p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

78) ll-C-20 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:55 AM Sheet 78 of 276 
P.2 

A A-ifl-OS 

I M I'KI) >r \ I KS KN\ IKOWII.N I" \l . I'KOl KCI ION .u,i.\ n 

\ "V| #^~ ^ W A^IILN<;Ti >N, H.C. .20460 II-C-20 

JUN <J IS90 

OFFICE OF 

MR *ND RlOMriliN 

Dear Mr. Boston: 

Mr. John Boston r'~C\0&\ UL-KVj'1' 

President \, a\ ^3- — '• \. VI 

Wisconsin Electric Power Company • -a .QQ\ U'J* 

Post Office Box 2046 V.<^ JtfN \ ? w* \ 1 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 52301 V-Mi ^^——*':.'"*.• ' 

On January 19, 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Seventh Circuit in Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Reilly. 

Nos. 88-3264 and 89-1339, issued its decision regarding a 

challenge by Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) to two 

final determinations issued by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). In these determinations, EPA concluded that 

WEPCO's proposed renovations to its Port Washington power plant 

would be subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) and 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements. 

In its decision, the court upheld all' but one of the 

positions advanced by EPA in the NSPS and PSD applicability 

determinations. However, the court rejected EPA's position on 

the issue of whether the "actual-to-potential" method—referred 

to by the court as the "potential to emit concept"—should be 

used to calculate emissions increases for PSD purposes in this 

case. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the 

PSD determination to EPA for further action consistent with the 

court's decision. 

As you know, EPA decided to acquiesce in the court's holding 

rather than seek rehearing. This letter constitutes EPA's 

revised PSD applicability determination in response to the 

court's remand order. 

The Agency believes that the court's principal instruction— 

that EPA consider past operating conditions at the plant when 

addressing modifications that involve "like-kind replacements"— 

can be reasonably accommodated within the present regulatory 

framework without further litigation in this case. The net 

result of the court's ruling is the recognition of a subcategory 

of "like-kind replacements" under the "major modification" 

definition of EPA's new source review provisions. 

As explained below, EPA will employ an "actual-to-actual" 

method to calculate emissions increases for WEPCO's proposed , 

renovations to its Port Washington power plant. The outcome in 

this case is that WEPCO will not be subject to PSD review for 
P.3 

sulfur dioxide (SO,), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide, 

or hydrocarbons. However, there will be a significant net 

increase in actual emissions of nitrogen oxides (N0X), and WEPCO 

must obtain a PSD permit for that pollutant. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Background. 

The WEPCO owns and operates five coal-fired, steamgenerating units at its Port Washington facility near Milwaukee. 

All units had an original design capacity of 80 megawatts when 

they were placed in service between 1935 and 1950. However, due 

to age-related deterioration and loss of efficiency, both the 

physical capability and actual utilization of the plant have 

declined over time. Unit 5 was shut down completely due to a 

cracked rear steam drum. Consequently, by 1987, WEPCO was faced 

with removing the units from service as they reached their 

planned retirement dates beginning in the early 1990's, unless it 

undertook a costly "life extension" program to restore the 

physical and economic viability of the units and extend their 

useful life for approximately 20 years. The WEPCO proposed such 

a life extension to include replacement of the steam drums, air 

heaters, and other major capital improvements totaling over $80 

million. It should be noted that this program is not a pollution 

control proj ect (i.e., it is not intended to add on or improve 

pollution control systems even though modest improvements to the 

particulate matter control devices are a part of the program). 

