p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 235)11-1-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:02 AM

Sheet 235of 276P. 2



## Stat e o f Wisconsi n \ DEPARTMEN T I ._<aXWW I IWL.V J Carroll D. Besadny, Secretary

Box 792 1 Madison, Wisconsin

53707 TELEFAX

NO. 608-267-357 9 TDD NO. 608-267-689 7 I NREPL Y REFE R TO : 456 0 Jul y27 , 199 0 Roge r Dodd s Wisconsi n Electri c & Powe r Compan y 23 1 W . Michiga n Stree t Milwaukee , W I 5320 1

Dea r Mr . Dodds : Th e Permi t Sectio n o f th e Burea u o f Ai r Management , Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s ha s receive d an d appreciat e you r comment s o n th e propose d condition s fo r th e ai r pollutio n permi t No . 90-POY-03 7 date d Jun e 8 , 199 0 fo r Wisconsi n Electri c Powe r Compan y(WEPCO ) Por t Washingto n Powe r Plant . Th e following ar e the response s t o you r comments .

. SO ? Emissio n Limitation s W e hav e consulte d wit h U.S . EP Aan d i t i s thei r positio n tha t th e reductio n o f emissio n fro

ma n emissio n uni t t o avoi d NSP S mus t b e achieve d bycontinuou s operatio n o f contro l equipment . Fue l switchin g o r load reductio n t o reduc e emission s i n orde r t o avoi d NSP S i s no t acceptable . Thi s positio n wa s give n by USEP Averball yove r telephon e conference . W e shal l obtai n confirmatio n i n writin g and forwar d yo u a copyo f thei r letter . Th e permi t applicatio n submitte d b yWEPC O state d tha t sorben t injectio n wil l b e used . B

yrequirin g S0 2 reductio n usin g sorben t injection , w e ar e simpl y approvin g you r propose d metho d o f S0 : reduction . I f WEPC O want s t o us e othe r S0 2 contro l technology , a permi t alteratio n applicatio n mus t b e submitte d t o th e Departmen t fo r review .

. NO T Emissio n Limitatio n Th e purpos e o f establishin g a 30-dayaveragin g perio d fo r eac h boiler' s NO , emission s wa s t o allo wfo r varyin g level s o f NO , emission s durin g varyin g uni t load conditions . W e believe s tha t eac h boile r a t th e Por t Washingto n Powe r Plan t has , can , and wil l emi t NO , a t a rat e o f no t mor e tha n 0. 4 lb/MMBTU whe n th e boiler' s emission s ar e average d ove r an v 3 0 day s o f operation . A s yo u know , unde r th e PS D rules , the Departmen t mus t determin e BAC T prior Co th e constructio n (o r modification ) o f the affecte d emission s unit . W e hav e considere d al l o f th e NO , emission s dat a yo u hav e submitted , fromth e KV

B result s from197 8 forwar d t o th e ver yrecen t dat a fromthe capacit ytestin g a t the plant . I t i s certainl ytru e tha t th e NO , emission s var yfromPort' s arch

fire d furnaces , bu t w e believ e tha t w e hav e accommodate d thi s circumstanc e sufficientl yb yincorporatin g a 30-day averagin g time fo r complianc e purposes .

WISCONSI N I . T« ApM U 1 | » •P. 3

-Roge r Dodd s 2 . I f th e firs t severa l month s o f CE M dat a confirmtha t 0. 4 l b NOj/MMBT

