## ,



# - - 

# -'­**~@** HIGH DESERT POWER PRO.JECT 

## LLC _IJ .... April 6. 2004 

### Mr. Gerardo Rios United States 

### Environmental Proteclion Agency, Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: Proposed Revisions/Administrative ChangeS 10 Conditions In PSD Pennit NSR 4-4-4 SE98-I)f for H]qh

## Desert Pqwer ProJect. LLC


### Dear Mr. 

### Rios:



## - High Desert Power 

### Project, LLC 

### (KHDPP") is 

### submitting this proposed revision to the Prevention of 

### Significant Deterioration (PSO) Permit (No. NSR 

### 4-4-4 SE 98-01)· for 

### the High Desert Power Project located in Victorville. California. 

### As detailed in the attached pages, 

### this application consists of

### tI1e foRowing revisions:


### • eliminating the duration 

### of startup events and replacing 

## u,e per combustion 

### turbine startup and shutdown emission limits with 

### emission limits for the total power 

### block (three combustion turbines and one steam turbine) in Condition X-E-3;
• addition 

### of, a daily 

### Hmit for CO 

### in lieu of

### the startup duration 

### limit; and
• minor administrative

, 

### changes 

### to Conditions X-D-1, X-E-1, and X-E-2.



## . As demonstrated in 

### ttis appWcation, 

### the proposed revisions will 

## not result in an increase 

### to the 

### current startup 

### emission limits or have an 

### adverse impact 

### on ambient air 

### quality. 

### The proposed administrative 

### changes do nat 

### affect compliance 

### with applicable rules and 

### regulations. Accordingly, HDPP requests that EPA expedite the 

### review 

### ofthis appUeation. i 

### Similar requests 

### to implement the above proposed changes have been submitted under separate coverto the CEC and MDAQMD.

, I 

### In an effort to expedite the 

### revisions. 

## we will contact you 

### next week 

### to make 

### arrangements for a 

### phone conference 

### to review and answer 

### any questions you may have on our proposed 

### revisions.

# -

.

I 

### In the meantime, should you have any questions or need additional information regarding this submittal, please contact me at (760) 530-2312, Sara Head of ENSR at (805) 388-3775 or Ramiro Garcia at (949)425-4755. 'i 

### Sincerely, I

# 4~,£/ Antonio 

### D. Penna Jr. Plant Engineer 

### I Envtronmental Manager High ,Desert Power Project, LLC

cc: Mr. Alan De 

### Salvio Mojave Desert Air QualitY Management District 14306 Park Avenue I 

### Victorville. CA92392-2310


### M'. Steve Munro Compliance Project Manager California Energy Commission 15169th Street. MS 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 Ramlro Garcia, Constellation Power


## sara Head, ENSR
Project File: 

### 1.1.1 (Permit Application)" ,
••••••.••••**--~** •• ,•••• , 

# ·_··_CJ
. I

I I
I 

### DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS

I 

### A ProposedAdministrative Changes 

### ofConditionX-E-3

### Related

### to Stal'tllR The main power**producti~n** equipment at HDPP 

### consists of three SiemensJWestinghouse combustion turbine generators (CTGs) and one Toshiba steam turbine generator (STG). HDPP I has determined that addiliQ[lal",time"0Y8f'·whahvBs"8sstJmed"iR-.the·ariginal"pertnit"spplication is

### neededt~ startup the 

### .eTGs. In 

### a comblned-cyde 

### system, bringing a 

### power block online 

### is 

### a

. 

### . complicated process. The startup sequence consists of multiple steps in which the equipment is 

### "ramped up" to normal operating conditions. This ramp-up 

### period consists of

### various gas turbine speed and load conditions. 1 Durtng the ramp-up period, the heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), steam drums. steam turbine, steam piping and emissions. control equipment are heated and brought to stable operating. conditions. During a typical startup, one eTG is started and ramped up to low load where it is held until the HRSG and steam system reach a manufacturerspecified temperature to

