p. 1



# OAR Box 1778
Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 231)11-1-1 1

Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:02 AM Sheet 231 of 276P. 2



## Wisconsin Electric POWER COMPANY II-I-l l

23 1 W

. Michigan

. PO

. Bo

x2046

. Milwaukee

. Wl 5320 1 (414)221-234 5

Marc h29 , 199 0

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Wisconsi n Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s P

. 0

. Bo x792 1 Madison , Wisconsi n 5370 7
Dea r Mr

. Ziege :
OnJul y13 , 1987 , Wisconsi n Electri c submitte d a n applicatio nt o th e Publi c Servic e Commissio no f Wisconsi n("PSCW" ) fo r a certificat e o f authorit yt o conduc t certai n renovatio nwor k a t it s Por t Washingto n Powe r Plant

. A s yo u mayrecall , th e PSC Wrequeste d the

. Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s ("DNR " o r "the Department" ) t o determin e what , i f any , permit s migh t b e require d fo r th e work , an d DN Ri n tur nconsulte d th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y ("EPA")

. AlthoughDNR , b

ylette r date d February5 , 1988 , determine d tha t th e propose d wor k woul d no t constitut e a modificatio nfo r ne wsourc e revie wpurposes , EPA , exercising it s oversigh t authorit yo f DNR' s decisions , disagree d an d issue d tw o decisions , Octobe r 14 , 198 8 an d February15 , 1989 , holding tha t th e work , i f don e a s proposed , woul d constitut e a modificatio nsubjecting Unit s 1 , 4 an d 5 t o Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d (NSPS ) requirements , an d th e Por t Washingto n Plan t t o Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) requirements

. Th e compan ychallenge d EPA' s decision s an d on Januar y19 , 1990 , th e Unite d State s Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Sevent hCircui t rendere d it s decisio n vacating and remanding t o EPA , th e Agency' s determinatio n tha t th e project , i f conducte d a s proposed , woul d constitut e a majo r modificatio n subjecting th e Por t Washingto n Powe r Plan t t o th e PS D program . Th e purpos e o f thi s lette r i s t o formall yreques t DNR' s determinations : 1 ) Tha t i n accordanc e wit hth e standar d se t fort h i nWisconsi n Electri c v . Reill v[89 3 F.2 d 90 1 (7thCir

. 1990)] , ther e wil l b e n o significan t ne t emission s increas e a s a resul t o f th e propose d wor k an d thus , PS D i s no t applicable ; 2 ) Tha t th e capacit yan

d emissio n rate , a s propose d b yth e company , fo r Unit s 1 through4 , constitut e th e baselin e fo r purpose s o f NSP S applicabilit yan

d "ne t out; " 3 ) Tha t a n NSP S triggering modificatio nwil l onl yoccu r fo r N0 Xo nUnit s 1 an d 4 ; an d 4 ) Tha t i f Uni t 5' s baselin e i s zero , onl yi t wil l b e subjec t t o NSP S fo r particulates , SO 2 an d N0 X .

Asubsidiary

of Wisconsin

Energy CorporationP. 3

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Marc h29,.199 0 Pag e 2

Copie s o f thi s lette r ar e bein g sen t t o EPAHeadquarter s an d Regio n V

. Whil e th e compan yunderstand s tha t DN Rha s bee n delegate d PS D authority , th e activ e involvemen t o f bot hRegio nV and , t o a greate r extent , EPAHeadquarter s personnel , up t o th e leve l o f Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r & Radiation , has , i nth e company' s judgment , se t Por t Washingto napar t fro mth e typica l PS D permi t case . Give n th e fac t tha t th e company' s propose d schedul e ha s bee n delaye d byove r tw o year s a s a resul t o f EPA' s initia l actio n an

d th e cour t challenge , th e compan ydoe s no t believ e tha t additiona l delay , whic hwoul d b e occasione d b yworkin g firs t wit h th e Department , = the n wit hRegio n V , an d the npossibl yEPA Headquarters , al l i n series , woul d b e warranted

. Th e compan yhope s tha t i t coul d wor k wit hbot hth e stat e an d federa l regulatory agencie s o n th e same tim e frame s o tha t furthe r delay s t o th e projec t ca n b e minimized

. I n thi s regard , th e PSCWha s recentl y initiate d a proceeding t o determin e th e generating capacit yneede d b yth e Wisconsi nutilitie s i nth e 1994-9 6 time period

. I t i s importan t t o th e company' s participatio n i ntha t proceeding tha t i t kno who wmuc ho f it s Por t Washingto n capacit yi t ca nrel yon . ADN Rdecisio n prio r t o Ma y1 , 1990 , woul d b e appreciated

.

PS D Methodology Th e Cour t i n Wisconsi nElectri c v . Reill vrejecte d and remande d EPA' s determinatio n tha t pos t projec t emission s fo r PS D modificatio n purpose s shoul d b e determine d o nth e basi s tha t th e facilit yoperate s a t 10 0 percen t capacit yfactor

. I nit s decision , th e Cour t provide d guidanc e concerning ho wemission s fro msource s tha t hav e a noperating historyshoul d b e calculate d fo r purpose s o f determinin g whethe r o r no t ther e wil l b e a significan t ne t emission s increase

. Actua l pos t projec t emission s shoul d b e determine d o n th e basi s o f th e emission s tha t woul d resul t i f th e sourc e wer e operate d a s i t i s intende d t o b e operate d an d a s i t i s normall yoperated

. I nfootnot e 1 4 o f it s decisio n(Wisconsi n Electri c v . Reillyr 89 3 F.2 d 901 , 918) , th e Cour t indicate d tha t EPA' s determinatio nwhethe r th e Por t Washingto n Plan t wil l b e subjec t t o th e PS D programwoul d depend upo nwhethe r th e renovate d plan t woul d caus e a significan t ne t emission s increas e i f i t wer e operate d unde r presen t hour s an d conditions

. I ndeterminin g whethe r propose d wor k a t a sourc e constitute s a modificatio n fo r PS D purposes , Sectio n4 0 C.F.R

. 52.2 1 require s a compariso no f th e source' s actua l annua l emission s during a representativ e perio d prio r t o th e contemplate d work , wit hth e source' s actua l emission s following completio no f suc hwork

. Wisconsi n Electri c believe s tha t th e Court' s decisio n regarding PS D i s compatibl e wit hEPA' s rules

