">2HHB^^^^ ^ 

# 4 m 4

•

4 

### :

•



### : 

# l i 

# B

4ftH9______K' ' 

## ^__B________f ^

^_____________

n Applicatio n Regio n

10 . Nevad

a Powe r 9 Compan y NV-80-0 1
r o 11 . Nevad

a Powe r 9 Compan y NV-78-0 2

•HB^ K

12 . Bor g Warne r 5 • H EPA-5-A-80- 4 

# s p A H

^*"*"* * ii^ J

-*-—# , ^ft ^ 

# : 

# .. : ^||Pm| | fc-^v^^^jjjg 1 ^____.'4

_i__________________________________
_ 

# n w 

# Sl

. _. . •

Tabl e 1-10 . LAE R TECHNOLOG Y SUBJEC TT O NON-ATTAINMEN T

Emission s Uni t Descriptio n Fugitiv e VO

C fro m equipment leaks No . 8 ga

s turbin e generato r - 73. 5 Megawatt s output , •80 0 MMBtu/h r heat input ; 0.2S

XS , lo w as h fue l oi l fire d No . 7 ga

s turbin e generato r - 73. 5 Megawatt s outpu t •80 0 MMBtu/h r hea t input ; 0.25 XS , lo

w as h fue l oi l o r natura l ga

s fire d Resi n compounding facilit y - I S proces s vent s Non-attainmen t Pollutan t VO C P M C O VO C P M C O VO C VO C

* • ' .' " , ' • * f AN D EMISSION S DAT A FO R DAT

A BAS E PS D SOURCE S REVIE WFO R ON E OR MORE POLLUTANTS 3 (continued )

Selecte d LAE R Contro l Technology Lea k Detectio n an d Repai r Lo wAs h Fue l N o Contro l N o Contro l Lo wAs h Fue l N o Contro l N o Contro l Wast e Ai r Burne r

. •--y -;. . \ ' . ' LAE

R Emission s Applicabl e Limi t NSP S Limi t Non e Non

e •0.0 3 lb/MMBt u Non e •0.1 3 lb/MMBt u Non e •0.00 6 lb/MMBt u Non e •0.0 3 lb/MMBt u Non e •0.1 3 lb/MMBt u Non e •0.00 6 lb/MMBt u Non e 9. 2 lb/h r Non e

:"•
. -."•'
. . "•"•"
. . ' '"* • "• " ** • •- ;

. 7 • *.-•*• ' ,*'.--* * ii
. ' ' , ' Jfi «».v»w*

•' *^.v&4w*Wftw}i.Vi$&Ji9& HswSn K"

I s BAC T Technolog y Typicall y Use d h Fo r LAER

? BAC TRange " Ye s N/

A Ye s 0.0 4 t o 0.1 1 lb/MMBt u Ye s 0.1 2 t o 0.6 8 lb/MMBt u Ye s 0.0 2 t o 0.1 1 lb/MMBt u Ye s 0.0 4 t o 0.1 1 lb/MMBt u Ye s 0.1 2 t o 0.6 8 lb/MMBt u Ye s 0.0 2 t o 0.1 1 lb/MMBt u Ye s Simila r t o solven t (VOC ) emis sion s BACT

. Unabl e t o quantif y comparabl e BAC TUnits . m

__________ B r - u

^^• ' "/-'•<£•',



## ________ K

^ B ••-'

• _____________? -


# 1 •&'. i



# m

» - - * .-->c.ir riJffMjWWWWTWTWM ; nwmmwifj w WWT»WW>'" W ~< ' • „ - r ,r_ l 7.iy.T"i"^«n l r.«^.yWSm_W3«)!7SHf1!HW t



### Tabl e 1-10 . LAE RTECHNOLOG YAND EMISSION S DAT A FORDAT A

BAS E PS D SOURCE S SUBJEC T T O NON-ATTAINMEN T REVIE W FORONE O RMOR E POLLUTANTS 3 

### (continued )

Applicatio n Regio n Emission s Uni t Descriptio n Non-attainmen t Pollutan t Selecte d

LAE RContro l Technology LAE R

Emission s Limi t Applicabl e

NSP S Limi t I s BAC T

Technolog y Typicall y Use d. Fo r LAER ? BAC T Range " 13 .

14 . 15 . 16 . Cit y

o f Coltmbu s EPA-S-A-80- 3

Weyerhause r Longvle w PSO-Jt-81-0 2 Publisher s Pape r PSD-X-80-0 3 Modest o Irregatio n Distric t NSR-4-4- 8 S J 79-1 6 1

0 6 - refus e an d coa l

fire d electri c stea m generators ; 24 6 MMBtu/h r ea ; coa t i s 0.9 XS , an d 10 Xas h

Boile r - 124 0 HH8tu/hr ; coa l 0.8 1 S ; 18.7 1 as h Boile r - 552. 5 MMBtu/hr ; ho

g fue l (woo d an d bark) Ga s turbin e 169

3 MH8tu/hr ; 0.3 XS fue l oi l P M
S0 2 C O VO C
P M
VO C
NO . ESP 0. 1 lb/MMBt u Non e

Lo wSulfu r Fue l 0.9 5 lb/MMBt u Non e
Combustio n Control s Combustio n Control s 0.2 6 lb/MMBt u Non e 0.01 6 lb/MMBt u Non e Electro-Scrubbe r 0.0 3 lb/MMBt u 0. 1 lb/MMBt u (16 5 TPY ) (54 3 TPY ) Combustio n Control s Unknow n 0.2 6 lb/MMBt u Non e
7 5 ppm v 7 5 ppm v Ye s Ye s
Ye s Ye s
No
Ye s 0.03 3 t o

>0. 1 lb / MMBt u 0.6 3 t o >1. 2 lb / MMBt u 0.2 5 t o 5. 1 lb/MMBt u 0.04 3 t o 0.2 S lb / MMBt u 0.01 6 t o 0. 1 lb/MMBt u 0.2 5 t o 4. 4 lb/MMBt u Unknow n 75-15 0 ppmv

>*•_.*._• iiium,. , fi , ii-i^^^^ay^jiyj^^^y^giii^ ^

### jmmmB?m*mmr*i&»«^-**9 ^ , ^.^.^.....^-.^.^.^-(fr'rar^^^.^ ^



### Tabl e 1-10 . LAERTECHNOLOGYAN D EMISSION S DAT A FO RDATA BAS E PS D SOURCE S SUBJEC T T O NON-ATTAINMEN T REVIEW FORON E O RMOR E POLLUTANTS 3 

### (concluded )

Applicatio n 17 . Refus e Fuel s Incorporate d Regio n

1 Emission s Uni t

Descriptio n Refus e Incinerator ; 96 0 tons/da y Non-attainmen t Pollutan t P M VO C Selecte d

LAERContro l Technolog y Unknow n Unknow n LAE R

Emission s Limi t 0.0 3 gr/dsc f (9 6 TPY ) 7.9 9 lb/hr Applicabl e

NSP S Limi t 0.0 8 gr/dsc f (25 7 TPY ) Non e I s BAC T Technolog y Typicall y Use d Fo r LAER ? Unknown Unknow n BAC T Rang e 0.0 2 t o 0.0 8 gr/dsc f Unknown 'th e dat a bas e contain s 28 5 application s o f whic h3 5 require dconcurren t PS D andnon-attainmen t review . LAE Rtechnolog y dat a I s availabl e fo r onl y

