# INTERNATIONAL@ PAPER Ticonderoga Mill 568 Shore Airport Road Ticonderoga NY 12883 518-585-5300 

### December6, 2011 SentViaElectronicMail FollowedBy FederalExpress Tracking#795477490684 Mr. Michael Sundberg, P.E. New YorkStateDepartmentof

Environmental Conservation 232 GolfCourseRoad P.O. Box 220 Warrensburg, New York 12885 Subject: Responseto Comments ontheInternational PaperTiconderogaMill's BestAvailableRetrofit Technology (BART) Analysis DearMr. Sundberg: Theencloseddocumentis inresponsetoyouremail onAugust 12, 2011 requesting additional informationrelatedto theBARTAnalysis submittedtoNYSDEC inOctober2010. This document is intendedto supplementbutnotrepeattheprevious analysis andthereforeis notanentirely standalone document. Forreferencewehave includedthe originalEPAlFLMINYSDEC comments as Enclosure 1. Themill's responseto thesecomments is includedas Enclosure 2along withAppendices AthroughE. PleasecontactAmyDostieat 518-585-5344 ifyouneedadditional informationconcerningthis submittal. Sincerely, INTERNATIONALPAPER

KirkCarlson Mill Manager
enclosures

cc: D. Messner, Environmental, Healthand SafetyManager G. Rives, CorporateEnvironmental ScottGriffin NYSDEC

- DivisionofAirResources Bureau ofAirQualityPlanning 625 Broadway, Floor Albany, NY I 1

# Enclosure 1: NYSDEC Re uestforAdditional Information
EPAComments on International PaperTiconderoga Mill

Power Boiler (80% NO.6 Fuel Oil (1.5% S) and 20% wood bark) This boilercurrently has a24-houraverage permitted limitof309 Ib/hrS02 [EPAcalculates this is equivalentto 0.36 Ib/MM BTU and 1353TPY based upon 24hr/365days] using a NaOH wet scrubberfor control. This equatesto approximately78% S02 reduction when combusting 1.5%sulfur [EPA calculates this is equivalentto about 1.65 Ib/MM BTU] No.6 Fuel Oil. IP/NY has determined that even ifthe S02 emission limit could be reduced to 0.20 Ib/MM BTU (NSPS requirement foroil fired boiler), the visibility modeling results in an insignificantvisibility impact. EPA agrees with FWS' comment that EPA's BART Guidelines provide that an upgrade/improved operation ofexisting control devices should be considered as a BARTalternative. For NaOH wet scrubbing, EPA believesthat perhaps 95-98% removal efficiency may be a possible from the existing 78% removal efficiency, equivalent to emissions in the range of0.03 to 0.08 Ib/MM BTU. EPA believes this upgrade should be evaluated for BART. IP/NYconcludes that BARTfor NOx is the continued use of LNB/FGR to achieve emissions of0.25 Ib/MM BTU. IP did not conduct any 5-factor BARTanalysis but concludes that no further controls are needed since modeling shows only small visibility improvement when assuming thatthe future NY NOx RACT emission limit of0.15 Ib/MM BTU would be met. EPA agrees with FWS' comment that a technical/economic evaluation of pre and post combustion controls needs to be conducted along with a determination ofcost/dv. Recovery Boiler (Black Liquor

### + up to 10% No.6 Fuel Oil) IP should conduct a5-factor BARTanalysis for controlling S02 emissions with wet scrubbing and semidry scrubbing. EPA agrees with FWS' comments. Also, please provide additional explanation as to how "staged combustion systems" is acontrol measure for S02 emissions as EPA is unfamiliarwith it.
EPA concurs with FWS' recommendation to examine "low-temperature oxidation" as a BART measure for controlling NOx emissions.
EPA agrees with the FWS' recommendation to examine the implementation ofadditional collection fields for upgrading the performance ofthe existing ESP for control of PM emissions.
Additional Federal Land ManagerComments on International PaperTiconderoga Mill Regarding S02control on the Recovery Boiler, IP stated that ofthe three wet scrubbers installed on recovery boilers in the United States, none was installed for S02control. However, the Ft. James recoveryfurnace wet-scrubber in Camas, Washington, was installed for S02 control following the ESP. This alternative should be examined forthe IP Recovery Boiler.

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSupplemental Information

I. POWER BOILER BART EVALUATION
A. BACKGROUND
- POWER BOILERANDCONTROLDESCRIPTION
The Ticonderoga Power Boiler is an Erie City multi-fuel fired spreaderstoker boilerdesigned with a maximum steam rating of600 kpph and afuel heat input rating of855 MMBtu/hr. The boilerwas initially constructed in 1969 and is a BARTeligible unit because it began initial operation duringthe 15 year period between 1962 and 1977as defined in the Clean AirAct. It isthe mill's only power boiler. The power boileroperates in aswing capacity varying steam production based on process demand and also serves as the onlycontrol device for non-condensible gases (NCGs) generated from various pulping operations. The boiler is designed to burn wood residue and No.6 fuel oil and typically operates with a fuel mix of80% oil and 20% wood residue (heat input basis). It is equipped with primary and secondary combustion airsystems and low NOxoil burners. Combustion exhaust gases pass through superheater and economizertube sections for heat recovery and then through multi-clones and awet scrubber before exhausting to atmosphere through a205 foot stack.
The power boiler is currently subjectto emission limits for sulfurdioxide (S02), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and filterable particulate (PM), the three major precursors of regional haze. Emission limits forthese pollutants originate from BestAvailable Control Technology (BACT), ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RACT) as well as NYstate regulations. The boiler is also subjectto Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) regulations and will be required to meet emission limits for PM-HAP, acid gases, HAP metals and organic HAP once requirements become effective in 20151

. 

### The follOWing table summarizes permitted emission limitsthat currently apply to the boiler relative to a 24-houraveraging period. Maximum allowable emissions are underlined and shown in bold font. These same emission limits are also expressed in approximate equivalent forms (as denoted by brackets) to allow "applesto apples" comparison between these existing performance levels and Best Available Retrofit (BART) alternatives. POWER BOILER EMISSION LIMITSATMAX DESIGN CAPACITY

### 855 MMBTU/HR POLLUTANT LB/HR LB/MMBTU CONC. AT

### 8% 02

PM-FILT [85.5] 

### 0.10 [0.047 GR/DSCF]



### S02 309 [0.36] [145 PPM,DV] 

### NOx 

### [214] 

### 0.25 [139 PPM,DV]



### The March 21, 2011 Boiler MACT (76 Fed. Reg. 15608) requires existing sources to be in compliance with new requirements no laterthan March 21, 2014. This date has been suspended pending further rule revisions. EPA anticipates a mid 2015 final compliance date associated with the revised Boiler MACT rule.
2

# Enclosure 2: IP Response BARTSupplemental Information
As described more fully in the October 1, 2010 submission2
, baseline emissions ofS02 and NOx used in the BART modeling analysis were the maximum single day emission rates recorded by the continuous emission monitors (CEMS) during the 5year baseline period (2005 2009) while baseline PM emissions were derived from stacktest measurements and the highest single heat input rate (698 MMBtu/hr) recorded during the same five year baseline period. The following table shows the maximum Ib/hr emission rates used in the modeling analysis and also expresses these rates in approximate equivalent terms to allowdirect comparison with emission limits or performance levelsthat may be expressed in alternative formats. POWER BOILER BASELINE EMISSIONS (MAXSINGLE DAY24-HOURAVG BETWEEN 2005AND 2009) POLLUTANT LB/HR LB/MMBTU CONC. AT8% 02

PM-FILT 47.5 0.07 0.032 GR/DSCF

S02 273.5 0.39 157 PPM,DV NOx 178 0.25 142 PPM,DV

B. POWER BOILERS02: EPA/FWSCOMMENTSAND IP 

### RESPONSES
1. EPA/FWS Comment: EPA notesthatthe existing S02 emission limit of309 Ibs/hrcorresponds to a removal efficiency ofonly78% for S02, although 95 to 98% removal may be possible.
IP 

### RESPONSE: Because the power boileralso serves as the control device for Non-Condensible Gases (NCGs), the sulfur content ofthese gases also contribute to S02 emissions. Had the sulfur from these gases**(~229** 

### Ibs/hr) been taken into account, EPA's calculations would reflect an uncontrolled S02 rate of2,117 Ib/hr (2.48 Ib S02/MMBtu) showing a scrubber removal efficiency of approximately85%. Additional detail related to NCG sulfurcontribution to boileremissions is included as Appendix A. Considerations for improving S02 removal efficiency are discussed below.
2. EPA/FWS Comment: Upgrades or improvementsto the existing scrubber should be evaluated since 95 to 98% S02 removal (equivalent to range of0.03 to 0.08 Ib/MMBtu) may be possible. IP 

### RESPONSE: We believe this comment stems from the BARTguidelines3 

### which say "you should considerways to improve the performance ofexisting control devices particularlywhen acontrol device is not achieving the level ofcontrol that othersimilar sources are achieving in practice". Available options for increasing the amount ofS02 removed in the scrubber are significantly limited bythe fact that the device is designed as a PM scrubberand therefore should not be compared to performance levels ofdevices designed specifically forthe purpose of removing S02. Ifphysical or operational changes are made to increase S02 removal these changes could not be allowed to
"Five Factor BARTAnalysis for International PaperTiconderoga Mill", prepared byAECOM, October 1, 2010. 70 FR 39166, column, July 6, 2005. 3

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSupplemental Information adversely affect PM removal efficiencyorjeopardize the abilityto comply with PM emission limits. Similarly, because the boilerserves asthe only control device for burning NCGs, both the boilerand scrubber must be able to operate continuously without unplanned shutdowns orfailures. Failure or malfunction ofthe mill's only power boilerorscrubbertriggers immediate, emergency shutdown ofall process operations atthe facility including venting ofuncontrolled NCG gases undercertain situations. Forthese reasons, BARTalternatives that involve physical oroperational changes to improve 502 

### removal from the existing scrubber must be limited to those that can strike an appropriate balance between control of502, 

### PM and NCG emissions. The following considers each ofthe "five factor" BARTevaluation steps as they relate to physical or operational changes to improve 502 

### removal from the existing scrubber. Step 1: IdentifyAvailable Retrofit Control Technologies: The principle techniques for improving 502

### removal involve either: 1) increasing gas-liquid contact or2) using additional caustic to increase the rate ofabsorption. Increasing the gas-liquid interaction requires expanding the amount ofsurface area forthe gas and liquid to contact which is commonlyaccomplished in a502

### absorber byadding trays or packing and by designing the height and diameterofthe absorberto optimize Iiquid- gas interaction and residence time. The scrubberon the power boiler is an EntoleterCentrifield design installed in 1995to control PM. It is a medium energy design that relies on its geometry and exhaust gas flow patternsto remove PM without the energy penalty required by a high pressure drop venturi design. Thistype of scrubberwas one ofeight "novel" PM control technologies evaluated by EPA in astudy4

### focused on fine PM removal capabilities of nonconventional particulate control systems. Described in brief, exhaust gases enterthe bottom ofthe scrubberthrough narrow openings in afixed vane cage. Alkaline liquid is sprayed into the gas as it acceleratesthrough narrow openings where the liquid is atomized into very small droplets, similarto the effect achieved in the throat ofaventuri scrubber. The scrubberdimensions and geometry directthe gas into aswirling vortex motion to create a concentrated "cloud" ofsmall liquid droplets which intercept and remove PM from the gases before passing through asecond level of liquid spray priorto passing through ademisterand exhausting to the atmosphere. Scrubberdimensions and liquid and gasflow patterns are fundamental design elements affecting the PM removal performance ofthis scrubbertype. Step 2: EliminateTechnically Infeasible Options: Because ofthe design and operating principles associated with this scrubber, physical changes to the design orgeometryto significantly increase liquid-gas interaction would altergas flow and liquid atomization patterns both ofwhich are critical for PM removal. Forthis reason, IP concludes that physical modification ofthe scrubberwould adversely affect PM control and are therefore not technicallyfeasible BARTalternatives.

