BART Determination Modeling Protocol: 

Georgia Power Company 

Plant Bowen 

Prepared by: 

Southern Company Services and ENSR Corporation 

for Georgia Power Company 

November 2006
Contents 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas ................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Organization of protocol document................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 Source description and emissions data ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 BART determination baseline ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 PM emissions controls to be modeled............................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Unit-specific source data................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 General modeling procedures: ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) ............................................................... 3-1

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas ................................................................. 3-1

4.0 Air quality modeling procedures ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Model selection and features.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations ................................................................................ 4-2

5.0 Presentation of modeling results........................................................................................................... 5-1

Appendix A Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions..........................................................A-1 

Appendix B Estimated Emissions of Primary Total Carbon and Primary Sulfate From 

 Coal-Fired Power Plants .......................................................................................................B-1 

i 113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc November 2006
List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Plant Bowen premiminary BART Cost Analysis Results ........................................................ 2-2

Table 2-2 Plant Bowen modeling emission parameters .......................................................................... 2-7

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Bowen............................................................. 1-2

Figure 2-1 Plant Bowen Unit 1 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed ................................................. 2-3

Figure 2-2 Plant Bowen Unit 2 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed ................................................. 2-3

Figure 2-3 Plant Bowen Unit 3 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed ................................................. 2-4

Figure 2-4 Plant Bowen Unit 4 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed ................................................. 2-4

ii 113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc November 2006
1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The Regional Haze Rule requires Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for any BART-eligible source that 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Pursuant to federal regulations, states have the option of 

exempting a BART-eligible source from the BART requirements based on dispersion modeling demonstrating 

that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated a rule allowing states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to determine that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOx for electric generating units (EGUs). Preliminary feedback from the Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division indicates that they anticipate making the decision that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and NOx for 

EGUs. Therefore, this modeling protocol focuses on performing the BART modeling analysis for particulate 

matter (PM) only. 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Bowen, located near Cartersville, which is owned and operated by Georgia Power 

Company, has been identified as a BART-eligible source. The purpose of this document is to summarize the 

procedures by which modeling analyses will be conducted for this source. Georgia Power has determined 

that Plant Bowen is subject to BART for PM. Therefore, the procedures below will be used to evaluate the 

visibility improvement factor in the BART determination step (determination modeling). The modeling 

procedures are consistent with those outlined in the updated final VISTAS common BART modeling protocol 

(dated December 22, 2005, revision 3.2 – August 31, 2006), available at http://www.vistassesarm.org/documents/BARTModelingProtocol_rev3.2_31Aug2006.pdf. This source-specific BART modeling 

protocol references relevant portions of the common VISTAS modeling protocol. 

1.2 Location of source vs. relevant Class I Areas 

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division, which is in charge of the state’s BART program, has 

determined that Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Bowen are BART-eligible for PM. Figure 1-1 shows a plot of Plant 

Bowen relative to nearby Class I Areas. There are five Class I areas within 300 km of the plant: Cohutta (84.8 

km), Great Smoky Mountains (175.9 km), Joyce Kilmer (162.3 km), Shinning Rock (228.0 km), and Sipsey 

(223.5 km). Baseline modeling will be conducted for each of these Class I areas in accordance with the 

referenced VISTAS common BART modeling protocol and the procedures described in this source-specific 

BART modeling protocol. Visibility improvement modeling for the BART determination analysis will be 

performed for those Class I areas where the baseline modeling shows a greater than 0.5 deciview impact. 

1.3 Organization of protocol document 

Section 2 of this protocol describes the baseline to be used for the BART determination, identifies the PM 

emissions controls that will be modeled, and outlines the source emissions that will be used as input to the 

BART determination modeling. Section 3 describes the input data to be used for the modeling including the 

modeling domain, terrain and land use, and meteorological data. Section 4 describes the air quality modeling 

procedures and Section 5 discusses how the modeling results will be presented. Since all of the references 

cited are also included in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 7.), no reference section is 

included in this document. Appendices A and B provide additional information on the baseline source 

emissions. 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 1-1 November 2006
Figure 1-1 Location of Class I Areas in Relation to Plant Bowen 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 1-2 November 2006
2.0 Source description and emissions data 

2.1 BART determination baseline 

SO2 scrubbers have been permitted and are under construction for all four units at Plant Bowen. The 

scrubbers will go on line in 2008 for Units 3 and 4, 2009 for Unit 2, and 2010 for Unit 1. So, these scrubbers 

will be “existing” controls for Bowen well ahead of the estimated implementation date for BART (~2014). It has 

been determined that impacts from Bowen 1-4 (the BART eligible source) will be greater than 0.5 deciview on 

at least one Class I area even with the PM emissions reductions that occur from scrubbers. In addition, using 

the scrubbers as baseline provides consistency that allows for straight forward (i.e., effect of emission 

reduction only) interpretation of results. That is, there will be consistency in stack parameters and emissions 

that might otherwise confound interpretation of modeling results. Finally, this approach is consistent with the 

BART statutory factor that requires consideration of "any existing pollution control technology in use at the 

source." For these reasons, scrubbers on the Bowen units will be the starting point (baseline) for the PM 

BART determination and visibility improvement modeling. 

2.2 PM emissions controls to be modeled 

Georgia Power has initiated the PM BART determination analysis for Bowen. Preliminary results include 

identification of technically feasible PM controls and performance of a removal cost analysis for these controls. 

