## ENVIRON

October II, 2007
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality AirPennitsInitial Review Team, MC 161 12100 Park 35 Circle**~~d'IIJII\li!&l:** 

# APMRT 

# OCT 15 2007
Building C, 3'd Floor 

### AIR PERMITS 

### DI\IISION Austin, Texas 78753
Re: Standard Permit Registration PPG Industries, Inc., WichitaFalls Plant Account No. WH-0040-R
To Whom ItMay Concern: 

## OCT 

# 152007

On behalf ofPPG Industries, h1c., ENVIRON is sending you (enclosed) one copy ofa standard permit registration for oxy-fuel conversion of Melting Furnace No. I at the PPG Wichita Falls Plant (TCEQ Account No. WH-040-R). This project was discussed with Ms. Am1e hunan, Rule Registrations Section Manager, and members ofher staffMs. Molly Wentworth a11d Mr. Marc Oliver on October znd of this year. Based on discussions during that meeting, it is our understanding that Mr. Oliver will betaking the lead in performing the review ofthis registration. Confidential information is being submitted with this registration. It is included in the enclosed and separate envelope marked "CONFIDENTIAL." Please note that the $900 registration fee has been paid via ePay. The ePayreceipt is included, Attachment F to the registration package. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached by telephone at 713.470.6657 orby email at sramsey(tll.environcom.com Sincerely, ENVIRON International Corporation

Principal Consultant
Enclosure

cc: Ms. Winona Henry, TCEQ Region 3 Director, w/ Enclosure Ms. PatPride, PPG, w/ Enclosure (2 copies) Mr. Scott Johnson, PPG, w/ Enclosure Ms. Laura LaValle, Beveridge & Diamond PC, w/Enclosure 

# APMRT lli,j 

# 15 2007

www.environcorp.com 10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 910, Houston, Texas 77042 Tel: 713.470.6546 Fax: 713.470.6547

## Standard Permit Registration PPG Industries, Inc. Wichita Falls Plant Line 1Melting Furnace Oxy-Fuel Conversion TCEQ AccountNo. WH-0040-R

Prepared for: 

### PPG Industries, Inc. Wichita Falls, Texas

Prepared by:
ENVIRON International Corporation Steven H. Ramsey, P.E., BCEE Alessandra R. Carreon

October 2007 ProjectNo. 26-17400A

10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 910, Houston TX77042 

# E:NVIRON

AIRPERMITSDIVISION 

## OCT 15

## 2001



# APIRT UL.H 

# 15 2007

Tel: 713.470.6546

### CONTENTS Page 

### LIST OFTABLES .......................................................................................................................... ii 

### LIST OFFIGURES ........................................................................................................................ii LIST OFATTACHMENTS ...........................................................................................................ii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 

### 1.1 Purpose ofStandard Permit Registration Application..................................................... 1 1.2 Permit History.................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................2 2.1 Site Description................................................................................................................2 2.2 Description ofExisting Operations..................................................................................2 2.3 Baseline Air Emissions ....................................................................................................4 3. OXY-FUEL CONVERSION PROJECT.................................................................................. 10 3.1 Project Scope ................................................................................................................. 1 0 3.2 Federal New Source Review Requirements .................................................................. 10 3.3 Air Emissions.................................................................................................................11 3.4 Authorization ................................................................................................................. 12 3.5 TCEQ Forms .................................................................................................................. 12 4. STANDARD PERMIT COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION............................................... 14 4.1 Compliance with General Requirements ....................................................................... 14 4.2 Compliance with Specific Requirements.......................................................................23

PPG Standard Pennit Registration TCBQ Account No. WH-0040-R 

### -iENVIRONTable 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 

### LIST OF TABLES Page Actual Emission Rates for Current Operations
.....................................................................