Evaluation ofEightNovelFine Particle Collection Devices, Final TaskReport Feb-Nov 1975, EPA-600/2-76-035.

4

# Enclosure 2: IP Response BARTSupplemental Information Step 3: Evaluatethe Control Effectiveness of Feasible Technologies: Increasing caustic addition rates can theoreticallyenhance S02 removal as long asthere is sufficient liquid and gas mixing to allowthe chemical reaction to occur. Increasing the rate ofcausticwill create highersolids concentrations in the recirculation liquid from both the caustic and the sulfite and sulfate salts formed bythe chemical scrubbing action. While historical stacktests showthat the power boilerscrubberconsistently removes PM at levelsto satisfy permit limits, actual emissions are generally about 70-80% ofthe limit leaving a relatively small compliance margin. Since high solids content in scrubber liquids can be stripped out bythe exhaust gas and cause PM emissions to increase, additional fresh water makeup will be required to maintain an adequate compliance margin for PM. Prospects ofincreasing caustic rates also raise notable concerns over scale formation and its potential impact on long term operational reliability and particularlythe length of run time between scheduled maintenance outages since these factors impact mill-wide operations. Excessive scale bUildup can adversely impact pumps, piping and liquid spray patterns, features that are critical factors affecting the performance ofany scrubber and likely even more important relative to this unique scrubberdesign. To predict the possible impactof increased caustic addition on the rate ofscale and to determine ifchemical additives could effectively manage scale buildup, mill personnel and aspecialty chemical vendor performed a limited series ofshortterm trials. Overall, the trials demonstrated that chemical additives can be used up to a pointto manage scale buildup when combined with management ofscrubber liquid and freshwater makeup. Balancing PM emissions, scale buildup and reliability concerns, IP concludes that increasing the rate ofcaustic is atechnicallyfeasible alternative up to acertain point. Based on a review of boiler operations and emissions during the BART baseline period (Appendix B), lowering the maximum 24-houremission limit by 59 Ib/hr(from 309 Ib/hrto 250 Ib/hr) would require additional S02 reduction on an average of239 days/yras seen below (to consistently average 250 Ib/hror lessthe mill estimatestargeting an operational setpoint ofapproximately 225 Ib/hr, thus leading to a maximum actual lessthan the permitted value). This alternative is believed to be the lowest achievable emission rate during periods where steam demand is high and bark/wood residue is not available.


### Numberof Days Avg 502 Emission Rates are Above/Below 225 Ib/hr



# ... 300 239 ttl OJ


# - >


# ... 200**_.~_._~ --~-----_.**  

### - -- -

### -- ...**_---~----". ~-_._~,,-~-**  OJ 0- 

### 110 III 

### > ttl 

### 100 

# I I: - - - -- -- -**----~,,- --~~~-**  

## c



# .... 0 

### ci 

## a

-- - - --------T
--- -**----------,,--~---~** Z :5 

### 225 >

### 225

5

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSupplemental Information
As detailed in Appendix B, this alternative would be expected to reduce the maximum single day 

### S02 emission rate by49 Ib/hr. Asummaryofthe impact ofthis emission reduction alternative compared to existing levels ofcontrolled and uncontrolled emissions is included in the following table. 

## Effectiveness of BARTAlternative Compared to Existing 

## S02 Emissions

La/ % REDUCTION

La/HR MMBTU FROM SINGLE DESCRIPTION (ATSINGLE 

# TPY FROM FROM DAVMAX DAYMAX UNCTRL ALLOWABLE ACTUALLB/HR MMBTU)
UNCONTROLLED 

### 1,897 2.72 8,309 

## -

- -
ALLOWABLE 

### 309 0.44 1,353 84% 

## -

-
AVG ANNUAL BASELINE ACTUAL 

### 217 0.31 952 89% 30% 21%

BASELINE ACTUAL SINGLE DAY MAX 

### 274 0.39
CAUSTIC ADDITION ALTERNATIVE:
ALTERNATIVE LIMIT 

### 250 0.36 1,095 87%


## - 9%

EXPECTED ACTUAL ANNUAL AVG 

### 215.5 0.31 903 89% 33% 21%

EXPECTED SINGLE DAY MAX 

### 225 0.32


## - 18%

Step 4: Determine the Impacts of Implementing FeasibleTechnologies Operating costs to implementthe described alternative are estimated to be $109,000 peryear (Appendix 

### C). Based on IPs standard management practicesto retain a margin ofcompliance, the operating pointfor

### S02 emissionswill need to be set at 225 Ib/hr. As seen below, daily average 

### S02 emissions were higherthan this rate an average of239 days/yroverthe 5yr BART baseline period.

6

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BART Supplemental Information

;:: 250 ;:: 175 < 200 <': 200 <225 <': 225 <250 

### S02 Emission Rate < 175 

### 200 

### iiii > III


# ... 150 

# e Ql**.~** 

### 4i 

### 100 <II III 

### co



# .... 0:: 

### SO co



# ... > 

## a > III C # 

### Distribution of DailyS02 Emission Rates Power Boiler -----------------------------------------186--------------- 400 350 300 250 

# 2l # 

### 200 150 ::J 

### 100 E ::J 

### SO V 

## a

On average during the 5yr baseline period, daily502 emission rates exceeded 225 Ib/hrduring these days by an average rate of 17 Ibjhr. Based on these historical operationsthis alternative would be expected to reduce average annual emissions by approximately49 tons of502 

### (From 952 to 903 tpy) reflecting acost effectiveness ofapproximately $2,200jton 502 

### removed. As detailed in the Appendix, implementation ofthis alternative would require 4.7 million gallons of additional fresh water, 8,900 Ibs ofadditional chemical additives and would send an additional 98 tonsjyrofsolidsto the wastewatertreatment facility that would require removal and disposal in the landfill. Step 5: Determinethe Visibility Improvementfrom Implementing FeasibleTechnologies The BART regulations rely on the "deciview" asthe metricforexpressing changes in visibility. The deciview is a measure to describe visibility change using acommon orstandardized measure that applies regardless ofthe level of background impairment. Achange ofone deciview is defined as a small but noticeable change in visibility under most circumstances_s Visibility modeling analyses included in the October2010 evaluation predicted maximum impacts from power boileremissions at the Lye BrookWilderness Area which isthe Class I Area closest to the Ticonderoga mill. The analysis predicted that peak emissions from the power boiler could have a maximum visibility impact ranging from 0.64 to 0.73 DV compared to natural background visibility presuming the absence ofany man-made emissions. The reported DV range reflects the two different impacts predicted using the two meteorological data bases required by NY5DEC for visibility contribution modeling. Implementation ofthe described caustic502

### reduction alternative is predicted to theoretically improve visibilityat Lye Brookon the maximum single impact day by a range of0.02 to 0.11

5 64 Federal Register, page 

### 35725, July 

### 1, 1999_ 7

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSupplemental Information
deciviews, depending upon the meterological data set used to represent natural background conditions. Visibility Improvement (dv) Class I Area 

### Max Single Impact Day AECOM Met VTDEC Met Data Data Acadia National Park 0.02 0.01 BrigantineWilderness 0.00 0.00 Dolly SodsWilderness 0.01 0.00 Great GulfWilderness 0.04 0.00 Lye BrookWilderness 0.02 0.11 OtterCreekWilderness 0.01 0.00 Presidential Range 0.02 0.04 TOTAL (all combined) 

## 0.12 0.17 $/dv improvement 

## $908,000 $641,000

The visibility improvement at each ofthe region's Class I areas associated with the BARTalternative is shown belowand compared to the level ofchange that can be discerned by the human eye. The final graph showsthe numberofdays peryearthatthe model predictsvisibility impairment would be in each ofthe listed ranges at Lye Brook, ifthe maximum emission rate occurred each and every day.

8

# Enclosure 2: IP Res onse BARTSupplemental Information
Theoretical Visibility Improvementfrom BART S02 Alternative 1.2 

## "> 1 > 

### 0.8 

# :c ·iii 

### .s; 0.6



# .: :0 0.4 

### c ro 

# <5 0.2 

## o IIAECOM Met Data IIVTDEC Met

f)rltrl

- ...

# _ ...



# .. ---

-.-..-



# --

...

# --**~" ~"** 

### ~" 

# ,,"**~"** 

## q;.**~1> ~I<>** **~I<> ~I<>** **~I<> ~I<>**  I<>.Ji 

### r!- r!- r!- or!- r!-**1>~ ~v** 

## ~~?J**~~?J ~~?J** 

## ~~?J**~~ ~o** 

### ~~ .:01> .:00**~1>** I<> 

### 0" 

# J:- 2fr**.ol<>~** I<>'Q**.:o~ ~v**  ,&1> 

### ,.,0**~0** 

### <0,0 

## ef<;**~e; ~,I<>**  (,1> 

# .9J**~-4..** 1<>1> 

# ,l 1<>'**1>~** 

### "?' <0'''- 

# ,p (§ 

### O<:? v<$' 

### X'

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 

# MaxVisibility Impactfrom Ti Power Boiler Lye Brook, VT Class I Area

•••••••••••••••••• 313 <1.9 0 <0.8 0 'iii'

## ~<0.7 1**:~** u OJ 

### 9.<0.6 1



# ... c OJ 

### E<0.5 2 ·iii 

### a.. .E<0.4 

### >

## ~<0.3 

## :> -0 

### $<0.2 .!:! -0 OJ 

### et<O.l 0 No. Days Modeled Impact Predicted by Impairment Level

9

# Enclosure 2: IP Response BARTSupplementalInformation
Power Boiler BART502

### Conclusion:
IP does not believe that S02 reduction is warranted to satisfy BARTobjectives. S02 emissions are currentlywell controlled and satisfy presumptive BART benchmarks outlined for oil-fired utility boilers. Implementing the described alternative would be expensive relative to an imperceptible level of theoretical visibility improvement. Implementing the alternative would require significant quantities of fresh water and chemicals, and create additional wastewater and solid waste. In addition, because the emission control systems will be substantially changed to address boiler MACTobligations in the near future and because the boiler already performs at levels recognized to be presumptive BART, IP concludes that existing S02controls and performance levels satisfy S02 BARTforthe power boiler. C. POWER BOILER NOxBART; EPA/FWSCOMMENTSAND IP RESPONSES
1. EPAIFWS Comment: Atechnical/economic evaluation of pre- and post combustion NOx controls should be conducted. IP RESPONSE: IP is currentlyassessing alternatives for reducing NOx emissions to satisfy NY NOx ReasonablyAvailable Control Requirements (RACT). The power boiler is already equipped with low NOx burners, overfired air and flue gas recirculation. The objective ofthe current assessment is to identify operational measures, system enhancements, physical changes and/orequipment needed to satisfythe new

### 0.15 Ib/ MMBtu standard for NOxwhile simultaneously achieving carbon monoxide (CO) emissions reductions necessaryto satisfy Boiler MACT requirements. This analysis will be submitted byyear end.