This preliminary cost analysis considers the installed capital and operating cost (including sorbent cost, where 

appropriate), capacity and energy penalties associated with station service impacts, PM species specific 

removal efficiencies for each control, emissions derived based on 2003-2005 actuals adjusted by removal 

efficiencies, and financial assumptions consistent with the EPA Control Cost Manual and industry-accepted 

capital and operating cost estimates.. 

Table 2-1 summarizes preliminary cost analysis results for each technically feasible PM control. Due to space 

constraints, COHPAC (on all four units) and the addition of a new electrostatic precipitator (ESP) collection 

field in a new case (on Units 3 and 4) were not considered. A detailed description of potentially available PM 

controls and their feasibility for Bowen and a detailed discussion of the cost analysis will be provided in the 

final BART determination analysis report to be submitted later. Further refinements to the analysis are 

possible, but it is not anticipated that the conclusions will be significantly different. As described in the EPA 

BART guidance, the data in Table 2-1 was used to create a graphical plot of the total annualized cost for the 

total PM emissions reductions for all feasible control alternatives (Figures 2-1 thru 2-4). A curve was fit to the 

data in order to identify a “least-cost envelope” of dominant control choices. Control options that lie inside of 

the least-cost envelope are considered inferior options based on cost because the cost per ton of particulate 

removed is inconsistent with other competing alternatives. 

Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show that the dominant control choices for all four units include WESP, the addition of 

JuiceCan technology on existing transformer/rectifier (T/R) sets, the particle agglomerator, and the 

combination of JuiceCan/particle agglomerator. Gas flow optimization, lime injection, the addition of a new 

electrical field (on Units 1 and 2), and the combination of WESP/lime injection have been eliminated because 

they fall inside of the least-cost envelope. These options are considered inferior based on cost and, therefore, 

have been eliminated from further consideration. Rather than performing visibility improvement modeling for 

all of the remaining controls, modeling will be performed for two of the remaining options: (1) 

Agglomerator/Juice Can - the highest removal option of the set of relatively lower cost controls, and (2) Wet 

ESP - the remaining control with the overall highest total PM removal. This will bracket the overall visibility 

improvement results. 

2.3 Unit-specific source data 

The emissions data used to assess the visibility impacts at the Class I areas within 300 km of Plant Bowen are 

discussed in this section. As noted earlier, indications from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division are 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 2-1 November 2006
that they will issue rules stating that CAIR will suffice for EGU BART for SO2 and NOx. Therefore, this protocol 

focuses only on PM10. Since various components of PM10 emissions have different visibility extinction 

efficiencies, the PM10 emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS common 

protocol Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2). The VISTAS protocol (Section 5.) allows for the use of source-specific 

emissions and speciation factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM10 emissions and speciation 

Table 2-1 Plant Bowen Preliminary BART Cost Analysis Results

Total PM10 

Removed

Annualized 

Cost

Removal 

Cost

Total PM10 

Removed

Annualized 

Cost

Removal 

Cost

Control Option

Tons $/Yr $ per Ton Tons $/Yr $ per Ton

Optimize Gas Flow 5.6 $125,600 $22,274 7.8 $125,600 $16,089

Juice Can Retrofit 11.3 $82,317 $7,299 15.6 $82,317 $5,272

Lime Injection 33.1 $2,714,893 $82,026 38.1 $2,714,893 $71,323

Agglomerator Retrofit 62.0 $1,236,108 $19,929 85.9 $1,236,108 $14,395

Add field in new casing 65.8 $3,433,973 $52,199 91.1 $3,433,973 $37,705

Agglomerator/JuiceCan 73.3 $1,318,425 $17,986 101.5 $1,318,425 $12,991

WESP 261.0 $13,102,142 $50,209 336.2 $13,102,142 $38,973

WESP/Lime Injection 271.0 $15,817,034 $58,375 347.4 $15,817,034 $45,527

Control Option

Tons $/Yr $ per Ton Tons $/Yr $ per Ton

Optimize Gas Flow 14.1 $161,486 $11,465 16.0 $161,486 $10,074

Juice Can Retrofit 21.1 $105,836 $5,009 24.0 $105,836 $4,402

Lime Injection 44.6 $3,490,576 $78,224 43.2 $3,490,576 $80,850

Agglomerator Retrofit 51.6 $1,589,281 $30,772 58.8 $1,589,281 $27,039

Agglomerator/JuiceCan 72.8 $1,695,117 $23,292 82.8 $1,695,117 $20,467

WESP 334.8 $16,845,611 $50,319 360.5 $16,845,611 $46,731

WESP/Lime Injection 348.2 $20,336,187 $58,396 373.6 $20,336,187 $54,440

Add field in new casing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bowen 3 Bowen 4

Bowen 1 Bowen 2

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 2-2 November 2006
Figure 2-1 Plant Bowen Unit 1 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed 

y = 162.81x2 + 7738.6x - 6001.7

R2

 = 0.9997

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0

Incremental Total PM Reduction [tpy]

Annualized Cost [$/yr]

Baseline: FGD

WESP

Agglomerator

Gas Flow Opt

Lime

New Field

WESP/Lime

Agg/JuiceCan

JuiceCan

Figure 2-2 Plant Bowen Unit 2 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed 

y = 106.02x2 + 3245.8x + 26909

R2

 = 0.9997

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0

Incremental Total PM Reduction [tpy]

Annualized Cost [$/yr]

