CPV St. Charles Revised PSD - 082411

DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH AIR
QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AND

REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) AND NONATTAINMENT
NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NNSR) APPROVALS
CPV ST. CHARLES PROJECT

725-MW COMBINED-CYCLE
PROJECT
Prepared for:
CPV MARYLAND, LLC
Silver Spring, Maryland
Prepared by:
3701 Northwest 98th Street

Gainesville, Florida 32606
ECT No. 110122-0200
August 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section
1.0
2.0
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1-1
1.1
1.2
1-1
1-3
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
2-1
FACILITY DESCRIPTION, LOCATION MAPS, AND

PLOT PLAN
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND PROCESS FLOW
DIAGRAM
HOURLY EMISSIONS RATES AND STACK
PARAMETERS
ANNUAL POTENTIAL EMISSIONS
2-1
2-11
2-14
2-18
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
NATIONAL AND STATE AAQS

NONATTAINMENT NSR APPLICABILITY
PSD NSR APPLICABILITY
PSD REQUIREMENTS
3-1
3-3
3-5
3-6
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3-6
3-8
3-9
3-16
3.5
4.0
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING
AMBIENT IMPACT ANALYSIS
ADDITIONAL IMPACT ANALYSES
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT REQUIREMENTS
3-17
STATE AND FEDERAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS
4-1
4.1
4-1
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
NSPS SUBPART DCSMALL INDUSTRIALCOMMERCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL STEAM

GENERATING UNITS
NSPS SUBPART IIIISTATIONARY
COMPRESSION IGNITION INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINES
NSPS SUBPART KKKKSTATIONARY
COMBUSTION TURBINES
ii
4-1
4-2
4-2
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\TXT.DOCX082311
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, Page 2 of 5)
Page
Section
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.0
NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
ACID RAIN PROGRAM
CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE
MARYLAND EMISSIONS STANDARDS
4-3
4-4
4-6
4-7
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSES
5-1
5.1
LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSIONS RATE
5-1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
POLLUTANT APPLICABILITY
METHODOLOGY
LAER ANALYSIS FOR NOX
5-1
5-2
5-2
5.1.3.1 Potential Control Technologies

5.1.3.2 Technical Feasibility
5.1.3.3 Proposed NOx LAER Emissions Limits
5-3
5-10
5-11
LAER ANALYSIS FOR VOC
5-13

5.1.4.3 Proposed VOC LAER Emissions Limits
5-13
5-16
5-16
5.1.4
5.2
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
5-18
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
METHODOLOGY
BACT ANALYSIS FOR PM/PM10
5-18
5-18
5-21

5.2.3.3 Proposed PM/PM10 BACT Emissions
Limits
5-22
5-24
5-24
BACT ANALYSIS FOR CO
5-27

5.2.4.3 Proposed CO BACT Emissions Limits
5-27
5-27
5-29
5.2.4
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section
5.2.5
BACT ANALYSIS FOR GHG

5.2.5.1
5.2.5.2
5.2.5.3
5.2.5.4
5.2.5.5
5.2.5.6
6.0
Step 1Identify Available Control

Options
Step 2Eliminate Technically Infeasible
Options
Step 3Ranking of Controls
Step 4Economic, Energy, and
Environmental Impacts
Step 5Selecting BACT
Proposed GHG BACT Emissions Limits
5-33
5-36
5-36
5-37
5-37
5-37
ALTERNATIVES AND BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
6-1
6.1
SITE AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
6-1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6-1
6.2
7.0
5-30
ALTERNATIVE SITES
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND
DESIGNS
6-2
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
6-4
6.2.1
6.2.2
6-4
6-5
PROJECT BENEFITS
PROJECT SOCIOECONOMIC COSTS
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
7-1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
GENERAL APPROACH
POLLUTANTS EVALUATED
MODEL SELECTION AND USE
MODEL OPTIONS
NO2 AMBIENT IMPACT ANALYSIS
TERRAIN CONSIDERATION
BUILDING WAKE EFFECTS
RECEPTOR GRIDS
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
MODELED EMISSIONS INVENTORY
7-1
7-2
7-2
7-3
7-3
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-11
7-21
7.10.1 ON-PROPERTY SOURCES

7.10.2 OFF-PROPERTY SOURCES
7-21
7-22
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section
8.0
RESULTS OF AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSES
8-1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8-1
8-2
8.4
9.0
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS

MAXIMUM FACILITY IMPACTS
CUMULATIVE MODELING FOR THE 1-HOUR NO2
NAAQS
CONCLUSIONS
ADDITIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
9-1
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
GROWTH IMPACT ANALYSIS

IMPACTS ON SOILS, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE
VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT POTENTIAL
EFFECTS OF WET COOLING TOWER OPERATIONS
9.4.1
9.4.2
10.0
8-16
8-32
COOLING TOWER PLUME

VISIBILITY/FOGGING
COOLING TOWER DRIFT/DEPOSITION
ANALYSIS
9-4
9-11
CLASS I IMPACT RESULTS
10-1
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
OVERVIEW
INITIAL SCREENING ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL APPROACH
10-1
10-3
10-3
10-5
10-5
10.5.1
10.5.2
10.5.3
10.5.4
10-7
10-8
10-10
10-10
CALMET
CALPUFF
POSTUTIL
CALPOST
10.6 RECEPTOR GRIDS

10.7 MODELED EMISSIONS SOURCES
10.8 MODEL RESULTS
10-10
10-11
10-11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section
APPENDICES
APPENDIX AMARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AIR PERMITTING FORMS
APPENDIX BTYPICAL VENDOR DATA SHEETS
APPENDIX CEMISSION CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX DAIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
APPENDIX ECPV ST. CHARLES AND AIRPORT LAND
USE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX FCALCULATING REALISTIC PM10 EMISSIONS FROM COOLING TOWERS
APPENDIX GRBLC SUMMARY TABLES
APPENDIX HDISPERSION MODELING FILES
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
2-1
Maximum Criteria Pollutant Emissions Rates for Three Unit Loads

and Three Ambient Temperatures for Each GE 7FA.05 CT/HRSG
Unit
2-15
Maximum PSD Noncriteria Pollutant Emissions Rates for Three

Loads and Three Ambient Temperatures for Each GE 7FA.05
CT/HRSG Unit
2-16
Stack Parameters for Three Unit Loads and Three Ambient

Temperatures (per CT/HRSG Unit), GE 7FA.05 CTs
2-17
2-4
Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Auxiliary Boiler
2-19
2-5
Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Fuel Heater
2-20
2-6
PM10 Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Wet Mechanical

Draft Cooling Tower
2-21
Operating Scenarios and Annual Emissions Rates for St. Charles

Facility (per 12-Month Period)
2-22
Maximum Annualized Emissions Rates (with GE 7FA.05

CT/HRSG Units)
2-24
3-1
National and Maryland Air Quality Standards
3-2
3-2
Projected CPV St. Charles Facility Maximum Emissions

Compared to PSD Significant Emissions Rates and NNSR
Applicability Thresholds
3-4
3-3
PSD De Minimis Ambient Impact Levels
3-10
3-4
PSD Significant Impact Levels
3-11
3-5
EPA Significant Impact LevelsClass I Areas
3-12
3-6
PSD Allowable Increments
3-14
5-1
Proposed NOx LAER Emissions Limits
5-14
5-2
Proposed VOC LAER Emissions Limits
5-19
5-3
Summary of LAER Control Technologies
5-20
2-2
2-3
2-7
2-8
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
5-4
Proposed PM/PM10 BACT Emissions Limits
5-28
5-5
Proposed CO BACT Emissions Limits
5-31
5-6
Summary of BACT Control Technologies
5-39
7-1
Building/Structure Dimensions Used in Downwash Analysis
7-8
7-2
Summary of AERMET Surface Characteristics for Dulles

International Airport
7-20
7-3
Stack Parameters and Emissions Rates for Offsite NOx Sources
7-23
8-1
AERMOD Results: Overall SummaryInline Cooling Tower

Option
8-3
NOx 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline

Cooling Tower Option
8-4
NOx 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline

8-5
NOx Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline

8-6
NOx Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline

8-7
PM10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline

8-8
PM10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline

8-9
PM10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline

8-10
PM10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline

8-11
CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline

8-12
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-6
8-7
8-8
8-9
8-10
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
8-11
8-12
8-13
8-14
8-15
8-16
8-17
8-18
8-19
8-20
8-21
8-22
8-23
8-24
CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline

8-13
CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline

8-14
CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline

8-15
AERMOD Results: Overall SummaryBack-to-Back Cooling

Tower Option
8-17
NOx 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBackto-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-18
NOx 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBackto-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-19
NOx Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBackto-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-20
NOx Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBackto-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-21
PM10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBackto-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-22
PM10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBackto Back Cooling Tower Option
8-23
PM10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBackto-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-24
PM10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBackto-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-25
CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-toBack Cooling Tower Option
8-26
CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-toBack Cooling Tower Option
8-27
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
8-25
CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-toBack Cooling Tower Option
8-28
CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-toBack Cooling Tower Option
8-29
Summary of CPV St. Charles Facility Impacts Compared to

Modeling
8-30
9-1
CALPUFF Model ResultsInline Cooling Tower Plume Tracking
9-7
9-2
CALPUFF Model ResultsBack-to Back Cooling Tower Plume

Tracking
9-8
CALPUFF Model ResultsInline Cooling Tower Plume Tracking

During Daylight Hours
9-9
CALPUFF Model ResultsBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Plume

Tracking During Daylight Hours
9-10
Maximum Salt Deposition Impacts for the Inline Cooling Tower

Configuration
9-13
Maximum Salt Deposition Impacts for the Back-to-Back Cooling

Tower Configuration
9-14
10-1
PSD Class I Initial Screening Analysis
10-4
10-2
CALPUFF Modeling Data
10-12
10-3
Summary of PSD Class I Air Quality ImpactsNO2 and PM10
10-13
8-26
8-27
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
2-1
General Site Location Map
2-2
2-2
Site and Surrounding Area
2-3
2-3
Topographic Features of the Site and Vicinity
2-4
2-4
Aerial Photograph of the Site and Vicinity
2-5
2-5
Facility LayoutInline Cooling Tower Arrangement
2-8
2-6
Facility LayoutBack-To-Back Cooling Tower Arrangement
2-9
2-7
Optional Offsite Fuel Heater Location Map
2-10
2-8
Process Flow Diagram
2-12
7-1
Three-Dimensional View of Major Buildings/StructuresInline

Cooling Tower Configuration
7-9
Three-Dimensional View of Major Buildings/StructuresBack-toBack Cooling Tower Configuration
7-10
7-3
Fenceline Receptors
7-12
7-4
Near- and Mid-Field Receptor Grids
7-13
7-5
Far-Field Receptor Grid
7-14
7-6
5-Year Wind Rose for Reagan National Airport (1991 to 1995)
7-16
7-7
5-Year Wind Rose for BWI Airport (1991 to 1995)
7-17
7-8
5-Year Wind Rose for Dulles International Airport (1991 to 1995)
7-18
7-9
Location of Offsite NOx Sources
7-24
10-1
Location of Class I Areas
10-2
7-2
xi
1.0
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
CPV Maryland, LLC (CPV Maryland), plans to build and operate a new, 725-megawatt
(MW) (nominal) electrical generating station in Charles County, Maryland. The CPV
St. Charles facility will use clean natural gas and state-of-the-art technology, including
the General Electric (GE) 7FA.05 combustion turbine (CT), to produce electricity in a
highly efficient and environmentally friendly manner. The facility will be built on a
76-acre site located approximately 4 miles south of the center of the city of Waldorf. The
site is adjacent to existing Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) 230-kilovolt (kV)
electrical transmission lines.
The regulatory mechanism for the Maryland Public Service Commissions (PSCs) review and approval process that applies to the facility is contained in the PSC Law and
corresponding regulations. The applicable regulations are found at Title 20, Subtitle 79 of
the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), Applications Concerning the Construction
or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines by a Nonutility
Generator. COMAR 20.79.03.02 lists the specific environmental information required in
a CPCN application. Included is [a] description of the effect on air quality, including[i]nformation and forms that would be required by [Maryland] Department of the
Environment [MDE] regulations relating to permits to construct and operating permits
under COMAR 26.11. This report, including the information and forms and supporting
documentation included in the appendices, constitutes CPV Marylands fulfillment of the
air quality-related aspects of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CPCN) requirements. Per COMAR 26.11.02.10, the facility is otherwise exempt from
the need to apply for and obtain a permit to construct and approvals from MDE.
MDE has adopted the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) as contained in Chapter 40,
Part 52.21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (COMAR 26.11.06.14). The proposed
facility will be a PSD source as defined in COMAR 26.11.01.01B(37) and thus subject to
the requirements of COMAR 26.11.06.14 and 40 CFR 52.21.
1-1
The facility site is located in Charles County, which is designated as nonattainment for
the 8-hour ozone air quality standard. The proposed facility will be a major stationary
source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) as defined in
COMAR 26.11.17.01b(13) and thus subject to the requirements of COMAR 26.11.17 for
these pollutants. Charles County has also been designated as nonattainment for the 1997
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) air quality standard. MDE has
not promulgated regulations in COMAR that address PM2.5 and therefore relies on EPAs
Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5
effective July 15, 2008.
A detailed review of all applicable PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
requirements to the CPV St. Charles facility is provided in Section 3.0.
This report is organized as follows:
Section 1.2 provides an overview and a summary of the key regulatory determinations.
Section 2.0 describes the proposed facility and associated air emissions.
Section 3.0 describes national and state air quality standards and discusses
applicability of PSD and other NSR requirements and procedures applicable
to the proposed facility.
Section 4.0 provides a summary of all applicable state and federal emissions
standards.
Section 5.0 provides an analysis of control technologies, including best

available control technology (BACT) for pollutants subject to PSD review,
including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and lowest achievable emissions rates (LAER) for pollutants subject to NNSR.
Section 6.0 presents the alternatives analyses required for NNSR.
Section 7.0 describes the modeling approach for source impact analyses.
Section 8.0 presents the results of source impact analyses.
1-2
Section 9.0 summarizes analyses of additional impacts in the plant vicinity.
Section 10.0 presents results of potential impacts on the nearest PSD Class I
area.
Appendix A provides the requisite MDE air quality permit application forms. Appendix B provides representative vendor data for the auxiliary boiler, cooling tower, and
emergency generator. Appendix C provides air pollutant emissions estimate derivations
for emissions sources and information and calculations. Appendix D includes a copy of
the modeling protocol dated July 2011 and revised August 2011, which outlines CPV
Marylands methodology in demonstrating compliance with the air quality impact analyses, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Research Programs (PPRPs) and MDEs comments (e-mail from Sandi Patty dated August 2, 2011).
Appendix E contains the figures and tables used in the land use analysis. Appendix F
contains a paper entitled Calculating Realistic PM10 Emissions from the Cooling Towers.
Appendix G contains the BACT/LAER tables. Appendix H provides the Class I, Class II,
and plume modeling input and output files on compact disc.
1.2
SUMMARY
The proposed CPV St. Charles facility will consist of two nominal 213-MW CTs, two
heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) equipped with duct burners. The two CT/HRSG
units will be arranged in a two-on-one configuration and equipped with one nominal
315-MW steam turbine. The CTs will be GE 7FA.05 units capable of operating between
a nominal 50- to 100-percent load. The HRSGs will be equipped with natural gas-fired
duct burners nominally rated at 450 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr).
Ancillary facility equipment will include one auxiliary boiler rated at 93 MMBtu/hr heat
input to provide steam during downtime and startups, one natural gas-fired fuel heater
rated at 9.5 MMBtu/hr, one 1,500-kilowatt (kW) diesel-fired emergency generator, and
one 300-horsepower (hp) diesel fuel-fired emergency fire water pump. The CPV
St. Charles facility will use a wet mechanical cooling tower consisting of ten cells; however, two separate cooling tower configurations are being considered: one, an in-line
configuration, one cell wide by ten cells long, and two, a back-to-back configuration, two
cells wide by five cells long. Although the emissions from the cooling tower cells will be
1-3
identical for both configurations, CPV Maryland will demonstrate compliance with all air
quality impact analyses using the emissions point location and downwash parameters for
each of the cooling tower configurations. The facility CTs, duct burners, auxiliary boiler,
and fuel heater will be fired exclusively with pipeline-quality natural gas containing no
more than 0.22 grain of total sulfur per 100 standard cubic feet (gr S/100 scf) on annual
average and 2.0 gr S/100 scf on short-term, 24-hour average.
The planned construction start date for the facility is summer 2012 after obtaining all required licenses and permits, with a planned commencement of commercial operation of
spring 2015.
Based on limitations to the CT and duct burner annual hours of operation (as further described in Section 2.0), the facility will have the potential to emit 145.8 tons per year
(tpy) of NOx, 168.8 tpy of carbon monoxide (CO), 108.4 tpy of total particulate matter
(PM), 96.7 tpy of particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10)
and PM2.5, 12.2 tpy of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 37.6 tpy of VOCs, and a negligible quantity
of lead. Regarding noncriteria pollutants potentially subject to PSD review, the facility
will emit 6.5 tpy of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) mist, which results from the combustion of any
fuel containing sulfur and negligible amounts of others on the PSD list. Based on these
annual potential emissions rates, CO, NOx, and PM/PM10 are criteria pollutants that will
be subject to PSD review. PM2.5 emissions will not exceed the 100-tpy NNSR threshold
and, therefore, will not be subject to NNSR requirements. H2SO4 mist will not be subject
to PSD review.
EPAs PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule, commonly referred to as the Tailoring
Rule, became effective on August 2, 2010. GHG are defined as the following six pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is defined as the sum
of the six GHG pollutants multiplied by their respective global warming potential. Potential CO2e emissions for the St. Charles facility are estimated to be 2,244,881 tpy. (Note:
For comparison to PSD applicability thresholds, CO2e emissions are provided in units of
short tons per year.) The potential CO2e emissions exceed the PSD applicability threshold
1-4
of 75,000 tpy outlined in the Tailoring Rule and would subject GHG to BACT review. A
more detailed description of GHG PSD applicability and requirements is provided in Section 3.0.
Charles County is currently in attainment for all pollutants except ozone (8-hour) and
PM2.5 (1997 Standard). For NOx and VOC, LAER analyses were conducted since NOx
and VOC are ozone precursor pollutants that will be emitted in excess of the 25-tpy
NNSR applicability threshold. Although Charles County is designated as nonattainment
for PM2.5, CPV Maryland will accept federally enforceable limits on the total annual
hours of CT operation and the total hours of duct burner firing to limit potential PM2.5
annual emissions below the 100-tpy NNSR applicability threshold.
As was done for the PSD pollutants, worst-case projections of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) that may result from the combustion of natural gas were made for the facility.
These estimates were compared to major source thresholds found in Section 112(a)(1) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The major source thresholds for HAPs are 10 tpy for any individual HAP and 25 tpy for total HAPs. As would be expected from a facility burning only clean natural gas, it was determined that the CPV St. Charles facility is not a major
source of HAPs. Since the facility will burn only natural gas, it is also exempt from review with respect to MDEs toxic air pollutant rules (COMAR 26.11.15 and .16).
As presented in this application, the CPCN air quality analyses resulted in the following
conclusions:
The use of good combustion practices and clean fuels is considered to be

BACT for PM/PM10. The facility CTs, duct burners, auxiliary boiler, and
fuel heater will use the latest burner technologies to maximize combustion
efficiency and minimize PM/PM10 emissions rates and will be fired exclusively with pipeline-quality natural gas. The maximum CT/HRSG PM/PM10
emissions rate in terms of pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/MMBtu) will be 0.012 lb/MMBtu. In lieu of this low rate, which is difficult to measure, 10-percent opacity is proposed as the means of demonstrat-
1-5
ing BACT compliance. The auxiliary boiler will achieve a low PM/PM10
rate of 0.005 lb/MMBtu; again, a 10-percent opacity is proposed as BACT.
Installation of an oxidation catalyst system is proposed as BACT for CO and

LAER for VOC for the facility CTs and duct burners. At operating load
conditions, exhaust concentrations of CO are projected to be 2.0 parts per
million dry volume (ppmvd), corrected to 15-percent oxygen, for the
GE 207FA.05 CTs without and with duct burner operation. Exhaust concentrations of VOC are projected to be 1.0 and 2.0 ppmvd for the GE 207FA.05
CTs without and with duct burner operation, respectively. The auxiliary boiler will emit CO and VOC at maximum rates of 0.02 and 0.002 lb/MMBtu,
respectively.
Low-NOx technology in combination with a selective catalytic reduction

(SCR) control system is proposed as LAER for NOx for the facility CTs and
duct burners. For normal operating loads, the CT and duct burner NOx exhaust concentrations will not exceed 2.0 ppmvd, corrected to 15-percent
oxygen, for the GE 207FA.05 CTs, based on the use of dry low-NOx combustors and SCR. The maximum NOx emissions rate from the auxiliary boiler will be 0.011 lb/MMBtu, achieved through the application of ultra lowNOx burners and flue gas recirculation (FGR).
Use of GE 7FA.05 combustions turbines in combination with energy efficiency is proposed as BACT for GHG emissions. The GE 7FA.05 CT provides a lower heat rate in terms of million British thermal units per megawatt-hour (MMBtu/MW-hr) as opposed to the GE 7FA.04 CT, which was
previously proposed for the St. Charles facility. This lower heat rate minimizes the amount of fuel combusted per unit of electrical power output and
thus minimizes the amount of GHG emissions from the St. Charles facility.
The facilitys proposed emissions of air pollutants will be dramatically less

than emissions from existing power generation facilities. To the extent that
the facilitys generation of electricity displaces that of the older, dirtier, less
efficient plants, emissions of air pollutants from regional power generation
1-6
will decrease, and there will be an overall improvement in the regions air
quality.
The proposed facility is projected to emit CO, NOx, and PM/PM10 in

amounts greater than PSD significance levels. However, the facility air quality impact analysis has demonstrated that impacts will be below the PSD
monitoring de minimis levels for each of these pollutants. Therefore, the facility qualifies for an exemption from the PSD preconstruction ambient air
monitoring requirements per 40 CFR 52.21(i)(8)(i).
The PSD Class II air quality analysis demonstrated that impacts for the pollutants subject to PSD review were below the significant impact levels for
each averaging time with the exception of NOx for the 1-hour averaging period. Therefore, multisource interactive assessments of national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) attainment and PSD Class II increment consumption were required to demonstrate compliance with the 1-hour nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) standard. The multisource interactive assessment using Tier II
analysis was used to demonstrate compliance with the 1-hour NO2 standard.
The PSD Class I air quality analysis demonstrated that impacts for the pollutants at Class I areas within 300 kilometers (km) of the facility site were below the PSD Class I significant impact levels.
Plume modeling has shown that minimal potential exists for fogging and icing from either of the two wet mechanical cooling tower configurations, and
potential drift salt deposition will not detrimentally impact surrounding soils
or vegetation.
The facility air quality analysis demonstrated that impacts would be well below levels that are detrimental to soils and vegetation and will not impair visibility.
1-7
2.0
2.0
2.1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY
FACILITY DESCRIPTION, LOCATION MAPS, AND PLOT PLAN
The proposed CPV St. Charles facility will be located in northern Charles County near
the town of Waldorf. The 76-acre plant site is located adjacent to Billingsley Road in a
predominantly rural area. Figure 2-1 shows the site location within the state of Maryland.
Figure 2-2 shows the site and surrounding area. Figure 2-3 shows the portions of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps showing the facility site boundaries and
nearby prominent geographical, topographical, and land use features. Figure 2-4 is an
aerial photograph of the site and vicinity. The power plant will connect to the electrical
transmission grid through the existing electrical transmission lines that abut the site.
Major components of the facility will consist of:
Two CT/HRSG units equipped with inlet evaporative cooling, duct burners,
and associated steam turbine.
One 93-MMBtu/hr natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler.
One 9.5-MMBtu/hr natural gas-fired fuel heater
One 1,500-kW diesel fuel-fired emergency generator.
One 300-hp diesel fuel-fired emergency firewater pump.
One 10-cell wet mechanical draft cooling tower.
Ancillary equipment, including raw and demineralized water storage tanks

and aqueous ammonia storage and handling equipment.
The two CTs will be energy efficient GE 7FA.05 units each capable of producing a nominal 213 MW of electricity. Each CT will be equipped with inlet evaporative cooling,
which is designed to lower the turbine intake air during periods of higher ambient air
temperatures. The CTs will be capable of operating between a nominal 50- to 100-percent
load. The two associated HRSG units will each have the capability of supplementary duct
burner firing. Each supplemental duct burner will have a nominal heat input of
450 MMBtu/hr (based on higher heating value [HHV]). The HRSG units will furnish
steam-to-steam turbine for the additional generation of electricity. The steam turbine will
2-1
Y:\GDP-07\CPV\PSD\2-FGS.XLS\112/7/2007
2-2
SITE
FIGURE 2-1.
GENERAL SITE LOCATION MAP
Sources: www.maryland-map.org/road-map.htm, 2007. ECT, 20.
M:\acad\070538\LocationMap_CPV.mxd
867
Brandywine
V
U
VAccokeek
U
228
Waldorf
205
V
U
Bennsville
382
V
U
232
V
U
301
227
V
U
St. Charles
BILLINGSLEY RD
FACILITY SITE
V
U
232
V
U
488
V
U
Hughesville
Hughesvill
La Plata
231
V
U
V
U
0.5
1.5
Miles
FIGURE 2-2.
SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
Sources: ESRI Street Map, 2006; ECT, 20.
2-3
2-4
PE
PC
OT
RA
NS
MI
SS
I ON
LIN
Path: M:\acad\110122\Aerial_CPV_fig2-4.mxd
ASPHALT PLANT
ASPHALT
PLANT
BILLINGSLEY ROAD
CHARLES COUNTY
SANITARY LANDFILL
AND COMPOSTING FACILITY
ST. CHARLES
FACILITY SITE
1,000
2,000
LEGEND
Feet
Site Boundary
FIGURE 24.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE AND VICINITY
Sources: Aerial Photography, AEX, 2008; ECT, 2011.
2-5
be capable of generating an additional nominal 315 MW of power for an overall facility

nominal generation capacity of approximately 725 MW. The proposed facility CTs,
HRSG duct burners, and auxiliary boiler will be fired exclusively with pipeline-quality
natural gas.
Emissions control systems proposed for the facility CTs and duct burners include:
The use of dry low-NOx combustors (CTs) and low-NOx burners (duct firing), with add-on SCR systems located in the HRSGs downstream of the
duct burners.
Oxidation catalyst and good combustion practices for the control of CO and
VOCs.
Exclusive use of clean, pipeline-quality natural gas to minimize PM/PM10,

SO2, and H2SO4 emissions.
The auxiliary boiler will be used to maintain the power generation equipment in a condition that will minimize the startup time while not exposing the equipment (primarily the
steam turbine and HRSGs) to thermally induced stresses. The auxiliary boiler will provide steam for the following uses:
Hold steam turbine temperatures during short shutdowns or prewarming after long shutdowns.
Maintain HRSG metal temperatures during shutdowns, specifically thickwalled components such as the high-pressure steam drum.
Provide steam for equipment warming and to set the seals between the steam
turbine and condenser to prevent backflow and achieve condenser vacuum
more rapidly during starts.
Emissions control systems proposed for the auxiliary boiler include ultra low-NOx burners and FGR.
A wet mechanical cooling tower will be used to cool process steam/water and will have
two optional configurations. The ten-cell wet mechanical draft cooling tower will be ar-
2-6
ranged in either a back-to-back configuration (two cells by five cells) or in an inline configuration (one cell by ten cells). Since the individual cooling tower cell design will be
identical for either configuration, total emissions will not be affected based on the cooling
tower configuration. The ambient air impact analyses, described in Section 7.0, will conservatively assess impacts based on the downwash effects for both cooling tower configurations. The cooling tower cells in both configurations will be equipped with drift eliminators to reduce the drift loss to 0.0005 percent.
The facility will also include a natural gas-fired fuel heater rated at 9.5 MMBtu/hr, a
1,500-kW diesel-fired emergency generator, and a 300-hp diesel-fired firewater pump.
The fuel heater will be located either on the St. Charles project site (as shown in Figures 2-5 and 2-6) or located off the project site at a location as shown in Figure 2-7. The
emissions from the fuel heater are included in the total facility emissions regardless of the
fuel heater location. The ambient air impact analyses, described in Section 7.0, will assess impacts based on emissions from the fuel heater located either on the main project
site or at the offsite location.
With the exception of the CTs, no specific manufacturers have been selected for the other
air emissions source equipment (i.e., HRSG, auxiliary boiler, wet mechanical draft cooling tower, emergency engines, fuel gas heater). However, Appendix B contains typical
vendor data sheets that provide design parameters such as emissions rates, fuel consumption, and physical dimensions that have been used for preliminary design purposes only.
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 present proposed facility site plans showing major process equipment
and structures, emissions points, and property boundaries. Figure 2-5 shows the facility
configuration based on the inline cooling tower arrangement, and Figure 2-6 shows the
facility configuration based on the back-to-back cooling tower arrangement. Primary
access to the site will be via an entrance from the industrial loop road to be constructed
off Billingsley Road. One entrance to the plant site is planned along this access road. The
entrance will have a security gate to control site access, and the perimeter of the site will
be fenced, as shown in the two figures.
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2.2
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
The proposed combined-cycle facility will consist of two nominal 213-MW GE 7FA.05
CTs, two HRSGs with provisions for duct burner firing, and one nominal 315-MW steam
turbine. Figure 2-8 presents a process flow diagram for the proposed facility.
CTs are heat engines that convert latent fuel energy into work using compressed hot gas
as the working medium. CTs deliver mechanical output by means of a rotating shaft that
is used to drive an electrical generator thereby converting a portion of the engines mechanical output to electrical energy. Ambient air is first filtered and then compressed by
the CT compressor. The CT compressor increases the pressure of the combustion air
stream and also raises its temperature. On hot days, the turbine inlet ambient air is cooled
by an evaporative cooler, thus providing denser air for combustion and improving the
power output. The compressed combustion air is then combined with natural gas fuel and
burned in the CTs high-pressure combustor to produce hot exhaust gases. These highpressure, hot gases next expand and turn the CTs turbine to produce rotary shaft power
that is used to drive an electric generator as well as the CT combustion air compressor.
The hot exhaust gases from the CTs next flow to the HRSGs for the production of low-,
intermediate-, and high-pressure steam. Each HRSG recovers exhaust heat from the CT
to produce steam to power the steam turbine. The steam turbine, in turn, will drive an
electric generator having a nominal generation capacity of 315 MW. Each of the HRSGs
will be equipped with duct burners to provide additional steam as required to meet power
demands. The duct burners will be located in the HRSGs and will use oxygen present in
the CT exhaust as the source of combustion air. Following recovery of the CT exhaust
waste heat by the HRSGs, the exhaust gases are discharged to the atmosphere at a much
lower temperature.
Normal operation is expected to consist of both CT/HRSG units operating at base load
without supplemental duct burner firing. Alternate facility operating modes include evaporative cooling of the inlet air and duct burner firing at peak load and reduced load operation (i.e., between a nominal 50 and 100 percent of base load) for either of the two
2-11
2-12
CT/HRSG units, depending on power demands. The CTs will not be designed with bypass stacks and will operate only in the combined-cycle mode.
The CTs and duct burners will use low-NOx combustion technology and SCR systems to
control NOx air emissions. Oxidation catalyst and high-efficiency combustion practices
will be employed to control CO and VOC emissions. The exclusive use of pipelinequality natural gas in the CTs and HRSG duct burners will minimize PM/PM10, SO2, and
H2SO4 air emissions from the CT/HRSG units.
The other combustion equipment for the St. Charles facility will include one auxiliary
boiler rated at 93 MMBtu/hr and one fuel gas heater rated at 9.5 MMBtu/hr. The auxiliary boiler will be used when necessary to preheat and maintain water and metal equipment temperatures in key components and provide sealing steam to the steam turbine to
enable more rapid starts, as discussed previously. The auxiliary boiler will use ultra-low
NOx burners and FGR to reduce NOx emissions to 9 ppmvd at 3-percent oxygen
(0.011 lb/MMBtu). CPV Maryland proposes to limit the annual heat input to the auxiliary
boiler to 372,000 million British thermal units per year (MMBtu/yr) (equivalent to
4,000 hours per year [hr/yr]). CPV Maryland will demonstrate compliance with this annual heat input limit through the installation of fuel flow monitors to measure the total
quantity of natural gas consumed. The fuel heater will be permitted for continuous operation, i.e. 8,760 hr/yr.
As with most industrial and commercial operations, the facility will be equipped with
emergency devices. Other than for routine maintenance testing, it is expected that this
equipment will rarely be in operation. A 1,500-kW diesel engine-driven emergency generator will be installed to provide emergency power and to safely shut down the plant and
maintain critical plant security systems during the loss of electrical power. A 300-hp diesel-fired engine will be installed to drive an emergency firewater pump in the event of
an onsite fire. The emergency engines will typically operate only for routine maintenance
testing purposes (an estimated 1 hour per week or 52 hr/yr, but no more than 100 hr/yr
unless in the case of an emergency). These engines will be subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary internal combustion engines (40 CFR 60, Sub2-13
part IIII), which limits the annual hours for routine maintenance testing to 100 hr/yr. Although these emergency engines are limited to 100 hr/yr for routine maintenance testing
purposes, potential emissions from these engines have been calculated based on EPAs
recommended annual hours of operation for calculating potential emissions from emergency generators of 500 hr/yr. The emergency engines will be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel having a sulfur content of 0.0015 percent or less. A diesel fuel day
tank will provide diesel fuel to both emergency engines.
2.3
HOURLY EMISSIONS RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS
Table 2-1 provides maximum hourly criteria pollutant emissions rates for each CT/HRSG
unit at three different loads and three different ambient temperatures, including evaporative cooling and duct burner operation. Appendix C, Table C-1, defines these
14 operating scenarios. Table 2-2 summarizes maximum hourly noncriteria pollutant (i.e.,
H2SO4) emissions rates. The highest hourly emissions rate for each pollutant is identified,
taking into account load, ambient temperature, and duct firing, to develop maximum
hourly emissions estimates for each CT/HRSG unit for use in the ambient air impact analyses.
Maximum hourly emissions rates for all pollutants, in units of pounds per hour (lb/hr),
are projected to occur for operations at low ambient temperature, CT base load, and
HRSG duct burner firing. Appendix C provides the basis for these emissions rates.
Emissions of HAPs were estimated and compared with the 112(g) thresholds. Appendix C presents these HAP emissions. These estimates were based on factors taken from
AP-42, Section 3.1, dated April 2000, and other EPA data, for the CTs; and AP-42, Section 1.4, dated July 1998, for the duct burners. Individual and total annual HAPs emissions were found to be below the 112(g) thresholds.
Table 2-3 provides stack parameters for the natural gas-fired CT/HRSG units for the
14 operating scenarios.
2-14
Table 2-1. Maximum Criteria Pollutant Emissions Rates for Three Unit Loads and Three Ambient Temperatures for Each GE 7FA.05 CT/HRSG Unit
Ambient
Temperature
(F)
0
59
2-15
95
Unit
Load
(%)
PM/PM10*
lb/hr
g/sec
SO2
lb/hr
g/sec
H2SO4
lb/hr
g/sec
Lead**
lb/hr
g/sec
ppmvd
NOx
lb/hr
g/sec
ppmvd
CO
lb/hr
g/sec
VOC
ppmvd lb/hr
g/sec
100
18.7
2.35
12.77
1.61
7.19
0.906
0.0011
0.00014
2.0
16.8
2.12
2.0
10.2
1.29
1.0
2.9
0.37
100
24.4
3.07
14.99
1.89
8.45
1.065
0.0013
0.00017
2.0
19.7
2.49
2.0
12.0
1.51
2.0
6.9
0.87
75
16.7
2.10
10.10
1.27
5.69
0.717
0.0009
0.00011
2.0
13.3
1.67
2.0
8.1
1.02
1.0
2.3
0.29
49
15.0
1.89
7.95
1.00
4.48
0.565
0.0007
0.00009
2.0
10.5
1.32
2.0
6.4
0.80
1.0
1.8
0.23
100
17.7
2.23
11.48
1.45
6.47
0.815
0.0010
0.00013
2.0
15.1
1.90
2.0
9.2
1.16
1.0
2.6
0.33
100
17.9
2.25
11.68
1.47
6.58
0.829
0.0010
0.00013
2.0
15.4
1.94
2.0
9.4
1.18
1.0
2.7
0.34
100
23.7
2.98
13.78
1.74
7.76
0.978
0.0012
0.00015
2.0
18.1
2.29
2.0
11.0
1.39
2.0
6.3
0.80
100
23.8
3.00
14.09
1.77
7.94
1.000
0.0012
0.00016
2.0
18.6
2.34
2.0
11.3
1.42
2.0
6.5
0.81
75
16.0
2.02
9.27
1.17
5.22
0.658
0.0008
0.00010
2.0
12.2
1.54
2.0
7.4
0.94
1.0
2.1
0.27
46
14.4
1.82
7.13
0.90
4.02
0.506
0.0006
0.00008
2.0
9.4
1.18
2.0
5.7
0.72
1.0
1.6
0.21
100
17.6
2.21
11.27
1.42
6.35
0.800
0.0010
0.00012
2.0
14.8
1.87
2.0
9.0
1.14
1.0
2.6
0.32
100
23.5
2.96
13.70
1.73
7.72
0.972
0.0012
0.00015
2.0
18.1
2.27
2.0
11.0
1.38
2.0
6.3
0.79
75
15.7
1.98
8.83
1.11
4.98
0.627
0.0008
0.00010
2.0
11.6
1.46
2.0
7.1
0.89
1.0
2.0
0.25
48
14.3
1.81
7.02
0.88
3.95
0.498
0.0006
0.00008
2.0
9.2
1.16
2.0
5.6
0.71
1.0
1.6
0.20
24.4
3.07
14.99
1.89
8.45
1.065
0.0013
0.00017
2.0
19.7
2.49
2.0
12.0
1.51
2.0
6.9
0.87
Maximums
*Filterable and condensible PM assumes all sulfite converts to ammonium sulfite.

Based on a short-term natural gas sulfur content of 2.0 gr S/100 scf; assumes all sulfur in the natural gas converts to SO2.
Based on 5-percent conversion of fuel sulfur to sulfite by the CT and duct burner, 30-percent conversion of SO2 to sulfite in the oxidation catalyst, and 5-percent conversion of SO2 to sulfite in the
SCR.
**Natural Gas Combustion, Table 1.4-2, AP-42, March 1998.
Concentration corrected to 15-percent oxygen.
Nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) expressed as methane.
Source: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\2-TBL.DOCX082311
Table 2-2. Maximum PSD Noncriteria Pollutant Emissions Rates for Three Loads and
Three Ambient Temperatures for Each GE 7FA.05 CT/HRSG Unit
Ambient
Temperature
(F)
Note:
H2SO4
Unit Load
(%)
lb/hr
g/sec
100
75
50
100*
6.11
4.96
3.93
7.67
0.77
0.63
0.50
0.97
59
100
75
50
100
100*
100*
5.53
4.52
3.61
5.61
7.09
7.17
0.70
0.57
0.46
0.71
0.89
0.90
95
100
75
50
100*
5.30
4.17
3.32
6.86
0.67
0.53
0.42
0.87
F = degree Fahrenheit.
g/sec = gram per second.
*Includes duct burner firing.

Includes evaporative cooling.
Sources: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
2-16
Table 2-3. Stack Parameters for Three Unit Loads and Three Ambient Temperatures (per CT/HRSG Unit), GE 7FA.05 CTs
Ambient
Temperature
(F)
Stack Height
ft
meters
Stack Exit
Temperature
F
K
Stack Exit
Velocity
ft/sec
m/sec
Stack Diameter
ft
meters
100
100*
75
50
150
150
150
150
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
184.7
163.3
173.9
156.9
358
346
352
343
65.4
63.6
51.9
39.9
19.9
19.4
15.8
12.2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
59
100
100
100*
100*
75
50
150
150
150
150
150
150
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
184.8
185.6
163.6
164.9
167.5
158.5
358
358
346
347
348
343
59.9
60.8
58.4
59.2
46.2
37.9
18.3
18.5
17.8
18.1
14.1
11.6
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
95
100
100*
75
50
150
150
150
150
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
190.8
169.0
170.2
165.7
361
349
350
347
60.3
58.7
44.7
39.0
18.4
17.9
13.6
11.9
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
2-17
Note:
Unit
Load
(%)
K = Kelvin.
ft/sec = foot per second.
m/sec = meter per second.
*Includes duct burner firing.

Includes evaporative cooling.
Sources: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
Table 2-4 provides emissions rates and stack parameters for the auxiliary boiler. Annualized emissions are based on total auxiliary boiler heat input of 372,000 MMBtu/yr
(equivalent to 4,000 hr/yr).
Table 2-5 provides emissions rates and stack parameters for the fuel heater. Annual emissions for the fuel heater are based on operating 8,760 hr/yr and, therefore, emissions are
not annualized.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) contained in cooling water drift droplets (liquid water entrained in the cooling tower exhaust air stream) are considered PM emissions. Table 2-6
provides PM10 emissions rates and stack parameters for both the inline and back-to-back
arrangements for the wet mechanical draft cooling tower. As documented in Appendix C,
maximum PM emissions from the wet mechanical draft cooling tower are 3.1 lb/hr, while
PM10 emissions are 0.4 lb/hr. Assuming continuous operating, maximum potential annual
emissions of PM and PM10 would be 13.5 and 1.8 tpy, respectively.
2.4
ANNUAL POTENTIAL EMISSIONS
CPV Maryland proposes to limit the hours of CT operation based on the hours of actual
duct burner firing for the sole purpose of keeping the total facility potential PM2.5 annual
emissions below the NNSR applicability threshold of 100 tpy. This methodology was
previously proposed by CPV and approved by MDE in the issuance of the amended conditions (as of June 29, 2010) to the CPCN.
CPV Maryland has evaluated four different operating scenarios based on total hours of
CT and duct burner operation per 12-month period. These operating scenarios have been
shown in Table 2-7 and provide proposed annual CT hours of operation, associated annual duct burner hours of operation, and annual emissions rates. The total potential annual emissions for the St. Charles facility were determined to be the maximum annual
emissions rate of the four operating scenarios for each pollutant. Total facility potential
PM2.5 emissions from the identified operating scenarios are less than the 100-tpy NNSR
applicability threshold.
2-18
Table 2-4. Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Auxiliary Boiler
Pollutant
Emissions
PM10
SO2
NOx
CO
VOC
Stack parameters
Stack height
Stack exit temperature
Stack exit velocity
Stack diameter
Note:
Short-Term
lb/hr
g/sec
0.47
0.06
1.02
1.74
0.14
0.059
0.008
0.129
0.219
0.018
30 ft
260F
33.7 ft/sec
48 inches
Annualized*
lb/hr
g/sec
0.21
0.03
0.47
0.79
0.06
0.027
0.004
0.059
0.100
0.008
9.14 meters
400 K
10.3 m/sec
1.22 meters
K = Kelvin.
ft/sec = foot per second.
*Annualized emissions based on total boiler heat input of 372,000 MMBtu/yr. The annualized emissions rate was used for calculating total facility annual emissions only. The
short-term emissions rate was used in the air quality impact analysis, except for the annual NOx analysis.
Sources: CPV, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
2-19
Table 2-5. Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Fuel Heater
Short-Term
Pollutant
lb/hr
g/sec
PM10
0.07
0.009
SO2
0.01
0.001
NOx
0.33
0.042
CO
0.77
0.097
VOC
0.05
0.006
Stack Parameters
Height:
Exit temperature:
Exit velocity:
Diameter:
Note:
25 ft (7.62 meters).
919F (766 K).
32.8 ft/sec ( 10.0 m/sec).
12 inches (0.31 meter).
K = Kelvin.
ft/sec = feet per second.
Sources: CPV, 2011.

ECT, 2011.
2-20
Table 2-6. PM10 Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Wet Mechanical Draft Cooling
Tower
Short-Term
Pollutant
lb/hr
g/sec
PM10 (per cell)
0.04
0.005
Stack Parameters
Height:
Exit temperature*:
Exit velocity:
Diameter:
Inline Configuration
48.5 ft (14.78 meters)
67F (292 K)
25.4 ft/sec (7.75 m/sec)
35.6 ft (10.85 meters)
Back-To-Back Configuration
53.8 ft (16.40 meters)
67F (292 K)
25.3 ft/sec (7.71 m/sec)
35.6 ft (10.85 meters)
*Based on 0F ambient air.

Sources: CPV, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
2-21
Table 2-7. Operating Scenarios and Annual Emissions Rates for St. Charles Facility (per 12-Month Period)
Maximum Annual
CT Hours
of Operation
Maximum Annual
Duct Burner Hours
of Operation
NOx
CO
Total Facility Annual Emissions (tpy)

VOC
PM
PM10/PM2.5
SO2
H2SO4
GHG
2-22
8,760
143.9
167.6
25.9
102.4
90.7
12.2
6.4
2,215,452
8,500
2,000
145.8
168.8
32.8
108.4
96.7
11.7
6.5
2,244,881
8,000
3,000
141.1
165.9
35.2
107.7
96.0
11.9
6.3
2,168,148
7,500
4,000
136.3
163.0
37.6
107.0
95.3
11.5
6.0
2,091,416
145.8
168.8
37.6
108.4
96.7
12.2
6.5
2,244,881
Maximum annual emissions

Note: Average per turbine based on two CTs.
Source: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
Compliance with these limits on hours of operation will ensure compliance with the maximum potential emissions identified in this application. The average maximum hours of
duct burner firing will not exceed 4,000 hours per 12-month period based on each CT.
Linear interpolation between the operating points identified in the table will be used to
calculate maximum CT hours of operation based on the actual hours of duct burner firing
per 12-month period.
Table 2-8 shows total facility annual emissions. The maximum annualized emissions
rates were conservatively estimated based on the maximum annual emissions rate for
each operating scenario on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis and: 372,000 MMBtu/yr of heat
input to the auxiliary boiler (equivalent to 4,000 hr/yr); 83,220 MMBtu/yr of heat input to
the fuel heater (equivalent to 8,760 hr/yr); and 500 hr/yr for the emergency generator and
firewater pump.
To determine the worst-case operating scenario for the CT/HRSG with respect to annual
emissions, three different annual operating profiles were evaluated for each operating
scenario. Appendix C, Table C-1, defines these operating profiles. Annual operating profiles #1 and #2 are based on the maximum CT and duct burner hours of operation at various steady-state operating modes and do not include startup and shutdown emissions.
Annual operating scenario #3 includes an estimated maximum number of startups and
shutdowns. A minimum amount of down time was also included based on the number of
cold and warm startups. By definition, the CT/HRSG must be shut down for a minimum
of 72 hours and 8 hours for a cold and warm startup, respectively. Therefore, the total
cold and warm startups are multiplied by 72 hours and 8 hours, respectively, to determine
the minimum downtime hours. Tables C-3, C-4, and C-5 provide the total facility annual
emissions for annual operating profiles #1, #2, and #3, respectively. Table C-6 provides
the total facility maximum annual HAP emissions. Table C-7 provides the total facility
maximum annual emissions based on the maximum emissions rates per pollutant for each
of the three annual operating scenarios. (NOTE: Tables C-3 thru C-7 have been provided
for each operating scenario listed in Table 2-7 in Appendix C. Each operating scenario
has been separated by a slip sheet identifying the operating scenario and the corresponding CT and duct burner hours of operation.)
2-23
Table 2-8. Maximum Annualized Emissions Rates (with GE 7FA.05 CT/HRSG Units)
Annualized Emissions Rates (tpy)
Emergency
Cooling Emergency Firewater
Tower
Generator
Pump
CT/HRSG
Units
Auxiliary
Boiler
NOx
137.9
2.0
4.06
0.35
1.46
145.8
CO
158.3
3.5
3.17
0.43
3.36
168.8
PM
93.4
0.9
13.5
0.18
0.02
0.31
108.4
PM10
93.4
0.9
1.7
0.18
0.02
0.31
96.7
PM2.5
93.4
0.9
1.7
0.18
0.02
0.31
96.7
SO2
11.4
0.1
0.57
0.07
0.02
12.2
VOC
35.2
0.3
1.74
0.15
0.22
37.6
H2SO4
6.5
Pollutant
GHG (as CO2e)
2,217,553
Fuel Gas
Heater
21,766
613
78
4,869
Facility
Totals
6.5
2,244,881
Sources: CPV, 2011.

ECT, 2011.
2-24
3.0
3.0
3.1
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
NATIONAL AND STATE AAQS
As a result of the CAA, EPA has enacted primary and secondary NAAQS for six air pollutants (40 CFR 50). Primary NAAQS are intended to protect the public health, and secondary NAAQS are intended to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of pollutants in the ambient air. Maryland
has also adopted ambient air quality standards (AAQS) (COMAR 26.11.04). Table 3-1
presents the current national and Maryland AAQS. MDE has also established vegetationbased AAQS for fluorides. Since the CPV St. Charles facility will emit no fluorides,
these standards are not applicable.
Areas of the country in violation of AAQS are designated as nonattainment areas, and
new sources to be located in or near these areas may be subject to more stringent air permitting requirements. The CPV St. Charles site is located in northern Charles County.
Charles County is part of the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR). Charles County is presently designated in 40 CFR 81.321 as better than national standards (for total suspended particulates [TSPs] and SO2), unclassifiable/attainment
(for CO), unclassifiable or better than national standards (for NO2), nonattainment (for
8-hour ozone and PM2.5), and not designated (for PM10 and lead).
Effective April 12, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary and secondary NO2
NAAQS. EPA set the level of this new 1-hour NO2 standard at 100 parts per billion
(ppb). Final area designations with respect to this new 1-hour NO2 standard have not
been finalized; however, facilities subject to PSD applicability for NO2 must demonstrate
compliance with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
Effective August 23, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS that will
eventually replace the current 24-hour and annual NAAQS. EPA set the level of this new
1-hour SO2 standard at 75 ppb. Final area designations with respect to the new 1-hour
SO2 standard have not been finalized; however, facilities subject to PSD applicability for
SO2 must demonstrate compliance with this 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
3-1
Table 3-1. National and Maryland Air Quality Standards

(micrograms per cubic meter [g/m3] unless otherwise stated)
Pollutant
(units)
Averaging
Periods
National Standards
Primary
Secondary
SO2
1-hour*
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
196
PM10
24-hour
Annual
PM2.5
24-hour**
Annual
CO
1-hour
8-hour
Ozone (ppmv)
1-hour
8-hour
0.08
NO2
1-hour
Annual
188
100
Lead
Calendar Quarter
Arithmetic Mean
Maryland
Standards
1,300
1,300
365
80
150
50
150
50
150
50
35
15
35
15
65
15
365
80
40,000
10,000
1.5
40,000
10,000
0.08
188
100
1.5
0.12
0.08
100
1.5
Note: ppmv = part per million by volume.

*Standard based on 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of 1-hour daily maximum SO2 concentrations.
Not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year.
Arithmetic mean.
The standards are attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 g/m3, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50 Appendix K, is equal to or
less than one.
The standards are attained when the expected annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50 Appendix K, is less than or equal to 50 g/m3.
**98th percentile concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50 Appendix N.
Arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50 Appendix N.
Standard attained when the expected number of calendar days per calendar year with maximum hourly
average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than 1, as determined by 40 CFR 50, Appendix H.
Standard attained when the average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations over a 3-year period are less than or equal to the standard, as determined by 40 CFR 50, Appendix I.
Standard based on 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the annual distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations.
Sources: 40 CFR 50.
COMAR 26.11.04
3-2
3.2
NONATTAINMENT NSR APPLICABILITY
The CPV St. Charles facility site is located in Charles County. As noted previously,
Charles County is presently designated as nonattainment for ozone (8-hour) and PM2.5.
Since the total facility NOx and VOC emissions are projected to exceed the major stationary source thresholds of 25 tpy, as defined in COMAR 26.11.17.01(B)(17)(a)(i), the
CPV St. Charles facility will be subject to NNSR requirements for VOC and NOx as defined in COMAR 26.11.17.
Charles County is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. There are
currently no state implementation plan (SIP)-approved regulations in COMAR that address NNSR requirements for PM2.5. Therefore, facilities must rely on EPAs final rule
entitle Implementation of the NSR Program for PM2.5, which was published in the Federal
Register on May 16, 2008, with an effective date of July 15, 2008. This final rule established major stationary source threshold applicability for both new and modified PM2.5
sources as well as requirements for obtaining offsets. The established major stationary
source threshold for new sources is 100 tpy. Since the total facility PM2.5 emissions will
be limited below 100 tpy, the CPV St. Charles facility will not be subject to NNSR requirements for PM2.5.
General NNSR requirements for NOx and VOC are enumerated in COMAR 26.11.17.03,
General Conditions. In summary, the special requirements applicable to this project are
as follows:
Each other major facility in Maryland owned or operated by the applicant,

or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the
applicant, must be in compliance with applicable emissions limitations and
standards or have a federally enforceable plan for compliance.
Emissions sources will comply with LAER.
Facility potential NOx and VOC emissions must be offset with emissions reductions at a ratio of 1.3 to 1 to provide a positive net air quality benefit.
3-3
Table 3-2. Projected CPV St. Charles Facility Maximum Emissions Compared to PSD Significant
Emissions Rates and NNSR Applicability Thresholds
Pollutant
NOx*
CO
PM (filterable and condensable)
PM10 (filterable and condensable)
PM2.5 (filterable and condensable)*
SO2
Ozone/VOC*
Lead
Mercury
Total fluorides
H2SO4 mist
GHG
Total reduced sulfur (including hydrogen sulfide
[H2S])
Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S)
Municipal waste combustor acid gases (measured
as SO2 and hydrogen chloride [HCl])
Municipal waste combustor metals (measured as
PM)
Municipal waste combustor organics (measured as
total tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans)
For the pollutants listed above, and for major stationary sources locating within 10 km of a
Class I area having an impact equal to or greater than 1 g/m3, 24-hour average
Projected
Maximum
Annual
Emissions
(tpy)
PSD/NNSR
Significant
Emission
Rate
(tpy)
145.8
168.8
108.4
96.7
96.7
12.2
37.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
2,244,881
Not present
25
100
25
15
100
40
25
0.6
0.1
3
7
75,000
10
PSD/NNSR
Applicability
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Not present
Not present
10
40
No
No
Not present
15
No
Not present
3.5E10-6
No
N/A
Any amount
No
*NNSR Applicability
Measured as CO2e.
Sources: 40 CFR 52.21
CPV, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
3-4
An analysis must be conducted of alternative sites, sizes, production

processes, and environmental control techniques; the alternatives analysis
must demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed source significantly
outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification.
CPV Maryland does not currently own or operate any other facilities of any type in
Maryland. Therefore, the first requirement of the General Conditions listed herein is satisfied. Section 5.0 presents the demonstration that the facility will comply with LAER.
Section 6.0 presents the alternatives analysis.
The proposed facility will not be able to commence construction until the required offsets
are certified by the state. Based on the facilitys potential NOx and VOC emissions of
145.8 and 37.6 tpy, respectively, and applying the 1.3 to 1 ratio, CPV Maryland will need
to secure up to 190 tons of NOx offsets and 49 tons of VOC offsets. Offsets are generally
acceptable if obtained within the same nonattainment area as the new or modified emissions unit. In accordance with COMAR 26.11.17.04D, offsets may also be obtained from
any area with an equal or higher nonattainment classification than the area in which the
emissions unit is located provided the emissions from the other area have been demonstrated to contribute to a violation in the area in which the new emissions unit is located.
CPV Maryland will obtain the required, properly certified offsets in accordance with
these criteria.
3.3
PSD NSR APPLICABILITY
The CPV St. Charles facility will have potential emissions greater than one or more of the
PSD significant emissions rates listed in 40 CFR 52.21. Accordingly, the facility qualifies
as a major stationary source and is subject to the PSD NSR requirements of
40 CFR 52.21 for those pollutants that are emitted at or above the specified PSD significant emissions rate levels. Effective January 1, 2011, GHG are subject to PSD requirements at a facility that is a new major stationary source subject of a regulated NSR pollutant other than GHG and that has the potential to emit 75,000 tpy or more of carbon
CO2e. Effective July 1, 2011, GHG became subject to PSD requirements at a facility that
3-5
is a new stationary source that will have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy or more of
CO2e.
Table 3-2 provides comparisons of estimated potential annual emissions rates for the
CPV St. Charles facility and the PSD significant emissions rate thresholds. As shown in
this table, potential emissions of NOx, CO, PM/PM10, and GHG are each projected to exceed the applicable PSD significant emissions rate level. These pollutants are, therefore,
subject to the PSD NSR requirements as defined in 40 CFR 52.21. Appendix C provides
detailed facility emissions rate estimates.
3.4
PSD REQUIREMENTS
3.4.1
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
An analysis of BACT is required for each pollutant proposed to be emitted in amounts

equal to or greater than the PSD significant emissions rate levels. BACT is defined as:
an emissions limitation, including a visible emissions standard, based on the
maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Administrator, on a case by case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable. through application of production processes or available methods, systems and techniques
(including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques)
for control of each such pollutant.
BACT determinations are made on a case-by-case basis as part of the NSR process and
apply to each pollutant that exceeds the PSD significant emissions rate thresholds shown
in Table 3-2. Emissions units that emit or increase emissions of the applicable pollutants
involved in a major modification or a new major source must undergo BACT analysis. Because each applicable pollutant must be analyzed, particular emissions units may undergo
BACT analysis for more than one pollutant.
BACT is defined in terms of a numerical emissions limit. This numerical emissions limit
can be based on the application of air pollution control equipment; specific production
processes, methods, systems, or techniques; fuel cleaning; or combustion techniques.
BACT limitations may not exceed any applicable federal NSPS, national emissions stan-
3-6
dard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs), or any other emissions limitation established by state regulations.
BACT analyses must be conducted using the following five step top-down approach:
1.
Available control technology alternatives are identified based on knowledge

of the particular industry of the applicant, control technology vendors, technical journals and reports, and previous control technology permitting decisions for other identical or similar sources.
2.
The identified available control technologies are evaluated for technical feasibility. If a control technology has been installed and operated successfully
on the type of source under review, it is considered demonstrated and technically feasible. An undemonstrated control technology may be considered
technically feasible if it is available and applicable. A control technology is
considered available if it can be obtained commercially (i.e., the technology
has reached the licensing and commercial sales phase of development). An
available control technology is applicable if it can reasonably be installed
and operated on the source type under consideration. Undemonstrated available control technologies that are determined to be technically infeasible,
based on physical, chemical, and engineering principals, are eliminated from
further consideration.
3.
The technically feasible technology alternatives are rank-ordered by stringency into a control technology hierarchy.
4.
The hierarchy is evaluated starting with the top, or most stringent alternative, to determine economic, environmental, and energy impacts and to assess the feasibility or appropriateness of each alternative as BACT based on
site-specific factors. If the top control alternative is accepted as BACT from
an economic and energy standpoint, evaluation of energy and economic impacts is not required since the only reason for conducting these assessments
is to document the rationale for rejecting an alternative technology as
BACT. Instead, the applicant proceeds to evaluate the top case control technology for impacts of unregulated air pollutants or impacts in other media
(i.e., collateral environmental impacts). If there are no issues regarding col3-7
lateral environmental impacts, the BACT analysis is complete, and the top
case control technology alternative is proposed as BACT. If the top control
alternative is not applicable due to adverse energy, environmental, or economic impacts, it is rejected as BACT and the next most stringent control alternative is then considered.
5.
This evaluation process continues until an applicable control alternative is

determined to be both technologically and economically feasible, thereby
defining the emissions level corresponding to BACT for the evaluated pollutant.
Chapter B of EPAs Draft New Source Review Manual dated October 1990 describes this
five-step procedure for conducting a BACT analysis.
3.4.2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING
In accordance with the PSD requirements of 40 CFR 52.21, any application for a PSD
permit must contain, for each pollutant subject to review, an analysis of ambient air quality data in the area affected by the proposed major stationary source or major modification. The affected pollutants are those which the source would potentially emit in significant amounts (i.e., those that exceed the PSD significant emissions rate thresholds shown
in Table 3-2).
Preconstruction ambient air monitoring for a period of up to 1 year is generally required.
Existing data from the vicinity of the proposed source may be used if the data meet certain quality assurance (QA) requirements; otherwise, additional data may need to be gathered. Guidance in designing a PSD monitoring network is provided by EPAs Ambient
Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (1987a).
40 CFR 52.21 provides an exemption that excludes or limits the pollutants for which an
air quality monitoring analysis is conducted. This exemption states that a proposed facility will be exempt from the preconstruction ambient air monitoring requirements with respect to a particular pollutant if the emissions increase of the pollution from the new
source would cause, in any area, air quality impacts less than the PSD de minimis am3-8
bient impact levels presented in Table 3-3. In addition, an exemption may be granted if
the air quality impacts due to existing sources in the area of concern are less than the PSD
de minimis ambient impact levels.
Applicability of the PSD preconstruction ambient monitoring requirements to the proposed CPV St. Charles facility is discussed in Section 8.2.
3.4.3
AMBIENT IMPACT ANALYSIS
An air quality or source impact analysis must be performed for a proposed major stationary source subject to PSD for each pollutant for which the increase in emissions exceeds
the significant emissions rates (see Table 3-2) with the exception of GHG. There are currently no ambient air quality standards for GHG; therefore, an ambient air quality impact
analysis is not required. The PSD regulations specifically require the use of applicable
EPA atmospheric dispersion models in determining estimates of ambient concentrations.
Guidance for the use and application of dispersion models is presented in the EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM) as published in Appendix W to 40 CFR 51. Criteria
pollutants may be exempt from the full source impact analysis if the net increase in impacts due to the new source or modification is below the appropriate PSD significant impact level (SIL), as presented in Table 3-4. EPA has proposed SILs for Class I areas
these levels are provided in Table 3-5.
Ozone is one pollutant for which a source impact analysis is not normally required.
Ozone is formed in the atmosphere as a result of complex photochemical reactions. Models for ozone generally are applied to entire urban areas.
Various lengths of record for meteorological data can be used for impact analyses. A
5-year period can be used with corresponding evaluation of the highest of the secondhighest (HSH) short-term concentrations for comparison to AAQS or PSD increments.
The term highest, second-highest refers to the highest of the second-highest concentrations at all receptors (i.e., the highest concentration at each receptor is discarded). The
second-highest concentration is significant because short-term PSD increments specify
the standard should not be exceeded at any location more than once per year. If less than
3-9
Table 3-3. PSD De Minimis Ambient Impact Levels

Averaging
Time
Pollutant
De Minimis Level
(g/m3)
Annual
NO2
14
Quarterly
Lead
0.1
24-Hour
PM10
SO2
Fluorides
10
13
0.25
8-Hour
CO
1-Hour
Total reduced sulfur

H2S
Reduced sulfur compounds
575
10
0.2
10
Source: 40 CFR 52.21
3-10
Table 3-4. PSD Significant Impact Levels

Averaging
Period
Concentration
(g/m3)
SO2
Annual
24-Hour
24-Hour (Class I Areas)
3-Hour
1-Hour*
1
5
1
25
7.8
PM10
Annual
24-Hour
24-Hour (Class I Areas)
1
5
1
PM2.5
Annual
24-Hour
0.3
1.2
NO2
Annual
1-Hour
1
7.5
CO
8-Hour
1-Hour
Lead
Quarterly
Pollutant
500
2,000
0.03
*EPA-recommended interim 1-hour SO2 SIL, EPA Memorandum entitled General Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS in PSD Permits, Including an Interim
1-Hour SO2 SIL from Anna Marie Wood, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division
to Regional Air Division Directors, dated August 23, 2010.
EPA-recommended interim 1-hour NO2 SIL, EPA Memorandum entitled General
Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS in PSD Permits, Including an Interim 1-Hour NO2 SIL from Anna Marie Wood, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division to Regional Air Division Directors, dated June 28, 2010.
Source: 40 CFR 52.21
3-11
Table 3-5. EPA Significant Impact LevelsClass I Areas

Averaging
Period
Concentration
(g/m3)
SO2
Annual
24-Hour
3-Hour
0.1
0.2
1.0
PM10
Annual
24-Hour
0.2
0.3
PM2.5
Annual
24-Hour
0.06
0.07
NO2
Annual
0.1
Pollutant
Source: EPA Proposed, 1996; 61FR 38249.
3-12
5 years of meteorological data are used, the highest concentration at each receptor must
be used.
In promulgating the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress specified that certain increases
above an air quality baseline concentration level for SO2 and TSP would constitute significant deterioration. The magnitude of the increment that cannot be exceeded depends
on the classification of the area in which a new source (or modification) will have an impact. Three classifications were designated based on criteria established in the CAA
Amendments. Initially, Congress promulgated areas as Class I (international parks, national wilderness areas, and memorial parks larger than 2,024 hectares [ha] [5,000 acres],
and national parks larger than 2,428 ha [6,000 acres]) or Class II (all other areas not designated as Class I). No Class III areas, which would be allowed greater deterioration than
Class II areas, were designated. However, the states were given the authority to redesignate any Class II area to Class III status, provided certain requirements were met. EPA
then promulgated, as regulations, the requirements for classifications and area designations.
On October 17, 1988, EPA promulgated PSD increments for NO2; the effective date of
the new regulation was October 17, 1989. However, the baseline date for NO2 increment
consumption was set at February 8, 1988; new major sources or modifications constructed after this date will consume NO2 increment.
On June 3, 1993, EPA promulgated PSD increments for PM10; the effective date of the
new regulation was June 3, 1994. The increments for PM10 replace the original PM increments that were based on TSP. Baseline dates and areas that were previously established for the original TSP increments remain in effect for the new PM10 increments. Revised NAAQS for PM, which include revised NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5, became effective on October 17, 2006. PSD increments, SILs and significant monitoring concentration levels for PM2.5 PSD requirements became finalized effective December 20, 2010
(Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 202, October 20, 2010). Table 3-6 presents current
PSD allowable increments.
3-13
Table 3-6. PSD Allowable Increments
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
Class (g/m3)
II
III
PM10
Annual arithmetic mean

