# 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 monthl y 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-Specifi c Sulfuric Acid Emissi ons.......................................................... 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 antici pated to cause or contribute to any impairment of

visibility” in any mandatory Class I federal area. Purs uant 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 anti cipated 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 determi ne that CAIR satisfies the BART requirements for SO 2 

# and

NO

x 

# 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 SO 2 

# and NO

x 

# 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. Therefor e, the procedures below will be used to evaluate the

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

procedures are consistent with thos e 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, whic h 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 Kilme r (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. Vi sibility 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 model ed, and outlines the source emissions that will be used as input to the

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

modeling domain, terrain and land use, and meteorologica l 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 mode ling protocol (Section 7.), no reference section is

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

emissions.

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# 1-1

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

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# 1-2

# 2.0 Source description and emissions data

2.1 BART determination baseline

SO 2 

# 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 t he 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 reduc tions that occur from scrubbers. In addition, using

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

reduction only) interpretation of results. That is, t here 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 poin t (baseline) for the PM

BART determination and visib ility improvement modeling.



# 2.2 PM emissions controls to be modeled

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

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

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

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

removal efficiencies for each control, emissions der ived 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 uni ts) and the addition of a new electros tatic 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 repor t to be submitted later. Furt her 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 creat e a graphical plot of the total annualized cost for the

total PM emissions reductions for all feasible control alter natives (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 ot her competing alternatives.

Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show that the dominant control c hoices for all four units in clude WESP, the addition of

JuiceCan technology on existing tr ansformer/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 combinat ion of WESP/lime injectio n have been eliminated because

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

have been eliminated from further consideration. Rath er 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 vi sibility 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

November 2006 

# 2-1

# that they will issue rules stating that CAIR will suffice for EGU BART for SO 2 

# and NO

x 

# . Therefore, this protocol

focuses only on PM 10 

# . Since various components of PM 10 

# emissions have different visibility extinction

efficiencies, the PM 10 

# emissions are divided, or “speciated,” into several components (VISTAS common

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

emissions and speciation factors and/or default values from AP-42. The PM 10 

# 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

November 2006 

# 2-2

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

y = 162.81x 2 

# + 7738.6x - 6001.7

R 2 

# = 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 = 106.02x 2 

# + 3245.8x + 26909

R 2 

# = 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

November 2006 

# 2-3

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

y = 76.74x 2 

# + 25591x - 325653

R 2 

# = 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 = 73.543x 2 

# + 21034x - 297166

R 2 

# = 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

November 2006 

# 2-4

# approach to be used for the modeling described in this pr otocol is indicated in the bullets below. Where

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

include ESPs and selective catalytic reducti on (SCR) systems, but no post-combustion SO 2 

# 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 fo r the BART determination modeling was to establish

“maximum 24-hour average emission rates” based on the current configuration cons istent 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 mode ling, scrubber control efficiencies were applied to the

maximum 24-hour average rates.

• Total PM 10 

# is comprised of filterable and condensable emissions.

• Filterable PM 10 

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

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

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

protocol.

• Filterable PM 10 

# 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 PM 10 

# 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 PM 10 

# consists of inorganic and organic compounds . The inorganic portion is by default

assumed to be H 2 

# SO 4 

# , although other non-sulfate inorganic condensables could be present. The

organic portion is modeled as organic aerosols.

• H 2 

# SO 4 

# emissions are calculated consis tent with the method used by Georgia Power to derive these

emissions for TRI purposes. This approach assumes that the H 2 

# SO 4 

# emissions released from the

stack are proportional to SO 2 

# emissions from combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the

removal of H 2 

# SO 4 

# by downstream equipment (i.e., ESP and ai r heater). For eastern bituminous coal

the fundamental H 2 

# SO 4 

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

0.8% of the SO 2 

# emissions. Appendix A provides the basis for the site-specific values used.

• Emissions of condensable organics (the remaining portion of condensable PM 10 

# ) are derived based on

the supporting field observational information in Appendix B and is estimated as 0.32% of SO 2



# emitted.

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

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

geometric mass mean diameter of 0.48 microns, cons istent 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 pr esented 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 PM 10 

# 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, th e 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

November 2006 

# 2-5

# Table 2-2 provides a summary of the modeling emi ssion 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 aver age lb/hr rates (excluding days where startup,

shutdown, or malfunctions occurred). For NO

x 

# and SO 2 

# the current configuration values are directly from

CEMS. Filterable PM 10 

# emissions were calculated using the highest stack test over the 2003 to 2005 period

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

values were then adjusted using AP-42 factor s from Table 1.1-6 that indicate that PM 10 

# is 67% of total PM for a

pulverized coal unit with an ESP. PM 10 

# speciation was then performed as indicated above such that total

Filterable PM 10 

# is made up of Coarse Soil plus total Fine PM and total Fine PM is m ade up of Fine Soil plus

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

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

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

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

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

under consideration.