1 5 o f th e 3 5 application s (tabl e entrie s 1-15) . Sevenapplication s hav e unit s subjec t t o bot hNSP S and LAE R(tabl e entrie s 4-6 , 9 , 14 , 1 6 and17) . b Rang e o f typica l BAC T limit s a s determine dfro m the Compilatio no f BACT/LAE RDeterminations , revise d(450/2-80-070 , Ma y 1980) , dat a bas e BAC T determination s andAP-4 2 emissio nfactors . Thi s rang e doe s no t encompas s al l BAC T determinations , bu t indicate s the typica l value s specifie dfo r BAC T inPS O permits . c Th e rang e I s fo r coa l fire dindustria l boiler s wit hles s thano r equa l to 25 0 MMBtu/h r hea t inpu t (no t subjec t t o NSPS) . d 7h e rang e i s fo r oi l fire dindustria l boiler s wit hles s tha n25 0 MMBtu/h r hea t inpu t (no t subjec t t o NSPS) . e Rang e i s fo r coa l fire dboiler s wit hgreate r than25 0 MMBtu/h r hea t input (leas t stringen t BAC T o r LAE Ri s the applicabl e NSPS) .

••yc^ft^^^^^f^^ ^.^-.tWWVM'wywPw w

Effec t o f Emissio n Uni t Siz e o n BACT-Permitte d Emission s an d Emi-ssion s Reduction s Beyon d NSP S Show n i n Table s 1-1 1 throug h 1-1 5 ar e distribution s o f BACT-permitte d emissions , BACT-permitte d emission s subjec t t o NSPS , an d emissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S bysize s o f emissio n units
. Th e siz e o f a n emissio n uni t i s uase d o n it s annua l BACT-permitte d emissio n rat e i n ton s pe ryear . Th e dat a ar e presente d bot h graphicall yan d i n tabula rformat
. A s show n o n Tabl e 1-11 , 597
. o f al l BACT-permitte d P M emission s unit s ar e les s tha n 2

5 tons/yea ri n siz e an d represen t onl y57 o f th e BAC Tpermitte d P M emission s i n th e dat a base
. I n thi s siz e range , onl y87
. o f th e P M emission s unit s wer e subjec t t o NSPS
. Onl yfiv e P

M emissio n unit s (1 % o f total ) wer e permitte d t o emi t greate rtha n 1000 tons/yea rPM
. Al l fiv e o f thes e wer e subjec t t o NSP S an d wer e permitte d a t th e maximu m emissio n rat e allowe d b yth e NSP S (therefore , n o emission s reduction s beyon d NSP S wer e realize d fo rthi s siz e class)
. Th e siz e clas s o f 100-50 0 tons/yea ran d 500-100 0 tons/yea rproduce d th e majorit y (80%) o f emissio n reduction s beyon d NSPS
. Th e NSP S emissio n unit s i n thes e siz e categorie s wer e permitte d t o emi t 24,40 0 tons/yea rP M (177
. + 18

% = 457
. o f 54,20 0 tons/year) , som e 610 0 tons/yea rP M les s tha n th e leve l allowe d b y th e NSPS
. I n contras t t o PM , SO - emissio n unit s greate rtha n 1000 tons/yea rsiz e were permitte d t o emi t th e majorit yo f SO- emissions
. A s show n i n Tabl e 1-12 , 26 % o f al l SO

- emissio n unit s an d 92 7 o f al l BACT-peinitte d S0 - emission s ar e i n thi s siz e class
. Furthermore , th e majorit yo f S0 2 emissio n reduction s beyon d NSP S wer e achieve d i n thi s siz e class
. Thi s siz e clas s generall yconsist s o f utilit yan d larg e industria l boilers
. Som e industria l boiler s i n thi s categor ywer e no t subjec t t o NSP S becaus e o f thei rhea t inpu t (les s tha n 25 0 MMBtu/hr)
. Not e tha t th e 0-4 0 tons/yea r SO- siz e clas s emissio n unit s ar e 34 % o f al l SO- emissio n units
. However , th e correspondin g allowabl e S0 2 emission s fo rthes e unit s ar e les s tha n 1 % o f th e tota l SO

- emission s i n th e dat a base
. Interestingly , 47 % o f th e emissio n unit s i n th e 0-4 0 to n categor ywer e subjec t t o NSPS
. Thes e smal l NSP S emission s unit s consis t mainl yo f heaters , boiler s an d furnace s a t petroleu m refinerie s burnin g refiner yfue l gas an d ar e generall ysubjec t t o NSPS
.

29

, W* | .!4m_m.wi.T i j»

M••...yy .... yy.,.,*. r—. T^ » r.yfy9..*ny99y9i' i^ri^»y!W'ML.»^i J iivwiv,y.8yB*feiW : l^W^ f '^' '



### Tabl e 1-11 . DISTRIBUTION O F BACT-PERMITTE DEMISSION S AN D EMISSION S REDUCTION S BEYON DNSP S B YSIZ E O F EMISSION UNI T POLLUTANT : PARTICULAT E MATTE R(PM )

* Tota l BACT-pemitte d P M emissio n unit s •589 . * •Tota l BACT-pemitte d P M emission s - 54.20 0 tons/year . •••Tota l BACT-pemitte d P M eaissio n reduction s beyon d NSP S - 7.70 0 tons/year . Emissio n Uni t Sit e Category (tons/yea r allowabl e emissions ) 0-2 5 25 - 10 0 100-50 0 SO O - 1000 >100 0 f o f Eaissio n

Unit s i n Siz e Categor y

348 129 8 0 2 7 5 BACT-Peraltte d

P M Emissio n Units * Xo fCua . X tota l o ftota l 5 9 5

9 2 2 8 1 1 4 9

5 4 99 1 100 BACT-Peraltte d

P M Emissions* * Xo f tota l 5 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 7 Cum. X o f tota l S 1 7 5 0 8 3 100 BACT-Permltte d

P M Emissio n Unit s Subjec t t o NSP S Xo fsiz e Xo f category total * 8 5 1 7 4 3 9 5 8 5 4 10 0 1 BACT-Peraltte d P M Emission s Subjec t t o NSP S Xo fsiz e Xo f category total* * 1 0 1 1 8 2 5 2 1 7 8 6 2 8 100 1 7 P H Emissio n Reduction s Beyond NSP

S Subjec t t o BACT** * Xo fal l P

M emissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S 1 4 6 3 e 4 2 0 Cum . Xo fal l

P M emissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S 1 4 2 0 5 8 10 0 10 0

### ,/^ww^w^yw^ ^ OTTPMT'W'H Rrr*».-*'vf- •?>? . •ryr^rt^y.- ,i^,^j».VSM^_jv_W>» ^

Tabl e 1-12 - DISTRIBUTIO N O F BACT-PERMITTE D EMISSION S AN D EMISSION S REDUCTION S BEYON D NSP S B Y SIZ E O F EMISSIO N UNI T POLLUTANT : SULFU R DIOXID E (S0 2 )