. A s applie d t o Por t Washington , th eP. 4

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Marc h29 , 199 0 Pag e 3

compan ybelieve s tha t th e Court' s decisio n require s a compariso n o f actua l emission s during a representativ e perio d prio r t o th e propose d renovatio nwor k wit hprojecte d post-renovatio n emission s determined , assuming tha t Por t Washingto n operate d wit hth e same capacit yfacto r a s i t di d during th e representativ e pre-renovatio n period

. I nthi s case , sinc e EPAha s alread ydecide d tha t 198 3 an d 198 4 constitut e th e representativ e pre-renovatio n perio d fo r Por t Washingto n (lette r date d Octobe r 14 , 1988 , Le e M

. Thoma s t o JohnW

. Boston) , th e determinatio no f whethe r o r no t th e propose d renovatio n wor k a t Por t Washingto nwoul d constitut e a PS D modificatio n shoul d b e relativel yeas yan d straightforward

. Por t Washington' s post-renovatio n actua l emission s shoul d b e base d upo n th e emission s tha t woul d resul t i f th e plan t wer e operate d during th e post-renovatio n perio d a s i t operate d during th e representativ e period

. I f ther e woul d b e n o significan t ne t increas e i n emissions , the n th e propose d renovatio nwoul d no t constitut e a PS D modification

. I n determining whethe r ther e woul d b e a ne t significan t emission s increase , contemporaneou s increase s an d decrease s i n emissions , a s wel l a s th e significanc e level s se t fort hi n 4 0 C.F.R

. Sectio n 52.21(b)(23 ) would , o f course , apply

.

NSP S - Baselin e Capacit yan d Emission s Th e applicabilit yo f NSP S t o th e variou s unit s a t Por t Washingto n an d th e amoun t o f emissio n reduction s require d a t eac huni t i n orde r t o "ne t out " o f NSP S mus t b e establishe d i norde r t o conduc t th e PS D calculations

. Thes e NSP S issue s depend i ntur n o n th e pre
renovatio n baselin e capacit yestablishe d fo r eac huni t an d th e relate d baselin e emissio nrate

. EPA' s Octobe r 14 , 198 8 determinatio nestablishe d baselin e capacit y an d corresponding emissio nlevel s fo r Por t Washingto nUnit s 1- 5 base d o n th e maximu m leve l a t whic hth e unit s wer e operate d t o mee t electrica l system

requirement s i n 1987

. Base d o n th e result s o f testin g don e b

yth e compan

yi nlat e 1988 , EPA , o nFebruary15 , 1989 , revise d upwar d th e baseline s o f Unit s 2 an d 3 suc htha t th e propose d wor k o n thes e unit s shoul d no t resul t i na capacit y increas e an

d NSP S shoul d no t b e triggered

. Th e resulting uni t baselin e capacities , expresse d i n thousand s o f pound s o f boile r feedwate r pe r hour , ar e show no n Tabl e 1 , lin e 2 (attached)

. O nOctobe r 5 , 1989 , EPA , unde r th e authorit yo f Sectio n11 4 o f th e Clea nAi r Act , requeste d th e compan yt o conduc t particulate/opacit y test s o nUnit s l an d 4

. Th e compan

yconducte d th e requeste d test s an d determine d tha t th e unit s coul d reliabl yoperat e i n a nP. 5

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Marc h29 , 199 0 Pag e 4

economicall ysustainabl e fashio ni n complianc e wit happlicabl e standards , a t highe r capacitie s tha n had bee n establishe d b yEP A a s thei r baselin e levels

. Tes t report s wer e submitte d t o DN Ran d EPA

. Th e compan

yrequest s tha t th e capacitie s a s determine d b yth e emissio n testing b e considere d a s ne wbaselin e level s fo r Unit s 1 an d 4 fo r purpose s o f NSP S applicabilit yan d ne t out

. Thes e capacit ylevel s ar e showno n Tabl e 1 , lin e 3

. Th e compan

ybelieve s tha t th e baselin e particulat e emissio n rate s fo r Unit s 1- 4 shoul d b e a s determine d during th e fal l 198 8 capacit y test s o f Unit s 2 and 3 , an d during th e fal l 198 9 test s o f Unit s 1 an d 4

. Tabl e 2 , lin e 3 , show s th e pre-renovatio nparticulat e emissio n rate s i n pound s pe r hou r fo r Unit s 1- 5 base d o nthes e particulat e emissio n tes t results

. Th e compan

ybelieve s tha t th e result s o f particulat e emissio n test s shoul d b e use d i nlie u o f EPA' s "1 0 A " emissio n facto r (whichhad bee nuse d i ncalculating particulat e emission s b yEPAi n it s Octobe r 14 , 198 8 determination)

. Th e "1 0 A " facto r i s no t appropriat e o r representativ e o f Por t Washingto n give nth e design o f th e plant , whic hi s somewha t uniqu e i n th e industry

. Th e "1 0 A " particulat e emissio n facto r assume s a n equa l spli t o f th e as hstreambetwee n fl yas han d bottomash

. I n actuality , (based o n compan

yrecords ) Por t Washington' s fl yash/bottomas h spli t i s approximatel y85/15 , whic hi s th e spli t facto r previousl y use d i nEPA' s AP-4 2 document

. Por t Washington' s fue l systemstore s pulverize d coa l i nbunker s fo r subsequen t injectio nint o th e boile r (bi nand feeder ) a s contraste d wit hth e genera l practic e i nth e industryo f injecting pulverize d coa l directl yand immediatel yint o th e furnace

. Th e ventag e fro mth e Por t Washingto npulverizers , whic hcontain s particulat e matter , i s route d t o th e precipitator , a s contraste d wit hth e practic e o n othe r unit s o f routing th e pulverize r discharg e t o th e boiler

. Th e "1 0 A " emissio nfacto r doe s no t recogniz e pulverize r ventag e a s a componen t o f precipitato r inle t loading

. Th e furnac e flame configuratio na t th e Por t Washingto nunits , whic h result s i nth e extremel ylo wN0 Xemissio nrates , als o contribute s large r amount s o f unburne d coa l t o th e precipitator s tha n woul d b e th e cas e wit hunit s having a mor e conventiona l furnac e flame configuration

. Th e "1 0 A " emissio n facto r doe s no t recogniz e th e

Uni t 5 , whic hwa s no t tested , ha s a zer o baseline

.P. 6

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Marc h29 , 199 0 Pag e 5

Por t Washingto n leve l o f unburne d coa l inle t loading s t o th e precipitators