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# 2-6Table 2-2 Plant Bowen modeling emission parametersLocation UTM(Zone 16 NAD-83)Emissions1Particle Speciation2CaseSource/ UnitUTMEastUTMNorthActualStack HtBaseElev.FlueDiameterGasExitVel.StackGasExitTemp.SO2NOXPM10Filt.PM10CoarseSoilFinePMFine SoilECCond.PM10H2SO4Organicmmmmmm/sdegKlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrFUNDAMENTAL EMISSIONS DATAFundamental Data (Unit Basis)Current Config.Unit 1691,8933,778,033304.8219.87.620.8403.015374.221565.42510.21378.07210.20167.86161.656.21132.1482.9549.20Current Config.Unit 2691,8933,778,033304.8219.87.620.8403.016059.381253.44545.86407.51226.58180.94174.246.69138.3586.9651.39Current Config.Unit 3691,8933,778,033304.8219.87.627.1409.718519.37773.00478.86268.01149.01119.00114.594.40210.85151.5859.26Current Config.Unit 4691,8933,778,033304.8219.87.627.1409.719504.06971.92521.14297.26165.28131.98127.104.88223.88161.4762.41BART DETERMINATION BASELINE EMISSIONSScrubber Baseline Data (Unit Basis)BaselineUnit 1691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.612.5327.0768.711565.42174.5875.6142.0433.5732.331.2498.9749.7749.20BaselineUnit 2691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.612.5327.0802.971253.44185.0781.5045.3236.1934.851.34103.5652.1751.39BaselineUnit 3691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.615.8327.0925.97773.00173.0353.6029.8023.8022.920.88119.4360.1659.26BaselineUnit 4691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.615.8327.0975.20971.92185.1059.4533.0626.4025.420.98125.6563.2462.41Scrubber Baseline Data (Stack Basis)ModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85359.64157.1287.3669.7667.182.58202.53101.94100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92358.13113.0562.8650.2048.341.86245.08123.40121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1845.3219.8011.018.798.460.3325.5212.8412.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8645.1214.247.926.326.090.2330.8815.5515.33November 20062-7113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.docTable 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parametersLocation UTM(Zone 16 NAD-83)Emissions1Particle Speciation2CaseSource/ UnitUTMEastUTMNorthActualStack HtBaseElev.FlueDiameterGasExitVel.StackGasExitTemp.SO2NOXPM10Filt.PM10CoarseSoilFinePMFine SoilECCond.PM10H2SO4Organicmmmmmm/sdegKlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrEMISSIONS for MODELED CONTROL OPTIONSAgglomerator/Juice Can Data (Unit Basis)Agglom/JCUnit 1691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.612.5327.0768.711565.42145.0946.1225.9820.1419.400.7598.9749.7749.20Agglom/JCUnit 2691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.612.5327.0802.971253.44153.2849.7228.0021.7120.910.80103.5652.1751.39Agglom/JCUnit 3691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.615.8327.0925.97773.00156.4136.9923.4213.5713.060.50119.4360.1659.26Agglom/JCUnit 4691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.615.8327.0975.20971.92166.6741.0225.9815.0514.490.56125.6563.2462.41Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 1 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85330.16127.6371.3056.3354.252.08202.53101.94100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92358.13113.0562.8650.2048.341.86245.08123.40121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1841.6016.088.987.106.840.2625.5212.8412.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8645.1214.247.926.326.090.2330.8815.5515.33Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 2 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85327.86125.3370.0555.2853.242.05202.53101.94100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92358.13113.0562.8650.2048.341.86245.08123.40121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1841.3115.798.836.976.710.2625.5212.8412.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8645.1214.247.926.326.090.2330.8815.5515.33November 20062-8113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.docTable 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parametersLocation UTM(Zone 16 NAD-83)Emissions1Particle Speciation2CaseSource/ UnitUTMEastUTMNorthActualStack HtBaseElev.FlueDiameterGasExitVel.StackGasExitTemp.SO2NOXPM10Filt.PM10CoarseSoilFinePMFine SoilECCond.PM10H2SO4OrganicAgglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 3 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85359.64157.1287.3669.7667.182.58202.53101.94100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92341.5196.4456.4839.9638.481.48245.08123.40121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1845.3219.8011.018.798.460.3325.5212.8412.