* Tota l BACT-pemitte d SO , • * Tota l BACT-pemitte d SO i •"Tota l BACT-pemitte d SO J •Issio n unit s •429 . •Ission s •761,80 0 tons/year . •issio n reduction s beyon d NSP S •218,700 . Eaissio n Uni t Siz e Categor

y (tons/yea r allowabl e eaissions ) 0 •40 £ 40-10 0 10 0 - SO O 50 0 •1000 >1000 f o f Eaission

Unit s I n Siz e Categor y

14 4 3 0 93 4 9 11 3 BACT-Pemltte d

SO - Eaission Onits * I o f Cua . X tota l o f tota l 3 4 3

4 7 4 1 22 6 3 1 1 7

4 26 100 BACT-Pemltte d

SO , Eaissions* * Xo f Cua . X tota l o f tota l

« 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3 3 S 8 92 100 BACT-Pemitte d SO , Eaissio n Unit s Subjec t t o NSP S Xo f siz e X o f category total * 47 1 6 1 7 1 9 2 2 0 2 5 9 1 6 BACT-Pemitte d

SO , Eaission s 'Subjec t t o NSP S Xo f siz e X o f categor y total* * 3 5 < 1 ! 4 < 1 8 < 1 2 3 1 6 5 7 8 SO . Eaissio n Reduction s Beyonf l NSP

S Subjec t t o BACT*** Xo f al l SO , eaissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S 1 < 1 < 1 1 3 6 6 Cxmx. X o f al l

SO , emissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S 1 1 1 1 4 100

• • i|..-M-lll-il__il J —«h « >•* - rtiMiiiftn_h^^^;>-->tf^gti»yii

### '"^WWtf»^_WMJNW^iBy4^/!W!i w »p»—^-» " w^y.,.** . («W*^.»'V-,' f .* » *«-W* : •sww

v rrjswttW^WWWS-WWTl*^ ^ 

### • f

t_ > r o 

### Tabl e 1-13 . DISTRIBUTION O F BACT-PERMITTE DEMISSION S AN D EMISSION S REDUCTION S BEYONDNSP S B YSIZ E O F EMISSION

UNI T POLLUTANT : NITROGE N

OXIDE S (N0 X 

### )

* Tota l BACT-pemitte d N O eaissio n unit s •727 . • •Tota l BACT-pemitte d NO * eaission s •712,40 0 tons/year . •••Tota l BACT-pemitte d NO * emissio n reduction s beyon d NSP S •54,40 0 tons/year . Eaissio n Uni t Siz e Category (tons/yea r allowabl e eaissions ) 0 - 4 0 4 0 - 10 0 10 0 - SO O 50 0 - 100 0 >100 0 I o f Eaission

Unit s i n Siz e Categor y

189 122 25 7 7 9 8 0 BAC

T- f emitte d N O Eaissio n Onits * Xo f Cua . X tota l o f tota l 2 6 2 6 1 7 43 3 5 7 8 1 1 89 1 1 100 BACT-Peraitte d

NO ^ Emissions* * Xo f Cua . X tota l o ftota l

< 1 < l 1 1 9 1 0 8 I B 8 2 10

0 BACT-Remitte d

N O Eaission Unl! s Subjec t t o NSP S Xo fsiz e Xo f category total * 3 < l 7 1 1 3 5 5 6 6 8 6 9 BACT-Pemltte d

N O Eaission s "Subjec t t o NSP S Xo f siz e Xo f category total* * 5 « 1 8 < 1 1 6 1 5 9 5 9 7 » N O Eaissio n Reduction s Beyon<TNSP

S Subjec t t o BACT*** Xo f al l N

O emissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S 0 0 2 0 9 8 Cua . Xo fal l

reduction s beyon d NSP

S 0 0 2 2 10 0

-•r-l'n_wif----'_ltt_)_ i

### ^B^W^Wwn^WMWMu^ ^ *'" " "T " ^TT*^** * f!f**tflr»*lff{i y 

### nw»^^ i 

### «*?pa | 

### Wffl8 8

Tabl e 1-14 . DISTRIBUTION O F BACT-PERMITTE DEMISSION S AN D EMISSION S REDUCTION S BEYONDNSP S B YSIZ E O F EMISSION

UNI T POLLUTANT : CARBO

N MONOXID E (CO )

•Tota l BACT-pemitte d C O eaissio n unit s •427 . * * Tota l BACT-pemitte d C O eaission s •159.10 0 tons/year . "•Tota l BACT-pemitte d C O eaissio n reduction s beyon d NSP S •2,97 0 tons/year . Eaissio n Uni t Siz e Categor

y (tons/yea r allowabl e eaissions ) 0 - 10 0 10 0 - 500 50 0 •100

0 >100 0 1 o fEaission

Unit s i n Siz e Categor y

29 7 7 1 2 0 3 9 BACT-Pemitte d

C O Eaissio n Units * Xo f Cua . I tota l o ftota l 6 9 6 9 1 7 86 5 9 1 9 10

0 BACT-Pemitte d

C O Eaissions* * Xo fCua . X tota l o f tota l 4 4 1 0 1 4 1 0 2

4 7 6 10

0 BACT-Pemitte d

C O Eaissio n Unit s Subjec t t o NSP S Xo fsiz e Xo f category total * 0 0 1 < 1 2 0 1 S < 1 BACT-Pemitte d

C O Eaission s Subjec t t o NSP S Xo fsiz e Xo f category total* * 0 0 2 < 1 2 0 2 3 3 C O Emissio n Reduction s Beyon d NSP

S Subjec t t o BACT*** Xo fal l C

O eaissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S 0 0 45 55 Cua . Xo fal l

C O eaissio n reduction s beyon d NSP

S 0 0 45 10 0

»ifiilii_lii_ir! »

# •*m rj^ffC¥_S!ffFRS?!Pt9J5R9W1'"4W f tt* 1 .awiMUV_|Rkea(ii.iiW'W*!.T,*f f V * rrltpxix.!

.T**** " ay? r ».r.^v^r-fTr.iir--'rrfwffi«^***^Wwi?^^<^ w ^ ^



### Tabl e 1-15 . DISTRIBUTION O F BACT-PERMITTE DEMISSION S AN D EMISSION S REDUCTION S BEYONDNSP S B YSIZ E O F EMISSIO N

UNI T POLL'- rr 

### ANT : VOLATIL E ORGANI C COMPOUND S (VOC )

Emissio nUni t Siz e Categor y (tons/yea r allowabl e emissions ) 0 - 4 0 4 0 - 10 0 10 0 - 50 0 50 0 - 100 0 >100 0 # o f Emissio n

Unit s InSiz e Categor y



### 8 8 1 6 3 5 4 1 

### BACT-Perm i tte d

VO C Emissio n Units * % o f Cum . % tota l o f tota l 6 1 6 1 1 1 7 2 2 4 9 6 3 9 9 1 10 0 BACT-Permitte d

VOC Emissions* * I o f Cum . % tota l o f tota l 6 6 6 1 2 5 8 7 0 1 8 8 8 1 2 10 0
* Total-BAC T permitte dVO C emissio nunit s = 144 . * * Total-BAC T permitte dVO C emission s = 13,70 0 tons/year . Note : VO C NSPS' s ar e generall y wor kpractic e o r equipmen t standards . Unabl e t o quantif y

VO C emission s subjec t t o a NSPS .