### .4 Baseline NOx, S02, CO and VOC Emissions for MeltingFurnace No. 1
.............................5 Meadville Line 2 Furnace PM Emissions...............................................................................6 Comparison ofMeadville aud WichitaFalls PM Emissions
..................................................7 Baseline PM Emissions for Melting Furnace No. 1
...............................................................8 PSD Analysis for MeltingFurnace No. 1............................................................................. 11 Melting Furnace No. 1Emission Rates ................................................................................ 13


### LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1 Process Flow DiagramforExisting Operations
.....................................................................2 Figure 2-2 Meadville Line 2 Furnace PM Emissions...............................................................................6 Figure 2-3 WichitaFalls Melting Furnace No. 1PM Emissions Trend Line
..........................................8 Figure 3-1 Process Flow Diagramfor Oxy-Fue1 Operations
................................................................. 1 0


### LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 30 TAC §116.617 (Effective Date ofFebruary 1, 2006) Aerial Images ofPPGWichitaFalls Plant PPGWichitaFalls Plaut PlotPlan Registration for Air Standard Permit FormPI-1S Table 1(a) Emission Point Summary AttachmentA Attachment B Attachment C AttachmentD AttachmentE AttachmentF Attachment G Air Quality Standard Permits, State Pollution Control Project Requirements Checklist TCEQ ePay VoucherReceipt

PPG Standard Permit Registration TCEQ Account No.

**WH~0040~R** 

### -iiENVIRON

### 1. INTRODUCTION 

### 1.1 Purpose ofStandard Permit Registration Application PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") submits this registration to authorize the implementation oflow-NOx. oxyfuel injection technology on Melting Furnace No. 1 at PPG's flat glass manufacturing facility in Wichita Falls, Texas, pursuant to the state pollution control project standard permit in 30 TAC §116.617. The project will result in a significant reduction of NOx emissions, and will reduce emissions of C02, a greenhouse gas. No increase in the emission of any air contaminant currently emitted, or emission ofany air contaminant currently not emitted, will result. The conversion, in and ofitself, will not result in any change in production capacity, heat input, products produced or raw materials used. The oxy-fuel conversion will be accomplished during an upcoming cold-tank repair on Melting Furnace No. I. As explained in this application, this environmentally-beneficial project qualifies for authorization under the state pollution control project standard permit. This registration is submitted as required by 30 TAC §116.617(d). A copy of the current version of 30 TAC §116.617 is included as Attachment A. 

### 1.2 Permit History PPG's Wichita Falls flat glass manufacturing plant operations are authorized pursuant to New Source Review ("NSR") Permit No. 898, which was recently renewed and amended. No facilities at the site are currently authorized by standard permit. The Wichita Falls Plant is a major source under the Title V federal operating permits program, pursuant to which Title V Permit No. 01113 was issued on April 24, 2006. Melting Furnace No. 1 is identified as Emission Point Number ("EPN") 22 in these authorizations. Applicable TCEQ identification numbers are as follows. PPG Industries, Inc., TCEQ CustomerNumber......................................................................CN600124614 WichitaFalls Plant TCEQRegulated Entity Number.............................................................RN102522950 Wichita Falls Plant TCEQAir Quality Account Number: ..........................................................WH-0040-R 

### 1.3 Limitations In this registration application, certain information regarding the PPG Wichita Falls Plant and the existing glass manufacturing process are provided for reference purposes only. Per 30 TAC §ll6.116(a), only thoserepresentations directly relating to constructionplans and operational procedures associated with the subject oxy-fuel conversion pollution control project are enforceable representations as conditions upon which the permit registration is issued.

PPG Standard Permit Registration TCEQ Account No. WH-0040-R .]. ENVIRON

### 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

### 2.1 Site Description PPG owns and operates a flat glass manufacturing facility located at 7400 Central Freeway North in the City of Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Texas. Aerial images of the facility and surrounding area are included as Attachment B to this application. The map includes the site orientation, the scale, and the plant boundary. A scaled plot plan showing the PPG property boundary and the location of on-site structures is included as Attachment C. 