In a series of applicability determinations in 1988 and 

1989, EPA ruled that the renovations planned under WEPCO's life 

extension program would constitute a "modification" for purposes 

of the NSPS provisions of the Clean Air Act (Act), and a "major 

modification" under the PSD provisions of the Act. Thus, WEPCO 

would have had to install some level of control equipment or 

physical capacity restriction to avoid NSPS coverage for three of 

the five units proposed to be renovated. As to PSD, the company 

would have had to accept operational restrictions or lower 

emissions rates to "net out" of review. Regarding SO,, for 

example, WEPCO could have almost doubled its projected level of 

future operations without triggering PSD review. However, WEPCO 

did not want to be constrained by new source requirements, and so 

sought review in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

B. The Court's Decision. 

1. Physical Change. 

The court unequivocally agreed with EPA that the replacement 

of steam drums, air heaters, and other major components was a 

nonroutine "physical change," and thus met the first of two tests 

for a modification under NSPS and PSD. The Agency found that the 
P.4 

renovations proposed by WEPCO were exactly the type of industrial 

changes that were meant -.o be addressed by the NSPS and PSD 

programs. In upholding EPA's finding that a physical change 

would occur, the court strongly endorsed EPA's reading of the 

basic congressional intent in adopting the modification 

provisions of the NSPS and PSD programs, because to rule 

otherwise "would open vistas of indefinite immunity from the 

provisions of NSPS and PSD" (slip op. at 11). The court also 

relied on the reasonableness of EPA's consideration of the 

magnitude, purpose, frequency, and cost of the work in upholding 

EPA's finding that the renovations are not "routine" (slip op. at 

14-18). In addition, the court rejected WEPCO's argument that 

the renovations could not be deemed a modification for NSPS 

purposes because they did not constitute a "reconstruction" under 

40 CFR 60.15 (Slip op. at 18-20). 

2. NSPS Emissions Increase. 

The court upheld EPA's decision that there would be an 

increase in hourly emissions at three of the units, and thus for 

those three units, WEPCO met the second test for NSPS 

applicability. The Agency had argued that the regulations 

require NSPS emissions increases to be determined by comparing 

the current (pre-change) hourly emissions capacity of each 

affected facility with the post-renovation hourly emissions 

capacity of each unit. The Seventh Circuit agreed, and rejected 

WEPCO's argument that original design capacity or past 

"representative" capacity no longer achievable at the plant 

should be used for the baseline emissions rate (slip op. at 

20-25). 

3. PSD Emissions Increase. 

The regulatory preamble to the PSD regulations provides that 

the set of emissions units that have "not begun normal 

operations" includes both "new or modified" units (45 FR 52676, 

52677, 52718) (1980). Consequently, EPA used the "actual-topotential" calculus in evaluating WEPCO's life extension project. 

The court rejected this methodology in the case of WEPCO's "likekind replacement," asserting that EPA's reasoning was circular 

(slip op. at 28). [In addition, the court held (slip op. at 27 

n. 11) that the exemption in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f) for 

emissions increases due to expanded operations did not apply, 

because WEPCO's increased operations were directly tied to the 

life extension project.] Instead, the court ruled that EPA 

should recalculate post-change emissions considering past 

operating conditions where it is possible to make a more 

realistic assessment of future emissions (slip op. at 29-31). 

Alternatively, the court stated that EPA could conduct new 

rulemaking to explicitly apply the "actual-to-potential" calculus 

to "like-kind replacements" (slip op. at 30). 
P.5 

II. THE WEPCO DECISION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PSD PROVISIONS 

The Seventh Circuit held that EPA could not wholly disregard 

past operating history and automatically apply the actual-topotential methodology for determining PSD applicability to 

WEPCO's "like-kind replacements." In describing the WEPCO 

changes as "like-kind replacements" and limiting its decision to 

such changes, the court did not dispute the correctness of EPA's 

application of the actual-to-potential test to the full spectrum 

of new and modified sources not covered by this subcategory of 

change. The recent decision in Puerto Rican Cement Co. v. EPA. 