"^-'-.irttti^Vfcfr^q i

# r .waaitWMijui.Ujiiii.iMiwj. i r*WBa^a_K5waw_*^ap*W^5S?f??S^*r^ f



### Tabl e 1-1 3 fo r N

O emission s i s simila r t o Tabl e 1-1 2 fo r SO o emission s intha t th e majorit y

o f permitte demission s an demission s reduction s beyond NSP S occurre da t emission s unit s greate r than100 0 tons/yea r size . Tota l BACT-permitte dallowabl e PM , SO- , N O an d CO emission s an

d emission s reduction s beyondNSP S ar e a s follows : Pollutan t P M 

## so 2 

### N0 X 

### C O Tota l BACT-Permitte d (tons/year ) 54,20 0 761.80 0 712,40 0 159,10 0 Reduction s Beyon dNSP S (tons/year ) 7,70 0 218,70 0 54,40 0 2,97 0

l 

### Correspondin g value s fo r VO C emission s reduction s beyondNSP S ar e no t

presente dsinc e mos t VO C standard s ar e base do nthe typ e o f equipmen t use d and/o r wor kpractices , andquantificatio ni nterm s o f emission s i s difficult . Emissio nReduction s Fro m Propose dBACT Emissio nLevel s Ina t leas t 6 3 dat a bas e application s (22%) , PS D applicant s receive d emission s limitation s mor e stringen t thanthos e propose da s BACT . Factor s suc ha s ai r qualit y

impacts , incremen t consumptio nandcase-by-cas e evaluatio n influence dth e permittin g authorities ' decisio nprocess . Insome cases , thes e source s wer e subjec t t o NSP S andth e associate demission s reduction s i nthos e case s wer e accounte dfo r i nth e previou s subsection . Tabl e 1-1 6 show s th e (non-NSPS ) dat a bas e emission s reduction s cause d b y PS D permit s issue dwit hemissio nlimit s mor e stringen t thanthos e propose d b y th e applican t i nadditio nt o emission s reduction s beyondNSPS . Effec t o f PS P o nAllowabl e Emission s I t i s impossibl e t o determin e the level s a t whic hthe dat a bas e source s woul dhav e bee nallowe dt o emi t i nth e absence o f PS D provisions . Fo r example , fo r source s no t subjec t t o NSPS , anappli can t migh t hav e propose dan dbee nallowe dt o emi t pollutant s a t th e level s prescribe di nthe respectiv e Stat e Implementatio nPla n(SIP) . I nothe r cases , however , c nemission s limitin g facto r ma y hav e bee n th e NAAQ S ceilings , o r othe r ai r qualit y factors . Quantificatio no f thes e "uppe r bounds " fo r non-NSP S source s wa s beyondthe scop e o f thi s project . 3 5
J > -

(l!»iJ_'i!;.' U in n ,. u ,^i, l iiiiii>f*irjiirr"nr i ffWr giirtt f

# ->i!iiimwi.pwwwwrw^-.-i''.' k i **?**.*v<f-~+~ , >i*-y**-"*""• - • . . ,-W.VrV^- . • » V ^•WHW»'^^-^ J «W*J^.S«Mftl!W: l



### Tabl e 1-16 . CUMULATIV E BAC T PERMITTE DEMISSION S REDUCTION S ASSOCIATE DWIT H PS D

Pollutan t 

### P M SO

„ NO . C

O VO

C H

2 

### S TR

S Aci d Mis t Viny l

Chlorid e Emission s reduction s beyondNSP S

- tons/y r Non-NSP S emission s reduction s associate dwit h propose dvs . permitte d BAC T - tons/y r 7,70 0 218,70 0 54,40 0 2,97 0 N/ A

5,10 0 34,20 0 5,10 0 3,00 0 N/ A

Tota l emission s reduction s

- tons/y r 12.80 0 252,90 0 59,50 0 5,97 0 N/ A 

### 24 0

24 0

Tota l BACT permitte d emission s

- tons/y r 54,20 0 761,80 0 712,40 0 159,10 0 13.70 0 

### 700 30 0 1,16 0 

### 18 0 11

0

/gSpVil.XM.fxrvfjtni.tmn*. yy.yrf.-r-y9- —il

### 1 : 

### 1 ?^HyJHatM.tJ*«-<t.W*'i' » n w !•« • injip^i.^'^yyiiniiii i .__ p aviAMJ S



### However , some measur e o f th e effec t o f th e NS Rprogram ca nb e obtaine db

y considerin g only : source s tha t wer e subjec t t o NSPS ; an d source s whic hwer e no t subjec t t o NSP S bu t hadt o adop t BAC T limit s mor e stringen t tha nthos e propose di nthei r origina l application . Fo r th e variou s pollutants , reduction s fro m "hypothetical " NSP S level s (i.e. , thos e level s a t whic hth e sourc e woul db e allowe dt o emi t i f i t wer e jus t t o mee t NSP S requirements ) an d reduction s fo r othe r source s representin g the differenc e betwee npropose dan dfina l BAC T ar e show

n i nTabl e 1-16 . Thes e "reductions " expresse da s a percentag e o f th e hypothetical/propose dleve l fo r the criteri a pollutant s are : P M - 17 % 

### so ? 

### - N 0 t• CO - 25 % 8 %
•4% 

### Expresse da s a percentag e o f the fina l permitte dBAC T emissions , thes e reduction s are : P M - 24 % S 0 2 

### - 33 % N0 X

### - 8 % C O - 4 % Tha t is , 1 nth e absenc e o f the PS D program , P M emission s coul d hav e bee nabou t one-fourt hhighe r tha nth e permitte dP M emission s an

d S 0 2 

### emission s abou t one-thir dhighe r tha nth e permitte dS0 2 

### emissions . ,1. 6 ANALYSI S O F AI RQUALIT YIMPACT S Frequenc y

o f Ai r Qualit y

(A/Q ) Analyse s O f th e 28 5 dat a bas e applications , 21 3 wer e require dt o perform ai r qualit y impact s analyses . A

tota l o f 45 1 pollutan t specifi c ai r qualit y review s wer e performe ddistribute da s show nbelow :