. Th e abov e thre e items , fl yash/bottomas hsplit , pulverize r ventag e and furnac e unburne d coal , resul t i n artificiall ylowbaselin e precipitato r inle t loading s an d corresponding lo wparticulat e emissio n rate s i f th e "1 0 A " emissio nfacto r i s use d i n th e emissio n calculations

. I n addition , th e emissio nfacto r metho d doe s no t accoun t fo r increase d pos t renovatio nparticulat e loading whic hwil l b e cause d b yus e o f drysorben t injectio n(DSI ) fo r SO 2 contro l o nUnits- 1 an d 4

. Particulat e emissio ntest s will , b y thei r verynature , accoun t fo r al l source s o f particulat e matte r t o th e precipitators

. Thus , th e compan ybelieve s tha t th e result s o f th e 198 8 particulat e emissio ntest s o nUnit s 2 an d 3 an d th e 198 9 particulat e emissio ntest s o nUnit s 1 an d 4 , b e use d t o establis hth e baselin e fo r thes e units

. Pos t renovatio n particulat e emission s woul d als o b e determine d fro m emissio ntest s and , i f les s tha nth e . baselin e values , woul d confirmtha t particulat e NSP S woul d no t b e applicable

. Baselin e SO 2 an

d NO xemissio nrate s wer e calculate d usin g th e same uni t capacitie s a s fo r particulates

. Coa l havin g th e same characteristic s a s use d i n1987 , upo n whic hEPA' s Octobe r 14 , 198 8 determinatio n wa s based , wa s assume d t o b e burned

.

NSP S an d PS D Applicabilit y Tabl e 2 summarize s pre
- an d pos t renovatio n emission s fo r al l fiv e units

. Baselin e particulat e emission s wer e calculate d usin g th e result s o f th e fall , 1988 , an d fall , 198 9 test s o nUnit s 2- 3 an d Unit s 1-4 , respectively

. Pre-renovatio nNO x emission s fo r Unit s 2 , 3 and 4 ar e calculate d base d upo n unit-specifi c NO xemissio n test s conducte d i n th e earl y1980's , th e result s o f whic hwer e use d b y EP Ai n it s Octobe r 14 , 198 8 determination

. I nreviewin g variou s materials , th e compan ybecam e awar e o f th e fac t tha t th e Uni t 1 , NO xbaselin e rate s use d b yEPAwa s erroneousl yoverstated

. A s a resul t o f lac k o f specifi c tes t dat a showing a lowe r emissio nrate , EPA , i n it s Octobe r 14 , 198 8 determination , use d th e AP-42 , NO x emissio n facto r fo r coal-fire d boiler s resultin g i na n inappropriatel ylarg e baselin e NO xemissio nrat e fo r Uni t 1

. Althoug hth e compan yrealize s tha t th e increas e i nbaselin e emissio n rat e fo r Uni t 1 NO xwoul d b e i n it s favor , th e compan y doe s no t believ e tha t us e o f inappropriat e emissio n factor s i s correct , regardles s o f whomtheyfavor

. Th e compan ythu s ha s revise d th e Uni t 1 NO x emissio n facto r an d recalculate d Uni t l' s NO xPJL

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Marc h29 , 199 0 Pag e 6

emissio n rat e t o a leve l i t believe s prope r base d upo n th e result s o f th e test s o n Unit s 2 , 3 an d 4

. Controlle d SO 2 emission s unde r th e pos t renovatio nportio no f Tabl e 2 ar e base d upo ndrysorben t injectio n o nUnit s l an d 4 t o th e exten t necessaryt o resul t i n n o emissio n rat e increase

. Particulat e emission s o nUnit s 1 through5 reflec t precipitato r improvement s o n al l fiv e unit s resulting i na n anticipate d emissio n rat e o f approximatel y0.0 4 lbs

. pe r millio n BTU

. Th e result s o f Tabl e 2 demonstrat e tha t following th e renovatio n projec t Units. 1 through4 wil l no t excee d thei r pre-renovatio n emissio nrate s fo r particulate s an d SO2 , tha t Unit s 2 an d 3 wil l no t excee d th e pre-renovatio nemissio nrat e fo r N0 X , bu t tha t Unit s 1 and 4 wil l excee d thei r pre-renovatio nemissio nrate s fo r N0 X . However , sinc e th e pos t renovatio nemissio nrate s fo r NO xfrom Unit s 1 through5 will , o n a unit-specifi c basis , eac hmee t th e 4 0 C.F.R

. Par t 60 , Subpar t D(a) , NSP S requiremen t o f 0. 6 lbs

. pe r millio n BTU , th e onl yNSP S relate d impac t wil l b e th e requiremen t o nUnit s l , 4 an

d 5 t o instal l continuou s emissio nmonitor s an d submi t t o reporting and recordkeeping

. Uni t 5 wil l hav e t o mee t ful l NSP S fo r SO 2 an d particulates

. Table s 3 and 4 sho wth e result s o f a PS D analysi s conducte d i n accordanc e wit hth e Court' s decisio ni nWisconsi nElectri c v . Reilly

. usin g th e averag e o f 198 3 an d 198 4 operation s an d emission s a s representativ e PS D baselin e emissions

. Th e pos t renovatio n actua l projecte d emission s show ni nTabl e 3 fo r particulate s ar e base d upo nal l fiv e unit s equippe d wit h99. 2 percen t efficien t precipitators , whil e th e particulat e matte r pos t renovatio n emission s shown o n Tabl e 4 ar e base d upo nonl yUnit s 1- 4 bein g i n operation

. A s ca n b e see n from Table s 3 an

d 4 , th e propose d renovatio n projec t wil l no t caus e th e Por t Washingto nPowe r Plan t t o becom e a modifie d sourc e fo r PS D purposes . Th e abov e NSP S and PS D analyse s demonstrat e tha t excep t fo r Uni t 5 , th e onl ypollutant s fo r whic hther e wil l b e a nincreas e subjectin g certai n portion s o f th e plan t t o bein g considere d a s a modificatio n ar e th e NO xemissio n rate s o nUnit s 1 an d 4