889 F.2d 292 (1st Cir. 1989), explicitly upheld EPA's position 

that the actual-to-potential concept should be applied to 

"modified" emissions units. The First Circuit case involved the 

modernization and reconfiguration of existing emissions units • 

[see 889 F.2d at 293 (company planned to "convert kiln No. 6 from 

a 'wet' to a 'dry' cement-making process, and to combine that 

with Kiln No. 3")]. A key issue was whether EPA properly.held 

that the "modified" units had "not begun normal operation" and 

therefore the actual-to-potential concept applied in calculating 

emissions increases. The First Circuit affirmed EPA's position 

that the actual-to-potential concept should be applied to the 

company's "modified" units. Puerto Rican Cement. 889 F.2d at 

297. Consequently, the court found that both the language and 

expressed purpose of the regulations indicate that EPA applied 

the regulations properly in using the actual-to-potential test 

for a proposed modification. The Seventh Circuit in WEPCO did 

not dispute the correctness of EPA's application of the actualto-potential test to the full spectrum of changes not covered by 

the subcategory of changes (like-kind replacements) created by 

the court.1 Therefore, in the case of nonroutine physical or 

1 EPA will leave to future case by case applicability 

determinations, what is a "like-kind replacement." But 

for guidance of the parties, EPA presently considers that only 

for projects that are genuine "like-kind replacements" can future 

emissions projections be calculated using "estimated future 

actual emissions" in lieu of potential to emit. EPA does not 

consider "like-kind replacements" to mean the entire replacement 

(or reconstruction) of an existing emissions unit with an 

identical nev one or one similar in design or function. Rather, 

EPA considers "like-kind replacements" to encompass the 

replacement of components at an emissions unit with the same (or 

functionally similar) components. Under this interpretation of 

the term, new components that perform essentially the same 

function as old ones will be viewed as "like-kind replacements." 

In addition, even if the design or purpose of a new component is 

identical to that of an old one, if the new component is part of 

a project that will fundamentally change the production process 

at an existing stationary source, this would be beyond the scope 

of a "like-kind replacement." Under either of those 
P.6 

operational changes at an existing major source which are not 

specifically "like-kind replacements" in nature, EPA will 

continue to apply the actual-to-potential test for PSD 

applicability purposes. 

III. THE AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REMAND ORDER 

A. The PSD Baseline Emissions. 

Determining the "baseline" level of actual emissions before a 

physical or operational change is a necessary first step to 

determine if emissions increase as a result of the physical 

change. The Agency's regulations define the baseline for PSD 

purposes, as follows: 

In general, actual emissions as of a particular date shall 

equal the average rate, in tons-per-year (tpy), at which the 

unit actually emitted the pollutant during a 2-year period 

which precedes the particular date and which is 

representative of normal source operation. The 

Administrator shall allow the use of a different time period 

upon a determination that it is more representative of 

normal source operation. Actual emissions shall be 

calculated using the unit's actual operating hours, 

production rates, and types of materials processed, stored, 

or combusted during the selected time period [see 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(21)(ii)]. 

The purpose of the definition is to establish a baseline 

that is "representative" of "normal" source operations prior to 

the change. The Agency historically has followed a presumption 

circumstances, it would be unreasonable to rely on premodification usage patterns to estimate future levels of capacity 

utilization. Instead, in such cases, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to assume that in the absence of federally-enforceable 

limits on hours of operation or production rates, the new 

components may result in a substantial increase over historical 

levels of utilization of the emissions unit following 

modification [see Puerto Rican Cement, supra. 889 F.2d at 297 ("a 

firm'8 decision to introduce new, more efficient machinery may 

lead the firm to decide to increase the level of production")] 

and will compare pre-modification actual emissions to postmodification potential emissions. In addition to this 

circumstance, there are cases in which sources that undergo 

changes that qualify as add-on control systems would, under 

certain circumstances, be exempt from new source review. See 

Letter to Timothy J. Method, Assistant Commissioner, Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management, from David Kee, EPA 

Region V, January 30, 1990. 
P.7 

that the most recent 2 years should be used, but has allowed 

another period where the source demonstrates that recent 

operations are abnormal [see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(21)(ii); see also 

45 FR 52676, 52718 (1980)]. The WEPCO baseline period is an 

example of this. In this instance, plant utilization was 

disrupted by physical problems that led to nonroutine physical 

changes to remedy those problems. Consequently, EPA determined 

that a period prior to the onset of such problems was 

representative of normal operations, and as required by its 

regulations, used this period to establish the baseline. The 

period used was also within the contemporaneous period specified 

in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(ii). It should be emphasized that, in the 

WEPCO case, the parties and the court agreed that 1983-84 (prior 

to discovery of steam drum cracks) should be the baseline years 

(slip op. at 26); these years had an average 29 percent 

utilization rate. We continue to believe this is the appropriate 

baseline period for the Port Washington renovation. 