24-Hour maximum*
4
8
17
30
34
60
PM2.5

24-Hour maximum*
1
2
4
9
8
18
SO2

24-Hour maximum*
3-Hour maximum*
2
5
25
20
91
512
40
182
700
NO2
25
50
2.5
*Maximum concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year at any one location.
Sources: 40 CFR 52.21.
Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 202.
3-14
The term baseline concentration evolved from federal and state PSD regulations and denotes a concentration level corresponding to a specified baseline date and certain additional baseline sources. By definition in the PSD regulations, as amended, baseline concentration means the ambient concentration level that exists in the baseline area at the
time of the applicable minor source baseline date. A baseline concentration is determined
for each pollutant for which a baseline date is established based on:
The actual emissions representative of sources in existence on the applicable

minor source baseline date.
The allowable emissions of major stationary sources that commenced construction before the major source baseline date but were not in operation by
the applicable minor source baseline date.
The following will not be included in the baseline concentration and will affect the applicable maximum allowable increase(s) (i.e., allowed increment consumption):
Actual emissions from any major stationary source on which construction

commenced after the major source baseline date.
Actual emissions increases and decreases at any stationary source occurring

after the minor source baseline date.
It is not necessary to make a determination of the baseline concentration to determine the

amount of PSD increment consumed. Instead, increment consumption calculations need
only reflect the ambient pollutant concentration change attributable to emissions sources
that affect increment. Major source baseline date means January 6, 1975, for PM
(TSP/PM10) and SO2 and February 8, 1988, for NO2. Minor source baseline date means
the earliest date after the trigger date on which the first complete application was submitted by a major stationary source or major modification subject to the requirements of
40 CFR 52.21 or Section 62-212.400, F.A.C. The trigger dates are August 7, 1977, for
PM (TSP/PM10) and SO2 and February 8, 1988, for NO2.
3-15
Sections 7.0 (Air Quality Impact Analysis Methodology), 8.0 (Air Quality Impact Analysis Results), and 10.0 (PSD Class I areas) provide the ambient impact analyses for the
CPV St. Charles facility.
3.4.4
ADDITIONAL IMPACT ANALYSES
PSD regulations require additional impact analyses for three areas: associated growth,
soils and vegetation impact, and visibility impairment. The level of analysis for each area
should be commensurate with the scope of the project. A more extensive analysis would
be conducted for projects having large emissions increases than those that will cause a
small increase in emissions.
The growth analysis generally includes:
A projection of the associated industrial, commercial, and residential growth

that will occur in the area.
An estimate of the air pollution emissions generated by the permanent associated growth.
An air quality analysis based on the associated growth emissions estimates

and the emissions expected to be generated directly by the new source or
modification.
The soils and vegetation analysis is typically conducted by comparing projected ambient
concentrations for the pollutants of concern with applicable susceptibility data from the
air pollution literature. For most types of soils and vegetation, ambient air concentrations
of criteria pollutants below the NAAQS will not result in harmful effects. Sensitive vegetation and emissions of toxic air pollutants could necessitate a more extensive assessment
of potential adverse effects on soils and vegetation.
The visibility impairment analysis pertains particularly to Class I area impacts and other
areas where good visibility is of special concern. A quantitative estimate of visibility impairment is conducted, if warranted by the scope of the project. Section 9.0 provides the
additional impact analyses for the CPV St. Charles facility.
3-16
3.5
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT REQUIREMENTS
COMAR 26.11.15, Toxic Air Pollutants, and COMAR 26.11.16, Procedures Related to
Requirements for Toxic Air Pollutants, define requirements for facilities that emit toxic
air pollutants (TAPs). MDE defines Class I TAPs in COMAR 26.11.16.06 and Class II
TAPs in COMAR 26.11.15.01(B)(5). The CPV St. Charles facility is exempt from the
requirements of COMAR 26.11.15 and 26.11.16, as the facility is considered a fuelburning equipment source and does not combust refuse-derived fuel.
Maryland relies on the requirements of the CAA with respect to the regulation of hazardous (also known as toxic) air pollutants. These federal requirements, NESHAPs, include
a comprehensive set of technology-based emissions standards. These standards establish
HAP emissions limitations for a wide variety of industrial source categories. Recent NESHAPs promulgated under 40 CFR 63 reflect maximum achievable control technology
(MACT). Section 4.2 provides a discussion of the NESHAPs program and its applicability to the CPV St. Charles facility.
3-17
4.0
4.0
4.1
STATE AND FEDERAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Section 111 of the CAA, Standards of Performance of New Stationary Sources, requires
EPA establish federal emissions standards for source categories that cause or contribute
significantly to air pollution. These standards are intended to promote use of the best air
pollution control technologies, taking into account the cost of such technology and any
other non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy requirements. These
standards apply to sources that have been constructed or modified since the proposal of
the standard. Since December 23, 1971, EPA has promulgated more than 75 standards.
NSPS are codified in 40 CFR 60.
The CPV St. Charles facility air emissions sources include two CT/HRSG units, an auxiliary boiler, a fuel gas heater, two diesel-fired emergency engines, and a ten-cell mechanical draft cooling tower. Those NSPS that are potentially applicable to the CPV
St. Charles facility are discussed in the following subsections.
4.1.1
NSPS SUBPART DCSMALL INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIALINSTITUTIONAL STEAM GENERATING UNITS
NSPS Subpart Dc (codified in 40 CFR 60.40c) is applicable to owners and operators of

steam generating units that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 9, 1989, and have a maximum design heat input rating greater than 10 MMBtu/hr
and less than 100 MMBtu/hr. The natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler, with a heat input rating of 93 MMBtu/hr, will be subject to the requirements of NSPS Subpart Dc.
The requirements of NSPS Subpart Dc that are applicable to a natural gas-fired auxiliary
boiler include:
On or after the date on which the initial performance test is completed, exhaust gases discharged into the atmosphere will not contain PM emissions in
excess of 0.030 lb/MMBtu heat input.
Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with

the General Provisions contained in 40 CFR 60.7.
4-1
4.1.2
NSPS SUBPART IIIISTATIONARY COMPRESSION IGNITION INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
NSPS Subpart IIII (codified in 40 CFR 60.4200) is applicable to owners and operators of
stationary compression ignition (CI) internal combustion engines (ICE) that commence
construction after July 11, 2005, where the CI ICE are manufactured after April 1, 2006
(and are not fire pump engines), or manufactured after July 1, 2006 (for certified National
Fire Protection Association fire pump engines).
NSPS Subpart IIII specifies emissions limitations, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for NOx, CO, nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), and PM. Applicable
NSPS Subpart IIII emissions standards for the CPV St. Charles facilitys diesel-fired
emergency generator and diesel-fired firewater pump CI ICEs are summarized as follows:
Owners and operators of 2007 model year and later emergency stationary CI
ICE with a displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder that are not fire
pump engines must comply with the emissions standards for new nonroad
CI engines in 40 CFR 60.4202, for all pollutants, for the same model year
and maximum engine power for their 2007 model year and later emergency
stationary CI ICE.
Owners and operators of fire pump engines with a displacement of less than
30 liters per cylinder must comply with the emissions standards in Table 4
to NSPS Subpart IIII, for all pollutants.
The facilitys emergency generator and firewater pump diesel engines will comply with
the applicable requirements of NSPS Subpart IIII.
4.1.3
NSPS SUBPART KKKKSTATIONARY COMBUSTION TURBINES
Subpart KKKK establishes emissions limits for CT/HRSG units that commenced construction after February 18, 2005, and that have a heat input at peak load equal to greater
than 10.7 gigajoules (10 MMBtu/hr) based on the HHV of the fuel. The CPV St. Charles
facilitys CT/HRSG units will be subject to the requirements of Subpart KKKK.
4-2
NSPS Subpart KKKK specifies emissions limitations, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for NOx and SO2. Applicable NSPS Subpart KKKK emissions
standards for the CT/HRSG units are summarized as follows:
NOx15 ppmvd at 15-percent oxygen or 0.43 pound per megawatt-hour

(lb/MW-hr) gross energy output.
SO20.90 lb/MW-hr gross energy output or 0.060 lb/MMBtu.
The CPV St. Charles facilitys CT/HRSG units will have emissions well below the NSPS
Subpart KKKK emissions standards and will comply with the applicable requirements of
NSPS Subpart KKKK.
4.2
NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
The provisions of the CAA that address the control of HAP emissions, or air toxics, are
found in Section 112. Section 112 of the CAA includes provisions for the promulgation
of NESHAPs, or MACT standards, as well as several related programs to enhance and
support the NESHAPs program. Section 112 requires EPA to publish and regularly update (at least every 8 years) a list of the categories and subcategories of major and area
sources that emit HAPs. The Section 112(c) list of source categories was initially published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992, and has been periodically revised thereafter. EPA must promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards (NESHAPs) for
each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of HAPs that are listed
pursuant to Section 112(c). The standards must require the maximum degree of emissions
reduction that EPA determines to be achievable by each particular source category. Different criteria for MACT apply for new and existing sources. Less stringent standards,
known as generally available control technology (GACT) standards, are allowed at the
EPA Administrators discretion for area sources.
On March 29, 2005, EPA issued a final agency action delisting electric utility steam generating units from the CAA Section 112(c) source category list. Although electric utility
steam generating units are no longer included on the Section 112(c) list, the source cate4-3
gory list presently includes stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE)
and industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and process heaters. As required by Section 112 of the CAA, EPA promulgated a final NESHAPs for stationary RICE
(40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ) on June 15, 2004, and a final NESHAPs for industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and process heaters (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDDDD) on
September 13, 2004.
In general, the 40 CFR 63 NESHAPs are only applicable to major HAP sources (i.e., facilities that have potential emissions of an individual HAP of 10 tpy or more, and potential emissions of total HAPs of 25 tpy or more). The CPV St. Charles facility will have
potential HAP emissions rates below these thresholds and, therefore, is a minor, or area,
source of HAPs. EPA issued a final rule for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers located at area sources effective May 20, 2011. However, this NESHAP applies only
to boilers that combust coal, biomass, and oil and, therefore, does not apply to the natural
gas-fired auxiliary boiler proposed for CPV St. Charles.
4.3
ACID RAIN PROGRAM
The overall goal of the acid rain program (ARP) is to achieve significant environmental
and public health benefits through reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOx, the primary
causes of acid rain. To achieve this goal at the lowest cost to society, the program employs both traditional and innovative, market-based approaches for controlling air pollution. In addition, the program encourages energy efficiency and pollution prevention.
Title IV of the CAA sets a goal of reducing annual SO2 emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels. To achieve these reductions, the law required a two-phase tightening of
the restrictions placed on fossil fuel-fired power plants. Phase I began in 1995 and affected 263 units at 110 mostly coal-burning electric utility plants located in 21 eastern
and midwestern states. An additional 182 units joined Phase I of the program as substitution or compensating units, bringing the total of Phase I affected units to 445. Phase II,
which began in the year 2000, tightened the annual emissions limits imposed on these
large, higher emitting plants and also set restrictions on smaller, cleaner plants fired by
coal, oil, and gas, encompassing more than 2,000 units in all. The program affects exist4-4
ing utility units serving generators with an output capacity of greater than 25 MW and all
new utility units.
For SO2, the ARP introduced an allowance trading system that harnesses the incentives of
the free market to reduce pollution. Under this cap-and-trade program, affected existing
utility units (i.e., those in operation prior to November 15, 1990) are allocated allowances
based on their historical fuel consumption and a specific emissions rate. Each allowance
permits a unit to emit 1 ton of SO2 during or after a specified year. For each ton of SO2
emitted in a given year, one allowance is retired, that is, it can no longer be used. Allowances may be bought, sold, or banked. Anyone may acquire allowances and participate in
the trading system. However, regardless of the number of allowances a source holds, it
may not emit at levels that would violate federal or state limits set under Title I of the
CAA to protect public health. During Phase II of the program (now in effect), the CAA
set a permanent ceiling (or cap) of 8.95 million allowances for total annual SO2 allowance allocations to utilities. This cap firmly restricts emissions and ensures that environmental benefits will be achieved and maintained. New utility units (i.e., those that commence operation on and after November 15, 1990) are not allocated any SO2 allowances
and must obtain such allowances annually from the ARP SO2 allowance market in
amounts equal to their actual SO2 emissions rates.
The CAA also required a 2-million-ton reduction in NOx emissions by the year 2000. A
significant portion of this reduction has been achieved by coal-fired utility boilers that
will be required to install low NOx burner technologies and to meet new emissions standards. The ARP NOx emissions reduction requirements are only applicable to existing
utility units (i.e., those in operation prior to November 15, 1990).
The CPV St. Charles facilitys CT/HRSG units will be subject to the ARP since they will
be new utility units (i.e., will commence operation after November 15, 1990) and will
serve a generator that produces electricity for sale. As noted previously, new utility units
do not receive any SO2 allowance allocations. Accordingly, CPV Maryland, LLC will
need to annually obtain SO2 allowances from the ARP SO2 allowance market in amounts
4-5
equal to the CT/HRSG units actual SO2 emissions rates. The NOx component of the
ARP does not apply to new utility units.
4.4
CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE
On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the final Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The objective
of CAIR is to assist states with PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas to achieve
attainment by reducing precursor emissions at sources located in 28 states (including
Maryland) situated upwind of these nonattainment areas. Based on regional dispersion
modeling, EPA determined that these 28 upwind states significantly contribute to PM2.5 and
8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind areas. Maryland emissions sources are projected
to significantly contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment areas located in West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York.
The CAIR reductions of precursor emissions address annual SO2 and NOx emissions (for
reductions in annual and daily average ambient PM2.5 impacts) and ozone season (May
through September) NOx emissions (for reductions in 8-hour average ambient ozone
impacts). The SO2 and NOx reductions will be implemented by means of a regional twophase cap-and-trade program. For SO2, the first cap begins in calendar year 2010 and
extends through 2014. For NOx, the first cap begins in calendar year 2009 and also extends
through 2014. The second phase cap for both pollutants becomes effective in calendar year
2015 and thereafter. The SO2 caps will reduce current ARP SO2 emissions by 50 percent in
Phase I and by 65 percent in Phase II. The NOx caps reflect NOx emissions rates of 0.15 and
0.125 lb/MMBtu for the first and second phase caps, respectively.
For each phase cap, CAIR assigns SO2 and NOx emissions budgets (in units of tpy and tons
per ozone season) to each affected upwind state. These state emissions budgets were
developed by EPA based on the application of cost-effective control technologies (i.e.,
FGD) for SO2 and SCR for NOx. The affected states were required to submit revised SIPs
within 18 months (i.e., by September 11, 2006) for EPA review and approval.
Following SIP approval and allocation of the state SO2 and NOx budgets to individual emissions sources, emissions units at these sources must possess sufficient SO2 and NOx allow4-6
ances such that actual emissions (as measured by continuous emissions monitoring system
[CEMS]) do not exceed the allocations for each control period beginning in 2009 (for NOx)
and 2010 (for SO2). Sources that have actual emissions in excess of their allocation will
need to reduce actual emissions rates or purchase additional allowances on the open market.
Emissions sources that have surplus allowances may bank the allowances for use in any future control period or sell the surplus allowances on the open market.
Maryland has adopted EPAs 40 CFR 96 CAIR NOx and SO2 trading programs for SIPs by
reference in COMAR 26.11.28.02. Marylands implementation of the requirements pertaining to the distribution of allowances from the NOx set-aside pool are contained in
COMAR 26.11.28.01 and .03 thru .07.
On August 8, 2011, EPA published the final rule for federal implementation plans, Interstate Transport of Fine PM and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, in the Federal
Register. This final rule is commonly referred to as the Transport Rule. The Transport
Rule will become effective on October 7, 2011, and will supersede CAIR. The CPV
St. Charles facility will maintain compliance with applicable future requirements of the
Transport Rule.
4.5
MARYLAND EMISSIONS STANDARDS
MDE general emissions standards for stationary sources are contained in COMAR 26.11.06,
General Emissions Standards, Prohibitions and Restrictions. Charles County is included in
Area V for MDE air regulatory purposes as specified in COMAR 26.11.01.03. Visible emissions standards, as specified in COMAR 26.11.06.02, state that visible emissions from installations and buildings located in Area V will not exceed 20-percent opacity. COMAR 26.11.06.03 states that PM emissions from installations and buildings located in Area V
and constructed after January 17, 1972, should not exceed 0.05 grain per dry standard cubic
foot (gr/dscf). In addition, reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent PM from fugitive
sources from becoming airborne. Reasonable precautions include, but are not limited to, use
of water or chemicals, installation of hoods and fans to collect and control dust emissions,
paving of unpaved roadways and parking areas, and sweeping of paved roadways and parking areas. COMAR 26.11.06.08 and .09 state that a person or facility cannot emit either
4-7
emissions or odors beyond the property line in such a manner that causes a nuisance. Lastly,
COMAR 26.11.06.14 incorporates the federal PSD regulations, codified in 40 CFR 52.21,
by reference.
COMAR 26.11.09 contains regulations for the control of fuel-burning equipment, stationary
ICEs, and certain fuel-burning installations. COMAR 26.11.09.05(A) states that visible
emissions from fuel burning equipment located in Area V may not exceed 20-percent opacity except for water in an uncombined form. COMAR 26.11.09.05(B) states that visible
emissions from a stationary ICE cannot exceed 10-percent opacity when operating in idle
mode, or 40-percent opacity when operating at other than idle conditions. COMAR 26.11.09.05(B)(4)(b) exempts emissions resulting directly from a cold engine startup for
a period of 30 minutes. This would potentially apply to routine maintenance testing. COMAR 26.11.09.06, Control of PM, only applies to new fuel-burning equipment that combusts
solid fuel or residual oil and, therefore, does not apply to the CPV St. Charles facility.
COMAR 26.11.09.07, Control of Sulfur Oxides from Fuel-Burning Equipment, applies to
solid fuel-burning equipment located in Area V and, therefore, is not applicable to the CPV
St. Charles facility. COMAR 26.11.09.08, Control of NOx Emissions for Major Stationary
Sources, applies to major sources of NOx (i.e., greater than 25 tpy in Charles County). Although the CPV St. Charles facility is a major source of NOx, the regulations contain only
emissions standards for tangential-fired or wall-fired boilers and, therefore, is not applicable
to the CPV St. Charles facility.
COMAR 26.11.17 contains the nonattainment provisions for major new sources and modifications. A major new source is defined as one that is located in Charles County and that
has NOx and/or VOC emissions in quantities greater than 25 tpy. The CPV St. Charles facility will have both NOx and VOC emissions in quantities greater than 25 tpy; therefore,
NOx and VOC will be subject to the requirements of NNSR.
COMAR 26.11.27 contains emissions limitations applicable to only seven existing power
plants. These seven power plants are identified in COMAR 26.11.27.02. Therefore, the CPV
St. Charles facility will not be subject to the requirements of this regulation.
4-8
5.0
5.0
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSES
The proposed CPV St. Charles facility is subject to review with respect to the following
control technology requirements:
LAER for those pollutants for which Charles County is classified as nonattainment and whose potential emissions exceed applicable NNSR review
thresholds.
BACT for those pollutants that exceed the PSD significant emissions rate
thresholds specified in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23) and for which Charles County
is classified as attainment.
BACT for GHG emissions if the total facility CO2e emissions exceed
75,000 tpy.
BACT and LAER requirements apply to each air emissions source at the facility that
emits that particular pollutant. These analyses are discussed in the following subections.
5.1
5.1.1
LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSIONS RATE

The proposed CPV St. Charles facility site will be located in Charles County. Charles
County is classified as moderate nonattainment (for the 8-hour ozone standard). It is also
considered nonattainment for PM2.5. It is unclassifiable/attainment or not classified for
the remaining criteria pollutants (i.e., SO2, PM10, CO, and NO2).
As precursor pollutants to the formation of ozone, NOx and VOC will be subject to
LAER review for projects located in nonattainment areas if potential emissions exceed
the major source threshold of 25 tpy for both NOx and VOC. Because potential NOx and
VOC emissions from the proposed CPV St. Charles facility are each projected to exceed
25 tpy, these pollutants are subject to the LAER requirements. The NNSR applicability
threshold for PM2.5 is 100 tpy. Since PM2.5 potential emissions will be limited to less than
100 tpy, PM2.5 will not be subject to the LAER requirements for this project.
5-1
5.1.2
METHODOLOGY
LAER is defined COMAR 26.22.17.01, as:

The more stringent rate of emissions based on the following:
(i) The most stringent emissions limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any state for a class or category of stationary source, unless
the owner or operator of the proposed stationary source demonstrates that
these limitations are not achievable; or
(ii.) The most stringent emissions limitation which is achieved in practice by a
class or category of stationary sources
The application of this definition does not permit a proposed new or modified stationary source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amount allowed under
40 CFR 60.
Sources of information that were used to identify control alternatives include:
EPAs Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/BACT, LAER

Clearinghouse [RBLC] database.
Vendor information.
ECTs experience for similar projects.
The following LAER analyses for NOx and VOC describe the available control technologies and discuss the most stringent emissions limitations that have been achieved in practice.
5.1.3
LAER ANALYSIS FOR NOx
NOx emissions from combustion sources, including CT/HRSGs, auxiliary boiler, fuel gas
heater, and ICEs, consist of two components: oxidation of combustion air atmospheric
nitrogen (thermal NOx and prompt NOx) and conversion of chemically bound fuel nitrogen (fuel NOx). Essentially all NOx emissions originate as NO. NO generated by the CT
combustion processes are subsequently further oxidized in the atmosphere to the more
stable NO2 molecule.
Thermal NOx results from the oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen under high-temperature
combustion conditions. The amount of thermal NOx formed is primarily a function of
combustion temperature and residence time, air/fuel ratio, and, to a lesser extent, combus5-2
tion pressure. Thermal NOx increases exponentially with increases in temperature and
linearly with increases in residence time as described by the Zeldovich mechanism.
Prompt NOx is formed near the combustion flame front from the oxidation of intermediate combustion products. Prompt NOx comprises a small portion of total NOx in conventional near-stoichiometric combustors but increases under fuel-lean conditions.
Prompt NOx, therefore, is an important consideration with respect to low-NOx combustors that utilize lean fuel mixtures. Prompt NOx levels may also become significant with
ultra-low-NOx burners. Fuel NOx arises from the oxidation of non-elemental nitrogen
contained in the fuel. The conversion of fuel bound nitrogen (FBN) to NOx depends on
the bound nitrogen content of the fuel. In contrast to thermal NOx, fuel NOx formation
does not vary appreciably with combustion variables such as temperature or residence
time. Presently, there are no combustion process or fuel treatment technologies available
to control fuel NOx emissions. For this reason, the regulations typically contain an allowance for FBN directly or inherently (i.e., part of the emissions limit). NOx emissions from
combustion sources fired with fuel oil are higher than those fired with natural gas due to
higher combustion flame temperatures and FBN contents. Natural gas may contain molecular nitrogen (N2); however the molecular nitrogen found in natural gas does not contribute significantly to fuel NOx formation. Typically, natural gas contains a negligible
amount of FBN.
Available technologies for controlling NOx emissions from CTs, steam generators, heaters, and ICEs include combustion process modifications and postcombustion exhaust gas
treatment systems. A listing of available technologies for each of these categories follows:
Combustion Process Modifications:
Water/steam injection and standard combustor design (CTs).
Water/steam injection and advanced combustor design (CTs).
Dry low-NOx combustor design (CTs and auxiliary boiler).
Catalytic combustion controls (CTs).
5-3
FGR (auxiliary boiler).
Various combustion modifications (engines).
Postcombustion Exhaust Gas Treatment Systems:
Selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR).
Nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR).
SCR.
EMx (SCONOx).
A description of each of the listed control technologies is provided in the following subsections.
Combustion Process Modifications
Water or Steam Injection and Standard Combustor Design
Injection of water or steam into the primary combustion zone of a CT reduces the formation of thermal NOx by decreasing the peak combustion temperature. Water injection decreases the peak flame temperature by diluting the combustion gas stream and acting as a
heat sink by absorbing heat necessary to: (a) vaporize the water (latent heat of vaporization), and (b) raise the vaporized water temperature to the combustion temperature. High
purity water must be employed to prevent turbine corrosion and deposition of solids on
the turbine blades. Steam injection employs the same mechanisms to reduce the peak
flame temperature with the exclusion of heat absorbed due to vaporization since the heat
of vaporization has been added to the steam prior to injection. Accordingly, a greater
amount of steam, on a mass basis, is required to achieve a specified level of NOx reduction in comparison to water injection. Typical injection rates range from 0.3 to 1.0 and
0.5 to 2.0 pounds of water and steam, respectively, per pound of fuel. Water or steam injection will not reduce the formation of fuel NOx.
The maximum amount of steam or water that can be injected depends on the CT combustor design. Excessive rates of injection will cause flame instability, combustor dynamic
pressure oscillations, thermal stress (cold spots), and increased emissions of CO and
VOCs due to combustion inefficiency. Accordingly, the efficiency of steam or water in-
5-4
jection to reduce NOx emissions also depends on turbine combustor design. For a given
turbine design, the maximum water-to-fuel ratio (and maximum NOx reduction) will occur up to the point where cold spots and flame instability adversely affect safe, efficient,
and reliable operation of the turbine.
The use of water or steam injection and standard turbine combustor design can generally
achieve NOx exhaust concentrations of 42 and 65 ppmvd for gas and oil-firing, respectively.
Water or Steam Injection and Advanced Combustor Design
Water or steam injection functions in the same manner for advanced combustor designs
as described for standard combustors. Advanced combustors, however, have been designed to generate lower levels of NOx and tolerate greater amounts of water or steam
injection. The use of water or steam injection and advanced turbine combustor design can
typically achieve NOx exhaust concentrations of 25 and 42 ppmvd for gas and oil-firing,
respectively.
Dry Low-NOx Combustor Design
A number of CT vendors have developed dry low-NOx combustors that premix turbine
fuel and air prior to combustion in the primary zone. Use of a premix burner results in a
homogeneous air/fuel mixture without an identifiable flame front. This allows a lower
flame temperature in the combustion zone, causing a decrease in thermal NOx emissions.
Currently, premix burners are limited in application to natural gas and loads above approximately 35 to 50 percent of baseline due to flame stability considerations. During oilfiring, wet injection is typically employed to control NOx emissions.
In addition to lean premixed combustion, dry low-NOx combustors typically incorporate
lean combustion and reduced combustor residence time to reduce the rate of NOx formation. All CTs cool the high-temperature CT combustor discharge gas stream with dilution
air to lower the exhaust gas to an acceptable temperature prior to entering the CT turbine.
By adding additional dilution air, the hot CT combustor gases are rapidly cooled to tem5-5
peratures below those needed for NOx formation. Reduced residence time combustors
add the dilution air sooner than do standard combustors. The amount of thermal NOx is
reduced because the CT combustion gases are at a higher temperature for shorter periods
of time.
Current dry low-NOx combustor technology can typically achieve NOx exhaust concentrations of 25 ppmvd or less using natural gas fuel, depending on the CT vendor.
Catalytic Combustion Controls (XONON)
Another technology that is potentially capable of reducing gas turbine NOx emissions to
less than 3.5 ppmvd is catalytic combustion. Catalytica, Inc., was the first to commercially develop catalytic combustion controls for certain (mostly smaller) turbine engines and
markets this system under the name XONONTM. In October 2006, this technology was
sold to Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. It is not commercially available for larger CTs.
Therefore, catalytic combustion does not represent an available control option for the
proposed GE 207FA CTs.
Flue Gas Recirculation
FGR reduces NOx emissions in industrial boilers by recirculating a portion of the exhaust
gas back into the combustion process. This results in lower combustion temperatures and
oxygen levels in the combustion air/flue gas mixture, thus retarding the formation of
thermal NOx. This technology is generally not effective on boilers that combust fuel that
has a relatively high FBN concentration since the NOx emissions would be dominated by
the fuel NOx. This technology is not feasible for CT/HRSGs and, therefore, would only
be applicable to the auxiliary boiler for the CPV St. Charles facility.
Engine Combustion Modifications
Combustion modifications potentially applicable to the emergency engines include injection timing retard, air-to-fuel ratio adjustments, and several others. The application of
these technologies is specific to each engine vendor and model.
5-6
Postcombustion Exhaust Gas Treatment Systems

Selective Noncatalytic Reduction
The SNCR process involves the gas phase reaction, in the absence of a catalyst, of NOx in
the exhaust gas stream with injected ammonia (NH3) or urea to yield nitrogen and water
vapor. The two commercial applications of SNCR include the Electric Power Research
Institutes NOxOUT and Exxons Thermal DeNOx processes. The two processes are
similar in that either ammonia (Thermal DeNOx) or urea (NOxOUT) is injected into
a hot exhaust gas stream at a location specifically chosen to achieve the optimum reaction
temperature and residence time. Simplified chemical reactions for the Thermal DeNOx
process are as follows:
4NO + 4NH3 + O2 4N2 + 6 H2O
(1)
4 NH3 + 5 O2 4NO + 6 H2O
(2)
The NOxOUT process is similar with the exception that urea is used in place of ammonia. The critical design parameter for both SNCR processes is the reaction temperature.
At temperatures below 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit (F), rates for both reactions decrease
allowing unreacted ammonia to exit with the exhaust stream. Temperatures between
1,600 and 2,000F will favor reaction (1) resulting in a reduction in NOx emissions.
Reaction (2) will dominate at temperatures above approximately 2,000F causing an increase in NOx emissions. Due to reaction temperature considerations, the SNCR injection
system must be located at a point in the exhaust duct where temperatures are consistently
between 1,600 and 2,000F.
Nonselective Catalytic Reduction
The NSCR process uses a platinum/rhodium catalyst to reduce NOx to nitrogen and water
vapor under fuel-rich (less than 3-percent oxygen [O2]) conditions. NSCR technology has
been applied to automobiles and stationary reciprocating engines.
Selective Catalytic Reduction
In contrast to SNCR, SCR reduces NOx emissions by reacting ammonia with exhaust gas
NOx to yield nitrogen and water vapor in the presence of a catalyst. Ammonia is injected
upstream of the catalyst bed where the following primary reactions take place:
5-7
4NH3 + 4NO + O2 4N2 + 6H2O
(3)
4NH3 + 2NO2 + O2 3N2 + 6H2O
(4)
The catalyst serves to lower the activation energy of these reactions, which allows the
NOx conversions to take place at a lower temperature than the exhaust gas. The optimum
temperatures range from as low as 350F to as high as 1,100F (typically 600 to 750F),
depending on the catalyst. Typical SCR catalysts include metal oxides (titanium oxide
and vanadium), noble metals (combinations of platinum and rhodium), zeolite (aluminosilicates), and ceramics.
Factors affecting SCR performance include space velocity (volume per hour of flue gas
divided by the volume of the catalyst bed), ammonia/NOx molar ratio, and catalyst bed
temperature. Space velocity is a function of catalyst bed depth. Decreasing the space velocity (increasing catalyst bed depth) will improve NOx removal efficiency by increasing
residence time but will also cause an increase in catalyst bed pressure drop. The reaction
of NOx with ammonia theoretically requires a 1:1 molar ratio. Ammonia/NOx molar ratios greater than 1:1 are necessary to achieve high NOx removal efficiencies due to imperfect mixing and other reaction limitations. However, ammonia/NOx molar ratios are typically maintained at 1:1 or lower to prevent excessive unreacted ammonia (ammonia slip)
emissions. As was the case for SNCR, reaction temperature is critical for proper SCR operation. Below this critical temperature range, reduction reactions (3) and (4) will not
proceed. At temperatures exceeding the optimal range, oxidation of ammonia will take
place resulting in an increase in NOx emissions. NOx removal efficiencies for SCR systems typically range from 80 to 90 percent.
EMx (SCONOx)
EMx (formerly referred to as SCONOx) is a multipollutant reduction catalytic control system offered by EmeraChem. EMx is a complex technology designed to simultaneously reduce NOx, VOC, and CO through a series of oxidation/absorption catalytic
reactions.
5-8
The EMx system employs a single catalyst to simultaneously oxidize CO to carbon

dioxide (CO2) and NO to NO2. NO2 formed by the oxidation of NO is subsequently absorbed onto the catalyst surface through the use of a potassium carbonate absorber coating. The EMx oxidation/absorption cycle reactions are:
CO + O2 CO2
(5)
NO + O2 NO2
(6)
2 NO2 + K2CO3 CO2 + KNO2 + KNO3
(7)
CO2 produced by reactions (5) and (7) is released to the atmosphere as part of the
CT/HRSG exhaust stream.
Water vapor and elemental nitrogen are released to the atmosphere as part of the
CT/HRSG exhaust stream. Following regeneration, the EMx catalyst has a fresh coating of potassium carbonate, allowing the oxidation/absorption cycle to begin again.
Since the regeneration cycle must take place in an oxygen-free environment, the section
of catalyst undergoing regeneration is isolated from the exhaust gas stream using a set of
louvers.
EMx operates at a temperature range of 300 to 700F and, therefore, must be installed
in the appropriate temperature section of an HRSG. For installations below 450F, the
EMx system uses an inert gas generator for the production of hydrogen and CO2.
For installations above 450F, the EMx catalyst is regenerated by introducing a small
quantity of natural gas with a carrier gas, such as steam, over a steam reforming catalyst
and then to the EMx catalyst. The reforming catalyst initiates the conversion of methane to hydrogen, and the conversion is completed over the EMx catalyst.
Utility materials needed for the operation of the EMx control system include ambient
air, natural gas, water, steam, and electricity. The primary utility material is natural gas
used for regeneration gas production. Steam is used as the carrier/dilution gas for the re-
5-9
generation gas. Electricity is required to operate the computer control system, control
valves, and louver actuators.
Commercial experience to date with the EMx control system is limited to several small
combined-cycle power plants located in California. Representative of these small power
plants is a GE LM2500 turbine, owned by Sunlaw Energy Corporation, equipped with
water injection to control NOx emissions to approximately 25 ppmvd. The low temperature SCONOx control system (i.e., located downstream of the HRSG at a temperature
between 300 and 400F) was retrofitted to the Sunlaw Energy facility in December 1996
and has achieved a NOx exhaust concentration of 3.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
resulting in an approximate 85-percent NOx removal efficiency. This facility is no longer
operating due to market factors. A high-temperature application of EMx (i.e., control
system located within the HRSG at a temperature between 600 and 700F) has been in
service since June 1999 on a small, 5-MW solar CT located at the Genetics Institute in
Massachusetts. Although considered commercially available for large natural gas-fired
CTs, there are currently no combined-cycle units larger than 43 MW that have demonstrated successful application of the EMx control technology.
Water/steam injection and standard combustor design, water/steam injection and advanced combustor, and dry low-NOx combustor design would be feasible for the project
CTs.
The GE 207FA CTs are equipped with dry low-NOx burner technology.
Of the postcombustion stack gas treatment technologies, SNCR is not feasible because
the temperature required for this technology (between 1,600 and 2,000F) exceeds that
which will be found in the CT gas streams (less than 1,000F). NSCR was also determined to be technically infeasible because the process must take place in a fuel-rich (less
than 3-percent oxygen) environment. The oxygen content of the proposed CT exhaust
gases is in excess of 12 percent.
5-10
EMxTM is desirable in that it, unlike SCR, does not require ammonia. However, as discussed previously, there are many complex technical issues associated with this technology. In addition, this technology has not been proven on a GE 207FA combined-cycle
CT. Furthermore, the installation of EMxTM technology would also cause an increase in
back pressure amounting to twice that of the SCR system, and consume additional water
to provide steam for the regeneration process, adding to both capital and operating costs.
SCR catalyst can be subject to deactivation by a number of mechanisms. Loss of catalyst
activity can occur from thermal degradation if the catalyst is exposed to excessive temperatures over a prolonged period of time. Catalyst deactivation can also occur due to
chemical poisoning. Principal poisons include arsenic, sulfur, potassium, sodium, and
calcium. Another consideration with the application of SCR technology is the possibility
of fouling (i.e., formation of sticky ammonium sulfates plugging the catalyst bed surfaces over time). This is caused by the use of high sulfur fuels and is especially problematic for combined-cycle operations using HRSGs. The proposed GE 207FA CTs will
use only pipeline-quality natural gas. Furthermore, ammonia slip will be limited to
5 ppmvd under all conditions. Therefore, potential for poisoning or fouling the catalyst
from the proposed CT operations is expected to be minimal.
5.1.3.3 Proposed NOx LAER Emissions Limits
CT/HRSGs
To determine the most stringent NOx emissions limit for the CT/HRSGs, EPAs RBLC
database was queried for large combustion turbines firing natural gas only. BACT and
LAER determinations were obtained for the past 10 years and are summarized in Appendix G, Table G-1. As shown, the lowest NOx emissions limit is 2.0 ppmvd at 15-percent
oxygen for several facilities, in different states and EPA regions. The typical control system used to achieve this emissions limit is dry low-NOx combustors and an SCR system.
Therefore, the proposed LAER NOx emissions rate for the CT/HRSGs for the CPV
St. Charles facility is 2.0 ppmvd at 15-percent oxygen based on a 3-hour rolling average.
The proposed control system to achieve this emissions limit is dry low-NOx combustors
and SCR.
5-11
Auxiliary Boiler
To determine the most stringent NOx emissions limit for the auxiliary boiler, EPAs
RBLC database was queried for commercial/institutional-size boilers/furnaces firing natural gas only. BACT and LAER determinations were obtained for the past 10 years and
are summarized in Appendix G, Table G-2. As shown, the lowest NOx emissions limit is
0.0035 lb/MMBtu for Minnesota Steel Industries. This one facilitys emissions limit appears to be inconsistent with other determinations and is quite possibly a typographical
error from the more common emissions limit of 0.035 lb/MMBtu. There are several
0.009-lb/MMBtu emissions limits listed for cracking furnaces at a polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) plant, based on low-NOx burners and SCR. Application of an SCR for a packagetype auxiliary boiler is not practical technology. The lowest emissions rate listed for an
auxiliary boiler is actually the previously proposed and approved emissions limit of
0.011 lb/MMBtu for CPV St. Charles.
Therefore, the proposed LAER NOx emissions rate for the auxiliary boiler for the CPV
St. Charles facility is 0.011 lb/MMBtu based on ultra low-NOx burners and FGR.
Emergency Generator and Firewater Pump
Both the emergency generator and firewater pump will meet the emissions limits of
40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII, NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion
Engines, effective September 11, 2006. The combined emissions limits for NOx and
NMHC specified in this NSPS are 4.8 and 3.0 grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) for
the emergency generator and the firewater pump, respectively. Compliance with these
emissions limits will be demonstrated by the exclusive use of ULSD and limiting the
hours of operation for routine maintenance testing to 100 hr/yr.
BACT and LAER determinations were obtained for the past 10 years for both large
(greater than 500 hp) and small (less than 500 hp) ICEs firing distillate fuel oil only and
are summarized in Appendix G, Tables G-3 and G-4, respectively.
5-12
Fuel Gas Heater

The fuel gas heater is a relatively small combustion source, rated at 9.5 MMBtu/hr heat
input and will fire natural gas exclusively. There are no combustion modifications or addon postcombustion processes typically applied to fuel gas heater of this capacity. Therefore, the proposed NOx LAER emissions limit for the fuel gas heater is 0.035 lb/MMBtu.
This emissions limit is typical for natural gas-fired combustion sources rated less than
10 MMBtu/hr. Compliance will be demonstrated through the exclusive use of natural gas
and good combustion practices.
A summary of the NOx LAER emissions limits is provided in Table 5-1.
5.1.4
LAER ANALYSIS FOR VOC
VOC emissions result from the incomplete combustion of carbon and organic compounds. Factors affecting VOC emissions include firing temperatures, residence time in
the combustion zone, and combustion chamber mixing characteristics. Because higher
combustion temperatures will increase oxidation rates, emissions of VOC will generally
increase during turbine partial load conditions when combustion temperatures are lower.
Generally, decreased combustion zone temperature due to the injection of water or steam
for NOx control will also result in an increase in VOC emissions. An increase in combustion zone residence time and improved mixing of fuel and combustion air will increase
oxidation rates and cause a decrease in VOC emissions rates. Emissions of NOx and VOC
are inversely related (i.e., decreasing NOx emissions will result in an increase in VOC
emissions). Accordingly, CT vendors have had to consider the competing factors involved in NOx and VOC formation to develop units that achieve acceptable emissions
levels for both pollutants.
There are two available technologies for controlling VOC from gas turbines:
(1) combustion process design, and (2) oxidation catalysts.
5-13
Table 5-1. Proposed NOx LAER Emissions Limits

Emissions Source
CT/HRSGs (per unit)
Proposed NOx LAER Emissions Limits

2.0 ppmvd
23.8 lb/hr*
0.011 lb/MMBtu
1.0 lb/hr
Emergency generator (1,500 kW)
4.8 g/hp-hr
23.2 lb/hr
Emergency firewater pump (300 hp)
3.0 g/hp-hr
2.0 lb/hr
0.035 lb/MMBtu
0.33 lb/hr
Auxiliary boiler
Fuel gas heater
*Maximum emissions rates for CT/HRSGs (after control) based on 100-percent load,
59F, with evaporative cooling and duct burner firing. Maximum emissions limits for
ICEs include NMHC emissions.
Corrected to 15-percent oxygen.
Sources: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
5-14
Combustion Process Design

Combustion process controls involve combustion chamber designs and operation practices that improve the oxidation process and minimize incomplete combustion. Due to the
high combustion efficiency of CTs, approximately 99 percent, VOC emissions are inherently low.
Oxidation Catalysts
Noble metal (commonly platinum or palladium) oxidation catalysts are used to promote
oxidation of VOC to CO2 and water at temperatures lower than would be necessary for
oxidation without a catalyst. The design operating temperature range for oxidation catalysts is between 650 and 1,150F.
Efficiency of VOC oxidation varies with inlet temperature. Control efficiency will increase with increasing temperature up to a temperature of approximately 1,100F; further
temperature increases will have little effect on control efficiency. Significant VOC oxidation will occur at any temperature above approximately 900F. Inlet temperature must
also be maintained below 1,350 to 1,400F to prevent thermal aging of the catalyst,
which will reduce catalyst activity and pollutant removal efficiencies. Removal efficiency
will also vary with gas residence time, which is a function of catalyst bed depth. Increasing bed depth will increase removal efficiencies but will also cause an increase in pressure drop across the catalyst bed.
VOC removal efficiency will vary with the species of hydrocarbon. In general, unsaturated hydrocarbons such as ethylene are more reactive with oxidation catalysts than saturated species such as ethane. A typical VOC control efficiency using oxidation catalyst is
in the range of 30 to 50 percent.
Oxidation catalysts are susceptible to deactivation due to impurities present in the exhaust
gas stream. Arsenic, iron, sodium, phosphorous, and silica (typically present in fuel oil)
will all act as catalyst poisons causing a reduction in catalyst activity and pollutant removal efficiencies. Oxidation catalysts are also nonselective and will oxidize other compounds in addition to VOC. The nonselectivity of oxidation catalysts is important in as5-15
sessing applicability to exhaust streams containing sulfur compounds. Sulfur compounds

that have been oxidized to SO2 in the combustion process will be further oxidized by the
catalyst to sulfur trioxide (SO3). Higher SO3 concentrations increase the potential for
formation of ammonia salt particles and H2SO4 mist. These substances may condense and
stick to the ductwork and stack, resulting in corrosion and increased maintenance. Due to
the oxidation of sulfur compounds and excessive formation of H2SO4 mist emissions,
oxidation catalysts are not considered appropriate for combustion devices fired with fuels
containing appreciable amounts of sulfur. The exclusive use of low sulfur natural gas is
proposed for the CPV St. Charles project.
Both combustion process design and oxidation catalysts are considered technically feasible for the CPV St. Charles facilitys CT/HRSGs, despite the potential drawbacks cited.
However, the application of oxidation catalyst represents the top level of control and,
therefore, LAER for the CT/HRSGs.
5.1.4.3 Proposed VOC LAER Emissions Limits
CT/HRSGs
To determine the most stringent VOC emissions limit for the CT/HRSGs, EPAs RBLC
LAER determinations were obtained for the past 10 years and are summarized in Appendix G, Table G-5. As shown, the lowest numerical VOC emissions limit is 0.3 ppm for
Chouteau Power Plant. This specific facility has proposed Seimens V84.3A CTs, which
are not comparable to the GE 7FA.05 CT proposed for St. Charles. The Warren County
facility has proposed a VOC emissions limit of 0.7 ppmvd (without duct burner firing)
1.6 ppmvd (with duct burner firing). However, the Warren County facility has proposed
to use Mitsubishi M501 CTs, which are not comparable to the GE 7FA.05 CT proposed
for St. Charles.
The proposed LAER VOC emissions limits for the CT/HRSGs for the CPV St. Charles
facility are 1.0 ppmvd (without duct burner firing) and 2.0 ppmvd (with duct burner firing) at 15-percent oxygen. These proposed LAER VOC emissions limits are consistent
5-16
with the lowest emissions limits for a GE 7FA CT. Compliance will be demonstrated
through good combustion practices and oxidation catalyst.
Auxiliary Boiler
To determine the most stringent VOC emissions limit for the auxiliary boiler, EPAs
RBLC database was queried for commercial/institutional-size boilers/furnaces firing natural gas only. BACT and LAER determinations were obtained for the past 10 years and
are summarized in Appendix G, Table G-6. As shown, the lowest numerical LAER VOC
emissions rate is 0.002 lb/MMBtu for the proposed Dominion Cove Point Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant, as well as the previously proposed emissions rate for CPV
St. Charles. Therefore, the proposed LAER VOC emissions rate for the auxiliary boiler
for the CPV St. Charles facility is 0.002 lb/MMBtu per hour based on exclusive use of
natural gas, ultra low-NOx burners, and FGR.
Both the emergency generator and the firewater pump will meet the emissions limits of
40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII, NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion
Engines, effective September 11, 2006. Nonmethane hydrocarbons emissions are included in the combined NOx and NMHC emissions limits specified in Subsection 4.1.2.4.
Therefore, compliance with the NOx LAER emissions limits will be demonstrated by the
exclusive use of ULSD and limiting the hours of operation for routine maintenance testing to 100 hr/yr.
Fuel Gas Heater
input, which will fire natural gas exclusively. There are no combustion modifications or
add-on postcombustion processes typically applied to fuel gas heater of this capacity. The
proposed VOC LAER for the fuel gas heater is 0.005 lb/MMBtu based on the exclusive
5-17
use of natural gas and good combustion practices. This emissions limit is typical for natural gas-fired combustion sources rated less than 10 MMBtu/hr.
Table 5-2 provides a summary of the VOC LAER emissions limits. Table 5-3 presents a
summary of all LAER control technologies proposed for the CPV St. Charles project.
5.2
5.2.1
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(j)(2), an analysis of BACT is required for each pollutant that
will be emitted by the proposed project in amounts equal to or greater than the PSD significant emissions rate levels. The proposed CPV St. Charles project will potentially emit CO,
NOx, and PM/PM10 in amounts that exceed the PSD significant emissions rate levels. These
pollutants, therefore, are each subject to an assessment of BACT. In addition, the proposed
CPV St. Charles project will potentially emit GHG emissions (calculated as CO2e) in
amounts greater than 75,000 tpy, and, therefore, GHG emissions will be subject to an assessment of BACT.
Note that NOx emissions are also subject to NNSR requirements, including the installation
of LAER control technology. Because LAER emissions limitations for NOx are at least as
stringent as those determined as BACT, a BACT analysis for NOx is not necessary (i.e., the
LAER control technology analyses also serves as the BACT analyses for NOx). Thus, only
CO, PM/PM10, and GHG are reviewed in the BACT section.
5.2.2
METHODOLOGY
BACT analyses were performed in accordance with the EPA top-down method as previously described in Subsection 3.4.1. The first step in the top-down BACT procedure is the identification of available control technologies. Alternatives considered included process designs
and operating practices that reduce the formation of emissions, postprocess stack controls
that reduce emissions after they are formed, and combinations of these two control categories. Like the LAER analyses, sources of information used to identify control alternatives
include:
5-18
Table 5-2. Proposed VOC LAER Emissions Limits

Emissions Source
CT/HRSGs (per unit)
Without duct burner firing
With duct burner firing
Auxiliary boiler
Proposed VOC LAER Emissions Limits
1.0 ppmvd*
2.0 ppmvd*
2.7 lb/hr
6.5 lb/hr
0.002 lb/MMBtu
0.19 lb/hr
Compliance with NOx and NMHC LAER limit
Compliance with NOx and NMHC LAER limit
Fuel gas heater
0.005 lb/MMBtu
0.05 lb/hr
*Corrected to 15-percent oxygen.

Maximum emissions rates for CT/HRSGs (after control) based on 100-percent load,
59F, with evaporative cooling.
Sources: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
5-19
Table 5-3. Summary of LAER Control Technologies

Pollutant
Control Technology
A. CT/HRSGs
NOx
Dry low-NOx burners

SCR
VOC
Efficient combustion
Oxidation catalyst
B. Auxiliary Boiler
NOx
Ultra low-NOx burners

FGR
VOC
Exclusive use of natural gas
C. Emergency ICE
NOx
Efficient combustion, achieved with maintenance and tune-ups

Use of ULSD
VOC
Efficient combustion, achieved with maintenance and tune-ups
D. Fuel Gas Heater

NOx, VOC
Exclusive use of natural gas
Source: ECT, 2011.
5-20
EPAs RBLC database.
Vendor information.
ECTs experience for similar projects.
Following the identification of available control technologies, the next step in the analysis is to determine which technologies may be technically infeasible. Technical feasibility
was evaluated using the criteria contained in Chapter B of the draft EPA NSR Workshop
Manual (EPA, 1990). The third step in the top-down BACT process is the ranking of the
remaining technically feasible control technologies from high to low in order of control
effectiveness.
An assessment of energy, environmental, and economic impacts is then performed. The
economic analysis employed the procedures found in the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards Control Cost Manual (EPA, 1996). The fifth and final step is the selection
of a BACT emissions limitation or a design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, corresponding to the most stringent, technically feasible
control technology that was not eliminated based on adverse energy, environmental, or
economic grounds.
If the most stringent or top control technology is selected, an assessment of energy and
economic impacts is not required. In this case, a review of collateral environmental impacts is conducted to determine if selection of a less stringent alternative control technology is warranted. If there are no issues regarding collateral environmental impacts, the
top control technology is proposed as BACT, and the BACT analysis is concluded.
Control technology analyses using the five-step top-down BACT method are provided in
Subsections 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5 for combustion products (PM/PM10), products of incomplete combustion (CO), and GHG emissions, respectively.
5.2.3
BACT ANALYSIS FOR PM/PM10
PM/PM10 emissions from fuel burning equipment result when hydrocarbons are not completely combusted or when sulfur and nitrogen in the fuel are oxidized and postcombus5-21
tion aerosols are formed. Formation of sulfate aerosols is common when burning high
sulfur fuel oils and using ammonia injection to control NOx with SCR technology.
PM/PM10 emissions from natural gas combustion are typically much less than emissions
from fuel oil combustion, since natural gas contains less sulfur and nitrogen.
Mechanical draft cooling towers will also emit a small amount of PM/PM10 emissions. A
small portion of the recirculating cooling water is entrained in the air stream and discharged from the cooling tower as drift droplets because of direct contact between the
cooling water and ambient air. These water droplets contain the same concentration of
dissolved solids as found in the recirculating cooling water. Large size water droplets
(e.g., greater than 200 microns) constitute the majority of the drift released. These large
water droplets quickly settle out of the cooling tower exhaust stream and deposit near the
tower. The remaining smaller water droplets may evaporate prior to being deposited in
the area surrounding the cooling tower. These evaporated droplets represent potential
PM/PM10 emissions because of the fine particles formed by crystallization of the dissolved solids contained in the droplets.
PM/PM10 emissions will result from the oxidation of sulfur in the fuel combusted in the
internal combustion engines. The exclusive use of ULSD at the CPV St. Charles facility
will minimize PM/PM10 emissions.
Available technologies used for controlling PM/PM10 include the following:
Centrifugal collectors.
Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).
Fabric filters or baghouses.
Wet scrubbers.
Centrifugal (cyclone) separators are primarily used to recover material from an exhaust
stream before the stream is ducted to the principal control device since cyclones are effective in removing only large (greater than 10 microns) size particles. Particles generated from natural gas combustion are typically less than 1.0 micron in size.
5-22
ESPs remove particles from a gas stream through the use of electrical forces. Discharge
electrodes apply a negative charge to particles passing through a strong electrical field.
These charged particles then migrate to a collecting electrode having an opposite, or positive, charge. Collected particles are removed from the collecting electrodes by periodic
mechanical rapping of the electrodes. Collection efficiencies are typically 95 percent for
PM/PM10.
A fabric filter system consists of a number of filtering elements, bag cleaning system,
main shell structure, dust removal system, and fan. PM is filtered from the gas stream by
various mechanisms (inertial impaction, impingement, accumulated dust cake sieving,
etc.) as the gas passes through the fabric filter. Accumulated dust on the bags is periodically removed using mechanical or pneumatic means. In pulse jet pneumatic cleaning, a
sudden pulse of compressed air is injected into the top of the bag. This pulse creates a
traveling wave in the fabric that separates the cake from the surface of the fabric. The
cleaning normally proceeds by row, all bags in the row being cleaned simultaneously.
Typical air-to-cloth ratios range from 2 to 8 cubic feet per minute square foot (cfm-ft2).
Collection efficiencies are on the order of 99 percent for PM/PM10.
Wet scrubbers remove PM from gas streams principally by inertial impaction of the particulate onto a water droplet. Particles can be wetted by impingement, diffusion, or condensation mechanisms. To be wetted, PM must either make contact with a spray droplet
or impinge upon a wet surface. In a venturi scrubber, the gas stream is constricted in a
throat section. The large volume of gas passing through a small constriction gives a high
gas velocity and a high pressure drop across the system. As water is introduced into the
throat, the gas is forced to move at a higher velocity causing the water to shear into droplets. Particles in the gas stream then impact onto the water droplets produced. The entrained water droplets are subsequently removed from the gas stream by a cyclone separator. Venturi scrubber collection efficiency increases with increasing pressure drops for
a given particle size. Collection efficiency will also increase with increasing liquid-to-gas
ratios up to the point where flooding of the system occurs. Packed-bed and venturi scrubber collection efficiencies are typically 90 percent for PM/PM10.
5-23

While all of these pos-process technologies would be technically feasible for controlling
PM/PM10 emissions from CTs, none of the previously described control equipment has
been applied to natural gas-fired CTs, because exhaust gas PM concentrations are inherently low. CTs operate with a significant amount of excess air that generates large exhaust gas flow rates. The proposed CTs will be fired exclusively with natural gas. Combustion of natural gas will generate low PM emissions in comparison to other fuels due to
its inherently low ash and sulfur content. The low PM emissions coupled with a large volume of exhaust gas produces low exhaust stream PM concentrations. Postcombustion
PM control systems are not installed on CT exhausts.
The only feasible technology for controlling PM/PM10 from cooling towers is the use of
drift eliminators. Drift eliminators rely on inertial separation caused by airflow direction
changes to remove water droplets from the air stream leaving the tower. Drift eliminator
configurations include herringbone (blade-type), wave form, and cellular (honeycomb)
designs. Drift eliminator materials of construction include ceramics, fiber reinforced cement, metal, plastic, and wood fabricated into closely spaced slats, sheets, honeycomb
assemblies, or tiles.
Factors affecting cooling tower PM/PM10 emission rates include drift droplet loss rate
(expressed as a percent of recirculating cooling water flow rate), concentration of dissolved solids in the recirculating cooling water, and the recirculating cooling water flow
rate (i.e., size of the tower).
5.2.3.3 Proposed PM/PM10 BACT Emissions Limits
CT/HRSGs
PM/PM10 emissions from natural gas-fired CTs are dependent on several factors: (1) the
manufacturer and model of the CT, (2) the sulfur content of the natural gas, and (3) the
use of an SCR or oxidation catalyst. While an SCR and oxidation catalyst controls other
pollutants, their use and the introduction of ammonia can increase PM/PM10 emissions.
There are no postcombustion control systems that are technically feasible to control
5-24
PM/PM10 emissions from CTs. Therefore, it is difficult to make comparisons of numerical BACT emissions limits with respect to PM/PM10 emissions for several reasons.
First, some of the queried results represent emissions limits based on only the filterable
portion of total PM/PM10 emissions. The condensable portion, including sulfates generated during the combustion process, are not included and results in a lower lb/MMBtu
emissions limit.
Second, the emissions limits that do contain both the filterable and condensable portion
are based on widely varying natural gas sulfur contents. Sulfur in the fuel is converted to
sulfates during the combustion process, and these sulfates add to the condensable portion
of the total PM/PM10 emissions. Facilities that have higher, short-term natural gas sulfur
contents have higher PM/PM10 emissions solely based on the condensable portion.
CPV St. Charles has a proposed short-term natural gas sulfur content limit of
2.0 gr S/100 scf based on contractual limits of the pipeline-quality natural gas supply.
The calculated PM/PM10 emissions from CPV St. Charles are based on this short-term
natural gas sulfur content, filterable emissions provided by GE for the 7FA.05 CT, and
the use of SCR and oxidation catalyst.
The proposed BACT PM/PM10 emissions limit for the CT/HRSGs for the CPV
St. Charles facility is 0.012 lb/MMBtu with or without duct burner firing. The proposed
BACT limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu for PM/PM10 is based on this short-term sulfur content
and exclusive use of pipeline-quality natural gas. The proposed control system to achieve
this emissions limit is exclusive use of pipeline-quality natural gas.
EPAs RBLC database was queried for large combustion turbines firing natural gas only.
BACT and LAER determinations were obtained for the past 10 years and are summarized
in Appendix G, Table G-9.
5-25
Auxiliary Boiler
EPAs RBLC database was queried for commercial/institutional-size boilers/furnaces firing natural gas only. BACT and LAER determinations were obtained for the past
10 years and are summarized in Appendix G, Table G-10. The lowest PM emissions rate
is 0.001 lb/MMBtu for the proposed Dominion Cove Point LNG plant. This emissions
rate has not yet been demonstrated in practice and is not considered in this BACT analysis. The second lowest PM emissions rate is 0.0019 lb/MMBtu for Nucor Steel but is
based only the filterable potion only. The PM10 emissions rate associated with this Nucor
Steel facility is 0.0076 lb/MMBtu and is based on filterables and condensables.
The proposed BACT PM/PM10 emissions rate of 0.005 lb/MMBtu for the auxiliary boiler
for the CPV St. Charles facility is based on exclusive use of natural gas. While there are
several other auxiliary boilers with lower PM/PM10 emissions rates, these have not yet
been demonstrated in practice and are not considered in this BACT analysis.
Both the emergency generator and the firewater pump will meet the PM/PM10 emissions
limits of 40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII, NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines, effective September 11, 2006. The PM/PM10 emissions limit is
0.15 g/hp-hr for both the emergency generator and the firewater pump. Compliance with
this emissions limit will be demonstrated by the exclusive use of ULSD and limiting the
hours of operation for routine maintenance testing to 100 hr/yr.
Fuel Gas Heater
proposed PM/PM10 BACT for the fuel gas heater is 0.007 lb/MMBtu based on the exclu5-26
sive use of natural gas and good combustion practices. This emissions limit is typical for
natural gas-fired combustion sources rated less than 10 MMBtu/hr.
Table 5-4 provides a summary of the proposed PM/PM10 BACT emissions limits.
5.2.4
BACT ANALYSIS FOR CO
CO emissions result from the incomplete combustion of carbon and organic compounds.
The general factors affecting the formation of VOC described earlier in Subsection 5.1.3
also apply to CO emissions.
The two technologies available for controlling VOC previously described in Subsection 5.1.3.1 also apply to CO (i.e., combustion process design and oxidation catalyst).
With respect to oxidation catalyst control technology, lower temperatures (on the order of
500F) are needed to oxidize CO in comparison to VOC.
Both CT combustor/burner design and oxidation catalyst control systems are considered
technically feasible for the proposed CTs. The combustion design system would be technically feasible for the auxiliary boiler and ICEs.
There are no significant adverse energy or environmental impacts associated with the use of
good combustor designs and operating practices to minimize CO emissions. However, the
use of oxidation catalysts will, as previously noted, result in increased H2SO4 mist and salt
emissions if applied to combustion devices fired with fuels containing appreciable amounts
of sulfur. Increased H2SO4 mist emissions will occur, on a smaller scale, from the proposed CTs fired exclusively with natural gas.
The oxidation catalyst does not remove CO but simply accelerates the natural atmospheric
oxidation of CO to CO2. The application of oxidation catalyst technology to a gas turbine
will result in an increase in back pressure on the CT due to a pressure drop across the catalyst bed. The increased back pressure will, in turn, constrain turbine output power
5-27
Table 5-4. Proposed PM/PM10 BACT Emissions Limits

Emissions Source
Proposed PM/PM10 BACT Emissions Limits
CT/HRSGs (per unit)

Without duct burner firing
With duct burner firing
0.012 lb/MMBtu
0.012 lb/MMBtu
Auxiliary boiler
0.005 lb/MMBtu
0.15 g/hp-hr
0.15 g/hp-hr
Fuel gas heater
0.007 lb/MMBtu
Wet mechanical cooling tower
0.0005 percent drift loss
Sources: GE, 2011.

ECT, 2011.
5-28
thereby increasing the units heat rate. Because the use of oxidation catalyst represents
top control technology, it is not necessary to conduct detailed energy and economic impact analyses.
5.2.4.3 Proposed CO BACT Emissions Limits
CT/HRSGs
To determine the most stringent CO emissions limit for the CT/HRSGs, EPAs RBLC
LAER determinations were obtained for the past 10 years and are summarized in Appendix G, Table G-13. The lowest numerical CO emissions limit shown is 1.2 ppm for the
Warren County facility in Virginia. This facility not only has proposed Mitsubishi Model M501 GAC CTs but also has not commenced construction. Therefore, this facility and
the associated proposed emissions rates have not been demonstrated in practice and are
not used in this BACT analysis.
The proposed CO BACT emissions limit for the CT/HRSGs for the CPV St. Charles facility is 2.0 ppmvd, with or without duct burner firing at 15-percent oxygen. This proposed CO BACT emissions limit is consistent with the lowest emissions limits for a GE
7FA CT. Compliance will be demonstrated through good combustion practices and oxidation catalyst.
Auxiliary Boiler
EPAs RBLC database was queried for commercial/institutional-size boilers/furnaces firing natural gas only. BACT and LAER determinations were obtained for the past
10 years and are summarized in Appendix G, Table G-14. The lowest CO emissions rate
is 0.001 lb/MMBtu for the proposed Dominion Cove Point LNG plant. This emissions
rate has not yet been demonstrated in practice and is not considered in this BACT analysis. The second lowest PM emissions rate is 0.0019 lb/MMBtu for Nucor Steel but is
based only the filterable potion only. The PM10 emissions rate associated with this Nucor
Steel facility is 0.0076 lb/MMBtu and is based on filterables and condensibles.
5-29
The proposed CO BACT emissions rate of 0.02 lb/MMBtu for the auxiliary boiler for the
CPV St. Charles facility is based on exclusive use of natural gas. There are several other
slightly lower emissions rates, but these are other case-by-case determinations and do not
represent a BACT or LAER determination.
Both the emergency generator and the firewater pump will meet the CO emissions limits
of 40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII, NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, effective September 11, 2006. The CO emissions limit is 2.6 g/hp-hr for
both the emergency generator and the firewater pump. Compliance with this emissions
limit will be demonstrated by the exclusive use of ULSD and limiting the hours of operation for routine maintenance testing to 100 hr/yr.
Fuel Gas Heater
proposed CO BACT for the fuel gas heater is 0.08 lb/MMBtu based on the exclusive use
of natural gas and good combustion practices. This emissions limit is typical for natural
gas-fired combustion sources rated less than 10 MMBtu/hr.
A summary of the proposed CO BACT emissions limits is provided in Table 5-5.
5.2.5
BACT ANALYSIS FOR GHG
On June 3, 2010, EPA published a final rule (effective August 2, 2010) in the Federal
Register (75 FR 106) entitled Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, commonly referred to as the Tailoring Rule. For PSD/Title V
purposes, GHGs are a single air pollutant defined as the aggregate group of CO2, nitrous
5-30
Table 5-5. Proposed CO BACT Emissions Limits

Emissions Source
Proposed CO BACT Emissions Limits
CT/HRSGs (per unit)

With or without duct burner firing
2.0 ppmvd*
Auxiliary boiler
0.02 lb/MMBtu
2.6 g/hp-hr
2.6 g/hp-hr
Fuel gas heater
0.08 lb/MMBtu
*Corrected to 15-percent oxygen.