### p~vent equipment damage and ensure 

### safe operation according 

### to manufacturer's procedures. I Then, the second and third CTGs are started and go through a similar 

### process. Additionally, the time needed 

### to bring the units on-line 

### can vary based 

### on site conditions,. time elapsed since last operated. and external factors such as 

### CaI-lSO Of, DWR restrictions for putting 

### power into the 

### grid. I ' 

### The original 

### application material sUbmitted for the project 

### addressed startup and'shutdown emissions and durations. These parameters were best engineering estimates at 

### that 

## time and 

### were derived from a 2 

### x 1 configuration assuming generic F-Class eTGs and STG. HDPP 

### was aaually built 

### to include three Westinghouse CTGs combined 

### with 

### a Toshiba STG. Limited 

### actual operations to date have 

### shown that the as-built configuration 

### results in significantly longer duration 

### startup sequenceS from those estimated in the original 

### application. I I The proposed condition changeS should be processed as administrative permit revisions. The changes will 

### not result in any increase in air 

### emissions (or the emission of additional pollutants) from 

### what 

### Was presented 

# in HDPP's original permit application or 

### what is allowed in the eXisting permit. In addition, the dtanges will not affect the facility's abHity to comply with ambient air quality standards, as discussed later in this attachment. I 

### i Current Emission and Duration Limits , I Table 1 summariZes the startup and shutdown emission limits and durations from HDPP's existing PSD 

### permit Note that the. current pennit only pro'IIides the hourty emission limits during normal operation on and the startup and shutdown Umits on a pound per event basis for each CTG.
I



### 1 '., .•.•••_ ;..**~.:..,** ._.1"
.

### ._-_._

# .•.
_-_.._­ '--_._-.'
I



### Table 1 II Current HDPP Startup and Shutdown Umlts Per eTG 

### Event NOIt EmisSions CO Emissions Duration 

### (lb/event) (Iblevent) I (hours) : Cold Start 

### 183 3,541 I 

### 4.5 I 

### Warm start 

### 168 , 

### 3,596 I 

### 2.6 Hot Start 

### 138 3,729 I 

### 1.9 

### Shutdo1Nn 

### 97 239 I 

### 1.0

I ,

I

, 

### Change from Per CTG Emisslon Limits 

### to Power Block EmiS§ion Limits

. ,I 

### Since the 

### current permit does not limit 

### the number of CTGs 

### that could be 

### started simultaneously, and 

### the modeling analysis**was.~J1orJl\Eld,,~~** 

## onall three 

### eTGs with 

### maximum hourly emission rates,

### aC&tlbimid':~~r 

### bbCk emiSsion 

## rateYlOUld nOt Change 

## the ambient air

### 'quality, impact analysis performed as part of 

### the 

### original application. 

## COrilbii'ffritrti'i'i)er:'eferITmttS"imo**~tilbCkii""ls** \You'd provide HDPP 

### with 

### needed flexibaity during the 

### actUal startup 

## sequEmce. In that 

### manner. the first 

### CTG, 'Which is ramped 

### up the 

### most slowly, might emit slightly more than its current 

### IbJevent limit, but then the 

### other twoCTGs would 

### emit less. The combined total would never be 

### more than 

### was assumed for 

### the air quality 

### modeung analyses (see impact analysis



### . below). Rather 

### than having duration limits. 

### HDPP proposes to incorporate a 

### daily emission 

### Umit for CO of 8,072 IbIday 

### that is consistent 

### with HDPP's Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) 

### permit. The daily limit will provide additional assurance that HOPI? 'NOuld not adversely impact air 

### quaUty, as**d~ussed** 

### in the air quality impact analysis later in this attad;tment.

, I 

### The**pro~d** 

### re'Jised startup and 

### shutdown event emission limits for the combined power block
. are shown in Table 2**(we-'tiave~simpty** 

### ITfUttiPIledthe per turbine emission limits .by 

### 'three). As indicated 

### in the air 

### quality impact 

### analysis, no durations for 

### these events are considered necessary. 

### i I I I Note 

### that 

### other combined-<;ycle power plant penniis 

### have. been Issued 

### within EPA Region IX. which have combined 

### startup emission limits for the 

### power block. Examples include 

### the Sunrise 

### and Elk HiUs Power Projects in the San Joaqlin Valley Air Pollution Control 

### District. Also, permits for Arlington Valley Energy and 

### 1he Mesquite Geril ratlrg 

### Station. in .Arizona have recently been issued which indude a revision from startup emission limits per combUstion turbine tp 