B. Calculating Post-Change Emissions Under PSD. 

The court concluded that "EPA's reliance on an assumed 

continuous operation as a basis for finding an emissions increase 

is not properly supported" (slip op. at 30). Although the court 

held that EPA cannot, in this case, wholly disregard past 

operating conditions at the plant, it also held that EPA could 

not reasonably rely on the company's own unenforceable projection 

of operating conditions (slip op at 29). The court remanded the 

question of PSD applicability to EPA for further proceedings not 

inconsistent with its decision. 

Before the court remanded EPA's determination, it attempted 

to ascertain whether, in fact, the proposed project would be a 

major modification even using the assumptions least likely to 

result in an emissions increase. The court felt (and we agree) 

that such a "best" case, scenario for WEPCO would assume that the 

"present hours and conditions" would not change at all following 

the renovations (despite, of course, WEPCO's own estimates of at 

least tripling of utilization over current levels) (slip op. at 

31, n. 14). The court, however, lacked the data to make this 

calculation, so it could not determine whether a major 

modification would result using a set of assumptions most 

favorable to WEPCO. Therefore, the court remanded the 

determination to EPA for further consideration. 

s 

A conceivable interpretation of the court's opinion is that 

EPA must calculate WEPCO's post-modification emissions increases 

based on "present hours and conditions." However, for the 

reasons discussed below, EPA believes that this interpretation is 

incorrect. Under such an interpretation, EPA would determine 

WEPCO's post-renovation annual emissions in tons per year (tpy), 

by simply projecting into the future the hours of operation and' 

conditions (i.e., hourly emissions rate) that existed just before 
P.8 

the renovations. This is the interpretation urged by WEPCO in a 

February 9, 1990 letter to EPA. Such a calculus will always 

result in exactly the same level of emissions before and after 

the physical change, and thus would always exempt "like-kind 

replacements" from PSD review. In addition, calculating 

emissions increases using this assumption would flatly contradict 

the record in this case. The WEPCO has stated that it will 

greatly increase capacity utilization over both current levels 

and the baseline levels used in the previous determinations. 

Capacity utilization in terms of heat input to the plant (based 

on nameplate capacity) during 1978-1979 was about 40 percent 

(Record item 7.4, WEPCO Submission, April 19, 1988 meeting with 

EPA). During the 1983-1984 baseline period, it was approximately 

27 percent. ____[. It has since declined to less than 10 percent 

(1988-1989 data). 1^. The WEPCO has advised the State of 

Wisconsin that it intends to return to a forecasted 42 percent 

utilization level in the years following renovation, with an 

upper maximum forecast of 50 percent [Letter from Walter Woelfle, 

WEPCO, to Dale Zeige, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

March 29, 1990, Table 7 (enclosed)]. It would be wrong to assume 

that unit 5 would not be operated at all in the future when an 

explicit purpose of the renovation is to bring the unit back on 

line at its original design capacity; moreover, unit 5 is 

presently inoperative. Most importantly, this methodology is not 

fairly discernible from any reading of the current regulations. 

In addition, using "present hours and conditions" would disregard 

planned changes at WEPCO that will affect the post-renovation 

hourly emissions rate [e.g., increased capacity, lowering of 

sulfur content, and enhancement of the electrostatic 

precipitators (ESP)]. 

The court upheld EPA's position that increased utilization 

in the future that is linked to construction or modification 

activity should not be excluded in determining post-renovation 

emissions. Nevertheless, the court told EPA not to automatically 

assume 100 percent utilization in the future when historical data 

are available. The WEPCO has definite plans to return the plant 

to historical levels of utilization that are well above baseline 

levels of utilization, and which could not be physically or 

economically attained but for the renovation project. 