Baseline: FGD

WESP

Agglomerator

Gas Flow Opt

Lime

New Field

WESP/Lime

Agg/JuiceCan

JuiceCan

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 2-3 November 2006
Figure 2-3 Plant Bowen Unit 3 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed 

y = 76.74x2 + 25591x - 325653

R2

 = 0.9988

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

$22,000,000

$24,000,000

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0

Incremental Total PM Reduction [tpy]

Annualized Cost [$/yr]

Baseline: FGD

WESP

Agglomerator

Gas Flow Opt

Lime

WESP/Lime

Agg/JuiceCan

JuiceCan

Figure 2-4 Plant Bowen Unit 4 - Annualized Cost versus PM Removed

y = 73.543x2 + 21034x - 297166

R2

 = 0.9987

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

$22,000,000

$24,000,000

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0

Incremental Total PM Reduction [tpy]

Annualized Cost [$/yr]

Baseline: FGD

WESP

Agglomerator

Gas Flow Opt

Lime

WESP/Lime

Agg/JuiceCan

JuiceCan

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 2-4 November 2006
approach to be used for the modeling described in this protocol is indicated in the bullets below. Where 

default speciation values are used, the data represents a unit where current (baseline) emission controls 

include ESPs and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, but no post-combustion SO2 control equipment 

exists. 

As indicated in Section 2.1, it has been determined that the baseline for the BART determination analysis and 

visibility improvement modeling will include scrubbers on all of the Bowen units. Therefore, the foundation for 

deriving the baseline and control option emissions for the BART determination modeling was to establish 

“maximum 24-hour average emission rates” based on the current configuration consistent with the VISTAS 

common protocol and then to apply the species specific control efficiencies as appropriate. To establish 

emission rates for the BART determination baseline modeling, scrubber control efficiencies were applied to the 

maximum 24-hour average rates. 

• Total PM10 is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions. 

• Filterable PM10 emissions are based on the highest stack test for the most recent 3-year period (2003-

2005). This stack test is combined with the highest 24 hour heat input value for this period from 

CEMS data to calculate the “maximum 24-hour average emission rate” as required by the VISTAS 

protocol. 

• Filterable PM10 will be subdivided by size category consistent with the default approach from AP-42 

Table 1-1.6, and as noted on pages 43 and 44 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6 specifies for the emission controls indicated above that 55.6% of filterable PM10

emissions is coarse (greater than 2.5 microns in size) and 44.4% is fine. Of the fine portion, 3.7% is 

elemental carbon and the remainder is inorganic fine particulates (soil). 

• Condensable PM10 consists of inorganic and organic compounds. The inorganic portion is by default 

assumed to be H2SO4, although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The 

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols. 

• H2SO4 emissions are calculated consistent with the method used by Georgia Power to derive these 

emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H2SO4 emissions released from the 

stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the 

removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and air heater). For eastern bituminous coal 

the fundamental H2SO4 release rate (without scrubbers or add-on PM controls) is in the range of 0.3 to 

0.8% of the SO2 emissions. Appendix A provides the basis for the site-specific values used. 

• Emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PM10) are derived based on 

the supporting field observational information in Appendix B and is estimated as 0.32% of SO2

emitted. 

• Coarse filterable particles (between 2.5 and 10 microns in size) will be modeled with a geometric mass 

mean diameter of 5 microns, while fine filterable and all condensable particles will be modeled with a 

geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, consistent with the CALPUFF default value for fine 

particles. The geometric standard deviation for both fine and coarse particles will be set to 2 microns, 

consistent with the CALPUFF default value. The 0.48 micron diameter value for fine particles comes 

from the default values in sample input files presented on the TRC web site. There is no default 

value presented for the coarse particles on the TRC web site. However, since 5 is the geometric 

mass mean diameter of 2.5 and 10 (the bounds of coarse particle sizes), it is a reasonable estimate 

for the geometric mass mean diameter for that class of particles. 

In practice, CALPUFF allows for the user to input certain components of PM10 as separate species and 

separate sizes, which will result in more accurate wet and dry deposition velocity results and also more 

accurate effects on light scattering. As noted above, the particle size distribution information is provided in 

AP-42 Table 1-1.6, and will be used for the BART determination modeling. 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 2-5 November 2006
Table 2-2 provides a summary of the modeling emission parameters to be used in the BART CALPUFF 

modeling, consistent with the source emissions data presented in Appendices A and B for the current 

configuration. The foundation for all of the emissions in Table 2-2 were derived from CEMS data for the 2003 

to 2005 period and represent the maximum 24-hour average lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup, 

shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). For NOx and SO2 the current configuration values are directly from 

CEMS. Filterable PM10 emissions were calculated using the highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period 

and multiplying these values times the maximum 24-hour average heat input derived from CEMS. These 

values were then adjusted using AP-42 factors from Table 1.1-6 that indicate that PM10 is 67% of total PM for a 

pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PM10 speciation was then performed as indicated above such that total 

Filterable PM10 is made up of Coarse Soil plus total Fine PM and total Fine PM is made up of Fine Soil plus 

Elemental Carbon (EC). Since these units include SCRs, a consistent set of seasonal emissions data was 

developed representing periods with and without SCR operation. For these, the maximum 24-hour average 

rates were extracted from the seasonal (May - September) and non-seasonal (October - April) CEMS data. 