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8643.0312.157.125.044.850.1930.8815.5515.33Agglomerator/Juice Can Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 4 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85359.64157.1287.3669.7667.182.58202.53101.94100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92339.7094.6255.7838.8537.411.44245.08123.40121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1845.3219.8011.018.798.460.3325.5212.8412.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8642.8011.927.034.894.710.1830.8815.5515.33November 20062-9113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.docTable 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parametersLocation UTM(Zone 16 NAD-83)Emissions1Particle Speciation2CaseSource/ UnitUTMEastUTMNorthActualStack HtBaseElev.FlueDiameterGasExitVel.StackGasExitTemp.SO2NOXPM10Filt.PM10CoarseSoilFinePMFine SoilECCond.PM10H2SO4OrganicWet ESP Data (Unit Basis)Wet ESPUnit 1691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.612.5327.0768.711565.4266.717.564.203.363.230.1259.159.9549.20Wet ESPUnit 2691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.612.5327.0802.971253.4469.988.154.533.623.480.1361.8210.4351.39Wet ESPUnit 3691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.615.8327.0925.97773.0076.655.362.982.382.290.0971.2912.0359.26Wet ESPUnit 4691,8933,778,033207.5219.57.615.8327.0975.20971.9281.015.953.312.642.540.1075.0612.6562.41Wet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 1 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85251.7889.0649.5239.5438.081.46162.7262.13100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92358.13113.0562.8650.2048.341.86245.08123.40121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1831.7211.226.244.984.800.1820.507.8312.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8645.1214.247.926.326.090.2330.8815.5515.33Wet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 2 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85244.5583.7646.5737.1935.811.38160.7960.20100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92358.13113.0562.8650.2048.341.86245.08123.40121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033304.8219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1830.8110.555.874.694.510.1720.267.5912.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033304.8219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8645.1214.247.926.326.090.2330.8815.5515.33Wet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 3 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85359.64157.1287.3669.7667.182.58202.53101.94100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92261.7664.8136.0428.7827.711.06196.9475.27121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1845.3219.8011.018.798.460.3325.5212.8412.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8632.988.174.543.633.490.1324.819.4815.33November 20062-10113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.docTable 2-2 (Continued) Plant Bowen modeling emission parametersLocation UTM(Zone 16 NAD-83)Emissions1Particle Speciation2CaseSource/ UnitUTMEastUTMNorthActualStack HtBaseElev.FlueDiameterGasExitVel.StackGasExitTemp.SO2NOXPM10Filt.PM10CoarseSoilFinePMFine SoilECCond.PM10H2SO4OrganicWet ESP Data (Stack Basis) - Unit 4 Only ControlledModeledStk Ht3Eq.Dia.mmmmmm/sdeg Klbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrlbs/hrStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.01571.682818.85359.64157.1287.3669.7667.182.58202.53101.94100.59Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.01901.171744.92254.0359.5533.1126.4425.460.98194.4972.81121.67Stack Basis Emissions Converted to g/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secg/secStack 11&2691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.212.5327.0198.03355.1845.3219.8011.018.798.460.3325.5212.8412.67Stack 23&4691,8933,778,033207.5219.514.215.8327.0239.55219.8632.017.504.173.333.210.1224.519.1715.33Notes:1SO2and NOxemissions are not BART-applicable for EGU sources in CAIR states, if the state agency agrees with EPA’s interpretation of theBART final rule. Theemissions for SO2and NOxare provided for information purposes, and for reference inthe computation of certain particle species such as H2SO4.2Elemental carbon (EC) and Fine PM are a part of Filterable PM10and H2SO4and Organics are a part of Condensable PM10. Note that H2SO4is input to CALPUFF asSO4. The molecular weights of H2SO4and SO4are 98 and 96 respectively; therefore the conversion factor from H2SO4to SO4is 96/98.3Stack credit is equal to actual stack height since this stack is grandfathered.November 20062-11113006 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). Th e sub-regional modeling domains are strategically