10

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSupplementalInformation

RECOVERY FURNACE BART EVALUATION
A. BACKGROUND
- RECOVERY FURNACE AND CONTROL DESCRIPTION 

### The Ticonderoga recoveryfurnace (RF) is a noncontact Babcock

### & Wilcox low odor design installed in**~1969** 

### having a maximum permitted black liquorfiring capacityof48 TBLS/hr. The unit is designed with secondary and tertiary combustion airand is equipped with oil burners for startup operations and use in upset conditions. Exhaust gases are routed through superheater and economizer sections to recover heat priorto exhausting through three separate electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Two ofthese precipitators exhaustthrough acommon stack; the other exhausts through its own stack. The purpose ofa Kraft recoveryfurnace isto reclaim sodium and sulfur chemicals in aform suitable for regenerating cooking liquor. To achieve this purpose, furnaces are inherently designed and operated in a mannerto optimize chemical recovery. 

### S02 emissions represent an unintended loss of process chemicals and thus furnaces are designed and operated to minimize these losses. The lower portion ofa recovery furnace is operated to form a reducing zone to convert sodium and sulfurcompounds into molten smelt. The upperfurnace is operated as an oxidizing zone to burn organic materials to create heatto evaporate water from the cooking liquor, drive chemical reactions in the lowerfurnace. Combustion air is spatially distributed throughoutthe furnace or "staged" to control and manage the amount ofair introduced into each functional zone and to minimize entrainment ofchemicals in the furnace exhaust gases. The Ticonderoga recovery furnace is subjectto emission limits forfilterable PM, and NOx as shown below. These limits originate from MACT, RACTas well as NY state regulations. Maximum allowable emissions are underlined and shown in bold font in the form and format ofthe emission requirement as well as shown in roughly equivalent alternative formats (as denoted by brackets).
RECOVERY FURNACE EMISSION LIMITS 

### [48TBLS/HR]
POLLUTANT LB/HR LB/TBLS CONC. AT

### 8%

### 02

PM-FILT 

### [29.8] [0.62] 0.03 GR/DSCF



### NOx [82.6] [1.72] 100PPM,DV

11

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSupplemental Information
RECOVERY FURNACE BASELINE ACTUAL EMISSIONS (48TBLS/HR) MAX24-HOURAVG (2005-2009) POLLUTANT LB/HR LBS/TBLS CONC. AT8% 02

PM-Fill 8.1 0.17 0.008GR/DSCF

S02 0.7 0.02 0.6 PPMDV NOx 64.8 1.35 72 PPMDV

B. RECOVERY FURNACE S02 BART: EPA/FWSCOMMENTSAND IP RESPONSE

1. EPA/FWS Comment: IP should perform a 5-factoranalysis for controlling 502

### from the Recovery Boiler considering both wet and semi-dryscrubbing.
IP RESPONSE: 502 

### emissions from the Ticonderoga RF are currently as low as the most stringent emission limits established for any US RF, including limits for brand new installations. Asearch of EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse6 

### (RBCL) which is summarized in Appendix D 

### showsthatthe lowest 502 

### emission limit for any US recovery furnace is 10 parts per million (ppm) (dryvolume basis at 8% 

### O2), 

### Except forthe two heat recovery scrubbers installed at the Camas Washington mill, none ofthe other case-by-case permit decisions listed in RGB identifies add-on controls as the basis 502

### limits for Recovery Furnaces. All remaining permit decisions have been based on pollution prevention measures or have identified that no feasible controls are available.
The Ticonderoga RF is already equipped with design features and operating practices necessaryto promote good operation and low502

### emissions. Stacktest measurements conducted overthe last several years have shown emissions to be between 1 and 10 ppm. Because emissions from the Ticonderoga RF are already equivalent to or betterthan levels achieved bythe best performing furnaces and because important furnace design features and operational practices identified as potentially influencing 502

### emissions are already in place, IP does not believe that further evaluation of RF 502

### controls is warranted. Consistent with the guidelines promulgated at 40 CFR 51, Appendix

### Vwhich states that "Ifyou find that a BARTsource has controls already in place which are the most stringent controls available (note thatthis meansthat all possible improvementsto any control devices have been made), then it is not necessaryto comprehensively complete each following step ofthe BARTanalysis in this section." IP concludes that the operation and

EPA Clean Air CenterTechnology: (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/rblc/) EPA established the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, or RBLC, to prOVide acentral data base of air pollution technology information including past RACT, BACT, and LAER NSR decisions, to promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case determinations. 

### 12

# Enclosure 2: IPRes onseBARTSu plemental Information performance ofthe Ti RF already represent BARTfor

### 502

### and no further improvements are considered. 2. EPA/FWS Comment: Explain how "staged combustion systems" is acontrol measure for

### 502 

### emissions. IP RESPONSE: 

### As described above, the primary purpose ofa Kraft Recovery Furnace isto reclaim cooking chemicals. Managing the amountofair introduced into the lower portion ofthe furnace ensuresthe reducing atmosphere needed to drive chemical reactions and to form molten smelt. Controlling the distribution ofairthroughoutthe furnace (orstaging the combustion process) allows the temperature and oxygen profilesthroughoutthe furnace to be managed aswell as atthe molten smelt char bed level. When sulfurand sodium combine to form smelt, sulfur is captured not released to the flue gas and therefore notavailable to form 

### 502

### emissions. Black liquorsolids typicallycontain about4 %sulfur byweight and more than 99% ofthe sulfur entering the furnace is recovered in the molten smelt orsubsequently in the ESP with onlyasmall fraction being emitted as 

### 502• 

### 3. FWS Comment: The Federal Land Manager (FLM) disagrees with the statement on page 3-6 of IP's October2010 BARTAnalysis which claims that scrubbers have not been installed on US recovery boilers forthe purpose of removing 

### 502, 

### The FLM comment states "However, the Ft. James recoveryfurnace wetscrubberin Camas, Washington was installedfor

### S02 controlfollowing the ESP. This alternativeshouldbe examinedforthe IPRecoveryBoiler".
IP RESPONSE: 

### The summary statement included in ourOctober2010 BARTAnalysis remains accurate, 

### 502

### scrubbers have not been installed on any US recoveryfurnace. Ourconclusion was based on information available from the National Council forAir and Stream Improvement (NCASI) document "Retrofit Control TechnologyAssessmentfor NOx, 

### 502, 

### and PM Emissionsfrom Kraft Pulp and Paper Mill Unit Operations,,7 acopyofwhich was included along with ouroriginal October 2010 report. NCASI is an independent, non-profit research institute that focuses on technical solutionsfor minimizing environmental impacts from the pulp and paper industry and is a recognized authorityand leading source of reliable information related to environmental data and control practices used at North American pulp and paper mills. NCASI describes the application of 

### 502

### scrubbers on Recovery Furnaces asfollows:

13

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSu plemental Information
"Thereisnoexperiencein thepulpandpaperindustrywith the useofdedicated, add-onfluegas desulfurization technologiesonKraftrecoveryfurnaces. Althoughthereare

## afewscrubberson U.S. Kraftrecoveryfurnaces, noneofthese wereinstalledforS02 removal. Onlyone U.

## S. recoveryfurnace doesnotuseanESPforparticulatecontrol; this unithas venturiscrubbersinstead. Alloftheother scrubbersfollowanESP. Two wereinstalledforheatrecoveryreasons, althoughsomeS02scrubbing mayalsobeoccurringespeciallywhencausticisaddedtothescrubbingsolution. Onescrubber followinganESPwasinstalledwith themainpurposeofachievingincrementalparticulatematter removal. AnotherscrubberfollowinganESPwasinstalledon

## afurnace with

## adirectcontactevaporator tocontrolblackliquordropletsbeingentrainedin thecascadeandtravelingallthe waythroughoutthe ESPandoutthestack. Evenifthesescrubbershadbeeninstalledtoreduce S02emissions, the removalcostsin terms ofdollarspertonofS02 removedwouldbelargeduetohighgasflows andsitespecificretrofitconsiderations. Significantcapitalwouldberequiredforthelargegashandling equipmentandadditionalinducedfan capacityneededtoovercometheincreasedpressuredrop acrossthescrubber. "
The FLM comment refers to a 1991 permit decision in EPA's Clearinghouse (RBLC ID#WA-0222) that lists "add-on control" as the basis for an S02 BACTdecision fortwo recoveryfurnaces at the FortJames mill in Camas, Washington (now owned byGeorgia Pacific). Close review ofthe Fort James permit determination shows thatthe devices were not S02scrubbers but instead were direct contact heat exchangers used to supplement the mill's process hotwatersupply system.

C. RECOVERYFURNACE NOx: EPA/FWSCOMMENTSAND IP RESPONSE

1. EPA/FWS Comment: IP should evaluate "low-temperature oxidation" as a BART measure for controlling NOxfrom the Recovery Boiler.
IP RESPONSE: IP is not familiarwith the "lowtemperature oxidation" control technique referenced by EPAand FWS. Our search ofthe RBCL for NOxdeterminations (Appendix E) did not identifyany US location where this technique had been applied as BACT, RACTor LAER for recoveryfurnaces. With the exception ofa 1996 permit decision forApple Grove Pulp and Paper in WV which was never built, the RBLC does not contain any records ofdecisions requiring add-on NOx controls for recoveryfurnaces. About one-third ofthe recent determinations have found that there were no feasible controls available and the balance have identified "Pollution Prevention" methods such as "combustion control", "good design, combustion practices" or "staged combustion" asthe basis for BACTand LAER permit limits.
The lowest NOx limit in the RBCL is 75 ppm (at 8% 02) based on a May 2005 permit BACTdecision at IP's Courtland, AL mill. With one exception, all permit decisions since 2006 have been in the range of range of80 to 100 ppm (at 8% 02), orgenerally in the 1.50to 2.30 Ibs NOx perton of black liquorsolids when limits are expressed in terms of production throughput. Several ofthese recent decisions have applied to brand newfurnaces orsignificant modifications at existing RFs
14

# Enclosure 2: IPResponse BARTSupplemental Information involving capacity increases orfundamental changes to furnace design not available in the late 1960'swhen the Ticonderoga furnace was designed and installed.
As noted earlier, the Ticonderoga recoveryfurnace is currentlysubjectto a RACT NOx limit of 100 ppm (at 8% 02)**(~** 

### 1.72 Lb[TBLS). Stack measurements have consistently demonstrated NOx emission levels in the range of60 - 75 ppm. The Ti furnace is equipped with design features to promote good operation and combustion practices, including athree level combustion air system. Since NOxemissions are already demonstrated to be as lowas those from most newfurnaces and because there are no add-on controls technologies available for recoveryfurnaces, IP concludes that existing design and operations ofthe Ticonderoga recoveryfurnace satisfies NOx BART. 

### D. RECOVERYFURNACE PM: EPA/FWSCOMMENTSAND IP 

### RESPONSE
1. EPA/FWS Comment: IP should evaluate adding additional collection fields to the ESP used to control PM from the Recovery Boiler. IP 

### RESPONSE: The Ticonderoga recoveryfurnace is already subject to MACT PM-HAP controls. The MACTstandard was promulgated in 2001 and became effective in 2004. There have been no significant advances or newtechnologies for controlling PM since the MACTwas developed. EPA's BARTGuidelines state "We believe that in manycases, it will be unlikelythat States will identify emission controls more stringent than the MACTstandards without identifying control options thatwould cost manythousands ofdollars perton. Unless there are newtechnologies subsequentto the MACTstandards which would lead to cost effective increases in the level of control, you may rely on the MACTstandards for purposes of BART.8 

### Because the MACT PM-HAP control level continues to reflect the best available technology and there have not been significant advances or new technologies, IP concludes thatthe existing RF PM control levels satisfy BART.