For visibility improvement modeling, only the emissions representing SCR operation was used as the 

foundation for establishing the baseline (scrubbed) emission rates and the emission rates for PM controls 

under consideration. 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 2-6 November 2006
Table 2-2 Plant Bowen modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Part

Case Source / Unit 

UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM F

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

FUNDAMENTAL EMISSIONS DATA 

Fundamental Data (Unit Basis) 

Current Config. Unit 1 691,893 3,778,033 304.8 219.8 7.6 20.8 403.0 15374.22 1565.42 510.21 378.07 210.20 167.86 Current Config. Unit 2 691,893 3,778,033 304.8 219.8 7.6 20.8 403.0 16059.38 1253.44 545.86 407.51 226.58 180.94 Current Config. Unit 3 691,893 3,778,033 304.8 219.8 7.6 27.1 409.7 18519.37 773.00 478.86 268.01 149.01 119.00 Current Config. Unit 4 691,893 3,778,033 304.8 219.8 7.6 27.1 409.7 19504.06 971.92 521.14 297.26 165.28 131.98 

BART DETERMINATION BASELINE EMISSIONS 

Scrubber Baseline Data (Unit Basis) 

Baseline Unit 1 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 12.5 327.0 768.71 1565.42 174.58 75.61 42.04 33.57 Baseline Unit 2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 12.5 327.0 802.97 1253.44 185.07 81.50 45.32 36.19 Baseline Unit 3 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 15.8 327.0 925.97 773.00 173.03 53.60 29.80 23.80 Baseline Unit 4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 15.8 327.0 975.20 971.92 185.10 59.45 33.06 26.40 

Scrubber Baseline Data (Stack Basis) 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3 Eq. Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 359.64 157.12 87.36 69.76 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 358.13 113.05 62.86 50.20 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 45.32 19.80 11.01 8.79 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 45.12 14.24 7.92 6.32 

2-7 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc
Table 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parameters

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Part

Case Source / Unit 

UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM F

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

EMISSIONS for MODELED CONTROL OPTIONS 

Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Unit Basis) 

Agglom/JC Unit 1 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 12.5 327.0 768.71 1565.42 145.09 46.12 25.98 20.14 Agglom/JC Unit 2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 12.5 327.0 802.97 1253.44 153.28 49.72 28.00 21.71 Agglom/JC Unit 3 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 15.8 327.0 925.97 773.00 156.41 36.99 23.42 13.57 Agglom/JC Unit 4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 15.8 327.0 975.20 971.92 166.67 41.02 25.98 15.05 

Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 1 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

Eq. 

Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 330.16 127.63 71.30 56.33 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 358.13 113.05 62.86 50.20 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 41.60 16.08 8.98 7.10 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 45.12 14.24 7.92 6.32 

Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 2 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3 Eq. Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 327.86 125.33 70.05 55.28 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 358.13 113.05 62.86 50.20 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 41.31 15.79 8.83 6.97 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 45.12 14.24 7.92 6.32 

2-8 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc
Table 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Part

Case Source / Unit 

UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM F

Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 3 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3 Eq. Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 359.64 157.12 87.36 69.76 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 341.51 96.44 56.48 39.96 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 45.32 19.80 11.01 8.79 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 43.03 12.15 7.12 5.04 

Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 4 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3

Eq. 

Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 359.64 157.12 87.36 69.76 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 339.70 94.62 55.78 38.85 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 45.32 19.80 11.01 8.79 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 42.80 11.92 7.03 4.89 

2-9 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc
Table 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Part

Case Source / Unit 

UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM F

Wet ESP Data (Unit Basis) 

Wet ESP Unit 1 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 12.5 327.0 768.71 1565.42 66.71 7.56 4.20 3.36 Wet ESP Unit 2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 12.5 327.0 802.97 1253.44 69.98 8.15 4.53 3.62 Wet ESP Unit 3 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 15.8 327.0 925.97 773.00 76.65 5.36 2.98 2.38 Wet ESP Unit 4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 7.6 15.8 327.0 975.20 971.92 81.01 5.95 3.31 2.64 

Wet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 1 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3 Eq. Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 251.78 89.06 49.52 39.54 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 358.13 113.05 62.86 50.20 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 31.72 11.22 6.24 4.98 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 45.12 14.24 7.92 6.32 

Wet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 2 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3 Eq. Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 244.55 83.76 46.57 37.19 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 358.13 113.05 62.86 50.20 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 304.8 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 30.81 10.55 5.87 4.69 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 304.8 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 45.12 14.24 7.92 6.32 

Wet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 3 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3 Eq. Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 359.64 157.12 87.36 69.76 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 261.76 64.81 36.04 28.78 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 45.32 19.80 11.01 8.79 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 32.98 8.17 4.54 3.63 

2-10 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc
Table 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parameters 

Location UTM 

(Zone 16 NAD-83) Emissions1 Part

Case Source / Unit 

UTM 

East 

UTM 

North 

Actual 

Stack Ht 

Base 

Elev. 

Flue 

Diameter 

Gas 

Exit 

Vel. 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. SO2 NOX PM10 Filt. PM10 Coarse Soil Fine PM F

Wet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 4 Only Controlled 

Modeled 

Stk Ht3 Eq. Dia. 

m m m m m m/s deg K lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr lbs/hr 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 1571.68 2818.85 359.64 157.12 87.36 69.76 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 1901.17 1744.92 254.03 59.55 33.11 26.44 

Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec 

Stack 1 1&2 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 12.5 327.0 198.03 355.18 45.32 19.80 11.01 8.79 Stack 2 3&4 691,893 3,778,033 207.5 219.5 14.2 15.8 327.0 239.55 219.86 32.01 7.50 4.17 3.33 

Notes: 1 SO2 and NOx emissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation 

emissions for SO2 and NOx are provided for information purposes, and for reference in the computation of certain particle species such 

2 Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10 and H2SO4 and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that 

SO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4 and SO4 are 98 and 96 respectively; therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4 to SO4 is 96/98. 