Accordingly, EPA believes it is consistent with the court 

decision for EPA to base its remand decision on these facts and 

not rely on the present hours and conditions as conclusive of 

post-renovation emissions. After a thorough review of the 

possibilities, EPA has concluded that the court intended that 

estimates of future emissions for WEPCO's "like-kind 

replacements" should consider historic pre-renovation operating 

hours and production rates, as well as other relevant factors, in 

estimating future utilization levels, and should also consider 

the increased capacity, switching to lower-sulfur fuel, and other 

changes affecting the hourly emissions rate for PSD purposes. 

Consequently, for WEPCO's "like-kind replacements," EPA will 
P.9 

8 

compare representative actual emissions for the baseline period 

to estimated future actual emissions based on all the available 

facts in the record. Specifically, in calculating postrenovation actual emissions, this approach takes into account 1) 

physical changes and operational restrictions that would affect 

the hourly emissions rate following the renovation, 2) WEPCO's 

pre-renovation capacity utilization, and 3) factors affecting 

WEPCO's likely post-renovation capacity utilization. 

To quantify WEPCO's estimated future actual emissions after 

the proposed changes EPA relied heavily on projected and 

historical operational data (e.g., fuel consumption, MMBTU 

consumed) representative of the source. Specifically, the Agency 

considered available information regarding (1) projected postchange capacity utilization filed with public utility 

commissions; (2) Federal and State regulatory filings; (3) the 

source's own representations; and (4) the source's historical 

operating data. As described below, EPA determined an 

appropriate utilization factor for future operations and combined 

this with post-change emissions factors (to the extent they are 

or will be made federally enforceable) to estimate a future level 

of annual emissions for the purpose of determining whether the 

proposed physical and operational changes would be considered a 

major modification for PSD purposes. Where a significant 

emissions increase is projected to occur, WEPCO could voluntarily 

agree to federally-enforceable limits on any aspect of its future 

operation (including physical capacity and hours of operation) to 

ensure that no significant emissions increase will occur. 

IV. THE AGENCY'S REVISED PSD APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION 

A. Estimated Future Actual Emissions. 

The Agency has revised its October 14, 1989 PSD 

applicability determination for WEPCO's proposed Port Washington 

renovation based on a "representative actual" to "estimated 

future actual emissions" comparison (as outlined above). As 

previously discussed, estimated future actual emissions 

projections take into account the likelihood that the plant will 

operate in the future as it has in the past. 

The stated purpose of WEPCO's renovations is to refurbish 

the power plant units to an "as-new" condition in terms of their 

capacity, efficiency, and availability. Consequently, EPA has 

used actual, historical, operational data representative of the 

plant's past operations, approximating an "as-new" configuration, 

to calculate "estimated future actual emissions." The Agency has 

verified these data by comparison to WEPCO's own projections of 

post-renovation capacity utilization and industry averages. 

As to the emissions factors used to calculate future 

emissions, EPA has used WEPCO's own emissions factors for future 
P.10 

hourly emissions rates. These emissions factors are based on 

WEPCO's own assumptions regarding future sulfur in fuel and 

control technology performance levels. However, since these 

assumptions go beyond current State implementation plan (SIP) 

requirements, they must be made federally enforceable for EPA to 

continue to consider them for PSD applicability purposes. 

Operational data (i.e., heat input) from the years 1978-1979 

show a capacity utilization factor of 42 percent. These data 

points represent the closest projection of WEPCO's operational 

characteristics, approximating an "as-new" state, as currently 

available to EPA. The data currently available to us regarding 

WEPCO's past operational levels are limited to a 10-year period. 

The Agency believes that these historical levels of operation are 

representative of the plant's past operations in an "as-new" 

condition. In addition, the 1978-79 data points appear 

consistent with WEPCO's own projection of future operations for 

the year 2010 (as submitted to the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources on March 29, 1990) and common capacity levels 

for the utility industry, in general, for new units. However, by 

this letter, EPA is requesting that WEPCO submit operational data 

from previous years (i.e., pre-1978), if such data show heat 

input levels notably higher than the 1978-1979 levels. 