### limits per power block. These permits inckJded review and comment by 

### EPA Region IX staff 

### prior to • i ISSuance. I
2

# .**:~.** 

# ct

. . .•. •.. . .. . . .. ..J. .••.••..**_"~'** •.'
... _"." •••••__ .. \ •. '_ .• __ ""'" r·" • ........... i
.. •.... ;.:.. ........ _ ....._\_.-.·

......**i~c.n:.t.'i~·~** I I



### Table 2 Proposed Modified HDPP Startup

### and Shutdown Limit 

### per Power
I I Block1 I Event 

### NO. 

### emissions CO 

### Emissions I (Ib/event) (Ible'lent) 

### Cold Start I I 

### Warm Start I I I 

### Hot Start I I I 

### Shutdown I 

### 549 504 I I 

### 414

I 

### 291 10,623 10,788 11,187 I



### 717 1. Power block consists ofthree combUstion turbines and one 

### steam turbine


### B. ProllO§§9Adminiftr8tlve Changes to 

### Conditions X-D-1.fQ 

### X-E-1 andX-E·2
I I 

### The proposed administrative changes 

### to these conditions are described in detail in 

### the next sedlon. The changes include deleting the requirement to have a continuous**mon~ring** 

### system 

### to measure 

### stack gas volumetric flow rates and deleting references to the 2G Configuration since the 3F 

### Configuration was actually buill I I I 

### Changes 

## to Conditions i "I I I Proposed 

### changes 

### to the 

### following Conditions are provided 

### with 

### new text shown undertints1 and deleted text Is 

### shown as**stFiketl'lleYg~.** I 

### The reason for the 

### requested changes Is 

### provtded I'"
. 

### foUowing the proposed conditioli language, except the 

### proposed change to startup conditions, which was discussed in the previous section. I I I I 1. Administrative Change to Condition

## X~[)"1.c X-D-1.c A GeRtiAUQY8

### ~9RiteFiRS system te measure staGk 8186 

### voltImetriG tlmol fates. The 

### system shall FReet 

### EPA peFfer:manGe 

### speGifisatieA& (40 CFR PaFt 52, AppeAElge**~.** I' "

3'-'1 

# Q'

. . . _ "--'

.. .... 0 _
.... "
__ •• 0 ••• _.· ... __ ._ •• '
.... ,'.. • .. __**.,.~** •• _ .. .

# 0

I I II I I X-E-1. 

### The NOll emissions (calculated as NO:z) from each turbine train unit shall 

### not exceed

I
.. I 18.0 Iblhr fer the 3F aeRfigl:Jl'atieA er 

### 24.55lS1hF fer

## tAEr 2G G9A1igYRHiSR (based on 2.5ppmvd @ 15%**~,** 

### averaged over a one hour period). \ I I I X-E-2. The CO emissions from each turbine train unit shan not1exceed 17.53lb1hrfeFtRe 3';

I 

### G9F1figYFati9A or 23.91 IQIIv fer 

### the 2G 

### G9RfigYr:atiSR

## (b~ on 4;0 ppmvd @ 15%

## ~, I averaged over

### a 24hour period). " \ '

1 ' ,I This request-wiD maintain consistency With the 

## actual configuration installed 

### at HDPP. 

### Ii' I I I 3. Administrative Change 

## to Condition X-E-3 Relatedto starlup I 

## I I· We Jnderstand the tenn

## ~base load" 

### to mean any normal 

### operatind load, Which will typically be ! I 'I between 70% and 

### 100%. Ifthere is room to interpret "base load" as meaning only 

### 100% load, we suggJst replacing the words 

### abase 

### 1oad" with "nonnaloperating load.' 'I 

## I ' I' I X-E-3 , The emission limits in Condition X-E-1 and X..E-2 shall apply at all times to each

II turbine train unit, except during startups and shutdowns c;lefined as follows:

, 'I 1
I 8. Startup shall 

### be defined as the period

## begi~ning with

## ign~on and lasting until the 8qiJipmeAt facirltv has reached**~ing** 

## permit limits. Cold startup means a startup 

## I when the GeFFllM;tieA tl:lltliAe has not been in opetaoon during the preceding 72 hours. Hot startup means a startup when the. 