### 2.2 

### Description ofExisting Operations PPG produces flat glass on two production lines at the Wichita Falls Plant, each with a single furnace. Theprocess flow diagram in Figure 2.1 illustrates the existing glassmaking operations.

Various Raw

Materials

Raw Material Delivery and

Handling 

# - Natural Air Gas 

# j
Glass Melijng

**~** Glass Furnace Surface Treatment Recycle Cutting, 1----> Packaging :-- and Finishing



# -~ Figure 2-1. Process Flow Diagramfor Existing Operations

The following is a briefoverview oftheWichitaFalls Plant glassmaking operations. 

### 2.2.1 Raw Material Receiving andHandling Glass Products

Sand, soda ash, limestone, salt cake, dolomite and caustic soda constitute the primary raw materials processed at the plant. These materials are delivered to the site by railcar or truck. Minor quantities are typically delivered in super sacks or small containers. The raw materials, except for the caustic soda, are loaded into underground hoppers where conveyors and bucket elevators transport the materials into one of several storage silos. The caustic soda is loaded in aboveground storage tanks. These operations occur inside the material unloadingbuilding. The raw materials are weighed and mixed in either the west or east batch mixers prior to transfer to the main building. Covered conveyor belts are used to transport the hatched materials to the furnace feed hopper. Recycled cullet from the cullet processing area is added to the materials through the conveyor belts.

PPG Standard Permit Registration TCEQ Accounl No.

**Wl-1~0040-R** -2- ENVIRON

### 2.2.2 

### GlassMelting Furnaces Raw material that has undergone preparation for production is sent to one of two glass melting furnaces (Line 1 or Line 2) through a feeder. The two furnace units are fired with natural gas as the primary fuel, though both have the capability to fire fuel oil. As the raw material melts, it passes to the front of the furnace and flows into a refiner and tin bath. The molten glass contacts the surface of liquid tin and flattens into glass sheets as it cools. The glass is further cooled in the annealing lehr where glass properties may be modified by controlling the rate of cooling. General information regarding Melting Furnace No. 1follows. Line 1 Glass Production Capacity:
..............................................................Approximately 700 tons per day Line 1Furnace Maximum Rated HeatInput:
....................................Approximately 215 MMBTU perhour Operating Schedule:
..........................................:.......................................................................... Continuous 

### 2.2.3 Glass Surface Treatment A portion of the colored glass produced may be covered with a reflective surface coating known as Solarcool®. Solarcool® is made by applying a solution of acetylacetonate metals to one side of the colored glass. When not producing Solarcool®, S02may be applied to the glass as a lubricant to prevent surface damage from the conveyor rollers. 

### 2.2.4 Cutting, Packaging andFinishing Procedures An acetic acid and water solution is sprayed onto the bottom of the glass for cleaning purposes as it proceeds down the conveyor. A final water spray rinse is performed to remove acetic acid from the glass surface and the glass is then blown dry with air knives. Handling ofthe glass is performed by vacuum transfer machines that utilize suction cups and a vacuum to transport the glass sections. After cleaning, the glass is inspected for defects and "W" interleaving is employed. "W" interleaving is an application of aqueous ammonium adipate used to prevent glass staining during handling and storage. Finished glass product is cut from the continuously formed glass. Large glass sections are sent to final cutting and trimming in any one of several final packaging sites. "L" interleaving is also applied to the top surface ofthe glass as a means ofprotection. The polymeric powder beads of "L" interleaving allow for separation ofthepacked sheets and also offer some stain resistance. Magnetic sputter vacuum deposition ("MSVD") is used as a solar control metallic reflective coating for a portion ofthe flat glass. The flat glass is first loaded into a vacuum chamber, then conveyed to the spray coating booth where an aqueous solution ofpolyvinyl alcohol is applied. In some circumstances, some of the metal coating may be mechanically buffed from the glass edges. Particulates generated during buffing are controlled by dust collectors with HEPA filters. 