Sources: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
5-31
oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This final rule established specific applicability thresholds for GHG emissions for new major
sources and modifications to existing major sources under the PSD and Title V programs.
This was necessary since applying the previous PSD and Title V applicability thresholds
of 100 and 250 tpy to GHG emissions would have resulted in a large number of relatively
small sources becoming subject to these regulatory programs.
Effective January 2, 2011, a new source or modification, i.e., a new major stationary
source for an NSR pollutant other than GHG, whose GHG emissions exceed 75,000 tpy
CO2e is subject to PSD review including a BACT analysis for GHG emissions. (CO2e
emissions are defined as the sum of the mass emissions of each individual GHG adjusted
for its respective global warming potential using Table A-1 of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program [40 CFR 98, Subpart A]). Effective July 1, 2011, in addition to this major stationary source applicability criterion, any new stationary source that emits more
than 100,000 tpy CO2e or any existing source that has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy
CO2e or greater and commences a modification that results in an emissions increase of
75,000 tpy CO2e or greater is subject to PSD and Title V programs for GHG.
Since CPV St. Charles is a new major stationary source for an NSR pollutant other than
GHG and has CO2e emissions greater than 75,000 tpy, CPV St. Charles is subject to PSD
review including a BACT analysis.
In March 2011, EPA published an updated version of the guidance document entitled
PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases (EPA, 2011). This guidance
document, which was originally published in November 2010, provides, among other issues, guidance on performing BACT analyses for GHG emissions. EPAs guidance reaffirms that a BACT analysis for GHG emissions must be conducted using the same fivestep, top-down approach used for other NSR pollutants.
The following subsections provide the BACT analysis for GHG emissions required for
CPV St. Charles.
5-32
5.2.5.1 Step 1Identify Available Control Options

Step 1 of the top-down BACT analysis is the identification of available control technologies or techniques, including inherently lower-emitting processes/practices/designs, addon controls, and a combination of inherently lower-emitting processes/practices and addon controls, that have a practical application to the control of GHG emissions. These control technologies must include control technologies for the pollutant under evaluation,
GHG, regardless of the source category type. For example, control technologies must be
identified not only for those demonstrated on other combined-cycle CT facilities but also
for control technologies determined through technology transfer applied to source categories with similar exhaust stream characteristics.
Technologies that formed the basis of an applicable NSPS should also be considered in
the BACT analysis, since a BACT emissions limit cannot be less stringent than an applicable NSPS emissions limit. The CT/HRSGs are subject to the NSPS for stationary CTs,
40 CFR 60, Subpart KKKK.
It is important to note and must be emphasized that available control technologies should
not include inherently lower-emitting processes/practices/designs that would fundamentally redefine the nature of the proposed source. A BACT analysis should not consider
those control technologies that would change or redefine that applicants goal, objectives,
purpose, or basic design. A BACT analysis may consider control technologies that
change aspects of the proposed facility but do not redefine the nature of the proposed facility.
The available control technologies for GHG emissions for the 7FA.05 CT/HRSG at CPV
St. Charles are high thermal efficiency system design and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
High Thermal Efficiency System Design
Increased energy efficiency is a potential means of reducing GHG emissions and should
be considered as a potential control technology for GHG emissions. There are generally
two types of categories of energy efficiency improvement categories. The first category
5-33
consists of technologies, process improvements, or other means of increasing the energy

efficiency of the new source. Increased energy efficiency of the new source will result in
less quantity of fuel combusted per unit of output. In the case of a combined-cycle CT,
the unit of output would be kilowatt-hour or megawatt-hour of electrical output. In the
case of a process boiler, the unit of output would be pound per hour of steam generated. It
is EPAs opinion that the available technologies for this first category will not be significantly different than those technologies considered for other NSR pollutant BACT analyses.
The second category of energy efficiency improvements consists of technologies, process
improvement, or other means of improving the amount of energy that is generated or
used on the site. This second category does not look at the direct GHG emissions from
the new source (which was evaluated in the first category of energy efficiency options)
but looks at other facility processes or ancillary equipment that could reduce the amount
of energy consumed. Potential technologies included in this category may include increasing the efficiency of process equipment such as a heat exchanger, fans, pumps, etc.,
as well increasing the energy efficiency of ancillary equipment such as standalone emergency generators, firewater pumps, hot water heaters, lighting, etc. EPA does not recommend an individual evaluation of each and every energy efficiency option in this second
category due to the potentially large number of options. Rather, EPA recommends new
facilities evaluate their overall energy efficient technologies against a high-level performance facility in the industry to demonstrate that the facility will achieve comparable levels of energy efficiency.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
CCS consists of the separation and capture of CO2 from the flue gas, pressurization of the
captured CO2, transportation of the CO2 as a fluid via pipeline, and injection and longterm geologic storage.
5-34
The capture technologies applicable for fossil fuel combustion include the following:
Precombustion systems designed to separate CO2 and hydrogen in the highpressure syngas typically produced at integrated gasification combinedcycle power plants.
Postcombustion systems designed to separate CO2 from the flue gas produced by the combustion process.
Oxy-combustion systems that use high-purity oxygen rather than air in the
combustion process to produce a highly concentrated CO2 stream.
Precombustion systems are not technically feasible for CPV St. Charles, since they would
fundamentally redefine the nature of the proposed source. Both post- and oxy-combustion
systems would be considered technically feasible, and both are currently in development
as demonstration projects at coal-fired power plants using amine and ammonia capture
systems to remove the CO2 from the flue gas. These capture systems are associated with
high-energy penalties.
There are several technologies at various stages of development with the potential to separate and capture CO2. Some have been demonstrated at the pilot scale, while others are
at the bench-top or laboratory stage of development. Most of the existing applications,
and those in the planning stage, are designed to control CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. EPA considers municipal solid waste to be a
biomass fuel that can be cofired with fossil fuels to reduce the CO2 emissions from boilers (EPA, 2010). Several demonstration projects are being supported through the U.S.
Department of Energys Clean Coal Power Initiative, but these facilities will exclusively
burn coal (Interagency Task Force, 2010).
Carbon sequestration usually involves the injection of CO2 into deep geological formations of porous rock that are capped by one or more nonporous layers of rock. Injected at
high pressure, the CO2 exists as a liquid that flows through the porous rock to fill the voids. Saline formations, exhausted oil and gas fields, and unmineable coal seams are candidates for CO2 storage. Also, CO2 injected for enhanced oil recovery projects can result
in long-term sequestration depending on the geologic conditions. Other schemes include
5-35
liquid storage in the ocean, solid storage by reactions leading to the creation of carbonates, and terrestrial sequestration.
Clean Fuels
The CAA includes clean fuels in the definition of BACT; therefore, clean fuels should be
considered as a potential control technology for GHG emissions. Fuels that reduce GHG
emissions of a new source should be considered in a BACT analysis provided they do not
redefine the source. For example, a proposed new coal plant should not have to consider
switching fuels from coal to natural gas as that would redefine the source. However, different types of coal may be considered to evaluate the benefits of combusting various
types of coal in reducing GHG emissions.
5.2.5.2 Step 2Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
Step 2 of the top-down BACT analysis is the elimination of technically infeasible options. EPA considers a technology to be technically feasible if: (1) it has been demonstrated and operated successfully on the same type of source under review, or (2) it is
available and applicable to the source type under review. A control technology should
also be considered technically available or applicable if it has been demonstrated on an
exhaust stream with similar physical and chemical characteristics.
CCS is not considered technically feasible for a natural gas-fired combined cycle facility.
Carbon capture technology has not been demonstrated on a full-scale power generation
facility and is not currently commercially available. In addition, there has been no demonstration of carbon capture technology on a similar exhaust gas stream. There are no
known carbon sequestration geological storage sites commercially available in close
proximity to the St. Charles project site.
5.2.5.3 Step 3Ranking of Controls
Step 3 of the top-down BACT analysis is the ranking of technically feasible options. The
energy efficiency must look at the high thermal efficiency design of the CT as well as
various energy efficiency improvements throughout the facility. CPV Maryland has
elected to propose the higher thermal efficient GE 7FA.05 CT in lieu of the previously
5-36
proposed and permitted GE 7FA.04 CT. The GE 7FA.05 CT provides a lower heat rate,
expressed in units of Btu/kWh, and thus combusts less fuel per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of
electrical power output. Combusting less fuel produces less GHG emissions per kWh
electrical power output.
Combustion sources proposed for the St. Charles project will be newly manufactured
equipment. There will be no equipment that was previously used at another location.
Therefore, combustion equipment will meet the most current efficiency and emissions
standards for each type of combustion source.
5.2.5.4 Step 4Economic, Energy, and Environmental Impacts
Step 4 of the top-down BACT analysis is the consideration of economic, energy and environmental impacts. The CPV St. Charles facility will use the higher efficiency GE
7FA.05 CT and is committed to the exclusive combustion of pipeline-quality natural gas
in the CT/HRSGs, auxiliary boiler, and fuel gas heater and ULSD in the emergency ICEs.
Therefore, no further analysis of economic, energy or environmental impacts is necessary.
5.2.5.5 Step 5Selecting BACT
Step 5 of the top-down BACT analysis is the selection of BACT.
5.2.5.6 Proposed GHG BACT Emissions Limits
CT/HRSG
CPV St. Charles proposes a GHG BACT emissions limit of 3,217,553 short tons of CO2e
per year for two CT/HRSGs based on a rolling 12-month average. This GHG BACT
emissions limit is based on the GE 7FA.05 high efficiency CT and the exclusive use of
pipeline-quality natural gas. Compliance with this GHG BACT emissions limit will be
demonstrated by the total heat input, expressed in MMBtu/yr, for the two CT/HRSG
units. EPA-recommended emissions factors and global warming potentials will be used to
calculate GHG emissions as shown in Appendix C, Table C-16.
5-37
Auxiliary Boiler
CPV St. Charles proposes a GHG BACT emissions limit of 21,766 short tons of CO2e
per year for auxiliary boiler based on a rolling 12-month average. This GHG BACT
emissions limit is based on the GE exclusive use of pipeline-quality natural gas. Compliance with this GHG BACT emissions limit will be demonstrated by the annual heat
input, expressed in MMBtu/yr, for the auxiliary boiler. EPA-recommended emissions
factors and global warming potentials will be used to calculate GHG emissions as shown
in Appendix C, Table C-16.
CPV St. Charles proposes a GHG BACT emissions limit of 613 and 78 short tons of
CO2e per year for the emergency generator and the firewater pump, respectively, based
on a rolling 12-month average. This GHG BACT emissions limit is based on good combustion practices and the exclusive use of ULSD. Compliance with this GHG BACT
emissions limit will be demonstrated by the annual heat input, expressed in MMBtu/yr,
for each of these two emergency ICEs. EPA-recommended emissions factors and global
warming potentials will be used to calculate GHG emissions as shown in Appendix C,
Table C-16.
Fuel Gas Heater
CPV St. Charles proposes a GHG BACT emissions limit of 4,869 short tons of CO2e per
year for the fuel gas heater based on a rolling 12-month average. This GHG BACT emissions limit is based on the exclusive use of pipeline-quality natural gas. Compliance with
this GHG BACT emissions limit will be demonstrated by the annual heat input, expressed in MMBtu/yr, for the fuel gas heater. EPA-recommended emissions factors and
global warming potentials will be used to calculate GHG emissions as shown in Appendix C, Table C-16.
Table 5-6 provides a summary of BACT proposed for the CPV St. Charles project.
5-38
Table 5-6. Summary of BACT Control Technologies

Pollutant
Control Technology
A. CT/HRSGs
PM/PM10
Exclusive use of pipeline quality natural gas

CO
Add-on oxidation catalyst system
GHG
High efficiency GE 7FA.05

PM/PM10

CO
GHG
PM/PM10
Exclusive use of ULSD

100 hr/yr for routine maintenance testing
CO

100 hr/yr for routine maintenance testing
GHG
Exclusive use of natural gas and good combustion practices
Efficient drift eliminators
B. Auxiliary Boiler
C. Emergency ICE
D. Fuel Gas Heater

E. Wet Cooling Tower
PM/PM10
Source: ECT, 2011.
5-39
6.0
6.0
ALTERNATIVES AND BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
In accordance with COMAR 26.11.17.03(B)(6), a new or modified facility subject to

NNSR must conduct an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and
environmental control techniques that demonstrates that benefits of the proposed
source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of
its location, construction, or modification. The following sections provide the analyses
to satisfy this regulatory requirement.
6.1
SITE AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives analyses are presented in this section to highlight the efforts of CPV Maryland to minimize or mitigate environmental impacts during both the construction and operation phases of the CPV St. Charles facility. Indeed, the whole facility development
effort, from site selection to conceptual design, has addressed environmental protection at
every step. This section presents some of the alternatives considered by CPV Maryland.
6.1.1
ALTERNATIVE SITES
The process of selecting a site for the facility was driven by a number of factors, including access to infrastructure and land use compatibility. The proposed site was properly
zoned and has at least two major advantages: (1) immediate access to the electric transmission system via the existing PEPCO 230-kV transmission line abutting the site, and
(2) close proximity to required quantities of natural gas supply. With virtually any other
industrially zoned site, lengthy, new transmission lines and/or gas pipelines would have
to be constructed, with their associated environmental, social, and economic impacts. In
addition, the high-voltage transmission lines that abut the site already have impacted the
site, as well as the surrounding area.
Other factors considered by CPV Maryland in the site selection process were proximity
to water supplies and sewer infrastructure, community acceptance, and site environmental
suitability (e.g., adequate buildable acreage, minimal wetlands, buffer, etc.). The selected
facility site is compatible with each of these goals.
6-1
The proposed site layout has also been designed to minimize environmental impacts.
CPV Maryland has located the physical plant to avoid all wetland areas to the extent
possible.
6.1.2
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND DESIGNS
Alternative technologies and designs were considered by CPV Maryland for the facility
for both of the following categories and are discussed in the following:
Alternative generation technologies and alternative fuels.
Air emissions control system alternatives.
The process of selecting natural gas-fired combined-cycle technology using advanced CT

designs was a relatively straightforward one. Combined-cycle technology with natural
gas has the following significant advantages over the other technology/fuel options:
Higher efficiency of electrical generation (as represented by heat rate in

terms of British thermal units per kilowatt-hour [Btu/kWh]).
Lower cost to construct on a dollars per megawatt basis.
Shorter construction schedule.
Much lower environmental impacts with regard to air emissions.
Lower operation and maintenance costs.
Less acreage needed for plant footprint.
The facility will significantly minimize pollution over alternate power generating technologies in a number of ways that will result in lower environmental impacts than these
other power generation alternatives. The facility will be cleaner and more efficient than
the existing fossil fuel-fired electrical power generating plants in Maryland. Therefore, to
the extent that its generation displaces generation from other, older, dirtier plants, it will
provide pollution prevention benefits. The high efficiency of the facility will also prevent
pollution by requiring the combustion of less fuel per unit of electricity produced.
Specific systems within the facility have been conceived and designed to prevent pollution. Primary examples are:
6-2
The use of natural gas only as fuel for the CTs, which will result in:
Significantly less air emissions versus coal- or oil-fired power plants.
Significantly less solid and hazardous waste relative to other generation, especially coal-fired.
No potential for fuel oil spills from delivery, storage, and handling of
fuel for the CTs.
No dust emissions and other environmental disturbances (e.g., traffic,

noise) from delivery, storage, and handling of coal or fuel oil.
The selection of proposing the more efficient GE 7FA.05 CT in lieu of the

previously proposed GE 7FA.04. The GE 7FA.05 has a lower heat rate and
thus combusts less fuel for a given amount of output (megawatt-hours). This
results in less air emissions for the same output.
The selection of CTs that incorporate: (1) advanced dry low-NOx combustion technology to prevent emissions of NOx from forming combined with
(2) efficient combustion design that minimizes the formation of CO and
VOC at the same time.
The use of an SCR system to control the emissions of NOx for the CT and
the HRSG duct burners.
The use of an ultra low-NOx auxiliary boiler, which will employ both ultra
low-NOx burners and FGR to reduce NOx emissions.
The use of an oxidation catalyst to control the emissions of CO and VOC

from the CTs and the HRSG duct burners.
Pollution prevention measures employed and achieved by the facility will make it cleaner
and more efficient than any existing fossil fuel-fired power plant in Maryland. The facility will be an industrial asset to the community, it will have minimal environmental discharges, and it will have minimal impacts.
The advantages of higher efficiency, lower cost per megawatt from resulting lower capital and operation and maintenance costs, and lower environmental impacts, overwhelmingly support the selected combined-cycle/natural gas configuration.
6-3
The PSD and NNSR air permitting regulations require detailed consideration of alternative means of emissions control on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The purpose of this
control technology review process, described in Section 5.0, is to determine the best
means of control that are reasonably justifiable, or BACT, in the case of PSD, and LAER
in the case of NNSR. Section 5.0 provides a detailed discussion of the air emissions control system alternatives considered. In summary, the use of advanced technology and
clean fuel, SCR system, and oxidation catalyst will result in low air emissions.
6.2
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
Construction and operation of the CPV St. Charles facility will result in economic and
social effects. These effects will largely be beneficial. This subsection describes the socioeconomic benefits and costs.
6.2.1
PROJECT BENEFITS
The primary benefit to the region as a result of the facility will be provision of a new,
clean, and reliable energy source provided to the public. Other benefits will include construction and operation employment and related benefits, and tax revenues. Another likely benefit, arguably, will be an improvement in regional air quality. These project benefits
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The construction impacts on local employment opportunities will be beneficial although
relatively short-term. Construction employment, even though short-term, will be a positive socioeconomic benefit to the region. Additional, indirect employment in the local
area will occur primarily in retail and wholesale trade, business services, health services,
and eating and drinking establishments.
It can be anticipated that Charles County and area residents will receive a majority of the
construction wages. Another economic benefit from construction will be the use of local
subcontractors and vendors to provide labor and goods. Although included in the construction workforce estimates, use of these local subcontractors and vendors will contribute to the local economy.
6-4
The facility will employ employees who will most likely reside in the area. Since it is
presumed that the operations workforce will reside locally, they will pay taxes and purchase housing and other goods and services locally, providing further positive benefits to
the local economy.
In addition to the state and local property taxes, construction of the facility will also generate significant revenues through sales tax assessments on goods purchased directly for
the plant or indirectly from purchase of goods and services by workers/employees. Both
construction and permanent employees will generate income from revenues.
It is anticipated that the facility will have a net positive impact on air quality in southern
Maryland and the overall region. This benefit is expected because the facilitys generation will, under most conditions, displace that of older, less efficient facilities whose
emissions are significantly greater per unit of electrical output. Due to the facilitys greater energy efficiency and use of clean natural gas, its emissions per unit of electricity produced will be much less than those from existing facilities.
6.2.2
PROJECT SOCIOECONOMIC COSTS
The temporary external costs associated with the CPV St. Charles facility deal primarily
with short-term traffic impacts due to construction. Construction traffic will occur on Billingsley Road to the site. This may result in increased wear on the existing roadway and
cause minor traffic congestion along the road during morning or evening hours when
workers are arriving or departing. Minimal delays for start and stop time for the workers
commuting to their residences and due to occasional heavy equipment moving to and
from the site may also result. Other than these, no significant traffic problems are expected during the construction period.
The few nearby residences and other immediate neighbors to the site may experience
some additional impacts from the facilitys construction. These might include construction noise and visual impacts. Noise impacts, both during construction and operation, will
be within limits established by state law. Due to the relative isolation of the site and ade6-5
quacy of existing forested vegetation in the area to screen plant facilities, most onsite activities will not be visible to residences in the area.
Rental units and hotels in the area should be ample to provide for the workforce. It is not
anticipated that a significant number of these workers will permanently relocate to the
site area as a result of the facility. Therefore, construction of the proposed power plant
will not have a significant impact on housing availability in the area. It will, however,
increase use of rental units/hotels and will provide a positive economic benefit.
As with potential housing impacts, construction-related impacts to public services and
facilities such as police, fire, and medical services and water, wastewater, and solid waste
disposal (related to housing) are not expected to be significant. With minimal relocations
to the site area expected, existing facilities and services will be adequate to meet the demands on these services.
The operational impacts resulting from the facility are expected to be small and localized.
The following summarizes some of these minor potential impacts.
The facility location is not near any national or state parks or scenic viewsheds. Motorists
driving Billingsley Road will see the plants tallest structures (CT/HRSG exhaust stacks),
but the view will be short term and not incongruous with the existing high-voltage transmission structures and lines. Therefore, impacts to aesthetic quality of the vicinity are
minimal.
Operation of the proposed power plant will not negatively affect essential services or facilities. While it will rely on local police and fire protection, the plant site will be
equipped with its own fire protection systems, and the site will be secured with controlled, fenced access.
There will be an estimated 25 employees working at the plant during operation. This
number of employees will not materially affect provision of services, schools, or degrade
roadways. Local medical facilities are sufficient to handle staff medical emergencies.
6-6
The utility nature of the site (electrical transmission line structures and lines), its existing
industrial designation, and its location within an industrial development will mean this
facility should not cause a negative land use conversion in this area. No residents will be
displaced or caused an economic loss as a result of this facility being constructed. The
site will not displace any scenic, recreational, or ecologically sensitive lands. The streams
and their associated wetlands onsite are incorporated into a Resource Protection Zone
(RPZ) by Charles County. No land included within the RPZ will be cleared or developed
in any way.
The existing land uses in the area surrounding the facility site include undeveloped land,
a municipal landfill to the east, an industrial facility to the northeast, and high-voltage
electrical transmission lines to the west.
6-7
7.0
7.0
7.1
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
GENERAL APPROACH
As previously noted in Section 3.1, the CPV St. Charles facility site is located in an area
designated as attainment or unclassifiable for criteria pollutants except ozone and PM2.5.
All areas of Maryland are designated as PSD Class II areas. PSD Class I areas found in
neighboring states include Shenandoah National Park (NP) in Virginia, Brigantine National Wilderness Area (NWA) in New Jersey, and Dolly Sods and Otter Creek NWAs in
West Virginia. Accordingly, the site and vicinity are classified as a PSD Class II area.
This section focuses on the methodology used to determine project air quality impacts
with respect to the PSD Class II increments and NAAQS. The project air quality impacts
with respect to the PSD Class I areas are addressed in Section 10.0.
The approach to assessing air quality impacts for a new or modified emissions source
generally begins by determining the impacts of only the proposed facility. If facility impacts are below the PSD SILs, no further analysis is required. The PSD Class II SILs
were previously presented in Table 3-4. If the impacts of a proposed facility are found to
exceed a particular PSD SIL, further analysis considering other existing sources and
background pollutant concentrations is required for that pollutant and averaging time.
The approach used to analyze the potential impacts from the facility, as described in detail in the following subsections, was developed in accordance with accepted practice.
Guidance contained in EPA manuals and users guides was sought and followed. In addition, an air dispersion modeling protocol was submitted to Marylands PPRP, with copies
to the Environmental Resources Management (ERM) and MDE in July 2011 for review
and comment. The air quality impact analyses conducted for the facility incorporates the
comments and suggestions received from PPRP on the modeling protocol. Appendix D
contains the modeling protocol, which has been revised to reflect comments received
from PPRP.
7-1
The air quality impact analysis was performed for both the inline and back-to-back cooling tower configurations. Both configurations were analyzed, since one could potentially
result in higher impacts due to the different downwash characteristics.
7.2
POLLUTANTS EVALUATED
Based on an evaluation of anticipated worst-case annual operating scenarios, the facility

will have the potential to emit 145.8 tpy of NOx, 168.8 tpy of CO, 96.7 tpy of PM10,
15.0 tpy of SO2, 37.6 tpy of VOCs, and 6.5 tpy of H2SO4 mist. Table 3-2 previously provided estimated potential annual emissions rates for the facility. As shown in that table,
potential emissions of NOx, CO, PM, and PM10 are each projected to exceed the applicable PSD significant emissions rate (SER) threshold. Potential emissions from the facility
are below the applicable PSD SER levels for all other PSD-regulated pollutants. Accordingly, the facility is subject to the PSD NSR air quality impact analysis requirements for
NOx, CO, PM, and PM10. Although projected facility GHG emissions will exceed the
PSD applicability threshold, an air quality impact analysis is not required, as EPA has not
established an NAAQS for GHG.
7.3
For this air quality analyses, the current version of the refined American Meteorological
Society (AMS)/EPA regulatory model (AERMOD) modeling system (Version 11103
April 13, 2011), together with 5 years of hour-by-hour National Weather Service (NWS)
meteorology, was used to obtain predictions of both short-term periods (i.e., periods
equal to or less than 24 hours) and annual average air quality impacts. All 14 CT cases
were modeled for each pollutant/averaging period and each of the 5 years of meteorological data. In addition, the warm startup condition was modeled to assess the maximum
impacts for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
Regulatory agency-recommended procedures for conducting air quality impact assessments are contained in the EPAs GAQM. In the November 9, 2005, Federal Register,
EPA approved the use of AERMOD as a GAQM Appendix A preferred model effective
December 9, 2005. AERMOD is recommended for use in a wide range of regulatory applications, including both simple and complex terrain. The AERMOD modeling system
7-2
consists of meteorological and terrain preprocessing programs (AERMET and AERMAP,

respectively), and the AERMOD dispersion model.
7.4
MODEL OPTIONS
Procedures applicable to the AERMOD modeling system specified in the latest version of
the Users Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory ModelAERMOD (September 2004)
and EPAs November 9, 2005, revisions to the GAQM were followed. Also guidance
from the EPA AERMOD Implementation Guide (September 27, 2005 and October 19,
2007) was applied. In particular, the AERMOD control pathway MODELOPT keyword
parameters DFAULT and CONC were selected. Selection of the parameter DFAULT,
which specifies use of the regulatory default options, is recommended by the GAQM.
The CONC option specifies the calculation of concentrations. The facility will be located
in an area of Charles County that is mostly rural with some commercial and industrial
use. Accordingly, AERMOD options regarding pertinence to urban areas including increased surface heating (URBANOPT keyword) and pollutant exponential decay (HALFLIFE and DCAYCOEF keywords) were not employed. In addition, the option to use
flagpole receptors (FLAGPOLE keyword) was not selected.
As previously mentioned, the AERMOD modeling system was used to determine annual
average impact predictions, in addition to short-term averages, by using the PERIOD parameter for the AVERTIME keyword.
7.5
NO2 AMBIENT IMPACT ANALYSIS
For NO2 impacts, the tiered screening approach described in the GAQM, Section 6.2.3,
was used. Tier 1 of this screening procedure assumes complete conversion of NOx to
NO2. Tier 2 applies an empirically derived NO2/NOx ratio of 0.8 to the Tier 1 results.
Emissions of NOx from combustion sources consist of nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. At
stack exit conditions, the primary species is NO, which typically comprises 90 percent or
more of total NOx.
7-3
AERMOD includes three options for estimating NO2 impacts:
Tier 1Assumes complete (i.e., 100 percent) conversion of NO to NO2.
Tier 2Ambient ratio method (ARM), which represents the average ambient NO2/NOx ratio. Current EPA guidance recommends using a ratio of
0.80.
Tier 3Consists of the ozone limiting method (OLM) and plume volume
molar ratio method (PVMRM).
The Tier 1 option is an AERMOD regulatory default option that may be used without additional regulatory agency approval. In accordance with EPAs March 1, 2011 guidance,
Tier 2 will be accepted for regulatory modeling applications if the EPA-recommended
average ambient NO2/NOx ratio of 0.80 is used. The annual and 1-hour NO2 NAAQS was
assessed using Tier 2.
In selecting an appropriate NO2 background monitoring site, finding a site with similar
land use was considered more important than proximity, especially since no NO2 monitors are located in Charles County, where the CPV St. Charles site is located. Also, since
the known stationary sources were included in the modeling, area and mobile sources associated with population density and traffic are most important in selecting an appropriate
site. Two of the available NO2 monitoring sites in Maryland were rejected because they
were considered too urban, since they were located in Baltimore, or the Baltimore metropolitan area. Another site in Garrett County 130 miles away was considered too rural and
too distant. The site in Beltsville, Maryland, measures reactive nitrogen, and cannot be
used since reactive nitrogen is not equivalent to NO2. Therefore the nearest appropriate
NO2 monitors for developing 1-hour background for the CPV modeling demonstration
are located in Virginia. The nearest representative site (ID 51-153-009) is located approximately 44 miles west-northwest in the James S. Long Park in Prince William County,
Virginia. Although more populated, this site appears to have similar land use (i.e., an approximately even mix of rural and residential) to the CPV St. Charles site. According to
the 2010 Census data, Charles County has a population density of 319.9 persons per
square mile, and Prince William County has a population density of 1,190.1 persons per
square mile. This site should have conservatively high values since it is located in an area
7-4
of greater population density than CPV St. Charles, and it is influenced by stationary
sources that are not included in the modeling. The 98th percentile of the daily maximum
1-hour NO2 concentrations obtained from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality are shown as follows:
34 ppb in 2008.
26 ppb in 2009.
30 ppb in 2010.
The design value of 30 ppb (56.4 micrograms per cubic meter [g/m3]) was used as the
NO2 background value for the 1-hour NO2 modeling demonstration.
7.6
TERRAIN CONSIDERATION
The GAQM defines flat terrain as terrain equal to the elevation of the stack base, simple
terrain as terrain lower than the height of the stack top, and complex terrain as terrain exceeding the height of the stack being modeled.
The site elevation for the project site is approximately 182 feet above mean sea level
(ft-msl). The facility CT/HRSG stacks will each have a height of 150 feet above ground
level (ft-agl) and the wet cooling towers will have a stack height of 48.5 and 53.8 ft-agl
for the inline and back-to-back configuration, respectively. Accordingly, terrain elevations above approximately 332 ft-msl (for the CT/HRSG units) and 231 to 236 ft-msl for
the cooling towers would be classified as complex terrain. USGS 7.5-minute series topographic maps and the digital National Elevation Dataset (NED) were examined for terrain
features within the project impact area. The topography in the vicinity of the facility site
is mostly flat with elevations decreasing near the various creeks, streams, and swamps
leading to the Potomac and Patuxent rivers. The maximum elevation within 25 km of the
project site is 265 ft-msl. Based on this examination, terrain in the vicinity of the site is
classified as simple terrain for the CT/HRSG stacks and complex terrain for the cooling
tower stacks. AERMOD contains algorithms that account for complex terrain.
In accordance with the GAQM recommendations for AERMOD, each modeled receptor
was assigned a terrain elevation based on NED data and the AERMAP (Version 09040
7-5
February 9, 2009) terrain preprocessing program. AERMAP was used in accordance with
the latest version of the Users Guide for the AERMOD Terrain Preprocessor (AERMAP), addenda to the Users Guide, and EPAs GAQM.
7.7
BUILDING WAKE EFFECTS
The CAA Amendments require the degree of emissions limitation required for control of
any pollutant not be affected by a stack height that exceeds good engineering practice
(GEP) or any other dispersion technique. On July 8, 1985, EPA promulgated final stack
height regulations (40 CFR 51). GEP stack heights for the facility emissions sources will
comply with EPA promulgated final stack height regulations (40 CFR 51). GEP stack
height is defined as the highest of 65 meters, or a height established by applying the formula:
Hg = H + 1.5 L
where: Hg = GEP stack height.
H = height of the structure or nearby structure.
L = lesser dimension (height or projected width) of the nearby structure.
Nearby is defined as a distance up to five times the lesser of the height or width dimension of a structure or terrain feature, but not greater than 800 meters. While GEP stack
height regulations require that stack height used in modeling for determining compliance
with NAAQS and PSD increments not exceed the GEP stack height, the actual stack
height may be greater. Guidelines for determining GEP stack height have been issued by
EPA (1985).
Heights proposed for the CT/HRSG stacks (150 ft-agl) are less than the GEP stack height
calculated by Building Profile Input Program (BPIP)Plume Rise Model Enhancements
(PRIME) as well as the default GEP height of 213 ft (65 meters). Since the stack heights
for the facility emissions sources will comply with the EPA promulgated final stack
height regulations, the proposed facility stack heights were used in the modeling analyses.
7-6
While the GEP stack height rules address the maximum stack height that can be employed in a dispersion model analysis, stacks having heights lower than GEP stack height
can potentially result in higher downwind concentrations due to building downwash effects. AERMOD evaluates the effects of building downwash based on the PRIME building downwash algorithms. For the ambient impact analysis, the complex downwash analysis implemented by AERMOD was performed using the current version of EPAs BPIP
for PRIME (BPIPPRMVersion 04274 [September 30, 2004]). The EPA BPIP program
was used to determine the area of influence for each building, whether a particular stack
is subject to building downwash, the area of influence for directionally dependent building downwash, and finally to generate the specific building dimension data required by
the model. BPIP output consists of an array of 36 direction-specific (10 degrees [] to
360) building heights (BUILDHGT keyword), lengths (BUILDLEN keyword), widths
(BUILDWID keyword), and along-flow (XBADJ keyword) and across-flow (YBADJ
keyword) distances for each stack suitable for use as input to AERMOD.
The downwash analysis was performed for both the inline and back-to-back cooling
tower configurations, since the physical size of the structures is different for each configuration. Both downwash analyses include the cooling towers, as well as associated water
storage tanks.
Table 7-1 provides dimensions of the buildings/structures evaluated for wake effects. The
building/structure dimensions were determined from engineering layouts and specifications. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show the buildings/structures in three-dimension for the inline
cooling tower configuration and the back-to-back cooling tower configuration, respectively.
7.8
RECEPTOR GRIDS
Receptors were placed at locations considered to be ambient air, which is defined as that
portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access.
The entire perimeter of the facility site is fenced. Therefore, the nearest locations of general public access are at the facility fence lines. Consistent with GAQM and ERM recommendations, the ambient impact analysis used the following receptor grids:
7-7
Table 7-1. Building/Structure Dimensions Used in Downwash Analysis
Height
Building/Structure
7-8
Common Equipment
CT
Air inlet filter house
HRSG
Auxiliary boiler
Steam turbine generator
Raw/fire water storage tank
Demineralized water tank
Emergency diesel generator
Fire pumps
Administration building
Magnesium chloride tank
Sodium hydroxide tank
Sodium carbonate silo
Cooling tower softening
Circulating water pumps
Water treatment facilities
Reclaimed water tank
Inline
Back-to-back
Length
ft
meters
Modeling ID
ft
meters
CT_1,2
IN_FLTR1,2
HRSG_1,2
AUX_BLER
STM_TRBN
WTR_TNK
DMIN_TNK
EMRG_GEN
FIRE_PMP
ADM_BLDG
MgCl2
NaOH
Na2CO3
CLG_SOFT
WTR_PMP
WTR_TRT
REC_WTR
47.0
68.0
83.6
15.0
55.4
24.0
24.0
10.0
10.0
34.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
20.0
32.8
34.0
45.0
14.3
20.7
25.5
4.6
16.9
7.3
7.3
3.0
3.0
10.4
9.1
9.1
9.1
6.1
10.0
10.4
13.7
25.3
44.3
51.2
40.0
90.2
59.1*
50.0*
23.6
29.9
229.7
12.1*
12.1*
12.1*
40.2*
43.4
174.8
150.0*
CLG_TWR
CLG_TWR
48.5
53.8
14.8
16.4
560.7
286.0
Width
ft
meters
7.7
13.5
15.6
12.2
27.5
18.0*
15.2*
7.2
9.1
70.0
3.7*
3.7*
3.7*
12.3*
13.2
53.3
45.7*
59.4
21.7
139.4
59.7
32.9
46.9
53.1
60.0
39.1
149.6
18.1
6.6
42.5
18.2
10.0
14.3
16.2
18.3
11.91
45.6
170.9
87.2
60.7
126.0
18.5
38.4
*Dimension represents structure diameter.

Sources: CPV, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\7-TBLS.XLSX\18/23/2011
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\7-FGS.XLSX\18/18/2011
FIGURE 7
7-1.
1
THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEW OF MAJOR BUILDINGS/
STRUCTURESINLINE COOLING TOWER CONFIGURATION
Source: ECT, 2011.
7-
FIGURE 7
7-2.
2
THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEW OF MAJOR BUILDINGS/STRUCTURESBACK-TO-BACK COOLING TOWER CONFIGURATION
Source: ECT, 20.
7-10
Fence Line ReceptorsReceptors placed on the site fence line spaced

25 meters apart.
Near-Field Cartesian ReceptorsReceptors at 100-meter spacing starting at

100 meters from the fence line receptors and extending to 2 km.
Mid-Field Cartesian ReceptorsReceptors at 500-meter spacing extending

to 5 km.
Far-Field Cartesian ReceptorsReceptors at 1,000-meter spacing starting

extending to 25 km.
The receptor grid was centered on CT/HRSG 1A exhaust stack. If necessary, the receptor
grids were refined to ensure that the highest ambient impacts for each pollutant and averaging period have been identified using a receptor spacing of no more than 100 meters.
Figure 7-3 provides a graphical representation of the fence line receptors. Figure 7-4 provides a graphical representation of the near- and mid-field receptor grids. Figure 7-5 provides a graphical representation of the far-field receptor grid.
7.9
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The AERMET meteorological preprocessing program creates two files that are used by
AERMOD (i.e., surface and profile files). The surface file contains boundary layer parameters including friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, convective velocity scale,
temperature scale, convectively generated boundary layer (CBL) height, stable boundary
layer (SBL) height, and surface heat flux. The profile file contains multi-level data of
windspeed, wind direction, and temperature.
AERMET calculates the hourly boundary layer parameters for use by AERMOD, including friction velocity, Monin-Obukhov length, convective velocity scale, temperature
scale, CBL and SBL heights, and surface heat flux. In addition, AERMET passes all observed meteorological parameters to AERMOD including wind direction and speed (at
multiple heights, if available), temperature, and if available, measured turbulence. AERMOD uses this information to calculate concentrations in a manner that accounts for a
dispersion rate that is a continuous function of meteorology.
7-11
7-12
FIGURE 7-3.
FENCELINE RECEPTORS
Source: ECT, 2007.
7-13
FIGURE 7-4.
NEAR- AND MID-FIELD RECEPTORS
Source: ECT, 2007.
7-14
FIGURE 7-5.
FAR-FIELD RECEPTORS
Source: ECT, 2007.
Review of the nearest meteorological surface stations with readily available meteorological data required for AERMET identified three potential stations: Reagan National Airport (DCA), WBAN No. 13743; Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI),
WBAN No. 93721; and Dulles International Airport (IAD), WBAN No. 93738. DCA,
BWI, and IAD are located approximately 20 miles to the north-northwest, 45 miles to the
north-northeast, and 40 miles to the northwest of the facility site, respectively. Based on
guidance from ERM and results from the meteorological selection assessment, 5 years
(1991 to 1995) of IAD surface and Sterling, Virginia (WBAN No. 93734), upper air were
used for the air quality impact analysis. All meteorological data was provided by ERM.
The following paragraphs summarize the meteorological and surface characteristic parameters reviewed by ERM, PPRP, and Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
(ECT), throughout the meteorological selection process.
In the first part of the selection analysis, wind patterns were analyzed at DCA, BWI, and
IAD. Figures 7-6 through 7-8 represent wind data from each of the three meteorological
stations for the years 1991 through 1995. ERM provided the wind data from these three
stations. ECT performed quality assurance checks on the data and found the data to be
greater than 99.9 percent complete for all years. The data was also found to be within acceptable ranges for each parameter required for the modeling. The meteorological data
was processed using Version 06341 of AERMET. Although a later version of the program is available (Version 11059), the modifications made to the program would not affect the processing of the data, and MDE approved use of the meteorological data as originally processed.
In reviewing the wind roses, there are similarities found between wind data from DCA
and IAD. These airports share dominant winds from the south, north, and northeast with
similar wind speeds. The wind patterns shown for BWI differ significantly from those for
DCA and IAD and favor a more westerly direction. Because of the proximity of DCA to
the facility site and the influence of the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers on the meteorology
surrounding both DCA and the site, it can be assumed that the unobstructed winds at the
site will be similar to those experienced at DCA. Since local winds are obstructed by land
7-15
NORTH
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
WEST
EAST
SOUTH
Calms: 2.3%
FIGURE 7-6.
76
5-YEAR WIND ROSE FOR REAGAN NATIONAL
AIRPORT (1991 TO 1995)
Sources: NCDC, 1997. ECT, 2007.
7-16
NORTH
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
WEST
EAST
SOUTH
Calms: 4.3%
FIGURE 7-7.
77
5-YEAR WIND ROSE FOR BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (1991 TO 1995)
7-17
NORTH
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
WEST
EAST
SOUTH
Calms: 10.7%
FIGURE 7-8.
78
5-YEAR WIND ROSE FOR DULLES INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT (1991 TO 1995)
7-18
use, the surface characteristics surrounding the facility site and potential representative
meteorological sites must be assessed. Given that DCA and IAD are more likely to provide representative data based on their respective wind roses, only those stations will be
compared to the site in the surface characteristic analysis.
To further determine the impact of land use on local meteorology, an analysis of the surface characteristics at and surrounding the facility site, DCA, and IAD was performed.
Surface characteristics in the vicinity of a site are important in determining the boundary
layer parameter estimates calculated by AERMET. Obstacles to the wind flow, amount of
moisture at the surface, and reflectivity of the surface all affect the boundary layer parameter estimates. The AERMET keywords FREQ_SECT, SECTOR, and SITE_CHAR are
used to define the surface albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length (zo).
Albedo is the fraction of total incident solar radiation reflected by the surface back to
space without absorption. The daytime Bowen ratio is an indicator of surface moisture
and is used for determining planetary boundary layer parameters for convective conditions. The surface roughness length is related to the height of obstacles to the wind flow
and represents the height at which the mean horizontal windspeed is zero. Of these three
parameters, surface roughness length is the most sensitive and therefore highlighted in
this surface characteristic analysis.
To perform the surface characteristic analysis, guidance contained in Tables 4-1 through
4-3 of the AERMET Users Guide (EPA, 2004) was used to define the seasonal values of
surface albedo, daytime Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length. To more appropriately label the land use found around the applicable sites, these tables were expanded upon
to include more land use types using guidance from Roger Brode of EPA. Land use and
aerial maps showing a 3-km area surrounding the sites were used to classify land use categories for 12 sectors around the sites with each sector being equivalent to 30. Appendix E presents details of the land use categories and surface characteristic parameters.
Table 7-2 provides a summary of the seasonal surface characteristics for IAD that were
processed by AERMET.
7-19
Table 7-2. Summary of AERMET Surface Characteristics for Dulles International Airport
Beginning End
Angle
Angle
()
()
Sector
Spring
Albedo
Summer Autumn Winter
Daytime Bowen Ratio*

Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Surface Roughness (meters)

Spring Summer Autumn Winter
7-20
30
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.41
0.84
1.50
1.59
1.50
0.36
0.38
0.35
0.33
30
60
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.50
0.84
1.46
1.63
1.58
0.29
0.34
0.26
0.23
60
90
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.45
0.77
1.21
1.43
1.50
0.57
0.61
0.54
0.51
90
120
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.49
0.69
1.13
1.32
1.50
0.34
0.41
0.32
0.29
120
150
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.46
0.79
1.30
1.49
1.50
0.44
0.47
0.42
0.39
150
180
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.47
0.78
1.28
1.46
1.50
0.36
0.38
0.34
0.32
180
210
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.43
0.84
1.29
1.49
1.50
0.57
0.59
0.55
0.54
210
240
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.47
0.69
0.99
1.24
1.50
0.49
0.52
0.46
0.44
240
270
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.51
0.61
0.78
1.12
1.50
0.48
0.58
0.41
0.34
10
270
300
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.52
0.59
0.71
1.06
1.50
0.46
0.60
0.40
0.30
11
300
330
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.50
0.61
0.81
1.09
1.50
0.46
0.54
0.44
0.40
12
330
360
0.24
0.23
0.24
0.45
0.88
1.65
1.73
1.50
0.32
0.33
0.31
0.31
Note: Albedo is the fraction of total incident solar radiation reflected by the surface back to space without absorption.
The daytime Bowen ratio, an indicator of surface moisture, is the ration of sensible heat flux to latent heat flux.
Surface roughness length is related to the height of obstacles to the wind flow and is, in principle, the height at which the mean
horizontal wind speed is zero based on a logarithmic profile.
*For average moisture conditions.
Source: ECT, 2007.
In general, land use surrounding the facility site is mostly rural with some industrial and
commercial use. IAD has open land use similar to that at the facility site, with the airport
being the dominant land use. In contrast, DCA is surrounded by more of a high residential/urban land use. The rural land use surrounding IAD would provide surface temperatures and temperature effects more comparable to the facility site than DCA. Therefore, it
was concluded that IAD would provide more accurate meteorological data for modeling
purposes. ERM evaluated the wind rose and surface characteristic data and determined
the IAD meteorological data would be most representative of the facility site. The combination of the surface data from IAD and upper air data from Sterling provides representative estimates for both the local and regional meteorology in the vicinity of the site.
7.10
MODELED EMISSIONS INVENTORY
7.10.1 ON-PROPERTY SOURCES

Emissions sources in the air quality impact analysis include the two CT/HRSG units, auxiliary boiler, wet mechanical draft cooling tower (the inline and back-to-back cooling
tower options were modeled separately), and fuel gas heater (on- and offsite options
modeled concurrently).
There are 14 different CT/HRSG operating scenarios considered in the air quality impact
analysis. Table 2-1 provided the modeled CT/HRSG emissions rates. Table 2-2 presented
the CT/HRSG stack parameters for each operating scenario. The modeled emissions rates
and stack parameters for the auxiliary boiler were provided in Table 2-4. Table 2-5 contained the modeled emissions rates and stack parameters for the fuel heater. Table 2-6
contained the stack parameters and emissions rates for both cooling tower configurations.
Modeling of the facility sources was performed using the appropriate emissions rates and
stack parameters for each individual pollutant and averaging time. The emissions rates
previously presented in Table 2-1 show the maximum short-term rates for the CT/HRSG
operating scenarios. The annual averaging period impacts for CO and PM10 were assessed using the maximum short-term emissions rates for the auxiliary boiler but were
annualized for assessing the NO2 annual analysis by assuming a maximum operation of
4,000 hr/yr.
7-21
In their March 2011 guidance memorandum for 1-hour NO2 air quality compliance demonstrations, EPA indicated emissions sources that operate intermittently do not need to be
included in the modeled emissions inventory. Accordingly, the emergency firewater
pump and emergency generator diesel engines were excluded from the modeling. Similarly, startup/shutdown emissions are also addressed in the memorandum and can be
omitted if they can be considered an intermittent source. Although CPV St. Charles will
startup and shutdown on most days, the number of cold startups will be much less frequent than warm or hot startups, i.e., the cold startup mode is not considered continuous
enough or to occur frequently enough to contribute significantly to the annual distribution
of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations. In fact, the time that the CTs are in cold startup
mode is expected to be less than 1 percent per year. Therefore, in addition to the emergency equipment, the emissions associated with cold startups were omitted from the
1-hour NO2 modeling analysis. Because it is possible for this facility to startup every day,
emissions associated with a warm startup were considered in the 1-hour NO2 modeling
analysis.
7.10.2 OFF-PROPERTY SOURCES
The maximum facility air quality impacts were below the PSD SILs for PSD pollutants
and averaging times except the NO2 1-hour averaging period. Therefore, to demonstrate
compliance with the NO2 1-hour NAAQS, a cumulative assessment was performed. In
accordance with recent EPA guidance on modeling for the new 1-hour NO2 and SO2
NAAQS, an inventory was compiled of stationary sources located within10 km of the
project site. In addition, the following power facilities located beyond 10 km of the CPV
facility were also included:
Panda Brandywine located approximately 11 km north.
Mirrant Chalk Point, LLC, located approximately 18 km east.
Mirant Mid-Atlantic Morgantown located approximately 24 km south.
Table 7-3 shows the potential hourly emissions and stack parameters for each offsite
source, and Figure 7-9 shows the location of the offsite facilities in relation to the CPV
St. Charles Project.
7-22
Table 7-3. Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Offsite Nox Sources
Facility
Aggregate Industries*
Model ID
NOx Emission Rate

lb/hr
g/s
Stack Height
ft
meter
Exhaust Temperature
F
K
Exhaust Velocity
ft/sec
m/sec
Stack Diameter
ft
meter
Agg-Ind_1
22.00
2.77
43.01
13.11
250.00
394.26
25.00
7.62
2.49
0.76
CAA_1
27.50
3.47
29.99
9.14
219.99
377.59
14.99
4.57
3.84
1.17
Panda Brandywine
Panda_1-2
512.00
64.51
164.99
50.29
219.00
377.04
62.99
19.20
14.99
4.57
College Of Southern Maryland
CSM_5-6
CSM_7
CSM_8-9
2.86
1.43
2.86
0.36
0.18
0.36
12.01
20.01
35.01
3.66
6.10
10.67
399.99
350.01
350.01
477.59
449.82
449.82
4.99
10.01
10.01
1.52
3.05
3.05
1.51
1.35
0.82
0.46
0.41
0.25
Charles County Detention Center
CCDC_
7.15
0.90
14.99
4.57
500.00
533.15
10.01
3.05
0.82
0.25
Milton M. Somers Middle School
SMS_3-4
2.86
0.36
24.02
7.32
350.01
449.82
10.01
3.05
0.98
0.30
Washington Gas - Gardiner Road Gate Station
WG_1-2
3.34
0.42
25.00
7.62
700.00
644.26
6.00
1.83
2.00
0.61
Thomas Stone High School**
TSHS_1-2
34.20
4.31
64.99
19.81
300.00
422.04
10.01
3.05
1.67
0.51
North Point High School
NPHS_1-2
2.86
0.36
21.00
6.40
350.01
449.82
10.01
3.05
1.51
0.46
TGDMS_1
TGDMS_2-3
TGDMS
23
1.43
22.86
86
0.18
00.36
36
25.00
14.99
14
99
7.62
44.57
57
350.01
350.01
350
01
449.82
449.82
449
82
10.01
10.01
10
01
3.05
33.05
05
0.66
11.67
67
0.20
00.51
51
Mirant Chalk Point, LLC
Chalk_12
Chalk_3
Chalk_4
1566.00
801.55
850.34
197.32
101.00
107.14
400.00
712.01
712.01
121.92
217.02
217.02
128.03
253.00
253.00
326.50
395.93
395.93
54.99
62.99
62.99
16.76
19.20
19.20
29.89
25.00
25.00
9.11
7.62
7.62
Mirant Mid-Atlantic - Morgantown
Morgan_1
Morgan_2
478.53
441.31
60.29
55.61
400.00
400.00
121.92
121.92
128.03
128.03
326.50
326.50
54.99
54.99
16.76
16.76
26.94
26.94
8.21
8.21
Charles County Asphalt*
7-23
Theodore G. Davis Middle School
*Asphalt plant with 400 tons per hour drum dryer fired with oil or natural gas.
Combination of two identical units each emitting 256 lb/hr.
Emissions based on assumed 10 mmBtu/hr distillate oil-fired boiler(s) each emitting at a potential rate of 1.43 lb/hr.
Emissions based on assumed 10 mmBtu/hr gas-fired boiler(s) each emitting at a potential rate of 1.67 lb/hr.
**Emissions based on assumed oil-fired boiler greater than 100 mmBtu/hr each emitting 17.1 lb/hr.
Chalk_12 are two boilers sharing a common stack. Unit 1 emits at 582.55 lb/hr, and Unit 2 emits at 983.45 lb/hr.
Units 1 and 2 have separate flues within a common shell.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\7-TBLS.XLSX8/23/2011
Path: M:\acad\110122\NOxLocations.mxd
LEGEND
3
Miles
3
!
(
(
!
14
14
!
(
(
!
1!
(3
(
!
6
!
(
(
!
1!
(2
!
(
!
(
Pr
in
ce
Ge
Ch
or
ge
ar
's
les
Co
Co
un
un
ty
ty
Site Boundary
Off Site NOx Source
County Boundary
1!
(1
!
(
1!
(5
!
(
2
!
(
(
!
8
1!
!
(
(
!
!
(
(
7
!
(
!
(
8
4
!
(
(
!
St
Ch
ar
le
s
. M
Co
ar
un
y'
ty
s
Co
un
ty
9 (
1!
!
(
(0
!
(
!
CPV ST. CHARLES

PROJECT SITE
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5
!
(
!
(
FIGURE 7-9.
LOCATION OF OFFSITE NOx SOURCES
7-24
Name
Aggregate Industries
Charles County Asphalt
Panda Brandywine
Lowe's Companies, Inc. #402
Charles County Municipal Landfill
Washington Gas - Gardner Road Gate Station
Thomas Stone High School
Fuel Gas Heater -offsite location
8.0
8.0
8.1
RESULTS OF AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSES
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS
The AERMOD dispersion model was used to assess the impacts for each of the
14 CT/HRSG operating cases for each pollutant and averaging period subject to PSD review (i.e., NO2, PM/PM10, and CO). Each of the 14 CT/HRSG operating cases was assessed for each year of the 5-year meteorological data period (1991 to 1995). The specific
emissions rate, stack exit temperature, and exhaust gas velocity appropriate for each operating case was used. This analysis was also performed for the inline and back-to-back
cooling tower configurations. In addition, the hot/warm start condition was evaluated
when assessing the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
Each modeling input file was created to include the 14 operating cases for each pollutant,
averaging period, and year of meteorological data. The nomenclature used is as follows:
STK_1C1 and STK_2C1 were used to identify CT/HRSG 1 and CT/HRSG 2 for operating Case 1; STK_1C2 and STK_2C2 were used to identify CT/HRSG 1 and CT/HRSG 2
for operating Case 2; etc. Source groups were set up to include the impacts from the two
CT/HRSGs, auxiliary boiler, fuel gas heater, and cooling tower (PM10 only).
The following six separate pollutants/averaging periods were analyzed:
PM10 24-hour averaging period.
PM10 annual averaging period.
CO 1-hour averaging period.
CO 8-hour averaging period
NO2 annual averaging period.
NO2 1-hour averaging period.
The two PM10 and two CO averaging periods were combined in the same AERMOD input file. The maximum short-term PM10 emissions rate was conservatively used for both
the 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The emissions for the auxiliary boiler were
annualized for the annual NO2 modeling runs. Separate AERMOD input files were
8-1
created for each cooling tower configuration, each pollutant, and each year of meteorological data. Except for the NO2 1-hour averaging time, impacts for the other pollutants
and averaging times were below the PSD SILs. Since NO2 1-hour concentrations exceeded the SIL, additional modeling, described in Section 8.3, was required to show
compliance with the NAAQS.
8.2
MAXIMUM FACILITY IMPACTS
The modeling performed to compare the predicted impacts of the CPV St. Charles
sources to the SILs are discussed in this section. Except for the 1-hour NO2 predicted
concentrations, impacts for both cooling tower configurations are below the applicable
SILs for each pollutant and averaging period. Therefore, no additional air quality impact
analyses are required for CO, PM10, or the NO2 annual averaging period. In addition,
maximum impacts occurred at receptors located within 2 km of the receptor grid origin.
This verifies that maximum impacts occurred within the area having a receptor resolution
of 100-meter or finer spacing.
Tables 8-1 through 8-13 summarize the results for the inline cooling tower configuration.
Table 8-1 summarizes the maximum AERMOD results for each pollutant and averaging
period for the inline cooling tower configuration. Tables 8-2 and 8-3 present the maximum 1-hour NOx impacts, and Tables 8-4 and 8-5 presents the annual NOx impacts for
each CT/HRSG operating case and year of meteorological data and a summary with a
comparison to the PSD SILs and monitoring de minimis levels. Tables 8-6 and 8-7
present the maximum 24-hour PM10 impacts for each CT/HRSG operating case and year
of meteorological data and a summary with a comparison to the PSD SILs and monitoring de minimis levels. Tables 8-8 and 8-9 present the maximum annual PM10 impacts for
each CT/HRSG operating case and year of meteorological data and a summary with a
comparison to the PSD SILs. Tables 8-10 and 8-11 present the maximum 1-hour CO impacts for each CT/HRSG operating case and year of meteorological data and a summary
with a comparison to the PSD SILs. Tables 8-12 and 8-13 present the maximum 8-hour
CO impacts for each CT/HRSG operating case and year of meteorological data and a
summary with a comparison to the PSD SILs and monitoring de minimis levels.
8-2
Table 8-1. AERMOD Results: Overall SummaryInline Cooling Tower Option
Predicted
Maximum
Averaging Impact
3
Pollutant
Period
(g/m )
g/m
Applicable Standard
Standard Type
Exceedance?
CO
8-Hour
18.9
500.0
PSD modeling significance
No
CO
1-Hour
35.8
2000.0 PSD modeling significance
No
PM/PM10
Annual
0.6
1.0
No
PM/PM10
24-Hour
4.0
5.0
No
NO2*
Annual
0.97
1.0
No
NO2*
1-Hour
16.8
1.0
Yes
*Tier 2 results equal to maximum predicted concentration times a factor of 0.8.

Source: ECT, 2011.
8-3
Table 8-2. NO x 1-hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
NOx Annual Impacts (g/m3)

1992
1993
1994
8-4
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
1991
CTGs at 100%
No
No
20.086
20.306
20.274
CTGs at 100%
No
Yes
20.086
20.306
CTG at 75%
No
No
20.086
CTG at 50%
No
No
CTGs at 100%
59
No
CTGs at 100%
59
CTGs at 100%
1995
(g/m3)
21.006
20.915
21.006
20.274
21.006
20.915
21.006
20.306
20.274
21.006
20.915
21.006
20.087
20.307
20.284
21.008
20.918
21.008
No
20.086
20.306
20.274
21.006
20.915
21.006
Yes
No
20.086
20.306
20.274
21.006
20.915
21.006
59
No
Yes
20.086
20.306
20.273
21.006
20.915
21.006
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
20.086
20.306
20.274
21.006
20.915
21.006
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
20.086
20.306
20.275
21.007
20.916
21.007
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
20.088
20.308
20.287
21.009
20.920
21.009
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
20.086
20.306
20.274
21.006
20.915
21.006
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
20.086
20.306
20.274
21.006
20.915
21.006
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
20.086
20.306
20.275
21.007
20.916
21.007
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
20.087
20.307
20.280
21.008
Maximum
20.917
21.008
21.009
Note: Overall maximum impacts for the annual averaging period and the case producing the highest impact are shown in bold.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-3. NOx 1-hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline Cooling Tower Option
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Tier 1 maximum predicted NOx impact (g/m3)*
20.088
20.308
20.287
21.009
20.920
Tier 2 maximum predicted NO2 impact (g/m3)

Receptor UTM Easting (meter)
Receptor UTM Northing (meter)
Distance from grid origin (meter)
16.070
16.246
16.229
16.807
16.736
334,964
4,270,427
281
230
334,979
4,270,412
279
226
334,949
4,270,442
284
235
334,070
4,270,236
1,170
252
334,970
4,270,236
426
209
48
47
48
55
55
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Yes
1,607.0
14.0
Yes
1,624.6
14.0
Yes
1,622.9
14.0
Yes
1,680.7
14.0
Yes
1,673.6
14.0
Yes
143.5
Yes
145.1
Yes
144.9
Yes
150.1
Yes
149.4
Direction from grid origin (Vector o)

Receptor elevation (meter, amsl)
8-5
PSD modeling SIL (g/m3)

Exceed PSD modeling SIL? (Yes/No)
Percent of PSD modeling SIL (%)
PSD monitoring de minimis impact level (g/m3)
Exceed PSD monitoring de minimis impact level? (Yes/No)
Percent of PSD monitoring de minimis impact level (%)
*Based on the worst-case operating scenario, assuming complete conversion of NOx to NO2.
Tier 1 impact times EPA default NO2/NOx ratio of 0.8.
Note: Grid Origin: UTM Easting (m) 335,180; UTM Northing (m) 4,270,606.
Maximum impact shown in bold.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-4. NO x Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-6
1991

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
No
1.179
0.965
0.913
1.022
0.985
1.179
No
Yes
1.207
0.990
0.941
1.052
1.009
1.207
No
No
1.188
0.974
0.924
1.031
0.994
1.188
CTG at 50%
No
No
1.211
0.994
0.949
1.053
1.015
1.211
CTGs at 100%
59
No
No
1.178
0.964
0.913
1.021
0.985
1.178
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
No
1.179
0.965
0.913
1.022
0.985
1.179
CTGs at 100%
59
No
Yes
1.210
0.992
0.945
1.055
1.012
1.210
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
1.208
0.991
0.943
1.053
1.010
1.208
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
1.200
0.984
0.936
1.043
1.004
1.200
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
1.207
0.991
0.945
1.048
1.011
1.207
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
1.175
0.961
0.910
1.017
0.982
1.175
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
1.205
0.988
0.939
1.049
1.007
1.205
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
1.197
0.982
0.934
1.040
1.002
1.197
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
1.197
0.982
0.935
1.039
Maximum
1.003
1.197
1.211
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
CTGs at 100%
No
CTGs at 100%
CTG at 75%
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-5. NOx Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline Cooling Tower Option
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1.21
0.99
0.95
1.05
1.01

0.97
0.80
0.76
0.84
0.81
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
56
56
56
56
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
No
96.9
14.0
No
79.6
14.0
No
75.9
14.0
No
84.4
14.0
No
81.2
14.0
No
8.6
No
7.1
No
6.8
No
7.5
No
7.2

8-7

Note: Grid Origin: UTM Easting (m) 335,180; UTM Northing (m) 4,270,606.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-6. PM 10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-8
1991
PM10 24-Hour Impacts (g/m3)

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
No
2.186
2.627
2.579
2.092
2.641
2.641
No
Yes
3.080
3.748
3.465
2.616
3.754
3.754
No
No
2.685
2.956
3.192
2.274
3.219
3.219
CTG at 50%
No
No
3.300
3.773
3.886
3.017
3.844
3.886
CTGs at 100%
59
No
No
2.291
2.664
2.749
2.136
2.777
2.777
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
No
2.276
2.681
2.757
2.132
2.765
2.765
CTGs at 100%
59
No
Yes
3.327
3.855
3.768
2.760
4.036
4.036
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
3.250
3.832
3.668
2.698
3.942
3.942
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
2.976
3.253
3.443
2.562
3.545
3.545
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
3.380
3.833
3.977
3.104
3.920
3.977
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
2.218
2.605
2.709
2.108
2.696
2.709
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
3.215
3.735
3.688
2.639
3.903
3.903
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
3.002
3.314
3.497
2.609
3.538
3.538
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
3.171
3.618
3.731
2.948
Maximum
3.715
3.731
4.036
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
CTGs at 100%
No
CTGs at 100%
CTG at 75%
Note: Overall maximum impacts for the 24-hour averaging period and the case producing the highest impact are shown in bold.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-7. PM10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline Cooling Tower Option
Maximum predicted impact (g/m3)*

Date of maximum impact (YYMMDDHH)
8-9

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
3.38
3.85
3.98
3.10
4.04
335570
4270536
397
100
335770
4270236
697
122
335370
4271236
657
17
334870
4270436
354
241
335770
4270436
614
106
57
91031924
55
92121124
58
93042524
51
94030224
60
95020524
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
No
67.6
10.0
No
77.1
10.0
No
79.5
10.0
No
62.1
10.0
No
80.7
10.0
No
33.8
No
38.5
No
39.8
No
31.0
No
40.4
*Based on the worst-case operating scenario.