70 Federal Register 39164, July 6, 2005, 39164. 

### 15**~'** 

### Appendix A: Sulfur Content of NCGs

Total Fuel Heat Input (MMBtu/hr) 855 % from Fuel Oil 80% % from Bark 20% #6 Fuel Oil (MMBtu/hr) 684 Wt% S 1.5% API gravity 5.0 Density (Ibs/gal) 8.65 Heat Content (MMBtu/gal) 0.15 Lbs S/hrfrom Oil 591.4 

### 1.51bsSl100Ibs Oil"8.65Ibs Oil/galOil"galoi1/0.15MMBtu"

### 684 MMBtu/hr

# = /bs Slhr Lbs S02/MMBtu Oil 1.73
Bark (MMBtu/hr) 171 Wt% S, dry basis 0.05% Heat Content (Btu/lb, dry basis) 

### 8,300 Lbs S/hrfrom Bark 10.3 

### 0.051bs Sl100IbsdryBark *Ibdrybark/8300Btu

### * 10"6BtulMMBtu

### *171.6 MMBtulhr

# =IbsSlhr % Sulfurconverted to H2S04 

### (%) 0.1% % Sulfur converted to S02 (%) 99.9% 100.0% Pollutant Input by Fuel/Gas Stream (Ib/hr) Scrubber Compound LVHC HVLC #6 Fuel Bark Total to UOM Gases Oil Boiler Gases Dimethyl Disulfide Ib/hr 42.9 16.5 0.0 0.0 99.8

Dimethyl Sulfide Ib/hr 56.6 24.5 0.0 0.0 123.0 Emissto Atmos Hydrogen Sulfide Ib/hr 51.7 13.4 0.0 0.0 126.4 Ib/hr Methyl Mercaptan Ib/hr 73.0 55.3 0.0 0.0 213.7 

## .Power Boller Rem Effie eorresp to Allowable Total Sulfur Ib/hr 155.7 73.4 591.4 10.3 1059.7 1059.7 85.3% 155.6 Sulfur Dioxide Ib/hr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2117.4 85.4% 309.0 SulfuricAcid Mist Ib/hr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2Appendix B: Analysis of Baseline Power Boiler 502 Emissions 

### Power BoilerAvg 502 Ib/hr(24-hr) 250 250 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 :lYK Max 

### 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 Day Rank Avg anyYR 1 271.8 264.3 273.5 259.3 269.2 268 274 42.6

# .~ 34.3 44.2 2 

### I 269.2 263.7 266.9 253.9 260.5 263 269 37.8 28.9 35.5 3 268.2 263.3 266.1 252.6 258.4 262 268 36.7 43.2 41.1 27.6 33.4 4 267.2 262.8 263.7 252.1 35.7 42.1 .7 27.1 32.7 5 266.6 262.3 263.2 251.8 2 267 35.2 41.6 38.2 26.8 32.0 6 266.5 262.0 262.7 251.6 25
. 34.8 41.5.5 7.7 26.6 31.2 7 9 261.6 261.6 251.2 255.4 259 265 33.9 39.9 39.9 36.6 36.6 26.2 30.4 .7 261.3 260.6 251.1 253.6 258 264 33.1 38.7 38.7 36.3 35.6 26.1 28.6 260.9 260.2 251.0 253.5 258 263 32.8

## ~35.2 26.0 28.5 1 260.7 259.8 250.9 253.1 257 262 32.4 .3 34.8 25.9 28.1 250.5 252.7 257 262 31.9
. 36.7 35.6 33.9 25.5 27.7 12 261. 252.6 257 261 31.7 36.4 36.4 35.4 33.8 25.2 27.6 13 252.2 256 261 31.5 36.4

## 36.4~ 33.3 25.2 27.2 0 260.1 258.2 250.1 252.2 256 261 31.3 36.0 36.0 .1 33.2 25.1 27.2 1 5 260.1 257.8 249.9 252.0 256 261 31.1 35.5 35.5 32.8 24.9 27.0 16 260.2 260.1 257.7 249.4 251.9 256 260 30.9 35.2 35.2 35.1 32.7 24.4 26.9 17 260.0 260.0 257.7 249.2 251.6 256 260 30.7 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.7 24.2 26.6 18 259.7 260.0 257.6 249.1 251.1 256 260 30.5 35.0 34.7 35.0 32.6 24.1 26.1 19 259.4 259.9 257.3 248.9 250.9 255 260 30.3 

# 1m 4 34.9 32.3 23.9 25.9 20 259.0 259.8 257.0 248.7 250.9 255 260 30.1 .0 34.8 31.9 23.7 25.9 21 258.6 259.8 256.3 248.6 250.7 255 260 29.8 3 . 33.6 34.8 31.3 23.6 25.7 22 258.5 259.5 256.1 248.6 250.3 255 259 29.6 34.5 33.5 34.5 31.1 23.6 25.3 23 258.3 259.3 255.6 248.4 250.2 254 259 29.4 34.3 33.3 34.3 30.6 23.4 25.2 24 258.3 259.3 255.4 248.3 250.2 254 259 29.3 34.3 33.3 34.3 30.4 23.3 25.2 25 258.0 259.1 254.7 248.3 250.1 254 259 29.0 34.1 33.0 34.1 29.7 23.3 25.1 26 257.7 259.0 253.6 248.3 250.0 254 259 28.7 34.0 32.7 34.0 28.6 23.3 25.0 27 257.7 9.0 253.1 248.1 250.0 254 259 28.6 34.0 32.7 34.0 28.1 23.1 25.0 28 257.1 8.6 253.0 247.9 250.0 253 259 28.3 33.6 32.1 33.6 28.0 22.9 25.0 29 257.1 258.4 252.3 247.9 249.9 253 258 28.1 33.4 32.1 33.4 27.3 22.9 24.9 30 256.9 258.4 251.8 247.9 249.6 253 258 27.9 33.4 31.9 33.4 26.8 22.9 24.6 31 256.9 258.4 251.8 247.9 249.6 253 258 27.9 33.4 31.9 33.4 26.8 22.9 24.6 32 256.3 258.3 251.7 247.8 249.4 253 258 27.7 33.3 31.3 33.3 26.7 22.8 24.4 33 255.8 258.2 251.6 247.6 249.2 252 258 27.5 33.2 30.8 33.2 26.6 22.6 24.2 34 255.6 258.1 251.3 247.5 248.9 252 258 27.3 33.1 30.6 33.1 26.3 22.5 23.9 35 255.4 258.1 251.2 247.5 248.7 252 258 27.2 33.1 30.4 33.1 26.2 22.5 23.7 36 255.3 258.0 251.0 247.4 248.2 252 258 27.0 33.0 30.3 33.0 26.0 22.4 23.2 37 255.2 257.9 250.8 247.4 248.2 252 258 26.9 32.9 30.2 32.9 25.8 22.4 23.2 38 255.1 257.9 250.2 247.3 248.1 252 258 26.7 32.9 30.1 32.9 25.2 22.3 23.1 39 255.0 257.7 250.2 247.2 248.0 252 258 26.6 32.7 30.0 32.7 25.2 22.2 23.0 40 254.5 257.7 250.1 247.2 248.0 252 258 26.5 32.7 29.5 32.7 25.1 22.2 23.0 41 254.4 257.7 249.9 247.0 247.8 251 258 26.4 32.7 29.4 32.7 24.9 22.0 22.8 42 254.4 257.7 249.9 246.9 247.8 251 258 26.3 32.7 29.4 32.7 24.9 21.9 22.8 43 254.2 257.6 249.7 246.9 247.8 251 258 26.2 32.6 29.2 32.6 

### I 24.7 21.9 22.8 44 254.2 7.5 249.6 246.9 247.8 251 258 26.2 32.5 29.2 32.5 24.6 21.9 22.8 45 254.1 257.4 249.4 246.8 247.7 251 257 26.1 32.4 29.1 32.4 24.4 21.8 22.7 46 254.1 257.3 249.3 246.7 247.5 251 257 26.0 32.3 29.1 32.3 24.3 21.7 22.5 47 253.9 257.2 249.3 246.5 247.4 251 257 25.8 32.2 28.9 32.2 24.3 21.5 22.4 48 253.4 256.9 249.1 246.4 247.4 251 257 25.6 31.9 28.4 31.9 24.1 21.4 22.4 49 253.1 256.8 248.9 246.4 247.4 250 257 25.5 31.8 28.1 31.8 23.9 21. 50 2530 256.6 248.4 246.3 247.3 250 257 25.3 31.6 28.0

# m 23.4 21.3 22.3 51 2531= 256.4 247.6 246.3 246.9 2501156 25.0 31.4 28.0 22.6 21.3 21.9 52 252. 256.1 247.3 246.1 246.9 250 56 24.9 31.1 27.9 3 22.3 21.1 21.9 53 252. 256.1 247.2 245.9 246.7 250 256 24.7 31.1 27.7 i 31.1 1 22.2 20.9 21.7 54 252.7 256.0 247.0 245.8 2 50 256 24.7 31.0 27.7 • 31.0 22.0 20.8 21.7 55 252.5 256.0 246.9 2 50 256 24.6 31.0 27.51**31.0~** 21.7 56 252.4 256.0 245.8 2 49 256 24.2 31.0 27.4 31.0 21.3 57 252.2 2560 245.3 2 49 256 

# iFlf 27.210 20.6 21.2 58 252.1 255.9 2452 246.2 249 256 .9 27.1 .9 20.2 20.6 21.2 59 252.0 2558 245.2 246. 49 256 0.8 270 .8 20.2**~6** 21.1 60 251.9 255.8 245.1 246.0 256 0.8 26.9 8 20.1 1 21.0 61 251.9 255.7 245.1 2 245.9 249 256 23.7 30.7 26.9 7 20.1 20.0 20.962 251.5 255.4 245.1 245.0 245.7 249 255 23.5 30.4 26.5 30.4 20.1 20.0 20.7 63 251.4 255.2 245.1 244.8 245.6 248 255 23.4 30.2 26.4 30.2 20.1 19.8 20.6 64 251.4 255.2 244.8 244.5 245.5 248 255 23.3 30.2 26.4 30.2 19.8 19.5 20.5 65 251.3 255.1 244.8 244.4 244.9 248 255 23.1 30.1 26.3 30.1 19.8 19.4 19.9 66 251.3 254.9 244.6 244.4 244.8 248 255 23.0 29.9 26.3 29.9 19.6 19.4 19.8 67 251.2 254.9 244.6 244.3 244.6, 24: 255 22.9 29.9 26.2 29.9 19.6 19.3 19.6 68 251.0 

### I 254.9 244.5 244.2 255 22.8 29.9 26.0 29.9 19.5 I 19.2 19.5 69 250.9 I 254.8 244.5 244.1 244. 22.7 29.8 25.9 29.8 19.5 ! 19.1 19.3 70 250.9 254.8 244.4 244.0 244.0 22.6 29.8 25.8 29.8 19.4 • 19.0 19.0 71 250.8 254.8 244.4 243.9 243.9 22.6 29.8 25.8 29.8 19.4 18.9 18.9 72 250.8 254.2 244.2 243.7 243.6 247 22.3 29.2 25.8 29.2 19.2 18.7 18.6 73 250.7 254.1 243.8 243.4 243.5 247 254 22.1 29.1 25.7 29.1 18.8 18.4 18.5 74 250.6 253.9 243.5 243.3 243.1 247 254 21.9 28.9 25.6 28.9 18.5 18.3 18.1 75 250.6 253.9 243.2 243.3 242.9 247 254 21.8 28.9 25.6 28.9 18.2 18.3 17.9 76 250.4 253.5 243.0 243.3 242.9 247 254 21.6 28.5 25.4 28.5 18.0 18.3 17.9 77 250.3 253.5 242.9 42.7 247 254 21.5 28.5 25.3 28.5 17.9 18.3 17.7