### 3 7llt.UMi_iMffiingna*0t_i-)_wMna . •weawBWi^w""!** *



### Pollutan t 

### P M 

## so 2 

### N0 X 

### C O VO C F H 2

### S # o f A/ Q Rev i



### 90 12 4 16 3 6 7 3 2 2 ew s % o f Tota l



### 20 2 7 3 6 1 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 Tota l 

### 45

1 10

0 A s shown , NO wa s th e pollutan t mos t frequentl y subjec t t o ai r qualit y analyses . Sit e specifi c ambien t monitorin g wa s provide din18 % o f the PS D application s requirin g A/ Q analyses . Anothe r 25 % o f the case s use d existin g Stat e o r othe r networ kambien t monitorin g dat a an d57 % o f the PS D application s requirin g A/ Q analyse s provide dn o actua l ambien t ai r qualit y monitorin g data . Inthes e latter cases , existin g ambien t ai r qualit y wa s determine db

y dispersio nmodeling , assumin g approve dbackgroun d concentrations , o r some othe r approve dmethod . Effect s o f Allowabl e PS DIncremen t Constraint s Th e mos t limitin g ai r qualit y factor wa s the allowabl e 24-hou r SO , 3 incremen t o f 9 1 ug/ m

. A s show

nbelow , excep t fo r thi s factor , very fe w A/ Q analyse s predicte dtha t mor e tha n85 % o f the respectiv e allowabl e PS D incremen t woul dresul t fro m th e propose dproject . Pollutant/Incremen t Averaqin g Perio d P M SO , 24-h r Annua l 3-hr 24-h r Annua l % o f Case s Wher e Mor e Tha n85 % Impac t wa s Predicte d 

### 5 % 0

% 6

% 19

% 2 % Base do ntota l numbe r o f pollutan t specifi c A/ Q analyses . Inmany case s wher e A/ Q analyse s wer e required , the applican t di dno t perfor m ful l A/ Q analyse s becaus e preliminar y screenin g indicate dthe


### 3 8M*W>-imiPBam'^- i __w»«i.-ii._wvy«!yg .


### impact s expecte dt o resul t fro m th e propose dprojec t wer e "insignificant. " Insome o f thes e cases , du e t o possibl e incremen t violation s inth e vicinit y o f th e source , a demonstratio no f "insignificant " impac t wa s require di norde r t o receiv e a PS C permit . Therefore , thos e case s wher e insignifican t impact s wer e indicate ddoe s no t necessaril y mea ntha t a substantia l amoun t o f PS Dincremen t wa s available . Wher e P M an dS0 2 

### A/ Q analyse s wer e required , projec t alteration s wer e mad e i na t leas t 2 8 case s (13% ) t o avoi dincremen t violation s tha t coul dhav e preclude dpermi t issuance . Thos e alteration s ar e distribute d a s show nbelow : Alteratio n I

o f Case s 1 . Mor e Stringen t BAC T 1 1 2 . Increas e Stac kHeigh t 5 3 . Switc ht o Cleane r Fue l 3 4 . Emissio nReduction s Elsewher e 3 5 . Limi t Hour s o f Operatio n1 6 . Othe r 5 Limitin g Factor s 3-hr S0 2 

### (2) ; 24-h r S0 2 

### (7) ; 24-h r P M (2 ) 3-hr S0 2 

### (1) ; 24-h r S0 2 

### (4 ) 24-h r P M (1) ; neede dinsignificanc e (2 ) 24-h r S0 2 

### (3 ) Unknow n Unknow n "insignificant " A/ Q impac t i s quantifie di nthe preambl e t o the 197 8 NS R regulations . Effect s o f Constraint s Cause db y Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS ) Th e A/ Q analyse s dealin g wit hNAAQ S complianc e demonstratio ndi dno t appea r t o have ha

dmuc heffec t onPS Dprojects . Th e mos t limitin g NAAQ S wa s th e 24-hou r allowabl e ambien t TS P concentratio no f 15 0 ug/ m . A s show nbelow , fe

w A/ Q analyse s predicte dtha t the propose dproject s woul d resul t 1 nambien t ai r qualit y concentration s tha t exceede d90 % o f the respectiv e NAAQS :



### 3 9•w*^_C f - ,l| J n Jiaiowtiig . .l.iaUU4WB"i'i.'WWW-» 9

NAAQ S Pollutant/Averagin g Perio d TS P SO , 

### N0 „ -xC

O 24-h r Annua l 3-h r 24-h r Annua l Annua l 1-h r 8-h r % o f Case s Wher e Mor e Tha n90 % NAAQ S Impacte d9 % 

### 0 % 3% 3% 0 % 2 % 0 % 0 %
Base do ntota l numbe r o f pollutan t specifi c A/ Q analyses . Effec t o f A/ Q Constraint s o nEmission s Reduction s BeyondNSP S A roug hscreenin g analysi s wa s performe dt o determin e reason s fo r emission s reduction s beyondNSPS . Fo r thos e PS D permit s wher e allowabl e emission s wer e below th e maximum s allowe db y th e applicabl e NSPS , th e A/ Q analyse s wer e evaluated . Base do nthos e evaluation s th e P M an d S0 2 reduction s beyondNSP S wer e distribute damon g fou r categories : • A s a resul t o f NAAQ S constraints ; • A s a resul t o f Incremen t Constraints ; • A s a resul t o f case-by-cas e BACT ; an d • Caus e Unknown . Tabl e 1-1 7 summarize s tha t distribution . A s shown , i t appear s tha t the majorit y

o f S0 2 emission s reduction s beyondNSP S resulte dfro m incremen t constraints . Particulat e matte r emission s reduction s beyondNSP S wer e difficul t t o categoriz e becaus e man y (abou t 50% ) P

M ai r qualit y

analyse s predicte d"insignificant " ambien t impact s an dn o estimatio no f P

M incre men t availabilit y

an dambien t ai r qualit y wer e provided . 1. 7 MISCELLANEOU S ASSOCIATE D ANALYSE S A s par t o f thi s study , certai nsituation s wer e studie dt o asses s the genera l effect s o f existin g an d alternativ e provision s o f NS Rregulations . Presente di nthi s sectio nar e th e highlight s o f th e mor e substantiv e studies . Effec t o f Clas s I Allowabl e SO , Incremen t onPowe r Plan t Sitin g Dispersio nmodelin g o f a hypothetica l 64 0 MWe powe r plan t wa s performe d t o determin e th e minimu m distanc e fro

m a Clas s I are a tha t i t ca nlocat e withou t violatin g th e Clas s I increment . A s show ni nTabl e 1-18 , i f th e powe r plan t wa s allowe dt o emi t S0 2 a t . 3 lbs/MMBt uan d locate di nfla t 4 0



# I f •tHWB" 1 ** * '•"" " 'iu»."«',»l'*_. , _H.!»««-iWi i i«un« n ••i—niwig M 

### 20&V&*!^W>P?.IJUHJW_I»".I>MUH' » < r-.-vrrn: r^w»^»*3»?Wr*?3?PvS?*:'lft S



### Tabl e 1-17 . EMISSION

REDUCTION S BEYON

DNSP S ANDPARTIAL CONTRIBUTION S B

YPROBABL E CAUS E O F THOS E REDUCTION S (tons/year )



## so 2 

### P M A s a Resul t

o f NAAQ S Constraint s A s a Resul t

o f Incremen t Constraint s A s a Resul t

o f Case-by Cas e BAC T Unabl e t o

Determin e Cause * Tota l Emissio n

Reduction s BeyondNSP S Tota l Per mi tte d Emission s fo r Source s Subjec t t o NSP S 36,10 0 0 115,50 0

20 0 56,60 0

2,30 0 10,50 0

5,20 0 218,70 0

7,70 0 603,40 0

35,20 0 •Insufficien t dat a t o categoriz e emissio nreductions .