3 Stack credit is equal to actual stack height since this stack is grandfathered. 

2-11 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc
3.0 Input data to the CALPUFF model 

3.1 General modeling procedures: 

VISTAS has developed five sub-regional 4-km CALMET meteorological databases for three years (2001-

2003) (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2). The sub-regional modeling domains are strategically 

designed to cover all potential BART eligible sources within VISTAS states and all PSD Class I areas within 

300 km of those sources (to the nearest edge). The extents of the 4-km sub-regional domains are shown in 

Figure 4-4 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. The BART modeling for Plant Bowen will be 

done using the 4-km subdomain 4. 

USGS 90-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files were used by VISTAS to generate the terrain data at 4-km 

resolution for input to the 4-km sub-regional CALMET run. Likewise, USGS 90-meter Composite Theme Grid 

(CTG) files were used by VISTAS to generate the land use data at 4-km resolution for input to the 4-km subregional CALMET run. 

Three years of MM5 data (2001-2003) were used by VISTAS to generate the 4-km sub-regional 

meteorological datasets. See Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol for 

more detail on these issues. 

It is intended that all of the modeling for Plant Bowen will use the 4-km subdomain 4. However, if the results 

indicate that the modeling could be improved with a CALPUFF run using a finer grid, then refinements in the 

modeling procedures will be considered and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division will be asked to 

approve these refinements. 

In the event that a finer grid resolution is used, CALMET must be rerun. Other modifications to inputs of 

CALMET would include the extent of the modeling domain, the resolution of the terrain and land use data, and 

other relevant settings. The same MM5 data and observations as used for the 4-km sub-regional CALMET 

simulations would be used. The extent of the modeling domain may need to be changed because of disk 

space restrictions. The size of the CALMET output is directly proportional to the grid resolution of the run. The 

domain would be limited to the source and the exclusive Class I area(s) being assessed with a higher grid 

resolution, including a 50-km buffer in all directions. 

If CALMET needs to be run at even a finer grid resolution, then the appropriate model setting/files (specifically 

the GEO.DAT file) will be modified. A summary of these modifications would be provided to the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division for review and approval. 

3.2 Air quality database (background ozone and ammonia) 

Hourly measurements of ozone from all non-urban monitors, as generated by VISTAS and available on the 

VISTAS CALPUFF page on the Earth Tech web site (http://www.src.com/verio/download/sample_files.htm), 

will be used as input to CALPUFF. For ammonia, a 0.5 ppb background value as recommended by VISTAS 

will be used. However, since only PM emissions are being modeled, ozone and ammonia data is not really 

needed given that this data has no effect on PM results in CALPUFF. 

3.3 Natural conditions and monthly f(RH) at Class I Areas 

For each of the applicable Class I areas, natural background conditions must be established in order to 

determine a change in natural conditions related to a source’s emissions. The modeling described by this 

protocol document intends to use annual average natural background light extinction (EPA 2003 values). 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 3-1 November 2006
To determine the input to CALPUFF, it is first necessary to convert the deciviews to extinction using the 

equation: 

Extinction (Mm-1) = 10 exp(deciviews/10). 

For example, the EPA guidance document indicates for Great Smoky Mountains National Park that the 

deciview value for the average of the days is 7.60. This is equivalent to an extinction of 21.38 inverse 

megameters (Mm-1). 

This extinction includes the default 10 Mm-1 for Rayleigh scattering. The remaining extinction is due to 

naturally occurring particles, and should be held constant for the entire year’s simulation. Therefore, the data 

provided to CALPOST for Great Smoky Mountains would be the total natural background extinction minus 10 

(expressed in Mm-1), or 11.38. This is most easily input as fine soil concentrations (11.38 μg/m3

) in CALPOST, 

since the extinction efficiency of soil (PM-fine) is 1.0 and there is no f(RH) component. The concentration 

entries for all other particle constituents would be set to zero, and the fine soil concentration would be kept the 

same for each month of the year. The monthly values for f(RH) that CALPOST needs will be taken from 

"Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule" (EPA, 2003) Appendix A, Table A-3. 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 3-2 November 2006
4.0 Air quality modeling procedures 

This section provides a summary of the modeling procedures outlined in the VISTAS protocol that will be used 

for the refined CALPUFF analysis to be conducted for Plant Bowen. 

4.1 Model selection and features 

As noted in the VISTAS protocol (Summary, Recommendations Section II.), VISTAS will use CALPUFF 

Version 5.754 and CALMET Version 5.7, which can be obtained at 

http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm#VISTAS_VERSION. These versions contain 

enhancements funded by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and VISTAS. They are maintained on 

TRC’s Atmospheric Studies Group CALPUFF website for public access. This release includes CALMET, 

CALPUFF, CALPOST, CALSUM, and POSTUTIL as well as CALVIEW. 