### ~250.3 253.5 242.9 243.2 242.7 246 253 215 28.5 253 28.5 17.9 18.2 17.7 7 250.2 253.4 242.8 243.0 242.6 246 253 21.4 28.4 25.2 28.4 17.8 18.0 17.6 8 250.1 253.3 242.7 243.0 242.6 246 253 21.3 28.3 25.1 28.3 17.7 18.0 17.6 81 250.0 253.3 242.7 242.9 242.5 246 253 21.3 28.3 25.0 28.3 17.7 17.9 17.5 82 249.7 253.3 242.6 242.7 242.4 246 253 21.1 28.3 24.7 28.3 17.6 17.7 17.4 83 249.6 253.2 242.6 242.6 242.3 246 253 21.1 28.2 24.6 28.2 17.6 17.6 17.3 84 249.5 252.9 242.4 242.5 242.1 246 253 20.9 27.9 24.5 27.9 17.4 17.5 17.1 85 249.4 252.7 242.2 242.5 241.9 246 253 20.8 27.7 24.4 27.7 17.2 17.5 16.9 86 249.4 252.5 242.0 242.5 241.8 246 253 20.6 27.5 24.4 27.5 17.0 17.5 16.8 87 249.3 252.4 241.9 242.4 241.8 246 252 20.6 27.4 24.3 27.4 16.9 17.4 16.8 88 249.3 252.3 241.9 242.4 241.7 246 252 20.5 27.3 24.3 27.3 16.9 17.4 16.7 89 249.3 252.3 241.7 242.3 241.6 245 252 20.4 27.3 24.3 27.3 16.7 17.3 16.6 90 249.2 252.2 241.5 242.3 241.6 245 252 20.4 27.2 24.2 27.2 16.5 17.3 16.6 91 249ffim241.5 242.1 241.4 245 252 20.3 27.1 24.2 27.1 16.5 17.1 16.4 92 249.1 .0 241.3 242.0 241.0 245 252 20.1 27.0 24.1 27.0 16.3 17.0 16.0 93 249.0 251.5 241.2 242.0 241.0 245 251 19.9

# '65Ea' 17.0 16.0 94 248.8 251.4 241.0 241.9 240.8 245 251 19.8 26.4 23.8 0 16.9 15.8 95 248.8 251.2 240.7 241.9 240.7 245 251 19.6 26.2 15.7 16.9 15.7 96 248.5 250.7 240.6 241.8 240.5 244 251 19.4 25.7 15.6 16.8 15.5 97 248.4 250.4 240.6 241.8 240.1 244 250 19.2 25.4 23.4 25.4 15.6 16.8 15.1 98 248.4 250.3 240.5 241.7 239.9 244 250 19.2 25.3 23.4 25.3 15.5 16.7 14.9 99 248.3 250.2 240.4 241.6 239.6 244 250 19.0 25.2 23.3 25.2 15.4 16.6 14.6 100 248.2 250.2 240.4 241.4 239.1 244 250 25.2 23.2 25.2 15.4 16.4 14.1 101 248.1 249.9 240.3 241.3 238.9 244 250 24.9 23.1 24.9 15.3 16.3 13.9 102 248.0 249.8 240.1 241.3 238.9 244 250 18.6 24.8 23.0 24.8 15.1 16.3 13.9 103 247.9 249.5 239.7 240.9 238.9 243 249 18.4 24.5 22.9 24.5 14.7 15.9 13.9 104 247.8 249.4 239.6 240.9 238.7 243 249 18.3 24.4 22.8 24.4 14.6rli 13.7 105 247.7 249.3 239.5 240.8 238.6 243 249 18.2 24.3 22.7 24.3 14.5 13.6 106 247.6 249.3 239.5 240.8 238.5 243 249 18.1 24.3 22.6 24.3 14.5 15.8 13.5 107 247.6 249.2 239.1 240.8 238.5 243 249 18.0 24.2 22.6 24.2 14.1 15.8 13.5 108 247.5 249.1 239.0 240.7 238.4 243 249 18.0 24.1 22.5 24.1 14.0 15.7 13.4 109 247.4 249.0 239.0 240.5 238.4 243 249 17.9 24.0 22.4 24.0 14.0 15.5 13.4 110 247.2 248.9 238.8 240.3 237.7 243 249 17.6 23.9 22.2 23.9 13.8 15.3 12.7 111 247.2 248.9 238.7 240.2 2377[=243 249 17.5 23.9 L.j.\:I .7 15.2 12.7 112 247.0 248.9 238.7 2401 237.5 242 249 17.4 23.9 22.0 23.9 13.7 15.1 12.5 113 246.8 248.6 238.6 240.1 237.4 242 249 17.3 23.6 21.8 23.6 13.6 15.1 12.4 114

## 246.8~38.3 240.1 237.3 242 249 17.2 23.6 21.8 23.6 13.3 15.1 12.3 115 246.6 38.2 240.0 237.0 242 248 17.0 23.5 23.5 13.2 15.0 12.0 116 246tt 248.2 238.1 239.8 237.0 242 248 16.9 23.2 23.2 13.1 14.8 12.0 117 246. 248.1 238.0 239.6 236.9 242 248 16.8 23.1 21.5 23.1 13.0 14.6 11.9 118 246.5 248.0 239.6 236.9 242 248 23.0 21.5 23.0 13.0 14.6 11.9 119 246.4 247.9 2396 2369 242 248 22.9 21.4 22.9 13.0 14.6 11.9 120 246.4 247.9 237.9 23 236.9 242 248 22.9 21.4 22.9 12.9 14.5 11.9 121 246.3 247.7 237.8 23 242 248 22.7 21.3

# ;gm::~ 11.7 122 246.1 2477 237.7 .4 248 5 22.7 21.1 11.6 123 246.1 247.3 2377 .3 247 4 22.3 21.1 22.3 14.3 11.5 124 246.0 I 247.3 237.6 239.1 236.1 2 22.3 21.0 22.3 14.1 11.1 125 246 247.2 237.5 235.2 6.0 22.2 210 22.2 14.1 10.2 126 246. 16.0 22.1 21.0 22.1 14.1 10.2 127 246. 235.2 15.9 22.1 21.0 22.1 12.4 13.9 10.2 128 245.9 2469 2373 238.8 235.0 241 247 15.8 21.9 209 21.9 123 

### I 13.8 10.0237.3 238.6 241 21.9 20.8 21.9 12.3 10.0 237.3 237.9 241 21.8 20.7 21.8 12.3 9.9 237.2 237.8 240 20.7 20.7 20.7 12.2 9.9 237.0 237.8 240 20.7 20.6 20.7 12.0 9.7 236.8 237.8 240 20.5 20.5 20.2 11.8 236.7 237.7 240 20.4 20.4 20.1 11.7 236.5 237.7 240 20.4 20.4 19.5 11.5 236.3 237.7 239 20.1 20.1 19.3 11.3 236.2 237.5 239 20.0 20.0 19.1 11.2 236.2 237.5 239 19.9 19.9 19.1 11.2 236.1 237.5 19.9 19.9 18.8 11.1 7.4 19.9 19.9 18.7 11.1

.4 19.8 19.8 18.6 11.0 237.4 239 14.0 19.8 19.8 18.6 10.9 237.2 239 13.9 19.6 19.6 18.6 10.6 237.2 239 13.8 19.6 19.6 18.6 10.5 237.0 239 13.7 19.5 19.5 18.4 10.5 236.8 239 13.5 19.3 19.3 18.3 10.3 236.8 238 13.5 19.2 19.2 18.2 10.3 236.8 238 13.4 19.2 19.2 17.9 10.2 236.7 238 13.3 18.7 17.9 10.2 .6 238 13.1 18.7 17.6 9.8 242.5 234.5 236.5 238 13.0 18.7 17.5 9.5 242.4 234.4 236.4 238 12.8 18.2 17.4 9.4 11.4 242.4 234.1 236.3 238 12.7 18.2 17.4 9.1 11.3 242.2 233.8 236.1 238 12.6 18.2 17.2 8.8 11.1 3.1 242.2 233.8 236.1 238 12.5 18.1 17.2 8.8 11.1 7.4 156 242.9 242.1 233.7 235.9 237 12.3 17.9 17.1 8.7 10.9 7.0 157 242.9 242.0 233.6 235.8 237 12.3 17.9 17.0 8.6 10.8 7.0 158 242.8 242.0 233.5 235.7 237 12.2 17.8 17.0 8.5 10.7 7.0 159 242.7 242.0 233.1 235.7 237 12.1 17.7 17.0 8.1 10.7 7.0 160 242.6 241.7 232.8 235.6 237 11.9 17.6 16.7 7.8 10.6 6.8 161 242.4 241.7 232.6 235.6 237 11.8 17.4 16.7 7.6 10.6 6.7 162 242.3 241.6 232.5 235.5 237 11.7 17.3 16.6 7.5 10.5 6.7 163 242.2 241.6 232.5 235.4 237 11.6 17.2 16.6 7.5 10.4 4 164 242.2 241.4 232.3 235.2 236 11.5 17.2 16.4 7.3 10.2 .3 165 242.1 241.4 232.3 235.2 236 11.4 17.1 16.4 7.3 10.2 6.2 166 242.0 241.4 232.2 235.1 236 11.4 17.0 16.4 7.2 10.1 6.2 167 241.9 241.1 232.1 235.1 236 11.2 16.9 16.1 7.1 10.1 6.0 168 241.7 241.0 231.8 234.9 236 11.1 16.7 16.0 6.8 9.9 5.9 169 241.7 41.0 231.8 234.5 236 10.9 16.7 16.0 6.8 9.5 5.7 170 241. 231.4 234.5 236 10.8 16.6 16.0 6.4 9.5 5.7 171 241. 231.2 234.5 236 10.7 16.5 16.0 6.2 9.5 5.5 172 241.4 240.6 231.1 234.5 236 10.5 16.4 15.6 6.1 9.5 173 241.4 240.6 231.1 234.1 235 10.5 16.4 15.6 6.0 9.1 174 241.3 240.3 230.4 233.9 235 10.2 16.3 15.3 5.4 8.9 175 241.2 240.1 230.3 233.8 235 10.1 16.2 15.1 5.3 8.8 176 241.2 240.0 230.2 233.8 235 10.0 16.2 15.0 5.2 8.8 177 241.1 239.8 229.3 233.8 235 9.8 16.1 14.8 4.3 8.8 178 241.1 239.7 229.2 233.6 235 9.7 16.1 14.7 4.2 8.6 179 241.1 239.3 228.9 233.5 235 9.5 16.1 14.3 3.9 8.5 180 241.0 239.3 228.8 233.5 234 9.4 16.0 14.3 3.8 8.5 181 240.9 2392 227.7 233.4 234 9.1 15.9 14.2 2.7 8.4 182 240.8 239.1 227.3 233.3 234 8.9 15.8 14.1 2.3 8.3 183 240.7 239.1 2272 233.3 234 8.8 15.7 14.1 2.2 8.3 184 240.7 238.9 227.2 233.2 234 8.8 15.7 13.9 2.2 8.2 240.6 2386 227.1 233.2 234 8.6 15.6 13.6 2.1 8.2 240.6 238.4 227.0 233.2 8 15.6 13.4 1.9 8.2 187 240.5 238.4 226.8 233.2 8.4 15.5 8 8.2 188 240.4 238.2 225.8 233.1 8.1 15.4 8 8.1 189 240.4 238.2 225.7 233.0 8.1 .4 8.0 190 240.3 237.8 225.4 2327 7.8 .3 7.7 191 240.2 237.6 2 7.6 5.2 7.6 192 240.2 237.6 2 76 193 240.2 237.6 2 7.6 194 240.1 237.2 232.5 7.5 195 240.0 236.8 232.3 73196 239.8 235.7 224.3 232.1 227.4 232 240 6.9 14.8 14.8 10.7 7.1 2.4 197 239.7 235.6 224.2 232.0 227.3 232 240 6.8 =14.7 14.7 10.6 7.0 2.3 198 239.4 235.3 224.1 232.0 226.9 232 239 6.6 14.4 14.4 10.3 7.0 1.9 199 239.4 235.3 224.1 231.9 226.9 232 239 6.5 14.4 14.4 10.3 6.9 1.9 200 239.2 235.2 223.8 231.8 226.9 231 239 6.4 14.2 14.2 10.2 6.8 1.9 201 239.0 235.1 223.5 231.8 226.9 231 239 6.3 14.0 14.0 10.1 6.8 1.9 202 238.6 235.0 223.5 231.8 226.9 231 239 6.2 13.6 13.6 10.0 6.8 1.9 203 238.3 234.8 223.2 231.8 226.6 231 238 5.9 13.3 13.3 9.8 6.8 1.6 204 238.2 234.8 223.2 231. 26.4 231 238 5.9 13.2 13.2 9.8 6.8 1.4 205 238.2 234.8 223.0 231. 26.2 231 238 5.8 13.2 13.2 9.8 6.7 1.1 206 238.0 234.8 222.7 26.1 231 238 13.0 13.0 9.8 6.6 1.1 207 26.1 231 238 13.0 13.0 9.3 6.6 1.1 208 230 238 5.3 12.9 12.9 9.3 6.4 0.8 209 238 5.2 12.9 12.9 8.9 6.3 0.7 210 238 4.9 12.7 12.7 8.8 6.2 0.3 211 237.4 233.8 22 237 4.7 12.4 12.4 8.7 6.1 0.0 212 237.3 233.6 22 237 4.4 12.3 12.3 8.6 6.0 213 237.2 233.5 22 224.3 I 229 237 4.3 12.2 12.2 8.5 6.0 214 237.2 233.5 220.5 230.9 237 4.2 12.2 12.2 8.5 5.9 215 237.0 233.1 220.3 230.8 237 4.1 12.0 12.0 8.1 5.8 216 237.0 233.1 219.3 230.8 237 3.8 12.0 12.0 8.1 5.8 217 236.8 233.0 219.0 230.8 229 237 3.5 11.8 11.8 8.0 5.8 218 236.6 232.9 219.0 230.7 223.0 228 237 3.4 11.6 11.6 7.9 5.7 219 236.2 232.6 218.9 230.7 222.8 228 236 11.2 11.2 7.6 5.7 220 235.5 232.5 218.8