### 2.2.5 GulletProcessing A sizeable quantity ofscrap glass results from the glass trimming process. This scrap glass is crushed and recycled back to theprocess prior to thefurnace feed hopper. Cullet that exits the crushers drops onto one
PPG Standard Permit Registration TCEQ Account No. WH-0040-R -3- ENVIRONof two main conveyor belts that direct the collet to the collet storage building. Some collet is stored outside. Front-end loaders are utilized to load the resulting collet on the collet recycle loop conveyor system which may be added to the delivery ofraw materials to the furnaces. 

### 2.3 Baseline Air

### Emissions PPG has conducted two sets ofemission tests on Melting Furnace No. 1. These tests were conducted in April 1995 and April 2007. The testing results are presented in Table 2-1. The 1995 and 2007 values each represent the average ofthree 1-hourruns. 

### Table 2-1. Actual Emission Rates for CurrentOperations

NOx(as N02) 26.270 16.666 so2 0.468 1.276 

## co 0.043 0.029 VOC (non-CH4) N.A. 0.021 PM 1.129 0.816 

### PMw N.A. 0.566 The higher ofthe two measured emission rates presented in Table 2-1 is used along with glass production rates to estimate emissions of NOx, S02 , CO and VOC for each of the past 10 years. These estimated baseline emissions are presented in Table 2-2. As shown in Table 2-2, the two highest consecutive years of emissions during the past 10 years occurred during 1999 and 2000 (yellow highlights). Baseline emissions are the average ofemissions during these two years and are as follows for NOx. S02 , CO and VOC emissions. NOx 

## = 2,889.84 tons/year so2 

## = 140.37 tons/year 

## co = 4.73 tons/year 

## voc = 2.31 tons/year Based upon measurements of PM emissions over time, PPG has found that the baseline emissions analysis for PM requires a different approach. Following re-bricking (or initial construction if a new furnace), a glass melting furnace will be operated continuously until such time as the refractory bricks begin to disintegrate. Then and only then (excluding any unforeseen and extraordinary situations) will the furnace be taken off-line and drained of all residual heat. This "campaign" will typically last between 10 and 12 years. The exact length ofthe campaign is determined by the condition ofthe refractory brick.

PPG Standard Pennit Registl'ation TCEQ Account No.

**WH~0040~R** -4- ENVIRONTable2-2.BaselineNOx,S02,COandVOCEmissionsforMeltingFurnaceNo.11997216,6641998165,9591999222,5062000217,5162001214,7372002205,1632003178,1402004204,1402005194,0472006205,053PPGStandardPennitRegistrationTCEQAccountNo.WH-0040-R26.2702,845.8826.2702,179.8726.2702,922.6226.2702,857.0726.2702,820.5726.2702,694.8226.2702,339.8726.2702,681.3826.2702,548.8126.2702,693.37··-··-···........•.1.276138.230.0431.276105.880.0431.276141.960.0431.276138.780.0431.276137.000.0431.276130.890.0431.276113.650.0431.276130.240.0431.276123.800.0431.276130.820.043-5-------·-------4.660.0212.283.570.0211.744.780.0212.344.680.0212.284.620.0212.254.410.0212.153.830.0211.874.390.0212.144.170.0212.044.410.0212.15ENVIRONPPG has determined through testing performed at the Wichita Falls Plant as well as a furnace ofnearly identical design at its Meadville, Pennsylvania plant, that measured emissions of PM are not constant throughout a campaign. Rather, PM emissions decline over time during the course ofa campaign. While the specific reason or reasons for this documented trend are not known, PPG believes that one reason is the increasing amount of PM that settles in the furnace's heat recovery regenerators

- also known as "checkers"- during the course ofa campaign. Results of annual testing of PM emissions from the Line 2 furnace at the Meadville Plant are shown in Table 2-3. Table 2-3. Meadville Line 2 FurnacePMemissions