As previously mentioned, to calculate' future emissions 

levels for each pollutant, EPA assumed that the amount of future 

coal consumed in terms of heat input to the plant would be 

comparable to WEPCO's annual average 1978-1979 coal-consumption 

figure. On March 29, 1990, WEPCO submitted to the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources information which contained 

estimates of future emissions for different levels of coal and 

heat input to the plant. The Agency used these estimates to 

establish future emissions based on 1978-1979 heat-input values. 

Again, it is important to note that EPA's calculation of 

"estimated future actual emissions" is based on WEPCO's 

projection of control technology performance levels and/or fuel 

sulfur content for post-renovation operations. Consequently, 

EPA's PSD applicability determination is valid only to the extent 

that the emissions factors (based on control technology 

performance levels and sulfur in fuel) used to calculate future 

emissions are made federally enforceable. Otherwise, the 

calculation of estimated future actual emissions for each 

pollutant will need to be revised by EPA based on existing 

federally-enforceable limits (i.e., applicable SIP, NSPS). The 

use of current, federally-enforceable emissions in the current 

SIP would result in higher projected future emissions than 

assumed in EPA's calculations and, consequently, could affect the 

indicated PSD applicability finding. 
P.11 

10 

B. Revised Finding 

In sum, EPA has considered past operations at WEPCO's Port 

Washington plant in estimating future actual emissions. 

Specifically, EPA has relied on the 42 percent utilization level 

(in terms of heat input) during 1978-1979. The Agency believes 

this is a reliable indicator of future utilization because it is 

consistent both with WEPCO's own projections of post-renovation 

operations and typical industry usage. The Agency has also 

considered post-renovation emissions rates on the assumption that 

they will be made federally enforceable. Compared to the 1983-

1984 baseline period, those hourly rates are lower for S02 and 

PM, and unchanged for NOx. The 42 percent estimated postrenovation capacity utilization is substantially higher than the 

29 percent utilization level during the baseline period. 

However, in calculating total annual actual emissions, that 

increased usage is offset for S02 and PM by the decreased hourly 

emissions rates resulting from improvements to control systems 

and the use of low sulfur coal. Consequently, WEPCO is not 

subject to PSD review for those pollutants. 

In the case of NO„, there will be a direct correlation 

between increased utilization resulting from the renovations and 

increased actual emissions. Hence, WEPCO is subject to review 

for that pollutant and must obtain a PSD permit. The company 

should contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

regarding the processing of a permit application for NOx. Due to 

insufficient source-specific information regarding emissions 

factors, PSD applicability for PM-10, lead, and noncriteria 

pollutants listed at 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(23)(i) and (ii) cannot be 

determined at this time. The PSD applicability for these 

pollutants should also be based on the "actual-to-actual" 

emissions test described herein. 

This PSD applicability determination applies to WEPCO's 

currently planned renovations to units 1-5 (see Enclosure A), or, 

if WEPCO no longer wishes to proceed with renovating unit 5, only 

the renovation of units 1-4 (see Enclosure B). However, a 

decision to cancel the currently planned renovations to unit 5 

could result in a PSD review for that unit should WEPCO 

reconsider renovating it some time in the future. 

It is our understanding that WEPCO proposes to avoid 

triggering NSPS for SO, and PM at units 1 and 4 by using dry 

sorbent injection and improving the existing ESP's to offset the 

potential emissions increases of these pollutants. To the extent 

that the controls are federally enforceable, and no increase in 

hourly emissions would occur at maximum capacity, WEPCO can use 

these options to avoid triggering NSPS for PM and SO, at units 1 

and 4. However, the two units are still subject to the NSPS 

requirements for NOx. Unit 5 cannot, however, avoid triggering 
P.12 

11 

NSPS for any pollutant and, therefore, is subject to the NSPS 

requirements for NOx, S02, and PM. 