The major features of the CALPUFF modeling system, including those of CALMET and the post processors 

(CALPOST and POSTUTIL), are referenced in Section 3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

The baseline BART modeling will be conducted for Bowen Units 1 thru 4 (BART eligible units) for each Class I 

area within 300 km of the source. Unit 1 thru 4 will each be modeled separately for the visibility improvement 

modeling for the BART determination step for the Class I areas where baseline modeling shows a greater than 

0.5 deciview impact. 

4.2 Modeling domain and receptors 

The initial Plant Bowen BART runs will use the sub-domain 4, 4-km CALMET data supplied by VISTAS, as 

discussed above. This domain includes all Class I areas within 300 km of the source, plus a 50-km buffer. If 

there is the need for a refined analysis with a finer grid, a supplement to this modeling protocol will be provided 

describing the proposed procedures. 

The receptors used for each of the Class I areas are based on the NPS database of Class I receptors, as 

recommended by the VISTAS common protocol (Section 4.3.3). 

4.3 Technical options used in the modeling 

CALMET modeling for the VISTAS-provided 4-km subdomains will be performed per the procedures specified 

in the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol. If it is decided to conduct additional modeling with a finer 

grid than 4 km, this modeling protocol will be updated to specify the technical options to be used in the 

CALMET run, in order to allow for state agency review and approval. 

For CALPUFF model options, Plant Bowen will follow the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol (Section 

4.4.1), which states that we should use IWAQM (EPA, 1998) guidance. The VISTAS protocol (Section 4.3.3) 

also notes that building downwash effects are not required to be included unless the state directs the source to 

include these effects. Since Plant Bowen is more than 50 km from the nearest Class I area, building 

downwash effects will not be included in the CALPUFF modeling. 

The POSTUTIL utility program (VISTAS common protocol Section 4.4.2) will be used to repartition HNO3 and 

NO3 using VISTAS-provided ammonia concentrations derived from previous 2002 CMAQ modeling conducted 

by EPA or the alternate ammonia concentrations approach recommended by VISTAS, if the CMAQ data is 

unavailable. As indicated earlier, since only PM emissions are being modeled, the treatment of ammonia 

should not have an affect on PM results from CALPUFF. 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 4-1 November 2006
4.4 Light extinction and haze impact calculations 

The CALPOST postprocessor will be used as prescribed in the VISTAS protocol for the calculation of the 

impact from the modeled source’s primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations on light extinction. 

The formula that is currently used in CALPOST is the existing (not the November 2005 revised) 

IMPROVE/EPA formula, which is applied to determine a change in light extinction due to increases in the 

particulate matter component concentrations. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following: 

bext = 3 f(RH) [(NH4)2SO4] + 3 f(RH) [NH4NO3] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + bRay

The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m3 and bext is in units of Mm-1. The Rayleigh scattering term 

(bRay) has a default value of 10 Mm-1, as recommended in EPA guidance for tracking reasonable progress 

(EPA, 2003a). 

The extinction formula shown above is known to be inadequate in its representation of light extinction from sea 

salt and its usage of 1.4 as the organic mass to carbon mass ratio. Furthermore, guidance for this formula did 

not provide for site-specific Rayleigh scattering. In December of 2005, the IMPROVE Steering Committee 

adopted a new formula for determining light extinction that addresses these and other shortcomings. The new 

formula is shown below.. 

)]([33.0

( )

[6.0 ]

][)(7.1

][1

[10 ]

[8.2 [1.6] ]

[)(4.2 [)(1.5] ]

[)(2.2 [)(8.4] ]

2 ppbNO

Rayleigh Scattering SpecificSite

Course Mass

SaltSeaRHf

SoilFine

Elemental Carbon

Small Organic Mass OrganicrgeLa Mass

RHf Small Nitrate NitratergeLaRHf

b RHf Small Sulfate SulfatergeLaRHf

SS

S L

ext S L

×+

+

×+

××+

×+

×+

×+ ×+

××+ ××+

××≈ + × ×

The apportionment of the total concentration of sulfate compounds into the concentrations of the small and 

large size fractions is accomplished using the following equations. 

3

3 [ [], /20] /20

[ ] [ ] Total Sulfate Total Sulfate mg

mg

Total Sulfate SulfatergeLa μ

μ = × <

3 [ SulfatergeLa = [] Total Sulfate [], Total Sulfate ≥ μ /20] mg

[Small Sulfate = [] Total Sulfate −[] SulfatergeLa ]

This revised version of the IMPROVE Equation will be used to calculate visibility improvement results for the 

BART determination modeling. Dr. Ivar Tombach (VISTAS consultant) has produced a spreadsheet tool 

(September 29, 2006) to allow the new IMPROVE formula results to be derived from the basic CALPOST 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 4-2 November 2006
outputs. Also, since the BART determination modeling is focused only on PM, NO2 will be set to zero in the 

new formula. For informational purposes only, results from the old equation will also be presented. 

The assessment of visibility impacts at the Class I areas will use CALPOST Method 6 (VISTAS common 

protocol Section 4.3.2). Each hour’s source-caused extinction is calculated by first using the hygroscopic 

components of the source-caused concentrations, due to ammonium sulfate and nitrate, and monthly Class I 

area-specific f(RH) values. The contribution to the total source-caused extinction from ammonium sulfate and 

nitrate is then added to the other, non-hygroscopic components of the particulate concentration (from coarse 

and fine soil, secondary organic aerosols, and from elemental carbon) to yield the total hourly source-caused 

extinction. 