### * » J&QQ&lv^*1W#<***mBmtvn*m--«'~-m*z>



### Tabl e 1-18 . EFFECT S O F CLAS S I SO , INCREMEN T O N TH E SITINGO F A

64 0 MW e POWE RPLAN T

Terrai n Typ e Averagin g

Perio d Fla t i 5 Comple x 24-hou r Annua l 24-hou r Annua l ^Distanc e o f Sourc e fro m Clas s I Are a Beyon dWhic h SO - Incremen t i s no t Exceede d Cas e I : 1. 2 lb/MMBtu , 90 % S0 2 Remova l 

### 100 20 >10 0 

### 9 1 Cas e II :

. 6 70 % lb/MMBtu , SO - Remova l 

### 4 2 0 >10 0 

### 4 8 Cas e III :

. 3 70 % lb/MMBtu , SO , Remo 

### 1 9 0 >10 0 

### 26

# I !tfffjfl*;tf?t^,ayt_i ' V"f*- '



### terrafn , i t mus t locat e a t leas t 1 9 kilometer s fro m the Clas s I area . Th e same powe r plan t i ncomple xterrai nmus t locat e a t a distanc e o f mor e tha n10 0 kilometer s fro m th e Clas s I area . Highe r allowabl e S0 2 

### emissio n rate s wer e als o evaluate dan dth e result s ar e shown . I neac hcase , the limitin g facto r i s th e allowabl e 24-hou r S0 2 

### Clas s I increment . Effec t o f Alternativ e Clas s I Incremen t System o nEmission s Nea r Clas s I Area s On e alternativ e cite db y th e Nationa l Commissio no nAi r Qualit y (NCAQ ) wa s t o eliminat e shor t ter m incremen t trackin g i nClas s I area s an d allow a sourc e th e entir e shor t ter m increment . Annua l incremen t trackin g woul d stil l b e retained . Th e allowabl e Clas s I SO - incremen t wa s evaluate dunde r thi s proposa l b y studyin g thre e differen t cases : Cas e 1 - Remot e Clas s I area ; littl e o r no industria l activity ; Cas e 2 - Clas s I area o f moderat e industria l activity ; tw o o r mor e closel y space dsources ; and Cas e 3 - Clas s I are a o f heav y industria l activity ; numerou s source s arounda Clas s I area . Tabl e 1-1 9 summarize s th e result s o f thi s stud y an dimpact s o n potentia l emission s change , potentia l ambien t Impact s an d reductio n i nai r qualit y

dispersio nmodelin g requirements . Generally , ther e coul d b e a moderat e Increas e i nS0 2 

### emission s andambien t SO - concentration s bu t Insome cases , S0 2 

### emission s coul dincreas e b y a s muc ha s 250 % i n th e area . Thi s woul doccu r whe nsource s wer e clustere dupwindo f the impac t area . ^W-.^g^^KlJaWafaM_t^^^W»yio n I n conjunctio n wit h EPA , a stud ywa s performe d t o determin e th e approximat e rang e o f cos t fo rdispersio n modelin g supportin g a PS D application
. Thi s evaluatio n showed that , i n general , dispersio n modelin g fo ra PS

D applicatio n wil l rang e fro m $10,00 0 t o $130,000
. However , thi s valu e coul d be a s lo was $3,00 0 an d a s hig h as $400,00 0 o rmore . Te n PS D permit s wer e selecte d representativ e o f dat a bas e sourc e categorie s an d location s an d th e applicant s wer e aske d t o provid e cos t dat a o n th e preparatio n o f thei rPS D applications
. Tabl e 1-2 0 summarize s th e response s an d th e cost s ar e broke n down int o th e thre e mos t extensiv e part s o f a PS

D application : l J

4 3! »*> M u*a*j w• . ^»w , maytgiMt5^!«nitj_ty.%^fl{|ff ^ E^t*** ; Ifflffi B Tabl e 1-19 . 

### ESTIMATE DEFFECTS O F ELIMINATING SHORT-TERM

INCREMEN T TRACKING

Cas e 1 2 Emission s

Chang e Non e 0-250 % Incr . 0-67 % Incr . •Base do nS0 2 

### emission s Ai r Quality " Impac t Non e Reductio ni n Require d Ai r Qualit y Modelin g Non e 24-hr : 0-1 3 ug/mJ

### Incr . Moderat e annual : 0-1. 4 ug/m 3 

### Incr . 24-hr : 0-3. 6 ug/m 3 

### Incr . Substantia l annual : 0-. 7 ug/m 3 

### Incr . 

# I

I

I 4 4

# iONSCAT1 

### *. a.PSDAP

L U OC a. L UTOPR
i — IA O 

### <_ )

__ _ « CEARS > - i_
_ o c oTUDY0

IA1-20.CASEable
i— l, b H - 

# rf!* 'ni l
-l_>r - 

# iiii * 'ii i

5 , x* = 

### J * 

# U 1 

### Ili a i-J - 

### li- = 

# ii 1 

# * S5i iii 1 

### * 

# B f ij; i 1'-* 

# iii i H P i r 

# P i ! 

# >* ] t 

# i c 

### " I

X 

### f 1

i
f 1

5 

### : s 

### « ,

•



# I

s 

# i 1
a r 

# i » 

# i i

g 2

i 

### V t i 9 c 

### ; 8 • 1

1



# I

1 J

E i 

## | > * 

## !

X 

### ? I

9 t
t 

### — : t 

### " 1



### .



# J 

# i •

' *
i I 1 «

8 1 2 

### «

ti

t 1 2 2 • S 

### «

• 

# i

i i 

### < i J • 

### ;

c 1

X i I t



### »
f 5 

### — » I s

m



### _

1 

# I I
I
s


### » ! 

# I I c
B 8 . 6 I j

f t Ti t J i i Ml

9 s

„



### .

1 

# i i *
• 

# i 8


### %

> •

i 

### *
8 m 

# I 8 s 2

S 

# j

I 

# i *
a r 

# 1 « 

# 1 I

t
3 

## r i

•
i 

# i — 2 8



### - i

t

1 

# i

1 

### <
c 

# I I 

## i 8



### • %

> !