Sincerely, 

ftTfiam G". Rosentterg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

3 Enclosures 
Table 7 03/29/9H 

PORT UASHINGTON POUER PLANT 

MAY 1789 FORECAST 

Units 1- 5 

PORT UASHINGTON POUER PLANT 

UPPER MAXIMUM FORECAST 

Units 1 - 5 

YEAR 

1995 

1996 

1997 

199B 

1999 

2000 

ZOO I 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

MEGAUATT 

HOURS 

GENERATED 

825.288 

941,779 

1,081.002 

1.114.313 

1,247.296 

1.349.329 

1.391.882 

1.481,464 

1,420,120 

1,432,122 

1,431,412 

1,460,471 

1,488,124 

1,481,423 

1,463,981 

CAPACITY 

FACTOR 

0.24 

0.27 

0.31 

0.32 

0.36 

0.38 

0.40 

0.42 

0.41 

0.41 

0.41 

0.42 

0.42 

0.42 

0.42 

FUEL 

COAL 

CONSUMPTION 

(13Z0D Btu/lb) 

BURNED TONS 

,, 

365,548 

415,332 

475,624 

490,868 

546,546 

589,569 

608,621 

646.417 

620,153 

625,174 

624,904 

637,519 

649,133 

646,909 

638,750 

YEAR 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

MEGAUATT 

HOURS 

GENERATED 

1,074,957 

1,202,460 

1,341,074 

1,390.470 

1.501,584 

1.600.500 

1,651,930 

1,748,046 

1,690.000 

1.690,000 

1.690.000 

1.710.000 

1,720.000 

1.720.000 

1.695.000 

CAPACITY 

FACTOR 

0.31 

0.34 

0.38 

0.40 

0.43 

0.46 

0.47 

0.50 

0.48 

0.48 

0.48 

0.49 

0.49 

0.49 

0.48 

FUEL 

COAL 

CONSUMPTION 

(13200 Btu/lb) 

BURNEO TONS 

473.981 

528.838 

587.412 

609,237 

654,718 

696.4B3 

718,252 

760.000 

735.000 

734.000 

734,000 

741,000 

748,000 

747,ODO 

737,000 

TJ 
P.M 

Enclosure A 

Revised PSO Applicability Determination 

Port Washington Power Plant Renovation of Units 1-5 

(all emissions calculations are in tons per year) 

Pollutant 

Particulate 

utter (4) (5) 

Actual 

Emissions 

Baseline (1) 

328 

Sulfur dioxide (4) 24,236 

Nitrogen oxides (5) 2,592 

Carbon aonoxlde 144 

Hydrocarbon 17 

Estimated 

Future 

Actual 

323 

15,919 

3,405 

217 

25 

Net PSO Subject 

Emissions Significance to PSO 

Change Leys! Review fa) 

-5 

-8,317 

813 

73 

25 

40 

40 

100 

40 

no 

no 

yes 

no 

no 

Other Regulated Pollutants: Due to Insufficient source-specific information 

regarding emission factors, PSO applicability for PM-10, lead and noncrlteria 

pollutants listed at 40 CFR Section 52.21 (b)(23)(1) and (11) cannot be determined 

at this time. 

1) Average actual Missions for 2-year period defined by calendar years 1963 and 1964. 

2) Calculated by CPA baaed on the following Information submitted by IfPCfe 

e. The average historic firing rate (approximately 17x19 At e per yaar) for the 2-year period defined 

by calendar years 197S and 1979. 

b. The Missions estleates for the renovated units based on future coal characteriatIce (e.g.. sulfur 

and heat content) and actual emissions after pollution controls for particulate. 

c. Sulfur dioxide controls applied to unit S at 75 percent sulfur dioxide rwoval to comply with KSPS 

Subpart 0a. Sulfur dioxide removal of 22 and 13 percent at units 1 and 4. respectively, to exclude 

these units from NSPS roquir-aments for greater control of sulfur dioxide. 