Note: Grid Origin: UTM Easting (meter) 335,180; UTM Northing (meter) 4,270,606.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-8. PM 10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-10
1991
PM10 Annual Impacts (g/m3)

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
No
0.536
0.464
0.433
0.485
0.453
0.536
No
Yes
0.580
0.503
0.478
0.533
0.491
0.580
No
No
0.559
0.485
0.458
0.509
0.474
0.559
CTG at 50%
No
No
0.606
0.529
0.510
0.556
0.517
0.606
CTGs at 100%
59
No
No
0.540
0.468
0.438
0.490
0.458
0.540
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
No
0.540
0.468
0.438
0.489
0.457
0.540
CTGs at 100%
59
No
Yes
0.591
0.513
0.489
0.544
0.500
0.591
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
0.587
0.510
0.486
0.540
0.497
0.587
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
0.578
0.503
0.479
0.529
0.491
0.578
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
0.612
0.534
0.516
0.561
0.522
0.612
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
0.537
0.465
0.434
0.486
0.454
0.537
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
0.585
0.507
0.483
0.537
0.495
0.585
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
0.579
0.504
0.480
0.529
0.492
0.579
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
0.598
0.522
0.501
0.547
Maximum
0.509
0.598
0.612
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
CTGs at 100%
No
CTGs at 100%
CTG at 75%
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-9. PM10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline Cooling Tower Option
8-11
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

0.612
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
0.534
0.516
0.561
0.522
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
56
56
56
56

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
No
61.2
No
53.4
No
51.6
No
56.1
No
52.2

Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-10. CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-12
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
1991
CTGs at 100%
No
No
34.099
34.473
34.419
CTGs at 100%
No
Yes
34.099
34.473
CTG at 75%
No
No
34.099
CTG at 50%
No
No
CTGs at 100%
59
No
CTGs at 100%
59
CTGs at 100%
CO 1-Hour Impacts (g/m )

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
35.783
35.531
35.783
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
34.473
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
34.100
34.474
34.425
35.784
35.532
35.784
No
34.099
34.473
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
Yes
No
34.099
34.473
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
59
No
Yes
34.099
34.473
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
34.099
34.473
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
34.099
34.473
34.420
35.783
35.531
35.783
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
34.101
34.475
34.427
35.784
35.533
35.784
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
34.099
34.473
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
34.099
34.473
34.419
35.783
35.531
35.783
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
34.099
34.473
34.420
35.783
35.531
35.783
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
34.100
34.474
34.423
35.783
Maximum
35.532
35.783
35.78
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-11. CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline Cooling Tower Option

8-13

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
34.1
34.5
34.4
35.5
334,964
4,270,427
281
230
48
91121204
334,979
4,270,412
279
226
47
92120606
334,949
4,270,442
284
235
48
93081304
35.8
335,070
4,270,236
387
196
55
94111106
334,970
4,270,236
426
209
55
95092621
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
No
1.7
No
1.7
No
1.7
No
1.8
No
1.8

Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-12. CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-14
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
1991
CTGs at 100%
No
No
18.582
17.159
15.154
CTGs at 100%
No
Yes
18.588
17.163
CTG at 75%
No
No
18.597
CTG at 50%
No
No
CTGs at 100%
59
No
CTGs at 100%
59
CTGs at 100%

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
18.902
16.086
18.902
15.155
18.902
16.086
18.902
17.165
15.154
18.902
16.086
18.902
18.664
17.195
15.156
18.903
16.087
18.903
No
18.584
17.159
15.154
18.902
16.086
18.902
Yes
No
18.583
17.159
15.154
18.902
16.086
18.902
59
No
Yes
18.594
17.165
15.155
18.902
16.086
18.902
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
18.592
17.164
15.155
18.902
16.086
18.902
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
18.619
17.175
15.155
18.902
16.086
18.902
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
18.675
17.201
15.157
18.903
16.087
18.903
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
18.583
17.159
15.154
18.902
16.086
18.902
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
18.591
17.164
15.155
18.902
16.086
18.902
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
18.622
17.176
15.155
18.902
16.086
18.902
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
18.653
17.190
15.156
18.902
Maximum
16.086
18.902
18.903
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-13. CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryInline Cooling Tower Option

8-15

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
18.7
17.2
15.2
18.9
16.1
335,167
4,271,144
537
359
56
91113008
335,167
4,271,144
537
359
56
92042408
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
93020524
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
94062508
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
95021024
500
500
500
500
500
No
3.7
575.0
No
3.4
575.0
No
3.0
575.0
No
3.8
575.0
No
3.2
575.0
No
3.2
No
3.0
No
2.6
No
3.3
No
2.8

Source: ECT, 2011.
Tables 8-14 through 8-27 summarize the results for the back-to-back cooling tower configuration. Table 8-14 summarizes the maximum AERMOD results for each pollutant
and averaging period for the back-to-back cooling tower configuration. Tables 8-15 and
8-16 present the maximum 1-hour NO2 impacts, and Tables 8-17 and 8-18 present the
annual NO2 impacts for each CT/HRSG operating case and year of meteorological data
and a summary with a comparison to the PSD SILs and monitoring de minimis levels.
Tables 8-19 and 8-20 present the maximum 24-hour PM10 impacts for each CT/HRSG
operating case and year of meteorological data and a summary with a comparison to the
PSD SILs and monitoring de minimis levels. Tables 8-21 and 8-22 present the maximum
annual PM10 impacts for each CT/HRSG operating case and year of meteorological data
and a summary with a comparison to the PSD SILs. Tables 8-23 and 8-24 present the
maximum 1-hour CO impacts for each CT/HRSG operating case and year of meteorological data and a summary with a comparison to the PSD SILs. Tables 8-25 and 8-26
present the maximum 8-hour CO impacts for each CT/HRSG operating case and year of
meteorological data. Table 8-27 is an overall summary comparing the maximum impacts
of either cooling tower configuration to the PSD SILs and monitoring de minimis levels.
8.3
CUMULATIVE MODELING FOR THE 1-HOUR NO2 NAAQS
On February 9, 2010, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register establishing a
new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, effective April 12, 2010. The new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS was
set at 100 ppb (188 g/m3) using a statistical format; i.e., the 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations. For a
full year (i.e., 365 days) of data, the 98th percentile equates to the highest, 8th highest
(H8H) concentration from the distribution of daily 1-hour maximum concentrations. The
current annual average NO2 NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb.
8-16
Table 8-14. AERMOD Results: Overall SummaryBack-to-Back Cooling Tower

Option
Pollutant
Predicted
Maximum
Averaging
Impact
3
Period
(g/m )
g/m
Applicable Standard
Standard Type
Exceedance?
CO
8-Hour
18.9
500.0
No
CO
1-Hour
35.8
2000.0 PSD modeling significance
No
PM/PM10
Annual
0.6
1.0
No
PM/PM10
24-Hour
4.1
5.0
No
NO2*
Annual
0.98
1.0
No
NO2*
1-Hour
16.8
1.0
Yes

Source: ECT, 2011.
8-17
Table 8-15. NO x 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact

1992
1993
1994
8-18
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
1991
CTGs at 100%
No
No
20.060
20.282
20.256
CTGs at 100%
No
Yes
20.060
20.282
CTG at 75%
No
No
20.060
CTG at 50%
No
No
CTGs at 100%
59
No
CTGs at 100%
59
CTGs at 100%
1995
(g/m3)
21.009
20.360
21.009
20.256
21.009
20.360
21.009
20.282
20.256
20.009
20.360
20.360
20.062
20.283
20.266
20.011
20.364
20.364
No
20.060
20.282
20.256
21.009
20.360
21.009
Yes
No
20.060
20.282
20.256
21.009
20.360
21.009
59
No
Yes
20.060
20.282
20.256
21.009
20.360
21.009
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
20.060
20.282
20.256
21.009
20.360
21.009
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
20.061
20.282
20.257
21.009
20.360
21.009
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
20.062
20.284
20.269
21.012
20.365
21.012
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
20.060
20.282
20.256
21.009
20.360
21.009
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
20.060
20.282
20.256
21.009
20.360
21.009
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
20.061
20.282
20.257
21.009
20.360
21.009
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
20.061
20.283
20.262
21.010
Maximum
20.362
21.010
21.012
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-16. NOx 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-19
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
20.06
20.28
20.27
21.01
20.36

16.05
16.23
16.22
16.81
16.29
334,964
4,270,427
281
230
48
334,979
4,270,412
279
226
47
334,949
4,270,442
284
235
48
335,070
4,270,236
387
196
55
334,964
4,270,427
281
230
48
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Yes
1,605.0
14.0
Yes
1,622.7
14.0
Yes
1,621.5
14.0
Yes
1,681.0
14.0
Yes
1,629.2
14.0
Yes
143.3
Yes
144.9
Yes
144.8
Yes
150.1
Yes
145.5

Exceed PSD monitoring de minimis Impact Level? (Yes/No)
Tier 1 impact times USEPA default NO2/NOx ratio of 0.8.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-17. NO x Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-20
1991

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
No
1.187
0.973
0.920
1.030
0.994
1.187
No
Yes
1.215
0.998
0.948
1.060
1.018
1.215
No
No
1.196
0.982
0.931
1.040
1.003
1.196
CTG at 50%
No
No
1.219
1.003
0.956
1.061
1.024
1.219
CTGs at 100%
59
No
No
1.186
0.973
0.920
1.030
0.994
1.186
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
No
1.187
0.973
0.920
1.030
0.994
1.187
CTGs at 100%
59
No
Yes
1.218
1.001
0.951
1.063
1.021
1.218
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
1.217
1.000
0.950
1.062
1.019
1.217
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
1.208
0.992
0.943
1.051
1.013
1.208
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
1.215
0.999
0.952
1.057
1.020
1.215
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
1.183
0.970
0.916
1.026
0.991
1.183
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
1.213
0.996
0.946
1.058
1.016
1.213
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
1.206
0.991
0.941
1.049
1.011
1.206
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
1.205
0.991
0.942
1.047
Maximum
1.012
1.205
1.219
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
CTGs at 100%
No
CTGs at 100%
CTG at 75%
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-18. NOx Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-21
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1.22
1.00
0.96
1.06
1.02

0.98
0.80
0.76
0.85
0.82
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
No
97.5
14.0
No
80.2
14.0
No
76.5
14.0
No
85.0
14.0
No
81.9
14.0
No
8.7
No
7.2
No
6.8
No
7.6
No
7.3

Tier 1 impact times USEPA default NO2/NOx ratio of 0.8.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-19. PM 10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-22
1991
PM10 24-Hour Impacts (g/m3)

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
No
2.201
2.638
2.454
2.199
2.655
2.655
No
Yes
3.097
3.758
3.477
2.653
3.770
3.770
No
No
2.708
2.977
2.857
2.380
3.246
3.246
CTG at 50%
No
No
3.333
3.806
3.724
2.914
3.879
3.879
CTGs at 100%
59
No
No
2.314
2.674
2.547
2.242
2.792
2.792
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
No
2.298
2.688
2.537
2.238
2.779
2.779
CTGs at 100%
59
No
Yes
3.350
3.860
3.674
2.794
4.067
4.067
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
3.274
3.840
3.611
2.732
3.965
3.965
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
3.002
3.287
3.170
2.570
3.539
3.539
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
3.419
3.866
3.800
2.972
3.952
3.952
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
2.240
2.613
2.469
2.214
2.710
2.710
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
3.247
3.746
3.557
2.672
3.931
3.931
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
3.045
3.346
3.197
2.583
3.561
3.561
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
3.215
3.652
3.584
2.782
Maximum
3.746
3.746
4.067
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
CTGs at 100%
No
CTGs at 100%
CTG at 75%
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-20. PM10 24-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-to Back Cooling Tower Option

8-23

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
3.42
3.87
3.80
2.97
4.07
335570
4270536
397
100
57
91031924
335670
4270536
495
98
61
92121124
335370
4271236
657
17
58
93121124
335770
4270336
649
115
56
94122424
335770
4270436
614
106
60
95020524
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
No
68.4
10.0
No
77.3
10.0
No
76.0
10.0
No
59.4
10.0
No
81.3
10.0
No
34.2
No
38.7
No
38.0
No
29.7
No
40.7

Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-21. PM 10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-24
1991
PM10 Annual Impacts (g/m3)

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
No
0.547
0.476
0.443
0.496
0.465
0.547
No
Yes
0.592
0.516
0.488
0.544
0.502
0.592
No
No
0.571
0.497
0.469
0.521
0.486
0.571
CTG at 50%
No
No
0.618
0.541
0.520
0.568
0.528
0.618
CTGs at 100%
59
No
No
0.552
0.480
0.448
0.501
0.469
0.552
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
No
0.552
0.480
0.448
0.501
0.468
0.552
CTGs at 100%
59
No
Yes
0.603
0.525
0.499
0.555
0.512
0.603
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
0.599
0.522
0.496
0.551
0.509
0.599
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
0.590
0.515
0.489
0.540
0.502
0.590
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
0.624
0.546
0.526
0.573
0.533
0.624
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
0.548
0.477
0.444
0.497
0.466
0.548
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
0.596
0.520
0.493
0.548
0.506
0.596
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
0.591
0.516
0.490
0.541
0.504
0.591
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
0.610
0.534
0.511
0.559
Maximum
0.521
0.610
0.624
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
CTGs at 100%
No
CTGs at 100%
CTG at 75%
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-22. PM10 Annual Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
8-25
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

0.624
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
57
0.546
0.526
0.573
0.533
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
57
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
56

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
No
62.4
No
54.6
No
52.6
No
57.3
No
53.3

Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-23. CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-26
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
1991
CTGs at 100%
No
No
34.057
34.433
34.389
CTGs at 100%
No
Yes
34.057
34.433
CTG at 75%
No
No
31.057
CTG at 50%
No
No
CTGs at 100%
59
No
CTGs at 100%
59
CTGs at 100%

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
35.787
34.565
35.787
34.389
35.787
34.565
35.787
34.433
34.389
35.787
34.565
35.787
34.057
34.434
34.395
35.788
34.567
35.788
No
34.057
34.433
34.389
34.787
34.565
34.787
Yes
No
34.057
34.433
34.389
35.787
34.565
35.787
59
No
Yes
34.057
34.433
34.389
35.787
34.565
35.787
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
34.057
34.433
34.389
35.787
34.565
35.787
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
34.057
34.433
34.390
35.787
34.565
35.787
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
34.058
34.434
34.397
35.789
34.568
35.789
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
34.057
34.433
34.389
35.787
34.565
35.787
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
34.057
34.433
34.389
35.787
34.565
35.787
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
34.057
34.433
34.390
35.787
34.565
35.787
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
34.057
34.434
34.393
35.788
Maximum
34.567
35.788
35.789
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-24. CO 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option

8-27

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
34.1
34.4
34.4
34.6
334,964
4,270,427
281
230
48
91121204
334,979
4,270,412
279
226
47
92120606
334,949
4,270,442
284
235
48
93081304
35.8
335,070
4,270,236
387
196
55
94111106
334,964
4,270,427
281
230
48
95053105
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
No
1.7
No
1.7
No
1.7
No
1.8
No
1.7

Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-25. CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option
Maximum
Impact
8-28
Operating
Temperature
Inlet
Duct
Case
Scenario
Fogging
Firing
1991
CTGs at 100%
No
No
18.599
17.060
15.135
CTGs at 100%
No
Yes
18.600
17.064
CTG at 75%
No
No
18.601
CTG at 50%
No
No
CTGs at 100%
59
No
CTGs at 100%
59
CTGs at 100%

1992
1993
1994
1995
(g/m3)
18.913
16.187
18.913
15.136
18.913
16.187
18.913
17.066
15.135
18.913
16.187
18.913
18.621
17.096
15.140
18.913
16.187
18.913
No
18.599
17.060
15.135
18.913
16.187
18.913
Yes
No
18.599
17.060
15.135
18.913
16.187
18.913
59
No
Yes
18.601
17.065
15.141
18.913
16.187
18.913
CTGs at 100%
59
Yes
Yes
18.600
17.065
15.139
18.913
16.187
18.913
CTG at 75%
59
Yes
No
18.605
17.076
15.135
18.913
16.187
18.913
10
CTG at 50%
59
Yes
No
18.629
17.102
15.139
18.913
16.188
18.913
11
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
No
18.599
17.060
15.135
18.913
16.187
18.913
12
CTGs at 100%
95
Yes
Yes
18.600
17.064
15.135
18.913
16.187
18.913
13
CTG at 75%
95
No
No
18.608
17.077
15.135
18.913
16.187
18.913
14
CTG at 50%
95
No
No
18.618
17.091
15.136
18.913
Maximum
16.187
18.913
18.913
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-26. CO 8-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results SummaryBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Option

8-29

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
18.6
17.1
15.1
18.9
16.2
335,167
4,271,144
537
359
56.36
91112908
335,167
4,271,144
537
359
56.36
92042408
335,167
4,271,144
537
359
56.36
93090308
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
55.76
94062508
335,188
4,271,153
547
1
55.76
95021024
500
500
500
500
500
No
3.7
575.0
No
3.4
575.0
No
3.0
575.0
No
3.8
575.0
No
3.2
575.0
No
3.2
No
3.0
No
2.6
No
3.3
No
2.8

Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 8-27. Summary of CPV St. Charles Facility Impacts Compared to Modeling
Significant Impact and De Minimis Monitoring Levels
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
Maximum
Impact
(g/m3)
CO
8-Hour
18.9
500
575
1-Hour
35.8
2,000
Annual*
0.98
14
1-Hour*
16.8
7.5
Annual
0.6
24-Hour
4.1
10
NO2
PM10
Significant
Impact Level
(g/m3)
De Minimis
Level
(g/m3)

Source: ECT, 2011.
8-30
Based on an analysis of monitored 2006 through 2008 1-hour average NO2 ambient air
quality data, EPA identified only one area in the country (Cook County, Illinois) that exceeds the new 1-hour average NO2 NAAQS. Due to ongoing reductions in NOx emissions
from stationary sources (e.g., power plants) and automobiles, EPA projects that all areas
of the country will attain the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS by 2020. Due to these ongoing
NOx emissions reductions, the entire state of Maryland is expected to be designated attainment by EPA in 2012.
Since the 1-hour NO2 PSD significant impact level of 7.5 g/m3 was predicted to be exceeded, cumulative modeling considering existing sources and background air quality
was conducted. Assessment of air quality impacts with respect to the new 1-hour NO2
NAAQS was conducted as follows:
The current version of AERMOD was used to obtain 1-hour average NO2
impacts for the CPV combustion sources; i.e., the CT/HRSGs, auxiliary boiler, and fuel gas heater.
For each modeled receptor, the H8H daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentrations were determined using the procedures specified in EPAs February 25,
2010, Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS, technical
guidance. This EPA guidance was implemented using Lakes Environmental
AERMOD View software (Version 6.7.1).
In accordance with the EPA technical guidance, for each receptor, the H8H
daily 1-hour maximum NO2 concentrations were averaged over the 5-year
modeling period.
The receptor locations at which the CPV St. Charles facility had a significant impact (i.e., 7.5 g/m3 or higher) were modeled along with other offsite
sources.
The maximum average H8H 1-hour NO2 concentrations over the 5-year
modeling period for any receptor from the cumulative modeling were added
to a conservative background concentration (i.e., 56.4 g/m3) for comparison to the new 1-hour average NO2 NAAQS.
8-31
The maximum hourly NOx predicted impacts for the CPV St. Charles sources will occur
during startups, when the CT/HRSG exhaust temperature is too low for efficient operation of the SCR NOx control system. Accordingly, the estimated maximum hourly NOx
emissions rate during startup events (i.e., 13.0 lb/hr per CT/HRSG) was used for the
1-hour NO2 NAAQS assessment. Also, it was conservatively assumed that both
CT/HRSGs would startup concurrently. Although the startup emissions rate is lower than
some normal operating conditions, the impacts were significantly higher during startup
(e.g., 30 to 60 percent higher) because of decreased plume rise, which resulted from the
lower exhaust gas temperature and velocity. The auxiliary boiler and fuel gas heater were
assumed to operate at their maximum hourly rates.
Table 8-28 provides a summary of the CPV St. Charles 1-hour NO2 impacts. This table
shows the Tier 1 and Tier 2 1-hour NO2 impacts for each year of meteorology and the
location of the highest impact. The Tier 1 impacts assume total conversion of NO to NO2,
while the Tier 2 impacts (i.e., ARM) assume an annual average ambient equilibrium
NO2/NOx ratio of 0.8. Both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 impacts will overestimate actual 1-hour
average NO2 impacts since maximum 1-hour average NO2 impacts are projected to occur
relatively close to the CPV St. Charles facility, as well as near to the offsite emissions
sources contributing the most to the predicted concentrations. At these short transport distances (i.e., less than 500 meters at the point of maximum impact), neither complete conversion nor ambient equilibrium of NO to NO2 will have occurred. The predicted highest
1-hour NO2 impacts were largely due to emissions from the offsite sources with the CPV
St. Charles impacts being considerably lower. As shown in Table 8-28, the predicted
1-hour NO2 impact, including background and the contribution of offsite sources, is below the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Because the maximum impact was dominated by an offsite
source, the results were the same for either the inline or back-to back cooling tower configuration.
8.4
CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive dispersion modeling using AERMOD demonstrates, as summarized in

Table 8-27, that maximum ambient air quality impacts due to CPV St. Charles facility
emissions sources will:
8-32
Table 8-28. NO 2 1-Hour Ambient Cumulative Impact NAAQS Analysis Results Summary
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
5-Year
Average
161.2
163.7
167.9
157.8
163.3
162.8
131.0
134.3
126.2
130.6
130.2
335,308
4,271,045
457
16
335,308
4,271,045
457
16
335,308
4,271,045
457
16
335,308
4,271,045
457
16
335,308
4,271,045
457
16
57
57
57
57
57
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
56.4
Total 1-hour NO2 concentration (g/m )
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
186.6
1-Hour NO2 NAAQS (g/m3)

Exceed 1-hour NO2 NAAQS? (Yes/No)
Percent of 1-hour NO2 NAAQS (%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
188.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
99.3
Tier 1 highest 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 impacts (g/m3)*
th
129.0
Tier 2 highest 98 percentile of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 impacts (g/m )
335,308
4,271,045
457
o
16
Direction from grid origin (Vector )
57
Background 1-hour NO2 concentration (g/m3)
3
8-33
Distance and direction measured from mid-location of CT/HRSG stacks, i.e., Grid Origin = UTM Easting (m) 335,180; UTM Northing (m) 4,270,606.
Design NO2 value monitored at the James S. Long Park in Prince William County, Virginia from 2008 through 2009.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Be below the significant dispersion modeling impact levels for all pollutants
and averaging times (except for the NO2 1-hour averaging time) for either
cooling tower configuration.
Be below the PSD preconstruction ambient monitoring de minimis levels for

all pollutants for either cooling tower configuration.
Not cause or contribute to a violation of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
In conclusion, the CPV St. Charles facility will not cause nor contribute to an exceedance
of any NAAQS or PSD Class II increment for either cooling tower configuration.
8-34
9.0
9.0
ADDITIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The additional impacts analysis, required for projects subject to PSD review, evaluates
project impacts pertaining to: (a) associated growth; (b) soils, vegetation, and wildlife;
(c) visibility impairment; and (d) cooling tower drift. Each of these topics is discussed in
the following sections.
9.1
GROWTH IMPACT ANALYSIS
The purpose of the growth impact analysis is to quantify growth resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project and assess air quality impacts that would
result from that growth.
Impacts associated with construction of the CPV St. Charles facility will be minor and
temporary. While not readily quantifiable, the temporary increase in vehicle miles traveled in the area would be insignificant, as would any temporary increase in vehicular
emissions.
The CPV St. Charles facility will employ a total of approximately 25 operational workers. In addition to the operational workforce, the facility will also include annual contracted maintenance workers to be hired for periodic routine services. Strong preference
will be given to hiring these workers from southern Maryland.
The population of Charles County was reported to be 146,551 by the 2010 census. This
was an increase of 21.6 percent from the 2000 population of 120,546. The workforce
needed to operate the proposed plant, therefore, represents a small fraction of the population already present in the immediate area. Therefore, while some small increase in area
vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) could occur, the air quality implications for Charles County will be minimal.
Finally, a new industrial facility can sometimes generate growth in other industrial or
commercial operations needed to support the new facility. Given the sites proximity to
the Waldorf and the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, however, the existing commer9-1
cial infrastructure should be more than adequate to provide any support services the proposed facility might require. Furthermore, the facility will be constructed to meet general
area electric power demands. No significant secondary growth effects due to operation of
the facility would be anticipated. Therefore, no air quality impacts due to associated industrial/commercial growth would be expected. Furthermore, any significant industrial
development resulting from the establishment of the facility would be independently subject to PSD and other environmental review requirements.
9.2
IMPACTS ON SOILS, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE
Potential impacts to soils, vegetation, and wildlife resources of the CPV St. Charles facility site and immediate environs resulting from the proposed plant operation include
effects of air emissions. Certain air pollutants in acute concentrations or chronic exposures can impact soils, vegetation, or wildlife resources. As previously discussed, the
CPV St. Charles facility will exclusively use pipeline-quality natural gas and employ
state-of-the-art equipment and emissions controls. Given the resulting low emissions
rates and minimal potential air quality impacts, detrimental effects on soils, vegetation,
and wildlife will be insignificant.
Soils impacts can result from SO2 and NOx deposition, creating an acidic reaction or lowering of soil pH. In this case, the site soils in the vicinity of the proposed facility site are
naturally acidic, and the low SO2 and NOx emissions from the facility will not adversely
affect soils. Vegetation is sometimes affected by acute exposures to high concentrations
of pollutants often resulting in foliar damage. Lower dose exposure over longer periods
of time (chronic exposure) can often affect physiological processes within plants, causing
internal and external damage. Based on previous evaluations of the literature for effects
from SO2, acid rain (H2SO4 mist), NOx, CO, and combinations of these pollutants (synergistic effects), no impacts to regional vegetation are anticipated due to the low emissions
rates and low air quality impacts from the facility.
Releases of pollutants can also affect wildlife through inhalation, exposure through skin,
or ingestion. However, based on low emissions levels from this facility, natural disper-
9-2
sion of emissions, and mobility of wildlife, no direct impacts to regional wildlife resources are expected.
Most impacts to wildlife due to emissions from power plants are indirect. For instance,
increased acidification to soils and water due to high levels of SO2 affects amphibians
through skin absorption, as well as impacting breeding success, particularly those that
breed in vernal pools and acidified ponds. Possibly the greatest impact to wildlife as a
whole is degradation of the composition, structure, and habitat value of onsite and nearby
plant communities. However, the facilitys low emissions of pollutants known to stress
vegetation will result in impacts below known thresholds of injury. Therefore, no impacts
to wildlife due to operation of the facility are predicted.
Given the apparent lack of particularly sensitive soils or vegetation in the site area, air
pollutant impacts well below the AAQS should cause no adverse effects on soils or vegetation. At the national level, the primary AAQS have been established to protect the public health, while the secondary AAQS have been established to protect the public welfare,
property, vegetation, and other ecological systems from any known or anticipated detrimental effects. Ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants at levels below the
AAQS would not be expected to harm most types of soils or vegetation and, therefore,
wildlife. Predicted maximum concentrations as a result of operation of the proposed facility are well below the AAQS (Table 3-1); therefore, no adverse effects are expected.
In summary, based on the types of soils, vegetation, and wildlife onsite and in the vicinity, as well as the minimal emissions levels associated with plant operation, no impacts to
soils, vegetation, or wildlife in the CPV St. Charles facility site vicinity are anticipated.
9.3
VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT POTENTIAL
No visibility impairment at the local level is expected due to the types and quantities of
emissions projected from the facility sources. The opacity of combustion exhausts from
the facility will be low and typically at or approaching zero. Emissions of primary particulates and sulfur oxides due to combustion will also be low due to the use of low-sulfur
fuel (natural gas) over the lifetime of the facility. While the facility will emit NOx, the
9-3
potential to impair visibility at the local level should be relatively low, given the very low
expected exhaust opacity. The contribution of emissions of VOC to the potential for haze
formation in the area will be minimal given the low VOC emissions rate from the plant.
In addition, the aesthetic character of property adjacent to the facility site is largely influenced by the industrial planned development. The proposed facility will not adversely
affect aesthetic or visual qualities in the area.
9.4
EFFECTS OF WET COOLING TOWER OPERATIONS
Wet mechanical draft cooling towers transfer heat from plant processes to the atmosphere
through the evaporation and dispersion of cooling water. Depending on the meteorological conditions, warm, moist air leaving a tower may become cooled to the point of saturation, causing the water to condense forming a visible plume. Ground level fogging and/or
icing may occur if this plume does not rise after being emitted from the cooling tower.
The frequency of occurrence and magnitude of these potential cooling tower impacts
were assessed using the CALPUFF dispersion model to track the visible plume. An additional potential impact from a cooling tower can occur when the drift from a tower carries
dissolved and suspended solids (mostly salt), which could be deposited locally and may
have the potential to affect soils and vegetation. The AERMOD dispersion model was
used to determine salt deposition rates.
9.4.1
COOLING TOWER PLUME VISIBILITY/FOGGING
When a visible plume is formed from a cooling tower, the extent to which it will disperse
and dissipate will vary depending on the prevailing meteorological conditions. CALPUFF can predict visible plumes lengths of 20 meters to 10 km. The fogging component
of the CALPUFF dispersion model contains algorithms to predict the location of visible
plumes and how long the plumes will be visible. The location of a visible plume may
vary significantly from hour to hour, thereby reducing the duration of fogging events.
Version 5.8 of the CALPUFF model incorporates algorithms that predict the dispersion
of cooling tower plumes and any potential for fogging or icing that may occur. To use
these algorithms, the cooling tower emissions (CTEMISS) preprocessor is used to create
a variable emissions file. CALPUFF uses the output from CTEMISS and meteorological
9-4
data to create a binary file that can be further processed with the use of several postprocessing programs (i.e., POSTPM2, SUMPOST, POSTRM2). The output from these postprocessing programs was used to develop summaries of the potential cooling tower
plume impacts.
Hourly surface meteorological data from Dulles International Airport (Weather-BureauArmy-Navy [WBAN] Station No. 93738) and twice-daily mixing height data from Sterling, Virginia (WBAN Station No. 93734), for the years 1990 through 1994 were used for
the cooling tower impact assessments. The 1995 upper air file is missing more than
10 percent of data; therefore, this file could not be used in the cooling tower analysis.
These meteorological data, which were obtained from ERM, were subsequently
processed using EPAs PCRAMMET meteorological preprocessing program as required
by the CALPUFF model. Missing meteorological data were filled according to procedures outlined by EPA (Atkinson and Lee, 1992).
The facilitys mechanical draft cooling tower will consist of ten cells. As discussed previously, both inline and back-to-back configurations are being considered. Sections 2.0
and 7.0 of this report contain general information on these configurations. The cooling
tower will be arranged in a generally northeast-southwest orientation. Each cooling tower
option will have similar stack heights (i.e., 48.5 ft for the inline and 53.8 ft for the backto-back configuration). Each cooling tower will have an average annual heat rejection
rate of 1,857 MMBtu/hr. The air flow exiting the cooling tower will be approximately
1,500,000 cubic feet per minute per cell. Water droplet drift from the cooling tower will
be minimized by drift eliminators having a drift loss rate of 0.0005 percent.
The CTEMISS preprocessor used the cooling tower parameters to estimate the amount of
water vapor exiting the cooling tower. CTEMISS inputs include a base heat rejection
rate, water vapor temperature curve, cell diameter, exit velocity, and the percentages in
which some of these parameters vary monthly. CTEMISS also uses building height profiles generated by the latest version of EPAs BPIP. The CTEMISS program was applied
to produce a variable emissions file based on the cooling tower, building profile, and meteorological data.
9-5
CALPUFF uses the variable emissions file from CTEMISS, together with the meteorological data processed by the meteorological PCRAMMET preprocessing program, to
predict hourly plume heights, plume lengths, and the occurrence of potential fogging/icing. CALPUFF can be run in either plume or receptor mode. In plume mode,
CALPUFF generates a binary output file that is later run by the POSTPM2 postprocessing program to estimate the height and length of the visible plume on an hourly basis.
Since visible plumes vary significantly on an hourly basis, the existence of a visible
plume does not always indicate or cause a fogging/icing event. To calculate these events,
CALPUFF is run in the receptor mode. In this mode, individual receptors are located at
points of interest (i.e., roadways, bridges, nearby residents), and the hourly fogging/icing
potential is determined using the POSTRM2 postprocessing program. Note that there is a
difference between the postprocessor programs for summary visible plumes using
POSTPM2 and that used to summarize the receptor mode output using POSTRM2.
POSTPM2 uses the binary output file created by CALPUFF running in plume mode and
calculates the location of the visible plume on an hourly basis. SUMPOST further summarizes the hourly data from POSTPM2 to show the number of hours a plume is located
in a specified range. SUMPOST is capable of creating plume profiles for different seasons and weather events. Tables 9-1 and 9-2 provide the results from SUMPOST for the
5-year period, excluding hours in which natural background fog occurs for the inline and
back-to-back configurations, respectively.
The cooling tower visible plume, occurring during daytime and nighttime hours, typically
dissipates before a height and length of approximately 300 and 1,200 meters, respectively, as measured from the center of the cooling tower. Since visible plumes during daylight hours are of greater interest than during nighttime hours, SUMPOST was also used
to evaluate daylight hours. Tables 9-3 and 9-4 show the visible plume profile produced
during the daylight hours. As indicated on these tables, the daytime visible plumes typically dissipate at a plume height and length of 300 and 800 meters, respectively.
9-6
Table 9-1. CALPUFF Model ResultsInline Cooling Tower Plume Tracking
1990
Hours*
1991
Hours*
1992
Hours*
1993
Hours*
1994
Hours*
9-7
Location of Plume Height (meters)

<20
101
20 to 100
2,123
100 to 200
2,093
200 to 300
515
300 to 400
116
400 to 500
24
500 to 1000
49
1,000 to 2,000
0
>2,000
0
Total
5,021
2.0
42.3
41.7
10.3
2.3
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
68
2,181
1,996
625
110
29
18
0
0
5,027
1.4
43.4
39.7
12.4
2.2
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.0
100.0
51
2,028
2,319
741
185
46
28
0
0
5,398
0.9
37.6
43.0
13.7
3.4
0.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
100.0
71
1,934
2,144
639
158
62
44
0
0
5,052
1.4
38.3
42.4
12.6
3.1
1.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
100.0
53
1,817
1,964
620
126
30
31
0
0
4,641
1.1
39.2
42.3
13.4
2.7
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
100.0
Location of Plume Length (meters)

<200
1,589
200 to 300
295
300 to 400
244
400 to 500
204
500 to 800
532
800 to 1,200
374
1,200 to 1,600
247
1,600 to 2,000
171
2,000 to 5,000
654
5,000 to 9,999
384
>9,999
327
Total
5,021
31.6
5.9
4.9
4.1
10.6
7.4
4.9
3.4
13.0
7.6
6.5
100.0
1,503
355
284
236
505
366
232
187
620
303
436
5,027
29.9
7.1
5.6
4.7
10.0
7.3
4.6
3.7
12.3
6.0
8.7
100.0
1,402
381
289
298
660
474
307
231
673
353
330
5,398
26.0
7.1
5.4
5.5
12.2
8.8
5.7
4.3
12.5
6.5
6.1
100.0
1,389
347
276
218
542
410
264
197
682
339
388
5,052
27.5
6.9
5.5
4.3
10.7
8.1
5.2
3.9
13.5
6.7
7.7
100.0
1,233
275
254
218
463
387
238
211
606
363
393
4,641
26.6
5.9
5.5
4.7
10.0
8.3
5.1
4.5
13.1
7.8
8.5
100.0
*Number of hours plume is located within specified range, exluding hours in which natural fogging events occur.
Model predicts this length during most calm and/or low wind speeds.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 9-2. CALPUFF Model ResultsBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Plume Tracking
1990
Hours*
1991
Hours*
1992
Hours*
1993
Hours*
1994
Hours*
9-8

<20
576
20 to 100
4,526
100 to 200
1,664
200 to 300
555
300 to 400
128
400 to 500
23
500 to 1000
44
1,000 to 2,000
0
>2,000
0
Total
7,516
7.7
60.2
22.1
7.4
1.7
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
409
4,518
1,603
690
121
25
11
0
0
7,377
5.5
61.2
21.7
9.4
1.6
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
100.0
420
4,126
1,828
788
202
47
23
0
0
7,434
5.6
55.5
24.6
10.6
2.7
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
447
4,267
1,702
689
196
55
36
0
0
7,392
6.0
57.7
23.0
9.3
2.7
0.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
100.0
369
4,111
1,518
624
164
29
27
0
0
6,842
5.4
60.1
22.2
9.1
2.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
100.0

<200
4,011
200 to 300
408
300 to 400
290
400 to 500
206
500 to 800
452
800 to 1,200
361
1,200 to 1,600
264
1,600 to 2,000
186
2,000 to 5,000
673
5,000 to 9,999
368
>9,999
297
Total
7,516
53.4
5.4
3.9
2.7
6.0
4.8
3.5
2.5
9.0
4.9
4.0
100.0
3,808
415
333
213
473
358
237
214
613
300
413
7,377
51.6
5.6
4.5
2.9
6.4
4.9
3.2
2.9
8.3
4.1
5.6
100.0
3,295
439
389
299
640
447
309
241
727
335
313
7,434
44.3
5.9
5.2
4.0
8.6
6.0
4.2
3.2
9.8
4.5
4.2
100.0
3,516
436
351
276
533
389
275
219
700
328
369
7,392
47.6
5.9
4.7
3.7
7.2
5.3
3.7
3.0
9.5
4.4
5.0
100.0
3,400
351
259
188
441
350
241
213
669
354
376
6,842
49.7
5.1
3.8
2.7
6.4
5.1
3.5
3.1
9.8
5.2
5.5
100.0
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 9-3. CALPUFF Model ResultsInline Cooling Tower Plume Tracking During Daylight Hours
1990
Hours*
1991
Hours*
1992
Hours*
1993
Hours*
1994
Hours*
9-9

<20
81
20 to 100
1,149
100 to 200
716
200 to 300
278
300 to 400
63
400 to 500
15
500 to 1000
24
1,000 to 2,000
0
>2,000
0
Total
2,326
3.5
49.4
30.8
12.0
2.7
0.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
56
1,203
682
310
69
20
9
0
0
2,349
2.4
51.2
29.0
13.2
2.9
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
100.0
363
2,608
747
409
117
25
12
0
0
4,281
8.5
60.9
17.4
9.6
2.7
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
60
1,130
826
302
82
40
16
0
0
2,456
2.4
46.0
33.6
12.3
3.3
1.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
100.0
47
1,011
728
304
74
20
17
0
0
2,201
2.1
45.9
33.1
13.8
3.4
0.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
100.0

<200
1,098
200 to 300
173
300 to 400
132
400 to 500
96
500 to 800
258
800 to 1,200
146
1,200 to 1,600
79
1,600 to 2,000
50
2,000 to 5,000
156
5,000 to 9,999
70
68
>9,999
Total
2,326
47.2
7.4
5.7
4.1
11.1
6.3
3.4
2.1
6.7
3.0
2.9
100.0
1,045
193
148
135
238
148
80
53
172
51
86
2,349
44.5
8.2
6.3
5.7
10.1
6.3
3.4
2.3
7.3
2.2
3.7
100.0
2,616
266
207
135
284
195
145
102
225
61
45
4,281
61.1
6.2
4.8
3.2
6.6
4.6
3.4
2.4
5.3
1.4
1.1
100.0
1,009
214
149
116
285
154
114
75
200
72
68
2,456
41.1
8.7
6.1
4.7
11.6
6.3
4.6
3.1
8.1
2.9
2.8
100.0
919
175
133
120
223
153
102
79
159
58
80
2,201
41.8
8.0
6.0
5.5
10.1
7.0
4.6
3.6
7.2
2.6
3.6
100.0
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 9-4. CALPUFF Model ResultsBack-to-Back Cooling Tower Plume Tracking During Daylight Hours
1990
Hours*
1991
Hours*
1992
Hours*
1993
Hours*
1994
Hours*
9-10

<20
481
20 to 100
2,755
100 to 200
622
200 to 300
277
300 to 400
76
400 to 500
15
500 to 1000
19
1,000 to 2,000
0
>2,000
0
Total
4,245
11.3
64.9
14.7
6.5
1.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
100.0
366
2,860
614
322
78
19
6
0
0
4,265
8.6
67.1
14.4
7.5
1.8
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
100.0
363
2,608
747
409
117
25
12
0
0
4,281
8.5
60.9
17.4
9.6
2.7
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
379
2,686
747
319
107
31
14
0
0
4,283
8.8
62.7
17.4
7.4
2.5
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
325
2,588
633
298
99
16
16
0
0
3,975
8.2
65.1
15.9
7.5
2.5
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
100.0

<200
2,971
200 to 300
236
300 to 400
150
400 to 500
98
500 to 800
198
800 to 1,200
129
1,200 to 1,600
93
1,600 to 2,000
67
2,000 to 5,000
167
5,000 to 9,999
73
63
>9,999
Total
4,245
70.0
5.6
3.5
2.3
4.7
3.0
2.2
1.6
3.9
1.7
1.5
100.0
2,923
243
165
104
220
155
74
53
192
54
82
4,265
68.5
5.7
3.9
2.4
5.2
3.6
1.7
1.2
4.5
1.3
1.9
100.0
2,616
266
207
135
284
195
145
102
225
61
45
4,281
61.1
6.2
4.8
3.2
6.6
4.6
3.4
2.4
5.3
1.4
1.1
100.0
2,720
264
182
157
251
151
115
84
223
70
66
4,283
63.5
6.2
4.2
3.7
5.9
3.5
2.7
2.0
5.2
1.6
1.5
100.0
2,646
222
138
95
216
139
100
77
200
66
76
3,975
66.6
5.6
3.5
2.4
5.4
3.5
2.5
1.9
5.0
1.7
1.9
100.0
Source: ECT, 2011.
The distances from the center of the cooling tower to the northern, eastern, southern, and
western facility site boundaries are approximately 530, 240, 340, and 260 meters, respectively. Considering these distances, the frequency of the plume traveling offsite is conservatively estimated to be less than 26 percent for daytime hours. Although the plume
will travel offsite periodically, this does not mean that the height of the plume will be low
enough to cause concern in the surrounding area. When the plume travels offsite, it is estimated to be at a height greater than 100 ft from the ground. Therefore, the potential for
offsite ground-level fogging/icing events is expected to be low.
To further address any potential offsite fogging/icing issues caused by the operation of
the cooling tower, CALPUFF was applied in the receptor mode. Using the output emissions file from CTEMISS, meteorological data, and user-defined receptor locations,
CALPUFF generates a binary file for postprocessing by the POSTRM2 program.
POSTRM2 provided a summary of potential fogging/icing events at the defined receptor
locations. Receptors were placed every 100 meters on paved roadways surrounding the
site, including Billingsley Road, Piney Church Road, and State Highways 5 and 488. Receptors were also placed along and within adjacent properties.
The output from POSTRM2 predicts that conditions in the plume were potentially conducive to plume-induced fogging or icing for approximately 1 to 4.5 percent of the hours
over the 1990 to 1994 time period. However, since the plume centerline height is expected to be greater than 20 meters at offsite locations for most of the time (i.e., more
than 99 percent of hours), the chance for plume induced fogging or icing are minimal.
9.4.2
COOLING TOWER DRIFT/DEPOSITION ANALYSIS
For the deposition analysis, the cooling tower was modeled using the same cooling tower
parameters discussed previously. However, more recent meteorological data (i.e., years
2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007), which contained hourly precipitation data for computing wet deposition, were used. Since the amount of salt deposition is directly related to
the TDS concentration found in the cooling tower recirculation water, the maximum projected cooling TDS concentration of 8,100 parts per million (ppm) was used to calculate
the drift concentration and particle distribution.
9-11
To estimate the maximum salt deposition rate at and beyond the facility site fenceline,
receptors were placed every 25 meters along the fenceline and every 100 meters outside
the fenceline up to 2 km from the site. Additional receptors were spaced 500 meters apart
up to 3 km from the site. Tables 9-5 and 9-6 present the results from the monthly salt deposition analysis for the inline and back-to-back cooling tower configurations, respectively. The maximum total salt deposition rate is estimated to be 2,714 kilograms per square
kilometer (kg/km2) per month. The maximum deposition rates for all years and both cooling tower configurations were predicted to occur at the fenceline (and on the facility
property), approximately 180 meters southeast of the cooling tower. The deposition impact decreases to less than half of the maximum impact within 300 meters of the tower.
Average salt deposition rates in the vicinity of the facility site were determined by averaging maximum monthly deposition rates within a 6-square-kilometer (km2) area.
Tables 9-5 and 9-6 show the average monthly maximum impacts within the 6-km2 area.
As indicated, the maximum average impacts fall between 190 and 210 kg/km2 per month
for both cooling tower configurations. These average values are skewed higher by the
rates predicted at and near the site fenceline.
Direct salt damage to vegetation is due to the absorption of salt from drift deposited on a
plants leaves. The absorbed salt can cause immediate damage or accumulate in the woody tissue of perennial plants until it reaches toxic levels. An investigation of the potential
effects of cooling tower drift on vegetation was conducted in which predicted salt deposition rates were compared to known salt injury thresholds. A predicted salt deposition rate
is presented as the amount of salt deposited over a unit area per season and year at a certain direction and distance away from the tower. These predicted deposition rates were
compared to the limited literature data available on salt injury thresholds.
A majority of the available research on the impacts of deposition from cooling towers is
from the use of makeup water that contains appreciable quantities of salt (i.e., sodium and
chloride). Several plant species that occur on the facility site are considered to have low
resistance to salt. These species include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sassafras
9-12
Table 9-5. Maximum Predicted Monthly Salt Deposition for the Inline Cooling Tower Configuration
Maximum Monthly Impacts

Total deposition (kg/km2 per month)
2001
2003
2004
2006
2007
2,677
2,569
2,370
2,714
2,341
2,675
2,564
2,367
2,714
2,337
20.2
335,205.3
4,270,495.5
150
146
22.0
335,205.3
4,270,495.5
150
146
18.0
335,205.3
4,270,495.5
150
146
11.4
335,205.3
4,270,495.5
150
146
11.3
335,205.3
4,270,495.5
150
146
Dry deposition (kg/km per month)

Wet deposition (kg/km per month)
Receptor UTM Easting (meters)*
Receptor UTM Northing (meters)*
Distance from cooling tower (meters)
Direction from cooling tower (degrees)
9-13
Average Monthly Impacts (within 6 km2 area)

189.6
206.7
196.4
198.3
198.1
188.5
205.0
195.4
197.5
197.2
2.39
3.12
2.57
2.07
1.79

*Location of maximum total deposition impact.

Measured from the center cell of the cooling tower.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Table 9-6. Maximum Predicted Monthly Salt Deposition for the Back-to-Back Cooling Tower Configuration

2001
2003
2004
2006
2007
2,398
2,336
2,104
2,609
2,433
2,394
2,333
2,100
2,609
2,430
19.6
335,259.8
4,270,531.6
184
131
20.9
335,259.8
4,270,531.6
184
131
15.6
335,205.3
4,270,495.5
178
152
12.9
335,259.8
4,270,531.6
184
131
13.3
335,259.8
4,270,531.6
184
131

Receptor UTM Easting (meters)*
Receptor UTM Northing (meters)*
Distance from cooling tower (meters)
Direction from cooling tower (degrees)
9-14
Average Monthly Impacts (within 6 km2 area)

193.6
208.4
202.3
202.4
200.9
192.5
206.7
201.2
201.6
200.0
2.42
3.17
2.59
2.14
1.82

*Location of maximum total deposition impact.

Measured from the center cell of the cooling tower.
Source: ECT, 2011.
(Sassafras albidum), arrowwood (Viburnum dentaum), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamonea), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis). Several studies have been conducted with
dogwood, because it is a reliable bio-indicator of salt damage. The leaf injury of dogwood has been calculated to be 750 kg/km2 per month (Curtis et al., 1976) and
517 kg/km2 per month (Davis, 1979). Florida Power Corporation (1988) states that cinnamon fern and royal fern have a leaf injury threshold similar to that of the flowering
dogwood. Given the average maximum monthly deposition within 6 km2 of the cooling
towers is predicted to be less than 210 kg/km2 per month, and the predicted maximum
monthly deposition values are less than the threshold values just beyond the fenceline, it
can be concluded that salt deposition from the facilitys wet cooling tower is expected to
have no adverse effect on natural vegetation.
Another mechanism for the impact of saline drift on plants is through the absorption of
salt accumulation in the soil. Accumulation will occur as the annual deposition of salt
exceeds the rate at which salt is washed from the soil by rainfall. The result of studies
(Mulchi, C.L. et al., 1978) with sandy loam soil suggest that a deposition rate of approximately 9,974 kg/km2 per month of sodium chloride can cause some accumulation of salt
in the soil. The maximum monthly deposition of 2,714 kg/km2 per month predicted at the
fenceline is significantly lower than the monthly threshold value that could cause salt accumulation in the soil. Therefore, no significant soil impacts are expected.
Based on the previous discussion, cooling tower salt deposition will not cause any adverse impacts to plants and soils.
9-15
10.0
10.0 CLASS I IMPACT RESULTS

10.1
OVERVIEW
Under the CAA, the Federal Land Managers (FLM) and the federal official with direct
responsibility for management of Federal Class I parks and wilderness areas (i.e., park
superintendent, refuge manager, forest supervisor) have affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality-related values (AQRVs) (including visibility) of such lands and consider whether a proposed major emitting facility will have an adverse impact on such values. The FLMs decision regarding whether there is an adverse impact is then conveyed
to the permitting authority usually a state agency for consideration in its determinations regarding the permit. The permitting authoritys determinations generally consider a
wide range of factors, including the potential impact of the new source or major modification on the AQRVs of Class I areas, if applicable.
Comprehensive refined modeling was conducted to assess Class I area air quality impacts
in accordance with EPA, FLM, and PPRP/ERM modeling guidance. This section provides the results of the air quality assessment with respect to long-range transport impacts
at four PSD Class I areas: the Shenandoah NP and Brigantine, and Dolly Sods, and Otter
Creek NWAs. Section 8.0 previously addressed facility air quality impacts in the vicinity
of the site.
Shenandoah NP and Brigantine, Dolly Sods, and Otter Creek NWAs are all located within 300 km of the facility site. Figure 10-1 provides the locations of these Class I areas in
relation to the site. The nearest PSD Class I area to the site is Shenandoah NP, located
approximately 113 km west of the site at its closet point. Shenandoah NP is a large
Class I area with portions of the park ranging from 113 to 180 km from the facility site.
The nearest points of Dolly Sods, Otter Creek, and Brigantine NWAs are located approximately 217, 240, and 230 km, respectively, from the facility site. The Class I impact analyses addressed these four PSD Class I areas.
10-1
M:/ACAD/070538/Class 1 rings.mxd
.
0
50
100
Pennsylvania
Kilometers
Maryland
New Jersey
Brigantine NWR
Dolly Sods NWA

Otter Creek NWA
^
Shenandoah NP
Virginia
Legend
^ Site Location
FIGURE 10-1.
LOCATION OF CLASS I AREAS
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
Sources: NPS Air Resources Division, 2004; ECT, 20.
10-2
10.2
INITIAL SCREENING ANALYSIS
For new sources that will be located at a distance of 50 km or greater from a Class I area,
the Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase 1
Report (revised 2010) guidance on initial screening criteria recommends using the ratio
of potential project emissions rates divided by the projects distance from a Class I area
(i.e., Q/D or 10D Rule) to determine whether an assessment of Class I area AQRVs is
necessary. Potential project emissions (i.e., Q) include SO2, NO2, PM10, and H2SO4 mist
annual emissions in tpy, based on 24-hour maximum allowable emissions. The distance
(i.e., D) is the distance in kilometers from the Class I area. For cases in which the source
is located more than 50 km and has a calculated Q/D ratio of 10 or less, the FLM will
consider the source to have negligible impacts with respect to Class I AQRVs and would
not request further Class I AQRV impact analyses for such sources.
A Q/D ratio was calculated for the CPV St. Charles Project using the potential emissions
of the facility (based on 8,760 hours of operation at the maximum load, which is representative of the 24-hour maximum allowable emissions as required by the FLM screening
guidance) and the nearest distance to each of the four Class I areas located within 300 km
of the CPV project site. Table 10-1 summarizes the facilitys NO2, SO2, H2SO4 mist, and
PM10 potential annual emissions in tpy, the distance to each Class I area (km), and the
calculated Q/D ratio for each Class I area. The calculated Q/D ratios are all below the
FLM threshold of 10; therefore, further Class I AQRV analyses are not required in accordance with the FLAG guidance.
10.3
CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive dispersion modeling using the CALMET/CALPUFF/CALPOST modeling suite demonstrates that the proposed CPV St. Charles facility will have insignificant
air quality impacts for all modeled PSD pollutants and all averaging periods. Accordingly, a multisource cumulative assessment of air quality impacts with respect to the PSD
Class I increments for NO2 and PM10 was not required.
10-3
Table 10-1. PSD Class I Initial Screening Analysis
NOx
SO2
H2SO4
PM10 (total)*
Total
172.6
131.3
74.0
213.7
591.7
Brigantine
NWA
Dolly
Sods
NWA
Otter
Creek
NWA
Shenandoah
NP
Distance from CPV (D) (km)
230
217
240
113
FLAG screening ratio (Q/D) (tpy/km)
2.6
2.7
2.5
5.2
Potential emissions (Q) (tpy)
Note: Potential project annual emissions in tpy based on 24-hour maximum allowable
emissions.
*Filterable and condensable PM.
Source: ECT, 2011.
10-4
The CALMET/CALPUFF/CALPOST modeling assessment concluded that maximum

NO2 and PM10 impacts at Shenandoah NP are projected to be well below the EPA Class I
area significant levels for all pollutants and averaging periods. The critical averaging time
and pollutant was determined to be the 24-hour average PM10 impact. The maximum
24-hour average PM10 impact on the Shenandoah NP is projected to be 0.046 g/m3, or
only 15.3 percent of the EPA PSD Class I SIL. The EPA PSD Class I SILs were previously provided in Section 3.0, Table 3-5.
10.4
GENERAL APPROACH
The required Class I area impact assessments were conducted using the CALPUFF dispersion model in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Interagency
Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM), Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts, the FLAG Phase 1 report, and
EPAs GAQM. In addition, an air dispersion modeling protocol was submitted to ERM,
PPRP, MDE, and the National Park Service (NPS) in August 2007 for review and comment. The air quality impact analyses conducted for the facility incorporates the comments and suggestions received from these regulatory agencies on the modeling protocol
(see Appendix D).
The CALPUFF model was employed in a refined mode using 3 years (2001 through
2003) of 4-km resolution CALMET data and Class I area receptor grids as recommended
by NPS. The CALPUFF suite of programs, including the POSTUTIL and CALPOST
postprocessing programs, was employed to develop estimates of facility impacts on each
of the four Class I areas located within 300 km with respect to the PSD increments.
10.5
Steady-state dispersion models do not consider temporal or spatial variations in plume

transport direction, nor do they limit the downwind transport of a pollutant as a function
of windspeed and travel time. Due to these limitations, conventional steady-state dispersion models, such as AERMOD, are not considered suitable for predicting air quality impacts at receptors located more than 50 km from an emissions source.
10-5
Because of the need to assess air quality impacts at PSD Class I areas, which are typically
located at distances greater than 50 km from the emissions sources of interest, EPA and
the FLM initiated efforts to develop dispersion models appropriate for the assessment of
long-range transport of air pollutants. The IWAQM was formed to coordinate the model
development efforts of EPA and the FLM.
The IWAQM work plan indicates that a phased approach would be taken with respect to
the implementation of recommendations for long-range transport modeling. In Phase 1,
the IWAQM would review current EPA modeling guidance and issue an interim modeling approach applicable to projects undergoing permit review. For Phase 2, a review
would be made of other available long-range transport models and recommendations developed for the most appropriate modeling techniques.
The Phase 1 recommendation, issued in April 1993, is to use the Lagrangian puff model,
MESOPUFF II, for long-range transport air quality assessments. The Phase 2 recommendations, issued in December 1998, are contained in the IWAQM Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range Transport Impacts. Additional
FLM guidance with respect to the assessment of visibility and deposition impacts is provided in the FLAG Phase 1 report dated December 2000. The Phase 2 IWAQM recommendation is to apply the CALPUFF modeling system to assess air quality impacts at distances greater than 50 km from an emissions source. In April 2003, EPA designated the
CALPUFF model as a preferred model (i.e., a model listed in Appendices A through W
of 40 CFR 51, Summaries of Preferred Air Quality Models) for use in assessing the longrange transport of air pollutants.
The EPA GAQM indicates that the CALPUFF modeling system is appropriate for longrange transport (source-receptor distances of 50 to several hundred kilometers) of emissions from point, volume, area, and line sources. The receptors at the Class I areas evaluated are situated greater than 50 km from the facility site.
10-6
The EPA-approved version of the CALPUFF modeling suite was used for the Class I area
impact assessments. The EPA-approved CALPUFF modeling suite is comprised of the
following programs:
CALMET
Version 5.8
Level: 070623
CALPUFF
Version: 5.8
Level: 070623
POSTUTIL
Version: 1.56
Level: 070627
CALPOST
Version: 5.6394
Level: 070622
These programs were used to assess PSD Class I increment impacts.

The CALPUFF modeling system consists of three main components: CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST. Each of these components is described in the following subsections.
10.5.1 CALMET
CALMET is a meteorological model that develops hourly wind and temperature fields on
a three-dimensional gridded modeling domain. The meteorological file produced by
CALMET for use by CALPUFF also includes two-dimensional parameters such as mixing height, surface characteristics, and dispersion properties.
CALMET requires a number of input data files to develop the gridded three- and twodimensional meteorological file used by CALPUFF. The specific meteorological data
used by the CALMET program include:
Penn State/National Center for Atmospheric Research mesoscale model

gridded, prognostic wind field data (terrain elevation, land use code, sea level pressure, rainfall amount, snow cover indicator, pressure, temperature/dew point, wind direction, and windspeed).
Surface station weather data (windspeed, wind direction, ceiling height,

opaque sky cover, air temperature, relative humidity, station pressure, and
precipitation type code).
10-7
Upper air sounding (mixing height) data (pressure, height above sea level,
temperature, wind direction, and windspeed at each sounding).
Surface station precipitation data (precipitation rates).
Overwater data (air-sea surface temperature difference, air temperature, relative humidity, overwater mixing height, windspeed, and wind direction).
Geophysical data (land use type, terrain elevation, surface parameters including surface roughness, length, albedo, Bowen ratio, soil heat flux, and
vegetation leaf area index, and anthropogenic heat flux).
Further technical discussion of the CALMET model can be found in Section 2 of the Users Guide for the CALMET meteorological model dated January 2000.
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) has developed a 3-year (2001 through 2003) CALMET dataset for fine, 4-km, subregional domains that covers the southeastern United States. The region covered by Domain 5 includes the Class I areas associated with this air quality assessment. The VISTAS 2001
through 2003 meteorological data was recently reprocessed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service using the current EPA regulatory version of CALMET (i.e., Version 5.8, Level:
070623). The reprocessed fine-grid CALMET dataset for Domain 5 was obtained from
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and was used in the Class I impact
assessments.
10.5.2 CALPUFF
CALPUFF is a transport and puff model that advects puffs of material from an emissions
source. These puffs undergo various dispersion and transformation simulation processes
as they are advected from an emissions source to a receptor of interest. The simulation
processes include wet and dry deposition and chemical transformation. CALPUFF typically uses the gridded meteorological data created by the CALMET program. CALPUFF,
when used in a screening mode, can also use nongridded meteorological data similar to
that used by a steady-state dispersion model such as AERMOD. The distribution of puffs
by CALPUFF explicitly incorporates the temporal and spatial variations in the meteorological fields thereby overcoming one of the main shortcomings of steady-state disper10-8
sion models. Further technical discussion of the CALPUFF model can be found in Section 2 of the Users Guide for the CALPUFF Model dated January 2000.
There are a number of optional CALPUFF input files that were not used for the Class I
area impact assessments. These include time-varying emissions rates, user-specified deposition velocities and chemical transformation conversion rates, complex terrain receptor and hill geometry data, and coastal boundary data.
CALPUFF generates output files consisting of hourly concentrations, deposition fluxes,
and data required for visibility assessments for each receptor. These CALPUFF output
files are subsequently processed by the POSTUTIL and CALPOST programs to provide
impact summaries for the pollutants and averaging periods of interest.
The various CALPUFF program options are implemented by means of a control file.
CALPUFF options selected for the Class I area impact assessments conform to the recommendations contained in the IWQAM Phase 2 report and EPAs GAQM. Key CALPUFF model options selected for the Class I impact assessments are as follows:
CALPUFF domain configured to include the facility emissions sources and

Class I receptors with a minimum 50-km buffer in all directions.
4-km spacing meteorological and computational grid.
Class I receptors as defined by NPS.
Modeling of six species (SO2, sulfate, NOx, nitric acid, nitrate, PM10).
Use of the MESOPUFF II chemical mechanism module.
IWAQM default guidance, including Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients.
2001 through 2003 ozone data from CASTNet and AIRS stations.
Background ammonia concentration of 0.5 ppb.
Integrated puff sampling methodology.
No consideration of building downwash.
10-9
The PM fractions indicated herein address the PM size distribution expected for the facility CT/HRSG units. The Class I impacts for the PM10 fractions, together with primary
sulfate impacts, were summed to obtain total PM10 impacts.
10.5.3 POSTUTIL
POSTUTIL is a postprocessing program used to process the concentrations generated by
CALPUFF. POSTUTIL was used to recompute the nitric acid/nitrate concentration partition, develop visibility PM component emissions rates (i.e., elemental and organic carbon
PM fractions), consolidate the PM10 impacts (i.e., impacts due to PM10 fractions and primary sulfate), consolidate the wet and dry nitrogen and sulfur fluxes, and convert sulfate
and nitrate fluxes to total sulfur and total nitrogen fluxes.
10.5.4 CALPOST
CALPOST is a postprocessing program used to process the concentration, deposition,
and visibility files generated by CALPUFF. The CALPOST program was formulated to
average and report pollutant concentrations or wet/dry deposition fluxes using the hourly
data contained in the CALPUFF output files. CALPOST can produce summary tables of
pollutant concentrations and depositions for each receptor for various averaging times
and can develop ranked lists of these impacts. For visibility-related modeling (e.g., regional haze), CALPOST uses the CALPUFF generated pollutant concentrations to calculate extinction coefficients and other related indicators of visibility.
Similar to the CALPUFF program, the various CALPOST program options are implemented by means of a control file. CALPOST options selected for the Class I impact assessments conform to the recommendations contained in the FLAG Phase 1 report and
EPAs GAQM.
10.6
RECEPTOR GRIDS
As noted previously, the Shenandoah NP and Dolly Sods, Otter Creek, and Brigantine
NWAs are located within 300 km of the facility site. Since the Otter Creek and Dolly
Sods NWAs lie well beyond the Shenandoah NP, receptors for these areas were not included in the modeling. In other words, the impacts at the Shenandoah NP will be higher
10-10
than impacts predicted at the Dolly Sods or Otter Creek NWAs, so it is sufficient to show
acceptable impacts at the Shenandoah NP.
The Class I area receptor grid includes 303 discrete receptors for Shenandoah NP, and
46 discrete receptors for the Brigantine NWA. The Class I receptor locations provided by
NPS were in geographic (latitude and longitude) coordinates. These locations were converted to Lambert Conformal Conic coordinates consistent with the VISTAS fine 4-km
CALMET grid parameters (i.e., two matching parallels, latitude/longitude of the projection origin, and coordinate datum) using the CALPUFF Coordinate Conversion program
(COORDLIB Version 1.95, Level 050126).
10.7
MODELED EMISSIONS SOURCES
Facility modeled emissions sources included the two CT/HRSG units. The other sources,
such as the auxiliary boiler and the fuel gas heater, have short stacks and emissions that
are relatively small in relation the CT/HRSGs. In addition, the emergency diesel engines
(which will operate only a few hours per week for routine testing and maintenance, excluding emergencies) will have relatively minor emissions rates and will operate infrequently. Accordingly, the other emissions sources will have negligible impacts at the
Class I areas and were not included in the Class I assessment. The maximum hourly
emissions rates and stack parameters represented by CT/HRSG operating Case 2 were
used in the modeling. Table 10-2 summarizes the facility emissions rates and stack parameters used in the CALPUFF modeling assessments.
10.8
MODEL RESULTS
Table 10-3 summarizes NO2 and PM10 impacts with respect to the PSD SILs. This table
provides the highest annual average impacts (for NO2 and PM10) and highest 24-hour average impacts (PM10) for the Class I areas evaluated.
All impacts are below the PSD Class I SILs for relevant pollutants and averaging periods.
Accordingly, a multisource cumulative assessment of air quality impacts with respect to
the PSD Class I increments for NO2 and PM10 was not required.
10-11
Table 10-2. CALPUFF Modeling Data
Emission
Source
Stack
Height
(m)
Stack
Diameter
(m)
Stack
Velocity
(m/s)
46
6.1
19.4
CT\HRSGs (per unit)
PM10
SO2
H2SO4
Stack
NOx
Temperature Emissions Emissions* Emissions Emissions
(K)
(g/s)
(g/s)
(g/s)
(g/s)
346.0
2.49
3.07
1.89
1.065
*Excluding sulfate emissions.

Source: ECT, 2011.
10-12
Table 10-3. Summary of PSD Class I Air Quality ImpactsNO2 and PM10
Maximum
Impact
(g/m3)
Year of
Averaging
Pollutant
Meteorology
Period
NO2
2001
2002
2003
Annual
Annual
Annual
0.00040
0.00026
0.00047
0.1
0.5
N
Shenandoah NP
Shenandoah NP
Shenandoah NP
2001
2002
2003
Annual
Annual
Annual
0.0011
0.0009
0.0011
0.2
0.6
N
Brigantine NWA
Brigantine NWA
Shenandoah NP
2001
2002
2003
24-Hour
24-Hour
24-Hour
0.025
0.023
0.046
0.3
15.3
N
Shenandoah NP
Shenandoah NP
Shenandoah NP
PSD SIL
% of PSD SIL
Exceed PSD SIL
PM10
PSD SIL
% of PSD SIL
Exceed PSD SIL
PM10
PSD SIL
% of PSD SIL
Exceed PSD SIL
Location of
Maximum Impact
Note: Maximum impact shown in bold.

Source: ECT, 2011.
10-13
App. A
APPENDIX A
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AIR PERMITTING FORMS
10. Annual Fuel Consumption for this Equipment Only
(Total = 2 turbines)
OIL-1000 GALLONS
SULFUR %
GRADE
NATURAL GAS-1000 FT3
LP GAS-100 GALLONS
26-31
32-33
34
35-41
42-45
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
A
B
C
D
E
F
GRADE
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
ANNUAL AMOUNT CONSUMED
OTHER FUEL
4 ___________________________
35,197,680,000 cu ft
Natural gas
___________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Units of Measure)
(Specify Type)
66-2
1= Coke 2= COG 3=BFG 4=Other
11. Operating Schedule (for this equipment)

Comfort/Space
Heating Only
Process
Heat Only
67-1
Days Per
Week
72
68-69
70
3 6 5
None
73-75
76
Winter
Inside Diameter at Top (inches)
86-88
Spring
77-78
96-98
13. Total Stack Emissions (for this equipment only) in Pounds Per Operating Day
8 5 0
99-104
7 2 5
105-110
4 4 2
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
5 5 1
117-122
83-84
6 0
92-95
Oxides of Sulfur
Fall
81-82
Exit Velocity (ft/sec)
1 8 5
89-91
Particulate Matter
Summer
79-80
Exit Temperature (F)
2 4 0
1 5 0
71
1=Cyclone
2=Stoker
3=Pulverized
4=Hand Fired
S E A S O N A L V A R I A TI O N I N O P E R A T I O N ( P E R C E N T ) :
12. Exhaust Stack Information

Height Above Ground (ft)
1=Pressure Gun
Coal Burner
2=Air Atomizer
Type
3=Steam Atomizer
4=Rotary Cup
Oil Burner
Type
67-2
Days Per
Year
Percent
Process Heat
111-116
1 2
Volatile Organic Compounds
123-128
8 5 0
PM-10
129-134
14. Method Used to Determine Emissions (1=Estimate, 2=AP42, 3=Stack Test, 4=Other Emission Factor)
TSP
165
SOx
166
NOx
CO
167
168
VOC
169
PM10
170
15. What is the Maximum Rated Heat Input of this Unit (Million Btu/hr)? 2,309 (HHV)
Air and Radiation Management Administration Use Only
16.
Date Recd Local_________________
per turbine
Date Recd State____________________
Return to Local Jurisdiction Date ___________________ By _____________________________________________________

Revd by Local Jurisdiction: Date _________ By ____________________Revd by State: Date_________ By ____________________
Acknowledgement Sent by State: Date _____________ By ___________________________________________________________
17. Inventory Date (MM/YY)
SCC Code
18. Annual Operating Rate
171-174
178-185
186-192
Permit to Operate Month
Transaction Date
200-201
202-207
Regulation Code
208-210
Confidentiality
215-218
Point Description
Form number: 11
Revision date: 09/27/2002
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Staff Code
Maximum Design Hourly Rate

193-199
VOC
SIP Code
211 212
213 214
219
220-238
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\APP-A_FORM11.PDF.208/19/11
Action
239
A: Add
C: Change
Page 2 of 2
Recycled Paper

OIL-1000 GALLONS
SULFUR %
(Based on 4,000 hr/yr, 59F, and two HRSGs)
GRADE
LP GAS-100 GALLONS
GRADE
3 2 4 6 2 4 0
26-31
32-33
34
35-41
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
42-45
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
A
B
C
D
E
F
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
OTHER FUEL
___________________
___________________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Type)
66-2

Comfort/Space
Heating Only
Process
Heat Only
67-1
Days Per
Week
72
68-69
70
3 6 5
None
73-75
76
Winter
86-88
Spring
77-78
99-104
1 4 4
105-110
8 6
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
1 1 0
117-122
83-84
96-98
2 8 8
Fall
6 1
92-95
Oxides of Sulfur
81-82
1 8 6
89-91
Particulate Matter
Summer
79-80
2 4 0
1 5 0
71
1=Cyclone
2=Stoker
3=Pulverized
4=Hand Fired

1=Pressure Gun
Coal Burner
2=Air Atomizer
Type
3=Steam Atomizer
4=Rotary Cup
Oil Burner
Type
67-2
Days Per
Year
Percent
Process Heat
111-116
1 7
2 8 8
PM-10
123-128
129-134
TSP
165
SOx
166
NOx
CO
167
168
VOC
169
PM10
170
15. What is the Maximum Rated Heat Input of this Unit (Million Btu/hr)? 450 (HHV)
16.
per duct burner
Date Recd State____________________

SCC Code
171-174
178-185
186-192
Transaction Date
200-201
202-207
Regulation Code
208-210
Confidentiality
215-218
Point Description
Form number: 11
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Staff Code

193-199
VOC
SIP Code
211 212
213 214
219
220-238
Action
239
A: Add
C: Change
Page 2 of 2
Recycled Paper

OIL-1000 GALLONS
SULFUR %
(Based on 4,000 hr/yr)
GRADE
LP GAS-100 GALLONS
A
B
C
D
E
F
GRADE
3 6 0 4 6 5
26-31
32-33
34
35-41
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
42-45
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
OTHER FUEL
___________________
___________________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Type)
66-2

Comfort/Space
Heating Only
Process
Heat Only
67-1
Days Per
Week
72
68-69
70
3 6 5
None
73-75
76
Winter
Spring
77-78
Summer
79-80
89-91
81-82
Fall
3 4
92-95
96-98
Particulate Matter
1 1
Oxides of Sulfur
99-104
2 4
105-110
4 2
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
1 3
117-122
83-84
2 6 0
4 8
3 0
86-88
71
1=Cyclone
2=Stoker
3=Pulverized
4=Hand Fired

1=Pressure Gun
Coal Burner
2=Air Atomizer
Type
3=Steam Atomizer
4=Rotary Cup
Oil Burner
Type
67-2
Days Per
Year
Percent
Process Heat
111-116
1 1
PM-10
123-128
129-134
TSP
165
SOx
166
NOx
CO
167
168
VOC
169
PM10
170
93.0
15. What is the Maximum Rated Heat Input of this Unit (Million Btu/hr)?
16.
Date Recd State____________________

SCC Code
171-174
178-185
186-192
Transaction Date
200-201
202-207
Regulation Code
208-210
Confidentiality
215-218
Point Description
Form number: 11
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Staff Code

193-199
VOC
SIP Code
211 212
213 214
219
220-238
Action
239
A: Add
C: Change
Page 2 of 2
Recycled Paper

OIL-1000 GALLONS
(Based on 500 hr/yr)
SULFUR %
GRADE
LP GAS-100 GALLONS
32-33
34
35-41
42-45
A
B
C
D
E
F
GRADE
5 5
26-31
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
OTHER FUEL
___________________
___________________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Type)
66-2

Comfort/Space
Heating Only
Process
Heat Only
67-1
Days Per
Week
72
1=Pressure Gun
Coal Burner
2=Air Atomizer
Type
3=Steam Atomizer
4=Rotary Cup
Oil Burner
Type
67-2
Days Per
Year
Percent
Process Heat
68-69
70
5 2
None
73-75
76
Winter
To be determined
Spring
77-78
Summer
79-80
86-88
89-91
92-95
81-82
Particulate Matter
Oxides of Sulfur
99-104
5 5 7
105-110
7 3
117-122
83-84
96-98
Oxides of Nitrogen
2 7
Fall
Carbon Monoxide
71
1=Cyclone
2=Stoker
3=Pulverized
4=Hand Fired
111-116
PM-10
123-128
129-134
TSP
165
SOx
166
NOx
CO
167
168
VOC
169
PM10
170
16.
Date Recd State____________________

SCC Code
171-174
178-185
186-192
Transaction Date
200-201
202-207
Regulation Code
208-210
Confidentiality
215-218
Point Description
Form number: 11
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Staff Code

193-199
VOC
SIP Code
211 212
213 214
219
220-238
Action
239
A: Add
C: Change
Page 2 of 2
Recycled Paper

OIL-1000 GALLONS
(Based on 500 hr/yr)
SULFUR %
GRADE
LP GAS-100 GALLONS
32-33
34
35-41
42-45
A
B
C
D
E
F
GRADE
1 0
26-31
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
OTHER FUEL
___________________
___________________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Type)
66-2

Comfort/Space
Heating Only
Process
Heat Only
67-1
Days Per
Week
72
1=Pressure Gun
Coal Burner
2=Air Atomizer
Type
3=Steam Atomizer
4=Rotary Cup
Oil Burner
Type
67-2
Days Per
Year
Percent
Process Heat
68-69
70
71
5 2
None
73-75
76
Winter
Spring
77-78
To be determined
Summer
79-80
86-88
89-91
92-95
81-82
Fall
Oxides of Sulfur
96-98
99-104
4 8
105-110
4 1
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
117-122
83-84
Particulate Matter
1=Cyclone
2=Stoker
3=Pulverized
4=Hand Fired
111-116
PM-10
123-128
129-134
TSP
165
SOx
166
NOx
CO
167
168
VOC
169
PM10
170
16.
Date Recd State____________________

SCC Code
171-174
178-185
186-192
Transaction Date
200-201
202-207
Regulation Code
208-210
Confidentiality
215-218
Point Description
Form number: 11
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Staff Code

193-199
VOC
SIP Code
211 212
213 214
219
220-238
Action
239
A: Add
C: Change
Page 2 of 2
Recycled Paper

OIL-1000 GALLONS
SULFUR %
GRADE
LP GAS-100 GALLONS
A
B
C
D
E
F
GRADE
8 0 5 6 1
26-31
32-33
34
35-41
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
42-45
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
OTHER FUEL
___________________
___________________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Type)
66-2

Comfort/Space
Heating Only
Process
Heat Only
67-1
Days Per
Week
72
68-69
86-88
70
3 6 5
None
73-75
76
Winter
71
Spring
77-78
Summer
79-80
1 2
89-91
81-82
Fall
9 1
92-95
Oxides of Sulfur
96-98
99-104
105-110
1 8
Carbon Monoxide
Oxides of Nitrogen
117-122
83-84
Particulate Matter
1=Cyclone
2=Stoker
3=Pulverized
4=Hand Fired

1=Pressure Gun
Coal Burner
2=Air Atomizer
Type
3=Steam Atomizer
4=Rotary Cup
Oil Burner
Type
67-2
Days Per
Year
Percent
Process Heat
111-116
PM-10
123-128
129-134
TSP
165
SOx
166
NOx
CO
167
168
VOC
169
PM10
170
15. What is the Maximum Rated Heat Input of this Unit (Million Btu/hr)? 9.5
16.
Date Recd State____________________

SCC Code
171-174
178-185
186-192
Transaction Date
200-201
202-207
Regulation Code
208-210
Confidentiality
215-218
Point Description
Form number: 11
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Staff Code

193-199
VOC
SIP Code
211 212
213 214
219
220-238
Action
239
A: Add
C: Change
Page 2 of 2
Recycled Paper
12. The Following Shall Be Design Criteria:
(Based on 100-percent load and 59F)
INLET
OUTLET
Gas Flow Rate
1,129,958
__________________
ACFM*
1,129,958
____________________ACFM*
Gas Temperature
185
__________________
F
185
____________________F
Gas Pressure
__________________ INCHES W.G.
____________________INCHES W.G.
PRESSURE DROP ___________________

Dust Loading
__________________ GRAINS/ACFD**
____________________GRAINS/ACFD**
Moisture Content
__________________ %
OR
Wet Bulb Temperature__________________ F
Liquid Flow Rate
____________________%
____________________F
________________ GALLONS/MINUTE
(Wet Scrubber)
(WHEN SCRUBBER LIQUID OTHER THAN WATER INDICATE COMPOSITION OF SCRUBBING MEDIUM IN WEIGHT %)
*= ACTUAL CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE
**= ACTUAL CUBIC FEET DRY
WHEN APPLICATION INVOLVES THE REDUCTION OF GASEOUS POLLUTANTS, PROVIDE THE