### 6QR'lsLMllien wFbine 

### has been in operation dUring 

### the preceding 

# ahourS. Warmstartup means a startup that is not a hot rx cold startup. Shutdown shalf be defined as the period beginning with the**~nng** 

### of eqblipment the facilitx from**~8e** 1_normal operating load and lasting until fuel flow is comPletely off 

### and combustion has ceased.
. 9.

# ~R81eAt**aeA~6 8~all**  Ret e*eeeEl

# J f9llewiAg

# <ilw18A&;

i. CelEi &taRYp 4.8 heYF8 I ii.**Wa~** staftYp 

### 2.6 AeuF6 ! 

### iii. H9t &taJtwp 

### 1.9 I:looR; 

### i'.,. &RWl9\\'A 1,0 

### A9yr I I .be. Emissions dUring startup and shutdown', verified 

### by CEMS, shall not exceed the

- I following: '
..

1 PollUtant I I NOx

! Cold Startup (Ib) Wann Startup (Ib) Hot StartUP (Ib) Shutdown (lb)
I I I I 

### :t&549 463-504 

### 4-38-414 91-291

1 I I -, I 

### I 4



## -

# «)


# .._ _ _8
__ _ .._--.'



# ..............._ _. r _.

__ C_O

# 3i_4_1_1~O-,6-23-..-.--3-i-9&-1-0-'7-lH.!"'!"a 

# _J**~1illZ** I. 

# J

. CeRtigYFatieR**~lll.Itant** 

### Cekt 

### Stal:&Yp 

### Os)**~Fm** 

### itaFlYp (19) 

### Iofet 

### itaFtYp**~s) ShYtG9\'~** **(~)** 

### NQK I 

### 269 2-t& 

# m co I 

### 6890 I I 

### W+ I 

### 288,
:

I I 4. IncorpolBte 

### a Daily 

### Umit

, for

### CO 

### in New Condition 

### in X-E-4. X-E-4 

### Duling 

### each 24-hour 

### period. beginning and ending at midnight. the GQ·emi§!!onstrom §act"turbine·train unit shall 

### not exceed 8.072 

### Ibslday. As 

### explained earlier, in i

### lieu of 

### startup duration limits, HDPP proposes to incorporate 

### a daily emission 

### limit for CO of,8,072 

### Iblday that is consistent with HDPP's Mojave Desert 

### PtJr Quality Management District (MDAQMD) permit. The daily limit will 

### provide additional assurance 

### that HDPP would 

### not adverSeJY impad air quality, as discussed 

### in the air quality impad 

### analysis later 

### in this 

### attachment. 

### i 

## I 5. Condition X-G-2-a. I I I , X-G-2-a 

### Performance 

### tests for

### the emissions 

### of NOx shall be conduded using EPA**~ethods** 

### 1-4 or 

### 19. 7E and/or 

### 20. I X-G-2-b**Performan~,~ests** for the emissions of CO shaU be conctsd8d usirg EPA**~ethods** 

### 1-4 .2r...lll.(7E and/ot" 20. I
. I 

### '-..-. i I I EPA aUows 

### the use 

### of anyone 

### of

### the above reference methods. No.

### that reference methods 19. 7E were specified as an allowable method in the 

### initial Complianctt Test Protocol approved by MDAQMO 

### and EPA. I I • I 6. Delete Conditions I, II, X-D-2, 3 Delete these condJ,s since 

### they no longer 

### constructionlcommissio':ling phase ofthe 

### Project). I I· 

### apply (i.e.. only applied

# d~ I I the

I 

### IMPACTANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REVISIONS ! The Proposed 

### revisions to Condition X-E-3 

### could potentially change some of the 

### assumptions upon 

### which 

### the PSD permit was based. 

### Therefore. an assessment of air quality impacts 

### is 

### 5 

# II



# ............e ..... .....**'-'.~** 

# - 0 _
.._,.. ,...**-'~-'':** ..:.. ... '-...... .;_......- .. .. .R·..
.. __ ..... 

# I ' 

# I 

# I 

# Jed wi1h this

# ~. This analysis

# -L that

# J 01 the 

### findings of the PSD 

### permit are adVefSely affected 

### by 

### the proposed changes. Since 

### the environmental impads 

### ofthe project remain insignificant, the proposed revisions should be permitted. I .' 1 1 The Potential air Quality impact implications of eliminating the duration 