4 28.0 20.0 1.40 5 23.9 19.8 1.21 6 19.0 19.9 0.95 7 22.9 19.8 1.15 8 15.6 20.0 0.78 9 11.0 20.4 0.54 10 15.4 20.4 0.75 1Emissions were not tested

**duri~g** the first three years ofthe campaign. A graphic representation ofthis data with a best-fit trend line is presented as Figure 2-2. As shown, the equation (y = rnx 

### +b) that bestrepresents the trend line is: (Equation 1) PM (lb/ton glass produced)= -0.1236 x (Year ofCampaign)+ 1.8336 The coefficient ofdetermination, R2

, is 0.785. 1 

# ] 2.00 1.80 ::l 

# "8 1.60 

# .. 1.40 0.. 

## m 1.20 (!j 1.00 

### c 0.80 

### {!. 0.60 '- 

### :; 0.40 0.. 0.20 :f! 0.00 0

PPG Standard Permit Registralion TCEQ Account No. WH-0040-R 2 4 6 8 10 Year of Campaign Figure2-2. MeadvilleLine 2 FurnacePMEmissions

-6- 12


# APGRT

**E~IR~~0U**Emissions testing data demonstrate that the Wichita Falls Plant Melting Furnace No. 1 PM emissions behave similarly to those at Meadville: declining over the course of a campaign. PM emission factors calculated using Equation 1 (Meadville Line 2 Furnace only) are shown in Table 2-4. Emission rates determined by source testing on Wichita Falls Melting Furnace No. 1 are presented for comparison purposes. As shown, measured emissions are close to predicted values. 

### Table 2-4. Comparison ofMeadville and Wichita Falls PM Emissions

1 1.71 2 1.59 

### 3 1.46 4 1.34 5 1.22 

### 6 1.09 1.13 

### 7 0.97 8 0.84 

### 9 0.72 10 0.60 0.82 Comparison oftested PM emissions at the Wichita Falls Melting Furnace No. 1 and the Meadville Line 2 Furnace is appropriate given that these furnaces are of nearly identical design. Specifically, they both utilize air-fired technology in the same operational configuration, but have different capacities. Wichita Falls Melting Furnace No. 1 has a glass production capacity of approximately 700 tons per day, and the Meadville Line 2 Furnace has a capacity ofapproximately 600 tons per day. Accordingly, it makes sense from a technical standpoint, and is therefore not surprising, that both furnaces have the same declining PM emissions trend. To most accurately predict PM emissions for Wichita Falls Melting Furnace No. 1, PPG used the same trend line created using Meadville Plant data and adjusted the trend line using 1995 Wichita Falls source testing data. Wichita Falls 2007 source testing data was not used because the furnace was not operating nearcapacityduring the test and, based upon experience, PPG believes that the PM emissions were biased slightly higher as a result. Figure 2-3 shows the adjusted trend line for WichitaFalls MeltingFurnaceNo. 

### 1.

PPG Standard Pennit Registration TCEQ Account No. WH-0040MR -7- ENVIRON2.00 

# § 1.80 1.60



# ~ 1.40 

### M 1.20

**~** 1.00



# ~ 0.80 0.60 

### ....

**~** 0.40 :9 0.20 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Year of Campaign Figure2-3. WichitaFalls MeltingFurnaceNo. 1 PMEmissions Trend Line The equation (y = mx +b) that best represents the trend line is: (Equation 2) PM (lb/ton glass produced)= -0.1278 x (Year ofCampaign)+ 1.8967 Equation 2 is used to estimate PM emissions from the WichitaFalls Melting FurnaceNo. 1. Forpurposes of establishing a baseline, PM 10 is estimated assuming that the ratio of PM 10 to PM determined during April2007testing (0.566/0.816 = 0.694 or 69.4%) remains constantthroughout the campaign. Baseline PM emissions are presented in Table 2-5.
Table2-5. Baseline PMEmissions forMeltingFurnace No. 1