. Thes e increase s woul d caus e Unit s 1 an

d 4 t o b e subjec t t o NSP S fo r N0 X . However , sinc e th e unit s alread

yemi t a t rate s lowe r tha nNSPS , th e compan ydoe s no t believ e tha t th e renovatio n projec t shoul d subjec t i t t o an y additiona l control s othe r tha n installatio n o f monitor s an d reporting/recordkeeping

. Consisten t wit hth e Court' s decisio n regarding Por t Washingto nan d wit hth e distinctio n raise d b yth e Firs t Circui t i n Puert o Rica nP. 8

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Marc h29 , 199 0 Pag e 7

Cemen t Co

. v . EPA(88 9 F.2 d 292 , 1s t Cir

. 1989) , th e compan ydoe s no t believ e it s post-renovatio noperatio nwoul d b e restricte d t o th e pre-renovatio n operatio n use d fo r th e before/afte r emission s test

. T o th e exten t tha t a compariso no f pre-renovatio n actua l representativ e emission s wit hactua l post-renovatio n emission s consisten t wit hth e Sevent hCircuit' s decisio nindicate s tha t ther e wil l no t b e a significan t ne t increas e i nemissions , th e compan y believe s tha t it s futur e operation s a t Por t Washingto nshoul d b e governed , fo r modificatio npurposes , b yth e provision s o f Sectio n 4 0 C.F.R

. 52.21(b)(2)

. Thus , a nincreas e i nth e hour s o f operatio n o r productio n rat e o f th e Por t Washingto nPlan t i nth e futur e t o respond t o marke t condition s consisten t wit hEPA' s rules , woul d no t resul t i na finding tha t th e sourc e ha d bee nmodified

.
Respons e t o EPADat a Regues t
A t it s Marc h16 , 199 0 meetin g wit hth e company , EPAstaf f requeste d tha t informatio n b e provide d showing actua l projecte d pos t renovatio n emission s fromth e plan t o n a n annua l basi s reflecting on e percen t increase s i n annua l plan t capacit yfactors

. Table s 5 an d 6 provid e th e requeste d information

. Tabl e 5 (tw o pages ) show s on e percen t increase s i n capacit yfactor s from 2 0 through8 0 percent , assumin g al l fiv e unit s ar e i n operation

. Tabl e 6 (tw o pages ) provide s a simila r capacit yfactor/emissio n analysis , bu t assume s tha t onl yUnit s 1 through4 a t Por t Washingto nar e i n operatio n i n th e pos t renovate d time frame

. Tabl e 6 assume s tha t Uni t 5' s pos t renovatio nemission s ar e zero . Tabl e 7 respond s t o EP Astaff' s reques t fo r publi c informatio n concerning th e company' s projecte d operation s o f Por t Washingto n i nth e futur e and th e hig hsid e erro r band around thos e annua l operating forecasts

. I t shoul d b e understoo d tha t b ythei r nature , forecast s ge t les s certai n a s theyg o furthe r int o th e future , bot h i nterm s o f operatio n and emissio nrates

. Althoughuni t emissio n rate s hav e bee n assume d t o remai nconstan t i nth e future , thes e rate s maychange

.

Conclusio n W e wil l mee t wit hyo u o n th e mornin g o f Friday , Marc h30 , t o discus s th e abov e information

. A s yo u know , th e compan yi s anxiou s t o mov e thi s matte r along , especiall yi n vie wo f th e Publi c Servic e Commissio n o f Wisconsin' s recentl yinstitute d 1994-9 6 generatio n capacit yproceeding

. Th e compan ywil l nee d t o kno wth e exten t t o whic hi t ca n coun t o n generatio nfro mPor t Washingto n t o b e i n servic e durin g th e 1994-199 6 time frame

. I nthi s regard , planne dP. 9

Mr

. Dal e Zieg e Marc h29 , 199 0 Pag e 8

uni t outage s a t Por t Washingto nt o conduc t th e necessaryrenovatio n wor k wil l rende r certai n o f th e unit s inoperabl e fo r si xt o nin e mont hperiods , thu s affecting th e company' s futur e capacit yplans

. Durin g th e Marc h16 , 199 0 meeting wit hth e company , EPAsenio r staf f mentione d tha t Wisconsi n Electric' s acceptanc e o f a PS D permi t migh t resul t i n a mor e speed yresolutio n o f th e issues , than woul d attempting t o demonstrat e tha t PS D doe s no t apply

. Although th e compan

ybelieve s tha t th e propose d projec t shoul d no t resul t i na PS D modificatio n o f th e plant , i t woul d lik e t o mov e forward wit hit s propose d .repai r project

. Accordingly , th e compan ywoul d b e willin g t o explor e th e possibilit yo f a PS D permi t base d on curren t NSPS-NO xrate s bein g considere d BAC T an d us e o f appropriat e emission s calculatio nmethod s an d ne t ou t periods

. Ver ytrul yyours ,

Walte r T

. Woelfl e Counse l
p b
Enclosure s

cc : Donal d F

. Theile r - WDNR , Burea u o f Ai r Managemen t WilliamG

. Rosenber g - EPAAssistan t Admin , o f Ai r & Radiatio n Lydi a Wegma n - EPAChie f o f Staff , Ai r & Radiatio n ^Jtffi n Calcagn i - EPA , Researc hTriangl e Par k Davi d Ke e - Directo r - EPARegio nV , Ai r & Radiatio n Divisio n Barbar a Jame s - Publi c Servic e Commissio n o f Wisconsi n Michae l Jaege r - Publi c Servic e Commissio n o f Wisconsi n Lann ySmit h- Publi c Servic e Commissio no f Wisconsi n HenryV

. Nicke l - Hunto n& William s Anthonys . Ear l - Quarle s & Brad yTABL E 1
POR T WASHINGTO NPOWE RPLAN T FUL L LOA D CAPACIT Ym P.1 0

Octobe r 14 , 198 8 EP Adetermination

. i
45 8 2

.

61 0 Uni t

2
66 6 4

.