CONCENTRATION OF EACH POLLUTANT IN THE GAS STREAM IN VOLUME PERCENT. INCLUDE THE
COMPOSITION OF THE GASES ENTERING THE CLEANING DEVICE AND THE COMPOSITION OF EXHAUSTED
GASES BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. USE AVAILABLE SPACE IN ITEM 15 ON PAGE 3.
13. Particle Size Analysis

Size of Dust Particles Entering Cleaning Unit
% of Total Dust
% to be Collected
0 to 10 Microns
____________
______________
10 to 44 Microns
____________
______________
Larger than 44 Microns
____________
______________
14. For Afterburner Construction Only:

Volume of Contaminated Air ________________________ CFM
(DO NOT INCLUDE COMBUSTION AIR)
Gas Inlet Temperature _____________________________ F

Capacity of Afterburner ____________________________ BTU/HR
Diameter (or area) of Afterburner Throat_______________
Combustion Chamber______________ _______________ Operating Temperature at Afterburner ______ F
(diameter)
(length)
Retention Time of Gases ___________________________
Form number: 6
Revision date: 0/2000
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Page 2 of 4
Recycled Paper
15. Show Location of Dust Cleaning Equipment in the System. Draw or Sketch Flow Diagram Showing
Emission Path from Source to Exhaust Point to Atmosphere.
Oxidation catalyst is designed to reduce uncontrolled carbon monoxide emissions by 80 percent

to a concentration of 2.0 ppmvd at 15-percent oxygen (100-percent load, 59F, duct burners not
in operation) and 2.0 ppmvd at 15-percent oxygen (100-percent load, 59F, duct burners in
operation).
Oxidation catalyst is designed to reduce uncontrolled volatile organic compound emissions by
50 percent to a concentration of 1.0 ppmvd at 15-percent oxygen (100-percent load, 59F, duct
burners not in operation) and 2.0 ppmvd at 15-percent oxygen (100-percent load, 59F, duct
burners in operation).
Form number: 6
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Page 3 of 4
Recycled Paper
Date Received: Local ________________________ _____ State _____________________________

Acknowledgement Date: __________________
By _______________________________________________________________________________
Reviewed By:
Local ____________________________________________________________________________
State _____________________________________________________________________________
Returned to Local:
Date_______________
By ______________________________________________________________________________
Application Returned to Applicant:
Date________________
By _______________________________________________________________________________
REGISTRATION NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT:

PREMISES NUMBER:
Emission Calculations Revised By _________________________________________ Date ____________
Form number: 6
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Page 4 of 4
Recycled Paper
12. The Following Shall Be Design Criteria: (Based on 100-percent load and 59F)
INLET
OUTLET
Gas Flow Rate
1,129,958
__________________
ACFM*
1,129,958
____________________ACFM*
Gas Temperature
185
__________________
F
185
____________________F
Gas Pressure
__________________ INCHES W.G.
____________________INCHES W.G.
PRESSURE DROP ___________________

Dust Loading
__________________ GRAINS/ACFD**
____________________GRAINS/ACFD**
Moisture Content
__________________ %
OR
Wet Bulb Temperature__________________ F
Liquid Flow Rate
____________________%
____________________F
________________ GALLONS/MINUTE
(Wet Scrubber)
(WHEN SCRUBBER LIQUID OTHER THAN WATER INDICATE COMPOSITION OF SCRUBBING MEDIUM IN WEIGHT %)
*= ACTUAL CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE
**= ACTUAL CUBIC FEET DRY
WHEN APPLICATION INVOLVES THE REDUCTION OF GASEOUS POLLUTANTS, PROVIDE THE

CONCENTRATION OF EACH POLLUTANT IN THE GAS STREAM IN VOLUME PERCENT. INCLUDE THE
COMPOSITION OF THE GASES ENTERING THE CLEANING DEVICE AND THE COMPOSITION OF EXHAUSTED
GASES BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. USE AVAILABLE SPACE IN ITEM 15 ON PAGE 3.
13. Particle Size Analysis

Size of Dust Particles Entering Cleaning Unit
% of Total Dust
% to be Collected
0 to 10 Microns
____________
______________
10 to 44 Microns
____________
______________
Larger than 44 Microns
____________
______________
14. For Afterburner Construction Only:

Volume of Contaminated Air ________________________ CFM
(DO NOT INCLUDE COMBUSTION AIR)
Gas Inlet Temperature _____________________________ F

Capacity of Afterburner ____________________________ BTU/HR
Diameter (or area) of Afterburner Throat_______________
Combustion Chamber______________ _______________ Operating Temperature at Afterburner ______ F
(diameter)
(length)
Retention Time of Gases ___________________________
Form number: 6
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Page 2 of 4
Recycled Paper
15. Show Location of Dust Cleaning Equipment in the System. Draw or Sketch Flow Diagram Showing
Emission Path from Source to Exhaust Point to Atmosphere.
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is designed to reduce uncontrolled NOx emissions by

approximately 78 percent to a concentration of 2.0 ppmvd at 15-percent oxygen (100-percent
load, 59F, with or without duct burner operation).
Form number: 6
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Page 3 of 4
Recycled Paper
Date Received: Local ________________________ _____ State _____________________________

Acknowledgement Date: __________________
By _______________________________________________________________________________
Reviewed By:
Local ____________________________________________________________________________
State _____________________________________________________________________________
Returned to Local:
Date_______________
By ______________________________________________________________________________
Application Returned to Applicant:
Date________________
By _______________________________________________________________________________
REGISTRATION NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT:

PREMISES NUMBER:
Emission Calculations Revised By _________________________________________ Date ____________
Form number: 6
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
Page 4 of 4
Recycled Paper
7. Person Installing this Equipment (if different from Number 1 on Page 1)
Name______________________________________________________ Title________________________________________
Company_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address/Street____________________________________________________________________________________
City/Town________________________________ State__________________ Telephone (______) ______________________
8. Major Activity, Product or Service of Company at this Location
Electrical power generation
9. Control Devices Associated with this Equipment

None
24-0
Simple/Multiple
Cyclone
Spray/Adsorb
Tower
Venturi
Scrubber
Carbon
Adsorber
24-2
24-3
24-4
24-1
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Baghouse
24-5
Thermal/Catalytic
Afterburner
24-6
24-7
Dry
Scrubber
24-8
Other
Drift eliminators 0.0005-percent drift

Describe_______________________________________________________________________________________________
24-9
10. Annual Fuel Consumption for this Equipment

OIL-1000 GALLONS
26-31
NATURAL GAS-1000 FT 3
SULFUR % GRADE
32-33
34
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
Not applicable
LP GAS-100 GALLONS GRADE
35-41
42-45
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
A
B
C
D
E
F
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
OTHER FUEL
___________________
___________________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Type)
66-2
11. Operating Schedule (for this Equipment)

Continuous Operation
Batch Process
Hours per Batch
Batch per Week
Hours per Day
Days Per Week
Days per Year
X
67-1
67-2
Seasonal Variation in Operation:
No Variation
76
Winter Percent
77-78
Form Number: 5
Rev. 9/27/2002
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
68-69
Spring Percent
79-80
70-71
Summer Percent
Fall Percent
81-82
83-84
72
73-75
(Total Seasons= 100%)
Page 2 of 4
Recycled Paper
12. Equivalent Stack Innformation- is Exhaust through Doors, Windows, etc. Only? (Y/N)
N
85
If not, then
Height Avove Ground (FT)
Inside Diameter at Top
86-88
8
89-91
4 *
*Inches
92-95
Exit Velocity (FT/SEC)
0
(Based on 59F
ambient air)
96-98
NOTE:
Attach a block diagram of process/process line, indicating new equipment as reported on this form
and all existing equipment, including control devices and emission points.
13. Input Materials (for this equipment only)
Is any of this data to be considered confidential?
NAME
1. Cooling water recirculation rate

2. Makeup cooling water
CAS NO. (IF APPLICABLE)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(Y or N)
INPUT RATE
PER HOUR
UNITS
PER HOUR
UNITS
PER HOUR
UNITS
9,120,000
gallons
To be determined
PER YEAR
UNITS
79.9 109
gallons
8.
9.
TOTAL
14. Output Materials (for this equipment)
Process/Product Stream
1.
2.
3.
4.
NAME
Not applicable
OUTPUT RATE
PER YEAR
UNITS
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
TOTAL
15. Waste Streams- Solid and Liquid
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
NAME
Evaporated cooling water

Blowdown cooling water
OUTPUT RATE
198,000
gallons
To be determined
PER YEAR
9
1.73 10
6.
7.
8.
9.
TOTAL
Form Number: 5
Rev. 9/27/2002
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
UNITS
gallons
Page 3 of 4
Recycled Paper
Particulate Matter
Oxides of Sulfur
Oxides of Nitrogen
99-104
Carbon Monoxide
105-110
111-116
PM-10
177-122
123-128
129-134
17. Total Fugitive Emissions (for this equipment only) in Pounds Per Operating Day
Particulate Matter
Oxides of Sulfur
Oxides of Nitrogen
135-139
140-144
Carbon Monoxide
145-149
PM-10
150-154
155-159
Method Used to Determine Emissions

TSP
SOX
160-164
(1= Estimate 2= Emission Factor 3= Stack Test 4= Other)

NOX
CO
VOC
PM10
1
165
166
167
168
169
170
AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY

18. Date Recd. Local
___________________
Date Recd. State

______________________
Reviewed by Local Jurisdiction
Date______________ By__________________________
19. Inventory Date
20.
Month/Year
Hourly Rate
186-192
Staff Code
208-210
Reviewed by State
Date______________ By_________________________
175-177
Maximum Design
Operating Rate
Date______________ By_________________________
Equipment Code
171-174
Annual
Return to Local Jurisdiction
Permit to Operate
Month
193-199
VOC Code
211
212
SIP Code
213 214
SCC Code
200-201
Regulation Code
215-218
Point Description
178-185
Transaction Date
(MM/DD/YR)
202-207
Confidentiality
219
Action
A: Add
C: Change
220-238
Form Number: 5
Rev. 9/27/2002
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
239
Page 4 of 4
Recycled Paper
7. Person Installing this Equipment (if different from Number 1 on Page 1)
Name______________________________________________________ Title________________________________________
Company_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address/Street____________________________________________________________________________________
City/Town________________________________ State__________________ Telephone (______) ______________________
8. Major Activity, Product or Service of Company at this Location
Electrical power generation
9. Control Devices Associated with this Equipment

None
24-0
Simple/Multiple
Cyclone
Spray/Adsorb
Tower
Venturi
Scrubber
Carbon
Adsorber
24-2
24-3
24-4
24-1
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Baghouse
24-5
Thermal/Catalytic
Afterburner
24-6
24-7
Dry
Scrubber
24-8
Other
Drift eliminators 0.0005-percent drift

Describe_______________________________________________________________________________________________
24-9
10. Annual Fuel Consumption for this Equipment

OIL-1000 GALLONS
26-31
NATURAL GAS-1000 FT 3
SULFUR % GRADE
32-33
34
COAL- TONS
SULFUR %
46-52
53-55
Not applicable
LP GAS-100 GALLONS GRADE
35-41
42-45
ASH%
WOOD-TONS
56-58
A
B
C
D
E
F
MOISTURE %
59-63
64-65
OTHER FUELS
OTHER FUEL
___________________
___________________________
______________
___________________________
(Specify Type)
66-1
(Specify Type)
66-2
11. Operating Schedule (for this Equipment)

Continuous Operation
Batch Process
Hours per Batch
Batch per Week
Hours per Day
Days Per Week
Days per Year
X
67-1
67-2
Seasonal Variation in Operation:
No Variation
76
Winter Percent
77-78
Form Number: 5
Rev. 9/27/2002
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
68-69
Spring Percent
79-80
70-71
Summer Percent
Fall Percent
81-82
83-84
72
73-75
(Total Seasons= 100%)
Page 2 of 4
Recycled Paper
12. Equivalent Stack Innformation- is Exhaust through Doors, Windows, etc. Only? (Y/N)
N
85
If not, then
Height Avove Ground (FT)
Inside Diameter at Top
86-88
8
89-91
4 *
*Inches
92-95
Exit Velocity (FT/SEC)
0
(Based on 59F
ambient air)
96-98
NOTE:
Attach a block diagram of process/process line, indicating new equipment as reported on this form
and all existing equipment, including control devices and emission points.
13. Input Materials (for this equipment only)
Is any of this data to be considered confidential?
NAME
1. Cooling water recirculation rate

2. Makeup cooling water
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(Y or N)
INPUT RATE
PER HOUR
UNITS
PER HOUR
UNITS
PER HOUR
UNITS
9,120,000
gallons
To be determined
PER YEAR
UNITS
79.9 109
gallons
8.
9.
TOTAL
14. Output Materials (for this equipment)
Process/Product Stream
1.
2.
3.
4.
NAME
Not applicable
OUTPUT RATE
PER YEAR
UNITS
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
TOTAL
15. Waste Streams- Solid and Liquid
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
NAME
Evaporated cooling water

Blowdown cooling water
OUTPUT RATE
198,600
gallons
To be determined
PER YEAR
9
1.74 10
6.
7.
8.
9.
TOTAL
Form Number: 5
Rev. 9/27/2002
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
UNITS
gallons
Page 3 of 4
Recycled Paper
Particulate Matter
Oxides of Sulfur
Oxides of Nitrogen
99-104
Carbon Monoxide
105-110
111-116
PM-10
177-122
123-128
129-134
17. Total Fugitive Emissions (for this equipment only) in Pounds Per Operating Day
Particulate Matter
Oxides of Sulfur
Oxides of Nitrogen
135-139
140-144
Carbon Monoxide
145-149
PM-10
150-154
155-159
Method Used to Determine Emissions

TSP
SOX
160-164
(1= Estimate 2= Emission Factor 3= Stack Test 4= Other)

NOX
CO
VOC
PM10
1
165
166
167
168
169
170
AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY

18. Date Recd. Local
___________________
Date Recd. State

______________________
Reviewed by Local Jurisdiction
Date______________ By__________________________
19. Inventory Date
20.
Month/Year
Hourly Rate
186-192
Staff Code
208-210
Reviewed by State
Date______________ By_________________________
175-177
Maximum Design
Operating Rate
Date______________ By_________________________
Equipment Code
171-174
Annual
Return to Local Jurisdiction
Permit to Operate
Month
193-199
VOC Code
211
212
SIP Code
213 214
SCC Code
200-201
Regulation Code
215-218
Point Description
178-185
Transaction Date
(MM/DD/YR)
202-207
Confidentiality
219
Action
A: Add
C: Change
220-238
Form Number: 5
Rev. 9/27/2002
TTY Users 1-800-735-2258
239
Page 4 of 4
Recycled Paper
App. B
APPENDIX B
TYPICAL VENDOR DATA SHEETS
ULTRA LOW-NOx AUXILIARY BOILER
Proposal No.: VE-3119 Rev.2
VICTORY ENERGY CUSTOMER SPEC SHEET

Customer: ABLE: Sigma Energy, Melville, NY
Date: 10/24/2007
Reference: DT-3-56
Quote Number: VE-3119, 9ppm NOx
==================================================================================
PREDICTED PERFORMANCE
LOAD
Outlet Steam Flow,
(lbs/hr)
DESIGN
77000
LOAD 1
57750
LOAD 2
38500
LOAD 3
19250
(%)
(%)
Natural
Gas
15.00
30.00
Natural
Gas
15.00
30.00
Natural
Gas
15.00
30.00
Natural
Gas
30.00
30.00
(deg F)
(psig)
(deg F)
(psig)
(deg F)
(deg F)
388.6
200.0
391.7
210.0
317.8
227.0
388.3
200.0
390.0
205.6
308.2
227.0
388.0
200.0
388.8
202.5
298.2
227.0
387.9
200.0
388.1
200.6
297.6
227.0
Flow Quantities Percent Blowdown,

(%)
Blowdown Flow,
(lbs/hr)
Feedwater Flow,
(lbs/hr)
Fuel Flow,
(lbs/hr)
Combustion Air Flow,
(lbs/hr)
Flue Gas Flow LVG System,(lbs/hr)
Flue Gas Recirc. Flow,
(lbs/hr)
Flue Gas Flow w/Recirc., (lbs/hr)
1.00
778
77,778
4,264
77,847
82,111
24,633
106,745
1.00
583
58,333
3,187
58,177
61,363
18,409
79,772
1.00
389
38,889
2,124
38,785
40,910
12,273
53,182
1.00
194
19,444
1,088
22,457
23,546
7,064
30,609
Air/Gas Temperatures Ambient Air Temp.,

Comb. Air/FGR Mixture,
Adiabatic Flame Temp,
Flame Temp w/ Recirc.,
Effec. Furnace Gas Temp,
Furnace Exit Gas Temp,
Boiler Exit Gas Temp,
Gas Temp. LVG Economizer,
Flue Gas Recirc. Temp.
F)
F)
F)
F)
F)
F)
F)
F)
F)
70.0
128.1
3,291.7
2,683.7
2,297
2,229
546
299
299
70.0
122.6
3,289.0
2,676.8
2,180
2,101
500
277
277
70.0
117.5
3,286.4
2,670.4
2,013
1,918
453
257
257
70.0
113.7
3,009.5
2,444.9
1,699
1,598
415
244
244
System Efficiency Dry Gas Losses,

(%)
Water From Fuel Fired,
(%)
Moisture in Air Losses,
(%)
Radiation Loss,
(%)
Manufactures Margin,
(%)
Total Heat Losses,
(%)
Boiler Efficiency,
(%)
HHV Heat Input By Fuel,(mmbtu/hr)
4.31
10.70
0.08
0.55
1.00
16.65
83.35
92.959
3.90
10.61
0.08
0.79
1.00
16.37
83.63
69.470
3.53
10.52
0.07
1.27
1.00
16.39
83.61
46.314
3.74
10.46
0.07
3.12
1.00
18.39
81.61
23.722
Fuel/Firing Conditions Fuel Fired

Excess Air,
Flue Gas Recirc.,
Steam/Water Conditions Steam Temp @ NRV Outlet
Steam Pres @ NRV Outlet
Boiler Saturation Temp.
Boiler Operating Press.
Econ. Water Exit Temp,
Feedwater Inlet Temp,
(deg
(deg
(deg
(deg
(deg
(deg
(deg
(deg
(deg
System Draft Losses Fan Inlet:

Silencer,
Fan Inlet Ducts,
Fan Outlet:
Fan Outlet Ducts,
Burner,
Convection Zone,
Economizer,
Outlet Gas Ducts,
Total Draft Losses,
(inwc)
(inwc)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(inwc)
(inwc)
(inwc)
(inwc)
(inwc)
(inwc)
0.00
9.50
6.68
1.37
0.00
17.55
0.00
5.56
3.58
0.74
0.00
9.89
0.00
2.60
1.51
0.33
0.00
4.44
0.00
0.90
0.47
0.11
0.00
1.48
Furnace Performance Heat Available,

(mmbtu/hr)
Heat Absorbed in Furn, (mmbtu/hr)
Liberation Rate,
(btu/hr-ft^3)
Furnace Release Rate,(btu/hr-ft2)
Residence Time,
(sec)
83.010
15.426
83652
120245
0.575
62.101
14.643
62515
89844
0.804
41.442
12.689
41677
59886
1.287
21.241
7.554
21347
30707
2.571
Convection Zone Performance Gas Mass Velocity

(lb/hr-ft2)
Gas Velocity at Inlet,
(ft/sec)
Heat Absorbed in Conv., (mbtu/hr)
11,307
110.88
55.63
8,450
78.94
39.21
5,633
48.87
23.61
3,242
24.24
10.60
Economizer Performance Gas Mass Velocity

(lb/hr-ft2)
Gas Velocity at Inlet
(ft/sec)
Water Flow Through Econ, (lb/hr)
Water Mass Velocity, (lb/sec-ft2)
Feedwater Pressure Drop,
(psi)
Heat Absorbed in Econ., (mbtu/hr)
7,488
54.95
77,778
265.93
6.35
7.20
5,596
39.18
58,333
199.45
3.60
4.82
3,731
24.85
38,889
132.97
1.63
2.82
2,147
13.65
19,444
66.48
0.43
1.40
PHYSICAL DESIGN
Furnace Design Data Proj. Radiant HT,
Effective Radiant HT,
(ft2)
(ft2)
699.6
621.0
Convection Zone Design Data Total Proposed Conv. Surface(ft2)
5,637.2
Economizer Design Data Economizer Heating Surface
7,663.6
Fuel Analysis Fuel Type

Fuel Name
Mol. Weight
Specific Gravity
Density
Fuel Constituents CH4
C2H6
N2
(ft2)
Gaseous
Natural Gas
(lb/mol)
17.37
0.5998
(lb/ft3)
0.0451
(%)
(%)
(%)
By Volume
90.0000
5.0000
5.0000
By Weight
83.1042
8.8339
8.0619

High Heating Value Used
High Heating Value Calc.
Low Heating Value
(btu/lb)
(btu/lb)
(btu/lb)
21,800.0
21,813.1
19,667.0
WET MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER

(INLINE CONFIGURATION)
BEST Version 2.52

Product Data: 11/30/2010
CPV St. Charles - in line option 77 inlet wb.opt

Revised 6/28/2011 4:21:15 PM by Jim Van Garsse
Customer
Contact
CPV St. Charles - in line 77 inlet wb
SPX Cooling Technologies

7401 West 129 Street
Overland Park, Kansas 66213
jim.vangarsse@spx.com
Jim Van Garsse

Tel 914-843-0840
Definition
Model (ID 40)
Fan
Stack
Speed Reducer
Drive
Motor
F460A56D6.010A
384HP7-9
384"x14' Rflx/V Rib
4000, 15.84:1
400 Shaft
1800 rpm, TEFC
Fill
Eliminator
Louver
Spray System
Nozzles
MC75 Log-6.0
TU12C
No louvers
36x6 Rotomold
520 NS5A-096 per cell
40 NS6-128 per cell
Dimensions
Tower Width
Tower Length
Tower Height (TOC)
Fan Deck Height (TOC)
Static Lift (TOC)
Pump Head (TOC)
Air Inlet Elev. (TOC)
Closed Sides
Closed Ends
60.67 ft
560.67 ft
48.51 ft
34.76 ft
20.62 ft
24.76 ft
12.00 ft
0
2
Basin Width Min

Basin Length Min
Basin Depth
Water Depth
Curb Offset Min
Plenum Height
Effective Air Inlet Ht.
Transverse Partitions
Wind Walls
67.67 ft
561.00 ft
4.00 ft
3.00 ft
3.83 ft
11.19 ft
13.00 ft
No
Yes
Conditions
Tower Water Flow
Tower Water Mass Flow
Hot Water Temperature
Range
Cold Water Temperature
Approach
Wet-Bulb Temperature
Dry-Bulb Temperature
Relative Humidity
Total Dissolved Solids
Water Density In
Water Specific Heat In
Site Factor
152000 gpm
20990 lb/s
108.60 F
24.60 F
84.00 F
7.00 F
77.00 F
92.54 F
50 %
2000 ppm
61.97 lb/ft
0.999 Btu/lbF
1.030
Altitude
Barometric Pressure
Air Density In
Air Density Out
Humidity Ratio In
Humidity Ratio Out
Enthalpy In
Enthalpy Out
Wet-Bulb Temp. Out
Heat Rejection
Evaporation
Drift
184 ft
29.72 in Hg
0.07064 lb/ft
0.06858 lb/ft
0.0166
0.0442
40.53 Btu/lb
72.92 Btu/lb
100.47 F
1.857e9 Btu/h
3310 gpm
<0.0010 %
Thermal Analysis
Fill Area
Fill Height
KaV/L (CTI)
32000 ft
6.00 ft
2.493
Water Rate
Dry Air Rate
L/G
4.75 gpm/ft
31.23 lb/min/ft
1.260
Air Flow
Flow/Fan Tower Air Inlet
Flow/Fan Discharge
Inlet Velocity
Fill Velocity
Eliminator Velocity
Discharge Velocity
Air Inlet Pressure Ratio
Air Inlet Guide
Inlet P.D. Vel. Heads
Outlet P.D. Vel. Heads
1438000 cfm
1522000 cfm
988 fpm
462 fpm
475 fpm
1526 fpm
8.124
No
0
0
External P.D. In
Entrance P.D.
Louver P.D.
Falling Water P.D.
Fill P.D.
Eliminator P.D.
Plenum P.D.
Buoyancy P.D.
External P.D. Out
Static P.D.
Velocity P.D.
0.000 in H2O
0.034 in H2O
0.000 in H2O
0.081 in H2O
0.347 in H2O
0.037 in H2O
0.038 in H2O
0.000 in H2O
0.000 in H2O
0.538 in H2O
0.133 in H2O
Fan Information
Fan Speed (100 %)
Fan Power
Motor Output
Motor Capacity
112 rpm
215.7 Hp
223.1 BHp
250.0 BHp
Fan Tip Speed

Static Fan Efficiency
Total Fan Efficiency
Fan Pitch
11260 fpm
59.7 %
74.4 %
19.0
Confidential: Public disclosure prohibited without prior written consent from SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.
Copyright 2011 SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\APPB.DOCX.1082311
WET MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER

(BACK-TO-BACK CONFIGURATION)
BEST Version 2.52

Product Data: 11/30/2010
CPV St. Charles - back to back option 77 inlet wb.opt

Revised 6/28/2011 11:16:16 AM by Jim Van Garsse
Customer
Contact
CPV St. Charles - back to back option
SPX Cooling Technologies

7401 West 129 Street
Overland Park, Kansas 66213
jim.vangarsse@spx.com
Jim Van Garsse

Tel 914-843-0840
Definition
Model (ID 42)
Fan
Stack
Speed Reducer
Drive
Motor
F460A56D6.010B
384HP7-9
384"x14' Rflx/V Rib
4000, 15.84:1
400 Shaft
1800 rpm, TEFC
Fill
Eliminator
Louver
Spray System
Nozzles
MC75 Log-6.0
TU12C
No louvers
2-36x6 Rotomold
520 NS5A-096 per cell
40 NS6-128 per cell
Dimensions
Tower Width
Tower Length
Tower Height (TOC)
Fan Deck Height (TOC)
Static Lift (TOC)
Pump Head (TOC)
Air Inlet Elev. (TOC)
Closed Sides
Closed Ends
126.00 ft
286.00 ft
53.84 ft
40.09 ft
25.95 ft
30.10 ft
17.33 ft
0
0
Basin Width Min

Basin Length Min
Basin Depth
Water Depth
Curb Offset Min
Plenum Height
Effective Air Inlet Ht.
Transverse Partitions
Wind Walls
131.22 ft
291.22 ft
4.00 ft
3.00 ft
5.61 ft
11.19 ft
18.33 ft
No
Yes
Conditions
Tower Water Flow
Tower Water Mass Flow
Hot Water Temperature
Range
Cold Water Temperature
Approach
Wet-Bulb Temperature
Dry-Bulb Temperature
Relative Humidity
Total Dissolved Solids
Water Density In
Water Specific Heat In
Site Factor
152000 gpm
20990 lb/s
108.60 F
24.60 F
84.00 F
7.00 F
77.00 F
92.54 F
50 %
2000 ppm
61.97 lb/ft
0.999 Btu/lbF
1.030
Altitude
Barometric Pressure
Air Density In
Air Density Out
Humidity Ratio In
Humidity Ratio Out
Enthalpy In
Enthalpy Out
Wet-Bulb Temp. Out
Heat Rejection
Evaporation
Drift
184 ft
29.72 in Hg
0.07064 lb/ft
0.06857 lb/ft
0.0166
0.0443
40.53 Btu/lb
73.11 Btu/lb
100.57 F
1.857e9 Btu/h
3300 gpm
<0.0010 %
Thermal Analysis
Fill Area
Fill Height
KaV/L (CTI)
32000 ft
6.00 ft
2.512
Water Rate
Dry Air Rate
L/G
4.75 gpm/ft
31.05 lb/min/ft
1.267
Air Flow
Flow/Fan Tower Air Inlet
Flow/Fan Discharge
Inlet Velocity
Fill Velocity
Eliminator Velocity
Discharge Velocity
Air Inlet Pressure Ratio
Air Inlet Guide
Inlet P.D. Vel. Heads
Outlet P.D. Vel. Heads
1430000 cfm
1513000 cfm
1005 fpm
460 fpm
473 fpm
1518 fpm
6.829
Yes
0
0
External P.D. In
Entrance P.D.
Louver P.D.
Falling Water P.D.
Fill P.D.
Eliminator P.D.
Plenum P.D.
Buoyancy P.D.
External P.D. Out
Static P.D.
Velocity P.D.
0.000 in H2O
0.015 in H2O
0.000 in H2O
0.113 in H2O
0.344 in H2O
0.037 in H2O
0.037 in H2O
0.000 in H2O
0.000 in H2O
0.546 in H2O
0.131 in H2O
Fan Information
Fan Speed (100 %)
Fan Power
Motor Output
Motor Capacity
112 rpm
217.5 Hp
224.9 BHp
250.0 BHp
Fan Tip Speed

Static Fan Efficiency
Total Fan Efficiency
Fan Pitch
11260 fpm
59.8 %
74.2 %
19.5
Confidential: Public disclosure prohibited without prior written consent from SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.
Copyright 2011 SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc.
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\APPB.DOCX.2082311
1,500-kW DIESEL-FIRED EMERGENCY GENERATOR
Exhaust Emission Data Sheet

1500DQGAB
60 Hz Diesel Generator Set
Engine Information:
Model:
Cummins Inc. QSK50-G4 NR2
Bore:
Type:
4 Cycle, 60V, 16 Cylinder Diesel
Stroke:
Aspiration:
Turbocharged and Low Temperature aftercooled
Displacement:
Compression Ratio:
15.0:1
Emission Control Device:
Turbocharged and Low Temperature aftercooled
PERFORMANCE DATA
BHP @ 1800 RPM (60 Hz)
Fuel Consumption (gal/Hr)
Exhaust Gas Flow (CFM)
Exhaust Gas Temperature (F)
1/4
Standby
555
32.5
4815
665
1/2
Standby
1111
60.2
8320
745
0.11
3.87
1.20
0.31
0.19
0.84
0.07
3.46
0.66
0.06
0.17
0.22
3/4
Standby
1666
83.4
10180
785
6.25 in. (159 mm)

6.25 in. (159 mm)
3067 cu. in. (50.2 liters)
Full
Standby
2205
109.4
12065
915
Full
Prime
1971
97.8
11000
835
EXHAUST EMISSION DATA

HC (Total Unburned Hydrocarbons)
NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen as NO2)
CO (carbon Monoxide)
PM (Particular Matter)
SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide)
Smoke (Bosch)
0.06
0.06
0.05
4.45
5.51
5.55
0.45
0.63
0.50
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.27
0.20
0.18
All Values are Grams/HP-Hour, Smoke is Bosch #
TEST CONDITIONS
Data was recorded during steady-state rated engine speed ( 25 RPM) with full load (2%). Pressures, temperatures,
and emission rates were stabilized.
Fuel Specification:
Fuel Temperature:
Intake Air Temperature:
Barometric Pressure:
Humidity:
Reference Standard:
46.5 Cetane Number, 0.035 Wt.% Sulfur; Reference ISO8178-5, 40CFR86.1313-98 Type 2D and ASTM D975 No. 2-D.
99 9 F (at fuel pump inlet)
77 9 F
29.6 1 in. Hg
NOx measurement corrected to 75 grains H2O/lb dry air
ISO 8178
The NOx, HC, CO and PM emission data tabulated here were taken from a single engine under the test conditions shown above. Data for the other
components are estimated. These data are subjected to instrumentation and engine-to-engine variability. Field emission test data are not guaranteed
to these levels. Actual field test results may vary due to test site conditions, installation, fuel specification, test procedures and instrumentation. Engine
operation with excessive air intake or exhaust restriction beyond published maximum limits, or with improper maintenance, may results in elevated
emission levels.
Cummins Power Generation
Data and Specifications Subject to Change Without Notice
eds-1059a
App. C
APPENDIX C
EMISSION CALCULATIONS
CPV St. Charles

Table C-1. CPV St. Charles
Operating Scenarios - Two 7FA.05 CT/HRSG Units Operating in Combined-Cycle Mode
GE
Case
Ambient
Temperature
(F)
14
13
15
16
Winter
0
0
0
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
22
10
23
8
11
12
Annual Average
59
59
59
59
59
59
11
12
13
14
3
1
4
5
Summer
90
90
90
90
Case
1
2
3
4
100 %
CT/HRSG 1A & 1B
Load
75 % *
50 % *
Annual
Profile #1
(hr/yr)
Annual
Profile #2
(hr/yr)
Annual
Profile #3
(hr/yr)
Inlet Air
Evaporative
Cooling
1,000
1,000
4,760
4,760
4,221
4,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
Duct
Burner
Firing
Startups
Cold
Warm
Hot
50
99
272
Shutdowns
119
= number of CTs.
*At low operating loads CT/HRSG units can be operated interchangeably.
Sources: GE Combined Cycle Systems Emissions Data, 01-Aug-2011.
CPV, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\APPC8760.XLSX\18/24/2011
Table C-2. CPV St. Charles - GE 207FA.05 CTs (Combined-cycle Mode)

CTG/HRSG Hourly Emission Rates (Per CTG/HRSG)
Criteria and Selected Non-Criteria Air Pollutants
Temp.
Load
(F)
Case
(%)
PM/PM10*
(lb/hr)
SO2
(g/sec)
(lb/hr)
H2SO4
(g/sec)
(lb/hr)
Lead
(g/sec)
(lb/hr)
(g/sec)
1
2
3
4
Base
Base
75
49
18.7
24.4
16.7
15.0
2.35
3.07
2.10
1.89
12.77
14.99
10.10
7.95
1.61
1.89
1.27
1.00
7.19
8.45
5.69
4.48
0.906
1.065
0.717
0.565
0.0011
0.0013
0.0009
0.0007
0.00014
0.00017
0.00011
0.00009
59
5
6
7
8
9
10
Base
Base
Base
Peak
75
46
17.7
17.9
23.7
23.8
16.0
14.4
2.23
2.25
2.98
3.00
2.02
1.82
11.48
11.68
13.78
14.09
9.27
7.13
1.45
1.47
1.74
1.77
1.17
0.90
6.47
6.58
7.76
7.94
5.22
4.02
0.815
0.829
0.978
1.000
0.658
0.506
0.0010
0.0010
0.0012
0.0012
0.0008
0.0006
0.00013
0.00013
0.00015
0.00016
0.00010
0.00008
90
11
12
13
14
Base
Peak
75
48
17.6
23.5
15.7
14.3
2.21
2.96
1.98
1.81
11.27
13.70
8.83
7.02
1.42
1.73
1.11
0.88
6.35
7.72
4.98
3.95
0.800
0.972
0.627
0.498
0.0010
0.0012
0.0008
0.0006
0.00012
0.00015
0.00010
0.00008
Maximums
24.4
3.07
14.99
1.89
8.45
1.065
0.0013
0.00017
Temp.
NOx
Load
(F)
Case
(%)
(ppmvd)
(lb/hr)
CO
(g/sec)
(ppmvd)
(lb/hr)
VOC
(g/sec)
(ppmvd)
(lb/hr)
(g/sec)
1
2
3
4
Base
Base
75
49
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
16.8
19.7
13.3
10.5
2.12
2.49
1.67
1.32
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.2
12.0
8.1
6.4
1.29
1.51
1.02
0.80
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.9
6.9
2.3
1.8
0.37
0.87
0.29
0.23
59
5
6
7
8
9
10
Base
Base
Base
Peak
75
46
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
15.1
15.4
18.1
18.6
12.2
9.4
1.90
1.94
2.29
2.34
1.54
1.18
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
9.2
9.4
11.0
11.3
7.4
5.7
1.16
1.18
1.39
1.42
0.94
0.72
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.6
2.7
6.3
6.5
2.1
1.6
0.33
0.34
0.80
0.81
0.27
0.21
90
11
12
13
14
Base
Peak
75
48
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
14.8
18.1
11.6
9.2
1.87
2.27
1.46
1.16
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
9.0
11.0
7.1
5.6
1.14
1.38
0.89
0.71
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.6
6.3
2.0
1.6
0.32
0.79
0.25
0.20
Maximums
2.0
19.7
2.49
2.0
12.0
1.51
2.0
6.9
0.87
*Filterable and condensible PM asumes all SO3 converts to (NH4)2SO3 generated in the SCR.
Based on a short-term natural gas sulfur content of 2.0 gr/100 scf; assumes all sulfur in the natural gas converts to SO2.
Based on 5-percent conversion of fuel sulfur to SO3, 30-percent conversion of SO2 to SO3 in the oxidation catalyst, and 5-percent conversion of SO 2 to SO3 in the SCR.
Natural Gas Combustion, Table 1.4-2, AP-42, 3/98;
Non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) expressed as methane.
NOx concentration at 15% O 2;
Source: GE, 2011
OPERATING SCENARIO:
CT HOURS = 8,760 hr/yr
DUCT BURNER HOURS = 0 hr/yr
CT Hours = 8,760 hr/yr

Duct Burner Hours = 0 hr/yr
Table C-3. CPV St. Charles - GE 207FA.05 CTs (Combined-cycle Mode)"
CT/HRSG Emission Rates For Two CT/HRSG Units Operating in CC Mode - Annual Profile 1
Criteria Air Pollutants and Sulfuric Acid Mist
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
8,760
0
8,760
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
8,760
0
8,760
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
30.7
37.1
N/A
134.6
0.0
134.6
18.7
22.6
N/A
81.9
0.0
81.9
5.3
12.9
N/A
23.4
0.0
23.4
28.4
34.3
N/A
NOx
VOC
124.3
0.0
124.3
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
19.9
28.6
N/A
87.4
0.0
87.4
(lb/hr)
SO2*
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.6
3.1
N/A
11.3
0.0
11.3
1.45
1.75
N/A
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.009
0.000
0.009
6.3
0.0
6.3
Lead
*Hourly and Annual SO2 and H2SO4 emission rates based on annual natural gas sulfur content limit of 0.22 grains/100 scf.
Based on 5-percent conversion of fuel sulfur to SO3, 30-percent conversion of SO2 to SO3 in the oxidation catalyst, and 5-percent conversion of SO2 to SO3
in the SCR.
Source: CPV, ECT; 2011.

Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
7,760
0
0
8,760
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
7,760
0
0
8,760
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
N/A
16.8
119.2
0.0
0.0
136.0
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
N/A
10.2
72.6
0.0
0.0
82.8
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
N/A
2.9
20.7
0.0
0.0
23.7
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
N/A
NOx
VOC
15.5
110.1
0.0
0.0
125.7
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
N/A
10.1
77.4
0.0
0.0
87.5
SO2*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
N/A
1.4
10.0
0.0
0.0
11.4
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
N/A
0.8
5.6
0.0
0.0
6.4
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.009
*Hourly and annual SO2 and H2SO4 emission rates based on annual natural gas sulfur content limit of 0.22 grains/100 scf.

Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Case
1
6
8
12
Subtotal - Normal Operations
(events/yr) (min./event)
Cold
12
250
Warm
46
130
Hot
181
90
239
30
Subtotal - Startups/Shutdowns
Totals
Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Case
1
6
8
12
Cold
12
250
Warm
46
130
Hot
181
90
239
30
Totals
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1,000
5,993
0
0
Emission Rates
NOx
(lb/hr)
(lb/event)
45.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
0.0
8,760
N/A
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1,000
5,993
0
0
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
(hr/yr)
50
99
272
119
1,228
CO
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
(lb/event)
13.0
4.0
4.0
15.0
N/A
4.6
23.6
7.1
115.9
N/A
90.9
157.2
(lb/event)
5.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
8,760
N/A
0.7
70.6
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
2.9
16.0
0.0
0.0
18.9
(tpy)
0.2
0.2
0.7
3.6
(lb/event)
323.0
181.0
181.0
193.0
(hr/yr)
50
99
272
119
1,228
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
10.2
56.0
0.0
0.0
66.3
(tpy)
3.9
8.2
32.8
46.0
10.1
59.8
0.0
0.0
69.8
(tpy)
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(tpy)
16.8
92.1
0.0
0.0
108.9
(tpy)
0.5
0.6
2.4
3.6
PM/PM 10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
VOC
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
Emission Rates
SO2*
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
(lb/event)
0.2
0.06
0.06
0.05
N/A
1.4
7.7
0.0
0.0
9.1
(tpy)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
(lb/event)
N/A
0.8
4.3
0.0
0.0
5.1
(tpy)
5.1
(lb/event)
N/A
15.5
85.0
0.0
0.0
100.6
(tpy)
100.6
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
(lb/event)
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.007
(tpy)
N/A
0.007
Average number of start-ups for two combustion turbines.
Startup hours based on :
12 cold starts at 250 minutes per startup.
45.5 number of warm starts at 130 minutes per startup.
181 number of hot starts at 90 minutes per startup.
238.5 number of shutdowns at 30 minutes per shutdown.

Table C-6. CPV St. Charles - GE 207FA CTs (Two CT/HRSG Units in Combined-cycle Mode)
NG-Firing: Maximum CT & Duct Burner HAP Emissions
Parameter
Maximum Heat Input (HHV):
Maximum Annual Hours:
Pollutant
Units
CT
100%, 0F
CT
100%, 59F
DB
100%
MMBtu/hr
hr/yr
2,309
8,760
2,112
8,760
450
0
CT Emission
1
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde2
Naphthalene
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Propylene Oxide
Toluene
Xylene
Max. individual HAP
Total HAPs
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
4.3E-07
4.0E-05
6.4E-06
1.2E-05
3.2E-05
3.0E-04
1.3E-06
2.2E-06
2.9E-05
1.3E-04
6.4E-05
DB Emission
3,4
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.1E-06
N/A
7.4E-05
6.0E-07
N/A
N/A
3.3E-06
N/A
Maximum
CT
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.77E-02
7.39E-02
6.93E-01
3.00E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.00E-01
1.48E-01
Maximum
DB
(lb/hr)
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.26E-04
N/A
3.31E-02
2.69E-04
N/A
N/A
1.50E-03
N/A
CT & DB
5
Total
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.86E-02
7.39E-02
7.26E-01
3.27E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.02E-01
1.48E-01
2 CTs & DBs

Total6
TPY
7.96E-03
7.40E-01
1.18E-01
2.22E-01
5.92E-01
5.55E+00
2.41E-02
4.07E-02
5.37E-01
2.41E+00
1.18E+00
5.6
11.4
Notes:
CT = Combustion Turbine
DB = Duct Burner
1
- EPA AP-42, Table 3.1-3, April 2000.
- CT Factor is based on the average of EPA AP-42 test data for large, heavy duty CTs.
- EPA AP-42, Table 1.4-3, March 1998.
- Based on max. hourly fuel flow.
- Based on baseload and 0F temperature.
- Based on baseload and 59F temperature.
Source: ECT, 2011.

Summary of Facility Annual Pollutant Emission Rates
Criteria Pollutant
CT/HRSG
Units (2)
(tpy)
Cooling
Tower
(tpy)
Auxiliary
Boiler
(tpy)
Generator
IC Engine
(tpy)
Firewater Pump
IC Engine
(tpy)
Fuel Gas
Heater
(tpy)
CPV - St. Charles

Totals
(tpy)
NOx
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10/PM2.5
Lead
H2SO4 Mist
136.0
157.2
23.7
11.4
87.5
87.5
9.05E-03
6.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13.5
1.8
Not applicable
Not applicable
2.0
3.5
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.9
8.94E-08
Negligible
4.06
3.17
1.74
0.57
0.18
0.18
Negligible
Negligible
0.35
0.43
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.02
Negligible
Negligible
1.46
3.38
0.22
0.02
0.31
0.31
0.0
143.9
167.6
26.1
12.2
102.4
90.7
0.0
6.4
GHG (as CO2e)
2,188,124
Not applicable
21,766
613
78
4,869
2,215,452
Formaldhyde*
Total HAP
5.6
11.4
N/A
N/A
1.35E-02
0.3
2.96E-04
0.006
5.66E-04
0.003
3.02E-03
0.076
5.6
11.8
*Highest individual HAP.

Source: ECT, 2011.
OPERATING SCENARIO:
DUCT BURNER HOURS = 2,000 hr/yr

Duct Burner Hours = 2,000 hr/yr
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
6,500
2,000
8,500
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
6,500
2,000
8,500
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
30.7
37.1
N/A
99.8
37.1
137.0
18.7
22.6
N/A
60.8
22.6
83.4
5.3
12.9
N/A
17.4
12.9
30.3
28.4
34.3
N/A
NOx
VOC
92.3
34.3
126.5
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
19.9
28.6
N/A
64.8
28.6
93.4
(lb/hr)
SO2*
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.6
3.1
N/A
8.3
3.1
11.4
1.45
1.75
N/A
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.007
0.002
0.009
4.7
1.7
6.5
Lead
in the SCR.

Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
5,500
1,000
1,000
8,500
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
5,500
1,000
1,000
8,500
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
N/A
16.8
84.5
18.6
18.1
137.9
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
N/A
10.2
51.4
11.3
11.0
83.9
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
N/A
2.9
14.7
6.5
6.3
30.3
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
N/A
NOx
VOC
15.5
78.1
17.1
16.7
127.4
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
N/A
10.1
54.9
14.3
14.2
93.4
SO2*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
N/A
1.4
7.1
1.5
1.5
11.5
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
N/A
0.8
4.0
0.9
0.8
6.5
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.009

Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Case
1
6
8
12
Cold
12
250
Warm
46
130
Hot
181
90
239
30
Totals
Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Case
1
6
8
12
Cold
12
250
Warm
46
130
Hot
181
90
239
30
Totals
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1,000
3,733
1,000
1,000
Emission Rates
NOx
(lb/hr)
(lb/event)
45.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
0.0
8,500
N/A
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1,000
3,733
1,000
1,000
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
(hr/yr)
50
99
272
119
1,228
CO
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
(lb/event)
13.0
4.0
4.0
15.0
N/A
4.6
30.3
7.1
117.8
N/A
90.9
158.3
(lb/event)
5.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
8,500
N/A
0.7
76.6
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
2.9
10.0
6.5
6.3
25.6
(tpy)
0.2
0.2
0.7
3.6
(lb/event)
323.0
181.0
181.0
193.0
(hr/yr)
50
99
272
119
1,228
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
10.2
34.9
11.3
11.0
67.4
(tpy)
3.9
8.2
32.8
46.0
10.1
37.2
14.3
14.2
75.8
(tpy)
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(tpy)
16.8
57.3
18.6
18.1
110.7
(tpy)
0.5
0.6
2.4
3.6
PM/PM 10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
VOC
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
Emission Rates
SO2*
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
(lb/event)
0.2
0.06
0.06
0.05
N/A
1.4
4.8
1.5
1.5
9.3
(tpy)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.3
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
(lb/event)
N/A
0.8
2.7
0.9
0.8
5.2
(tpy)
5.2
(lb/event)
N/A
15.5
53.0
17.1
16.7
102.3
(tpy)
102.3
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
(lb/event)
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.007
(tpy)
N/A
0.007
Startup hours based on:
`

Parameter
Pollutant
Units
CT
100%, 0F
CT
100%, 59F
DB
100%
MMBtu/hr
hr/yr
2,309
8,500
2,112
8,500
450
2,000
Maximum
Maximum
CT Emission
1
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde2
Naphthalene
Propylene Oxide
Toluene
Xylene
Max. individual HAP
Total HAPs
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
4.3E-07
4.0E-05
6.4E-06
1.2E-05
3.2E-05
3.0E-04
1.3E-06
2.2E-06
2.9E-05
1.3E-04
6.4E-05
DB Emission
3,4
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.1E-06
N/A
7.4E-05
6.0E-07
N/A
N/A
3.3E-06
N/A
CT
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.77E-02
7.39E-02
6.93E-01
3.00E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.00E-01
1.48E-01
DB
(lb/hr)
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.26E-04
N/A
3.31E-02
2.69E-04
N/A
N/A
1.50E-03
N/A
CT & DB
5
Total
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.86E-02
7.39E-02
7.26E-01
3.27E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.02E-01
1.48E-01
2 CTs & DBs

Total6
TPY
7.72E-03
7.18E-01
1.15E-01
2.17E-01
5.74E-01
5.45E+00
2.39E-02
3.95E-02
5.21E-01
2.34E+00
1.15E+00
5.5
11.2
Notes:
DB = Duct Burner
1
- Based on baseload and 0 oF temperature.
Source: ECT, 2011.

Criteria Pollutant
CT/HRSG
Units (2)
(tpy)
Cooling
Tower
(tpy)
Auxiliary
Boiler
(tpy)
Generator
IC Engine
(tpy)
Firewater Pump
IC Engine
(tpy)
Fuel Gas
Heater
(tpy)
CPV - St. Charles

Totals
(tpy)
NOx
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10/PM2.5
Lead
H2SO4 Mist
137.9
158.3
30.3
11.5
93.4
93.4
9.17E-03
6.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13.5
1.8
Not applicable
Not applicable
2.0
3.5
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.9
8.94E-08
Negligible
4.06
3.17
1.74
0.57
0.18
0.18
Negligible
Negligible
0.35
0.43
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.02
Negligible
Negligible
1.46
3.38
0.22
0.02
0.31
0.31
0.0
145.8
168.8
32.8
12.3
108.4
96.7
0.0
6.5
GHG (as CO2e)
2,217,553
Not applicable
21,766
613
78
4,869
2,244,881
Formaldhyde*
Total HAP
5.5
11.2
Not applicable
Not applicable
1.35E-02
0.3
2.96E-04
0.006
5.66E-04
0.003
3.02E-03
0.076
5.5
11.6

Source: ECT, 2011.
OPERATING SCENARIO:

Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
5,000
3,000
8,000
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
5,000
3,000
8,000
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
30.7
37.1
N/A
76.8
55.7
132.5
18.7
22.6
N/A
46.8
33.9
80.6
5.3
12.9
N/A
13.4
19.4
32.7
28.4
34.3
N/A
NOx
VOC
71.0
51.4
122.4
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
19.9
28.6
N/A
49.9
42.8
92.7
(lb/hr)
SO2*
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.6
3.1
N/A
6.4
4.6
11.1
1.45
1.75
N/A
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.005
0.004
0.009
3.6
2.6
6.2
Lead
in the SCR.

Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
4,000
1,500
1,500
8,000
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
4,000
1,500
1,500
8,000
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
N/A
16.8
61.4
27.8
27.1
133.2
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
N/A
10.2
37.4
16.9
16.5
81.1
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
N/A
2.9
10.7
9.7
9.4
32.7
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
N/A
NOx
VOC
15.5
56.8
25.7
25.0
123.0
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
N/A
10.1
39.9
21.4
21.4
92.7
SO2*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
N/A
1.4
5.1
2.3
2.3
11.1
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
N/A
0.8
2.9
1.3
1.3
6.3
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.009

Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Case
1
6
8
12
Cold
12
250
Warm
46
130
Hot
181
90
239
30
Totals
Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Case
1
6
8
12
Cold
12
250
Warm
46
130
Hot
181
90
239
30
Totals
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1,000
2,233
1,500
1,500
Emission Rates
NOx
(lb/hr)
(lb/event)
45.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
0.0
8,000
N/A
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1,000
2,233
1,500
1,500
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
(hr/yr)
50
99
272
119
1,228
CO
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
(lb/event)
13.0
4.0
4.0
15.0
N/A
4.6
32.6
7.1
113.1
N/A
90.9
155.4
(lb/event)
5.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
8,000
N/A
0.7
75.8
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
2.9
6.0
9.7
9.4
28.0
(tpy)
0.2
0.2
0.7
3.6
(lb/event)
323.0
181.0
181.0
193.0
(hr/yr)
50
99
272
119
1,228
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
10.2
20.9
16.9
16.5
64.5
(tpy)
3.9
8.2
32.8
46.0
10.1
22.3
21.4
21.4
75.1
(tpy)
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(tpy)
16.8
34.3
27.8
27.1
106.0
(tpy)
0.5
0.6
2.4
3.6
PM/PM 10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
VOC
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
Emission Rates
SO2*
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
(lb/event)
0.2
0.06
0.06
0.05
N/A
1.4
2.9
2.3
2.3
8.9
(tpy)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
(lb/event)
0.0
8.9
N/A
0.8
1.6
1.3
1.3
5.0
(tpy)
5.0
(lb/event)
N/A
15.5
31.7
25.7
25.0
97.9
(tpy)
97.9
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
(lb/event)
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.007
(tpy)
N/A
0.007
verage number of start-ups for two combustion turbines.

Parameter
Pollutant
Units
CT
100%, 0F
CT
100%, 59F
DB
100%
MMBtu/hr
hr/yr
2,309
8,000
2,112
8,000
450
3,000
Maximum
Maximum
CT Emission
1
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde2
Naphthalene
Propylene Oxide
Toluene
Xylene
Max. individual HAP
Total HAPs
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
4.3E-07
4.0E-05
6.4E-06
1.2E-05
3.2E-05
3.0E-04
1.3E-06
2.2E-06
2.9E-05
1.3E-04
6.4E-05
DB Emission
3,4
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.1E-06
N/A
7.4E-05
6.0E-07
N/A
N/A
3.3E-06
N/A
CT
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.77E-02
7.39E-02
6.93E-01
3.00E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.00E-01
1.48E-01
DB
(lb/hr)
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.26E-04
N/A
3.31E-02
2.69E-04
N/A
N/A
1.50E-03
N/A
CT & DB
5
Total
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.86E-02
7.39E-02
7.26E-01
3.27E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.02E-01
1.48E-01
2 CTs & DBs

Total6
TPY
7.27E-03
6.76E-01
1.08E-01
2.06E-01
5.41E-01
5.17E+00
2.28E-02
3.72E-02
4.90E-01
2.20E+00
1.08E+00
5.2
10.5
Notes:
DB = Duct Burner
1
Source: ECT, 2011.

Criteria Pollutant
CT/HRSG
Units (2)
(tpy)
Cooling
Tower
(tpy)
Auxiliary
Boiler
(tpy)
Generator
IC Engine
(tpy)
Firewater Pump
IC Engine
(tpy)
Fuel Gas
Heater
(tpy)
CPV - St. Charles

Totals
(tpy)
NOx
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10/PM2.5
Lead
H2SO4 Mist
133.2
155.4
32.7
11.1
92.7
92.7
8.85E-03
6.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13.5
1.8
Not applicable
Not applicable
2.0
3.5
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.9
8.94E-08
Negligible
4.06
3.17
1.74
0.57
0.18
0.18
Negligible
Negligible
0.35
0.43
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.02
Negligible
Negligible
1.46
3.38
0.22
0.02
0.31
0.31
0.0
141.1
165.9
35.2
11.9
107.7
96.0
0.0
6.3
GHG (as CO2e)
2,140,821
Not applicable
21,766
613
78
4,869
2,168,148
Formaldhyde*
Total HAP
5.2
10.5
Not applicable
Not applicable
1.35E-02
0.3
2.96E-04
0.006
5.66E-04
0.003
3.02E-03
0.076
5.2
11.0

Source: ECT, 2011.
OPERATING SCENARIO:

Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
3,500
4,000
7,500
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
6
8
Totals
3,500
4,000
7,500
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
30.7
37.1
N/A
53.8
74.2
128.0
18.7
22.6
N/A
32.7
45.2
77.9
5.3
12.9
N/A
9.4
25.8
35.2
28.4
34.3
N/A
NOx
VOC
49.7
68.6
118.2
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
19.9
28.6
N/A
34.9
57.1
92.0
(lb/hr)
SO2*
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.6
3.1
N/A
4.5
6.2
10.7
1.45
1.75
N/A
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.004
0.005
0.009
2.5
3.5
6.0
Lead
in the SCR.

Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
2,500
2,000
2,000
7,500
Source
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
1
6
8
12
Totals
1,000
2,500
2,000
2,000
7,500
Emission Rates
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
N/A
16.8
38.4
37.1
36.1
128.4
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
N/A
10.2
23.4
22.6
22.0
78.2
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
N/A
2.9
6.7
12.9
12.6
35.1
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
N/A
NOx
VOC
15.5
35.5
34.3
33.4
118.7
Emission Rates
PM/PM10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
N/A
10.1
24.9
28.6
28.5
92.0
SO2*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
N/A
1.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
10.7
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
N/A
0.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
6.0
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
N/A
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.009

Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Source
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
CT/HRSG 1A/1B
Startups
Shutdowns
Downtime
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1
1,000
6
733
8
2,000
12
2,000
(events/yr) (min./event) (hr/yr)
Cold
12
250
50
Warm
46
130
99
Hot
181
90
272
239
30
119
1,228
Totals
7,500
Case
Annual
Operations
(hr/yr)
1
1,000
6
733
8
2,000
12
2,000
(events/yr) (min./event) (hr/yr)
Cold
12
250
50
Warm
46
130
99
Hot
181
90
272
239
30
119
1,228
Totals
7,500
Emission Rates
NOx
(lb/hr)
CO
(tpy)
33.6
30.7
37.1
36.1
(lb/event)
45.0
13.0
13.0
15.0
0.0
N/A
20.1
19.9
28.6
28.5
Ammonia
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
5.8
5.3
12.9
12.6
31.0
28.4
34.3
33.4
(tpy)
20.5
18.7
22.6
22.0
(lb/event)
13.0
4.0
4.0
15.0
2.9
2.0
12.9
12.6
30.3
(tpy)
0.2
0.2
0.7
3.6
N/A
4.6
35.0
16.8
11.3
37.1
36.1
101.3
(tpy)
0.5
0.6
2.4
3.6
(lb/event)
323.0
181.0
181.0
193.0
10.2
6.9
22.6
22.0
61.6
(tpy)
3.9
8.2
32.8
46.0
7.1
108.3
N/A
90.9
152.5
PM/PM 10
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
VOC
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
Emission Rates
SO2*
H2SO4*
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
(lb/event)
5.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
10.1
7.3
28.6
28.5
74.4
(tpy)
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
2.8
2.6
3.1
3.0
(lb/event)
0.2
0.06
0.06
0.05
N/A
0.7
75.1
N/A
1.4
0.9
3.1
3.0
8.5
(tpy)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.58
1.45
1.75
1.70
(lb/event)
0.0
8.5
N/A
0.8
0.5
1.7
1.7
4.8
(tpy)
4.8
(lb/event)
N/A
15.5
10.4
34.3
33.4
93.6
(tpy)
93.6
Lead
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
(lb/event)
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.007
(tpy)
N/A
0.007

Parameter
Pollutant
Units
CT
100%, 0F
CT
100%, 59F
DB
100%
MMBtu/hr
hr/yr
2,309
7,500
2,112
7,500
450
4,000
Maximum
Maximum
CT Emission
1
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde2
Naphthalene
Propylene Oxide
Toluene
Xylene
Max. individual HAP
Total HAPs
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
4.3E-07
4.0E-05
6.4E-06
1.2E-05
3.2E-05
3.0E-04
1.3E-06
2.2E-06
2.9E-05
1.3E-04
6.4E-05
DB Emission
3,4
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.1E-06
N/A
7.4E-05
6.0E-07
N/A
N/A
3.3E-06
N/A
CT
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.77E-02
7.39E-02
6.93E-01
3.00E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.00E-01
1.48E-01
DB
(lb/hr)
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.26E-04
N/A
3.31E-02
2.69E-04
N/A
N/A
1.50E-03
N/A
CT & DB
5
Total
(lb/hr)
9.93E-04
9.24E-02
1.48E-02
2.86E-02
7.39E-02
7.26E-01
3.27E-03
5.08E-03
6.70E-02
3.02E-01
1.48E-01
2 CTs & DBs

Total6
TPY
6.81E-03
6.34E-01
1.01E-01
1.94E-01
5.07E-01
4.88E+00
2.17E-02
3.48E-02
4.59E-01
2.07E+00
1.01E+00
4.9
9.9
Notes:
DB = Duct Burner
1
Source: ECT, 2011.

Criteria Pollutant
CT/HRSG
Units (2)
(tpy)
Cooling
Tower
(tpy)
Auxiliary
Boiler
(tpy)
Generator
IC Engine
(tpy)
Firewater Pump
IC Engine
(tpy)
Fuel Gas
Heater
(tpy)
CPV - St. Charles

Totals
(tpy)
NOx
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10/PM2.5
Lead
H2SO4 Mist
128.4
152.5
35.1
10.7
92.0
92.0
8.53E-03
6.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
13.5
1.8
Not applicable
Not applicable
2.0
3.5
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.9
8.94E-08
Negligible
4.06
3.17
1.74
0.57
0.18
0.18
Negligible
Negligible
0.35
0.43
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.02
Negligible
Negligible
1.46
3.38
0.22
0.02
0.31
0.31
0.0
136.3
163.0
37.5
11.5
107.0
95.3
0.0
6.0
GHG (as CO2e)
2,064,088
Not applicable
21,766
613
78
4,869
2,091,416
Formaldhyde*
Total HAP
4.9
9.9
Not applicable
Not applicable
1.35E-02
0.3
2.96E-04
0.006
5.66E-04
0.003
3.02E-03
0.076
4.9
10.3

Source: ECT, 2011.

A. Natural Gas Fuel Flow Rates; Per CT/HRSG Unit
Base
1
Base
2
Heat Input - HHV

(MMBtu/hr)
2,309.0
2,711.6
Fuel Rate*
(lb/hr)
101,259
Fuel Rate
(lb/sec)
Fuel Rate
(10 6 ft3/hr)
Case
0F
75% load
3
59F
90F
75% load
13
49% load
4
Base
5
Base
6
Base
7
Peak
8
75% load
9
46% load
10
Base
11
Peak
12
48% load
14
1,827.0
1,438.0
2,076.0
2,112.0
2,491.4
2,547.6
1,677.0
1,289.0
2,039.0
2477.0
1,597.0
1,269.0
118,914
80,121
63,062
91,041
92,619
109,258
111,722
73,543
56,528
89,418
108,626
70,035
55,651
28.127
33.032
22.256
17.517
25.289
25.728
30.349
31.034
20.429
15.702
24.838
30.174
19.454
15.458
2.234
2.624
1.768
1.391
2.009
2.044
2.411
2.465
1.623
1.247
1.973
2.397
1.545
1.228
B. Natural Gas Fuel Flow Rates; Per Duct Burner

Rated Heat Input (%)
100
70
50
Heat Input - HHV
(MMBtu/hr)
400.0
280.0
200.0
Fuel Rate*
(lb/hr)
17,542
12,279
8,770.8
Fuel Rate
(lb/sec)
4.873
3.4
2.436
Fuel Rate
(10 6 ft3/hr)
0.387
0.3
0.194
*Based on natural gas heat content of 22803 Btu/lb (HHV)

Based on natural gas density of 0.0453222 lb/ft3.
Sources: GE, 2011.
CPV, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
CTG/HRSG Exhaust Flow Rates (per CTG/HRSG)

A. Exhaust Molecular Weight (MW)
Base
1
N
N
Base
2
N
Y
75% load
3
N
N
49% load
4
N
N
Base
5
N
N
Exhaust Gas Composition - Volume %

59F
Base
Base
Peak
75% load
6
7
8
9
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
0F
MW
Component
(lb/mole)
Case
Evap. Cooling
Duct Burners
90F
46% load
10
N
N
Base
11
Y
N
Peak
12
Y
Y
75% load
13
N
N
48% load
14
N
N
Ar
N2
39.944
28.013
0.89
75.02
0.89
74.52
0.89
75.08
0.89
75.09
0.89
74.37
0.88
74.18
0.88
73.81
0.88
73.61
0.88
74.31
0.89
74.54
0.87
73.02
0.86
72.44
0.87
73.30
0.88
73.58
12.82
O2
31.999
12.38
10.96
12.55
12.59
12.36
12.27
10.76
10.61
12.19
12.85
12.11
10.41
12.00
CO2
44.010
3.98
4.64
3.90
3.88
3.90
3.92
4.64
4.69
3.98
3.68
3.85
4.63
3.94
3.56
H2O
18.015
7.73
9.00
7.58
7.54
8.48
8.75
9.91
10.22
8.63
8.05
10.15
11.65
9.89
9.17
SO2
CO
HC (CH4)
NO
64.063
28.010
16.043
30.006
Totals
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.01
Exhaust MW
(lb/mole)
28.48
28.40
28.49
28.49
28.39
28.36
28.30
28.27
28.38
28.42
28.20
28.10
28.24
28.28
Exhaust Flow
(lb/sec)
1,234.5
1,239.4
996.9
788.6
1,128.4
1,141.0
1,133.4
1,146.1
893.1
744.5
1,117.0
1,122.1
855.9
754.4
(oF)
(K)
184.7
358
163.3
346
173.9
352
156.9
343
184.8
358
185.6
358
163.6
346
164.9
347
167.5
348
158.5
343
190.8
361
169.0
349
170.2
350
165.7
347
Exhaust O 2
(Vol %, Dry)
13.42
12.04
13.58
13.62
13.51
13.45
11.94
11.82
13.34
13.97
13.48
11.78
13.32
14.11
Flow Rates (ft3/min)

59F
Base
Peak
7
8
75% load
9
46% load
10
Base
11
Peak
12
75% load
13
48% load
14
Exhaust Temperature
B. Exhaust Flow Rates
0F
90F
Case
Base
1
Base
2
75% load
3
49% load
4
Base
5
Base
6
ACFM*
1,232,181
1,199,191
978,066
752,988
1,129,958
1,145,185
1,101,177
1,116,810
870,756
714,369
1,136,433
1,107,252
842,189
735,742
Velocity (fps)
Velocity (m/s)
65.4
19.9
63.6
19.4
51.9
15.8
39.9
12.2
59.9
18.3
60.8
18.5
58.4
17.8
59.2
18.1
46.2
14.1
37.9
11.6
60.3
18.4
58.7
17.9
44.7
13.6
39.0
11.9
SCFM, Dry
924,722
918,050
747,734
591,781
840,983
848,748
834,183
841,361
664,844
556,888
822,712
815,523
631,448
560,044
ACFM (15% O2, Dry)

SCFM (15% O2, Dry)
1,441,950
1,172,806
1,638,013
1,378,015
1,121,590
927,785
859,445
730,528
1,296,135
1,054,045
1,320,117
1,072,217
1,505,964
1,266,317
1,543,474
1,295,157
1,019,276
851,749
770,979
653,637
1,284,487
1,034,941
1,511,709
1,260,234
975,367
811,566
768,597
644,119
*Based on an site elevation of 195 ft amsl.

Based on a stack diameter of 20 ft.
At 68F.
Sources: GE, 2011.
ECT, 2011.
Appendix C-10
POTENTIAL EMISSION INVENTORY WORKSHEET

CPV - St. Charles
CTWR1 - 10
EMISSION SOURCE TYPE

COOLING TOWERS - PM/PM10
FACILITY AND SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Emission Source Description:
Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers
Emission Control Method(s)/ID No.(s):

Emission Point Description:
Drift Mist Eliminators

Ten-cell Cooling Tower
EMISSION ESTIMATION EQUATIONS

PM Emission (lb/hr) = Recirculating Water Flow Rate (gpm) x (Drift Loss Rate (%) / 100) x 8.345 lb/gal x (TDS (ppmw) /610
) x 60 min/hr
PM Emission (ton/yr) = PM Emission (lb/hr) x Operating Period (hrs/yr) x (1 ton/ 2,000 lb)
PM10 Emission (lb/hr) = PM Emissions (lb/hr) x PM10/PM Fraction
PM10 Emission (ton/yr) = PM10 Emission (lb/hr) x Operating Period (hrs/yr) x (1 ton/ 2,000 lb)
Source: ECT, 2007.
INPUT DATA AND EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Cooling Tower Data (Per Tower)
Operating Hours:
Number of Cells per Tower:
Recirculating Water Flow Rate:
Drift Loss Rate:
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS):
PM10/PM Fraction:
Number of Towers:
8,760
hrs/yr
10
152,000
gal/min
0.00050
8,100
Estimated maximum TDS in recirculation water.