•
i B 

### — a 8 

### • s



### « .



# i

} 

# i *

0 1 

### 1 

## i ! 8 t 

### *
• 5

I

0 t l 

### ; 8 * < 8 r c



### .



# 1

i s 

# J t

9.
» i j 

### -

l

t i 

### | | j i 8 i I I 

# iI i I * ', 1 « i T 

## • i J 

### i !

• r« 

### s i * 

# H

* M [ 11' ' j 8II* j 

# I f II I Ii 8 1 | 

# pil l 45 

# j r FIGUR E 3-1 . DISTRIBUTIO N O F PERMI T PROCESSIN GTIME S D V C MTINT uinTrouni cIJUW ILHHU U WIII J IIW.II ,

jiMmmMxnummmm luwimu i ^ua-wawiwwawMawa'aiWW W »|i»i»g^>.iltJI>>>iJWI>. > .l l . l Ji(M*1*; W



### • Ambien t Monitoring ; • Dispersio nModeling ; an d • BAC T Analyses . A s show ninthi s table , th e cos t o f a PS Dapplicatio nrange dfro m abou t $5,000 , wher e no ambien t monitorin g an d littl e dispersio nmodelin g wa s required , t o ove r $1,000,00 0 wher e extensiv e ambien t monitorin g an d dispersio nmodelin g wa s required . I nthes e cases , ambien t monitorin g cost s wer e 80-90 % o f th e tota l PS Dapplication . However , extensiv e ambien t monitorin g fo r a singl e PS Dapplicatio n1 s infrequent . Base donTabl e 1-2 0 i ncase s wher e extensiv e ambien t monitorin g i s no t required , i t i s probabl y fai r t o estimat e tha t a naverag e PS Dapplicatio nma y cos t betwee n$10,00 0 and$50,000 .

WjHUJ-WUMM J - ••

_

# I gliy...MW)jUi

_, j imi,wi_mw_ii . j. _»«Bn_*«p«rw.''j_»«icr ? WW»»»t<WWWS'WWW8S ^

APPENDI XA . DISCUSSIO N O F MAJO RCHANGE S I N APPLICABILIT Y O F PS D AN D NON-ATTAINMEN T REGULATION S AN D TH E EFFEC T ON

PERMIT S I

N TH E DATA

BAS E Thi s appendi xcontain s a ver y genera l discussio no f the applicabilit y requirement s o f th e 197 8 an d 198 0 regulations . Incertai ncases , however , exemption s ma y

appl y whic hrender th e followin g discussio nincomplete . However , th e statement s belo w appl y t o a larg e majorit y o f permit s issue d unde r the PS D program . Th e reader i s referre dt o the federa l RejJ_istor _ notice s liste dinTabl e A- l fo r a complet e discussio no f PS D an d non attainmen t applicability . Th e mos t significan t difference s betwee nth e 197 8 an d198 0 PS D regulation s wit hrespec t t o PS D applicabilit y ar e foun di nthe definition s o f potentia l t o emi t (PE ) an d majo r modification . Tabl e A- l summarize s th e key change s t o thes e andthre e othe r relate ddefinitions . Tabl e A- 2 give s a lis t o f th e recen t PS D and nonattainmen t regulation s histor y wit hthe key

action s take no nth e specifie ddate . Th e definitio no f P E wa s change dwit hthe 1980.regulation s t o includ e emission s afte r applicatio no f pollutio ncontrol s wherea s th e 197 8 regulation s di d rjo t conside r pollutio ncontrol s fo r P E determinations . Th e effec t o f thi s chang e wa s t o reduc e the numbe r o f majo r source s subjec t t o PSD . Fo r example , a ne w sourc e wit hon e emission s uni t i s anticipate d t o emi t particulat e matter (PM ) a t 1 0 tons/yea r afte r being controlle db y a 9 9 percen t efficien t contro l device . I t woul demi t 100 0 tons/yea r in the absenc e o f suc hcontrol . Thi s sourc e woul db e a majo r sourc e (PE « 100 0 tons/year , befor e control ) unde r the 197 8 regulation s an d woul d underg o PS D review . However , th e sourc e woul dno t b e majo r (P E * 1 0 tons/yea r afte r control ) unde r th e 198 0 regulation s and woul dno t underg o PS D review .



### A- l^wgmwaawwwr'o ^ »•_*« . •" -^»-.-- - - «?s«n?KtrS:S^9^^ ^

Tabl e A-l . KE YGENERALIZE D DEFINITION S WHIC H CHANGE D BETWEE N 197 8 AN D 198 0 PS O REGULATION S

197 8 Definitio n 198 0 Definitio n Sourc e Anentir e plan t o nadjacen t o r contiguou s propertie s unde r commo nownership , regard les s o f th e variou s type s o f operation s whic hM y

exis t o nth e property .

Potentia l t o Emi t (PE ) Base dupo nth e uncontrolle demission s subjec t t o enforceabl e limit s ontyp e o r amoun t o f materia l processe dor combusted . Fugitiv e emission s wer e considere dfo r P E accounting . Majo r Sourc e Any o f 2 8 name dsource s wit hP E o f 10 0 o r mor e ton s pe r yea r o r an y sourc e wit hP E o f 10 0 o r mor e ton s pe r yea r o r an y sourc e wit hP E o f 25 0 o r mor e ton s pe r yea r (100/25 0 threshold) . Same a s I nth e 197 8 regulation s excep t tha t a sourc e woul dcontai nonl y thos e pollutan t emittin g activitie s belongin g t o th e same tw

o digi t SI C code . Thus , on e sourc e unde r th e 197 8 regultion s coul db e subdivide dInt o multipl e source s unde r th e 198 0 regulations .
Base dupo nth e controlle demission s subjec t t o any

enforceabl e 1imi t o n operations . Fugitiv e emission s wer e considere donl y

fo r certai nliste d source s wit hrespec t to PS O applicability .
Same a s in197 8 regulations . Not e tha t th e chang e indefinition s o f sourc e and P E ha dimpac t upo nthe classificatio no f a sourc e a s major .ttf^mn^mii mi^,x ..•-*, •

Tabl e A-l . Continue d

197 8 Definitio n 198 0 Definitio n Majo r Modificatio n Any sourc e whic hwoul dIncreas e It s P E o r woul dhav e accumulate dincrease s o f U s Pt exceedin g lOQ/nQ

tons/year , excludin g an y decrease s inP t


### lfKr<*fn t C»f»ttwpt1on ••so do nillooatl f eminen t change s a t source t an

dmodifications . An y significan t ne t emission s Increas e a t a majo r sourc e o r an y modificatio n whic hItsel f woul dIncreas e emission s by 100/25 0 ton s pe r year . Thi s defini tio nconsidere demission s change s a t existin g unit s base dupo nactua l rathe r thanpotentia l emissions .
Bate dupo nactua l emission s change s a t source s an

d modifications .Tabl e A-2 . BRIE F HISTOR YOF NS RREGULATION S 

# J .

Federa l Registe r RTFerenc e Dat e Actio n Significan t Requirements/Impact s 41FR55S4 4
43FR2638 8

44FR327 4

44FR5192 4

4SFR780 0

4SFR3110 4
45FR3110 4
45FR5267 6

4SFRS267 6 Decembe r 21 , 197 6 1 .
Jun e 19 , 197 8

Januar y

16 , 197 9
Septembe r 5 , 197 9 4 .