U i s unrealisti c fo r an yo f th e Por t Washingto n boilers , Wisconsi n Electri c woul d the n hav e persuasiv e evidenc e o f a nee d fo r th e Departmen t t o alte r th e permi t a s i t affect s tha t boiler . Th e Departmen t ha s n o interes t i n maintainin g unrealisti c permi t conditions , s o w e woul d (upo n a petitio n from WEPC O t o d o s o an d stron g evidenc e o f th e nee d fo r a change ) modif yth e permi t t o satisf yth e actua l need s o f th e facility . Whil e 0. 4 l b N0./MMBT U woul d perhap s b e th e mos t stringen t PS D NO , emissio n limi t on. a pulverize d coa l boile r i n th e Unite d States , th e arch-fire d configuratio n inherentl yplace s suc h furnace s a step o r two ahea d o f othe r type s o f pulverize d coa l firing . Thus , i t i s reasonabl e t o expec t tha t a BAC T determinatio n whic h onl yrequire s prope r boile r combustio n practice s woul d resul t i n a mor e stringen t emissio n limitatio n fo r arc h firin g relativ e t o othe r pulverize d coa l firin g configurations .

. Fugitiv e Dus t Th e typographica l error-o f th e fugitiv e dus t rul e citatio n shal l b e correcte d t o rea d NR 415.04(1) , Wis . Adm . Code .

. Metal s Emissio n Limitation s Berylliu

man d mercur yar e pollutant s regulate d unde r th e PS D programand arseni c i s regulate d unde r NESHAP . A s yo u understand , a PS D revie wmus t cove r al l regulate d pollutants . You r compan yha s chose n t o us e emissio n nettin g t o avoi d PS D fo r th e trac e metals . I n th e nettin g analysis , WEPC O and th e Departmen t ha s use d variou s assumption s an d sampl e tes t dat a t o arriv e a t th e conclusio n tha t th e ne t increas e o f emission s o f trac e metal s wil l no t excee d an yo f th e correspondin g significanc e levels . Thus , PS D doe s no t appl yt o thes e pollutants . However , w e mus t transformthes e emissio n conclusion s int o enforceabl e limitations . Therefor e w e shal l impos e limitation s fo r arsenic , berylliu

man d mercury . Th e estimate d emission s o f lea d an d fluoride s base d o n th e assumption s supplie d b yWEPC O ar e belo wth e PS D significan t level s and thu s n o emissio n nettin g analyse s wer e don e fo r thes e tw o pollutants . N o emissio n limitatio n ha s bee n se t fo r lea d and fluorides . W e agre e tha t th e concentration s o f trac e metal s i n coa l ca n vary . W e als o agre e tha t i n genera l th e variation s ar e unpredictabl e an d ar e uncontrollabl e b yth e use r and th e coa l supplier . However , w e d o no t agre e wit h WEPCO' s submitta l date d Jun e 13 , 199 0 whic h propose s t o calculat e th e 1983/198 4 trac e metal s emission s base d o n th e maximu mo f th e publishe d dat a ("Trac e Element s i n Coal : Occurrenc e an d Distribution" , EPA-600/7-77-064 ) o f U.S . Easter n Coal . Acknowledgin g th e variabilitie s o f coa l i n natura l occurrenc e and analytica l precision , w e shal l propos e ne wlimitation s fo r arsenic , berylliumand mercur y base d o n th e concentratio n calculate d a s follows : y- ( u + s)( l + v ) where : yi s th e estimate d concentratio n i n pp m

u i s th e averag e concentratio n i n pp mliste d i n th e abov e referenc e s i s th e standar d deviatio n liste d i n th e abov e referenc e v i s th e coefficien t o f analytica l variabilit yliste d i n th e referenc e "InterlaboratoryVariabilit yan d Accurac yi n Trac e Elemen t Analysi s o f Coal " by , Lengyel , J . and Obermiller , E. , Consolidate d Coa l Company , October , 1987 .