Based on PM/PM 10 testing on cooling towers.
ppmw
0.132
1
Pollutant
PM
PM10
Potential Emission Rates (Per Cell)

(lb/hr)
(g/s)
0.308
0.041
Potential Emission Rates (One Tower)

(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.0388
0.0051
3.1
0.4
13.5
1.8
SOURCES OF INPUT DATA

Parameter
Operating Hours (annual)
Data Source
CPV, 2011
Recirculating Water Flow Rate (gpm)
CPV, 2011
Drift Loss Rate (%)
CPV, 2011
PM10/PM Fraction:
ECT, 2011
TDS (ppmw)
CPV, 2011
NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS
DATA CONTROL
Data Collected by:
W. Karl
Jun-11
Data Entered by:

Reviewed by:
W. Karl
J. Shrock
Jun-11
Jun-11
Appendx C-11. CPV St. Charles

Cooling Tower PM10 Fraction - Cooling Towers
Procedure Citation:
AWMA Abstract No. 216, Session No. AM-1b, Orlando, 2001.
Calculating Realistic PM 10 Emissions from Cooling Towers
Cooling Tower Design Data:
Cooling Tower Recirculating Water Total Dissolved Solids:
8,100
Cooling Tower PM10 Density (assumed NaCl):
2.2
ppmw
g/cm3
Droplet
Diameter
Droplet
Volume
Droplet
Mass
Particle
Mass
Particle
Volume
Particle
Diameter
Mass
Fraction
(m)
(m3)
(g)
(g)
(m3)
(m)
(%)
Particle Size Distribution:

10
5.24E-16
20
4.19E-15
30
1.41E-14
40
3.35E-14
50
6.54E-14
60
1.13E-13
70
1.80E-13
90
3.82E-13
110
6.97E-13
130
1.15E-12
150
1.77E-12
180
3.05E-12
210
4.85E-12
240
7.24E-12
270
1.03E-11
300
1.41E-11
350
2.24E-11
400
3.35E-11
450
4.77E-11
500
6.54E-11
600
1.13E-10
5.24E-10
4.19E-09
1.41E-08
3.35E-08
6.54E-08
1.13E-07
1.80E-07
3.82E-07
6.97E-07
1.15E-06
1.77E-06
3.05E-06
4.85E-06
7.24E-06
1.03E-05
1.41E-05
2.24E-05
3.35E-05
4.77E-05
6.54E-05
1.13E-04
4.24E-12
3.39E-11
1.15E-10
2.71E-10
5.30E-10
9.16E-10
1.45E-09
3.09E-09
5.64E-09
9.32E-09
1.43E-08
2.47E-08
3.93E-08
5.86E-08
8.35E-08
1.15E-07
1.82E-07
2.71E-07
3.86E-07
5.30E-07
9.16E-07
1.93E-18
1.54E-17
5.21E-17
1.23E-16
2.41E-16
4.16E-16
6.61E-16
1.41E-15
2.57E-15
4.24E-15
6.51E-15
1.12E-14
1.79E-14
2.66E-14
3.79E-14
5.21E-14
8.27E-14
1.23E-13
1.76E-13
2.41E-13
4.16E-13
1.544
3.088
4.632
6.177
7.721
9.265
10.809
13.897
16.986
20.074
23.162
27.795
32.427
37.059
41.692
46.324
54.045
61.766
69.486
77.207
92.649
0.000
0.196
0.226
0.514
1.816
5.702
21.348
49.812
70.509
82.023
88.012
91.032
92.468
94.091
94.689
96.288
97.011
98.340
99.071
99.071
100.000
Linear Interpolation:
60
70
1.13E-07
1.80E-07
9.16E-10
1.45E-09
4.16E-16
6.61E-16
9.265
10.809
5.702
21.348
10.000
13.151
1.13E-13
1.80E-13
Mass Fraction of Cooling Tower PM PM10:
0.132
Appendix C-12

CPV - St. Charles
AUX1

EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES < 100 MMBtu/hr
Natural Gas-Fired Auxiliary Boiler
None
93
MMBtu/hr Rated Capacity (HHV)


Emission (lb/hr) = Emission Factor (lb/MMBtu) x Rated Capacity (MMBtu/hr)
Emission (ton/yr) = Emission (lb/hr) x Operating Period (hrs/yr) x (1 ton/ 2,000 lb)

Operating Hours:
Natural Gas Heat Content:
No. of Aux. Boilers
Maximum Heat Input:
Pollutant
4,000
1,033
hrs/yr
Btu/scf (HHV)
93.0
Emission
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
NOx
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10
Lead
Highest HAP
Total HAPs
0.0110
0.0188
0.0020
0.0006
0.0050
0.0050
4.90E-07
MMBtu/hr (HHV)
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
1.02
1.74
0.19
0.06
0.47
0.47
4.47E-08
1.62E-01
1 70E-01
1.70E-01
2.0
3.5
0.37
0.11
0.93
0.93
8.94E-08
3.24E-01
3 40E-01
3.40E-01
Hazardous Air
Pollutant (HAP)
Emission
Factor
6
(lb/10 scf)
2-Methylnapthalene
Arsenic
Benzene
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Dichlorobenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Manganese
Mercury
Naphthanlene
Nickel
Phenanathrene
Pyrene
Toluene
2.4E-05
2.0E-04
2.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
8.4E-05
1.2E-03
3.0E-06
2 8E-06
2.8E-06
7.5E-02
1.8E+00
3.8E-04
2.6E-04
6.1E-04
2.1E-03
1.7E-05
5.0E-06
3.4E-03
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.16E-06
1.80E-05
1.89E-04
9.90E-05
1.26E-04
7.56E-06
1.08E-04
2.70E-07
2 52E-07
2.52E-07
6.75E-03
1.62E-01
3.42E-05
2.34E-05
5.49E-05
1.89E-04
1.53E-06
4.50E-07
3.06E-04
4.32E-06
3.60E-05
3.78E-04
1.98E-04
2.52E-04
1.51E-05
2.16E-04
5.40E-07
5 04E-07
5.04E-07
1.35E-02
3.24E-01
6.84E-05
4.68E-05
1.10E-04
3.78E-04
3.06E-06
9.00E-07
6.12E-04

Parameter
Data Source

Natural Gas Heat Content (Btu/scf, HHV)
Maximum Heat Input (MMBtu/hr, HHV)
Emission Factors (NOx, CO,VOC, PM/PM10)
Emission Factors (SO2)
Emission Factors (Lead)
Emission Factors (HAPs)
CPV, 2011
CPV, 2011
CPV, 2011
CPV, 2011
CPV, 2011
AP-42, Table 1.4-2, July 1998
AP-42, Tables 1.4-3 and 1.4-4, July 1998

Only detected HAP compounds listed.
DATA CONTROL
Data Collected by:
W. Karl
Date:
Aug-11
Calculated by:
W. Karl
Date:
Aug-11
Reviewed by:
J. Shrock
Date:
Aug-11
Appendix C-13

CPV - St. Charles
EG1

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES > 600 HP
Emergency Generator
Emission Control Method(s)/ID No.(s): None
1500 -kW Diesel Generator
2205 BHP

Emission (lb/hr) = Emission Factor (lb/MMBtu) x Heat Input (MMBtu/hr)
Emission (ton/yr) = Emission Factor (lb/hr) x Operating Period (hrs/yr) x (1 ton/ 2,000 lb)

Operating Hours:
No. of Generators
Heat Input:
500
1
14.99
Emission
Factor
g/hp-hr
Pollutant
NOx
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10
Hi h t HAP
Highest
Total HAPs
3.34
2.61
1.43
0.47
0.15
0.15
hrs/yr
MMBtu/hr (HHV)
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
16.24
12.69
6.95
2.28
0.73
0.73
1.16E-02
1 16E 02
2.55E-02
4.06
3.17
1.74
0.57
0.18
0.18
2.91E-03
2 91E 03
6.38E-03
Fuel Flow:
Diesel Sulfur Content:
Diesel Heat Content:
109.4 gal/hr
0.0015 weight %
137,000 Btu/gal (HHV)
Pollutant
Emission
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
POM
Toluene
T l
Xylenes
2.52E-05
7.88E-06
7.76E-04
7.89E-05
1.30E-04
2.12E-04
22.81E-04
81E 04
1.93E-04
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
3.78E-04
1.18E-04
1.16E-02
1.18E-03
1.95E-03
3.18E-03
44.21E-03
21E 03
2.89E-03
9.44E-05
2.95E-05
2.91E-03
2.96E-04
4.87E-04
7.94E-04
11.05E-03
05E 03
7.23E-04

Data Source
Parameter
CPV, 2011
Fuel Flow Rate (gal/hr)
CPV, 2011; ECT, 2011.
Emission Factors (Criteria Pollutants)
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII except SO2 based on mass balance
AP-42, Table 3.4-3 and 3.4-4, EPA, October 1996

NOx EF is based on 70% of NMHC+NOx EF.
VOC EF is based on 30% of NMHC+NOx EF.
POM = Polycyclic Organic Matter
DATA CONTROL
Data Collected by: W. Karl
Date:
Aug-11
Calculated by:
Reviewed by:
Date:
Date:
Aug-11
W. Karl
J. Shrock
Aug-11
Appendix C-14

CPV - St. Charles
FWP1

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES < 600 HP
Fire Water Pump
Emission Control Method(s)/ID No.(s): None
300 -HP Diesel Engine

Emission (lb/hr) = Emission Factor (lb/MMBtu) x Heat Input (MMBtu/hr)
Emission (ton/yr) = Emission Factor (lb/hr) x Operating Period (hrs/yr) x (1 ton/ 2,000 lb)

Operating Hours:
No. of Engines:
Heat Input:
500
1
1.92
Emission
Factor
g/hp-hr
Pollutant
NOx
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10
Hi h t HAP
Highest
Total HAPs
2.10
2.60
0.90
0.45
0.15
0.15
Parameter
hrs/yr
MMBtu/hr (HHV)
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
1.39
1.72
0.60
0.30
0.10
0.10
4.95E-03
4 95E 03
1.26E-02
0.35
0.43
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.02
1.24E-03
1 24E 03
3.16E-03
Fuel Flow:
Diesel Sulfur Conten
Diesel Heat Content
14.0
0.05
137,000
Pollutant
Emission
Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Naphthalene
POM
Propylene
Toluene
Xylenes
3.91E-05
7.67E-04
9.25E-05
9.33E-04
1.18E-03
1.30E-04
1.68E-04
1 68E 04
2.58E-03
4.09E-04
2.85E-04
gal/hr
weight %
Btu/gal (HHV)
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
7.50E-05
1.47E-03
1.77E-04
1.79E-03
2.26E-03
2.49E-04
3.22E-04
3 22E 04
4.95E-03
7.84E-04
5.47E-04
1.87E-05
3.68E-04
4.44E-05
4.47E-04
5.66E-04
6.23E-05
8.06E-05
8 06E 05
1.24E-03
1.96E-04
1.37E-04

Data Source
CPV, 2011
Fuel Flow Rate (gal/hr)
Aurora, 2007.
Emission Factors (Criteria Pollutants)
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII except SO2 based on mass balance
AP-42, Tables 3.3-1, EPA, October 1996
AP-42, Tables 3.3-2, EPA, October 1996

NOx EF is based on 70% of NMHC+NOx EF.
VOC EF is based on 30% of NMHC+NOx EF.
POM = Polycyclic Organic Matter
DATA CONTROL
Data Collected by: W. Karl
Date:
Aug-11
Calculated by:
Reviewed by:
Date:
Date:
Aug-11
W. Karl
J. Shrock
Aug-11
Appendix C-15

CPV - St. Charles
FGH

EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES < 100 MMBtu/hr

Natural Gas-Fired Fuel Gas Heater
None
9.5
MMBtu/hr Rated Capacity (HHV)

Emission (lb/hr) = Emission Factor (lb/MMBtu) x Rated Capacity (MMBtu/hr)
Emission (ton/yr) = Emission (lb/hr) x Operating Period (hrs/yr) x (1 ton/ 2,000 lb)

Operating Hours:
Natural Gas Heat Content:
No. of Fuel Gas Heaters
Maximum Heat Input:
Pollutant
8,760
1,033
hrs/yr
Btu/scf (HHV)
9.5
Emission
Factor
(lb/MMcf)
NOx*
CO
VOC
SO2
PM
PM10
Lead
Highest HAP
Total HAPs
36.2
84.0
5.5
0.6
7.6
7.6
5.00E-04
MMBtu/hr (HHV)
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
0.33
0.77
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.07
4.66E-06
1.65E-02
1 74E-02
1.74E-02
1.5
3.4
0.22
0.02
0.31
0.31
2.04E-05
7.25E-02
7 60E-02
7.60E-02
* Emission factor based on NJDEP State of the Art (SOTA) limit of

0.035 lb/MMBtu.
Hazardous Air
Pollutant (HAP)
Emission
Factor
6
(lb/10 scf)
2-Methylnapthalene
Arsenic
Benzene
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Dichlorobenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Manganese
Mercury
Naphthanlene
Nickel
Phenanathrene
Pyrene
Toluene
2.4E-05
2.0E-04
2.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
8.4E-05
1.2E-03
3.0E-06
2 8E-06
2.8E-06
7.5E-02
1.8E+00
3.8E-04
2.6E-04
6.1E-04
2.1E-03
1.7E-05
5.0E-06
3.4E-03
Potential
Emission Rates
Per Unit
Per Unit
(lb/hr)
(tpy)
2.21E-07
1.84E-06
1.93E-05
1.01E-05
1.29E-05
7.72E-07
1.10E-05
2.76E-08
2 57E-08
2.57E-08
6.89E-04
1.65E-02
3.49E-06
2.39E-06
5.61E-06
1.93E-05
1.56E-07
4.60E-08
3.13E-05
9.66E-07
8.05E-06
8.46E-05
4.43E-05
5.64E-05
3.38E-06
4.83E-05
1.21E-07
1 13E-07
1.13E-07
3.02E-03
7.25E-02
1.53E-05
1.05E-05
2.46E-05
8.46E-05
6.84E-07
2.01E-07
1.37E-04

Parameter
Data Source

Natural Gas Heat Content (Btu/scf, HHV)
Maximum Heat Input (MMBtu/hr, HHV)
Emission Factor (NOx)
Emission Factors (CO,VOC, PM/PM10)
Emission Factors (SO2)
Emission Factors (Lead)
CPV, 2011
CPV, 2011
CPV, 2011
CPV, 2011
AP-42, Table 1.4-1 and 1.4-2, July 1998
AP-42, Table 1.4-2, July 1998
AP-42, Table 1.4-2, July 1998
AP-42, Tables 1.4-3 and 1.4-4, July 1998

Only detected HAP compounds listed.
DATA CONTROL
Data Collected by:
W. Karl
Date:
Aug-11
Calculated by:
W. Karl
Date:
Aug-11
Reviewed by:
J. Shrock
Date:
Aug-11

Table C-16. CPV St. Charles - GE 207FA.05 CTs

Potential Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Potential Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) Emissions
Emission Source
N2O
CO2
CH4
CO2e
Potential
CO
Potential
CO
e
Potential
CH
e
Potential
N 2O Potential CO 2e Potential
Potential
CO
Maximum Annual
Emission
Emission
Emission
2
2
4
2
Potential Heat Input
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor*
(MMBtu/yr)
(kg/MMBtu) (short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
CT/HRSG (Per CT)

CT/HRSG (2 CTs)
18,698,120
37,396,240
53.02
2,185,980
2,185,980
1.0E-03
41
866
1.0E-04
1278
2,188,124
Auxiliary Boiler
372,000
53.02
21,745
21,745
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
13
21,766
Fuel Gas Heater
83,220
53.02
4,865
4,865
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
4,869
Emergency Generator
7,494
73.96
611
611
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
613
Emergency Firewater Pump
959
73.96
78
78
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
78
Total CO2e Potential Annual Emissions
2,215,452
*Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, Final Rule; Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 209, October 30, 2009, Table C-1 To Subpart C of Part 98.
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, Final Rule; Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 209, October 30, 2009, Table C-2 To Subpart C of Part 98.
Based on Global Warming Potential of 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O.
Source: ECT, 2011.


Emission Source
N2O
CO2
CH4
CO2e
Potential
CO
Potential
CO
e
Potential
CH
e
Potential
Potential
CO
Maximum Annual
Emission
Emission
Emission
2
2
4
2
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor*
(MMBtu/yr)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
CT/HRSG (Per CT)

CT/HRSG (2 CTs)
18,949,600
37,899,200
53.02
2,215,381
2,215,381
1.0E-03
42
877
1.0E-04
1295
2,217,553
Auxiliary Boiler
372,000
53.02
21,745
21,745
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
13
21,766
Fuel Gas Heater
83,220
53.02
4,865
4,865
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
4,869
Emergency Generator
7,494
73.96
611
611
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
613
959
73.96
78
78
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
78
2,244,881
Based on Global Warming Potential of 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O .
Source: ECT, 2011.


Emission Source
N2O
CO2
CH4
CO2e
Potential
CO
Potential
CO
e
Potential
CH
e
Potential
Potential
CO
Maximum Annual
Emission
Emission
Emission
2
2
4
2
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor*
(MMBtu/yr)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
CT/HRSG (Per CT)

CT/HRSG (2 CTs)
18,293,900
36,587,800
53.02
2,138,723
2,138,723
1.0E-03
40
847
1.0E-04
1250
2,140,821
Auxiliary Boiler
372,000
53.02
21,745
21,745
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
13
21,766
Fuel Gas Heater
83,220
53.02
4,865
4,865
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
4,869
Emergency Generator
7,494
73.96
611
611
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
613
959
73.96
78
78
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
78
2,168,148
Source: ECT, 2011.


Emission Source
N2O
CO2
CH4
CO2e
Potential
CO
Potential
CO
e
Potential
CH
e
Potential
Potential
CO
Maximum Annual
Emission
Emission
Emission
2
2
4
2
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Factor
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Factor*
(MMBtu/yr)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
(short tpy)
CT/HRSG (Per CT)

CT/HRSG (2 CTs)
17,638,200
35,276,400
53.02
2,062,066
2,062,066
1.0E-03
39
817
1.0E-04
1206
2,064,088
Auxiliary Boiler
372,000
53.02
21,745
21,745
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
13
21,766
Fuel Gas Heater
83,220
53.02
4,865
4,865
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
4,869
Emergency Generator
7,494
73.96
611
611
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
613
959
73.96
78
78
3.0E-03
6.0E-04
78
2,091,416
Source: ECT, 2011.
App. D
APPENDIX D
AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
Comments on Modeling Protocol from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Power Plant Research Project and the Maryland Department of the Environment
From: Patty, Sandi [mailto:SPATTY@dnr.state.md.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:11 AM
To: 'Nathan Rushing'; 'Don Atwood'
Cc: 'jshrock@ectinc.com'; Mark Garrison; 'Bill Paul'; Sherwell, John; Jennifer Flannery
Subject: revised air modeling protocol
Nate & Don:

PPRP and MDE have reviewed the revised air modeling protocol for the Competitive Power Ventures, Inc.
(CPV) proposed power plant project in St. Charles, Maryland, submitted by John Shrock on July 11, 2011. We
have a few comments that are outlined below.
General comments on the protocol
Page 4, 1st sentence: PPRP/MDE recommend that latest version of CALPUFF be changed to
latest regulatory version of CALPUFF.
Page 7, discussion of background concentrations: The 1-hour values shown are, we believe, 98th
percentile daily maximum concentrations (not highest daily) which would make the average the true
design value. The value of 30 ppb is appropriate, but please check the language describing the
concentrations and modify if necessary.
Page 7, CPV Emission Source Inventory Section: Please include the maximum number of hours per
year the emergency equipment is intended to be tested, and the duration of the test.
Page 8, Offsite Inventory Section: Please make note of the significant impact distance in this section.
Comments that can be addressed in the modeling report
PPRP/MDE recommend that AERSURFACE be used to characterize land use at the airport and at the
site to update and strengthen the representativeness discussion from the previous CPCN.
PPRP/MDE recommend that NED elevation data be used with AERMAP to define receptor elevations
and hill scales.
Please contact me at (410) 260 8668 if you have questions.

Sandi Patty
Power Plant Research Program
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg. B-3
Annapolis MD 21401
Ph: 410-260-8668
Fax: 410-260-8670
Cell: 410-693-3645
spatty@dnr.state.md.us
1
AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL

IN SUPPORT OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY (CPCN)
FOR THE
CPV ST. CHARLES PROJECT
Prepared for:
CPV MARYLAND, LLC
Prepared by:
3701 Northwest 98th Street

Gainesville, Florida 32606
ECT No. 110122-0200

July 2011
Revised August 2011
AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL IN SUPPORT OF THE

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (CPCN) FOR
THE CPV ST. CHARLES PROJECT
The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) air construction permit application for
the CPV Maryland, LLC (CPV), St. Charles Project was submitted as part of the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) application in December 2007 (Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. [ECT], 2007). Construction for the project is
not anticipated to commence prior to the current CPCN expiration date. Also, CPV is
proposing to make several changes to the original design. The most significant change is
the replacement of the originally proposed General Electric (GE) 2FA.04 combustion
turbines (CT) with the newer and more efficient GE 7FA.05 CTs. Given that the emissions and stack parameters for the turbines will change, and that there are changes affecting other sources, an updated air dispersion modeling study is being prepared to support
the project.
The facility will have emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and
particulate matter less than 10 microns aerodynamic diameter (PM10) above the PSD significant emissions rates and will therefore require air quality demonstrations to show
compliance with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the PSD increments. In addition to the traditional modeling analyses that were performed for the
original application, CPV will demonstrate compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which was not in effect at the time of the original CPCN issuance.
MODELS AND MODELING METHODOLOGY
The PSD Class II modeling analyses will be conducted using the current version of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved American Meteorological Society
(AMS)/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) modeling system. Specifically, AERMOD
and AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Terrain Preprocessor (AERMAP), Version 11103
(April 13, 2011), will be used. The updates to AERMOD from prior versions (e.g., Version 09292) primarily implement the modeling procedures required for the new 1-hour
NO2 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. The update to AERMAP was a minor correction
to an error message format that could cause a FORTRAN runtime error.
1
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\MODPROTCL.DOCX081911
Modeling will be conducted using the same 5 years of meteorological data used in the
original modeling analyses. The hourly meteorological data was developed from surface
data collected at the Dulles International Airport and upper air data from Sterling, Virginia, for the years 1991 through 1995. Although more recent data are available, the proposed meteorological dataset is generally more complete than the later years, and the earlier data is still considered representative of the project site. The meteorological data was
processed using AMS/EPA Regulatory Model Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET)
Version 06341 (December 7, 2006). An update to AERMET (Version 11059) was issued
on February 28, 2011. However, as described in AERMET Model Change Bulletin #2,
the bug fixes to AERMET in Version 11059 address the processing of onsite meteorological data. Since the meteorological data used for the CPV project does not involve onsite
data, the revisions incorporated in AERMET Version 11059 will not change the meteorological data files previously prepared using AERMET Version 06341.
CPV has committed to using wet cooling for the St. Charles project. The design of the
CPV wet mechanical draft cooling tower has been approved for either a back-to-back arrangement (cooling tower cells arranged in two rows of five cells each) or an inline arrangement (one row of ten cells). Both cooling tower design options will be assessed, and
modeling will be performed considering the building downwash attributed to each.
In general, the supplemental modeling study will include the same receptor locations and
use the same modeling methodology that was incorporated in the original modeling (see
Section 7.0, ECT, 2007). Additional receptors may be required to increase the resolution
at points of predicted NO2 violations. Also, receptors will be added sufficient to define
impacts at the optional offsite location of the fuel gas heater (see Figure 1 for location of
this fuel gas heater).
The Class I impacts will be modeled with the latest regulatory version of CALPUFF. In
addition to air quality impacts, visibility and nitrogen/sulfur deposition at the Class I
areas were previously assessed based on the 7FA.04 emissions. It is anticipated that only
air quality impacts will need to be evaluated for the 207FA.05 emissions, since the
2
Path: M:\acad\110122\NOxLocations.mxd
LEGEND
3
Miles
3
!
(
(
!
14
14
!
(
(
!
1!
(3
(
!
6
!
(
(
!
1!
(2
!
(
!
(
Pr
in
ce
Ge
Ch
or
ge
ar
's
les
Co
Co
un
un
ty
ty
Site Boundary
Off Site NOx Source
County Boundary
1!
(1
!
(
1!
(5
!
(
2
!
(
(
!
8
1!
!
(
(
!
!
(
(
7
!
(
!
(
8
4
!
(
(
!
St
Ch
ar
le
s
. M
Co
ar
un
y'
ty
s
Co
un
ty
9 (
1!
!
(
(0
!
(
!
CPV ST. CHARLES

PROJECT SITE
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5
!
(
!
(
FIGURE 1.
LOCATION OF OFFSITE NOx SOURCES
Name
Aggregate Industries
Charles County Asphalt
Panda Brandywine
Lowe's Companies, Inc. #402
Charles County Municipal Landfill
Washington Gas - Gardner Road Gate Station
Thomas Stone High School
Fuel Gas Heater -offsite location
assessment of the other parameters should not be necessary given CPVs emissions and
the distance to the Class I areas. The initial screening criteria contained in the Federal
Land Managers Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) Work Group (FLAG) manual (revised in 2010) will be used to determine if AQRVs will need to be assessed.
MODEL OPTIONS: 1-HOUR NO2
Emissions of NOx from combustion sources consist of nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. At
stack exit conditions, the primary species is NO, which typically comprises 90 percent or
more of total NOx.
AERMOD includes three options for estimating NO2 impacts:
Tier 1Assumes complete (i.e., 100-percent) conversion of NO to NO2.
Tier 2Ambient ratio method (ARM), which represents the average ambient NO2/NOx ratio. Current EPA guidance recommends using a ratio of
0.80.
Tier 3Consists of the ozone limiting method (OLM) and plume molar volume ratio method (PVMRM).
The Tier 1 option is an AERMOD regulatory default option that may be used without additional regulatory agency approval. The Tier 2 option has been historically accepted for
regulatory modeling applications using an average ambient NO2/NOx ratio of 0.75. In accordance with EPAs March 1, 2011, guidance, Tier 2 will be accepted for 1-hour NO2
regulatory modeling applications if the EPA-recommended average ambient NO2/NOx
ratio of 0.80 is used.
The two Tier 3 options are nonregulatory default options within AERMOD and, therefore, require justification and regulatory agency approval. Preliminary modeling of CPV
and surrounding sources has shown that it may not be possible to demonstrate compliance with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS using Tier 1 or 2. If required, CPV is proposing to
perform the modeling using the PVMRM for a Tier 3 analysis. As discussed in the
March 1, 2011, EPA guidance, use of the two Tier 3 options should be generally accepted provided some reasonable demonstration can be made of the appropriateness of
4
the key inputs for these options, the in-stack NO2/NOx ratio and background ozone concentrations. For the CPV St. Charles project, the following Tier 3 options are proposed:
In-Stack NO2/NOx RatioThe EPA-recommended default of value 0.5 will

be used as a conservative estimate of the in-stack NO2/NOx ratio. Based on a
review of available in-stack NO2/NOx ratios for CTs, an alternative lower ratio value may be used. If a lower ratio is used, CPV will obtain EPA approval, and the modeling report will include the technical justification for its
use.
Background Ozone ConcentrationsAn ambient ozone monitoring station

operated by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) as a state
and local air monitoring station (SLAMS) (Site ID 240170010) is located
near Hughesville, Maryland, approximately 6.4 miles southeast of the CPV
St. Charles site. Hourly ozone data from this MDE monitoring station have
been obtained from EPAs Air Quality System (AQS) database. Ozone is
monitored from April 1st through October 31st of each year and measures
ozone concentrations in units of parts per billion (ppb). Monthly ozone values for input to the model were developed from measurements made in
2010. Table 1 shows the distribution of the highest and 95th to 99th percentile
concentrations for each month. Although it is an overly conservative approach, CPV proposes to use the highest hourly ozone value measured during each month for the Tier 3 analysis of the St. Charles project. For the
missing months it is proposed that the average of the months with monitored
data be used. The average of the highest monthly ozone values is 85 ppb,
which is conservative, since hourly ozone concentrations for the November 1st through March 31st period are generally significantly lower than those
occurring during the ozone season months.
Table 1. Distribution of Monitored Ozone Concentrations (ppb)
95th
96th
Percentile
97th
98th
99th
Highest
April
62
63
64
66
69
73
May
66
67
69
71
73
87
Jun
68
69
71
75
78
81
July
72
75
79
82
85
102
August
71
74
77
82
98
104
September
63
65
67
69
72
76
October
50
53
55
59
66
73
Average
65
67
69
72
77
85
Month
Background NO2 ConcentrationsIn selecting an appropriate NO2 background monitoring site, finding a site with similar land use was considered
to be more important than proximity, especially since no NO2 monitors are
located in Charles County where the St. Charles project is located. Also,
since the contribution from all stationary sources are included in the background NO2 concentrations, area and mobile sources associated with population density and traffic are most important in selecting an appropriate site.
Two of the available NO2 monitoring sites in Maryland were rejected because they were considered to be too urban, since they were located in Baltimore, or the Baltimore metropolitan area. Another site in Garrett County,
130 miles away, was considered too rural. The site in Beltsville, Maryland,
measures reactive nitrogen and cannot be used since reactive nitrogen is not
equivalent to NO2.
Therefore, the nearest NO2 monitors for developing 1-hour background for
the CPV St. Charles modeling demonstration are located in Virginia. The
nearest representative site (Site ID 51-153-009) is located approximately
44 miles west-northwest in the James S. Long Park in Prince William Coun6
ty, Virginia. Although more populated, this site appears to have similar land
use (i.e., an approximately even mix of rural and residential) to the CPV
St. Charles project site. According to the 2010 Census data, Charles County
has a population density of 319.9 persons per square mile, and Prince William County has a population density of 1,190.1 persons per square mile.
This site should have conservatively high values, since it is located in an
area of greater population density than the CPV St. Charles site, and it is influenced by stationary sources not included in the modeling. The highest
98th percentile daily maximum monitored NO2 concentrations obtained from
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for this site are 34 ppb in
2008, 26 ppb in 2009, and 30 ppb in 2010. Therefore, the design value of
30 ppb (56.4 micrograms per cubic meter) is appropriate and is proposed to
be used as the NO2 background value for the CPV St. Charles modeling
analysis.
CPV EMISSIONS SOURCE INVENTORY
In their March 2011 guidance memorandum for 1-hour NO2 air quality compliance demonstrations, EPA indicated that emissions sources that operate intermittently do not need
to be included in the modeled emissions inventory. Accordingly, the emergency firewater
pump and emergency generator diesel engines can be excluded. Maintenance and testing
of these engines will be limited to 100 hours per year, and the duration of each test is expected to be approximately 30 minutes. Similarly, startup/shutdown emissions are also
addressed in the memorandum and can be omitted if they can be considered an intermittent source. Although CPV St. Charles will startup and shutdown on most days, the
number of cold startups will be much less frequent than warm and hot startups (the cold
startup mode is not considered continuous enough or does not occur frequently enough to
contribute significantly to the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations). In fact, the time that the CTs are in cold startup mode is expected to be less than
1 percent per year. Therefore, in addition to the emergency firewater pump and emergency generator diesel engines, it is proposed that the emissions associated with cold startups
be omitted from the 1-hour NO2 modeling analysis. Because it is possible for this facility
to startup every day during the week and after each weekend, emissions associated with
7
hot and warm startup will be considered in the 1-hour NO2 modeling analysis. Therefore,
only those emissions from the CTs, auxiliary boiler, and fuel gas heater will be included
in the CPV St. Charles modeling analyses.
OFFSITE SOURCE INVENTORY
In performing cumulative modeling for 1-hour NO2, an inventory of other air emissions
sources within a reasonable radius of the facility must be assembled. Typically, regulatory agencies require a radius of 50 kilometers (km) past the furthest receptor that exceeds
the significant impact level (SIL). The maximum distance to the significant impact was
predicted to be 2,913 meters for the inline cooling tower option and 1,701 meters for the
back-to-back cooling tower option. The recent EPA memorandum recommends that, in
most cases, the modeling analysis should focus on those sources located in an area within
10 km of the project location. CPV received information for stationary sources of NOx
located in Charles and Prince Georges Counties from MDE. Based on that data, CPV developed a preliminary inventory of NOx sources with their potential emissions and submitted the list to MDE for review. Subsequently MDE and the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) commented on the inventory
and suggested several refinements that have been incorporated. In addition to the sources
within 10 km of the CPV site, the following power plants located beyond 10 km were
included as follows:
Panda Brandywine located at approximately 11 km north.
Mirrant Chalk Point, LLC, located at approximately 18 km east.
Mirant Mid-Atlantic Morgantown located at approximately 24 km south.
Table 2 shows the hourly emissions and stack parameters for each offsite source, and
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the sources in relation to the proposed St. Charles facility.
PRESENTATION OF MODEL RESULTS
The SIL analyses for NO2 will evaluate the 5-year average of the highest hourly impacts
for each receptor in accordance with the EPA March 1, 2011, modeling guidance. Results
obtained from the AERMOD modeling system will be summarized in tabular format and
8
Table 2. Stack Parameters and Emission Rates for Offsite No x Sources
Facility
Aggregate Industries*
Charles County Asphalt*
Panda Brandywine
Model ID
Agg-Ind_1
CAA_1
Panda_1-2
CSM_5-6
CSM_7
CSM_8-9
CCDC_
SMS_3-4
Washington Gas - Gardiner Road Gate Station
WG_1-2
Thomas Stone High School**
TSHS_1-2
NPHS_1-2
TGDMS_1
TGDMS_2-3
Chalk_12
Chalk_3
Chalk_4
Morgan_1
Morgan_2
NOx
Emission Rate
lb/hr
g/s
22.00 2.77
27.50 3.47
512.00 64.51
2.86 0.36
1.43 0.18
2.86 0.36
7.15 0.90
2.86 0.36
3.34 0.42
34.20 4.31
2.86 0.36
1.43 0.18
2.86 0.36
1,566.00 197.32
801.55 101.00
850.34 107.14
478.53 60.29
441.31 55.61
Stack
Height
ft
meter
43.01
29.99
164.99
12.01
20.01
35.01
14.99
24.02
25.00
64.99
21.00
25.00
14.99
400.00
712.01
712.01
400.00
400.00
13.11
9.14
50.29
3.66
6.10
10.67
4.57
7.32
7.62
19.81
6.40
7.62
4.57
121.92
217.02
217.02
121.92
121.92
Exhaust
Temperature
F
K
250.00
219.99
219.00
399.99
350.01
350.01
500.00
350.01
700.00
300.00
350.01
350.01
350.01
128.03
253.00
253.00
128.03
128.03
394.26
377.59
377.04
477.59
449.82
449.82
533.15
449.82
644.26
422.04
449.82
449.82
449.82
326.50
395.93
395.93
326.50
326.50
Exhaust
Velocity
ft/sec m/sec
25.00
14.99
62.99
4.99
10.01
10.01
10.01
10.01
6.00
10.01
10.01
10.01
10.01
54.99
62.99
62.99
54.99
54.99
7.62
4.57
19.20
1.52
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
1.83
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
16.76
19.20
19.20
16.76
16.76
Stack
Diameter
ft
meter
2.49
3.84
14.99
1.51
1.35
0.82
0.82
0.98
2.00
1.67
1.51
0.66
1.67
29.89
25.00
25.00
26.94
26.94
0.76
1.17
4.57
0.46
0.41
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.61
0.51
0.46
0.20
0.51
9.11
7.62
7.62
8.21
8.21
*Asphalt plant with 400 tons per hour drum dryer fired with oil or natural gas.
Combination of two identical units each emitting 256 lb/hr.
Emissions based on assumed 10 mmBtu/hr distillate oil-fired boiler(s) each emitting at a potential rate of 1.43 lb/hr.
Emissions based on assumed 10 mmBtu/hr gas-fired boiler(s) each emitting at a potential rate of 1.67 lb/hr.
**Emissions based on assumed oil-fired boiler greater than 100 mmBtu/hr each emitting 17.1 lb/hr.
Chalk_12 are two boilers sharing a common stack. Unit 1 emits at 582.55 lb/hr, and Unit 2 emits at 983.45 lb/hr.
Units 1 and 2 have separate flues within a common shell.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\MODPROTCLHTB.XLSX8/19/2011
will provide the year of meteorology and magnitude and location of the 5-year average
highest hourly modeled impact for comparison to the EPA-recommended interim 1-hour
NO2 SIL.
For the cumulative impact analyses, the model results tables will indicate, for each pollutant, the year of meteorology, magnitude and location of the maximum modeled impact,
background concentration, and total impact.
If the cumulative assessment (i.e., the total impact for all modeled emissions sources with
addition of a background concentration) results in modeled exceedances of the 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS, CPVs St. Charles contribution to the modeled exceedance will be compared to the EPA-recommended interim SIL to determine whether the project causes or
contributes to any of the modeled violations. Per the EPA March 1, 2011, modeling guidance, only ranks paired across years (i.e., the multiyear average of the Nth highest values across each of the years processed) will be evaluated. If necessary, the analysis of
CPV St. Charles impacts to modeled exceedances of the 1-hour NAAQS will be implemented using the AERMOD keyword MAXDCONT. This keyword allows for the determination of CPV St. Charles impacts to any modeled NAAQS exceedance paired in time
and space.
In the event the cumulative modeling analysis shows a modeled exceedance with a significant CPV contribution (i.e., a contribution equal to or greater than the 1-hour NO2 SIL),
MDE will be consulted regarding any further analysis that may be required.
10
REFERENCES
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT). 2007. Demonstration of Compliance with Air Quality Control Requirements and Request for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
Approvals: CPV St. Charles Project, 640-MW Combined-Cycle Project. Gainesville, Florida. ECT No. 070538. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Memorandum from Tyler Fox (Air
Quality Modeling Group) to the Regional Administrators entitled Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the
1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. March 1.
11
App. E
APPENDIX E
CPV ST. CHARLES AND AIRPORT
LAND USE ANALYSIS
M:\acad\070538\CPV_Aerial_Sectors.mxd.
2,000
4,000
Feet
CPV 2005 AERIAL

CHARLES COUNTY, MD
Sources: Charles County, 2002; MD DNR, 2005; ECT, 2007.
LEGEND
St. Charles Site
3km Buffer of CPV
Sectors
M:\acad\070538\CPV_Landuse.mxd
LEGEND
St. Charles Site
3km Buffer of CPV
Sectors
CHARLES COUNTY 2002 LULC
2,000
4,000
Feet
CPV 2002 LAND USE FOR CHARLES COUNTY, MD
11, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

12, MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
13, HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
14, COMMERCIAL-RETAIL AND
WHOLESALE SERVICES
15, INDUSTRIAL
16, INSTITUTIONAL
17, EXTRACTIVE-SURFACE
MINING OPERATIONS
18, OPEN URBAN LAND

21, CROPLAND
22, PASTURE
41, DECIDUOUS FOREST
42, EVERGREEN FOREST
43, MIXED FOREST
44, BRUSH
50, WATER
60, WETLANDS
73, BARE GROUND
M:\acad\070538\DULLES_Aerial_Sectors.mxd.
2,000
4,000
Feet
DULLES AIRPORT 2005 AERIAL
Sources: USDA/NRCS, 2005; ECT, 2007.
LEGEND
3km Buffer of Airport
M:\acad\070538\DULLES_Landuse.mxd
LEGEND
2,000
4,000
Feet
DULLES AIRPORT AREA LAND USE
Sources: Virginia Dept. of Forestry, 2004; ECT, 2007.
Buffer_of_airportlocations
Virginia 2005 Land Use
No Data
Water
Pavement
Rooftop
Residential/Industrial
Natural Barren
Mine/Quarry
Hardwood Forest
Pine Forest
Mixed Forest
Forest Harvest
Grassland
Crop
Bare Soil
Salt Marsh
M:\acad\070538\REAGAN_Aerial_Sectors.mxd.
2,000
4,000
Feet
REAGAN AIRPORT 2005 AERIAL
Sources: MD DNR, 2005; ECT, 2007.
LEGEND
M:\acad\070538\REAGAN_Landuse.mxd
LEGEND
Washington D.C. 2004 Land Use

Unknown
Alleys
Commercial
Federal Public
High Density Residential
Industrial (same caveat)
Institutional
Local public
Low Density Residential
Low-Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Mixed Use
Parking
Parks and Open Spaces
Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional
Roads
Transport, Communications, Utilities
Transportation right of way
Water
Virginia 2005 Land Use
No Data
Water
Pavement
Rooftop
Residential/Industrial
Natural Barren
Mine/Quarry
Hardwood Forest
Pine Forest
Mixed Forest
Forest Harvest
Grassland
Crop
Bare Soil
Salt Marsh
2,000
4,000
Feet
REAGAN AIRPORT AREA LAND USE
M:\acad\070538\BWI_Aerial_Sectors.mxd.
2,000
4,000
Feet
BWI 2005 AERIAL

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD
Sources: MD DNR, 2005; ECT, 2007.
LEGEND
3 km Buffer of Airport
M:\acad\070538\BWI_Landuse.mxd
LEGEND
BWI_sectors_Clip
JOINED selection 2
CHARLES COUNTY 2002 LULC
2,000
4,000
Feet
BWI 2002 LAND USE FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD
11, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

12, MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
13, HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
14, COMMERCIAL-RETAIL AND
WHOLESALE SERVICES
15, INDUSTRIAL
16, INSTITUTIONAL
17, EXTRACTIVE-SURFACE
MINING OPERATIONS
18, OPEN URBAN LAND
21, CROPLAND
22, PASTURE
23, ORCHARDS/VINEYARDS/HORTICULTURE
25, ROW AND GARDEN CROPS
41, DECIDUOUS FOREST
42, EVERGREEN FOREST
43, MIXED FOREST
44, BRUSH
50, WATER
60, WETLANDS
73, BARE GROUND
80, TRANSPORTATION
Table E-1. Percent Difference in Surface Characteristics Between CPV Site and Airports
Sector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Beginning
Angle
(deg)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
End
Angle
(deg)
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
CPV vs. BWI Airport

Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
Average
Bowen
Surface
Albedo
Ratio
Roughness
5.2
34.5
-10.1
-2.6
26.0
-2.6
-7.5
20.7
42.4
5.5
55.9
-15.2
9.8
52.6
-15.2
27.5
73.4
-49.2
40.0
79.2
-68.0
24.5
28.1
-59.1
16.8
19.2
-52.9
9.5
25.8
-32.5
4.8
37.7
-16.5
0.8
15.4
-21.6
CPV vs. Regan Airport

Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
Average
Bowen
Surface
Albedo
Ratio
Roughness
-17.7
-25.1
-91.1
-27.4
-16.9
-46.3
-24.1
-11.8
4.1
-14.1
10.5
8.3
-12.9
23.6
0.3
-25.4
-13.1
-69.4
-4.8
-13.3
-78.0
16.5
34.7
-41.8
9.2
18.4
-32.6
2.5
22.6
-6.9
4.9
49.0
-34.7
-16.0
-6.7
-76.9
CPV vs. Dulles Airport

Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
Average
Bowen
Surface
Albedo
Ratio
Roughness
11.2
45.0
-41.1
14.0
33.1
-44.1
-0.6
15.3
10.2
12.9
22.3
-41.8
14.3
42.0
-34.1
26.5
48.7
-56.0
23.7
47.2
-41.1
15.7
3.9
-46.6
5.7
-14.7
-39.3
7.4
-13.5
-38.3
6.5
-1.1
-36.6
13.9
38.8
-51.9
Sources: ECT, 2007.
Y:\GDP-07\CPV\PSD\APP-E-TBL.XLS\112/5/2007
Table E-2. Summary of AERMET Surface Characteristics
Sector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Beginning
Angle
(deg)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
End
Angle
(deg)
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
CPV Project Site

Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
Average
Bowen
Surface
Albedo
Ratio
Roughness
0.24
0.93
0.60
0.27
1.03
0.50
0.26
1.06
0.51
0.24
0.95
0.58
0.24
0.89
0.65
0.22
0.84
0.79
0.21
0.87
0.95
0.23
1.06
0.90
0.25
1.17
0.75
0.24
1.11
0.71
0.24
1.01
0.72
0.25
1.04
0.66
BWI Airport
Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
Average
Bowen
Surface
Albedo
Ratio
Roughness
0.25
1.26
0.54
0.26
1.30
0.49
0.24
1.28
0.72
0.26
1.48
0.50
0.26
1.36
0.55
0.28
1.46
0.40
0.30
1.56
0.30
0.28
1.36
0.37
0.29
1.40
0.35
0.26
1.40
0.48
0.25
1.39
0.60
0.26
1.20
0.52
Regan Airport
Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
Average
Bowen
Surface
Albedo
Ratio
Roughness
0.20
0.70
0.05
0.19
0.86
0.27
0.19
0.94
0.53
0.21
1.05
0.63
0.21
1.10
0.66
0.17
0.73
0.24
0.20
0.75
0.21
0.26
1.43
0.52
0.27
1.39
0.50
0.25
1.36
0.66
0.25
1.51
0.47
0.21
0.97
0.15
Dulles Airport
Annual
Annual
Annual
Average
Average
Average
Bowen
Surface
Albedo
Ratio
Roughness
0.27
1.36
0.35
0.31
1.38
0.28
0.26
1.23
0.56
0.27
1.16
0.34
0.27
1.27
0.43
0.28
1.25
0.35
0.26
1.28
0.56
0.26
1.10
0.48
0.26
1.00
0.45
0.26
0.96
0.44
0.26
1.00
0.46
0.29
1.44
0.32
Sources: ECT, 2007.
Table E-3. AERMET Surface Characteristics for CPV St. Charles Site
Percent Land Use*

Beginning
End
Med./High- Commercial/
Angle
Angle
Sector
(deg)
(deg)
Deciduous Evergreen Mixed

Forest
Forest
Forest
Bare
Low-Density
Density
Industrial/
Residential
Residential
Institutional
30
45%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
2%
13%
30
60
30%
10%
15%
15%
5%
5%
20%
60
90
25%
5%
10%
5%
20%
20%
5%
5%
5%
90
120
30%
10%
5%
10%
20%
5%
15%
5%
120
150
63%
5%
25%
5%
2%
150
180
60%
10%
10%
20%
180
210
75%
10%
13%
2%
210
240
240
270
23%
2%
55%
5%
15%
53%
10%
5%
7%
3%
20%
2%
10
270
300
15%
30%
10%
5%
5%
5%
10%
20%
11
300
330
30%
20%
10%
3%
15%
2%
20%
12
330
360
35%
10%
10%
15%
5%
5%
20%
Pasture Cropland Ground Brush
Mining
Open
Operations Urban Land
* Land use categories defined in LULC figure.
Sources: Charles County, 2002.

MD DNR, 2005.
ECT, 2007.
Table E-4. AERMET Surface Characteristics for BWI Airport
Percent Land Use*
Sector
Beginning
Angle
(deg)
End
Angle
(deg)
Deciduous
Forest
Evergreen
Forest**
Mixed
Forest
Pasture
Cropland
Water
Brush
30
15%
10%
35%
10%
30
60
10%
5%
5%
2%
5%
23%
60
90
15%
10%
1%
39%
90
120
7%
8%
10%
5%
5%
2%
13%
120
150
5%
10%
5%
5%
20%
150
180
5%
15%
2%
180
210
3%
5%
210
240
20%
15%
240
270
20%
5%
5%
10
270
300
30%
10%
10%
11
12
300
330
330
360
5%
10%
10%
5%
10%
Low-Density Density
Industrial/
TransResidential Residential Institutional portation
Open
Urban Land
Airport
5%
10%
15%
10%
20%
5%
15%
15%
20%
20%
30%
15%
40%
10%
68%
2%
15%
75%
5%
60%
5%
65%
5%
20%
25%
20%
25%
10%
35%
10%
10%
5%
10%
20%
15%

** Some of the evergreen forest areas were mixed with pasture due to thinning of the forest shown in the aerials.
MD DNR, 2005.
ECT, 2007.
Table E-5. AERMET Surface Characteristics for Reagan National Airport
Percent Land Use*
Sector
Beginning
Angle
(deg)
End
Angle
(deg)
Deciduous
Forest
Evergreen
Forest
Mixed
Forest
Pasture
30
30
60
60
90
15%
90
120
10%
10%
120
150
150
180
180
210
210
240
240
10
11
12
Low-Density Density
Industrial/
Open
Residential Residential Institutional Urban Land
Cropland
Bare
Ground
Urban
Airport
Water
35%
5%
60%
15%
15%
20%
50%
10%
30%
10%
35%
5%
30%
15%
20%
20%
60%
10%
20%
20%
10%
70%
10%
5%
10%
5%
15%
5%
50%
5%
15%
45%
10%
25%
270
5%
5%
5%
10%
20%
20%
35%
270
300
5%
5%
5%
20%
10%
25%
30%
300
330
330
360
10%
15%
-
35%
15%
40%
25%
10%
50%

MD DNR, 2005.
ECT, 2007.
Table E-6. AERMET Surface Characteristics for Dulles International Airport
Percent Land Use*
Sector
Beginning
Angle
(deg)
End
Angle
(deg)
Deciduous
Forest
Evergreen
Forest
Grassland
30
5%
10%
5%
30
60
10%
10%
60
90
10%
20%
Commercial/
Low-Density Industrial/
Residential Institutional
Cropland
Bare
Ground
Transportation
35%
25%
15%
15%
10%
5%
Urban/
Recreat.
Grasses
Airport
Water
20%
10%
30%
20%
15%
20%
15%
90
120
5%
10%
10%
25%
10%
5%
35%
120
150
5%
15%
20%
10%
10%
10%
30%
150
180
5%
20%
25%
30%
20%
180
210
5%
30%
10%
5%
10%
40%
210
240
5%
30%
35%
30%
240
270
25%
15%
45%
15%
10
270
300
30%
10%
20%
25%
15%
11
12
300
330
330
360
10%
-
25%
10%
25%
15%
20%
-
15%
20%
60%

MD DNR, 2005.
ECT, 2007.
Table E-7. Albedo Of Ground Covers

Land-Use
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Annual
Water (fresh and Sea)
0.12
0.1
0.14
0.2
0.14
Deciduous Forest
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.5
0.215
Coniferous Forest
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.35
0.178
Swamp
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.3
0.180
Cultivated Land
0.14
0.2
0.18
0.6
0.280
Grassland
0.18
0.18
0.2
0.6
0.290
Urban
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.35
0.208
Desert Shrubland
0.3
0.28
0.28
0.45
0.328
Bare Rock1
0.3
0.28
0.28
0.45
0.328
0.3
0.28
0.28
0.45
0.328
0.14
0.2
0.18
0.6
0.280
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.43
0.196
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.58
0.282
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.48
0.234
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.43
0.223
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.37
0.232
0.29
0.27
0.28
0.45
0.322
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.36
0.188
Quarries/Strip mines/Gravel
Transitional
Pasture/Hay
Mixed Forest
Urban/Recreat. Grasses
Low Intensity Residential
5
6
High Intensity Residential
Commercial/Indus./Transportation
Commercial/Indus./Trans. (open area)

Woody Wetlands
Considered deseret shrubland.
Considered cultivated land.
(decid. forest + conif. forest)* 1/2
90% urban + 10% grassland
(urban/rec grasses + mixed forest + high int. residential) * 1/3
25% (urban/rec grasses + mixed forest) + 50% urban
80% urban + 20% bare rock/sand/clay
95% bare rock/sand/clay + 5% urban
(mixed forest + swamp)* 1/2
Source: EPA, 2004. User's Guide For The AERMOD Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET).
EPA, 2007. Roger Brode's presentation at the EPA R/S/L Modelers Workshop.
ECT, 2007.
Table E-8. Daytime Bowen Ratio for Average Moisture Conditions

Land-Use
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Annual
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.5
0.45
Deciduous Forest
0.7
0.3
1.5
0.875
Coniferous Forest
0.7
0.3
0.8
1.5
0.825
Swamp
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.5
0.450
Cultivated Land
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.5
0.750
Grassland
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.925
Urban
1.5
1.625
Desert Shrubland
4.750
1.5
1.625
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.925
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.925
0.70
0.30
0.90
1.50
0.850
0.46
0.92
1.10
1.50
0.995
0.65
0.84
1.17
1.50
1.040
0.79
1.31
1.50
1.50
1.274
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.625
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.625
0.40
0.20
0.50
1.50
0.650
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
Transitional
Pasture/Hay
Mixed Forest
5
6

Woody Wetlands
Considered urban.
Considered grassland.
ECT, 2007.
Table E-9. Seasonal Values of Surface Roughness Length (in meters)

Land-Use
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Annual
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Deciduous Forest
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.90
Coniferous Forest
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.30
Swamp
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.163
Cultivated Land
0.03
0.2
0.05
0.01
0.073
Grassland
0.05
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.040
1.000
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.15
0.263
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.050
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.300
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.200
0.03
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.053
1.15
1.30
1.05
0.90
1.100
Urban
Desert Shrubland
1
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
Transitional
Pasture/Hay
Mixed Forest
0.15
0.19
0.11
0.10
0.136
0.71
0.79
0.65
0.58
0.682
0.82
0.87
0.79
0.75
0.809
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.810
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.098
0.68
0.75
0.63
0.48
0.631

Woody Wetlands
10
Slade.
Estimate from Brode presentation.
Garratt & Slade.
10
ECT, 2007.
App. F
APPENDIX F
CALCULATING REALISTIC PM10
EMISSIONS FROM COOLING TOWERS
Calculating Realistic PM10 Emissions from Cooling Towers

Abstract No. 216
Session No. AM-1b
Joel Reisman and Gordon Frisbie

Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., 650 University Avenue, Suite 100, Sacramento,
California 95825
ABSTRACT
Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) emissions from wet cooling
towers may be calculated using the methodology presented in EPAs AP-421 , which assumes
that all total dissolved solids (TDS) emitted in drift particles (liquid water entrained in the air
stream and carried out of the tower through the induced draft fan stack.) are PM10. However, for
wet cooling towers with medium to high TDS levels, this method is overly conservative, and
predicts significantly higher PM10 emissions than would actually occur, even for towers
equipped with very high efficiency drift eliminators (e.g., 0.0006% drift rate). Such overprediction may result in unrealistically high PM10 modeled concentrations and/or the need to
purchase expensive Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) in PM10 non-attainment areas. Since
these towers have fairly low emission points (10 to 15 m above ground), over-predicting PM10
emission rates can easily result in exceeding federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) significance levels at a projects fenceline. This paper presents a method for computing
realistic PM10 emissions from cooling towers with medium to high TDS levels.
INTRODUCTION
Cooling towers are heat exchangers that are used to dissipate large heat loads to the atmosphere.
Wet, or evaporative, cooling towers rely on the latent heat of water evaporation to exchange heat
between the process and the air passing through the cooling tower. The cooling water may be an
integral part of the process or may provide cooling via heat exchangers, for example, steam
condensers. Wet cooling towers provide direct contact between the cooling water and air
passing through the tower, and as part of normal operation, a very small amount of the
circulating water may be entrained in the air stream and be carried out of the tower as drift
droplets. Because the drift droplets contain the same chemical impurities as the water circulating
through the tower, the particulate matter constituent of the drift droplets may be classified as an
emission. The magnitude of the drift loss is influenced by the number and size of droplets
produced within the tower, which are determined by the tower fill design, tower design, the air
and water patterns, and design of the drift eliminators.
AP-42 METHOD OF CALCULATING DRIFT PARTICULATE

EPAs AP-421 provides available particulate emission factors for wet cooling towers, however,
these values only have an emission factor rating of E (the lowest level of confidence
acceptable). They are also rather high, compared to typical present-day manufacturers
guaranteed drift rates, which are on the order of 0.0006%. (Drift emissions are typically
expressed as a percentage of the cooling tower water circulation rate). AP-42 states that a
conservatively high PM10 emission factor can be obtained by (a) multiplying the total liquid drift
factor by the TDS fraction in the circulating water, and (b) assuming that once the water
evaporates, all remaining solid particles are within the PM10 range. (Italics per EPA).
If TDS data for the cooling tower are not available, a source-specific TDS content can be
estimated by obtaining the TDS for the make-up water and multiplying it by the cooling tower
cycles of concentration. [The cycles of concentration is the ratio of a measured parameter for the
cooling tower water (such as conductivity, calcium, chlorides, or phosphate) to that parameter for
the make-up water.]
Using AP-42 guidance, the total particulate emissions (PM) (after the pure water has evaporated)
can be expressed as:
PM = Water Circulation Rate x Drift Rate x TDS
[1]
For example, for a typical power plant wet cooling tower with a water circulation rate of 146,000
gallons per minute (gpm), drift rate of 0.0006%, and TDS of 7,700 parts per million by weight
(ppmw):
PM = 146,000 gpm x 8.34 lb water/gal x 0.0006/100 x 7,700 lb solids/106 lb water x 60
min/hr = 3.38 lb/hr
On an annual basis, this is equivalent to almost 15 tons per year (tpy). Even for a state-of-the-art
drift eliminator system, this is not a small number, especially if assumed to all be equal to PM10,
a regulated criteria pollutant. However, as the following analysis demonstrates, only a very
small fraction is actually PM10.
COMPUTING THE PM10 FRACTION

Based on a representative drift droplet size distribution and TDS in the water, the amount of
solid mass in each drop size can be calculated. That is, for a given initial droplet size, assuming
that the mass of dissolved solids condenses to a spherical particle after all the water evaporates,
and assuming the density of the TDS is equivalent to a representative salt (e.g., sodium chloride),
the diameter of the final solid particle can be calculated. Thus, using the drift droplet size
distribution, the percentage of drift mass containing particles small enough to produce PM10 can
be calculated. This method is conservative as the final particle is assumed to be perfectly
spherical; hence as small a particle as can exist.
The droplet size distribution of the drift emitted from the tower is critical to performing the
analysis. Brentwood Industries, a drift eliminator manufacturer, was contacted and agreed to
provide drift eliminator test data from a test conducted by Environmental Systems Corporation
(ESC) at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) test facility in Houston, Texas in 1988
(Aull2, 1999). The data consist of water droplet size distributions for a drift eliminator that
achieved a tested drift rate of 0.0003 percent. As we are using a 0.0006 percent drift rate, it is
reasonable to expect that the 0.0003 percent drift rate would produce smaller droplets, therefore,
this size distribution data can be assumed to be conservative for predicting the fraction of PM10
in the total cooling tower PM emissions.
In calculating PM10 emissions the following assumptions were made:
+
Each water droplet was assumed to evaporate shortly after being emitted into ambient air,
into a single, solid, spherical particle.
+
Drift water droplets have a density ( w ) of water; 1.0 g/cm3 or 1.0 * 10-6 g / m 3 .
+
The solid particles were assumed to have the same density ( TDS ) as sodium chloride,
(i.e., 2.2 g/cm3).
Using the formula for the volume of a sphere, V = 4r 3 / 3 , and the density of pure water,
w = 1.0 g/cm 3 , the following equations can be used to derive the solid particulate diameter, Dp,
as a function of the TDS, the density of the solids, and the initial drift droplet diameter, Dd :
Volume of drift droplet = (4/3) (D d /2) 3
[2]
Mass of solids in drift droplet = (TDS)( w )(Volume of drift droplet)
[3]
substituting,
Mass of solids in drift = (TDS)( w ) (4/3) (Dd /2) 3
[4]
Assuming the solids remain and coalesce after the water evaporates, the mass of solids can also
be expressed as:
Mass of solids = ( TDS ) (solid particle volume) = ( TDS )(4/3) (D p /2)3
[5]
Equations [4] and [5] are equivalent:

( TDS )(4/3) (D p /2)3 = (TDS)( w )(4/3) (Dd /2)3
[6]
Solving for Dp:

Dp = Dd [(TDS)( w / TDS )]1 3
[7]
Where,
TDS is in units of ppmw
Dp = diameter of solid particle, micrometers (m )
Dd = diameter of drift droplet, m
Using formulas [2] [7] and the particle size distribution test data, Table 1 can be constructed
for drift from a wet cooling tower having the same characteristics as our example; 7,700 ppmw
TDS and a 0.0006% drift rate. The first and last columns of this table are the particle size
distribution derived from test results provided by Brentwood Industries. Using straight-line
interpolation for a solid particle size 10 :m in diameter, we conclude that approximately 14.9
percent of the mass emissions are equal to or smaller than PM10. The balance of the solid
particulate are particulate greater than 10 m . Hence, PM10 emissions from this tower would be
equal to PM emissions x 0.149, or 3.38 lb/hr x 0.149 = 0.50 lb/hr. The process is repeated in
Table 2, with all parameters equal except that the TDS is 11,000 ppmw. The result is that
approximately 5.11 percent are smaller at 11,000 ppm. Thus, while total PM emissions are
larger by virtue of a higher TDS, overall PM10 emissions are actually lower, because more of the
solid particles are larger than 10 m .
Table 1. Resultant Solid Particulate Size Distribution (TDS = 7700 ppmw)
EPRI Droplet
Diameter
(m)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
90
110
130
150
180
210
240
270
300
350
400
450
500
600
Droplet
Volume
( )
m 3
[2]1
524
4189
14137
33510
65450
113097
179594
381704
696910
1150347
1767146
3053628
4849048
7238229
10305995
14137167
22449298
33510322
47712938
65449847
113097336
Droplet Mass
(g)
[3]
5.24E-04
4.19E-03
1.41E-02
3.35E-02
6.54E-02
1.13E-01
1.80E-01
3.82E-01
6.97E-01
1.15E+00
1.77E+00
3.05E+00
4.85E+00
7.24E+00
1.03E+01
1.41E+01
2.24E+01
3.35E+01
4.77E+01
6.54E+01
1.13E+02
Particle Mass
(Solids)
(g )
[4]
4.03E-06
3.23E-05
1.09E-04
2.58E-04
5.04E-04
8.71E-04
1.38E-03
2.94E-03
5.37E-03
8.86E-03
1.36E-02
2.35E-02
3.73E-02
5.57E-02
7.94E-02
1.09E-01
1.73E-01
2.58E-01
3.67E-01
5.04E-01
8.71E-01
Solid Particle
Volume
( )
m 3
1.83
14.66
49.48
117.29
229.07
395.84
628.58
1335.96
2439.18
4026.21
6185.01
10687.70
16971.67
25333.80
36070.98
49480.08
78572.54
117286.13
166995.28
229074.46
395840.67
Solid Particle
Diameter
(m)
[7]
1.518
3.037
4.555
6.073
7.591
9.110
10.628
13.665
16.701
19.738
22.774
27.329
31.884
36.439
40.994
45.549
53.140
60.732
68.323
75.915
91.098
EPRI % Mass
Smaller
0.000
0.196
0.226
0.514
1.816
5.702
21.348
49.812
70.509
82.023
88.012
91.032
92.468
94.091
94.689
96.288
97.011
98.340
99.071
99.071
100.000
Bracketed numbers refer to equation number in text.
The percentage of PM10/PM was calculated for cooling tower TDS values from 1000 to 12000
ppmw and the results are plotted in Figure 1. Using these data, Figure 2 presents predicted PM10
emission rates for the 146,000 gpm example tower. As shown in this figure, the PM emission
rate increases in a straight line as TDS increases, however, the PM10 emission rate increases to a
maximum at around a TDS of 4000 ppmw, and then begins to decline. The reason is that at
higher TDS, the drift droplets contain more solids and therefore, upon evaporation, result in
larger solid particles for any given initial droplet size.
CONCLUSION
The emission factors and methodology given in EPAs AP-421 Chapter 13.4 Wet Cooling
Towers, do not account for the droplet size distribution of the drift exiting the tower. This is a
critical factor, as more than 85% of the mass of particulate in the drift from most cooling towers
will result in solid particles larger than PM10 once the water has evaporated. Particles larger than
PM10 are no longer a regulated air pollutant, because their impact on human health has been
shown to be insignificant. Using reasonable, conservative assumptions and a realistic drift
4
droplet size distribution, a method is now available for calculating realistic PM10 emission rates
from wet mechanical draft cooling towers equipped with modern, high-efficiency drift
eliminators and operating at medium to high levels of TDS in the circulating water.
Table 2. Resultant Solid Particulate Size Distribution (TDS = 11000 ppmw)

EPRI Droplet
Diameter
(m)
Droplet
Volume
Droplet Mass
(g )
( )
m 3
[2]1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
90
110
130
150
180
210
240
270
300
350
400
450
500
600
(g )
[3]
524
4189
14137
33510
65450
113097
179594
381704
696910
1150347
1767146
3053628
4849048
7238229
10305995
14137167
22449298
33510322
47712938
65449847
113097336
Particle Mass
(Solids)
5.24E-04
4.19E-03
1.41E-02
3.35E-02
6.54E-02
1.13E-01
1.80E-01
3.82E-01
6.97E-01
1.15E+00
1.77E+00
3.05E+00
4.85E+00
7.24E+00
1.03E+01
1.41E+01
2.24E+01
3.35E+01
4.77E+01
6.54E+01
1.13E+02
Solid Particle
Volume
( )
m 3
[4]
5.76E-06
4.61E-05
1.56E-04
3.69E-04
7.20E-04
1.24E-03
1.98E-03
4.20E-03
7.67E-03
1.27E-02
1.94E-02
3.36E-02
5.33E-02
7.96E-02
1.13E-01
1.56E-01
2.47E-01
3.69E-01
5.25E-01
7.20E-01
1.24E+00
2.62
20.94
70.69
167.55
327.25
565.49
897.97
1908.52
3484.55
5751.73
8835.73
15268.14
24245.24
36191.15
51529.97
70685.83
112246.49
167551.61
238564.69
327249.23
565486.68
Solid Particle
Diameter
(m)
[7]
1.710
3.420
5.130
6.840
8.550
10.260
11.970
15.390
18.810
22.230
25.650
30.780
35.909
41.039
46.169
51.299
59.849
68.399
76.949
85.499
102.599
EPRI % Mass
Smaller
0.000
0.196
0.226
0.514
1.816
5.702
21.348
49.812
70.509
82.023
88.012
91.032
92.468
94.091
94.689
96.288
97.011
98.340
99.071
99.071
100.000
Figure 1: Percentage of Drift PM that Evaporates to PM10

90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000 10000 11000 12000
Circulating Water TDS (ppmw)
Figure 2: PM10 Emission Rate vs. TDS
PM10 Emission Rate (lb/hr)
6.0
5.0
Data presented for wet cooling tower with water

circulation rate of 146,000 GPM and 0.0006% drift rate.
4.0
PM Emission Rate
3.0
2.0
PM
Emission
1.0
0.0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000 10000 11000 12000
Circulating Water TDS (ppmw)
REFERENCES
1.
EPA, 1995. Compilation of Air pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42 Fifth edition, Volume
I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 13.4 Wet Cooling Towers,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January.
2.
Aull, 1999. Memorandum from R. Aull, Brentwood Industries to J. Reisman, Greystone,

December 7, 1999.
KEY WORDS
Drift
Drift eliminators
Cooling tower
PM10 emissions
TDS
App. G
APPENDIX G
RBLC SUMMARY TABLES
Table G-1. RBLC NOx Summary for Large Combustion Turbines, Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
Facility name
CA-1178
OK-0129
VA-0291
VA-0308
*OR-0048
AZ-0038
AZ-0039
AZ-0043
AZ-0043
AZ-0047
AZ-0047
CA-0997
NV-0035
NV-0035
PA-0226
AZ-0049
CA-1144
FL-0303
FL-0304
ID-0018
NV-0037
NV-0038
TX-0546
TX-0547
TX-0548
VA-0308
VA-0308
WA-0315
CA-1096
CA-1097
FL-0263
FL-0286
NY-0095
NY-0098
NY-0100
OR-0041
UT-0066
FL-0265
VA-0287
VA-0287
FL-0244
GA-0105
GA-0138
IN-0095
NC-0101
OR-0035
WY-0061
CA-1142
CA-1143
NC-0094
NC-0095
NC-0095
NC-0095
VA-0289
VA-0289
WA-0328
FL-0241
FL-0244
FL-0245
FL-0256
MI-0366
NJ-0043
OR-0039
OR-0040
APPLIED ENERGY LLC