### 1998 1999 2000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

PPG Standard Permit Regisu·ation TCEQ AccountNo, WH-0040-R 

### 2 3 4
6 7 8 

### 9

-8- ENVIRONAs shown in Table 2-5, the two highest consecutive years of emissions during the past 10 years occurred during 1999 and 2000 (yellow highlights). Baseline PM emissions are the average of emissions during these two years and are as follows. PM = PM 10 = 173.59 tons/year 120.41 tons/year

PPG Standard Permit Registration TCEQ Account No.

**WH~0040-R** ENVIRON -9-

### 3. OXY-FUEL CONVERSION PROJECT 

### 3.1 Project Scope As discussed in the Introduction, PPG is submitting this registration application for authorization to implement low-NOx oxy-fuel injection technology on Melting Furnace No. 1. In addition to certain furnace structural changes necessary for the conversion, the project will require the installation of an onsite air separation plant to produce the oxygen required by the process. The air separation plant will be owned and operated by a third-party on land leased from PPG. The third-party owner will be responsible for authorization ofany associated air emissions.
As noted in the Introduction, the project will not change the furnace maximum production rate, maximum rated heat input capacity, operating schedule, raw materials used or products produced. However, a large reduction in NOx emissions will be realized. The emissions following implementation ofthe project are discussed in Section 3.3.
A process flow diagram for thefacility following the oxy-fuel conversion is shown in Figure 3-1.

Various Raw

Materials

Raw Material Delivery and

Handling Air Separation Plant



## j o, Natural Gas

Glass Melting Furnace Glass Surface Treatment Recycle Cutting, Packaging and Finishing

Figure 3-1. ProcessFlow Diagramfor Oxy-Fuel Operations 

### 3.2 Federal New Source Review Requirements Glass Products

The first step in the process of evaluating permitting requirements is to determine if federal NSR permitting is triggered. Since the Wichita Falls area is in attainment of (or unclassified for) all national ambient air quality standards, only the applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") permitting (not nonattainment NSR permitting) needs to be considered. TCEQ's PSD permitting rules define "major modification" as "[a]ny physical change in, or change in the method ofoperation ofa major stationary source that causes a significant project emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase for any federally regulated new source review pollutant. At a stationary

PPG Standard Pennit Registration TCEQ AccountNo. WH-0040-R -10- ENVIRONsource that is not major prior to the increase, the increase by itselfmust equal or exceed that specified for a major source.... The major source and significant thresholds for prevention ofsignificant deterioration pollutants are identified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.166(b)(1) and (23), respectively." [30 TAC §116.12(18)] For purposes of this federal NSR analysis, PPG conservatively assumed that conversion of Melting Furnace No. 1 from air to oxy-fuel constitutes a physical change and/or a change in the method of operation. Therefore, PPG evaluated the net emissions increase associated with the conversion to determine ifPSD review is triggered. The net emissions increase is determined by comparing allowable emissions or projected actual emissions to baseline actual emissions for Melting Furnace No. 1. As shown in Table 3-1, with the exception of VOC, the difference between the baseline and the current permit allowable emissions is greater than the PSD significance threshold. To avoid triggering PSD review, the allowable emission limits will need to be lowered so that the difference between the permit allowable and the baseline actual emissions is less than the PSD significance threshold.


