# Appendix H.10

Supporting Data for Four-factor Analyses

H.10 - 1Georgia EPD requested four-factor anal yses from SO2 point sources for emissions units identified as likely to contri bute 0.5% or more to the total visibility impairment caused by sulfate at any Class I area in 2018. Analyses were received for a total of 15 emissions uni ts. The units and the corresponding fourfactor analysis submittal dates are pr esented in Table H.10-1. For some emissions units additional data was submi tted at the request of EPD or at the initiative of the facilit y. The submittals have been saved with Georgia EPD’s Regional Haze files. They are available to the public for inspection during normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Georgia Envi ronmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch, 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

Table H.10-1. Submittal Dates and Worksheets for Four-factor Analyses

Facility Emissions Unit Submittal Date(s) Summary Worksheet GA Pacific Brunswick Cellulose Power Boiler No. 4 7-2-07 9-7-07 10-20-07 10-10-08 10-15-08 H.10-1

GA Pacific Brunswick Cellulose Recovery Boiler No. 6 (M24) 7-2-07 9-17-07 1-17-08 H.10-2

GA Pacific Cedar Springs Power Boiler No. 1 (U500) 7-2-07 9-17-07 1-17-08 H.10-3

GA Pacific Cedar Springs Power Boiler No. 2 (U501) 7-2-07 9-17-07 1-17-08 H.10-4

GA Pacific Cedar Springs Recovery Boiler No. 3 (R402) 7-2-07 9-17-07 1-17-08 7-31-08 8-15-08 H.10-5

GA Pacific, Savannah River Mill Boiler No. 3 (B001) 7-2-07 7-16-07 H.10-6

GA Pacific, Savannah River Mill Boiler No. 4 (B002) 7-2-07 7-16-07 H.10-7

GA Pacific, Savannah River Mill Boiler No. 5 (B003) 7-2-07 7-16-07 H.10-8

Georgia Power Plant Kraft Steam Generator 1 7-12-07 9-7-07 H.10-9

Georgia Power Plant Kraft Steam Generator 2 7-12-07 9-7-07 H.10-10

Georgia Power Plant Kraft Steam Generator 3 7-12-07 9-7-07 H.10-11

Georgia Power Plant McIntosh Steam Generator 1 7-12-07 H.10-12

H.10 - 29-7-07 Georgia Power Plant Mitchell Steam Generator 3 7-12-07 9-7-07 H.10-13

Internat. Paper, Savannah Mill Power Boiler 13 6-29-07 10-11-07 H.10-14

Temple-Inland Rome Linerboard Power Boiler No. 4 6-29-07 11-11-08 H.10-15

A summary worksheet (compiled by EPD) of each emissions unit analysis submitted by the facilities is presented bel ow. Following the individual emissions unit worksheets are a summary worksheet for emissions units in south Georgia (which affect Okefenokee and Wolf Island) and a summary worksheet for emissions units (there is only one) in north Georgia (which affect Cohutta). The south and north Georgia worksheets includ e visibility improvement metrics. Table H.10-2 contains notes of explanation for selected fields and cells in the four-factor analysis spread sheets.

Table H.10-2. Four-Factor Analysis Worksheets: Explanatory Notes

Field Data Source Notes

Class I sulfate impact fraction Georgia EPD This is the impact of su lfate emissions from the specific emissions unit on visibility in the specified Class I area, expressed as a fraction of the combined sulfate impacts of all of the impacting facilities in the Area of Influence. The impact given is based on the VIST AS SO2 projected 2018 emissions. Threshold for inclusion in 4-factor analysis was impact of 0.005 (0 .5 %) or more. 4F baseline SO2 company The baseline emissions used by the facility in the 4- factor submittal. In t he cases of U500 and U501 at GA Pacific Cedar Springs, the number represents emissions after an existing venturi scrubber with water scrubbant (they estimate 30% SO2 control). In the case of GA Pacific Savannah River, all 3 emissions units current ly perform limestone injection for SO2 removal. Baseline basis company In many instances the company used a different baseline emissions level than the VISTAS projected value. A blank field means that the company did not provide a full evaluation and that the VISTAS value has been inserted into the baseline field.

H.10 - 3Field Data Source Notes

Control Technology company Control, deemed technically feasible by the facility, evaluated for reduction of SO2 emissions. Control Effectiveness company Percent reduction as presented in the facility’s 4- factor analysis. In cases where the facility did not list a control effectiveness, this was back-calculated from the tons of reductions. Annual cost, company company Company cost estimates were typically prepared as study-level estimates, a ccurate to within +/- 30 percent

. The costs are assumed to be in 2007 dollars (some companies st ated this explicitly). The annual cost is the su m of the annual operation and maintenance cost and the total installed cost (capital cost), annualized over the life of the project. Project lives ranged from 15 to 20 years, interest rates from 7% to 10%, and capital recovery factors from 0.094 to 0.117. Cost/ton calculation The annual cost divided by the tons reduced from the 4F baseline. Annual Cost, ACNet Air Control Net The estimated annual cost from a query of EPA’s Air Control Net database. The costs listed came from queries which found matches for the applicable technology at the specific unit and facility. The queries provide estimates in 2004 dollars. This number was then escalated to 2006 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. Statutory factors Company A “0” indicates that the submittal provided no information pertaining to the specific factor. A blue cell indicates that the co mpany has indicated that the option could be implement ed prior to Jan. 1, 2012. This would allow the control measure to be in place during all 5 years t hat visibility data will be collected for the 2018 R egional Haze progress report. The expected useful life of all of the emissions units is 2018 or later. Visibility Sensitivity:

Tons SO 2 /Mm -1 Georgia EPD The tons of SO2 required to effect a reduction of 1 Mm -1 (inverse megameter) in the applicable Class I area. This value is i ndependent of the control technology.

Visibility Sensitivity:

$10 6 /Mm -1 Calculation The cost, based on the specific technology, to effect a reduction of 1 Mm -1 (inverse megameter) in the applicable Class I area. This is the product of $/ton and ton/ Mm -1

.

H.10 - 4Field Data Source Notes

Visibility Sensitivity:

Mm -1 Calculation The extinction reducti on (visibility improvement) in Mm -1 that would be achiev ed in the applicable Class I area by implementation of the specific control. An orange cell indicates an extinction reduction of greater than 0.010 and less than 0.100. A light green cell indicates an extinction reduction of greater than 0.100.

Abbreviations Used:

ACNet – Air Control Net acfm – actual cubic feet per minute CRF – capital recovery factor dscfm – dry standard c ubic feet per minute Mm -1 (inverse megameter)

Following the summary worksheets of the four-factor analyses are copies of the original facility submittals. Followup subm ittals (if applicable) from the facilities may be inspected at the offices of Georgia EPD’s Air Protection Branch as noted above.

H.10 - 5