CHOUTEAU POWER PLANT
CPV WARREN LLC
WARREN COUNTY FACILITY
CARTY PLANT
GILA BEND POWER GENERATING STATION
SALT RIVER PROJECT/SANTAN GEN. PLANT
DUKE ENERGY ARLINGTON VALLEY (AVEFII)
WELLTON MOHAWK GENERATING STATION
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
TRACY SUBSTATION EXPANSION PROJECT
LIMERICK POWER STATION
LA PAZ GENERATING FACILITY
BLYTHE ENERGY PROJECT II
FPL WEST COUNTY ENERGY CENTER UNIT 3
CANE ISLAND POWER PARK
LANGLEY GULCH POWER PLANT
COPPER MOUNTAIN POWER
IVANPAH ENERGY CENTER, L.P.
PATTILLO BRANCH POWER PLANT
NATURAL GAS-FIRED POWER GENERATION FACIL
MADISON BELL ENERGY CENTER
SUMAS ENERGY 2 GENERATION FACILITY
VERNON CITY LIGHT & POWER
MAGNOLIA POWER PROJECT, SCPPA
FPL TURKEY POINT POWER PLANT
FPL WEST COUNTY ENERGY CENTER
CAITHNES BELLPORT ENERGY CENTER
ATHENS GENERATING PLANT
EMPIRE POWER PLANT
WANAPA ENERGY CENTER
CURRANT CREEK
HINES POWER BLOCK 4
JAMES CITY ENERGY PARK
FPL MARTIN PLANT
MCINTOSH COMBINED CYCLE FACILITY
LIVE OAKS POWER PLANT
ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY CO. LLC
FORSYTH ENERGY PLANT
PORT WESTWARD PLANT
BLACK HILLS CORP./NEIL SIMPSON TWO
PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY
SUTTER POWER PLANT
GENPOWER EARLEYS, LLC
MIRANT GASTONIA POWER FACILITY
DUKE ENERGY WYTHE, LLC
BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT
CPV CANA
FPL MARTIN PLANT
FPL MANATEE PLANT - UNIT 3
HINES ENERGY COMPLEX, POWER BLOCK 3
BERRIEN ENERGY, LLC
LIBERTY GENERATING STATION
COB ENERGY FACILITY, LLC
KLAMATH GENERATION, LLC
Permit Dates
Issuance
Update
3/20/2009
1/23/2009
7/30/2004
1/14/2008
12/29/2010
5/15/2002
3/7/2003
11/12/2003
11/12/2003
12/1/2004
12/1/2004
9/1/2003
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
4/9/2002
9/4/2003
4/25/2007
7/30/2008
9/8/2008
6/25/2010
5/14/2004
12/29/2003
6/17/2009
6/22/2009
8/18/2009
1/14/2008
1/14/2008
4/17/2003
5/27/2003
5/27/2003
2/8/2005
1/10/2007
5/10/2006
1/19/2007
6/23/2005
8/8/2005
5/17/2004
6/8/2005
12/1/2003
12/1/2003
4/16/2003
4/17/2003
4/8/2010
12/7/2001
9/29/2005
1/16/2002
4/4/2003
12/23/2004
8/16/2004
1/9/2002
5/28/2002
5/28/2002
5/28/2002
2/5/2004
2/5/2004
1/11/2005
1/17/2002
4/16/2003
4/15/2003
9/8/2003
4/13/2005
3/28/2002
12/30/2003
3/12/2003
4/11/2011
2/18/2010
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
6/3/2011
12/6/2004
5/24/2005
1/29/2004
1/29/2004
1/31/2006
1/31/2006
3/9/2004
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
5/5/2008
7/24/2007
3/17/2008
1/5/2011
4/20/2009
10/5/2010
12/20/2005
12/21/2005
11/6/2009
11/6/2009
11/6/2009
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
8/31/2006
12/5/2005
12/6/2005
1/12/2006
3/3/2009
5/8/2008
8/12/2008
8/12/2008
8/18/2008
3/22/2006
1/12/2006
3/29/2004
3/29/2004
12/22/2003
1/24/2005
9/10/2010
4/23/2003
8/30/2006
8/5/2003
5/10/2004
3/10/2008
3/10/2008
4/2/2004
4/2/2004
4/2/2004
4/2/2004
3/25/2004
3/25/2004
8/14/2007
11/4/2003
12/22/2003
8/30/2006
8/30/2006
1/4/2006
8/31/2006
6/21/2004
11/2/2005
Process Description
Throughput Rate
Gas turbine combined cycle

0
COMBINED CYCLE COGENERATION >25MW
1882 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE (2)
1717 MMBTU/H
ELECTRIC GENERATION - SCENARIO 1
1717 MMBTU/H
COMBINED CYCLE NATURAL GAS-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNIT
2866 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NATURAL GAS
170 MW
175 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE & DUCT BURNER
325 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE
325 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS AND HEAT RECOVERY STEAM
180 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS AND HEAT RECOVERY STEAM
170 MW
GAS TURBINES, (2)
1611 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #2 WITH HRSG AND DUC
306 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #1 WITH HRSG AND DUC
306 MW
550 MW
1040 MW
GE COMBUSTION TURBINES AND HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERAT
2 COMBUSTION TURBINES
170 MW
THREE NOMINAL 250 MW CTG (EACH) WITH SUPPLEMENTARY-FIRE
2333 MMBTU/H
300 MW COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE
1860 MMBTU/H
COMBUSTION TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE W/ DUCT BURNER
2375.28 MMBTU/H
LARGE COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE & COGENE
600 MW
LARGE COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE & COGENE
500 MW
ELECTRICITY GENERATION
350 MW
250 MW
275 MW
1944 MMBTU
ELECTRIC GENERATION SECNARIO 3
2204 MMBTU/H
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, (2)
660 MW
GAS TURBINE: COMBINED CYCLE < 50 MW
43 MW
GAS TURBINE: COMBINED CYCLE >= 50 MW
181 MW
170 MW COMBUSTION TURBINE, 4 UNITS
170 MW
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION GAS TURBINES - 6 UNITS
2333 MMBTU/H
COMBUSTION TURBINE
2221 MMBTU/H
FUEL COMBUSTION (GAS)
3100 MMBTU/H
FUEL COMBUSTION (NATURAL GAS)
2099 MMBTU/H
COMBUSTION TURBINE & HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATO
2384.1 MMBTU/H
NATURAL GAS FIRED TURBINES AND HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS
COMBINED CYCLE TURBINE
530 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS,DUCT BURNER
1973 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS
1973 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE WITH DUCT BURNER, NAT GAS
170 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS, (4)
140 MW
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE - ELECTRIC GENERATING
600 MW
2 CMBND CYCLE COMBUST. TURBINE WESTINGHOUSE 501F
2071 MMBTU/H (HHV)
1844.3 MMBTU/H
(2) COMBUSTION TURBINES, WITH DUCT BURNER
325 MW Each
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, & DUCT BURNER
40 MW
168 MW
170 MW
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS (2)
1715 MMBTU/H
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, GE, DUCT BURNERS
175 MW
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, MHI/SW, DUCT BURNERS
175 MW
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, MHI/SW
175 MW
170 MW
170 MW
GE 7FA COMBUSTION TURBINE & HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GEN
174 MW
1680 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYLE, NATURAL GAS, (4)
170 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS (4)
170 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS,2
1830 MMBTU/H
3 COMBUSTION TURBINES AND DUCT BURNERS
1584 MMBTU/H
COMBINED CYCLE TURBINE (3)
2964 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NAT GAS, (4)
1150 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NAT GAS (2)
480 MW
Page 1 of 2
Control System Description
Emission Limit
Basis
SCR
SCR AND DRY LOW-NOX
TWO STAGE LEAN PERMIX DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTION
2 STAGE PREMIX NOX COMBUSTION AND SCR CEMS SYST
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR)
SCR AND LOW NOX COMBUSTORS
SCR
SCR
SCR
LOW NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTI
LOW NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTI
SCR
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION WITH AMMONIA INJEC
SELECTIVE CATALYST REDUCTION W/ AMMONIA INJECTIO
LOW NOX BURNERS
LOW NOX BURNERS WITH SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCT
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
DRY LOW NOX SELECTIVE CATALYST REDUCTION
SCR
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR), DRY LOW NOX (D
DRY LOW-NOX COMBUSTOR, STEAM INJECTION, AND SE
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTION CONTROL IN COMBINATION
CEM SYSTEMS AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES. 2 ST
2 STAGE LEAN PREMIX AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTI
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS, SCR
SCR SYSTEM, AND OXIDATION CATALYST
SCR SYSTEM AND OXIDATION CATALYST
NOX EMISSIONS WILL BE REDUCED WITH DRY LOW-NOX
DRY LOW NOX AND SCR WATER INJECTION
SCR
THE TURBINES EMPLOY DRY LOW NOX TECHNOLOGY AN
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY IN COMBINA
DRY LOW-NOX BURNERS AND SCR.
CONVENTIONAL SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION SYSTE
SCR
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS, SCR WITH AMMONIA INJECTION
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS SCR WITH AMMONIA INJECTION
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS AND SCR
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS, SCR
DRY LOW NOx BURNERS, SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTIO
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTOR AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC RE
DRY LOW-NOX COMBUSTORS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC R
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION, DRY LOW NOX COMBU
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS AND SCR
XONON CATALYTIC COMBUSTORS OR DRY LOW NOX BUR
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS & SCR
DLN AND SCR
DRY LOW NOX AND SCR
DRY-LOW NOX AND SCR
DRY LOW NOX AND SCR
SCR AND LOW NOX BURNERS. GOOD COMBUSTION PRAC
SCR AND LOW NOX BURNERS; GOOD COMBUSTION PRAC
LEAN PRE-MIX DRY LOW-NOX BURNERS ON CT. LOW-NO
DRY LOW NOX, SCR, WET INJECTION
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS AND SCR
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS WITH SCR
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS & SELECTIVE CATALYTIC RED
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC RED
SCR- AMMONIA FLOW RTE AT 11.46 GAL/H
DLN COMBUSTORS, AND SCR
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTION, SCR
2 PPM
2 PPM
2 PPM
2 PPM
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2 PPMVD @15%O2
2.25 PPMVD
2.5 PPM
2.5 PPM
2.5 PPM
2.5 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\APPG.XLSX\18/17/2011
Table G-1. RBLC NOx Summary for Large Combustion Turbines, Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
PA-0188
PA-0189
PA-0223
VA-0262
WA-0291
LA-0194
CO-0052
CO-0056
GA-0093
GA-0101
GA-0102
MN-0071
VA-0256
GA-0094
IN-0114
IN-0114
MI-0357
MI-0361
MN-0053
MN-0054
NY-0100
MI-0365
WV-0014
AR-0051
NE-0017
NV-0033
OK-0070
OK-0090
MS-0065
MS-0065
MS-0065
OK-0115
FL-0239
AR-0047
AR-0070
AR-0070
AR-0070
MS-0051
MS-0055
MS-0058
MS-0059
MS-0059
MS-0059
MS-0059
MS-0073
MS-0073
MS-0073
NC-0086
OK-0070
OK-0096
VA-0255
VA-0255
TX-0428
LA-0157
MI-0363
*AK-0071
TX-0437
MN-0054
OK-0117
OK-0056
FL-0285
LA-0194
Facility name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Update
FAIRLESS ENERGY LLC

3/28/2002
CONECTIV BETHLEHEM, INC.
1/16/2002
DUKE ENERGY FAYETTE, LLC
1/30/2002
MIRANT AIRSIDE INDUSTRIAL PARK
12/6/2002
WALLULA POWER PLANT
1/3/2003
SABINE PASS LNG TERMINAL
11/24/2004
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ENERGY CENTER, LLC.
8/11/2002
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ENERGY CENTER, LLC
5/2/2006
AUGUSTA ENERGY CENTER
10/28/2001
MURRAY ENERGY FACILITY
10/23/2002
WANSLEY COMBINED CYCLE ENERGY FACILITY
1/15/2002
FAIRBAULT ENERGY PARK
6/5/2007
TENASKA FLUVANNA
1/11/2002
EFFINGHAM COUNTY POWER, LLC
12/27/2001
MIRANT SUGAR CREEK LLC
7/24/2002
7/24/2002
KALKASKA GENERATING, INC
2/4/2003
SOUTH SHORE POWER LLC
1/30/2003
7/15/2004
MANKATO ENERGY CENTER
12/4/2003
6/23/2005
EMPIRE POWER PLANT
MIRANT WYANDOTTE LLC
1/28/2003
PANDA CULLODEN GENERATING STATION
12/18/2001
DUKE ENERGY-JACKSON FACILITY
4/1/2002
BEATRICE POWER STATION
5/29/2003
EL DORADO ENERGY, LLC
8/19/2004
GENOVA OK I POWER PROJECT
6/13/2002
DUKE ENERGY STEPHENS, LLC STEPHENS ENERGY 3/21/2003
LONE OAK ENERGY CENTER, LLC
11/13/2001
11/13/2001
11/13/2001
LAWTON ENERGY COGEN FACILITY
12/12/2006
JEA/BRANDY BRANCH
3/27/2002
HOT SPRINGS POWER PROJECT
11/9/2001
GENOVA ARKANSAS I, LLC
8/23/2002
8/23/2002
8/23/2002
11/13/2001
LSP- BATESVILLE GENERATION FACILITY
EL PASO MERCHANT ENERGY CO.
6/24/2002
CHOCTAW GAS GENERATION, LLC
12/13/2001
PIKE GENERATION FACILITY
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
RELIANT ENERGY CHOCTAW COUNTY, LLC
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
1/10/2002
FAYETTEVILLE GENERATION, LLC
6/13/2002
REDBUD POWER PLANT
6/3/2003
11/18/2002
VA POWER - POSSUM POINT
11/18/2002
HOUSTON OPERATIONS -- BATTLEGROUND SITE 12/19/2002
PERRYVILLE POWER STATION
3/8/2002
BLUEWATER ENERGY CENTER LLC
1/7/2003
INTERNATIONAL STATION POWER PLANT
12/20/2010
HARTBURG POWER, LP
7/5/2002
12/4/2003
PSO SOUTHWESTERN POWER PLT
2/9/2007
2/12/2002
HORSESHOE ENERGY PROJECT
PROGRESS BARTOW POWER PLANT
1/26/2007
11/24/2004
12/12/2003
8/4/2008
1/21/2004
4/28/2003
8/31/2006
9/3/2009
9/29/2003
5/8/2006
9/26/2003
1/21/2005
1/21/2005
5/29/2008
3/13/2003
10/10/2003
6/14/2004
6/14/2004
1/16/2004
1/23/2004
9/21/2004
8/24/2006
8/12/2008
8/30/2006
5/23/2002
5/6/2004
8/3/2004
9/15/2004
5/12/2004
10/10/2003
11/18/2004
11/18/2004
11/18/2004
3/13/2007
1/5/2004
5/6/2004
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
11/19/2002
10/10/2003
10/17/2003
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
1/25/2005
1/25/2005
1/25/2005
3/25/2004
5/12/2004
4/23/2004
5/16/2003
5/16/2003
1/25/2005
8/2/2006
1/23/2004
6/27/2011
3/2/2005
8/24/2006
5/21/2007
5/6/2004
6/12/2008
9/3/2009
Throughput Rate
Process Description
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, (6)
30 MW GAS TURBINE GENERATORS (4)
TWO (2) NATURAL GAS FIRED, COMBINED-CYCLE, TURBINE
NATURAL-GAS FIRED, COMBINED-CYCLE TURBINE
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE W/DUCT BURNER
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, (3), NATURAL GAS
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE AND DUCT BURNER, NAT GAS
COMBUSTION TURBINE, LARGE, 2 EACH
FUEL COMBUSTION (NATURAL GAS) DUCT BURNING
COMBUSTION TURBINE, 300 MW
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS, (2)
COMBUSTION TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE & COGEN(2)
MHI COMBUSTION TURBINE & DUCT BURNERS
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE (2)
AA-001 COMBUSTION TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE
COMBUSTION TURBINE AND DUCT BURNER
COMBUSTION TURBINE, HRSG, DUCT BURNER
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, (2), (MHI)
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, (2), (GE )
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, (2), (SWH)
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATION (CTG)
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NAT GAS, (2)
TURBINE AA-001 W/DUCT BURNER
TURBINE, AA-002 W /DUCT BURNER
TURBINE, AA-003 /DUCT BURNER
TURBINE AA-004 W/ DUCT BURNER
EMISSION POINT AA-001 GEN. ELEC. COMBUST. TURBINE
EMISSION POINT AA-002 GEN ELEC. COMB. TURBINE
EMISSION POINT AA-003 GEN. ELEC COMB TURBINES
GE COMBUSTION TURBINE & DUCT BURNERS
COMBUSTION TURBINE AND DUCT BURNERS
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS, DUCT BURNER
TURBINE, NATURAL GAS, NO DUCT BURNER FIRING
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, GAS, (2) EPNS 1-1, 1-2
GE LM6000PF-25 Turbines (4)
COMBUSTION TURBINE, LARGE 2 EACH
GAS-FIRED TURBINES
TURBINES AND DUCT BURNERS
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE SYSTEM (4-ON-1)
30 MW GAS TURBINE GNERATORS (4) LOW LOAD OPERATIONS
1190 MW
122 MW
280 MW
170 MW
1300 MW
290 MMBTU/H Each
2311 MMBTU/H
300 MW
750 MW
173 MW
167 MW
1758 MMBTU/H
61200 MMSCF/YR
185 MW
1490.5 MMBTU/H
1490.5 MMBTU/H
605 MW
172 MW
1876 MMBTU/H
1916 MMBTU/H
646 MMBTU/H
2200 MMBTU/H
300 MW
170 MW
80 MW
475 MW
1767 MMBTU/H
1701 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
1911 MMBTU/H
700 MW
170 MW
170 MW
170 MW
2100 MMBTU/H
1737 MMBTU/H
2737 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
230 MW
230 MW
230 MW
154 MW
1705 MMBTU/H
1832 MMBTU/H
1937 MMBTU/H
1937 MMBTU/H
87 MW
170 MW
180 MW
59900 hp ISO
277 MW
1827 MMBTU/H
310 MW Total
1972 MMBTU/H
30 MW Each
Page 2 of 2
Emission Limit
SCR, DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTION

2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
LAER FOR COMBINED CYCLE IS SCR,DLN COMBUSTERS, CL
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
LO NOX BURNERS, SCR
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
LEAN PRE-MIX DRY LOW NOX AND GOOD COMBUSTION P
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
SCR
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
DRY LOW NOX BURNER TECHNOLOGY
25 PPMVD @ 15% O2
LOW NOX COMBUSTION SYSTEM (POLLUTION PREVENTIO
3 PPM @ 15%O2
LOW NOX BURNERS AND SCR
3 PPM @ 15%O2
SCR
3 PPM @ 15%O2
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDU
3 PPM @ 15%O2
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS, SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDU
3 PPM @ 15%O2
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTION FOR NG; WATER INJECTION
3 PPMVD
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION, CONTINUOUS EMISSIO
3 PPMVD
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS AND SCR. NATURAL GAS IS ONLY
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
LOW NOX BURNERS, SCR, NATURAL GAS FUEL
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
SCR AND LOW-NOX BURNERS.
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
SCR AND DLN.
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
LEAN PRE-MIX COMBUSTION & SCR
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY IN COMBINA
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
3.5 PPM
DRY LOW-NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC RED
3.5 PPM
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) AND DRY LOW-NO
3.5 PPM @ 15% O2
LOW-NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTIO
3.5 PPM @ 15% O2
LOW NOX BURNER + SCR
3.5 PPM @ 15% O2
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) WITH DRY LOW3.5 PPM @ 15% O2
SCR, DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS
3.5 PPM @ 15% O2
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS, SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTI
3.5 PPMVD
3.5 PPMVD
3.5 PPMVD
SCR W/ DRY LOW NOX BURNERS AND DRY LOW NOX COM
3.5 PPMVD
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS FOR NATURAL GAS, SCR & WATE
3.5 PPMVD
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS W/ SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUC
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTOR/SCR
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
SCR
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
LOW NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTIO
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
DRY LOW NOX BURNERS AND SCR
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
DRY LOW NOX COMBUSTORS , SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDU
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
SCR
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
SCR
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
SCR
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
DRY LOW NOX AND SCR
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) WITH DRY LOW3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) WITH DRY LOW N
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
WATER INJECTION, SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION,AND
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
WATER INJECTION, SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION, AN
3.5 PPMVD @15% O2
SCR
4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
LOW NOX BURNERS, AND/OR SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDU
4.5 PPM @ 15% O2
DRY LOW-NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDU
4.5 PPMVD
Selective Catalytic Reduction and Dry Low NOx Combusti
5 PPMDV
SCR FOR BOTH TURBINE AND DUCT BURNER, TURBINES U
5 PPMVD @15% O2
WATER INJECTION AND SCR
5.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
DRY LOW NOX
9 PPM
SCR
12.5 PPM @ 15% O2
WATER INJECTION
15 PPMVD (UNCORRECTED)
DRY LOW NOX BURNER
50 PPMVD @ 15% O2
Basis
LAER
LAER
LAER
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-2. RBLC NOx Summary for Commercial/Institutional-Size Boilers/ Furnaces (< 100 MMBTu/hr), Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
MN-0070
LA-0204
LA-0229
NV-0049
MD-0040
NY-0095
VA-0308
VA-0308
MD-0035
DE-0020
TX-0575
NV-0050
AZ-0049
NV-0049
NV-0047
WY-0067
NV-0049
CO-0058
AL-0230
AL-0231
IN-0108
NV-0037
NV-0044
NV-0049
OK-0097
OR-0039
NV-0049
AZ-0049
MD-0035
MN-0054
NV-0049
IA-0088
LA-0246
MN-0053
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
IA-0062
IA-0062
IA-0068
NH-0015
NH-0015
FL-0286
OK-0090
WY-0066
WY-0066
WY-0066
WY-0066
WY-0066
GA-0098
NE-0026
AL-0231
OK-0129
AK-0062
AR-0077
MI-0355
AK-0062
IA-0063
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
MINNESOTA STEEL INDUSTRIES, LLC

9/7/2007
PLAQUEMINE PVC PLANT
2/27/2009
SHINTECH PLAQUEMINE PLANT 2
7/10/2008
HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC.
8/20/2009
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
5/10/2006
1/14/2008
1/14/2008
DOMINION
8/12/2005
VALERO DELAWARE CITY REFINERY
2/26/2010
SABINA PETROCHEMICALS LLC
8/20/2010
MGM MIRAGE
11/30/2009
9/4/2003
8/20/2009
NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE
2/26/2008
ECHO SPRINGS GAS PLANT
4/1/2009
8/20/2009
CHEYENNE STATION
6/12/2004
THYSSENKRUPP STEEL AND STAINLESS USA, 8/17/2007
NUCOR DECATUR LLC
6/12/2007
NUCOR STEEL
11/21/2003
5/14/2004
1/4/2007
8/20/2009
QUAD GRAPHICS OKC FAC
2/3/2004
12/30/2003
8/20/2009
9/4/2003
DOMINION
8/12/2005
12/4/2003
8/20/2009
ADM CORN PROCESSING - CEDAR RAPIDS 6/29/2007
ST. CHARLES REFINERY
12/31/2010
7/15/2004
ACE ETHANOL - STANLEY
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
EMERY GENERATING STATION
12/20/2002
12/20/2002
6/26/2003
CONCORD STEAM CORPORATION
2/27/2009
2/27/2009
1/10/2007
DUKE ENERGY STEPHENS, LLC STEPHENS EN 3/21/2003
MEDICINE BOW IGL PLANT
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
RINCON POWER PLANT
3/24/2003
NUCOR STEEL DIVISION
6/22/2004
NUCOR DECATUR LLC
6/12/2007
1/23/2009
8/19/2005
BADAMI DEVELOPMENT FACILITY
BLUEWATER PROJECT
7/22/2004
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, STURGIS PLANT
9/16/2003
8/19/2005
WISDOM GENERATION STATION
2/5/2003
10/30/2008
8/6/2009
4/20/2009
12/1/2009
2/20/2009
5/8/2008
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
5/10/2007
8/2/2010
8/3/2011
3/15/2010
7/24/2007
12/1/2009
10/21/2008
4/16/2009
12/1/2009
8/15/2006
12/27/2010
8/31/2009
2/6/2004
12/20/2005
4/26/2007
12/1/2009
8/28/2006
6/21/2004
12/1/2009
7/24/2007
5/10/2007
8/24/2006
12/1/2009
10/9/2007
7/6/2011
9/21/2004
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
8/25/2003
10/5/2010
10/5/2010
3/3/2009
10/10/2003
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
4/9/2004
7/23/2004
8/31/2009
2/18/2010
7/15/2010
10/25/2004
1/16/2004
7/15/2010
12/12/2003
Process Description
Throughput Rate
SMALL BOILERS & HEATERS(<100 MMBTU/H

CRACKING FURNACES A-D
EQT122-EQT125 - FOUR VCM CRACKING FURNACES
BOILER - UNIT CP26
BOILER
AUXILIARY BOILER
AUXILIARY BOILER - SCENARIO 2
VAPORIZATION HEATER
PACKAGE BOILERS (2009)
BOILER
WATER HEATERS - UNITS NY037 AND NY038 AT NEW
AUXILIARY BOILER FOR GE TURBINE
BOILER - UNIT BA01
BOILERS/HEATERS - NATURAL GAS-FIRED
HOT OIL HEATER S38
BOILER - UNIT BA03
HEATERS
3 NATURAL GAS-FIRED BOILERS WITH ULNB & E
VACUUM DEGASSER BOILER
BOILER, NATURAL GAS, (2)
AUXILIARY BOILER
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL-SIZE BOILERS
BOILER - UNIT CP01
BOILERS, NATURAL GAS, STEAM GENERATORS
BOILERS, AUXILIARY, NATURAL GAS, (2)
BOILER - UNIT FL01
AUXILIARY BOILER FOR SIEMENS TURBINES
EMERGENCY VENT HEATER
BOILER, COMMERCIAL
BOILER - UNIT CP03
INDIRECT-FIRED DDGS DRYER
EQT0323 - Boiler 401F
BOILER, NATURAL GAS (1)
BOILER, S52/B52, 11 MMBTU/H
BOILER, S53 / B53, 34 MMBTU/H
GAS HEATER, (2)
AUXILIARY BOILER
GAS HEATER
BOILER 3 (AUXILIARY)
BOILER 2 (AUXILIARY)
TWO 99.8 MMBTU/H GAS-FUELED AUXILIARY BOILE
BOILER, AUXILIARY
GASIFICATION PREHEATER 2
AUXILIARY BOILER
NNII REHEAT FURNACE
GALVANIZING LINE FURNACE
AUXILIARY BOILER
NATCO TEG REBOILER
BOILERS
BOILER, GAS-FIRED
NATCO PRODUCTION HEATER
HEATER , NATURAL GAS
99 MMBTU/H
90 MMBTU/H Each
90 MMBTU/H
24 MMBTU/H
93 MMBTU/H
29.4 MMBTU/H
97 MMBTU/H
62 MMBTU/H
99.9 MMBTU/H
228 SCF/H
2 MMBTU/H
41 MMBTU/H
16.8 MMBTU/H
84 MMBTU/H
31.38 MMBTU/H
45 MMBTU/H
64.9 MMBTU/H
95 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
60 MMBTU/H
35.4 MMBTU/H
35.4 MMBTU/H
600 HP
80 MMBTU/H
14.34 MMBTU/H
55.34 MMBTU/H
70 MMBTU/H
33.48 MMBTU/H
93.7 MMBTU/H
99 MMBTU/H
40 MMBTU/H
11 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
60 MMBTU/H
80 MMBTU/H
16.4 MMBTU/H
68 MMBTU/H
9 MMBTU/H
76.8 MMBTU/H
76.8 MMBTU/H
99.8 MMBTU/H
33 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
83 MMBTU/H
143 MMBTU/H
98.7 MMBTU/H
33.5 MMBTU/H
1.34 MMBTU/H
22 MMBTU/H
98.51 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
5.38 MMBTU/H
Page 1 of 2
Emission Limit
0.0035 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS AND SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION 0.009 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS (LNB) IN COMBINATION WITH SELECTI 0.009 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNER
0.0108 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX WITH FGR
0.011 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS & FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.011 LB/MMBTU
CEM SYSTEM
0.011 LB/MMBTU
CEM SYSTEM
0.011 LB/MMBTU
ULNB
0.012 LB/MMBTU
SCR AND LOW NOX BURNERS
0.015 LB/MMBTU
0.02 LB/MMBTU
LOW-NOX BURNERS AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES 0.025 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.027 LB/MMBTU
LOW-NOX BURNER AND BLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.03 LB/MMBTU
LOW-NOX BURNER AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.03 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS WITH FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.03 LB/MMBTU
LOW-NOX BURNER
0.0306 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.035 LB/MMBTU
ULNB & EGR (ULTRA-LOW NOX BURNERS (ULNB)(EXHAUST 0.035 LB/MMBTU
ULTRA LOW NOX BURNERS
0.035 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS, NATURAL GAS
0.035 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNER (WITH EITHER INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL 0.035 LB/MMBTU
LOW-NOX BURNER AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.035 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNER
0.035 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS, CLEAN FUEL, AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULA 0.035 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.035 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNER AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.0353 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.036 LB/MMBTU
LNB
0.036 LB/MMBTU
DRY LOW NOX AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.036 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNER
0.0367 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS WITH FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.04 LB/MMBTU
Ultra low NOX burners and/or CSR
0.04 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNER; FGR.
0.04 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; LOW NOX BURNER
0.04 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; LOW NOX BURNER
0.04 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNER
0.04 LB/MMBTU
NAT. GAS / PROPANE, LOW NOX BURNER
0.04 LB/MMBTU
DLN
0.049 LB/MMBTU
DLN
0.049 LB/MMBTU
DLN
0.049 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS, FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION, AND LESS 0.049 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS, FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION, AND LESS 0.049 LB/MMBTU
0.05 LB/MMBTU
LOW-NOX BURNERS
0.05 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.05 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.05 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.05 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.05 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.05 LB/MMBTU
0.055 LB/MMBTU
ULTRA-LOW NOX BURNERS
0.064 LB/MMBTU
SCRUBBER
0.067 LB/MMBTU
LOW-NOX BURNERS
0.07 LB/MMBTU
CONVENTIONAL BURNER TECHNOLOGY
0.08 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS
0.08 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION.
0.08 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS / FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.095 LB/MMBTU
DLN
0.095 LB/MMBTU
Basis
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
N/A
BACT-PSD
RACT
LAER
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
LAER
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Table G-2. RBLC NOx Summary for Commercial/Institutional-Size Boilers/ Furnaces (< 100 MMBTu/hr), Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
MD-0040
NV-0048
OK-0128
WA-0301
WI-0227
NV-0046
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0230
IN-0116
NE-0026
IA-0064
AL-0212
AZ-0047
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
GOODSPRINGS COMPRESSOR STATION
5/16/2006
MID AMERICAN STEEL ROLLING MILL
9/8/2008
BP CHERRY POINT REFINERY
4/20/2005
PORT WASHINGTON GENERATING STATION 10/13/2004
5/16/2006
PSEG LAWRENCEBURG ENERGY CO., INC. 12/23/2002
6/22/2004
1/31/2003
ROQUETTE AMERICA
HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABA11/22/2004
WELLTON MOHAWK GENERATING STATION 12/1/2004
2/20/2009
2/10/2009
12/17/2010
5/16/2006
8/31/2006
12/3/2007
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
5/28/2004
7/23/2004
10/5/2009
1/23/2007
1/31/2006
Process Description
Throughput Rate
HEATER
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL-SIZE BOILER (<100
Ladle pre-heater and refractory drying
PROCESS HEATER, IHT
GAS HEATER (P06, S06)
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL BOILER
NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNACES
NATURAL GAS-FIRED PASSIVE ANNEALING FURNACE
NATURAL GAS-FIRED PASSIVE ANNEALING FURNACE
NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNACE (
HEATER, STARTUP GAS, NATURAL GAS
NNII BILET POST-HEATER
DEW POINT HEATER
AUXILIARY BOILER
1.7 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
0
13 MMBTU/H
10 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
33.4 MMBTU/H
27.2 MMBTU/H
27.2 MMBTU/H
99 MMBTU/H
2.4 MMBTU/H
6.8 MMBTU/H
1.6 MMBTU/H
24.5 MMBTU/H
38 MMBTU/H
Page 2 of 2
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE

natural gas fuel
NATURAL GAS FUEL
UNLB WITH EGR
ULTRA LOW NOX BURNERS (ULNB) WITH EXHAUST GAS REC
ULTRA LOW NOX BURNERS (ULNB) WITH EXHAUST GAS REC
ULTRA-LOW NOX BURNERS
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
LOW NOX BURNERS
LOW NOX BURNERS
Emission Limit
Basis
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.101 LB/MMBTU
0.11 LB/MMBTU
0.11 LB/MMBTU
0.11 LB/MMBTU
0.11 LB/MMBTU
0.14 LB/MMBTU
0.147 LB/MMBTU
0.15 LB/MMBTU
0.35 LB/MMBTU
0.37 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-3. RBLC NOx Summary for Large Internal Combustion Engines (> 500 HP)
RBLC ID
NV-0050
MN-0071
NV-0049
LA-0211
PA-0244
NV-0045
MD-0037
MS-0086
AK-0064
IA-0076
IA-0067
NH-0015
NH-0015
OK-0091
OK-0090
VA-0276
IA-0088
LA-0204
MN-0053
IA-0095
AZ-0046
IA-0088
AK-0066
LA-0231
MD-0037
IA-0095
*AK-0071
AZ-0046
FL-0322
ID-0018
LA-0219
PA-0271
CA-0988
FL-0310
NV-0047
NC-0074
AK-0059
*AK-0072
LA-0219
NJ-0073
LA-0194
OH-0254
MN-0054
WI-0207
OK-0128
LA-0231
WV-0023
OK-0129
VA-0305
OH-0317
LA-0219
TX-0407
AK-0060
OH-0275
KS-0028
AK-0061
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
MGM MIRAGE
11/30/2009
6/5/2007
8/20/2009
GARYVILLE REFINERY
12/27/2006
FIRST QUALITY TISSUE, LLC
10/20/2004
SLOAN QUARRY
12/11/2006
MEDIMMUNE FREDERICK CAMPUS
1/28/2008
CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, PASCAGOULA REFIN 5/8/2007
DUTCH HARBOR POWER PLANT
1/31/2007
JOHN DEERE PRODUCT ENGINEERING CENTER
3/23/2005
WALTER SCOTT JR. ENERGY CENTER
6/17/2003
2/27/2009
2/27/2009
CARDINAL FG CO./ CARDINAL GLASS PLANT
3/18/2003
DUKE ENERGY STEPHENS, LLC STEPHENS ENERGY
3/21/2003
6/20/2003
INGENCO - CHARLES CITY PLANT
ADM CORN PROCESSING - CEDAR RAPIDS
6/29/2007
2/27/2009
7/15/2004
TATE & LYLE INDGREDIENTS AMERICAS, INC.
9/19/2008
ARIZONA CLEAN FUELS YUMA
4/14/2005
6/29/2007
ENDICOTT PRODUCTION FACILITY, LIBERTY DEVELOPM 6/15/2009
LAKE CHARLES GASIFICATION FACILITY
6/22/2009
MEDIMMUNE FREDERICK CAMPUS
1/28/2008
9/19/2008
12/20/2010
4/14/2005
SWEET SORGHUM-TO-ETHANOL ADVANCED BIOREFIN12/23/2010
6/25/2010
CREOLE TRAIL LNG IMPORT TERMINAL
8/15/2007
MERCK & CO. WESTPOINT
2/23/2007
PACIFIC BELL
2/1/2003
SHADY HILLS GENERATING STATION
1/12/2009
2/26/2008
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE
1/24/2003
USAF EARECKSON AIR STATION
9/29/2003
7/14/2011
DUTCH HARBOR POWER PLANT
8/15/2007
TRIGEN
3/8/2008
11/24/2004
DUKE ENERGY WASHINGTON COUNTY LLC
8/14/2003
12/4/2003
1/21/2004
9/8/2008
6/22/2009
MAIDSVILLE
3/2/2004
1/23/2009
INGENCO K&O FACILITY
9/26/2007
OHIO RIVER CLEAN FUELS, LLC
11/20/2008
8/15/2007
STERNE ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY
12/6/2002
10/10/2003
DUTCH HARBOR SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITY
PSI ENERGY-MADISON STATION
8/24/2004
NEARMAN CREEK POWER STATION
10/18/2005
SNAKE RIVER POWER PLANT
11/5/2004
3/15/2010
5/29/2008
12/1/2009
7/16/2008
3/10/2005
3/31/2008
12/27/2010
3/4/2010
12/27/2010
4/22/2008
12/3/2010
10/5/2010
10/5/2010
10/10/2003
10/10/2003
2/20/2004
10/9/2007
8/6/2009
9/21/2004
1/30/2009
8/25/2006
10/9/2007
8/6/2009
5/17/2010
12/27/2010
1/30/2009
6/27/2011
8/25/2006
7/6/2011
10/5/2010
4/22/2008
8/5/2010
9/4/2003
1/26/2010
10/21/2008
3/12/2004
5/22/2009
7/15/2011
4/22/2008
8/12/2008
9/3/2009
7/5/2005
8/24/2006
8/16/2005
12/17/2010
5/17/2010
2/3/2009
2/18/2010
7/28/2008
2/20/2009
4/22/2008
10/26/2004
6/3/2005
8/31/2006
3/9/2006
7/23/2007
Process Description
Throughput Rate
EMERGENCY GENERATORS - UNITS LX024 AND LX025 AT LUX

2206 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1750 KW
LARGE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (>600 HP) - UNIT
1232 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATORS (DOCK & TANK FARM) (21-08 & 22-08)
FIRE PUMP
575 HP
LARGE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
12 GAL/H
TWO (2) DIESEL (NO. 2 FUEL OIL) FIRED, NON-EMERGENCY GE
2500 KW
TEMPORARY, PORTABLE CRUDE I GENERATOR
I.C.
5000 KW
TEST CELL
24.5 GAL/H
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
97.73 GAL/H
EMRGENCY GENERATOR 1
5.6 MMBTU/H
EMERGENCY GENERATOR 2
11.6 MMBTU/H
IC ENGINES, EMERGENCY GENERATORS (2)
2000 KW
IC ENGINE, BACKUP GENERATOR, DIESEL
749 BHP
IC ENGINES, (48)
550 HP
FIRE PUMP
540 HP
LARGE EMERGENCY ENGINES
IC ENGINE, LARGE, FUEL OIL (1)
670 HP
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
575 HP
5.46 MMBTU/H
FIRE WATER PUMPS NOS 1 AND 2
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1500 KW
EU ID 58, CAMP ENGINE 3
1041 HP
FIRE WATER DIESEL PUMPS (3)
575 HP Each
THREE (3) DIESEL (NO. 2 FUEL OIL) FIRED, EMERGENCY GENER
2500 KW
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
700 KW
Caterpillar 3215C Black Start Generator (1)
1500 KW-e
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
10.9 MMBTU/H
Emergency Generators, Two 2682 HP EA
0
EMERGENCY GENERATOR ENGINE
750 KW
FIREWATER PUMP DIESEL ENGINE
525 HP
MOBILE EMERGENCY GENERATOR
IC ENGINES
2935 HP
2.5 MW EMERGENCY GENERATOR
2.5 MW
LARGE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (>500 HP)
IC ENGINES, AIR COMPRESSORS, DIESEL, (5)
4.46 MMBTU/H
IC ENGINE, DIESEL, (2)
3000 KW
EU 15 Caterpillar C-280-16
KW
660 HP
1 MMGAL/YR
DUAL FUEL ENGINES ON 100 % DISTILLATE FUEL OIL
FIREWATER PUMP DIESEL ENGINES 1-3
660 HP Each
EMERGENCY DIESEL-FIRED GENERATOR
600 KW
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, LARGE
1850 HP
IC ENGINE, DIESEL GENERATOR SET, B70
1850 BHP
Emergency Generator
1200 HP
EMERGENCY DIESEL POWER GENERATOR ENGINES (2)
1341 HP Each
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1801 HP
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR (2200 HP)
2200 HP
ELECTRIC GENERATION
550 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
2922 HP
DIESEL EMERGENCY GENERATOR NOS. 1 & 2
2168 HP Each
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1350 HP
IC ENGINE, GENERATOR, FUEL OIL, (3)
2220 KW
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR, 2
17.21 MMTU/H
EMERGENCY BLACK START GENERATOR
24.1 MMBTU/H
WARTSILA 12V32B DIESEL ELECTRIC GENERATOR
5211 KW
Page 1 of 1
Emission Limit
CASE-BY-CASE_BASIS
TURBOCHARGING, AFTER-COOLING, AND LEAN-BURN TE
0.0131 LB/HP-H
0.024 LB/HP-H
0.024 LB/HP-H
0.031 LB/HP-H
0.031 LB/HP-H
0.058 LB/T
0.61 G/HPP-H
1.3 LB/H
1.36 G/KW-H
1.52 LB/MMBTU
1.71 LB/MMBTU
1.98 LB/MMBTU
1.98 LB/MMBTU
2.035 LB/MMBTU
2.16 LB/MMBTU
2.4 LB/MMBTU
2.8 G/B-HP-H
3.2 LB/MMBTU
3.28 LB/MMBTU
3.9 G/KW-H
4 G/KW-H
4.5 G/B-HP-H
4.7 G/HP-H
6.02 LB/H
6.06 G/HP-H
6.2 G/KW-H
6.4 G/KW-H
6.4 G/KW-H
6.4 G/KW-H
6.4 G/KW-H
6.74 LB/H
6.8 G/B-HP-H
6.9 G/B-HP-H
6.9 G/HP-H
7.58 G/B-HP-H
7.8 LB/H
9.7 LB/H
9.8 G/KW-H
10.07 LB/H
12 G/B-HP-H
12.2 LB/H
12.4 LB/H
12.7 G/B-HP-H
13 G/B-HP-H
15.6 LB/H
17.09 LB/H
20.9 LB/H
23.15 LB/H
240 T/YR
26.47 LB/H
37.95 LB/H
41.9 LB/H
42.3 LB/H
55.07 LB/H
84.8 LB/H
134 LB/H
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
RACT
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
THE UNIT IS EQUIPPED WITH A TURBOCHARGER.

USE OF DIESEL WITH A SULFUR CONTENT OF 15 PPMV OR
N/A
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) SYSTEM FOR EAC
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR)
REDUCE NOX BY 90%
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
LESS THAN 500 HOURS OF OPERATION PER CONSECUTIV
OPERATES LESS THAN 500 HOURS PER CONSECUTIVE 12
ENGINE DESIGN AND LIMIT ON HOURS OF OPERATION (<
ENGINE DESIGN AND LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION (<1
AIR TO FUEL RATIO CONTROL, TURBOCHARGING, AND CH
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IS SPECIFED. ENGIN
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GASEOUS FUEL BU
GOOD COMBUSTION.
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IS SPECIFED. ENGIN

COMPLY WITH 40 CFR 60 SUBPART IIII
Turbocharger and Aftercooler
TIER 2 ENGINE-BASED,GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES (G

GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GOOD ENGINE DES
PURCHASE MODEL IS AT LEAST AS STRINGENT AS THE BA

TURBOCHARGER AND AFTERCOOLER
IGNITION TIMING RETARD
SCR
Engine has turbo charger and after cooler installed as par
GOOD ENGINE DESIGN AND PROPER OPERATING PRACTI
LOW SULFUR FUEL, COMBUSTION CONTROL
GOOD COMBUSTION
LIMIT ON HOURS OF OPERATION (16.7 HRS/MO, 12 MO.
500 hours per year operations
CHARGE AIR COOLING SYSTEMS AND GOOD COMBUSTIO
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, GOOD ENGINE DESIGN,
WATER INJECTION, LOW NOX DESIGN
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS HAVE NOT BEEN REQU
1. FUEL INJECTION TIMING RETARD (THREE DEGRESS R
Table G-4. RBLC NOx Summary for Small Internal Combustion Engines (< 500 HP)
RBLC ID
MI-0367
IA-0062
VA-0285
OH-0281
FL-0322
MD-0040
LA-0194
NV-0047
AZ-0051
*FL-0324
ID-0018
CA-1073
IA-0062
IA-0067
LA-0204
MN-0053
OK-0090
OK-0129
MD-0040
OH-0317
OH-0275
MN-0054
CA-0998
CA-1144
OH-0252
WI-0228
LA-0192
TX-0352
TX-0407
LA-0224
OH-0252
WV-0023
OH-0254
WI-0228
OH-0281
WI-0227
NC-0101
NC-0101
MT-0022
WA-0291
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
GM POWERTRAIN DIVISION
5/19/2004
12/20/2002
INGENCO - CHESTER PLANT
1/6/2004
RUMPKE SANITARY LANDFILL, INC
6/10/2004
SWEET SORGHUM-TO-ETHANOL ADVANCED BIOREFIN 12/23/2010
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
11/24/2004
2/26/2008
DRAKE
4/12/2006
PALM BEACH RENEWABLE ENERGY PARK
12/23/2010
6/25/2010
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION/FAC PLANNING/IS 8/14/2003
12/20/2002
6/17/2003
2/27/2009
7/15/2004
3/21/2003
1/23/2009
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
11/20/2008
8/24/2004
12/4/2003
WESTERN DEVCON
1/7/2003
4/25/2007
DUKE ENERGY HANGING ROCK ENERGY FACILITY
12/28/2004
WPS - WESTON PLANT
10/19/2004
CRESCENT CITY POWER
6/6/2005
BRAZOS VALLEY ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY
12/31/2002
12/6/2002
ARSENAL HILL POWER PLANT
3/20/2008
12/28/2004
MAIDSVILLE
3/2/2004
8/14/2003
WPS - WESTON PLANT
10/19/2004
6/10/2004
PORT WASHINGTON GENERATING STATION
10/13/2004
9/29/2005
9/29/2005
BULL MOUNTAIN, NO. 1, LLC - ROUNDUP POWER PROJ 7/21/2003
WALLULA POWER PLANT
1/3/2003
10/25/2004
6/21/2004
3/25/2004
5/8/2007
7/6/2011
2/20/2009
9/3/2009
10/21/2008
8/6/2009
6/24/2011
10/5/2010
2/14/2006
6/21/2004
12/3/2010
8/6/2009
9/21/2004
10/10/2003
2/18/2010
2/20/2009
2/20/2009
8/31/2006
8/24/2006
9/4/2003
3/17/2008
7/5/2005
8/31/2006
4/8/2008
5/24/2005
10/26/2004
6/26/2008
7/5/2005
2/3/2009
7/5/2005
8/31/2006
5/8/2007
8/31/2006
8/30/2006
8/30/2006
6/29/2004
8/31/2006
Process Description
PRIMARY_FUEL
ENGINE TEST CELLS/DYNAMOMETERS

DIESEL
IC ENGINE, BLACK-START GENERATOR (6)
#2 FUEL OIL
DISTILLATE FUEL OIL
PORTABLE ENGINE 0.58 MMBTU/H
FUEL OIL #2
Emergency Diesel Fire Pump, One 600 HP
ULSD
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE - EMERGENCY FIRE WATER P
DIESEL
FIREWATER BOOSTER PUMP DIESEL ENGINES (2)
DIESEL
SMALL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (<= 500 HP)
DIESEL OIL
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
FUEL OIL #2
250 Kw Emergency Generator
ULSD
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
DIESEL
ICE: FIRE PUMP, COMPRESSION IGNITION
DIESEL
IC ENGINE, EMERGENCY FIRE PUMP
#2 FUEL OIL
DIESEL FIRE PUMP
DIESEL FUEL
SMALL EMERGENCY ENGINES
DIESEL
IC ENGINE, SMALL, FUEL OIL (1)
DIESEL
IC ENGINE, FIRE WATER PUMP
DIESEL
EMERGENCY FIRE PUMP (267-HP DIESEL)
LOW SULFUR DIESEL
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE - EMERGENCY GENERATOR
DIESEL
FIRE PUMP ENGINES (2)
DIESEL FUEL OIL
EMERGENCY DIESEL FIRE PUMP
DIESEL FUEL
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, SMALL
DIESEL FUEL
IC ENGINE
DIESEL FUEL
FIRE PUMP
DIESEL
FIRE WATER PUMP (1)
DIESEL
DIESEL BOOSTER PUMP (B27, S27)
DIESEL FUEL OIL
DIESEL FIRED WATER PUMP
(2) FIRE WATER PUMPS, FWPUMP-1 & -2
DIESEL
FIRE WATER PUMP
DIESEL
DFP DIESEL FIRE PUMP
DIESEL
BACKUP GENERATORS (2)
DIESEL
DIESEL
EMERGENCY DIESEL FIRE PUMP ENGINE
DIESEL
MAIN FIRE PUMP (DIESEL ENGINE)
DIESEL FUEL OIL
FUEL OIL #2
DIESEL ENGINE GENERATOR (P05 / S05)
DIESEL FUEL OIL
IC ENGINE, EMERGENCY GENERATOR
DIESEL FUEL
IC ENGINE, EMERGENCY FIREWATER PUMP
DIESEL FUEL
NO. 2 FUEL OIL
IC GENERATOR, EMERGENCY DIESEL
DIESEL
Page 1 of 1
Throughput Rates
Emission Limit
303.33 MMBTU/H
25 MMBTU/H
350 KW
CONTINUAL EMISSION MONITORING DEVICES
0.58 MMBTU/H
0
300 HP
300 HP Each
GOOD ENGINE DESIGN & PROPER OPERATING PRACTICES
210 KW
0
Use of inherently clean ultra low sulfur distillate (ULSD) fuel oil
235 KW
TIER 3 ENGINE-BASEDGOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES (GCP)
240 BHP
5.5 DEGREES FUEL INJECTION TIMING RETARD-AFTER COOLER
2.59 MMBTU/H IGNITION TIMING RETARD
27.8 GAL/H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GASEOUS FUEL BURNING
250 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION.
265 BHP
ENGINE DESIGN AND HOURS LIMIT (<100 H/YR)
267 HP
300 HP
1.6 MMBTU/H
290 HP
415 HP
303 HP
265 HP
265 HP
300 HP
300 HP
310 HP
500 KW
85 HP
400 HP
460 HP
4.68 MMBTU/H
7.6 MMBTU/H
11.4 MMBTU/H
11.4 MMBTU/H
15.3 MMBTU/H
1.38 LB/MMBTU
1.9 LB/MMBTU
2.4 LB/MMBTU
2.55 LB/H
3 G/HP-H
3 G/HP-H
3.44 LB/H
3.88 G/B-HP-H
4 G/KW-H
4 G/KW-H
4 G/KW-H
4.2 G/B-HP-H
4.41 LB/MMBTU
4.41 LB/MMBTU
4.41 LB/MMBTU
4.41 LB/MMBTU
4.41 LB/MMBTU
4.59 LB/H
4.8 G/HP-H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, GOOD ENGINE DESIGN, IGNIT
4.89 LB/H
5.14 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION
5.7 G/B-HP-H
EPA CERTIFIED ENGINE
6.9 G/B-HP-H
7.5 LB/H
8.2 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES WITH IGNITION RETARDULTRA
8.21 LB/H
GOOD ENGINE DESIGN AND PROPER OPERATING PRACTICES
8.9 LB/H
NONE INDICATED
9.3 LB/H
9.3 LB/H
USE OF LOW-SULFUR FUELS, LIMITING OPERATING HOURS AND
9.61 LB/H
10.2 LB/H
COMBUSTION CONTROLS WITH OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS
10.5 LB/H
12.8 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, IGNITION TIMING RETARD, U
14.26 LB/H
14.99 LB/H
ENGINE DESIGN, DIESEL FUEL OIL (0.05 WT.% S).
27.36 LB/H
36.48 LB/H
36.48 LB/H
LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION TO 200 H/YR
97.7 % Reduction
568 PPMVD @ 15% O2
Basis
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Table G-5. RBLC VOC Summary for Large Combustion Turbines, Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
OK-0129
VA-0291
VA-0308
VA-0308
VA-0308
AZ-0043
NC-0095
VA-0291
MN-0053
NJ-0043
NY-0100
FL-0285
FL-0303
PA-0189
VA-0255
FL-0244
FL-0245
FL-0263
VA-0287
WV-0014
AZ-0038
CA-0997
AR-0070
LA-0157
MN-0071
FL-0286
NJ-0043
GA-0127
VA-0261
CA-1178
GA-0093
GA-0102
GA-0105
GA-0138
MN-0060
ID-0018
TX-0546
CA-1096
CA-1097
FL-0256
NC-0094
NV-0038
VA-0255
PA-0226
TX-0548
VA-0262
AZ-0047
AZ-0047
AR-0070
MI-0357
MS-0073
MS-0073
MS-0073
NC-0094
AZ-0043
TX-0437
VA-0287
Facility Name
CPV WARREN LLC
CPV WARREN LLC
EMPIRE POWER PLANT
FPL MARTIN PLANT
PLANT MCDONOUGH COMBINED CYCLE
CPV CUNNINGHAM CREEK
APPLIED ENERGY LLC
HIGH BRIDGE GENERATING PLANT
HARTBURG POWER, LP
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
1/23/2009
7/30/2004
1/14/2008
1/14/2008
1/14/2008
11/12/2003
5/28/2002
7/30/2004
7/15/2004
3/28/2002
6/23/2005
1/26/2007
7/30/2008
1/16/2002
11/18/2002
4/16/2003
4/15/2003
2/8/2005
12/1/2003
12/18/2001
5/15/2002
9/1/2003
8/23/2002
3/8/2002
6/5/2007
1/10/2007
3/28/2002
1/7/2008
9/6/2002
3/20/2009
10/28/2001
1/15/2002
4/17/2003
4/8/2010
8/12/2005
6/25/2010
6/17/2009
5/27/2003
5/27/2003
9/8/2003
1/9/2002
12/29/2003
11/18/2002
4/9/2002
8/18/2009
12/6/2002
12/1/2004
12/1/2004
8/23/2002
2/4/2003
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
1/9/2002
11/12/2003
7/5/2002
12/1/2003
2/18/2010
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
1/29/2004
4/2/2004
9/21/2009
9/21/2004
8/31/2006
8/12/2008
6/12/2008
1/5/2011
8/4/2008
5/16/2003
12/22/2003
8/30/2006
1/12/2006
3/29/2004
5/23/2002
12/6/2004
3/9/2004
10/28/2003
8/2/2006
5/29/2008
3/3/2009
8/31/2006
10/9/2008
8/31/2006
4/11/2011
9/26/2003
1/21/2005
1/24/2005
9/10/2010
5/2/2006
10/5/2010
11/6/2009
12/5/2005
12/6/2005
8/30/2006
4/2/2004
12/21/2005
5/16/2003
5/5/2008
11/6/2009
4/28/2003
1/31/2006
1/31/2006
10/28/2003
1/16/2004
1/25/2005
1/25/2005
1/25/2005
4/2/2004
1/29/2004
3/2/2005
3/29/2004
Process Description
Throughput

TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE AND DUCT BURNE
FUEL COMBUSTION (NATURAL GAS)
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE SYST
THREE NOMINAL 250 MW CTG (EACH) WITH SU
TURBINE, NATURAL GAS, NO DUCT BURNER FIR
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NA
GAS TURBINES, (2)
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, GAS, (2) EPNS 1-1
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE W/D
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION GAS TURBINES
COMBINED CYCLE TURBINE WITH DUCT BURNE
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE
Gas turbine combined cycle
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE - ELE
2 COMBINED-CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES
COMBUSTION TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE W/
COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NA
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS (2
LARGE COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CY
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS, DU
COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS AND HEA
COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS AND HEA
EMISSION POINT AA-001 GEN. ELEC. COMBUST
EMISSION POINT AA-002 GEN ELEC. COMB. TUR
EMISSION POINT AA-003 GEN. ELEC COMB TUR
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNERS,
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE & DUCT BURN
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS,DU
1882 MMBTU/H
1717 MMBTU/H
1717 MMBTU/H
1944 MMBTU
2204 MMBTU/H
325 MW
175 MW
1717 MMBTU/H
1876 MMBTU/H
2964 MMBTU/H
2099 MMBTU/H
1972 MMBTU/H
2333 MMBTU/H
122 MW
1937 MMBTU/H
170 MW
170 MW
170 MW
1973 MMBTU/H
300 MW
170 MW
1611 MMBTU/H
170 MW
170 MW
1758 MMBTU/H
2333 MMBTU/H
3202 MMBTU/H
254 MW
2132 MMBTU/H
0
750 MW
167 MW
140 MW
600 MW
330 MW
2375.28 MMBTU/H
350 MW
43 MW
181 NET MW
1830 MMBTU/H
1715 MMBTU/H
500 MW
1937 MMBTU/H
550 MW
275 MW
170 MW
180 MW
170 MW
170 MW
605 MW
230 MW
230 MW
230 MW
1715 MMBTU/H
325 MW
277 MW
1973 MMBTU/H
Page 1 of 2

GOOD COMBUSTION
OXIDATION CATALYST AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND OXIDATION CATALYST.
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND OXIDATION CATALYST.
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND OXIDATION CATALYST
Emission Limit
0.3 PPM
0.7 PPMVD
0.7 PPMVD
0.7 PPMVD
0.7 PPMVD
1 PPM
1 PPMVD
OXIDATION CATALYST AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
1 PPMVD
1 PPMVD @ 15% O2
CO CATALYST
1 PPMVD @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST
1 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION
1.2 PPMVD
1.2 PPMVD
1.2 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PRACTICES FOR MINIMIZING E 1.2 PPMVD @ 15% O2
1.3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
1.3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
VOC EMISSIONS WILL BE MINIMIZED BY THE EFFICIENT COMBU 1.3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION/DESIGN AND CLEAN FUEL
1.4 PPM
1.4 PPM
USE OF STATE OF THE ART COMBUSTER DESIGN ALONG WITH G
OXIDATION CATALYST AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE
1.4 PPM @ 15% O2
1.4 PPM @ 15% O2
1.4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES AND USE OF NATURAL GAS AS FU 1.4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
1.5 PPMVD
1.5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
CO CATALYST
1.7 PPMVD @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST
1.8 PPM @ 15% O2
1.8 PPMVD @ 15% O2
Oxidation catalyst
2 PPM
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
2 PPM @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, CATALYTIC OXIDATION
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPMVD
CATALYTIC OXIDATION (CATOX), DRY LOW NOX (DLN) ,GOOD CO
OXIDATION CATALYST
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD @ 15% O2
2 PPMVD @ 15% O2
COMBUSTION DESIGN, GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
2 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND DESIGN
2 PPMVW
GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL AND CATALYTIIC OXIDATION
2.3 PPMVD
GOOD AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PRACTICES FOR MINIMIZING E 2.3 PPMVD @ 15%O2
2.4 PPM @ 15% O2
2.5 PPMVD
2.7 PPMVD @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST
3 PPM @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST
3 PPM @ 15% O2
3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST ALSO CONTROL VOC, MOST OF WHICH IS
3.5 PPM
SCR
3.64 PPMV @ 15% O2
SCR
3.64 PPMV @ 15% O2
SCR
3.64 PPMV @ 15% O2
3.7 PPMVW
4 PPM
GOOD COMBUSTION DESIGN, PROPER DESIGN, CLEAN FUEL
4 PPM
GOOD COMBUSTION/DESIGN AND CLEAN FUEL
4 PPM
Basis
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
N/A
N/A
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-5. RBLC VOC Summary for Large Combustion Turbines, Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
AZ-0039
NV-0035
NV-0035
NV-0037
TX-0547
AR-0047
FL-0244
MS-0058
NY-0098
TX-0428
OK-0070
GA-0101
AZ-0049
NC-0095
MN-0066
OR-0035
MS-0065
MS-0065
MS-0065
NC-0095
WA-0291
PA-0223
NC-0101
OK-0056
NY-0100
NC-0086
MN-0054
OK-0070
AR-0051
AR-0070
MS-0051
MI-0365
VA-0256
MS-0059
MS-0059
MS-0059
MS-0059
MN-0054
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated

3/7/2003
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
5/14/2004
NATURAL GAS-FIRED POWER GENERATION FACIL 6/22/2009
11/9/2001
FPL MARTIN PLANT
4/16/2003
12/13/2001
ATHENS GENERATING PLANT
1/19/2007
HOUSTON OPERATIONS -- BATTLEGROUND SITE 12/19/2002
6/13/2002
10/23/2002
9/4/2003
5/28/2002
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. DBA XCEL ENERG 5/16/2006
PORT WESTWARD PLANT
1/16/2002
11/13/2001
11/13/2001
11/13/2001
5/28/2002
WALLULA POWER PLANT
1/3/2003
1/30/2002
9/29/2005
2/12/2002
EMPIRE POWER PLANT
6/23/2005
1/10/2002
12/4/2003
6/13/2002
4/1/2002
8/23/2002
11/13/2001
MIRANT WYANDOTTE LLC
1/28/2003
TENASKA FLUVANNA
1/11/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
12/4/2003
5/24/2005
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
12/20/2005
11/6/2009
5/6/2004
12/22/2003
10/17/2003
8/12/2008
1/25/2005
5/12/2004
1/21/2005
7/24/2007
4/2/2004
10/2/2006
8/5/2003
11/18/2004
11/18/2004
11/18/2004
4/2/2004
8/31/2006
1/21/2004
8/30/2006
5/6/2004
8/12/2008
3/25/2004
8/24/2006
5/12/2004
5/6/2004
10/28/2003
11/19/2002
8/30/2006
3/13/2003
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
8/24/2006
Process Description
Throughput
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NA

TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #2 W
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #1 W
LARGE COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CY
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE WITH DUCT BURNE
FUEL COMBUSTION (GAS)
GE COMBUSTION TURBINE & DUCT BURN
GE COMBUSTION TURBINES AND HEAT RECOVE
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, MHI/SW, DUCT B
(2) COMBUSTION TURBINES, WITH DUCT BURN
AA-001 COMBUSTION TURBINE, COMBINED CY
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, GE, DUCT BURNE
TURBINE & DUCT BURNER, COMBINED CY
FUEL COMBUSTION (NATURAL GAS) DUCT BUR
MHI COMBUSTION TURBINE & DUCT BURN
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS, (2
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE GEN
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, (3), NATURAL GA
175 MW
306 MW
306 MW
600 MW
250 MW
700 MW
170 MW
2737 MMBTU/H
3100 MMBTU/H
87 MW
1705 MMBTU/H
173 MW
1040 MW
175 MW
1885 MMBTU/H
325 MW Each
1837 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
175 MW
1300 MW
280 MW
1844.3 MMBTU/H
310 MW Total
646 MMBTU/H
154 MW
1827 MMBTU/H
1767MMBTU/H
170 MW
170 MW
2100 MMBTU/H
2200 MMBTU/H
61200 MMSCF/YR
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
1916 MMBTU/H
Page 2 of 2
Emission Limit
CATALYTIC OXIDIZER
4 PPM @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST FOR CO ALSO MINIMIZES VOC EMISSION
4 PPM @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST FOR CO ALSO MINIMIZES VOC EMISSION
4 PPM @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL AND OXIDATION CATALYST
4 PPMVD
4 PPMVD
CATALYTIC OXIDIZER.
4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL
4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND DRY LOW-NOX COMBUST 4.1 PPM @ 15% O2
4.5 PPM @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST
4.5 PPMVD
4.6 PPMVD
4.6 PPMVD @ 15% O2
CO CATALYST, GOOD COMBUSTION
4.9 PPM @ 15% O2
4.9 PPMV
4.9 PPMV
4.9 PPMV
4.9 PPMVD
5 PPMVD @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST
5.3 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND EFFICIENT PROCESS DESIG 5.7 PPM @ 15% O2
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
6 PPM
OXIDATION CATALYST
7 PPMVD @ 15% O2
COMBUSTION CONTROL
7 PPMVW
OXIDATION CATALYST AND GOOD COMBUSTION
7.1 PPMVD @ 15% O2
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
8.4 PPM @ 15% O2
8.4 PPMVD
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE/CO OXIDATION CATALYST
8.4 PPMVD @ 15% O2
N/A
9.6 PPMVD @ 15% O2
10 PPM
CATALYTIC OXIDIZER PROVIDES SOME CONTROL FOR VOC EMISS
BEST COMBUSTION CONTROL PRACTICES
15.5 PPMVD
EFFICIENT COMBUSTION PRACTICES
22.8 PPMV @ 15% O2
22.8 PPMV @ 15% O2
22.8 PPMV @ 15% O2
22.8 PPMV @ 15% O2
OXIDATION CATALYST AND GOOD COMBUSITION PRACTICS
34 PPMVD @ 15% O2
Basis
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-6. RBLC VOC Summary for Commercial/ Institutional-Size Boilers/Furnaces (< 100 MMBtu/hr), Natural gas-Fired
RBLC ID
Facility Name
Issuance
Updated
MD-0035
MD-0040
AL-0231
IN-0108
LA-0240
AZ-0047
GA-0098
MD-0040
NV-0044
NV-0048
NV-0046
IA-0062
IA-0062
IA-0068
MD-0035
NV-0049
NV-0049
NV-0049
NV-0049
NV-0049
NV-0049
NV-0050
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0231
AR-0077
NE-0026
NE-0026
OK-0128
MN-0053
NV-0047
MN-0054
AZ-0049
AZ-0049
CO-0058
OK-0090
WY-0067
WY-0067
DOMINION
CPV ST CHARLES
NUCOR DECATUR LLC
NUCOR STEEL
FLOPAM INC.
RINCON POWER PLANT
CPV ST CHARLES
DOMINION
MGM MIRAGE
THYSSENKRUPP STEEL AND STAINLESS USA, LLC
NUCOR DECATUR LLC
BLUEWATER PROJECT
CHEYENNE STATION
8/12/2005
11/12/2008
6/12/2007
11/21/2003
6/14/2010
12/1/2004
3/24/2003
11/12/2008
1/4/2007
5/16/2006
5/16/2006
12/20/2002
12/20/2002
6/26/2003
8/12/2005
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
11/30/2009
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
6/12/2007
7/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
9/8/2008
7/15/2004
2/26/2008
12/4/2003
9/4/2003
9/4/2003
6/12/2004
3/21/2003
4/1/2009
4/1/2009
5/10/2007
2/20/2009
8/31/2009
2/6/2004
7/22/2010
1/31/2006
4/9/2004
2/20/2009
4/26/2007
2/10/2009
12/3/2007
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
8/25/2003
5/10/2007
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
3/15/2010
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
8/31/2009
10/25/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
12/17/2010
9/21/2004
10/21/2008
8/24/2006
7/24/2007
7/24/2007
8/15/2006
10/10/2003
4/16/2009
4/16/2009
Process Description
Throughput Rate
VAPORIZATION HEATER
BOILER
Boilers
AUXILIARY BOILER
AUXILIARY BOILER
HEATER
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL-SIZE BOILER (<100 MMBTU/
GAS HEATER, (2)
AUXILIARY BOILER
GAS HEATER
EMERGENCY VENT HEATER
BOILER - UNIT FL01
BOILER - UNIT BA01
BOILER - UNIT BA03
BOILER - UNIT CP01
BOILER - UNIT CP03
BOILER - UNIT CP26
WATER HEATERS - UNITS NY037 AND NY038 AT NEW YORK - N
NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNACES (LA63, LA
NATURAL GAS-FIRED PASSIVE ANNEALING FURNACE (LO41)
3 NATURAL GAS-FIRED BOILERS WITH ULNB & EGR (537NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNACE (535)
BOILERS
NNII REHEAT FURNACE
BOILER, COMMERCIAL
HEATERS
BOILER, AUXILIARY
HOT OIL HEATER S38
AMINE UNIT VOC CONTROL
Page 1 of 1
93 MMBTU/H
95 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
25.1 MMBTU/H
38 MMBTU/H
83 MMBTU/H
1.7 MMBTU/H
35.4 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
16.4 MMBTU/H
68 MMBTU/H
9 MMBTU/H
14.34 MMBTU/H
16.8 MMBTU/H
31.38 MMBTU/H
35.4 MMBTU/H
33.48 MMBTU/H
24 MMBTU/H
2 MMBTU/H
11 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
60 MMBTU/H
80 MMBTU/H
33.4 MMBTU Each
27.2 MMBTU/H
64.9 MMBTU EacH
99 MMBTU/H
98.7 MMBTU/H
22 MMBTU/H
143 MMBTU/H
6.8 MMBTU/H
0
40 MMBTU/H
70 MMBTU/H
41 MMBTU/H
55.34 MMBTU/H
45 MMBTU/H
33 MMBTU/H
84 MMBTU/H
72 MMBTU/H
Emission Limit
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION AND A CATALYTIC 0.002 LB/MMBTU