### Table 3-1.PSD Analysis for 

### Melting Furnace No. 1

NOx 40 2,929.84 3,236.82 SOz 140.37 40 180.37 350.40 

## co 4.73 100 104.73 700.80 

## voc 2.31 40 42.31 5.08 PM 173.59 25 198.59 310.98 PMw 120.41 15 135.41 310.98 

### 3.3 Air Emissions PPG anticipates a large reduction in NOx emissions as a result ofthe oxy-fuel conversion project. Based upon experience at other facilities, PPG anticipates that, on annual average, emissions will be less than 7.0 lbs NOx perton ofglass produced. Using this value, annual emissions are estimated as follows: NOx = (7.0 lbs NOx/ton glass) x (700 tons glass/day) x (365 days/year) x (1 ton/2000 lbs) NOx = 894.25 tons/year This represents a reduction of approximately 1,996 tons per year when compared to baseline NOx emissions. To address potential variability in emissions during normal operation and emissions associated with scheduled maintenance, startup and shutdown (MSS) activities, PPG intends to retain the current shortterm NOx emission limit of739 lbs/hour. The primary planned and scheduled MSS activities are startup ofthe furnace at the beginning ofthe campaign and shutdown ofthe furnace at the end ofthe campaign.
PPGStandard PermitRegistration TCEQ Account No. WH-0040-R -11- ENVIRONPPG does not shut down furnaces before the end of a campaign. During startup or shutdown, NOx emissions could be as high as they are for an air-fired furnace. Therefore, it is appropriate to retain the current permitted short-term NOx emission rate to authorize emissions from normal operation and MSS activities. With respect to S02, CO, PM and PM 10, PPG proposes setting the annual permit allowable emission limits atjust below the levels that would trigger PSD review (see Table 3.1). Using S02 as an example: S02 = BaselineEmissions + PSD Threshold

- 0.10 ton/year 

## so2 = 140.37 tons/year+40tons/year- 0.10 ton/year 

## so2 = 180.27 tons/year Current hourly permit limits for S02, CO, PM and PM 10 will be retained to address variability in emissions during normal operation and those emissions associated with scheduled and planned MSS activities. Current annual and short-term emission limits will be retained for VOC and non-criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 summarizes the proposed emission rates following implementation of low-NOx oxy-fuel injection technology on Melting Furnace No. 1. 

### 3.4 Authorization The subject oxy-fuel conversion project qualifies for authorization under the State Pollution Control Project Standard Permit in 30 TAC §116.617. As discussed in detail in Section 4 of this application, the project meets all ofthe requirements for authorization underthereferenced standard permit. 

### 3.5 TCEQ Fonns Thefollowing TCEQforms are included as attachments to this document:
• Registration forAir Standard Permit, FormPI-IS (included as Attachment D)
• Table l(a) Emission Point Summary (included as Attachment E)
• Air Quality Standard Permits, State Pollution Control Project Requirements Checklist (included as Attachment F) No CoreData Forminformation has changed; therefore, one is not submitted with this registration.

PPG Standard Permit Registration TCEQ AccountNo. WH-0040-R -12- 

# APIRT E )'(j)\!

### t

**~ ~NlOOI** Table 3-2. Proposed Melting Furnace No. 1 Emission Rates 180.27 -- 104.63 -596.17 160.00

- --

5.08 0.00 Ll6

-- --

198.49 -112.49 71.00

- --

135.31 -175.67 71.00

- --

1.00 0.00 0.22

- 31.00 0.00 45.00 45.00

-

Ni 1 I 0.10 I

-- I 0.061 -- I

-- I

82.00

0.06

I I

-- I

0.10 O.oi 0.01 _!9.00 19.00

0.02 0.02

Si 1 Ce 1 I 40.00 I

-- I

-- I 40.00 I o.oo 9.00 9.00

Ti 1 I 8.80 I

-- I

-- I 8.80 I o.oo 2.00 2.00

1 Combined emissions from Melting Furnace No. I (EPN 22) and Melting Furnace No. 2 (EPN 23). These pollutants are not subject to PSD review. Therefore, baselim

actual

and proposed net emission increases are not provided.

PPG Standard Permit Registration E N V I R 0 N

TCEQ Account No. WH-0040-R -13- ------- '•-••• **•••·•~• -~0~-~--C-~~~---'-'-~~-~-~"~~-~~~~-----~**