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

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

Figure 4-4 of the VISTAS common BART modeling protoc ol. 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 us e 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 w ill use the 4-km subdomain 4. However, if the results

indicate that the modeling could be improved with a CA LPUFF 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, CALM ET 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 obs ervations 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 di rectly proportional to the grid resolution of the run. The

domain would be limited to the source and the exclus ive 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 resoluti on, then the appropriate model setting/files (specifically

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

Environmental Protection Divi sion for review and approval.



# 3.2 Air quality data base (background ozone and ammonia)

Hourly measurements of ozone from all non-urban moni tors, 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 mont hly f(RH) at Class I Areas

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

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

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

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# 3-1

# To determine the input to CALPUFF, it is first necessa ry 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 ex tinction of 21.38 inverse

megameters (Mm -1 

# ).

This extinction includes the default 10 Mm-1 for Ra yleigh scattering. The remain ing extinction is due to

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

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

(expressed in Mm -1 

# ), or 11.38. This is most easily i nput as fine soil concentrations (11.38 μ g/m 3 

# ) 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

November 2006 

# 3-2

# 4.0 Air quality mo deling procedures

This section provides a summary of the modeling procedur es outlined in the VISTAS pr otocol 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, Reco mmendations Section II.), VI STAS 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 fo r public access. This release includes CALMET,

CALPUFF, CALPOST, CALSUM, and PO STUTIL 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 c onducted 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 Clas s I areas where baseline modeling shows a greater than

0.5 deciview impact.



# 4.2 Modeling domai n and receptors

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

discussed above. This domain includes all Class I areas wi thin 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 subdomai ns 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 protoc ol will be updated to specify the te chnical 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 pr otocol (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 HNO 3 

# and

NO 3 

# using VISTAS-provided ammonia concentrations der ived 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 em issions are being modeled, the treatment of ammonia

should not have an affect on PM results from CALPUFF.

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# 4-1

# 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 prima ry 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 concentra tions. Using the notation of CALPOST, the formula is the following:

b ext 

# = 3 f(RH) [(NH 4 

# )2SO 4 

# ] + 3 f(RH) [NH 4 

# NO 3 

# ] + 4[OC] + 1[Soil] + 0.6[Coarse Mass] + 10[EC] + b Ray



# The concentrations, in square brackets, are in ug/m 3 

# and b ext 

# is in units of Mm -1 

# . The Rayleigh scattering term

(b Ray 

# ) 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 inadequat e 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 ] [1.6] [8.2 ] [)(1.5] [)(4.2 ] [)(8.4] [)(2.2

2 

# ppbNO SpecificSite Scattering Rayleigh Mass Course SaltSeaRHf SoilFine Carbon

Elemental Mass OrganicrgeLa Mass Organic Small NitratergeLaRHf Nitrate Small RHf SulfatergeLaRHf Sulfate Small RHf b

SS L S L S ext



# ×+ + ×+ ××+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ×+ ××+ ××+ × × + ××≈

The apportionment of the total concentration of sulfat e compounds into the concentrations of the small and

large size fractions is accomp lished using the following equations.

3

3 

# /20] [], [

/20 ] [ ] [ mg Sulfate Total Sulfate Total

mg Sulfate Total SulfatergeLa μ

μ < × =

3 

# /20] [], [] [ mg Sulfate Total Sulfate Total SulfatergeLa μ ≥

=

] [] [] [ SulfatergeLa Sulfate Total Sulfate Small

− =

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

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

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

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# 4-2

# outputs. Also, since the BART determinati on modeling is focused only on PM, NO 2 

# will be set to zero in the

new formula. For informational purposes only, resu lts 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 exti nction 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 cont ribution to the total source-caused extinction from ammonium sulfate and

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

and fine soil, secondary organic aerosols, and from elemental carbon) to yi eld 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 BAR T modeling protocol presents a fl ow 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 deter mination modeling for the baseline and each control option in the manner

described in this document.

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# 4-3

# 5.0 Presentation of modeling results

The BART determination modeling results for Plant Bow en 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 illust rated in Table 4-3 of the VISTAS protocol.