- 2 -P. 4

..Roge r Dodd s 3 .
W e believ e tha t thi s calculatio n procedur e wil l accoun t fo r th e variabilitie s tha t WEPC O i s concerne d about . Th e ne wlimitation s wil l be : Arseni c Mercur y Berylliu

m 1.8 4 x IO" 4 #/MMBTU

3.5 9 x IO" 5 #/MMBTU 8.6 4 x IO" 7 #/MMBTU W e shal l se t thes e limitation s a s 12-mont h rollin g average s du e t o th e unpredictabilit yo f coa l samples . Ther e wil l b e emissio n testin g requirement s fo r arsenic , mercur yand beryllium . Th e detectio n limit s fo r thes e arsenic , mercur yand berylliu mar e abou t 0.4 , 0.1 1 an d 0.0 8 ug/m 3 , respectively . (Ref. : "Measuremen t Methodology fo r Stationar ySourc e Toxi c Mecal s Emissions" , a pape r presente d a t th e 82nd Annua l Meetin g o f AWM A(formerl yknown a s APCA) , Jun e 25-30 , 198 9 i n Anaheim , CAbyUSEP Aand Entropy.-Environmentalists , Inc. ) Th e allowabl e emission s o f arsenic , mercur yand berylliu mar e abou t 95 , 1 8 and 0.4 5 ug/m 3 , respectively . Thu s ther e shoul d b e n o proble mdetectin g thes e emissions . W e shal l us e thes e tes t dat a t o verif yth e correlation s tha t WEPC O believ e ar e correc t and tha t hav e bee n use d t o predic t emission s calculate d fromth e concentration s o f trac e metal s i n coal .

. Initia l Operatio n W e shal l defin e "initia l operation" , i n th e permit , a s th e firs t time a uni t i s pu t bac k int o commercia l operatio n afte r renovation .

. ES P Operatio n Parameter s Th e condition s 9 , 1 0 and 1 1 wil l b e change d t o reflec t tha t th e restriction s o f operatin g parameter s wil l b e impose d onl yunde r stead ystat e operations . Durin g startu

p and shutdown , w e shal l requir e WEPC O t o follo wmanufacturer' s operatio n manua l procedures .

. C O Monitorin g Sinc e th e C O emissio n limitatio n i s a renovate d plan t limit , ther e i s n o proble mmonitorin g C O fo r eac h stac k onc e al l boiler s (namel yB21 , B2 2 and B23 ) exhaustin g t o Stac k S1 7 hav e complete d th e necessaryrenovatio n and th e 150-dayshakedow

n period . However , befor e al l o f boiler s B21 , B2 2 and B2 3 hav e complete d renovatio n and shakedown , C O monitorin g shal l b e require d fo r eac h o f th e renovate d boiler s B21 , B2 2 and/o r B23 . WEPC O ma ychoos e t o hav e th e shakedown period s fo r thes e thre e boiler s t o b e concurrent .

. Monitorin g o f ES P Operatin g Parameter s W e shal l chang e conditio n 1 7 t o read : "Th e permitte e shal l submi t quarterl yreport s withi n 3 0 day s followin g th e end o f eac h calenda r quarte r statin g th e date s and startin g and endin g time s o f eac h perio d o f exceedanc e o f th e monitorin g requirement s i n condition s 9 , 1 0 an d 11 , an

d th e magnitud e o f th e exceedance. "

- 3 -P. 5

-Roge r Dodd s 4 . Conditio n 18 g shal l b e deleted .

. Repor t o f Dail yOpacit y W e shal l remov e th e requiremen t t o repor t dail yaverag e opacit yi n conditio n 18a .

. NSP S Requirement s Conditio n 2 0 i s writte n t o cove r NSP S requirement s applicabl e t o N0 Xemission s fromBoiler s B2 1 an d B2 4 b yreference . Som e o f th e NSP S requirement s ar e alread ycovere d b yvariou s part s o f th e permit , suc h a s continuou s emission s monitorin g and tha t a s a resul t o f BAC T fo r N0 X , NSP S emissio n limi t i s met .

. Fue l Tvp e Restrictio n Th e fuel s liste d i n th e permi t conditio n ar e thos e WEPC O hav e state d i n th e permi t application . W e hav e reviewe d th e applicatio n accordin g t o th e specification s provided-b yth e applicant , WEPCO . Therefor e thi s permi t i s onl y vali d i f WEPC O use s the"fuel s a s specified .