44 7 5

0

2

. Octobe r 14 , 198 8 EP A determinatio na s modifie d b yFebruar y15 , 1989 , determination

. 3

. Octobe r 14 , 198 8 EP A determinatio na s modifie d b yFebruar y15 , 198.9 , determinatio nan d Wisconsi n Electri c Fal l 198 9 tests

. 4

. Expecte d post-renovatio n capacity

. 45 8

52 4

69 0 69 4

69 4

69 4 69 0

69 0

69 0 44 7

58 0

65 5 64 0

(1 ) Operatin g capacit yi s expresse d a s uni t feedwate r flow , i nKlb/hr

.P.11

TABL E 2 PORT WASHINGTONPOWE RPLANT RENOVATIONPROJEC T - NSP S APPLICABILITY

Ful l Load Emission s a t Current , Representativ e Pre-renovatio nBaselin e Capacit y

Paramete r Operating Leve l (feedwate r flow i nKlb/hr ) (1 )
S0 2 Emission s (lb/hr ) (2 )
P MEmission s (lb/hr ) (1 )
NO xEmission s (lb/hr ) (2 ) 

### I
52 4

161 9
6 2
31 4 2

69 4

205 7
10 5
39 6 Uni t



## 2
69 0

212 2
8 1
30 0 

### 1

58 0

187 0
4 0
26 1 5

0

0
0
0
Projecte d Ful l Load Emission s a t Futur e (Design ) Capacit y ( Post-renovation)

Paramete r Operatin g Leve l (feedwate r flow i nKlb/hr )
Uncontrolle d S0 2 Emission s (lb/hr ) (3 ) Controlle d S0 2 Emission s (lb/hr ) (4 )
PMEmission s (lb/hr ) (5 ) Wit hAdditiona l Contro l
NO xEmission s (lb/hr ) (6 ) 

## I
69 0

205 8

160 5

4 0

39 9 2

69 4

205 7

205 7

3 2

39 6 Uni t



## 2
69 0

212 2

212 2

3 2

30 0 

## 1 I

65 5 64 0

212 5 200 4

184 9 50 0

3 7 2 5 (NSPS )
29 6 35 0

Emission s Paramete r S0 2 P M- NO x - Controlle d Adde d Contro l NSP S Applicabilit y



### I

N o (7 ) N o Ye s (8 ) 2

N O N O N O Uni t



## 2

N O N o N o 

### 1

N o (7 ) N o Ye s (8 ) 5

Ye s Ye s Ye s (8 )

Notes : (1 ) (2 ) tf) (4 )
(5 )
(6 ) (7 ) (8 ) Operatingdat a an dparticulat e emission s fro m 198 8 an

d198 9 testing . S0 2 an dNO xemission s basedo n198 8 an d198 9 operatinglevel s an d198 7 coa l quality . Uncontrolle dS0 2 emission s base do nexpectedoperatinglevel s and198 7 fue l quality . Controlle dS0 2 emission s basedo nassumption s fro

m Footnot e 3 , with22X , 13% , an d75 % S0 2 remova l o nUnit s 1 , 4 , an d 5 , respectively . Particulat e Matte r (PM ) emission s basedonexpectedES P inlet loadings , 99.2 XES P performanc e an d198 7 fue l quality .

- Uni t 5 i s NSPS . NO xemission s base do nexpecte doperatinglevels , curren t ful l loa dNO xemissionrates , an

d198 7 fue l quality . S0 2 emission s o nUnit s 1 an d4 wil l ne t out o f NSP S requirement s b y partia l S0 2 removal . ExistingNO

xemissio nrate s already les s thanNSPS . Require s CEM S for NOx .POR T WASHINGTO NPOWE RPLANT UNIT S 1- 5 RENOVATIONPROJEC T - PS D APPLICABILIT Y (ALL EMISSION S AR E INTON S PE RYEAR ) TABL E 3 Marc h28 , 199 0

POLLUTANT

Particulat e Matte r
Sulfu r Dioxid e Nitroge nOxide s PRE-RENOVATIO N(1 ) ACTUA L EMISSION S BASELIN E

32 8 (2 )
24,23 6
2,59 2 (3 ) POST-RENOVATIO N (4 ) ACTUA L PROaJECTE D EMISSION S

22 4 (5 )
10,45 8
2,43 5 NET-EMISSION INCREAS E

No
No
No PS D

LEVE L

2 5
4 0
4 0 SUBJEC T T O PS D REVIE W

No
No
No

NOTES :
1

. Averag e actua l emission s fo r tw o yea r representativ e perio d 198 3 a ^ 1984

. 2

. Particulat e Matte r (PM ) emission s base d o n1983-198 4 actua l operatin g levels , coa l characteristics , precipitato r efficiencies , 85V15 * fl yash-botto mas hsplit , an d measure d los s o nignitio n(LOl ) value s i nfl yash

. 3

. NO xemission s adjuste d downwar d t o reflec t Uni t l' s representativ e NO xemissio n rate

. 4

. Actua l projecte d emission s base d o n198 3 an d 198 4 operatin g hour s and levels , an d post-renovatio nemissio nrate s fo r F Man d S0 2 t o satisf yNSP S net-ou t requirements

. Curren t and futur e NO xemission s (Ib/MBtu ) ar e les s tha nNSP S requirement

. 5

. Precipitato r remova l efficienc yo nUnit s 1- 4 i s 99.2% ; Uni t 5 i s NSPS

.

T J
t oPOR TWASHINGTO

NPOWE RPLAN T UNIT S 1- 4 RENOVATIO

NPROJECT- PS D APPLICABILIT Y (AL LEMISSION S AR

EI NTONS PERYEAR)

NOTES :
1

. Averag e actua l emission s fo r tw o yea r representativ e perio d 198 3 an d 1984

. 2

. Particulat e Matte r (PM ) emission s base d o n1983-198 4 actua l operatin g levels , coa l characteristics , precipitato r efficiencies , 85%/15 % fl yash-botto mas hsplit , and measure d los s o nignitio n(LOl ) value s i nfl yash

. 3

. NQ xemission s adjuste d dowra^r d t o reflec t Uni t l' s representativ e NQ xemissio n rate

. 4

. Actua l projecte d emission s base d o n198 3 an d 198 4 operatin g hour s an d levels , an d post-renovatio nemissio nrate s fo r P Man d S0 2 t o satisf yNSP S net-ou t requirements

. Curren t an d futur e NO xemission s (lb/MBtu ) ar e les s tha nNSP S requirement

. 5

. Precipitato r remova l efficienc yo nUnit s 1- 4 i s 99.2%

. TABL E 4 March28 , 199 0

POLLUTANT

Particulat e Matte r
Sulfu r Dioxid e Nitroge nOxide s PRE-RENOVATION(1 ) ACTUAL EMISSION S BASELIN E

32 8 (2 )
24,23 6
2,59 2 (3 ) POST-RENOVATION(4 ) ACTUA L PROJECTE D EMISSION S

23 8 (5 )
12,79 4
2,39 8 NET-EMISSION ' INCREAS E

No
No
N o PS D

LEVE L

2 5
4 0
4 0 SUBJEC T T O PS D REVIE W

N o
No
N o

TJPORT WASHINGTO NPOUE R PLAN

T PROJECTE D AMMJA

L EMISSIO

N UNIT S 1-5

. 198 7 COAl

. TABL E 5 Pag e 1 o f 2

03/29/9 0

Capacit y Factor

. V.