3) If M M data indicate that annual. historic-firing rate* at the Port Washington facil Ity exceeded historic 

1978 and 1979 levels, the indicated applicability determination could change. 

4) The calculation of estlmsted. future, actual emissions for this pollutant Is based on WEPCO's projection of 

control technology performance levels and/or fuel sulfur content for post-renovation operations. Consequently. 

EPA's PSO applicability determination is valid only to the extent that the specific particulate and sulfur 

dioxide emissions factors used for units 1-5 to calculate future emissions (based on particulate and SO,control 

technology performance levels and fuel sulfur and heat content) are made federally enforceable. Otherwise, the 

calculation of estimated, future, actual emissions for this pollutant will be revised by EPA. based on existing 

federally-enforceable limits (i.e., applicable SIP. USPS). The use of current, federally-enforceable emissions 

factors would result fa higher, projected, future amissions and. consequently, could affect the indicated PSO 

applicability finding. 

5) Baseline emissions (actual emissions for 2-year period defined by calendar years 1983 and 1984) have been 

revised based on additional Information submitted by WEPCO. 
P.15 

Enclosure B 

Revised PSO Applicability Determination 

Port Washington Power Plant Renovation of Units 1-4 

(all emissions calculations are 1n tons per year) 

Pollutant 

Particulate 

utter (4) (5) 

Actual 

Emissions 

Estimated 

Future 

Actual Baseline (1) Emissions (2) Change 

328 339 11 

Net PSO Subject 

Emissions Significance to PSO 

LeiiL 

Sulfur dioxide (4) 24,236 

Nitrogen oxides (5) 2,592 

Carbon aonoxlde 144 

Hydrocarbon 17 

18,505 

3,396 

217 

25 

-5,731 

804 

73 

25 

40 

40 

100 

40 

Review m 

no 

no 

yes. 

no 

no 

Other Regulated Pollutants: Oue to Insufficient source specific Information 

regarding emission factors, PSO applicability for PM-10, lead and noncriteria 

pollutants listed at 40 CFR Section 52.21 (b)(23)(1) and (11) cannot be determined 

at this time. 

1) Average eetual amissions for 2-year period defined by calendar years 1983 and 1984. 

Z) Calculated by CPA based en the following information submitted by WEPCO: 

a. The average, historic-firing rate (approximately 17x19 Ifetu per year) for the 2-year period defined 

by calendar year* 1978 and 1979. 

b. The emissions estimates for ths renovated units based on future coal characteristics (e.g.. sulfur 

and heat content) and actual emissions after pollution controls for particulate. 

c. Unit S inoperative. Sulfur dioxide removal of 22 and 13 percent at wits 1 and 4, respectively, to 

exclude these units from »SPS requirements for greater control of sulfur dioxide. 

3) If new data Indicate that annual. historic-firing rate* at th* PortWashlngto* facility historic 

1978 and 1979 levels, th* Indicated applicability determination could change. 

4) The calculation of estimate, futur*. actual emission, for this P^f"**** ^ *2' ' r£2£Slv f 

control technology performance levels and/or fuel •""«'••**?*/• ' f'E/ES J r«^£laS'and^lft r *' 

EPA'a PSO tool icability determination is valid only to th* extent that th* •9*TM particulate ana auyur 

dl«1<^ 2 « f-*torTus*d for units 1-4 to cafculat* future -1»»«ons (baied on part leuate and SO, control 

ISiScZ SrfSrmL^Uvlluaid fuel sulfur end heat content are rtn'^JJ?^ bJ?Tj5kl 5 

Mi«ihM«Mrf M( <M(> I futur* actual amissions for this pollutant *1U be revised by tr*. based on existing 

factor* would r*«u1t In hightr. pr*J*et*d. futurm amission* and. consequently, could affect tn* indicated no 

applicability finding. 

5) Bas*l1ne amissions (actual emission, for 2-year period defined by calendar year* 1981 and 1984) have been 

revised based on additional Information submitted by WEPCO.