# .= ??A 235 2.9 10.5 10.5 7.5 5.6 221 235.4 232.4 218.4 22 228 235 2.8 10.4 10.4 7.4 5.5 222 235.3 232.1 218.4 22. 228 235 2.6 10.3 10.3 7.1 5.3 223 234.9 231.8 218.3 230. 22.1 227 235 2.5 9.9 9.9 6.8 5.2 224 234.4 231.8 218.1 230. 221.9 227 234 2.3 9.4 9.4 6.8 5.1 225 234.2 231.6 217.9 229.9 221.7 227 234 2.1 9.2 9.2 6.6 4.9 226 234.1 231.3 217.5 229.9 221.2 227 234 1.8 9.1 9.1 6.3 4.9 227 233.6 231.2 217.5 229.9 .2 227 234 1.7 8.6 8.6 6.2 4.9 228 233.4 231.2 217.5 229.9 227 233 1.5 8.4 8.4 6.2 4.9 229 233.4 230.9 217.4 229.7 220.4 226 233 1.4 8.4 8.4 5.9 4.7 230 233.3 230.8 217.2 229.6 220.4 226 233 1.3 8.3 8.3 5.8 4.6 231 233.2 230.5 217.2 229.5 220.2 226 233 1.1 8.2 8.2 5.5 4.5 232 233.2 230.4 217.1

### 229.~etf.20.0 226 233 1.0 8.2 8.2 5.4 4.3 233 232.8 230.4 215.4 229.2 19.8 226 233 0.5 7.8 7.8 5.4 4.2 234 232.5 230.1 215.3 229.0 219.3 225 233 0.2 7.5 7.5 5.1 4.0 235 232.3 229.8 214.5 229.0 219.3 225 232 0.2 7.3 7.3 4.8 4.0 236 231.3 229.8 214.4 228.9 219.2 225 231 0.2 6.3 6.3 4.8 3.9 237 231.3 229.8 214.4 228.8 219.2 225 231 0.2 6.3 6.3 4.8 3.8 238 231.2 229.6 214.3 228.5 219.2 225 231 0.1 6.2 6.2 4.6 3.5 239 230.9 229.5 213.9 228.4

## 219.1~ 231 0.1 5.9 5.9 4.5 3.4 240 230.9 229.0 213.9 228.4 219.1 224 231 5.9 5.9 4.0 3.4 241 230.8 229.0 213.7 228.3 219.0 224 231 5.8 5.8 4.0 3.3 242 230.8 228.9 212.7 228.2 218.9 224 231 5.8 5.8 3.9 3.2 243 230.4 228.9 212.4 228.1 218.7 224 230 5.4 5.4 3.9 3.1 244 230.3 228.5 212.4 228.1 

### 2m 224 230 5.3 5.3 3.5 3.1 245 229.9 228.5 212.0 227.8 21 223

# 230~ 4.9 3.5 2.8 246 229.8 228.2 212.0 227.7 21 223 230 4.8 4.8 3.2 2.7 247 2298 228.1 211.8 227.1 218.3 223 230 4.8

## ~4.8 3.1 2.1 248 229.7 228.0 211.0 226.9 218.1 223 230 4.7 4.7 3.0 1.9 249 229.4 227.7 211.0 226.8 218.0 223 229 4.4 4.4 2.7 1.8 250 229.1 227.6 210.7 226.7 218.0 222 229 4.1 4.1 2.6 1.7

## 251~ 227.5 210.1 226.7 216.8 222 229 1.7 252 227.3 209.9 226.2 216.3 222 229 3. 3.9 2.3 1.2 253 228.8 226.9 208.9+:12 216.1 221 229 3.8 3.8 1.2 254 228.5 226.7 208.8 .7 215.7 221 229 3.5 3.5 0.7 255 228.5 226.7 208.5 .7 215.6 221 229 I 3.5 3.5 1.7 0.7 256

# IIIf08' 225.7

## ~221 228 0.7 257 228 208.1 225.4 221 228 3.0 .0 0.4 258 2078 225.4 215.4 220 228 2.8 .8 0.4 259 207.5 225.3 215.4 220 228 2.6 2.6 0.3 0.3 260 227.5 206.5 225.3 2152 220 228 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.3 261 227.5 224.6 206.1 225.3 215.2 220 227 2.5 2.5 0.3262 227.2 223,7 15,2 219 227 2,2 2,2 0,3 263 227,1 223.2 215,0 219 227 2,1 2,1 264 226,9 223,1 205,2 224,5

# 2~ 219 227 1,9 1,9 265 226,9 223,0 204,9 224.4 21 219 227 

# fa 1,9 266 226,6 221,8 204,7 224,3 213,8 218 227 1,6 267 225,8 221.4 204.5 223.8 213,5 218 226 0.8 268 225,5 221,0 204.4 223.6 213.3 218 226 0,5 269 220,8 203.8 223,5 213.0 217 225 0.0 0,0 270 224.1 220.2 202,5 223.4 213.0 217 224 271 223.4 219.9 202,2 223,0 212.8 216 223 272 223.3 219.9 202,1 216 223 273 223.2 219.8 201.6 216 223 274 223,0**219,5~** 212.1 15 223 275 222.4 219.3 15 222 276 222.3 218.9 199,3 211,5 214 222 277 222,1 218.4 199.1 219,8 14 222 278 222,1 218,3 198.4 219,8 14 222 279 221,1 217,9 197.9 219,0 213 221 280 221.1 217.8 197,3 218.2 211.3 213 221 281 220.4 217.6 197.0 217,7 210,1 213 220 282 219.6 216.7 196.7 217.4 209.4 212 220 283 218.9 216.4 196.3 217.3 208,1 211 219 284 218.3 215.9 195,6

# .11
218 285 217,7 215.4 195.0 10 218 286 216,9 215.0 194.4 2 2 10 217 287 216.6 214.7 194.2 2 09 217 288 216.5 213.9 193,5 215.8 204, 209 216 289 215.6 213.8 193.5

### ~-fH+203.9 208 216 290 215.5 213.7 193.5 214. 203.8 208 216 291 215,1 213,6 193.0 214.0 203.8 208 215 292 215.0 213.0 192.8 213,0 202,3 207 215 293 213.4 212.9 192.6 212,7 201.4 207 213 294 213.3 212.8 192,1 212.3 201.3 206 213 295 213.2 212.4 191.6 212.0 201.2 206 213 296 212.4 212.3 188.5 211.5 201.0 205 212 297 212.4 211.8 188,1 211 ,5

### 2~m 205 212 298 212.2 211.1 186,9 210.8 20 204 212 299 210,8 210,9 185.4 210.8 I 199.5 203 211 300 210,5 210.4 185.3 210.1 199,0 203 210 301 209,7 210.0 184.4 210,0 198.5 203 210 302 209.7 209.5 184.3 209.6 198.4 202 210 303 208,6 209.5 183.5 209.5 198.4 202 210 304 208.4 208.8 183.2 209.4 197.9 202 209 305 208.0 208,5 182.4 209.3 197.4 201 209 306 207.8 207.9 182,3 209.1 197 1 209 307 207,5 207,8 182,2 208.5 196.3 200 208 308 206,9 207.4 181.5 207,6 195.0 200 208 309 206.4 206,7 181.4 207.5 193.6 199 208 310 205.2 206,1 180.3 207,2 193.2 198 207 311 204.7 205.1 180.0 206.9 192.4 198 207 312 204,3 203,9 179.7 205.0 191.4 197 205 313 203.9 203,2 179,6

# llir 205 314 202,9 203,1 178,8 204,7 19 196 205 315 202.7 203.0 178,8 196 205 316 

### I 202,5 202,9 177.8 188. 95 205 317 202. 202.0 177.3 204,1 186,9 194 204 318 201, 201,7 177.2 203.9 185,6 194 204 319 201.2 201,1 176,1 203.7 185.0 193 204 320 200.3 200.4 175.6 203.6 184.3 193 204

# ~3 199.8 175.4 202.4 181,6 192 202 3 2 199,6 175.2 202.2 177.0 191 202 323 200,1 1973 174,5 201.1 175 190 201

# ~9 1968 173,8 2006 174 189 201 3 .9 1964 172.0 199,9 1718 188 200 3 .5 1956 171,9 199,1 171.7

# 1~H 199 32 .2 1948 1718 198,6 171.6 18 199 328 197.6 1947 1675 197,9 164,8 185 198329 196.9 194.6 165.9 197.1 150.3 181 197 330 195.3 194.6 161.9 194.2 146.2 178 195 331 194.5 flA fl 160.2 193.7 145.5 178 195 332 192.6 192.1 159.4 190.4 137.4 174 193 333 190.0 187.8 159.2 190.3 125.0 170 190 334 187.7 184.3 156.0 188.4 167 188 335 184.1 183.0 152.7 187.4 163 187 336 183.2 181.9 151.9 159 187 337 187 338 179.1 171.7 .1 18 186 339 