2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 Hea t Inpu t

(MBtu/yr ) x10 t o
B. l 8. 5 8. 9 9. 3 9. 7 10. 1 10. 5 10. 9 11. 4 11. 8 12. 2 12. 6 13. 0 13. 4 13. 8 14. 2 14. 6 15. 0 15. 4 15. 8 16. 2 16. 6 17. 0 17. 4 17. 8 18. 2 18. 6 19. 1 19. 5 19. 9 20. 3 Projecte d •

Coa l Consumptio n Tons/y r
306,46 0 321,78 3 337,10 6 352,42 9 367,75 2 383,07 5 398,39 8 413,72 1 429,044 444,36 7 459,69 0 475,01 3 490,33 6 505,65 9 520,98 2 536,30 5 551,62 8 566,95 1 582,27 4 597,59 7 612,92 0 628,24 3 643,56 6 658,BB 9 674,21 2 689,53 5 704.85 8 720.18 1 735,50 4 750,82 7 766,15 0 Annu a 1 S0 2 Emis s ion s Tons/y r
7,58 1 7,96 0 8,33 9 8,71 8 9,09 7 9,47 6 9,85 5 10.23 4 10,61 3 10,99 2 11,37 1 11,75 0 12,12 9 12,50 8 12,86 7 13,26 6 13,64 5 14,02 4 14,40 3 14.7B 2 15,16 1 15,54 0 15,91 9 16,29 9 16,67 8 17,05 7

, 17,43 6 17,81 5 18,19 4 18,57 3 18,95 2 Annu a 1

Particulat e Emission s Tons/y r
15 4 16 2 16 9 17 7 18 5 19 3 20 0 20 8 21 6 22 3 23 1 23 9 24 6 25 4 26 2 27 0 27 7 28 5 29 3 3D 0 3D 8 31 6 32 3 33 1 33 9 347 * 35 4 36 2 37 0 37 7 38 5 Annu a 1

NO xEmission s Tons/k T
1,62 2 1,70 3 1,78 4 1,86 5 1,94 6 2,02 7 2,10 8 2,18 9 2,27 0 2,35 1 2,43 2 2,51 3 2,594 * 2.67 6 2,75 7 2,83 8 2.91 9 3,00 0 3,08 1 3,16 2 3.24 3 3,32 4 3,40 5 3.48 6 3,56 7 3,64 8 3,73 0 3,81 1 3,89 2 3,97 3 4.05 4

Plan t 50 2 Emission Rat e = 1.8 7 Ib/MBtu
Plan t PMEmission Rat e = 0.03 8 Ib/MBtu
Plan t NO

xEmission Rat e = 0.4D Ib/MBtu H Approximat e leve l o t baseline emission s plu s PS 0
s ign i t ican

t level

. Maximu mAllowabl e Emmission s Withou t Triggerin g PSD '

PM- 35 3 S0 2 - 24,27 6 NO x- 2.63 2POR T WASHINGTO NPOWE RPLAN T PROJECTE D ANNUA L EMISSIO N UNIT S 1-5

. 19B 7 COA L TABL E 5 Pag e 2 o f2

D3/2V/9 0

Capacit y Factor

. %
5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 8 0 Hea t Inpu t

(MBtu/yr ) xia b

20. 7 21. 1 21. 5 21. 9 22. 3 22. 7 23. 1 23. 5 23. 9 24. 3 24. 7 25. 1 25. 5 25. 9 26. 4 26. 8 27. 2 27. 6 28. 0 2B. 4 28. 8 29. 2 29. 6 30. 0 30. 4 30. 8 31. 2 31. 6 32. 0 32. 4 Projecte d

Coa l Consumptio n Tons/y r 781,47 3 796,79 6 812,11 9 827,44 2 842,76 5 858,08 8 873,41 1 888,73 4 904,05 7 919,38 0 934,70 3 950,02 6 965,34 9 980,67 2 995,99 5 1,011,31 8 1,026,64 1 1,041,96 4 1,057,28 7 1,072,61 0 1,087,93 3 1,103,25 6 1,118,57 9 1,133,90 2 1,149,22 5 1,164,54 8 1,179,87 1 1,195,19 4 1,210,51 7 1,225,84 0 Annu a 1 S0 2 Emis s ion s Tons/y r 19,33 1 19,71 0 20,08 9 20,46 8 20,84 7 21,22 6 21,60 5 21,98 4 22,36 3 22,74 2 23,12 1 23,50 0 23,87 9 24,258 * 24,63 7 25,D1 6 25,39 5 25,77 4 26,15 3 26,53 2 26,91 2 27,29 1 27,67 0 2B,04 9 28,42 8 28,80 7 29,18 6 29,56 5 29,94 4 30.32 3 Annu a 1

Particulat e Emission s Tons/y r
39 3 4D 1 40 8 41 6 42 4 43 1 43 9 44 7 45 4 46 2 47 0 47 8 48 5 49 3 50 1 50 8 51 6 52 4 53 1 53 9 54 7 55 5 56 2 57 0 57 8 58 5 59 3 60 1 60 8 61 6 Annu a 1

NO xEmissio n Tons/v r f 4.13 5 4,21 6 4,29 7 4,37 8 4,45 9 4.54 D 4,62 1 4,70 2 4,78 4 4,86 5 4,94* 6 5,02 7 5,10 8 5,18 9 5,27 0 5,35 1 5,43 2 5,51 3 5,59 4 5,67 5 5,75 6 5,83 8 5,91 9 6,00 0 6,08 1 6,16 2 6,24 3 6,32 4 6,40 5 6,48 6