The BART rule significance threshold for the contribution to visibility impairment is 0.5 deciviews. The VISTAS 

protocol (Section 4.3.2) indicates that with the use of the 4-km sub-regional CALMET database, a source does 

not cause or contribute to visibility impairment if the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day’s change in extinction 

from natural conditions does not exceed 0.5 deciviews for any of the modeled years (an added check is: the 

22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled should also not exceed 0.5 deciviews for a source to be 

exempted from a BART determination). Both the 98th percentile (or 8th highest) day's change in extinction 

from natural conditions for any modeled year and the 22nd highest prediction over the three years modeled 

will be evaluated. 

Figure 4-1 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protocol presents a flow chart showing the components of 

that common protocol. The modeling for Plant Bowen will focus on Subregional Fine-Scale modeling as 

depicted in the lower half of the figure. 

The source will perform BART determination modeling for the baseline and each control option in the manner 

described in this document. 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 4-3 November 2006
5.0 Presentation of modeling results 

The BART determination modeling results for Plant Bowen will be provided to the state agency in a manner as 

described in the VISTAS protocol (Section 4.5). The results will include the following elements (as suggested 

in the VISTAS protocol): 

1. A map of the source location and Class I areas within 300 km of the source. 

2. For the CALPUFF modeling domain, a table listing all Class I areas in the VISTAS domain and those 

in neighboring states and impacts from the BART 4-km grid baseline modeling at those Class I 

areas within 300 km of the source, as illustrated in Table 4-3 of the VISTAS protocol. 

3. Identify from the baseline modeling the number of Class I areas with visibility impairment due to 

source emissions for the 98th percentile days in each year (and the 98th percentile over all three 

years modeled) greater than 0.5 dv. 

4. For the Class I area with the maximum impact, identification of the number of days beyond those 

excluded (e.g., the 98th percentile for refined analyses) that the impact of the source exceeds 0.5 

dv, the number of receptors in the Class I area where the impact exceeds 0.5 dv, and the maximum 

impact. 

The BART determination modeling will be performed for those Class I areas shown in the baseline modeling to 

exceed 0.5 dv impact. The results presented will be a comparison of the 98th percentile value for the baseline 

and each control option and emissions unit derived as is outlined above for the baseline modeling. A 

summary of the relative results among all emission scenarios run would be produced. 

Additionally, the appropriate electronic files used to conduct the CALPUFF modeling will be submitted on CDROM or DVD media. 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc 5-1 November 2006
Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc A-1 November 2006
Appendix A 

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Emissions

During the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, a percentage of the SO2 formed is further oxidized to SO3. 

As the flue gas cools across the air heater, this SO3 combines with flue gas moisture to form vapor-phase 

and/or condensed sulfuric acid (H2SO4). The H2SO4 emissions shown in Table 2-1 of this BART modeling 

protocol were calculated consistent with the method used by Southern Company to derive these emissions for 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) purposes. This method is documented in a report titled Estimating Total 

Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants: Revision 3 (2005) prepared by Keith Harrison and Dr. 

Larry Monroe (Southern Company Services) and Edward Cichanowicz (Consultant). The approach described 

in this report assumes that H2SO4 emissions released from the stack are proportional to SO2 emissions from 

combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H2SO4 by downstream equipment (i.e., 

ESP and air heater) and add-on emissions control equipment (scrubber). 

Since this facility contains post-combustion NOx control (SCR), the baseline sulfuric acid emissions estimate 

accounts for the manufacture of H2SO4 through combustion and through further oxidation of SO2 in the SCR. 

Calculated sulfuric acid releases then account for loss or removal within the system. The equations below 

show how the manufacture and release calculations are made. Table A-1 shows the resulting H2SO4

emissions calculations . 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion (EMComb): 

EMComb = K x F1 x E2 

where, 

EMComb = total sulfuric acid manufactured from combustion, lbs/yr 

K = Molecular weight and units conversion constant = 98.07 / 64.04 * 2000 = 3,063 

(98.07 = Molecular weight of sulfuric acid; 64.04 = Molecular weight of SO2; Conversion from tons per 

year to pounds per year – multiply by 2000.) 

F1 = Fuel Impact Factor (from the emissions estimating report) 

E2 = Sulfur dioxide emissions, tons (from CEMS data). 

Sulfuric Acid Released from Combustion (ERComb) 

ERComb = EMComb x F2 (technology impact factors for air heater and ESP) 

ERComb = EMComb x (0.49) x (0.49) 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured by SCR (EMSCR) 

EMSCR = K * S2 * fs * E2 

where, 

EMSCR = Total sulfuric acid manufactured from SCR, lbs per year 

K = Conversion factor = 3063 

S2 = SCR catalyst SO2 oxidation rate (specified as a decimal) 

fs = Operating factor of SCR system, fraction of coal burn when SCR operates 

E2 = SO2 produced, tons per year 

Sulfuric Acid Released from SCR (ERSCR) 

ERSCR = [EMSCR – (Ks * B * fs * SNH3)] * F2x 

where, 

ERSCR = Total sulfuric acid released from SCR, lbs per year 

EMSCR = Total sulfuric acid manufactured from SCR, lbs per year 

Ks = Conversion factor = 3799 

B = Coal burn in TBtu/hr 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc A-2 November 2006
fs = Operating factor of SCR system, fraction of coal burn when SCR operates 

SNH3 = NH3 slip from SCR, ppmv at 3% O2 

F2x = Technology Impact Factors, all that apply 

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Flue Gas Conditioning (EMfgc): 