### I 179.1 

### I 170.0 184.4 184 340 178.6 163.8 180.3 180 341 178.4 161.8 100.4 178.8 179 342 177.2 160.5 59.2 176.5 43 177 343 172.6 153.1 56.6 174.4 139 174 344 172.5 141.9 41.0 172.3 132 173 345 169.5 134.1 34.5 170.7 127 171 346 169.4 106.0 28.4 169.4 118 169 347 147.4 78.2 22.9 135.8 96 147 348 146.2 69.7 6.5 135.8 90 146 349 127.9 5.8 135.1 90 135 350 118.6 125.9 122 126 351 101.4 123.5 112 123 352 81.2 78.1 80 81 353 41.5 51.7 47 52 354 39.5 11.1 25 39 355 37.3 37 37

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5YR AVG 355 348 349 354 340 349 ) 232.2 233.8 218.7 227.7 223.5 227.2 ) 989.2 976.5 915.8 967.1 911.9 952.1 268 259 192 262 210 239 244.9 245.5 242.1 238.4 239.4 242.1 19.9 20.5 17.1 13.4 14.4 17.1 64.1 63.7 39.4 42.2 36.2 49.1 Count (days/yr) with emissions Avg Ib/hr(op days Baseline Annual Emis (tpy

# ofdays> 225 Ib/hr 802 Avg 802 on days> 225 Ib/hr Ib/hr Red to achieve 225. high days

TPY Red from lowering High days

Avg Ib/hr (oper days Annual TPY 802 502 Alternative
- Emission Rates 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVG ) 217.2 218.6 209.3 217.7 214.6 215.5 925.2 912.9 876.4 924.9 875.7 903.0

D Average Emission Rates by Category

aily Emiss Rate Avg 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVG
< 

### 175 

### 117.3 137.3 119.7 123.6 118.7 123.4**~175<200** 

### 188.9 192.2 187.1 189.8 191.7 189.9 200 < 225 

### 212.4 213.4 214.6 213.3 215.2 213.8 225 < 

### 250 

### 240.1 238.5 238.3 237.7 237.2 238.4 250 

### 255.9 256.5 256.7 251.9 253.4 254.9

## o No. of Days aily Emiss Rate Avg 

### 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVG 

### < 

### 175 

## 13 11 27 12 17 16 175 

### < 200 

## 19 17 

## 47 18 26 25 200 

### < 225 

## 55 61 83 62 87 69 225 < 

### 250 

## 187 159 152 248 182 185 250 

## 81 100 40 14 28 54 TOTAL 

## 355 348 349 354 340 349Appendix C: Operating Cost Associated with Increased Caustic BART Alternative 

### Annual Operating Cost- Increased Caustic/S02 Removal

Stoichiometry Na' + OH- + SO, -> NaHSO, 2Na' + 20H + SO, + ---> Na,SO, + H20 2 moles NaOH req to react with 1 mole S02

2 x 40/64 1,3 Ibs NaOH per Ib S02 Scrubber Liquid Solids Each mole S02forms 1 mole Na2S03 126 Ib Na,SO,/64 Ib S02 " 2,0 Ib Scrub solids 48 gal H20/ib solids to maintain,; 0,5 ,,1% Annual Operating Days 355 Annual Operating Hours 8400 hrs/yr Pump Energy Requirements kw" ((0,746)(0.252)"60 tt) '1/pump eft(0,7) kw·hrs/yr" kw ' days >225 '24 hrs Ibs/hr Ibs/hr Ibs/hr

Ibs/hr Ibs/hr days/yr Ibs/hr tons/yr tons/yr MMBtu/hr

Ibs/hr 

### . heat input 124-hr8vg) 698 Ie daySO,124-hr8vg) 275
2 5-yr Base period 952 ngle day S02 (24-hravg) 225

Base, single day max 50 ays in Base> 225 Ib/hr 239 req for Base days >225 17 Base SO, emissions 903 in Ann S02 emissions 49 Current Max S02 Limit Lower Limit Evaluated Reduction BART Baseline Period 12004 2009) Max Boiler

Max sing

Max si Avg Ann SO tons/yr Emissions Exoected under 250 Ib/hr limit
Red from Avg#d Avg Red Ann Avg Change

Operational Requirements per Ib S02 Removed

Direct Annual Operating Costs (DC)

$109,000 Total Direct Annual Cost $0 $15,309

Waste Treatment & Disposal Utilities Maintenance

Replacement Materials Labor Operator 

## ''''''•••',••$up;:;6Iiso.r.','''

Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) $2,236Appendix D: RBCL Summary--Recovery Furnace S02 Emissions

PERMIT BLS CTRL CONTROL METHOD S02 PPMDV LB S021 RBLCID FACILITY ST PERMIT# ISSUE DATE RFID# MMLBSI POL CODE CONTROL METHOD KEY DESCRIPTION @8%02 HR LB S02ITBLS CASE-BY·CASE

.._BASIS DAY APPLE (.,OOIIC 01" P AND PAPER WV 6/1711996 RF 5.50 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION EFFICIENTCOMBUSTION 10 25 BACT-PSD

-CAMAS WA 

## IPSD·883 &DE88· 9/26/1991 RF#4 S02 A ADD-ON EQUIPMENT HEATRECOVERY 10 BACT-PSD 360 MODIFICAT SCRUBBER WA 

## IPSD·88-3 &DE-88- 9/26/1991 RF#3 S02 A ADD·ON E

### auIPMENT HEATRECOVERY 10 BACT-PSD 360 MODIFICAT SCRUBBER

.nl IN . nV'Inr 212211989 RF 300 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION HIGH SOLIDS FIRING 50 BACT-PSD
WA 

## IPSD·01-03, AMEND 111112006 RF#15 230 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 60 OTHER**"'~** '. IV". 2 WA 

## IPSD·01-03, AMEND 111112006 RF#18 2.40 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 60 BACT-PSD 2 WA 

## IPSD-01-03, AMEND 111112006 RF#19 400 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION 60 BACT-PSD cv"""" I.". 2 DOMTAR NEKOOSA WI 03·DCF·310 412312004 RF#14 180 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION GOOD OPERATING 60 BACT-PSD PRACTICES PORTHUDSON (M-2) 1/25/2002 RF#1 396 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 143 ! BACT-PSD (M-2) 1/2512002 RF#1 281 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 120 106 BACT-PSD COURTLAND "' M 519/2005 RF#3 4.88 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 75 BACT-PSD

_ ,'AA,
. n w. AL "' 9/20/2005 RF#3 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 75 170 BACT-PSD

,,,nr nr 12/1012002 RF#1 440 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION 75 BACT-PSD MARLBORO vVILI.f\MEHE MARLBORO SC 1680-0043 4117/1996 RF 400 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION GOODCOMBUSTION 75 186 OTHER CONTROL ME "L ,,-" -E·NP 7118/1989 RF#4 400 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION COMBUSTION CONTROL 100 206 BACT-PSD MANSFIELD PSD-LA-93(M-7) 712212004 RF#1&2 403 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION GOOD PROCESS CONTROLS 218 258 BACT-PSD

nn, 'Tn AL 105-0001·X022 9/1512003 432 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 100 BACT-PSD PAPER AL 105-0001-X027 1211011997 394 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION PROPER DESIGN & 100 221 BACT-PSD OPERATION ALABAMA RIVER AL 106-0010 112211990 RF#2 550 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 314 BACT-PSD
LONGV'''H '-'0"" WA X81-lOA 712711990 RF#22 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION BOILER DESIGN &GOOD 120 BACT-PSD COMBUSTION PRACTICES FIBRE WA PSD-01-03 AMEND 111112006 RF#22 390 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 120 OTHER 2 -LA MILL PSD-LA-564 2/411991 335 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION COMBUSTION CONTROL1 230 BACT-PSD DESIGN PAPER AL 105-0001. X022, 3/1211991 RF#3 330 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION PROPER DESIGN & 150 253 BACT-PSD X024. X025. AN OPERATIONPERMIT BLS CTRL CONTROL METHOD S02PPMDV LB S021 RBLCID FACILITY ST PERMIT# ISSUE DATE RFID# MMLBSI POL CODE CONTROL METHOD KEY DESCRIPTION @8%02 HR LBS021TBLS CASE·BY·CASE.BASIS DAY 

### 'Mr", M PIli P & ME ,", '" "n 9/25/1991 190 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 150 BACT-PSD
AL 211·0004 10/1/1988 RF#2 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 144 404 BACT-PSD
VA 40126 31111991 3.00 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION 145 BACT·PSD ""nn", n.n,"'" 1111511985 RF#5 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 150 N/A AL 211-0004 10/911996 270 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION BOILER DESIGN & 144 243 4.32 BACT·PSD COMBUSTION CONTROL**~IoUII** ' (,""OAMV AL eM "A'. VA" 6115/1992 RF#8 2,94 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 150 290 BACT·PSD COLUMBUS MS 168().00044 10/2411989 500 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION PROCESS CONTROLS 153 517 BACT-PSD
ID 412511983 4.32 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 200 450 500 BACT-PSD
WILLAMETTE KY C-93-0441 077-1580 911411993 RF#l 210 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION PROPER COMBUSTION 200 225 BACT-PSD 0005 CONTROL PAPER AR 101111985 440 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 250 BACT-PSD
PAPER 1011712000 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 250 206 OTHER
LA (M-6) 811412001 RF#1&2 3.41 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION GOOD PROCESS CONTROLS 510 BACT-PSD "R",r::nwnN,"" NC 03138R16 511012001 559 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION GOODCOMBUSTION 979 BACT-PSD PRACTICE SOUTHERN PAPER GA 2631-049-10296 121811989 RF#1 3.05 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION 300 535 BACT-PSD SOUTHERN PAPER GA 2631-049-10296 121811989 RF#2 3,05 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION 300 535 BACT-PSD WHITE PAPER WA PSD-01-07AMEND 21112006 340 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 500 BACT-PSD 1 WHITE PAPER WA PSD-Ol-07AMEND 21112006 3.40 S02 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 500 BACT-PSD 1 RIVER MILL PSD-LA·562(M-2) 5124/2006 RF#3 640 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION PROPER DESIGN & 20 BACT-PSD OPERATION RAPIDS MILL NC 01649R29 7/31/1998 277 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION FURNACE DESIGN & 75 BACT-PSD COMBUSTION OPTIMIZATION

"" Dr, "Ave RAPIDS NC 1649R34 3/3/2004 RF#7 3.00 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION FURNACE DESIGN & 75 COMBUSTION OPTIMIZATION WILLAMETTE KY C-84-77 8/611984 RF#1 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION LOWODOR FURNACE 100 BACT-PSD COLUMBUS MS PSD-MS-027 5/2211980 7,44 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION COMBUSTION CONTROL 100 BACT-PSD

PAPER 24-306-003 12/9/1992 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION CONTROLLED BY DESIGN 110 614 OTHER
,"rADr, OM"O,n CORP ME 0

... ' D "0 411211989 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION COMBUSTION CONTROL 150 373 BACT-PSDPERMIT BLS CTRL CONTROL METHOD S02 PPMDV LB S02 I RBLCID FACILITY ST PERMIT# RF 10# MMLBSI POL CONTROL METHOD KEY LB S02ITBLS CASE·BY·CASE_BASIS ISSUE DATE DAY CODE DESCRIPTION @8%02 HR SD IM"",\EfJ ME '7 \In 612311988 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION COMBUSTION CONTROL 150 158 BACT-PSD MS 168(M)0044 911011996 700 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION FURNACE DESIGN & 153 BACT-PSD EFFICIENTOPER

"" "CTTC in, nAn A SC 1660-0043 912911988 RF#l S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION LOWODOR DESIGN 200 BACT-PSD EASTOVER 51111989 RF#4 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION BOILER DESIGN &GOOD 200 BACT-PSD COMBUSTION PRACTICES It:Ar KJVcr FOREST MS MS035 311411980 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION 300 458 BACT-PSD FOREST MS 2200-00005 711411992 6.40 S02 P POLLUTION PREVENTION COMBUSTION CONTROL 300 BACT-PSDAppendix E: RBCl Summary ··RBCl Recovery Furnace NOx