. Fluoride s and Lea d Samplin g Th e Departmen t ha s calculate d fluoride s and lea d emission s base d o n informatio n and assumption s tha t WEPC O believ e wil l predic t th e accurat e emissio n rates . W e hav e conclude d tha t th e post-renovate d emissio n rate s o f fluoride s and lea d ar e les s tha n the PS D significanc e level s fo r thes e pollutants . Thu s n o emissio n limit s wer e se t fo r fluoride s and lead . Th e coa l samplin g requirement s fo r fluoride s and lea d ar e desig n t o verif yWEPCO' s informatio n an d assumptions .

. Conditio n 2 3 Regardin g Phase d Constructio n Pleas e not e tha t th e conditio n start s wit h th e wor d "If" . I n additio n t o th e change s mentione d above , w e shal l chang e conditio n 22 c t o read : "Submi t quarterl yreport s withi n 3 0 day s followin g th e en d o f eac h calenda r quarte r whic h includ e th e content s o f lead , beryllium , arsenic , tota l fluoride s and mercur yi n th e coa l bur n fo r eac h mont h durin g th e calenda r quarter . I f th e lea d conten t i n coa l obtaine d fromth e sam e min e i s belo w9 pp m(base d o n 12-mont h rollin g average ) fo r 2 4 consecutiv e months , th e testin g o f lea d i n coa l sample s fromtha t min e ma yb e discontinued . I f th e conten t o f tota l fluoride s i n coa l obtaine d fro mth e sam e min e i s belo w4. 6 ppm(base d o n 12-mont h rollin g average ) fo r 2 4 consecutiv e months , th e testin g o f tota l fluoride s i n coa l sample s fro m tha t min e ma yb e discontinued . Eac h tim e whe n coa l froma differen t min e i s used , testin g o f lea d and tota l fluoride s i n coa l shal l resume. " W e believ e monthl ysamplin g o f trac e metal s i n coa l wil l b e require d t o demonstrat e 12-mont h rollin g averag e emissio n limit .P. 6

-Roge r Dodd s

I f yo u hav e an

yquestion s t o ou r respons e t o you r comments , pleas e brin g them t o ou r meetin g o n Augus t 6 , 199 0 i n GE F 2 , Madison . Sincerely , 

## lc*A^i_X^u^-p / Pau l Yeung , P.E . Alle n JV Hubbard, P.E . Permi t Sectio n Permi t Sectio n Burea u o f Ai r Managemen t Burea u o f Ai r Managemen t
cc : Southeas t Distric t Dal e Ziege , AM/ 3 USEPA , Regio n V Mar k Steinberg , WEPC O (vi a facsimil e transmission )

- 5P. 7

S <»e e 26 7 337 9 i d 1 S DN R 

# RFCQV P Stat e o fFisconsi n \

PUBLI C SlRVIC t COMMISSIO N

CHARLE S H . THOMPSON , CHAIRMA N MAR YLO U MUMTS , COMMISSION! * GEORG E R

. EDOAR , COMMISSIONE R 480 J SKfbevg m Avanu t P . 0 . Bex 78S A Mrtiaion . W<«een«j r 8370 7 

### Mr . Carrol l D . Besadny , Secretar y Fil e No . 6630-CE-13 3 Wisconsi nDepartmen t o f Natura l Resource s P.O . Bo x792 1 Madison , W I 5370 7

! 

### Dea r Mr . Besadny : Base d o na preliminary

review , EP

A raised concern s abou t the potentia l applicabilit y o f certai nai r qualit y regulation s t o Wisconsi nElectri c Powe r Company' s proposedrenovationmaintenanc e projec t a t it s Por t Washingtonplant . Followin

g a numbe r o f meeting s betweenyour staf f an dth e commissio

nstaff , thi s respons e provide s th e commission' s position wit hrespec t t o th e Por t Washingtonprojects . Th e commissio

n recognize s tha t th e question s raised b y your staf f regardin g majo r modifications , routine maintenance , repai r o r replacemen t ar e question s o