Unit s 1 S

. 4 198 9 Baselin e Capacit y Unit s 2 8

. 3 198 8 Baselin e Capacit y Uni t 5 NSP S

tt Approximat e leve l o t baselin e emission s plu s PS D sign i tican t level

. Particulate s - Expecte d Precipitato r Pertormance

Uni t 1 2 3 4 5 • n

99. 2 99. 2 99. 2 99. 2 NSP S Ib/Mbt u

0.04 5 0.036 , 0.03 6 0.04 2 0.03 DTABL E 6 Page 1 o f 2

POR T WASHINGTO NPOWE RPLAN T PROJECTE D ANNUA L EMISSIO N LIMITS 1-4 , 198 7 COA L 03/29/9 0

Capa c i ty Factor , V.
2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5

' 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 Hea t Inpu t

(fBtu/yr ) xIO 1

6. 5 6. 8 7. 1 7. 5 7. 8 B. l 8. 4 8. 8 9. 1 9. 4 9. 7 10. 1 10. 4 10. 7 11. 0 11. 4 11. 7 12. 0 12. 3 12. 7 13. 0 13. 3 13. 6 13. 9 14. 3 14. 6 14. 9 15. 2 15. 6 15. 9 16. 2 Prajactt d

Coa l Consumptio n Tons/y r 245,24 0 257,5D 2 269,76 4 282,02 6 294,28 8 306,55 0 318,81 2 331,D7 4 343,33 6 355,59 8 367,86 0 380,12 2 392,38 4 404,64 6 416,90 8 429,17 0 441,43 2 453,69 4 465,95 6 478,21 8 490,48 0 502,74 2 515,00 4 527,26 6 539,52 8 551,79 0 564,05 2 576,31 4 588,57 6 600,83 8 613,10 0 Annu a 1 S0 2 Emission s Tons/y r
7,07 2 7,42 6 7,77 9 8,13 3 B,48 6 8,84 0 9,19 4 9,54 7 9,90 1 10,25 4 10,60 8 10,96 2 11,31 5 11,66 9 12,02 2 12,37 6 12,73 0 13,08 3 13,43 7 13,79 0 14,14 4 14,49 8 14,85 1 15,20 5 15,55 8 15,91 2 16,26 6 16,61 9 16,97 3 17,32 6 17,68 0 Annu a 1

Particulat e Emission s Tons/y r 13 0 13 6 14 3 14 9 15 6 16 2 16 9 17 5 18 2 IB S 19 5 20 1 20 8 21 4 22 1 22 7 23 4 24 0 24 7 25 3 26 0 26 6 27 2 27 9 28 5 29 2 29 8 3D 5 31 1 31 8 32 4 Annu a 1

NO xEmission s Tons/y r 1,29 8 1,36 2 1,42 7 1,49 2 1,55 7 1,62 2 1,68 7 1,75 2 1,81 7 1,88 2 1,94 6 2,01 1 2,07 6 2,14 1 2,20 6 2,27 1 2,33 6 2,40 1 2,46 5 2,53 0 2,595 * 2,66 0 2,72 5 2,79 0 2,85 5 2,92 0 2,98 5 3,04 9 3,11 4 3,17 9 3,24 4

Plan t 50 2 Emissio n Rat e =2.1 8 Ib/MBt u
Plan t P MEmissio nRate- = 0.04 0 Ib/MBt u
Plan t NOxEmissio nRat e = 0.4 D Ib/MBt u tt Approximat e leve l o t baselin e emission s plu s PS D s igni t icant level

. Maximum Allowabl e Emmiss i on s Withou t Triggerin g PSD "

P M- 35 3 S0 2 - 24,27 6 NO x- 2,63 2POR T WASHINGTO NPOWE RPLAN T PROJECTE D ANNUA L EMISSIO N UNIT S 1-4 , 198 7 COA L TABL E 6 Pag e 2 o f2
03/29/9 0

Capa c it

y Factor , 7.
5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7

. 6 8 6 9 7 D 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 6 0 Hea t Inpu t

(MBtu/yr ) x10 b

16. 5 16. 9 17. 2 17. 5 17. 8 18. 2 18. 5 18. B 19. 1 19. 5 19. 8 20. 1 20. 4 2D. 8 21. 1 21. 4 21. 7 22. 1 22. 4 22. 7 23. 0 23. 4 23. 7 24

. D 24. 3 24. 7 25. 0 25. 3 25. 6 26. 0 Projecte d

Coa l Consumptio n Tons/y r
625,36 2 637,62 4 649,88 6 662,14 8 674,41 0 686,67 2 698,93 4 711,19 6 723,45 8 735,72 0 747,98 2 760,24 4 772,50 6 784,76 8 797,03 0 8D9,29 2 821,55 4 833,81 6 846,07 8 858,34 D 870,60 2 882,86 4 895,12 6 907,38 8 919,65 0 931,91 2 944,17 4 956,43 6 968,69 8 980,96 0 Annu a 1 S0 2 Emis s ion s Tons/y r
18,03 4 18.3B 7 18,74 1 19,09 4 19,44 8 19,80 2 20,15 5 20,50 9 20,86 2 21,21 6

. 21,57 0 21,92 3 22,27 7 22,63 0 22,98 4 23,33 8 23,69 1 24,045 * 24,39 8 24,75 2 25,10 6 25,45 9 25,81 3 26,16 6 26,52 0 26,87 4 27,22 7 27,58 1 27,93 4 28,28 8 Annu a 1

Particulat e Emission s Tons/y r
33 1 33 7 34 4 35D * 35 7 36 3 37 0 37 6 38 3 38 9 39 6 4D 2 40 9 41 5 42 2 42 8 43 5 44 1 44 8 45 4 46 1 46 7 47 4 48 0 48 7 49 3 50 0 50 6 51 3 51 9 Annu a 1

NO xEm i s s i on s Tons/y r
3,30 9 3,37 4 3,43 9 3.50 4 3.56 8 3,63 3 3,69 8 3,76 3 3.82 8 3,89 3 3,95 8 4,02 3 4,08 7 4,15 2 4,21 7 4,28 2 4,34 7 4,41 2 4,47 7 4,54 2 4,60 7 4,67 1 4,73 6 4,80 1 4,86 6 4,93 1 4,99 6 5,06 1 5,12 6 5,19 0