### of a startup and revising 

### the emission "mits to a 

## power block basis was evaluated. The peak emission rate for CO 

### identified in HDPP's supplemental submission titled ·Revised Short Term Air Quality Impact Assessment" dated
.November 1998 

## were reviewed. Table 3 summarizeS the emission 

### rate 

### that was modeled in that document to demonstrate compliance 

### with the CO 1-hour and 8-hour Califomia Ambient Air Quality Standard (CMOS). 'I ' I 

### I I . The 1-hour 

### emission rate in Table 3 is 

### morelhan the permitted Iblevent emission limits in Table 1. I I Since: the maximum event emission rates wtll not change, only 

### ithe duration of the event, compliance with the 1-hour 

# eo standards will not be affected. With respect 

### to the 8-hoUr CO

. , \**stand~rd,** previous modeling assumed an &-hour average emiSsion rate of 979 Iblhr, or a total of 7,8321b per a-hour 

### period, for each 

### turbine train unit. This emission rate is also mUch more 

### than any worst-case 8-hour emission rate calculated using the current lbJ.event and duration limits In Table:1, and permitted**~normal** operations" emission rates 

### of 17.531blhrturbine train unit 

# i \ I

, Table 

### 3 ,_I Startup Emission Rates Modeled for HDPP 

### Pennitting I Pollutant Emission Rate Modeled Rate for i Modeled Peak 

### (Averagfng (Ib1hr/CTG) 3 CTGs (Ib1hr) I Impact of CTGs Time) I

### (J19Im~ I 

### CO (1-hour) I
. 4,409 13,227 I 7,500 ICO (8-hour) 979 I 2,937 I 900

II \ Table 4 summarizes the demonstration of compliance with the applicable air quality standards. A.s shown ,in Table 4, as long as ead1 eTG is in compliance 

### with the existing Iblevent and proposed daily limit, HOPP emissions will remain lower than what was modeled (or purposes ofdetermining 

### compliance with ambient air quality standards. The

### ~mils on startup 

## dkuon do not add any level protectiveness and are not a factor in the ambient air qUality 

### impact analyses results modeled for HOPP.j \ . II
. \ I Table" I I
. Predicted hnpacts ofStartup Emission Rates Modeled for HDPP PennlUing i I \ 

### Pollutant Modeled Peak 

### Background Total CAAQS NAAQS


### 6." " ••-...._:;'Ir
..**,,~.·** .:; •• ; .._l :. :",.','.•: _,.'
.. ·.a- n.I
..'.'·.:.a. ......u..IItJ:**~~·~....-_..:.....·&,j"'** .¥;..,;.:,.)o,I..i...:

__**~,** ·..:**~~~:.x.·I _~:**  ...;.a:r.:..'-I _.,:",·,··_ 10··
..•· - ...:. - •. -: •.• ,•. .;: •.•.••• ,: _ ••• ' .•.••.•:**~..:...** • .&..I:_••**\i.u.:._.:..~~**
't" 

# e**-~** 

## (Averaging

. Time)

. 

## Impact

# of3 CTGs (Jlg/m3) 

# (J1SIIrn3) 

# ()JIJ1m 3) 

# (p.gfm 3) 

# (J.LlIIm;
CO (1-hour) 1 

# 7,500 9,200 16,700
. 23000

. 

# , 40,000



# .CO (fHloUr)1 

# 900 

# 8,500 9,400 10,000 10,000 1) BackgroUnd 

## CO data 

## based on**··1~1997** 

## ambient 

## dahffmrn**VldoMll~Amargosa** 

# Street·· monitor.

. .



## -

# ···--~D regulations indude

# tt.;reqUirement 

# for an assessment of additional"impacts to air quality resulting from the 

# proposed project. These 

# Include impacts

# to PSD Class I 

# areas. local impacts 

## due to population and economic growth resuJtingfrom new construction, and impacts 

# of pollutant emissions to soils and vegetation. Since there are no proposed inaeases in permitted emission 

# limits, additional impact 

# analySes to 

# air quality should 

# not be 

# required.