nwhic hw

e hav e expertis e tha t ma y b e o f us e t o DNR . However , th

e commissioncanno t substitut e it s judgmen t fo r DN Ra s t o th e definitiono f thes e term s unde r th

e CleanAi r Act . "Routine " i s subjective i nnature , withou t informationonho w DN R or EP A ha s applied th

e definitiono f "routine " i nthei r cleanai r regulations , i t i s appropriat e fo r th e commissiont o describe th e natur e o f th

e propose dproject s rathe r tha nt o attemp t t o conclude whethe r th e project s ar e "routine " i nthi s context . I nP6 C Fil e 5-9300.26 , staf f ha s beenmonitoring powe r plan t performanc e i ndetai l at WEPC O sinc e Augus t o f 1979 . Discussion s between WBPC O 

### an

d staf f le

dstaf f t o conclud e tha t a comprehensiv e approachshoul d b e takenregarding plan t availabilit y an d reliability , Staf f wa s encouragedb y WEPCO' s us e o f a Plan t Availabilit y

stud y (PAS ) i n198 3 to determin e a progra m fo r increasin

g plan t availability . Thos e recommendation s ar e th e basi s fo

r th e Por t WashingtonProjects , Th e improvemen t i

n availabilit y

an d reliabilit y

i s th e goa l o f thes e projects . A s a resul t o f improvin g th e plant' s performance , th e expeotedlif e o f th e uni t wil l be change d t o 2010 . Thi s i s a noutcom

e o f cos t effectiv

e improvement s t o plan t availability . Maintaining a plan t ingoo d conditiont o insur e th e adequacy

o f it s performanc e an d reliabilit y

i s a norma l wa

y fo r a utilit y

t o operate . W

e shoul d point out tha t maintenanc e represent s a continuu m o f activities , 

# an aincludes uu ut mar

eperforme ddaily , iwfcly , m

# [[\ h •annually , ever

y fiv e yeara , onc e a decade , or evenonc e durin g th e lif e o f th

e plant , '____^

_P. 8 r' d -33:0 0 L3/S\/vQ , '0 9 I H

O 9'93 a dd 3 WOd
2 -»e e 26 ? 35? 9 WI S DN R 9 3



### Page 2

Th e project s involv

e th e repai r an

d replacemen t o f equipmen t tha t i s wornout or ha s becom e obsolete . Thi s include s th e dat a acquisitionsyste

m fo r th e control B an

d monitoring o f th e powe r plant , th

e wate r treatmen t system , th e stea m turbine bladin

g an d auxiliar

y electri c system

s work . Additionally , th e testin

g an d inspectiono f stea m piping , chimne

y liners , an

dth e conditiono f equipmen t outside o f th e boile r itsel f i s done regularly . inspection s an

d determinationfo r replacemen t or repai r ar e made o na regula r basi s at al l powe r plants . The fac t tha t th e overal l applicationto th

e commissio

ncontain s numerou s project s a t a significan t cos t i s consisten t wit hth e commission' s Advanc e Pla n4 proces s an

d previou s commissio nactio

nregardin

g improvement s i

nplan t reliability . i nAdvanc e Pla

n4 f 

### th

e commissio

nstrongl y

supported th

e concep t o f th e utilitie s implementin g lif e extensiondevelopmen t programs , a s par t o f th

e leas t cos t plannin g process , balancing environmenta l wit heconomi c an

d othe r considerations . Th e commissionrequired th e utilitie s to submi t programs fo r revie w o f cos t effectivenes s i norde r tha t th

e negative environmenta l impac t fro m th e sitin g an d constructiono f ne w generatin

g capacity

coul d b

e deferred . Wisconsi nElectri c responded b y packagin

g th o result s o f th

e PA S l nsuc ha fashio

na s t o provide a 4-yea r consolidatedprojec t wit h man y differen t aspects . I f thi s packag e wer e t o b e done o