February

5 . 198 0

Nay 11 . 198 0
Nay 13 , 198 0 Augus t 7 . 198 0

Augus t 7 , 198 0 Firs t Eaissio nOffse t Interpretiv e Rulin g PS O Regulation s Pursuan t t o th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendments , 197 7
Secon dEmissio nOffse t Interpretiv e Rulin g Propose dAmendment s t o PS O Regulation s an

dEmissio n Offse t Interpretiv e Rulin g (Pre-Oecision , Alabam a Power )

5 . Partia l Sta

y o f PS O Regulation s (Alabam a Powe r Oeclsion ) Partia l Sta

y o f Eaissio n Offse t Interpretiv e Ruling Amendmen t t o Emissio n Offse t Interpretiv e Rulin g Fina l Amendment s fo r PS O Regulation s

Amendment s to Emission s Offse t Interpretiv e Rulin g Emissio noffset s an dLAERrequire d i no r nea r non-attainmen t area s
BACT ; NAAQ S an

dPS O incremen t complianc e demonstration ; pre - an d post-constructio nmonitoring ; impac t analysi s fo r soils , vegetation , growth , an

dvisibilit y

- al l applie di no r nea r attainmen t o r unclassifie dareas . Expansio no f source s covere d b y includin g thos e wit h"potentia l t o emit " base d upo nuncontrolle demissions ; constructio nmoratorium i n area s withou t a napprove d SIP . Definition s change : "Potentia l t o emit " - includ e emission s afte r applicatio no f controls ; "Majo r modification " - an y significan t ne t emission s increas e fo r designate d"major " pollutant , considerin g concurren t emissio n changes ; "BACT" ; "Ai r quality" ; an

d Monitorin g requirements . PS O review

onl y fo r source s inattainmen t o r unclassifie darea s fo r a t leas t on e pollutant ; exemp t fro a revie w source s wit huncontrolle d emission s greate r thanthe 100/2S 0 threshol d bu t wit hcontrolle d emission s les s tha nthi s threshold . Includ e "potentia l t o emit " definition s o f bot hAction s 3 an d4 , thu s fewe r source s ar e subjec t t o ruling . Eliminatio no f review fo r certai nsource s I nattainmen t and unclassifie darea s unde r offse t policy . Applicabilit y

an d monitorin g requirement s changed ; "potentia l t o emit " define dfor emission s afte r controls ; applicabilit y o f BACT ; incremen t consumption , an d modificatio ndefine d I nterm s o f actua l emissions ; overal l effect : decreas e i nPS O application s bu t increas e i npollutant s reviewe dpe r application . "Potentia l t o emit " include s emission s afte r controls ; and othe r definitio nchange s a s in8 . Acrony m Glossar y BAC T Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology LAE RLowes t Achievabl e Em'ssion s Reductio n NAAQ S Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualil y Standard s PS O Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n SI P Stat e Implementatio nPla ntf*f!*A*Vm*-t i"fity t ^f t f^^ v t 

# I Th e secon dmajo r differenc e betwee nth e regulation s concern s th e

definitio no f majo r modification . Unde r th e 197 8 regulations , a modifi catio nwa s majo r i f uncontrolle dP E increase db y 100/25 0 tons/year , no t countin g decrease s i nPE . Th e 198 0 regulation s considere dcontrolle d emission s an d actua l emission s decrease s a t th e source . Further , th e 198 0 definition s generall y stipulate dtha t a majo r modificatio ncoul d occu r onl y

a t a nexistin g majo r sourc e and tha t a modificatio nwoul db e subjec t t o PS O fo r al l pollutant s wit ha significan t ne t emission s increase . Th e effec t o f thi s definitio nchang e wa s to increas e th e numbe r o f pollutant s requirin g revie w fo r a give nsourc e becaus e the significanc e level s wer e so t wel l belo w th e 100/25 0 to nthreshol d(fo r example , sulfu r dioxid e emission s ar e significan t a t level s o f 4 0 o r mor e tons/year) . Figur e A- l give s a generalize dflo w diagra m

o f th e PS D applicabilit y requirement s o f th e 197 8 an d 198 0 regulations . Notic e tha t unde r the 198 0 requirements , applicabilit y i s a two-ste pprocess : (1 ) i s the sourc e major? ; (2 ) i f major , wha t pollutant s wil l b e emitte da t signifi can t rates ? Eac hsignifican t pollutan t i s the nsubjec t t o revie w consistin g o f BACT , ai r quality , and additiona l impact s analyses . A tw o tie r syste m

o f revie w

existe dunde r th e 197 8 regulations . Th e firs t tie r revie w

wa s applie dt o source s wit huncontrolle demission s o f 100/25 0 tons/yea r andcontrolle domission s o f les s tha n5 0 tons/yea r not . countin g decreases . To r suc hpollutants , a sourc e woul db e i.xomp t fro m th e I1AC1 , additiona l impacts , an d ai r qualit y requirements . The sourc e woul db e require dt o mee t al l NSP S an d SI P requirements . The tie r 1 revie w permi t wa s contingen t upo na demonstratio no f n o advers e ai r qualit y impac t an d n o impac t upo nClas s I area s o r knownincremen t violations . Thi s demonstratio ngenerall y require dles s comple xai r qualit y analysis . Th e tie r 2 revie w

wa s require dfo r source s wit hcontrolle demission s o f 5 0 o r mor e tons/yea r no t countin g decreases . Thi s revie w consiste do f BAC T and i f ther e wa s a ne t emission s increase , ai r qualit y (increments , NAAQS , an d perhap s monitoring) , and additiona l impact s (soils , vegetation , visibility , an d growth ) analyse s wer e required . Th e sourc e wa s require d t o submi t dispersio nmodelin g an d i nman y cases , monitorin g dat a to mee t th e ai r qualit y

revie w requirements . A

sourc e wit ha ne t emission s 

### A- 5'"~*«<"'w*»Ttt.«.v..»._._.»_. , .



### FIGUR E A-l . GENERALIZE DAPPLICABILIT YFLOW O F 197 8 AN O 198 0 PS O REGULATIONS .

Unde r 197 8 PS DRegulation s

Propose dConstructio n (A1 1 Pollutant s Attainment ) Unde r 198 0 PS D Requi a tion s Proooie dConstructio n (Al l Pollutant s Attainment )

No t Subjec t l o PS D N

o controll e an y pollutan p b e Increase d mor e than 100/25 0 T.P . •iS *
redu l 

# m*/ Identif y

Eac h
Tl>r_ l -NSP S Onl ) -Clas s I Are a Impac t Analyst _ _

, Non e

fo r pollutant s 

## _

i dentif y pollutant ' increase d (afte r control ) greate r tha n 5 0 T.P.r . (lanorin a decreases ) SUBJEC T T O PS D

• 5 0 TP Y Sam

e Identif y

emissio n unit s contributin g t o emission s increas e



### JiSL fo r pollutants . r ^ 50 1 T> Y^ Subjec t t o BAC T Analysi s
I__i
_ Identlf y pollutan t
Reformulat e contro l strateg y Subjec t l o Ai r Qualit y andOthe r Relate d Impact s Analyse s Identif y emissio n unit s contributin g t o ne t pollutan t Increas e

Reformulat e contro l strateg y

l o al l require danalyse s show : • n o incremen t o r NAAQ S vlola t • BAC T i s applie dwher e requ i • n o violatio no f Cits : I are a requirements T



### A- 6decreas e coul d b e exemp t fro m th e ai r / revie wrequirement s provirler i ther e woul d b

e n o advers e ai r qualit y i i - t or impac t upo n Clas s I area s o r incremen t violations .

A- 7