EMfgc = Ke x B x fe x Is 

where, 

EMfgc = total sulfuric acid manufactured from flue gas conditioning system, lbs/hr 

Ke = Conversion Factor = 3,799 

B = Coal burn in TBtu/hr 

fe = Operating factor of FGC system, fraction of coal burned when FGC operates 

Is =SO3 injection rate in ppmv at 6% O2, wet 

Sulfuric Acid Released from FGC (ERfgc) 

ERfgc = [EMfgc – (Ke * B * fe * INH3)] * F3 x F2 

where, 

ERfgc = Total sulfuric acid released from FGC, lbs per hour 

EMfgc = Total sulfuric acid manufactured from FGC, lbs per hour 

Ke = Conversion factor = 3799 

B = Coal burn in TBtu/hr 

fe = Operating factor of FGC system, fraction of coal burn when FGC operates 

INH3 = NH3 injection for dual flue gas conditioning system, ppmv at 6% O2, wet (= 0 if no NH3 used) 

F3 = Technology Impact Factors for FGC 

F2 = Technology Impact Factors for equipment after ESP only

 If no control after ESP, F2 = 1 

Total Sulfuric Acid Released (TSAR): 

TSAR = ERComb + ERSCR + ERfgc[Bowen 3 and 4 only] 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc A-3 November 2006
A-4 November 2006 113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

Table A-1 Plant Bowen sulfuric acid calculations 

Case Source / Unit SO2 

Conv. 

Factor 

Fuel 

Impact 

Factor 

Manuf 

from 

Combut. 

APH 

Factor 

ESP 

Factor 

Released 

From 

Combust. 

SCR 

Oxid. 

Rate 

SCR 

Op. 

Factor 

Manuf by 

SCR Coal Burn, B C

F

lbs/hr K F1 lbs/hr F2 F2 lbs/hr S2 fs lbs/hr TBtu/hr 

EC NS Unit 1 17069.4 3063 0.008 209.1 0.49 0.49 50.2 0.0075 0 0.0 0.00684 EC S Unit 1 15374.2 3063 0.008 188.4 0.49 0.49 45.2 0.0075 1 176.6 0.00684 

Baseline S Unit 1 15374.2 3063 0.008 188.4 0.49 0.49 45.2 0.0075 1 176.6 0.00684 

EC NS Unit 2 17247.6 3063 0.008 211.3 0.49 0.49 50.7 0.0075 0 0.0 0.00669 EC S Unit 2 16059.4 3063 0.008 196.8 0.49 0.49 47.2 0.0075 1 184.5 0.00669 

Baseline S Unit 2 16059.4 3063 0.008 196.8 0.49 0.49 47.2 0.0075 1 184.5 0.00669 

EC NS Unit 3 20652.4 3063 0.008 253.0 0.49 0.49 60.8 0.0075 0 0.0 0.00772 EC S Unit 3 18519.4 3063 0.008 226.9 0.49 0.49 54.5 0.0075 1 212.7 0.00772 

Baseline S Unit 3 18519.4 3063 0.008 226.9 0.49 0.49 54.5 0.0075 1 212.7 0.00772 

EC NS Unit 4 20097.2 3063 0.008 246.2 0.49 0.49 59.1 0.0075 0 0.0 0.00843 EC S Unit 4 19504.1 3063 0.008 239.0 0.49 0.49 57.4 0.0075 1 224.0 0.00843 

Baseline S Unit 4 19504.1 3063 0.008 239.0 0.49 0.49 57.4 0.0075 1 224.0 0.00843 

EC= Existing Configuration (i.e., no scrubber) Baseline=Scrubbed NS = No SCR Operation S= SCR Operation 

Case Source / Unit 

Conv. 

Factor 

FGC 

Op. 

Factor 

SO3 

Injection 

Rate 

Manuf 

by 

FGC 

Tech 

Impact 

Factor 

for 

FGC 

Tech 

Impact 

Factor for 

Equip 

after ESP 

NH3 

Injection 

Rate 

Released 

From FGC 

Total 

Released 

without 

Scrubber 

Removal 

Rate for 

Scrubber 

Ke fe Is lbs/hr F3 F2 INH3 lbs/hr lbs/hr % 

EC NS Unit 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50.2 EC S Unit 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 83.0 

Baseline S Unit 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 83.0 40 

EC NS Unit 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50.7 EC S Unit 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 87.0 

Baseline S Unit 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 87.0 40 

EC NS Unit 3 3799 1.0 7.0 205.2 0.25 1.0 0.0 51.3 112.1 EC S Unit 3 3799 1.0 7.0 205.5 0.25 1.0 0.0 51.3 151.6 

Baseline S Unit 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100.3 40 

EC NS Unit 4 3799 1.0 7.0 224.3 0.25 1.0 0.0 56.1 115.2 EC S Unit 4 3799 1.0 7.0 224.3 0.25 1.0 0.0 56.1 161.5 

Baseline S Unit 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 105.4 40 

EC= Existing Configuration (i.e., no scrubber) Baseline=Scrubbed NS = No SCR Operation S= SCR Operation 
A-4 November 2006 113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc
Appendix B 

Estimated Emissions of Primary Total Carbon and Primary Sulfate 

From Coal-Fired Power Plants

[The above titled paper is included as a separate document along with 

this site specific BART modeling protocol. This paper was prepared for 

Southern Company by Eric S. Edgerton of Atmospheric Research & 

Analysis, Inc.] 

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc B-1 November 2006