na norma l scheduled outag e basis , most , i f no t all , o f th e individua l project s woul d probabl y no t eve

nrequir e commissionreview . TheB e project s woul d b

e don e ina norma l timel y fashio na s needed during regula r scheduled maintenance . Thes e individua l project s ar e neithe r unusua l nor do the y involv e modification s t o th e operation o f th e powe r plant . Th e packagin

g o f maintenanc e project s int o a lif e extensionprogra m shoul d no t b

e dispositive o f thei r classificationor treatmen t unde r clea nai r regulations . A projec t tha t involve s th e boile r specificall y i s replacemen t o f th e rear stea

m drums o

nUnit s 2,2,4

an d5 . Replacemen t o f th e stea m drums i s neede d fo r safe , reliabl e operationo f th e units . Th e determinationtha t the y neede d to b e replacedwa s foun d durin g inspectio

no f one o f th

e units . Replacemen t o f worn , unreliable , unsaf e component s i s no t unusua l at powe r plant s an dsuc hsingl e component s ca

nrequir e a grea t dea l o f constructionan dlabor t o repai r or replace . The stea m drum s fal l int o tha t category . I t shoul d b

e noted tha t th

e stea m dru m o nUni t 1 i s i

nsatisfactor

y conditionan

d i s olde r tha

nth e others . I t ha s no t ha dt o b e replaced an

d i t i s expectedt o continue to giv

e usefu l J.if

e unti l th e yea r 2010 , Th

e commissio

ndoe s no t conside r dru m replacemen t t o b e an y modificationt o th e boilers . Th

e desig no f th

e powe r plant s wil l remai nth e same .1 :-_ • P. 9 •nn 'P/PI/fr O TiciIH 3 g'9 ^ Hd 3 ',10a d



### Page 3

Th e precipitato r modification s are a replacemen t o f obsolet e electri c control s o nth e existin

g precipitators . Th e precipitator s themselve s wil l no t b e modified inthe wa y the y operate . The ol d control s canno t b e replacedbecaus e the y ar e no longe r being made . Ne w control s ar e necessar y t o provid e mor e reliabl e precipitato r operation . Thes e type s o f project s ar e norma l an

d done o

na regula r basi s a t othe r Wisconsi npowe r plants . I nth e commission' s opinion , none o f th e project s proposed, ' whethe r the

y b e fo r facilitie s outside o r insid e the boiler , wil l modif y th e desig no f th

e powe r plant . WEPCO views th e proposed work a s necessar

y t o maintai nth

e usefulnes s o f thi s plant' s generating capacit y init s intended functio na s originall y designed an

d operated . Ther e i s a

nunderlyin

g issue raised b

y lif e extensionprograms , tha t i s th

e impac t o

nai r quality . Th e commissio

nbelieve s thi s i s a policy

questio

ntha t shoul db

e addressed directl y rathe r tha

n b y defining th

e natur e o f th

e project s to achiev e a desired outcome . The commissio nintend s t o addres s thi s issue i nupcomin

g proceeding s an

d woul d invit e your comment s an dparticipation . The commissioni s providing thi s informationbasedo npreviou s commissionrevie

w an d o nit s experienc e i nworking wit hutilitie s an d utilit y

powe r plants . The commissionhope s tha t th e informatio

nprovided wil l b

e helpfu l t o DN

Ri nmaking thi s an

d othe r reviews . Th e commissio

nappreciate s th

e opportunit y

to provide assistanc e t o th e DN Ran d i s preparedto work furthe r or provide additiona l information , i f requested . B y th e Commission , Signed )7&- da

y o f
_ . fi |ggci.t ^ 19?%

•WueZYneXTReynolds ' Jr'ae^eAn e x 7 Reyno ; Secretar

y t o th e Commissio

n JKR.RSC:DMD;rab0229880 2 ect Mr . Donal d P . Theiler , DN R Mr . Stev

e Rothblatt , EP

A See attached Notic e o f Appea l Rights .