3. Identify from the baseline modeli ng the number of Class I areas wi th 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 pr esented will be a comparison of the 98 th 

# 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

November 2006 

# 5-1

# Appendix A

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# A-1

# Appendix A

Basis for Source-Specific Sulfuric Acid Emissions

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Emissions

During the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels, a percentage of the SO 2 

# formed is further oxidized to SO 3



# . As the flue gas cools across the air heater, this SO 3 

# combines with flue gas mo isture to form vapor-phase

and/or condensed sulfuric acid (H 2 

# SO 4 

# ). The H 2 

# SO 4 

# 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 repor t 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 H 2 

# SO 4 

# emissions released from the stack are proportional to SO 2 

# emissions from

combustion and are dependent on the fuel type and the removal of H 2 

# SO 4 

# 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 H 2 

# SO 4 

# through combustion and through further oxidation of SO 2 

# in the SCR.

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

show how the manufacture and release calculations are made. Table A-1 shows the resulting H 2 

# SO 4



# emissions calculations .

Sulfuric Acid Manufactured from Combustion (EMComb):

EMComb = K x F1 x E2

where,

EMComb = total sulfuric acid manu factured 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 emission s, 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

November 2006 

# A-2

# 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 fr om 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 * I NH3 

# )] * 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

I NH3 

# = 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

November 2006 

# A-3November 2006A-4113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.docTable A-1 Plant Bowen sulfuric acid calculationsCaseSource/ UnitSO2Conv.FactorFuelImpactFactorManuffromCombut.APHFactorESPFactorReleasedFromCombust.SCROxid.RateSCROp.FactorManuf bySCRCoal Burn, BConv.FactorNH3SlipReleas.fromSCRlbs/hrKF1lbs/hrF2F2lbs/hrS2fslbs/hrTBtu/hrKsSNH3lbs/hrECNSUnit 117069.430630.008209.10.490.4950.20.007500.00.0068437990.750.0ECSUnit 115374.230630.008188.40.490.4945.20.00751176.60.0068437990.7537.7BaselineSUnit 115374.230630.008188.40.490.4945.20.00751176.60.0068437990.7537.7ECNSUnit 217247.630630.008211.30.490.4950.70.007500.00.0066937990.750.0ECSUnit 216059.430630.008196.80.490.4947.20.00751184.50.0066937990.7539.7BaselineSUnit 216059.430630.008196.80.490.4947.20.00751184.50.0066937990.7539.7ECNSUnit 320652.430630.008253.00.490.4960.80.007500.00.0077237990.750.0ECSUnit 318519.430630.008226.90.490.4954.50.00751212.70.0077237990.7545.8BaselineSUnit 318519.430630.008226.90.490.4954.50.00751212.70.0077237990.7545.8ECNSUnit 420097.230630.008246.20.490.4959.10.007500.00.0084337990.750.0ECSUnit 419504.130630.008239.00.490.4957.40.00751224.00.0084337990.7548.0BaselineSUnit 419504.130630.008239.00.490.4957.40.00751224.00.0084337990.7548.0EC= Existing Configuration (i.e., no scrubber) Baseline=Scrubbed NS = No SCR Operation S= SCR OperationCaseSource/ UnitConv.FactorFGCOp.FactorSO3InjectionRateManufbyFGCTechImpactFactorforFGCTechImpactFactor forEquipafter ESPNH3InjectionRateReleasedFrom FGCTotalReleasedwithoutScrubberRemovalRate forScrubberTotalReleasedafterScrubberKefeIslbs/hrF3F2INH3lbs/hrlbs/hr%lbs/hrECNSUnit 1n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a50.2ECSUnit 1n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a83.0BaselineSUnit 1n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a83.04049.8ECNSUnit 2n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a50.7ECSUnit 2n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a87.0BaselineSUnit 2n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a87.04052.2ECNSUnit 337991.07.0205.20.251.00.051.3112.1ECSUnit 337991.07.0205.50.251.00.051.3151.6BaselineSUnit 3n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a100.34060.2ECNSUnit 437991.07.0224.30.251.00.056.1115.2ECSUnit 437991.07.0224.30.251.00.056.1161.5BaselineSUnit 4n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a105.44063.2EC= Existing Configuration (i.e., no scrubber) Baseline=Scrubbed NS = No SCR Operation S= SCR OperationNovember 2006A-4113006 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 include d as a separate document along with

this site specific BART modeling protoc ol. This paper was prepared for

Southern Company by Er ic S. Edgerton of Atmospheric Research &

Analysis, Inc.]

113006 Bowen BART Determination Modeling Protocol.doc

November 2006 

# B-1