Unit s 1 8

. 4 198 9 Baselin e Capacit y Unit s 2 8

. 3 198 8 Baselin e Capacit y Particulate s - Expecte d Precipitato r Pertormance :

tt Approximat e leve l o t bas e Ii n e

emission s plu s PS D s ign i t ican t level

. Uni t 1 2 3 4 - **

n 99. 2 99. 2 99. 2 99. 2 Ib/Mbt u

0.04 5 0.03 6 G.03 6 0.04 2P.1 8

a

i > M n a • —i

—I o a i

—-H |

1 - XL. < r

_ i h - a

. c n < C Ku L U LU 3 a: ooi n Q

. la

. 2 r o 3 1 -£ L D — ZX

—< i r 0 1 < I QC 3 UJ a

. 1 -Q

. a. 3 o a

. i

a- l
i n +>
— C 3NSUMPT32DDBDTONS

O -r- tL U 1 U —Z1

Q : I J - J 3 1 u i < m i 3 O 1 U

. U 1

> -1 y- oc i
• —O 1 U 1 -1 < tU 1 a . < i < U

. 1 u
a i 1 -U l 1 H - c n H - 1 < C K C 1 3 3 o : 1 < O U l 1 L D XZ1 UJ U l 1 Z. L3

1 nfflNMHINOODDDDO D con-^rO'-'comaoaaciaa a otn-JCMr^^tcMaaaaaaa a nmr^-o^tajcoam-i^^ajr^r ^ M ^ I I D n m u-H-J J n n n-...}- ^ < tP I -tinina-o^o-or-r^i^r^r-r-r^i^-r

-

'-i<}[DDr'>OI^DiDIDlD(Mhl h nnrnst^atsjstinstsi-a^^-aj-- ^ aoaanaaaaaaaaD a

LnaBr^r-coon-d-aaaann o ^-atD-^mLnoDaattjaaa n •JNHQHOWfflDDDaDDll ) r v -o>iChDaLn-atcr-cho--^-tCMCM O acsinnm>o-flr--OaaO>0( N -r'r-> o

Q J J D I D oc < U J i i m-£i^aDOn^Ni r >-aatm--ar^cDi > I tMMMMhDDODGDDDD D i i>i>o»i>ociaaaaDaaa a

t - z <£

_ J a

. i - C Kc n LU < T 3 u m O U J a

. a r o z u

. o i

—i > L D m Zt h —1 T-l X c n > - < t< x 3 2 : i - QC O C L 1

. - i
t n -t-

. — c 3NSUMPTION32DDBtu/lb)DTONS

O ^ U 1 U —Z1 or. i

_ J -1 3 1 U J < tm i 3 O 1 l i

. U 1

> - i i - o ri

- « O 1 U l - 1 < U 1 Q

. < t1 < u . i u
o i f - U l 1 i - c n i - t < QC < 1 3 3 C K1 <OU ) 1 L D XZ1 U l U l 1

— L D 1YEAR a3NstcD-oo--ir^n-at-ati>no- a -a*ncvjvO-it--oNT-<Lnr-aarHroai n mro>0(Di/)Ln-J3>it*^«--ii>in-r-i(>i N

- LninLno-aOChcDajjoin«atr v -(j*aaOc o •- : H M>- 4 t o a- * C M C M I N ro - 4 - a ro ro-at«*««tLnin-o-aO»ONO-aO>o>o>o- o

- 4 r - -- i C

M - o c o • C M C M ro ro ro ro - * tM^-ta^-I^HCMCMlMt M
-"f--ta*-at-t-at-at- *

•oaaociciaooonoo D

ODa-iNro-ooiN-taNCMT-t-atrOar H •Dr-Dr-HO-CMCOa-0CMCM--Hr v *CMtMC O Nr*-DroNroco-at-^r-,-at--tT-.-atff

-
L O Tl ar- l C M -t fC O C O O D • *

a-H r-l r- <t f > a^-

t-TH a N T - ( •C

O -r- l ro •ttj>coNroro-oco<D-i i CM r o r o - 4 -tf- t •tf • t-t f"t f -i t

m-oi^coo^DT-aCMro-tinaaOP-cocT

- O^O^OChOCDCZCiC.OCJaOCDCt ^^^^^(^^(•grgtsjCMCMCMCMC MTabl e B 03/29/9 0

YEA R PORT WASHINGTO N POWER . PLANT MA Y1*70 9 FORECAS T Unit s 1 - 4

MEGAWAT T FUE L CONSUHPTIO N HOUR S CAPACIT YCOA L (1320 0 Btu/lb ) GENERATEDFACTORBURNEOTON S YEA R

' 199 5 199 6 199 7 199 6 199 9 2DD 0 200 1 2Q0 2 20D 3 200 4 200 S 200 6 200 7 20D O 2Q0 9 825,28 8

941,77 9 1,061,00 2 1,114,31 3 1,247,29 6 1,349,32 9 1,391,B8 2 1,401,46 4 1,420,12 0 1,432,12 2 1,431.41 2 1,460,47 1 1,488,12 4 1,481,42 3 1,463,98 1 0.2 9

0.3 4 0.3 9 Q.4 D Q.4 S 0.4 8 a.S O a . 5 3 Q.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 2 0.5 3 0.5 3 Q.5 2 365,54 8

415,33 2 475,62 4 49D»B6 0 546,54 6 589,56 9 608,62 1 646,41 7 620,15 3 625,17 4 624,90 4 637,51 9 649,13 3 646,90 9 638,75 0 POR T UASHINETON POUERPLANT UPPE RMAXIMU

M FORECAS T Unit s 1- 4

MEGAWAT T FUE L CONSUMPTION HOUR S CAPACIT YCOA L <1320 0 Btu/lb ) GENERATE OFACTORBURNE DTON S 3 >

C- I O

•1 0

199 5 199 6 199 7 199 8 199 9 2QO 0 200 1 2 0 0 2 200 3 200 4 20Q 5 200 6 200 7 2D0 B 200 9 1,074,95 7

1,202,46 0 1,341,07 4 1,390,47 0 1,501,58 4 1,600,50 0 1,651,93 0 1,740,04 6 1,690,00 0 1,690,00 0 1,690,00 0 1,710,00 0 i.?20,aa a 1,720,00 0 1,695,00 0 0.3 6

D.4 3 0.4 8 0.5 0 0.5 4 0.5 7 0.5 9 0.6 Z Q.6 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 0 473,96 1

52B,83 8 SB7,41 2 609,23 7 654,71 8 696,48 3 718,25 2 760,00 0 735,aa a 734,OD D 734,00 0 741,DO D 748,00 0 747,00 0 737,00 0 t-— C- 4

• • -J N 4 -

t-L 

## o o K >



## o h o