INITIAL RF BLS CTRL NOx NOx CASE·BY·CASE RBLC ID FACILITY ST PERMIT# PERMIT UNIT 10 MMLBSI POL CTRLCODE KEY PPMDV NOx LB/HR ISSUE DATE STARTUP DAY CODE @8%O2 LBfTBLS BASIS

WV Jun-96 RF NOT BUILT 55 NOx A ADD-ON EQUIPMENT 40 72 BACT-PSD

X018 May-05 RF#3 1991 49 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 75 

### lAS BACT-PSD
IlL PERDUE HILL Jan-90 RF#2 1992 5.5 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 75 169 1 BACT-PSD
AL PERDUE HILI

.. 106-0010- Feb-08 RF 1992 75 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 75 244 BACT-PSD X012
('"' lOTI 11"\ AL Jul-89 RF#3 1991 49 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 75 170 1.67 BACT-PSD
-CAMPTI 562(M-2) May-06 RF#3 2008 64 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 150 BACT-PSD p<;n_FI.??R Sep-95 RF#4 1976 50 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 

### 1.55 BACT-PSD P<;I.FI.1a; FL &1250001- Aug-08 RF#2 1965 2.2 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 70 

### 1.55 BACT·PSD p<:;n.f'1.1Q7

-FOLEY & Aug-08 RF#3 1975 2.1 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 80 68 

### 1.55 BACT-PSD -215-"-B- f::f'"r"CI -DACIFIC ME ME Apr-89 RF 1986 4.4 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 143 

### 1.55 BACT-PSD AIR

- INT FALLS MN 102A-89·OT-2 May-89 RF 1976 2.7 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 87 

### 1.55 BACT-PSD RIVER NEW MS 2200-00005 Apr-91 RF 1984 60 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 

### 1.55 BACT-PSD AUGUSTA IAJEw'"

.

## r", "'''I 1<:; MS 1680-00044 Sep-96 RF 1990 7.0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 

### 1.55 BACT-PSD 2400-0005- Oct-01 RF#3 

### 2_9 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 80 

### 1.55 BACT-PSD

CO-CT PSD-FL-380 PALATKA FL &1070005- May-07 RF#4 1976 5.0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 169 BACT-PSD
PAPERS WI WI 86-AJH-001B Jan-87 RF 14 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 80 72 BACT-PSD
IP MANSFIELD PSD-LA93(M Jul-04 RF#1&2 1981 4.0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### 83 1.60 BACT-PSD 7) RUMFOr,D ME A-214-71-E- Jul-89 RF 1980 4.0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### 83 BACT-PSD AIRBLS NOx CASE·BY·CASE RBLC 10 FACILITY ST PERMIT# PERMIT UNIT 10 INITIAL RF MMLBSI POL CTRL CTRLCODE KEY PPMDV NOx LB/HR NOx ISSUE DATE STARTUP DAY CODE @8%O2 LBITBLS BASIS
105"0001, m:WlPflll'O: Mar"91 RF#3 1992 33 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 90 109 BACT"PSD
DEMOPOLIS X027 Dec"97 RF 1992 39 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 90 143 BACT"PSD
MILL WI co**~"r** 0'0 Apr"04 RF 

### 1991 1,8 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 90 

### 114 BACT"PSD
X036 Jun"92 RF#8 29 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 90 125 BACHSD

"COLUMBUS MS pSD"**,~S"027** May"80 RF 1990 36 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 92 130 BACT-PSD
COLUMBUS MS 1680-00044 OcI-89 RF 1990 36 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 92 130 BACT-PSD

I WA X81-lOA Jul-90 RF#22 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 95 

### 1.84 BACT-PSD 'U"L

I WA PSD-01-03, Nov-06 RF#15 2.3 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 95 

### 1.84 OTHER -IO"t:. 2

I WA PSD·01-03, Nov-06 RF#18 2.4 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 95 

### 1,84 BACT-PSD ' rIO"t: AMEND 2 PSD-01-03, LONGVIEW FIBRE WA AMEND 2 Nov·06 RF#19 1992 40 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 95 

### 1.84 BACT-PSD

I mll'l/I!=W FIBRE WA PSD01-03, Nov-06 RF#22 39 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 95 

### 1.84 OTHER AMEND 2 WI 95-RV-040 Dec·OO RF#21 0.8 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 95 

### 1.84 BACT-PSD
WARREN ME ME AIR Jun-88 RF 1.6 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 97 51 

### 1.88 BACT-PSD
FL L-171 Jun-91 RF 1976 5,0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 

### 1.94 BACT-PSD

. RI!=I'!=I wnnfl NC 03138R16 May-01 RF#5 1982 5,6 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 225 

### 1.94 BACT-PSD

, RI!=I'!=I \NI'V,fl NC 03138R21 Mar-04 RF#5 1982 67 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 

### 1.94
NC 1649R34 Mar-04 RF#7 1974 3,0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 

### 1.94

,con MAor,c WEYCO '0t:1'1't: I"VILLE DG Dec-02 RF#1 1990 4.4 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 

### 1.94 BACT-PSD
MILL LA PSD-LA-564 Feb-91 RF 1966 33 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 138 BACT-PSDPERMIT INITIAL RF BLS CTRL NOx NOx CASE·BY·CASE RBLCID FACILITY ST PERMIT# ISSUE DATE UNIT 10 STARTUP MMLBS/ POL CODE CTRLCODE KEY PPMOV NOxLB/HR LBITBLS BASIS DAY @8%O2
WILLAMETTE
- 1680-0043 Apr-96 RF#1 1990 40 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 100 178 OTHER BENNETTSVILLE

-MANSFIELD LA PSD-LA-93 Aug-Ol RF#1&2 1981 3.4 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### 108 148 BACT-PSD (M-6) AR An n May-07 RF#8 1981 69 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 110 276 BACT-PSD GKU""l:1 RIVER- NEW MS 2200-00005 Jul-92 RF 1984 6.4 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### 110 

### 2.13 BACT-PSD AUGUSTA ROANOKE NC 01649R29 Jul-98 RF#7 1974 28 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 110 

### 2.13 BACT-PSD RAPIDS
"tNN It:Gli PAf'ERS
-PA PA 24-306-003 Dec-92 RF NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 110 

### 2.13 BACT-PSD
DEMOPOLIS Sep-03 RF 1992 4.3 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 110 200 BACT-PSD X022**pnTIATr~** CYPRESS BEND AR 271-AOP-Rl Mar-OO 1977 2.6 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 110 162 BACT-PSD

MARHT AL 211-0004 Oct-88 RF#2 1990 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 112 

### 2.17 BACT-PSD
CORP VA 40126 Mar-91 RF 3.0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 112 

### 135 2,17 BACT-PSD V HUDSON PSD-LA-581 Jan-02 RF#2 1976 40 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 112 192 OTHER (M-2) MEAD MARHT AL 211-0004 Oct-96 RF 1966 27 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 112 136 2.42 BACT-PSD

IP- ERIE PA 25-028 Dec-94 RF 1971 16 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 

### 114 73 220 

### RACT JAMES RIV 101-0001 PENNINGTON AL X024, AND Aug-90 RF#4 1993 5.4 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 115 298 BACT-PSD
-ORANGE TX TX 9654A/PSD- Sep-05 RF 1967 2.0 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### 119 95 

### LAER TX-833M2 MACON GA 2631-011- Dec-90 RF#3 1994 3.5 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 120 

### 2.32 BACT-PSD 10630 SOUTHRN CEDAR GA 2631-049- Dec·89 RF#1 1974 3.1 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 

### 125 154 BACT-PSD SPRGS 10296 SOUTHRN GA 2631-049- Dec-89 RF#2 1991 3.1 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 

### '/25 154 BACT-PSD SPRGS 10296 HUDSON LA PSD-LA-581 Jan-02 RF#1 28 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### '/25 142 Other (M-2)BLS NOx NOx CASE·BY-CASE RBLCID FACILITY ST PERMIT# PERMIT UNITID INITIALRF MMLBS/ POL CTRL CTRLCODE KEY PPMDV NOx LB/HR ISSUE DATE STARTUP DAY CODE @8%O2 LBITBLS BASIS

## ~~~~~IV~:~~'I SC Feb-81 RF#10 1984 45 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### 142 258 2.75 BACT-PSD WILLAMETTE
- KY C-93-044 I Sep-93 RF#1 1987 2.1 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 150 

### 2.90 BACT-PSD HAWESVILLE SC 1680-0043 Sep-88 RF#1 1990 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 150 

### 2.90 BACT-PSD BENNETTSVILLE [UNIONf" AD May-89 RF#2 1991 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 150 

### 2.90 BACT-PSD

oml 'Tf', LEWISTON ID Apr-83 RF 1972 43 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 

### 184 321 BACT-PSD

LINCOLN -ME ME A-1 -?lAIR Sep-91 RF 1972 1.9 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### 200 211 BACT-PSD [UNION CAMP· tA:O IUVtK SC 1900-0046 RF#1 1984 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 200 

### 3.87 BACT-PSD
IUNION 0 on May-82 RF#1 1984 29 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 210 

### 4.06 BACT-PSD U-qyq [UNION CAMP- Feb-82 RF#1 1984 2.3 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 210 

### 4.06 BACT·PSD
lUI CAMP EASTOVER Feb·82 RF#1 1984 2.6 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 210 

### 4.06 BACT-PSD
PAPER -AL AL 068 Jan-81 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 242 BACT-PSD
HAMMERMILL SELMA PSD-AL-062 Mar-80 RF#2 1981 

### 7 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 114 BACT-PSD
KRAFT 413-0025- Feb-83 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 32 BACT·PSD X00108 S AIIIANf:F_ PINES AL 309-0006 Sep-98 RF#4 

### 1976 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 339 OTHER
LP SAMOA Feb·89 1990 30 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION BACT-PSD
PALATKA FL PSD-FL-079 Nov-85 RF#5 1976 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION BACT-PSD
CAMPTI LA pc;n_1 A_'iR? Feb-91 RF NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 206 BACT-PSD

. MONTICELLO 1500-00007 Jul-03 RF#1 1967 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 200 BACT-PSD

-MONTICELLO MS 1500-00007 Jul-03 RF#2 1968 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 200 BACT·PSDBLS CTRL NOx NOx CASE·BY-CASE RBLCID FACILITY ST PERMIT# PERMIT UNITID INITIAL RF MMLBS/ POL CTRLCODE KEY PPMDV NOxLB/HR ISSUE DATE START UP DAY CODE @8%O2 LBITBLS BASIS**M()~lTIr:"11** () MS May-04 RF#1 1967 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 200 BACT-PSD
!A()tHII''' I

. () MS May-04 RF#2 1968 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 200 BACT-PSD
TX-231 Aug-80 RF NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION 68 BACT-PSD
LUFKIN p"n_TI<_,l'H Oct-OO RF NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 55 OTHER

ItJl HII' , nPlItJr::" PSD-TXOct-04 1967 NOx BACT-PSD 684M1 RF#1&2 N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 90 PSD-TX Jan-06 RF#2EIW 1978 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 112 BACT-PSD 778M2AND

PSD-TX 178M2AND Jan-06 RF#1n/s 1972 NOx N NO FEASIBLE CONTROLS 63 BACT-PSD PSD-88-3 & CAMAS WA DF-88-360 Sep-91 RF#4 1965 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION BACT-PSD PSD-88-3 & WA Sep-91 RF#3 1957 NOx P POLLUTION PREVENTION BACT-PSD