0.002 LB/MMBTU
0.0026 LB/MMBTU
COMPLIANCE BY USING NATURAL GAS
0.0026 LB/MMBTU
Good equipment design and proper combustio 0.003 LB/MMBTU
0.0033 LB/MMBTU
0.004 LB/MMBTU
0.005 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION DESIGN
0.005 LB/MMBTU
0.005 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION PROCESS
0.0052 LB/MMBTU
0.0054 LB/MMBTU
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
0.0054 LB/MMBTU
0.0054 LB/MMBTU
BURN NATURAL GAS AND GOOD COMBUSTION 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.0054 LB/MMBTU
0.0054 LB/MMBTU
OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANU 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION AND OPERATING IN 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
LIMITING THE FUEL TO NATURAL GAS ONLY AN 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTIO 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTIO 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE, GOOD COMBUSTIO 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
NAT. GAS / PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTION CO 0.0054 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ONLY
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
Natural gas fuel
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION.
0.006 LB/MMBTU
0.0062 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.007 LB/MMBTU
0.01 LB/MMBTU
0.01 LB/MMBTU
0.016 LB/MMBTU
BOILER DESIGN AND GOOD OPERATING PRACT 0.016 LB/MMBTU
0.02 LB/MMBTU
THERMAL OXIDIZER
0.04 LB/MMBTU
Basis
LAER
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
LAER
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-7. RBLC VOC Summary for Large Internal Combustion Engines (> 500 HP)
RBLC ID
NV-0050
MN-0071
NV-0049
LA-0211
NV-0045
LA-0219
LA-0194
LA-0219
IA-0067
IA-0095
MN-0053
MN-0054
WI-0207
IA-0088
NV-0047
IA-0095
IA-0088
PA-0271
VA-0276
OK-0128
CA-0988
WV-0023
OH-0317
OH-0275
OK-0129
LA-0219
OH-0254
OK-0090
OK-0091
TX-0407
IA-0084
ID-0018
VA-0305
Facility Name
Permit Date
Issuance
Updated
MGM MIRAGE
11/30/2009
6/5/2007
8/20/2009
GARYVILLE REFINERY
12/27/2006
SLOAN QUARRY
12/11/2006
8/15/2007
11/24/2004
8/15/2007
6/17/2003
9/19/2008
7/15/2004
12/4/2003
1/21/2004
6/29/2007
2/26/2008
9/19/2008
6/29/2007
2/23/2007
6/20/2003
9/8/2008
PACIFIC BELL
2/1/2003
MAIDSVILLE
3/2/2004
11/20/2008
8/24/2004
1/23/2009
8/15/2007
8/14/2003
DUKE ENERGY STEPHENS, LLC STEPHENS ENERG 3/21/2003
3/18/2003
12/6/2002
ADM POLYMERS
11/30/2006
6/25/2010
9/26/2007
3/15/2010
5/29/2008
12/1/2009
7/16/2008
3/31/2008
4/22/2008
9/3/2009
4/22/2008
12/3/2010
1/30/2009
9/21/2004
8/24/2006
8/16/2005
10/9/2007
10/21/2008
1/30/2009
10/9/2007
8/5/2010
2/20/2004
12/17/2010
9/4/2003
2/3/2009
2/20/2009
8/31/2006
2/18/2010
4/22/2008
7/5/2005
10/10/2003
10/10/2003
10/26/2004
8/6/2009
10/5/2010
7/28/2008
Process Description
Throughput Rate
EMERGENCY GENERATORS - UNITS LX024 AND LX025 AT

2206 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1750 KW
LARGE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (>600 HP) 1232 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATORS (DOCK & TANK FARM) (21-08 & 22-08)
12 GAL/H
660 HP
660 HP Each
525 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
97.73 GAL/H
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
575 HP
670 HP
1850 HP
1850 BHP
FIRE PUMP
540 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
700 KW
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1500 KW
IC ENGINES, (48)
550 HP
Emergency Generator
1200 HP
IC ENGINES
2935 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1801 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
2922 HP
17.21 MMBTU/H
2200 HP
2168 HP Each
600 KW
749 BHP
2000 KW
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1350 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
74.3 GAL/H
750 KW
ELECTRIC GENERATION
550 HHP
Page 1 of 1

TURBOCHARGER AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
Emission Limit
0.0003 LB/HP-H
0.0007 LB/HP-H
0.0007 LB/HP-H
USE OF DIESEL WITH A SULFUR CONTENT OF 15 PPMV OR 0.0025 LB/HP-H
N/A
0.032 LB/T
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GOOD ENGINE DESIG 0.04 LB/H
0.07 LB/H
0.09 LB/MMBTU
0.1 G/KW-H
GOOD COMBUSTION.
0.1 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.12 G/B-HP-H
LIMITED OPERATION, DESIGN
0.12 G/HP-H
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IS SPECIFED. ENGINE 0.2 G/B-HP-H
0.2 G/B-HP-H
0.2 G/KW-H
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IS SPECIFED. ENGINE 0.3 G/B-HP-H
0.32 G/B-HP-H
0.4 LB/MMBTU
0.77 LB/H
1 G/B-HP-H
1.21 LB/H
1.55 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION
1.55 LB/H
1.76 LB/H
BACT IS GOOD ENGINE DESIGN
1.7LB/H
ENGINE DESIGN AND LIMIT ON HOURS OF OPERATION (<50 2.17 LB/H
3.33 LB/H
4.8GAL/B-HP-H
TIER 2 ENGINE-BASED,GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES (GC 6.4 G/KW-H
GOOD COMBUSTIONS PRACTICES AND CONTINUOUS MON 154.5 T/YR
Basis
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
N/A
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
Table G-8. RBLC VOC Summary for Small Internal Combustion Engines (< 500 HP)
RBLC ID
Facility Name
OK-0110
OK-0111
IA-0062
LA-0192
MN-0054
IA-0062
LA-0194
NV-0047
OH-0275
OH-0281
OH-0317
IA-0067
MN-0053
VA-0285
OH-0281
WV-0023
OH-0252
OK-0129
OK-0090
WI-0228
TX-0407
TX-0352
LA-0224
CA-0998
NC-0101
NC-0101
OH-0252
WI-0228
WI-0227
IA-0084
ID-0018
MD-0040
MUSKOGEE PORCELAIN FLOOR TILE PLT

CRESCENT CITY POWER
MAIDSVILLE
WPS - WESTON PLANT
WESTERN DEVCON
WPS - WESTON PLANT
ADM POLYMERS
CPV ST CHARLES
Permit Dates
Issuance
Update
10/21/2005
10/14/2005
12/20/2002
6/6/2005
12/4/2003
12/20/2002
11/24/2004
2/26/2008
8/24/2004
6/10/2004
11/20/2008
6/17/2003
7/15/2004
1/6/2004
6/10/2004
3/2/2004
12/28/2004
1/23/2009
3/21/2003
10/19/2004
12/6/2002
12/31/2002
3/20/2008
1/7/2003
9/29/2005
9/29/2005
12/28/2004
10/19/2004
10/13/2004
11/30/2006
6/25/2010
11/12/2008
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
6/21/2004
4/8/2008
8/24/2006
6/21/2004
9/3/2009
10/21/2008
8/31/2006
5/8/2007
2/20/2009
12/3/2010
9/21/2004
3/25/2004
5/8/2007
2/3/2009
7/5/2005
2/18/2010
10/10/2003
8/31/2006
10/26/2004
5/24/2005
6/26/2008
9/4/2003
8/30/2006
8/30/2006
7/5/2005
8/31/2006
8/31/2006
8/6/2009
10/5/2010
2/20/2009
Process Description
Throughput Rate
EMERGENCY GENERATORS
DIESEL FIRE PUMP
FIRE WATER PUMP (1)
FIRE WATER PUMP
IC ENGINE
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
Page 1 of 1
Emisson Limits
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.0025 LB/HP-H
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.0025 LB/HP-H
2.59 MMBTU/H GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
0.0054 LB/MMBTU
0.05 LB/H
290 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.08 G/B-HP-H
25 MMBTU/H GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
0.09 LB/MMBTU
300 HP Each
0.1 LB/H
0.14 G/B-HP-H
1.6 MMBTU/H
0.14 LB/H
0.58 MMBTU/H
0.2 LB/H
300 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GOOD ENGINE DESIGN
0.26 LB/H
27.8 GAL/H
0.35 LB/MMBTU
250 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION.
0.36 LB/MMBTU
350 KW
0.4 LB/MMBTU
4.68 MMBTU/H
0.42 LB/H
85 HP
0.64 LB/H
265 HP
0.66 LB/H
267 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.66 LB/H
265 BHP
ENGINE DESIGN
0.7 LB/H
265 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, ULTRA LOW SULFUR (0.003 WT
0.7 LB/H
300 HP
0.74 LB/H
300 HP
NONE INDICATED
0.75 LB/H
310 HP
USE OF LOW-SULFUR FUELS, LIMITING OPERATING HOURS AND P
0.77 LB/H
415 HP
1 G/B-HP-H
11.4 MMBTU/H
1.04 LB/H
11.4 MMBTU/H
1.04 LB/H
500 KW
1.1 LB/H
460 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, ULTRA LOW SULFUR (0.003 WT
1.14 LB/H
7.6 MMBTU/H ENGINE DESIGN, DIESEL FUEL OIL (0.05 WT.% S).
2.15 LB/H
460HP
3 G/B-HP-H
235 KW
TIER 3 ENGINE-BASED,GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES (GCP)
4 G/KW-H
4.8 G/HP-H
Basis
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-9. RBLC PM/PM10 Summary for Large Combustion Turbines, Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
Process Descriptoin
Throughput Rate
WA-0299
*AK-0071
GA-0105
MN-0054
CA-1096
CA-1097
MN-0053
GA-0102
IN-0095
OK-0096
VA-0260
MN-0054
OR-0035
FL-0303
Particulate Matter
9/6/2002 11/26/2003 TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, (2)
334.5 MW
12/20/2010 6/27/2011 GE LM6000PF-25 Turbines (4)
59900 HP ISO
4/17/2003 1/24/2005 TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS, (4)
140 MW
12/4/2003 8/24/2006 COMBUSTION TURBINE, LARGE, 2 EACH
1916 MMBTU/H
5/27/2003 12/5/2005 GAS TURBINE: COMBINED CYCLE < 50 MW
43 MW
5/27/2003 12/6/2005 GAS TURBINE: COMBINED CYCLE >= 50 MW
181 NET MW
7/15/2004 9/21/2004 TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS (1)
1876 MMBTU/H
WANSLEY COMBINED CYCLE ENERGY FACILITY 1/15/2002 1/21/2005 TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, (2)
167 MW
12/7/2001 4/23/2003 2 CMBND CYCLE COMBUST. TURBINE WESTINGHOUSE 5 2071 MMBTU/H (HHV)
REDBUD POWER PLANT
6/3/2003 4/23/2004 COMBUSTION TURBINE AND DUCT BURNERS
1832 MMBTU/H
HENRY COUNTY POWER
11/21/2002 7/14/2003 TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, (4), 70% LOAD
171 MW
12/4/2003 8/24/2006 COMBUSTION TURBINE, LARGE 2 EACH
1827 MMBTU/H
PORT WESTWARD PLANT
1/16/2002 8/5/2003 (2) COMBUSTION TURBINES, WITH DUCT BURNER
325 MW Each
7/30/2008 1/5/2011 THREE NOMINAL 250 MW CTG (EACH) WITH SUPPLEME
2333 MMBTU/H
OR-0040
NY-0095
AL-0185
CO-0052
*AK-0071
OK-0115
OK-0055
AL-0180
AL-0181
CO-0056
MN-0054
OK-0117
AZ-0039
MN-0071
OK-0070
OH-0248
IA-0058
NV-0035
NV-0035
WA-0299
OK-0056
VA-0261
IN-0114
AR-0047
VA-0291
VA-0308
AZ-0038
PA-0188
PA-0226
VA-0260
OK-0090
NC-0101
OK-0070
NC-0101
MN-0054
UT-0066
FL-0304
FL-0286

3/12/2003
5/10/2006
7/12/2002
BARTON SHOALS ENERGY
8/11/2002
12/20/2010
12/12/2006
2/12/2002
MUSTANG ENERGY PROJECT
DUKE ENERGY DALE, LLC
12/11/2001
DUKE ENERGY AUTAUGA, LLC
10/23/2001
5/2/2006
12/4/2003
2/9/2007
3/7/2003
6/5/2007
6/13/2002
LAWRENCE ENERGY
9/24/2002
4/10/2002
GREATER DES MOINES ENERGY CENTER
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
9/6/2002
2/12/2002
CPV CUNNINGHAM CREEK
9/6/2002
7/24/2002
11/9/2001
CPV WARREN LLC
7/30/2004
1/14/2008
5/15/2002
FAIRLESS ENERGY LLC
3/28/2002
4/9/2002
HENRY COUNTY POWER
11/21/2002
DUKE ENERGY STEPHENS, LLC STEPHENS ENERG 3/21/2003
9/29/2005
6/13/2002
9/29/2005
12/4/2003
CURRANT CREEK
5/17/2004
9/8/2008
1/10/2007
11/2/2005
5/8/2008
8/24/2006
9/29/2003
6/27/2011
3/13/2007
5/5/2004
8/24/2006
8/24/2006
5/8/2006
8/24/2006
5/21/2007
5/24/2005
5/29/2008
5/12/2004
5/22/2003
6/21/2004
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
11/26/2003
5/6/2004
8/31/2006
6/14/2004
5/6/2004
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
12/6/2004
12/12/2003
5/5/2008
7/14/2003
10/10/2003
8/30/2006
5/12/2004
8/30/2006
8/24/2006
3/22/2006
4/20/2009
3/3/2009
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns

TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NAT GAS (2
480 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINE
2221 MMBTU/H
FOUR (4) COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE UNI
173 MW
TWO (2) NATURAL GAS FIRED, COMBINED-CYCLE, TURBI
2311 MMBTU/H
GE LM6000PF-25 Turbines (4)
59900 HP ISO
COMBUSTION TURBINES W/DUCT BURNERS
0
2 GE 7FA GAS FIRED COMB. CYCLE W/568 MMBTU DUC
170 MW Each
2 GE COM. CYCLE UNITS W/HRSG & 550 MMBTU/H 2407 MMBTU/H (W/DB)
300 MW
1916 MMBTU/H
GAS-FIRED TURBINES
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NATURAL G
175MW
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE W/DUCT BUR
1758 MMBTU/H
1767 MMBTU/H
TURBINES (3), COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNERS ON
180 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINES - COMBINED CYCLE
350 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #2 WITH HRS
306 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #1 WITH HRS
306 MW
334.5 MW
310 MW TotaL
2132 MMBTU/H
1490.5 MMBTU/H
700 MW
1717 MMBTU/H
1717 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NATURAL G
170 MW
1190 MW
550 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, (4), 70% LOAD
171 MW
1701 MMBTU/H
1844.3 MMBTU/H
1705 MMBTU/H
TURBINE & DUCT BURNER, COMBINED CYCLE, NAT
1844.3 MMBTU/H
1827 MMBTU/H
NATURAL GAS FIRED TURBINES AND HEAT RECOVERY ST
0
1860 MMBTU/H
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION GAS TURBINES - 6 UNIT
2333 MMBTU/H
Page 1 of 1
Emission Limit
Basis
0.0039 LB/MMBTU
0.0066 LB/MMBTU
0.009 LB/MMBTU
0.009 LB/MMBTU
0.01 G/SCF
0.01 G/SCF
0.01 LB/MMBTU
0.011 LB/MMBTU
0.012 LB/MMBTU
0.012 LB/MMBTU
0.014 LB/MMBTU
0.057 LB/MMBTU
0.14 LB/MMBTU
2 GR/100 SCF
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
0.0042 LB/MMBTU
0.0055 LB/MMBTU
0.006 LB/MMBTU
0.0065 LB/MMBTU
0.0066 LB/MMBTU
0.0067 LB/MMBTU
0.007 LB/MMBTU
0.0072 LB/MMBTU
0.0072 LB/MMBTU
0.0074 LB/MMBTU
0.009 LB/MMBTU
0.0093 LB/MMBTU
0.01 LB/MMBTU
0.01 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL AND EFFICIENT COMBUSTION
0.01 LB/MMBTU
BURNING NATURAL GAS
0.0101 LB/MMBTU
0.0108 LB/MMBTU
BEST COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
0.011 LB/MMBTU
BEST COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
0.011 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUEL -- NATURAL GAS ONLY
0.0115 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL (NATURAL GAS)
0.0117 LB/MMBTU
0.0119 LB/MMBTU
0.012 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUELS.
0.013 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN BURNING FUEL NATURAL GAS ONLY. GOOD COMBUSTION P 0.013 LB/MMBTU
0.013 LB/MMBTU
0.014 LB/MMBTU
0.014 LB/MMBTU
0.014 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUEL. GOOD COMBUSTION AND DESIGN.
0.014 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUEL AND EFFICIENT COMBUSTION
0.015 LB/MMBTU
USE OF ONLY CLEAN-BURNING LOW-SULFUR FUELS AND GOOD COM 0.019 LB/MMBTU
LOW SULFUR FUEL AND EFFICIENT COMBUSTION
0.019 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN BURNING LOW-SULFUR FUELS AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRA 0.021 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUELS AND GOOD COMBUSTION
0.057 LB/MMBTU
0.066 LB/MMBTU
FUEL SPECIFICATIONS : 2 GR S/100 SCF OF GAS
2 GR S/100 SCF
2 GS/100 SCF
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
CLEAN FUEL -- NATURAL GAS ONLY

Good Combustion Practices
CLEAN FUEL, GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE
CLEAN FUELS AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
CLEAN FUEL AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES.

GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE, LOW SULFUR FUEL
USE OF LOW ASH FUEL AND EFFICIENT COMBUSTION
GOOD COMBUSTION AND DESIGN. CLEAN BURNING FUEL.
CLEAN FUELS AND GOOD COMBUSTION
USE OF PIPELINE QUALITY NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS < 1 GR S/100 SCF OF GAS

LOW SULFUR FUEL
USE OF PIPELINE QUALITY NATURAL GAS AND APPLICATION OF GOO
USE OF NO-ASH FUEL AND EFFICIENT COMBUSTION
NATURAL GAS AS EXCLUSIVE FUEL.
EFFICIENT COMBUSTION.
NATURAL GAS QUALITY FUEL ONLY AND GOOD COMBUSTION CONT
CLEAN FUELS AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
USE OF LOW ASH FUEL (NATURAL GAS) AND EFFICIENT COMBUSTIO
Table G-10. RBLC PM/PM 10 Summary for Commercial/Institutional-Size Boilers/Furnaces (< 100 MMBtu/hr), Natural Gas-Fired
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
RBLC ID
Facility Name
Process Description
Throughput Rate
MD-0035
IN-0108
MD-0040
MD-0040
IA-0062
IA-0062
IA-0068
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
AL-0231
AL-0231
IA-0064
MN-0053
MN-0054
GA-0098
OH-0323
OH-0295
DOMINION
NUCOR STEEL
CPV ST CHARLES
CPV ST CHARLES
NUCOR DECATUR LLC
NUCOR DECATUR LLC
ROQUETTE AMERICA
RINCON POWER PLANT
TITAN TIRE CORPORATION OF BRYAN
GMC TRUCK AND BUS, MORAINE ASSEMBLY PLANT
8/12/2005
11/21/2003
11/12/2008
11/12/2008
12/20/2002
12/20/2002
6/26/2003
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
6/12/2007
6/12/2007
1/31/2003
7/15/2004
12/4/2003
3/24/2003
6/5/2008
1/14/2003
5/10/2007
2/6/2004
2/20/2009
2/20/2009
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
8/25/2003
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/31/2009
8/31/2009
10/5/2009
9/21/2004
8/24/2006
4/9/2004
2/3/2009
8/16/2005
Particulate Matter
VAPORIZATION HEATER
34 MMBTU/H
BOILER
93 MMBTU/H
HEATER
1.7 MMBTU/H
GAS HEATER, (2)
16.4 MMBTU/H
AUXILIARY BOILER
68 MMBTU/H
GAS HEATER
9 MMBTU/H
11 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
60 MMBTU/H
80 MMBTU/H
95 MMBTU/H
98.7 MMBTU/H
DEW POINT HEATER
1.6 MMBTU/H
40 MMBTU/H
BOILER, COMMERCIAL
70 MMBTU/H
AUXILIARY BOILER
83 MMBTU/H
BOILER
50.4 MMBTU/H
NATURAL GAS USAGE
1700 MMCF/ rolling 12-month
0.001 LB/MMBTU
0.0019 LB/MMBTU
0.005 LB/MMBTU
0.007 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL, NG
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTION C 0.0075 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTION C 0.0075 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS/ PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTION CO 0.0075 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS, GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
0.008 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUEL AND GOOD COMBUSTION.
0.008 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUELS
0.008 LB/MMBTU
0.0084 LB/MMBTU
0.02 LB/MMBTU
20 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
N/A
BACT-PSD
AZ-0047
NY-0095
OR-0040
MD-0040
LA-0204
LA-0229
MD-0040
MD-0036
IA-0062
IA-0062
IA-0068
NV-0044
NV-0049
NV-0049
NV-0049
NV-0050
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0230
AR-0077
IN-0108
NV-0049
NV-0049
OK-0128
NV-0047
NV-0049
NV-0046
NV-0048
MN-0054
OK-0090
AZ-0049
AZ-0049

CPV ST CHARLES
CPV ST CHARLES
DOMINION
MGM MIRAGE
BLUEWATER PROJECT
NUCOR STEEL
12/1/2004
5/10/2006
3/12/2003
11/12/2008
2/27/2009
7/10/2008
11/12/2008
3/10/2006
12/20/2002
12/20/2002
6/26/2003
1/4/2007
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
11/30/2009
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
7/22/2004
11/21/2003
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
9/8/2008
2/26/2008
8/20/2009
5/16/2006
5/16/2006
12/4/2003
3/21/2003
9/4/2003
9/4/2003
1/31/2006
5/8/2008
11/2/2005
2/20/2009
8/6/2009
4/20/2009
2/20/2009
5/7/2007
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
8/25/2003
4/26/2007
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
3/15/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
10/25/2004
2/6/2004
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
12/17/2010
10/21/2008
12/1/2009
12/3/2007
2/10/2009
8/24/2006
10/10/2003
7/24/2007
7/24/2007

AUXILIARY BOILER
38 MMBTU/H
AUXILIARY BOILER
29.4 MMBTU/H
BOILER, AUXILIARY, NATURAL GAS
50000 LB/H
BOILER
93 MMBTU/H
90 MMBTU/H Each
90 MMBTU/H
EQT122-EQT125 - FOUR VCM CRACKING FURNA
HEATER
1.7 MMBTU/H
FUEL GAS PROCESS HEATER
GAS HEATER, (2)
16.4 MMBTU/H
AUXILIARY BOILER
68 MMBTU/H
GAS HEATER
9 MMBTU/H
35.4 MMBTU/H
BOILER - UNIT FL01
14.34 MMBTU/H
BOILER - UNIT CP03
33.48 MMBTU/H
BOILER - UNIT CP26
24 MMBTU/H
2 MMBTU/H
WATER HEATERS - UNITS NY037 AND NY038 AT
33.4 MMBTU Each
NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNA
27.2 MMBTU/H
NATURAL GAS-FIRED PASSIVE ANNEALING FURN
3 NATURAL GAS-FIRED BOILERS WITH ULNB &a
64.9 MMBTU Each
99 MMBTU/H
NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNA
BOILERS
22 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
BOILER - UNIT BA03
31.38 MMBTU/H
BOILER - UNIT CP01
35.4 MMBTU/H
0
BOILER - UNIT BA01
16.8 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL-SIZE BOILER (&lt
BOILER, COMMERCIAL
70 MMBTU/H
BOILER, AUXILIARY
33 MMBTU/H
41 MMBTU/H
55.34 MMBTU/H
0.0033 LB/MMBTU
0.0033 LB/MMBTU
0.0042 LB/MMBTU
0.005 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND USE OF NATU 0.007 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND CLEAN BURN 0.007 LB/MMBTU
0.007 LB/MMBTU
USE OF LNG QUALITY, LOW SULFUR NATURAL GAS 0.0074 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL, NG
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL, NATURAL GAS
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
USE OF NATURAL GAS AS THE ONLY FUEL
0.0075 LB/MMBTU
FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION AND OPERATING IN ACC 0.0075 LB/MMBTU
OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFAC 0.0075 LB/MMBTU
LIMITING THE FUEL TO NATURAL GAS ONLY AND G 0.0075 LB/MMBTU
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ONLY
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
COMPLIANCE BY USING NATURAL GAS
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
natural gas fuel
0.0076 LB/MMBTU
0.0077 LB/MMBTU
0.0078 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS IS THE ONLY FUEL USED BY THE UNIT 0.0078 LB/MMBTU
CLEAN FUELS
0.008 LB/MMBTU
USE OF LOW ASH FUEL AND EFFICIENT COMBUSTIO 0.01 LB/MMBTU
0.015 LB/MMBTU
0.015 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Page 1 of 1
Emission Limit
COMPLIANCE IS BY USING NATURAL GAS
LOW SULFUR FUEL
Basis
Table G-11. RBLC PM/PM10 Summary for Large Internal Combustion Engines (> 500HP)
RBLC ID
Facility Name
Issuance
Updated
Process Description
Throughput Rate
MN-0071
AZ-0046
*AK-0071
MN-0054
WI-0207
MN-0053
IA-0067
IA-0088
IA-0088
MI-0389
PA-0271
NY-0101
AZ-0046
IA-0095
IA-0095
ID-0018
FL-0322
MI-0389
VA-0276
OH-0254
AK-0061

KARN WEADOCK GENERATING COMPLEX
CORNELL COMBINED HEAT & POWER PROJECT
SWEET SORGHUM-TO-ETHANOL ADVANCED BIOREFI
6/5/2007
4/14/2005
12/20/2010
12/4/2003
1/21/2004
7/15/2004
6/17/2003
6/29/2007
6/29/2007
12/29/2009
2/23/2007
3/12/2008
4/14/2005
9/19/2008
9/19/2008
6/25/2010
12/23/2010
12/29/2009
6/20/2003
8/14/2003
11/5/2004
5/29/2008
8/25/2006
6/27/2011
8/24/2006
8/16/2005
9/21/2004
12/3/2010
10/9/2007
10/9/2007
12/16/2010
8/5/2010
8/18/2008
8/25/2006
1/30/2009
1/30/2009
10/5/2010
7/6/2011
12/16/2010
2/20/2004
7/5/2005
7/23/2007
Particulate Matter
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
FIRE PUMP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
FIRE PUMP
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS (2)
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
IC ENGINES, (48)
NV-0050
MN-0071
NV-0049
LA-0211
NV-0045
CO-0055
*AK-0071
OK-0091
MI-0389
LA-0231
MN-0054
LA-0231
NV-0047
CA-0988
LA-0204
OK-0090
IA-0067
IA-0088
IA-0088
PA-0271
NY-0101
IA-0095
IA-0095
VA-0276
OH-0275
LA-0219
MI-0389
FL-0310
FL-0310
LA-0219
LA-0219
OK-0129
OK-0128
OH-0317
MGM MIRAGE
GARYVILLE REFINERY
SLOAN QUARRY
LAMAR LIGHT & POWER POWER PLANT
PACIFIC BELL
CORNELL COMBINED HEAT & POWER PROJECT
11/30/2009
6/5/2007
8/20/2009
12/27/2006
12/11/2006
2/3/2006
12/20/2010
3/18/2003
12/29/2009
6/22/2009
12/4/2003
6/22/2009
2/26/2008
2/1/2003
2/27/2009
3/21/2003
6/17/2003
6/29/2007
6/29/2007
2/23/2007
3/12/2008
9/19/2008
9/19/2008
6/20/2003
8/24/2004
8/15/2007
12/29/2009
1/12/2009
1/12/2009
8/15/2007
8/15/2007
1/23/2009
9/8/2008
11/20/2008
3/15/2010
5/29/2008
12/1/2009
7/16/2008
3/31/2008
3/1/2006
6/27/2011
10/10/2003
12/16/2010
5/17/2010
8/24/2006
5/17/2010
10/21/2008
9/4/2003
8/6/2009
10/10/2003
12/3/2010
10/9/2007
10/9/2007
8/5/2010
8/18/2008
1/30/2009
1/30/2009
2/20/2004
8/31/2006
4/22/2008
12/16/2010
1/26/2010
1/26/2010
4/22/2008
4/22/2008
2/18/2010
12/17/2010
2/20/2009

EMERGENCY GENERATORS - UNITS LX024 AND LX025 AT
2206 HP
0.0001 LB/HP-H
Other Case-by-Case
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1750 KW
0.0004 LB/HP-H
BACT-PSD
LARGE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (>600 HP) 1232 HP
0.0007 LB/HP-H
Other Case-by-Case
EMERGENCY GENERATORS (DOCK & TANK FARM) (21-08 & 22-08 USE OF DIESEL WITH A SULFUR CONTENT OF 15 PPMV OR LESS
0.0022 LB/HP-H
BACT-PSD
12 GAL/H
USE OF LOW-SULFUR DIESEL OIL
0.0049 LB/T
LAER
DIESEL ENGINES FOR SWITCHING, LOCOMOTIVE &
1500 HP
LOW SULFUR FUEL - %0.05 BY WEIGHT
0.016 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
1500 KW-e
0.03 G/HP-H
BACT-PSD
2000 KW
ENGINE DESIGN
0.0444 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
2000 KW
ENGINE DESIGN AND OPERATION. 15 PPM SULFUR FUEL.
0.0573 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
EMERGENCY DIESEL POWER GENERATOR ENGINES (2)
1341 HP Each COMPLY WITH 40 CFR 60 SUBPART IIII
0.06 LB/H
BACT-PSD
1850 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.07 G/B-HP-H
BACT-PSD
575 HP Each
0.08 LB/H
BACT-PSD
0.084 G/B-HP-H
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
IC ENGINES
2935 HP
0.1 G/B-HP-H
LAER
0.1 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
749 BHP
COMBUSTION CONTROL AND GOOD ENGINE DESIGN
0.124 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
97.73 GAL/H
0.14 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
FIRE PUMP
540 HP
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IS SPECIFED. ENGINE IS REQU 0.15 G/B-HP-H
BACT-PSD
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1500 KW
BACT-PSD
0.16 G/B-HP-H
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS (2)
1000 KW
ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL AT 15 PPM S
0.19 LB/H
BACT-PSD
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
700 KW
0.2 G/KW-H
BACT-PSD
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
575 HP
0.2 G/KW-H
BACT-PSD
IC ENGINES, (48)
550 HP
0.2 LB/MMBTU
N/A
17.21 MMBTU/H
0.27 T/YR
BACT-PSD
525 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, GOOD ENGINE DESIGN, AND USE
0.28 LB/H
BACT-PSD
FIRE PUMP
525 HP
0.31 LB/MMBTU
BACT-PSD
2.5 MW
FIRING ULSO WITH A MAXIMUM SULFUR CONTENT OF 0.0015% BY
0.4 G/HP-H
BACT-PSD
2.5 MW
FIRING ULSO WITH A MAXIMUM SULFUR CONTENT OF 0.0015% BY
0.4 G/HP-H
BACT-PSD
660 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, GOOD ENGINE DESIGN, AND USE
0.64 LB/H
BACT-PSD
2168 HP Each GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, GOOD ENGINE DESIGN, AND USE
0.69 LB/H
BACT-PSD
2200 HP
0.72 LB/H
BACT-PSD
Emergency Generator
1200 HP
0.84 LB/H
BACT-PSD
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
2922 HP
0.87 LB/H
BACT-PSD
1750 KW
10.9 MMBTU/H
1500 KW-e
1850 HP
1850 BHP
670 HP
97.73 GAL/H
540 HP
1500 KW
525 HP
Emission Limit
0.0007 LB/HP-H
0.02 G/KW-H
0.03 G/HP-H
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.07 G/B-HP-H
USE OF VERY LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL (0.05 WT % S).
0.07 G/HP-H
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.14 LB/MMBTU
0.15 G/HP-H
0.16 G/B-HP-H
1000 KW
ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL AT 15 PPM S.
0.19 LB/H
5.46 MMBTU/H
0.2 G/KH
700 KW
0.2 G/KW-H
575 HP
0.2 G/KW-H
750 KW
0.2 G/KW-H
0
0.2 G/KW-H
2000 KW
0.2 G/KW-H
550 HP
0.2 LB/MMBTU
600 KW
0.72 LB/H
5211 KW
206 LB/H
Page 1 of 2
Basis
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-11. RBLC PM/PM10 Summary for Large Internal Combustion Engines (> 500HP)
RBLC ID
WV-0023
LA-0194
TX-0407
VA-0305
Facility Name
MAIDSVILLE
Issuance
Updated
Process Description
Throughput Rate
3/2/2004
2/3/2009 EMERGENCY GENERATOR
11/24/2004 9/3/2009 FIREWATER PUMP DIESEL ENGINES 1-3
12/6/2002 10/26/2004 EMERGENCY GENERATOR
9/26/2007 7/28/2008 ELECTRIC GENERATION
1801 HP
660 HP Each
1350 HP
550 HHP
Page 2 of 2

GOOD COMBUSTIONS PRACTICES AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
Emission Limit
Basis
1.13 LB/H
1.24 LB/H
2.97 LB/H
115.9 T/YR
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
Table G-12. RBLC PM/PM 10 Summary for Small Internal Combustion Engines (< 500 HP)
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
RBLC ID
Facility name
Process Description
Throughput rates
MN-0054
IA-0062
MD-0040
MD-0040
FL-0322
OH-0281
ID-0018
AZ-0051
*FL-0324
OH-0281
VA-0285
NH-0018
IA-0062
IA-0067
MN-0053
OH-0275
MI-0389
WV-0023
OH-0252
OH-0254

CPV ST CHARLES
CPV ST CHARLES
SWEET SORGHUM-TO-ETHANOL ADVANCED BIOR
DRAKE
BERLIN BIOPOWER
MAIDSVILLE
12/4/2003
12/20/2002
11/12/2008
11/12/2008
12/23/2010
6/10/2004
6/25/2010
4/12/2006
12/23/2010
6/10/2004
1/6/2004
7/26/2010
12/20/2002
6/17/2003
7/15/2004
8/24/2004
12/29/2009
3/2/2004
12/28/2004
8/14/2003
8/24/2006
6/21/2004
2/20/2009
2/20/2009
7/6/2011
5/8/2007
10/5/2010
8/6/2009
6/24/2011
5/8/2007
3/25/2004
11/8/2010
6/21/2004
12/3/2010
9/21/2004
8/31/2006
12/16/2010
2/3/2009
7/5/2005
7/5/2005

290 HP
25 MMBTU/H
300 HP
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE - EMERGENCY FIRE WAT
0
0.58 MMBTU/H
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
235 KW
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
210 KW
0
4.68 MMBTU/H
350 KW
EU03 FIRE PUMP ENGINE
2.27 MMBTU/H
2.59 MMBTU/H
DIESEL FIRE PUMP
27.8 GAL/H
250 HP
1.6 MMBTU/H
FIRE BOOSTER PUMP
40 KW
85 HP
FIRE WATER PUMP (1)
265 HP
400 HP
OK-0110
OK-0111
LA-0194
MN-0054
CA-0998
CA-1144
IA-0062
OH-0275
CA-1073
NV-0047
LA-0192
MD-0040
MD-0040
OH-0281
OK-0129
OH-0281
OH-0317
VA-0285
IA-0062
IA-0067
OK-0090
LA-0204
MI-0389
WV-0023
WI-0228
OH-0252
TX-0352
TX-0407
LA-0224
WI-0227
WI-0228
NC-0101
NC-0101

10/21/2005
10/14/2005
11/24/2004
12/4/2003
WESTERN DEVCON
1/7/2003
4/25/2007
12/20/2002
8/24/2004
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION/FAC PLANNIN 8/14/2003
2/26/2008
CRESCENT CITY POWER
6/6/2005
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
6/10/2004
1/23/2009
6/10/2004
11/20/2008
1/6/2004
12/20/2002
6/17/2003
DUKE ENERGY STEPHENS, LLC STEPHENS ENERGY 3/21/2003
2/27/2009
12/29/2009
MAIDSVILLE
3/2/2004
WPS - WESTON PLANT
10/19/2004
DUKE ENERGY HANGING ROCK ENERGY FACILITY 12/28/2004
BRAZOS VALLEY ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY 12/31/2002
12/6/2002
3/20/2008
10/13/2004
WPS - WESTON PLANT
10/19/2004
9/29/2005
9/29/2005
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
9/3/2009
8/24/2006
9/4/2003
3/17/2008
6/21/2004
8/31/2006
2/14/2006
10/21/2008
4/8/2008
2/20/2009
2/20/2009
5/8/2007
2/18/2010
5/8/2007
2/20/2009
3/25/2004
6/21/2004
12/3/2010
10/10/2003
8/6/2009
12/16/2010
2/3/2009
8/31/2006
7/5/2005
5/24/2005
10/26/2004
6/26/2008
8/31/2006
8/31/2006
8/30/2006
8/30/2006
300 HP Each
290 HP
IC ENGINE
415 HP
FIRE PUMP
303 HP
25 MMBTU/H
1.6 MMBTU/H
240 BHP
300 HP
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE - EMERGENCY FIRE WAT
0.58 MMBTU/H
267 HP
4.68 MMBTU/H
300 HP
350 KW
2.59 MMBTU/H
DIESEL FIRE PUMP
27.8 GAL/H
265 BHP
FIRE BOOSTER PUMP
40 KW
85 HP
265 HP
500 KW
300 HP
FIRE WATER PUMP
300 HP
310 HP
7.6 MMBTU/H
460 HP
11.4 MMBTU/H
11.4 MMBTU/H
Emission Limit
Basis
Particulate Matter
GOOD COMBUSTION
LOW ASH FUEL AND GOOD COMBUSTION.
0.07 G/B-HP-H
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.15 G/HP-H
0.15 G/HP-H
0.15 G/HP-H
0.18 LB/H
0.2 G/KW-H
0.2 G/KW-H
Use of inherently clean ultra low sulfur distillate (ULSD) fuel oi 0.2 G/KW-H
0.29 LB/H
0.3 LB/MMBTU
0.3 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL AND GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES.
0.31 LB/MMBTU
0.31 LB/MMBTU
0.31 LB/MMBTU
0.31 LB/MMBTU
0.4 G/KW-H
0.56 LB/H
0.66 LB/H
0.88 LB/H
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
MACT
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Page 1 of 1
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.0022 LB/HP-H
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.0022 LB/HP-H
GOOD ENGINE DESIGN, PROPER OPERATING PRACTICES, AND
0.06 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.07 G/B-HP-H
0.1 G/B-HP-H
0.1 LB/H
LOW ASH FUEL AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.12 T/YR
OPERATIONS LIMITED TO 200 H/YR.
0.14 G/B-HP-H
0.14 G/B-HP-H
0.14 LB/H
0.15 G/HP-H
0.15 G/HP-H
0.18 LB/H
0.24 LB/H
0.27 LB/H
0.27 LB/H
0.3 LB/MMBTU
LOW ASH FUEL AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES.
0.31 LB/MMBTU
0.31 LB/MMBTU
COMBUSTION CONTROL AND GOOD ENGINE DESIGN
0.31 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GASEOUS FUEL BURNIN 0.31 LB/MMBTU
0.31 LB/MMBTU
0.56 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, DIESEL FUEL SULFUR CONTE
0.58 LB/H
0.59 LB/H
NONE INDICATED
0.66 LB/H
0.66 LB/H
0.68 LB/H
USE OF LOW-SULFUR FUELS, LIMITING OPERATING HOURS AN
LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL OIL (0.05 WT% S).
0.89 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, ULTRA LOW SULFUR (0.003 W 1.01 LB/H
1.14 LB/H
1.14 LB/H
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-13. RBLC CO Summary for Large Combustion Turbines, Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
Faciltiy Name
VA-0308
VA-0291
GA-0127
VA-0291
VA-0308
AZ-0043
GA-0093
GA-0102
GA-0105
GA-0138
ID-0018
TX-0546
WA-0328
CA-1096
CA-1097
MI-0366
NJ-0043
NY-0095
OR-0039
OR-0041
WA-0291
MS-0051
NV-0033
AZ-0039
AZ-0043
AZ-0047
AZ-0047
CO-0056
AZ-0049
NV-0037
UT-0066
PA-0188
NV-0035
NV-0035
AZ-0038
CA-0997
CA-1143
CA-1144
NV-0038
MI-0361
MN-0054
MN-0054
OR-0035
MI-0357
OR-0040
PA-0223
IN-0095
PA-0189
CA-1142
FL-0303
FL-0304
FL-0247
FL-0265
OK-0129
FL-0285
FL-0241
FL-0263
FL-0286
WV-0014
OK-0070
AR-0070
VA-0287
CO-0052
MN-0071

CPV WARREN LLC
PLANT MCDONOUGH COMBINED CYCLE
CPV WARREN LLC
BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT
BERRIEN ENERGY, LLC
WANAPA ENERGY CENTER
WALLULA POWER PLANT
EL DORADO ENERGY, LLC
CURRANT CREEK
FAIRLESS ENERGY LLC
SUTTER POWER PLANT
SOUTH SHORE POWER LLC
PORT WESTWARD PLANT
PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY
TECO BAYSIDE POWER STATION
HINES POWER BLOCK 4
CPV CANA
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
1/14/2008
7/30/2004
1/7/2008
7/30/2004
1/14/2008
11/12/2003
10/28/2001
1/15/2002
4/17/2003
4/8/2010
6/25/2010
6/17/2009
1/11/2005
5/27/2003
5/27/2003
4/13/2005
3/28/2002
5/10/2006
12/30/2003
8/8/2005
1/3/2003
11/13/2001
8/19/2004
3/7/2003
11/12/2003
12/1/2004
12/1/2004
5/2/2006
9/4/2003
5/14/2004
5/17/2004
3/28/2002
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
5/15/2002
9/1/2003
8/16/2004
4/25/2007
12/29/2003
1/30/2003
12/4/2003
12/4/2003
1/16/2002
2/4/2003
3/12/2003
1/30/2002
12/7/2001
1/16/2002
12/23/2004
7/30/2008
9/8/2008
1/8/2002
6/8/2005
1/23/2009
1/26/2007
1/17/2002
2/8/2005
1/10/2007
12/18/2001
6/13/2002
8/23/2002
12/1/2003
8/11/2002
6/5/2007
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
10/9/2008
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
1/29/2004
9/26/2003
1/21/2005
1/24/2005
9/10/2010
10/5/2010
11/6/2009
8/14/2007
12/5/2005
12/6/2005
1/4/2006
8/31/2006
5/8/2008
6/21/2004
8/18/2008
8/31/2006
11/19/2002
9/15/2004
5/24/2005
1/29/2004
1/31/2006
1/31/2006
5/8/2006
7/24/2007
12/20/2005
3/22/2006
12/12/2003
6/26/2008
6/26/2008
12/6/2004
3/9/2004
3/10/2008
3/17/2008
12/21/2005
1/23/2004
8/24/2006
8/24/2006
8/5/2003
1/16/2004
11/2/2005
1/21/2004
4/23/2003
8/4/2008
3/10/2008
1/5/2011
4/20/2009
12/22/2003
1/12/2006
2/18/2010
6/12/2008
11/4/2003
1/12/2006
3/3/2009
5/23/2002
5/12/2004
10/28/2003
3/29/2004
9/29/2003
5/29/2008
Process Description
Throughput Rate

1944 MMBTU
1717 MMBTU/H
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE
254 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE AND DUCT BURNER (2)
1717 MMBTU/H
2204 MMBTU/H
325 MW
750 MW
167 MW
140 MW
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE - ELECTRIC
600 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE W/ DUCT
2375.28 MMBTU/H
350 MW
GE 7FA COMBUSTION TURBINE & HEAT RECOVE
174 MW
43 MW
181 NET MW
3 COMBUSTION TURBINES AND DUCT BURNERS
1584 MMBTU/H
2964 MMBTU/H
COMBUSTION TURBINE
2221 MMBTU/H
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NAT GAS
1150 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINE & HEAT RECOVERY STEA
2384.1 MMBTU/H
1300 MW
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATI
2100 MMBTU/H
COMBUSTION TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE & CO
475 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNER, NATURA
175 MW
325 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS AND HEAT REC
180 MW
COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS AND HEAT REC
170 MW
300 MW
GE COMBUSTION TURBINES AND HEAT RECOVERY ST
1040 MW
LARGE COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE &
600 MW
NATURAL GAS FIRED TURBINES AND HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS
1190 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #2 WITH H
306 MW
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION #1 WITH H
306 MW
170 MW
GAS TURBINES, (2)
1611 MMBTU/H
170 MW
170 MW
LARGE COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE &
500MW
172 MW
1916 MMBTU/H
1827 MMBTU/H
(2) COMBUSTION TURBINES, WITH DUCT BURNER
325 MW Each
605 MW
480 MW
280 MW
2 CMBND CYCLE COMBUST. TURBINE WESTINGHOUS 2071 MMBTU/H (HHV)
122 MW
168 MW
THREE NOMINAL 250 MW CTG (EACH) WITH SUPPLEM 2333 MMBTU/H
1860 MMBTU/H
170 MW
COMBINED CYCLE TURBINE
530 MW
1882 MMBTU/H
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE SYSTEM (4
1972 MMBTU/H
1680 MMBTU/H
170 MW
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION GAS TURBINES - 6 U
2333 MMBTU/H
300 MW
1705 MMBTU/H
170 MW
1973 MMBTU/H
TWO (2) NATURAL GAS FIRED, COMBINED-CYCLE, TU
2311 MMBTU/H
COMBINED CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINE W/DUCT B
1758 MMBTU/H
Page 1 of 2
Emission Limit
Basis
CEM SYSTEM. GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AN

OXIDATION CATALYST. GOOD COMBUSTION PRAC
OXIDATION CATALYST
OXIDATION CATALYST, AND GOOD COMBUSTION
CEM SYSTEM. GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AN
CATALYTIC OXIDIZER
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND CATALYTIC O
CATALYTIC OXIDATION (CATOX), DRY LOW NOX (DL
OXIDATION CATALYST
LEAN PRE-MIX CT BURNER & OXIDATION CATALYS
CATALYTIC OXIDATION.
CO CATALYST
OXIDATION CATALYST
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
OXIDATION CATALYST.
OXIDATION CATALYST
NA
OXIDATION CATALYST
CATALYTIC OXIDIZER
CATALYTIC OXIDIZER
OXIDATION CATALYST
OXIDATION CATALYST
USE GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL PRACTICES AN
OXIDATION CATALYST
GOOD COMBUSTOR DESIGN AND AN OXIDATION C
OXIDATINO CATALYST FOR COMBINED CYCLE MOD
OXIDATION CATALYST
OXIDATION CATALYST SYSTEM
OXIDATION CATALYST
OXIDATION CATALYST
OXIDATION CATALYST SYSEM
1.2 PPMVD
1.3 PPMVD
1.8 PPM @ 15% O2
1.8 PPMVD
1.8 PPMVD
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPM @ 15% O2
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2.5 PPMVD @ 15% 02
2.6 PPM @ 15% O2
3 PPM @ 15% O2
3 PPM @ 15% O2
3 PPM @ 15% O2
3 PPM @ 15% O2
3 PPM @ 15% O2
3 PPMVD
3 PPMVD
3 PPMVD
3 PPMVD @ 15% 02
3.5 PPM @ 15% O2
3.5 PPM @ 15% O2
4 PPM @ 15% O2
4 PPM @ 15% O2
4 PPMVD
4 PPMVD
4 PPMVD
4 PPMVD @ 15% 02
4 PPMVD @ 15% 02
4.8 PPMVD @ 15% 02
4.9 PPM @ 15% O2
5 PPMVD @ 15% 02
5 PPMVD @ 15% 02
5 PPMVD @ 15% 02
6 PPM @ 15% O2
6 PPM @ 15% O2
6 PPMVD
6 PPMVD
6 PPMVD
7.8 PPMVD @ 15% 02
8 PPM
8 PPMV
8 PPMVD
8 PPMVD @ 15% 02
8 PPMVD @ 15% 02
8 PPMVD @ 15% 02
8.2 PPM
8.2 PPM @ 15% O2
8.2 PPMVD @ 15% O2
9 PPM
9 PPMVD
9 PPMVD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
LAER
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL AND CATALYTIC O

CATALYTIC OXIDATION AND USE OF GOOD COMBU
CO CATALYST AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE
OXIDATION CATALYST.
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
OXIDATION CATALYST
BACT FOR CO IS GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE
XONON CATALYTIC COMBUSTORS OR DRY LOW N
GOOD COMBUSTION
GOOD COMBUSTION DESIGN AND OPERATING PR
GOOD COMBUSTION
GOOD COMBUSTION
GOOD COMBUSTION
COMBUSTION CONTROLS
CO WILL BE MINIMIZED BY THE EFFICIENT COMBU
USE OF STATE OF THE ART COMBUSTER DESIGN A
COMBUSTION CONTROL
GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL PRACTICES (PREVE
GOOD COMBUSTION
Table G-13. RBLC CO Summary for Large Combustion Turbines, Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
NC-0086
NC-0094
VA-0289
GA-0094
IN-0114
MN-0060
AR-0052
OK-0090
PA-0226
NC-0095
FL-0244
FL-0245
FL-0256
MN-0053
MN-0066
OK-0070
AR-0070
VA-0262
NC-0101
VA-0287
GA-0101
AR-0047
FL-0239
MS-0055
NC-0094
IN-0114
VA-0289
TX-0437
TX-0547
OK-0115
OK-0096
TX-0548
MS-0073
MS-0073
MS-0073
NC-0095
NC-0095
VA-0256
MS-0058
AR-0051
LA-0157
OK-0117
TX-0428
NC-0101
MS-0065
MS-0065
MS-0065
AR-0070
WY-0061
OK-0055
OK-0056
MS-0059
MS-0059
MS-0059
MS-0059
LA-0194
LA-0194
Faciltiy Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated

1/10/2002
1/9/2002
2/5/2004
EFFINGHAM COUNTY POWER, LLC
12/27/2001
7/24/2002
HIGH BRIDGE GENERATING PLANT
8/12/2005
THOMAS B. FITZHUGH GENERATING STATION 2/15/2002
DUKE ENERGY STEPHENS, LLC STEPHENS ENER 3/21/2003
4/9/2002
5/28/2002
FPL MARTIN PLANT
4/16/2003
4/15/2003
9/8/2003
7/15/2004
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. DBA XCEL ENER 5/16/2006
6/13/2002
8/23/2002
12/6/2002
9/29/2005
12/1/2003
10/23/2002
11/9/2001
JEA/BRANDY BRANCH
3/27/2002
EL PASO MERCHANT ENERGY CO.
6/24/2002
1/9/2002
7/24/2002
2/5/2004
HARTBURG POWER, LP
7/5/2002
NATURAL GAS-FIRED POWER GENERATION FAC 6/22/2009
12/12/2006
REDBUD POWER PLANT
6/3/2003
8/18/2009
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
5/28/2002
5/28/2002
TENASKA FLUVANNA
1/11/2002
12/13/2001
4/1/2002
3/8/2002
2/9/2007
HOUSTON OPERATIONS -- BATTLEGROUND SITE12/19/2002
9/29/2005
11/13/2001
11/13/2001
11/13/2001
8/23/2002
BLACK HILLS CORP./NEIL SIMPSON TWO
4/4/2003
MUSTANG ENERGY PROJECT
2/12/2002
2/12/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
9/24/2002
11/24/2004
11/24/2004
3/25/2004
4/2/2004
3/25/2004
10/10/2003
6/14/2004
5/2/2006
5/6/2004
10/10/2003
5/5/2008
4/2/2004
12/22/2003
8/30/2006
8/30/2006
9/21/2004
10/2/2006
5/12/2004
10/28/2003
4/28/2003
8/30/2006
3/29/2004
1/21/2005
5/6/2004
1/5/2004
10/10/2003
4/2/2004
6/14/2004
3/25/2004
3/2/2005
11/6/2009
3/13/2007
4/23/2004
11/6/2009
1/25/2005
1/25/2005
1/25/2005
4/2/2004
4/2/2004
3/13/2003
10/17/2003
5/6/2004
8/2/2006
5/21/2007
1/25/2005
8/30/2006
11/18/2004
11/18/2004
11/18/2004
10/28/2003
5/10/2004
5/5/2004
5/6/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
7/23/2004
9/3/2009
9/3/2009
Process Description
Throughput Rate

TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS (2)
2 COMBINED-CYCLE COMBUSTION TURBINES
COMBUSTION TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURA
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS,DUCT BU
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, DUCT BURNERS, NAT G
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE AND DUCT BURNER, NAT
COMBUSTION TURBINE AND DUCT BURNERS
EMISSION POINT AA-001 GEN. ELEC. COMBUST. TURB
EMISSION POINT AA-002 GEN ELEC. COMB. TURBINE
EMISSION POINT AA-003 GEN. ELEC COMB TURBINES
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, GE, DUCT BURNERS
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, MHI/SW, DUCT BURNE
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, (3), NATURAL GAS
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, NATURAL GAS, (2)
TURBINES, COMBINED CYCLE, GAS, (2) EPNS 1-1, 1-2
GAS-FIRED TURBINES
TURBINE & DUCT BURNER, COMBINED CYCLE, N
TURBINE, COMBINED CYCLE, & DUCT BURNER
COMBUSTION TURBINES W/DUCT BURNERS
30 MW GAS TURBINE GENERATORS (4)
30 MW GAS TURBINE GNERATORS (4) LOW LOAD OP
154 MW
1715 MMBTU/H
170 MW
185 MW
1490.5 MMBTU/H
330 MW
170.6 MW
1701 MMBTU/H
550 MW
175 MW
170 MW
170 MW
1830 MMBTU/H
1876 MMBTU/H
1885 MMBTU/H
1767 MMBTU/H
170 MW
170 MW
1844.3 MMBTU/H
1973 MMBTU/H
173 MW
700 MW
1911 MMBTU/H
1737 MMBTU/H
1715 MMBTU/H
1490.5 MMBTU/H
170 MW
277 MW
250 MW
COMBUSTION CONTROL
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, NATURAL GAS A
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES. DRY LOW NOX C
COMBUSTION CONTROL
1832 MMBTU/H
275 MW
230 MW
230 MW
230 MW
175 MW
175 MW
61200 MMSCF/YR
2737 MMBTU/H
170 MW
170 MW
87 MW
1844.3 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
1837 MMBTU/H
170 MW
40 MW Each
0
310 MW Total
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
2168 MMBTU/H
290 MMBTU/H Each
30 MW Each
Page 2 of 2
Emission Limit
9 PPMVD
9 PPMVD
9 PPMVD
9 PPMVD @ 15% 02
9 PPMVD @ 15% 02
10 PPM @ 15% 02
10 PPM @ 15% O2
10 PPM @ 15% O2
10 PPM @ 15% O2
10 PPMVD
GOOD COMBUSTION DESIGN AND PRACTICES
10 PPMVD @ 15% 02
GOOD COMBUSTION DESIGN AND PRACTICES
10 PPMVD @ 15% 02
COMBUSTION DESIGN, GOOD COMBUSTION PRAC 10 PPMVD @ 15% 02
10 PPMVD @ 15% 02
10 PPMVD @ 15% 02
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
10.2 PPM @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE/CO OXIDATION CA 10.2 PPMVD @ 15% O2
10.3 PPMVD @ 15% 02
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND EFFICIENT P 11.6 PPM @ 15% O2
12 PPM
12 PPM @ 15% O2
CATALYTIC OXIDIZER.
12 PPMVD @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION
12.21 PPMVD
13.8 PPMV @ 15% O2
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE AND DESIGN
14 PPMVD
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICE, NATURAL GAS AS 14 PPMVD @ 15% 02
14.6 PPMVD
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, DESIGN, PROPER
15 PPM
GOOD COMBUSTION PRATICES
15 PPMVD
16.38 PPMVD
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES/DESIGN
17.2 PPMVD
17.5 PPMVD
SCR
18.36 PPMV @ 15% O2
18.36 PPMV @ 15% O2
SCR
18.36 PPMV @ 15% O2
20 PPMVD
20.6 PPMVD
BEST COMBUSTION CONTROL PRACTICES
21 PPMVD
22.3 PPMVD @ 15% 02
GOOD OPERATING PRACTICE
23.6 PPM @ 15% O2
GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES, USE OF CLEAN BUR 25 PPM @ 15% O2
COMBUSTION CONTROL
25 PPMVD @ 15% 02
25 PPMVD @ 15% 02
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND EFFICIENT P 25.9 PPM @ 15% O2
30 PPMVD
30 PPMVD
30 PPMVD
30 PPMVD @ 15% 02
37.2 PPMV @ 15% O2
COMBUSTION CONTROLS
40 PPM @ 15% O2
40 PPM @ 15% O2
40 PPMV @ 15% O2
40 PPMV @ 15% O2
40 PPMV @ 15% O2
40 PPMV @ 15% O2
50 PPMVD @ 15% 02
80 PPMVD @ 15% 02
Basis
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-14. RBLC CO Summary for Commercial/Institutional-Size Boilers/Furnaces (< 100 MMBtu/hr), Natural Gas-Fired
RBLC ID
NV-0049
NV-0049
NE-0026
IA-0062
NV-0049
NV-0049
MD-0040
WY-0067
GA-0107
MD-0035
NV-0050
OR-0040
NV-0044
NY-0095
VA-0308
VA-0308
CO-0058
NV-0047
NV-0049
OR-0039
AL-0230
LA-0204
LA-0229
MN-0054
IN-0108
NE-0026
NV-0049
AZ-0047
FL-0285
FL-0286
MD-0040
MN-0070
NV-0037
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
WI-0207
WY-0066
WY-0066
WY-0066
WY-0066
WY-0066
IA-0062
IA-0068
NV-0046
NV-0048
AL-0231
MN-0053
OK-0128
OK-0090
AL-0230
AL-0230
AL-0230
AZ-0049
GA-0098
AK-0062
IA-0088
AK-0062
AZ-0049
AK-0062
AR-0077
Facility Name
CPV ST CHARLES
TALBOT ENERGY FACILITY
DOMINION
MGM MIRAGE
CHEYENNE STATION
NUCOR STEEL
CPV ST CHARLES
MINNESOTA STEEL INDUSTRIES, LLC
NUCOR DECATUR LLC
RINCON POWER PLANT
BLUEWATER PROJECT
Permit Date
Issuance
Updated
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
6/22/2004
12/20/2002
8/20/2009
8/20/2009
11/12/2008
4/1/2009
6/9/2003
8/12/2005
11/30/2009
3/12/2003
1/4/2007
5/10/2006
1/14/2008
1/14/2008
6/12/2004
2/26/2008
8/20/2009
12/30/2003
8/17/2007
2/27/2009
7/10/2008
12/4/2003
11/21/2003
6/22/2004
8/20/2009
12/1/2004
1/26/2007
1/10/2007
11/12/2008
9/7/2007
5/14/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
1/21/2004
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
3/4/2009
12/20/2002
6/26/2003
5/16/2006
5/16/2006
6/12/2007
7/15/2004
9/8/2008
3/21/2003
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
8/17/2007
9/4/2003
3/24/2003
8/19/2005
6/29/2007
8/19/2005
9/4/2003
8/19/2005
7/22/2004
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
7/23/2004
6/21/2004
12/1/2009
12/1/2009
2/20/2009
4/16/2009
1/21/2005
5/10/2007
3/15/2010
11/2/2005
4/26/2007
5/8/2008
9/21/2009
9/21/2009
8/15/2006
10/21/2008
12/1/2009
6/21/2004
12/27/2010
8/6/2009
4/20/2009
8/24/2006
2/6/2004
7/23/2004
12/1/2009
1/31/2006
6/12/2008
3/3/2009
2/20/2009
10/30/2008
12/20/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
4/20/2009
6/21/2004
8/25/2003
12/3/2007
2/10/2009
8/31/2009
9/21/2004
12/17/2010
10/10/2003
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
12/27/2010
7/24/2007
4/9/2004
7/15/2010
10/9/2007
7/15/2010
7/24/2007
7/15/2010
10/25/2004
Process Description
THROUGHPUT
BOILER - UNIT CP01

BOILER - UNIT CP03
AUXILIARY BOILER
BOILER - UNIT BA03
BOILER - UNIT BA01
BOILER
HOT OIL HEATER S38
FUEL GAS PREHEATERS, (3)
VAPORIZATION HEATER
WATER HEATERS - UNITS NY037 AND NY038 AT NEW YORK
BOILER, AUXILIARY, NATURAL GAS
AUXILIARY BOILER
HEATERS
BOILER - UNIT CP26
BOILERS, AUXILIARY, NATURAL GAS, (2)
3 NATURAL GAS-FIRED BOILERS WITH ULNB & EGR (5
EQT122-EQT125 - FOUR VCM CRACKING FURNACES
BOILER, COMMERCIAL
NNII REHEAT FURNACE
BOILER - UNIT FL01
AUXILIARY BOILER
ONE GASEOUS-FUELED 99 MMTU/HR AUXILIARY BOILER
TWO 99.8 MMBTU/H GAS-FUELED AUXILIARY BOILERS
HEATER
SMALL BOILERS & HEATERS(<100 MMBTU/H)
AUXILIARY BOILER
GAS HEATER, (2)
GAS HEATER
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL-SIZE BOILER (<100 MMBT
BOILER, AUXILIARY
NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNACES (LA63
NATURAL GAS-FIRED PASSIVE ANNEALING FURNACE (LO41
NATURAL GAS-FIRED BATCH ANNEALING FURNACE (535)
AUXILIARY BOILER
NATCO PRODUCTION HEATER
INDIRECT-FIRED DDGS DRYER
NATCO MISCIBLE INJECTION HEATER
NATCO TEG REBOILER
BOILERS
35.4 MMBTU/H
33.48 MMBTU/H
6.8 MMBTU/H
68 MMBTU/H
31.38 MMBTU/H
16.8 MMBTU/H
93 MMBTU/H
84 MMBTU/H
5 MMBTU/H
Page 1 of 1
2 MMBTU/H
50000 LB/H
35.4 MMBTU/H
29.4 MMBTU/H
97 MMBTU/H
62 MMBTU/H
45 MMBTU/H
24 MMBTU/H
80 MMBTU/H
64.9 MMBTU Each
90 MMBTU/H Each
90 MMBTU/H
70 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
143 MMBTU/H
14.34 MMBTU/H
38 MMBTU/H
99 MMBTU/H
99.8 MMBTU/H
1.7 MMBTU/H
99 MMBTU/H
60 MMBTU/H
11 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
60 MMBTU/H
80 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
21 MMBTU/H
16.4 MMBTU/H
9 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
3.85 MMBTU/H
98.7 MMBTU/H
40 MMBTU/H
0
33 MMBTU/H
33.4 MMBTU Each
27.2 MMBTU/H
99 MMBTU/H
41 MMBTU/H
83 MMBTU/H
34 MMBTU/H
93.7 MMBTU/H
14.87 MMBTU/H
55.34 MMBTU/H
1.34 MMBTU/H
22 MMBTU/H
Emission Limit
OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIF 0.0073 LB/MMBTU

0.0084 LB/MMBTU
CATALYTIC OXIDATION
0.0164 LB/MMBTU
0.0173 LB/MMBTU
0.02 LB/MMBTU
0.02 LB/MMBTU
0.022 LB/MMBTU
EACH VAPORIZATION HEATER SHALL ONLY USE NATURAL GAS FOR 0.03 LB/MMBTU
LIMITING THE FUEL TO NATURAL GAS ONLY AND GOOD COMBUST 0.035 LB/MMBTU
0.035 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION DESIGN
0.036 LB/MMBTU
0.036 LB/MMBTU
CEM SYSTEM
0.036 LB/MMBTU
CEM SYSTEM
0.036 LB/MMBTU
0.037 LB/MMBTU
0.037 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.037 LB/MMBTU
0.04 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND USE OF NATURAL GAS AS FU 0.046 LB/MMBTU
0.046 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION
0.06 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, NATURAL GAS
0.061 LB/MMBTU
0.066 LB/MMBTU
0.0705 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
EFFECTIVE COMBUSTION SYSTEM DESIGN, 10:1 TURNDOWN CAPA 0.08 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE ; GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL
0.08 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL
0.08 LB/MMBTU
NATURAL GAS / PROPANE; GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL
0.08 LB/MMBTU
NAT. GAS / PROPANE, GOOD COMBUSTION CONTROL
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.08 LB/MMBTU
0.082 LB/MMBTU
0.082 LB/MMBTU
0.083 LB/MMBTU
0.083 LB/MMBTU
0.084 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION.
0.084 LB/MMBTU
natural gas fuel
0.084 LB/MMBTU
BOILER DESIGN AND GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES
0.085 LB/MMBTU
0.09 LB/MMBTU
0.09 LB/MMBTU
0.09 LB/MMBTU
0.09 LB/MMBTU
0.093 LB/MMBTU
GOOD OPERATIONAL PRACTICES
0.1 LB/MMBTU
LOW NOX BURNERS AND FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION
0.1 LB/MMBTU
0.12 LB/MMBTU
0.14 LB/MMBTU
0.15 LB/MMBTU
0.84 LB/MMBTU
Basis
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
N/A
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Table G-15. RBLC CO Summary for Large Internal Combustion Engines (> 500 HP)
RBLC ID
NV-0050
MN-0071
NV-0049
LA-0211
PA-0244
NV-0045
OK-0091
NV-0047
LA-0219
LA-0231
LA-0194
CO-0055
LA-0231
MN-0053
PA-0271
IA-0067
LA-0204
MN-0054
WI-0207
LA-0219
MS-0086
AK-0066
IA-0088
IA-0088
MI-0389
OK-0090
VA-0276
AZ-0046
AZ-0046
FL-0322
IA-0095
IA-0095
ID-0018
MI-0389
AK-0059
OK-0128
KS-0028
CA-0988
FL-0310
WV-0023
TX-0407
AK-0061
LA-0219
OK-0129
OH-0275
OH-0317
OH-0254
VA-0305
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated
MGM MIRAGE
11/30/2009
6/5/2007
8/20/2009
GARYVILLE REFINERY
12/27/2006
FIRST QUALITY TISSUE, LLC
10/20/2004
12/11/2006
SLOAN QUARRY
3/18/2003
2/26/2008
8/15/2007
6/22/2009
11/24/2004
LAMAR LIGHT & POWER POWER PLANT
2/3/2006
6/22/2009
7/15/2004
2/23/2007
6/17/2003
2/27/2009
12/4/2003
1/21/2004
8/15/2007
CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, PASCAGOULA REFINE 5/8/2007
ENDICOTT PRODUCTION FACILITY, LIBERTY DEVELOPM 6/15/2009
6/29/2007
6/29/2007
12/29/2009
3/21/2003
6/20/2003
4/14/2005
4/14/2005
SWEET SORGHUM-TO-ETHANOL ADVANCED BIOREFINE12/23/2010
9/19/2008
9/19/2008
6/25/2010
12/29/2009
USAF EARECKSON AIR STATION
9/29/2003
9/8/2008
NEARMAN CREEK POWER STATION
10/18/2005
PACIFIC BELL
2/1/2003
1/12/2009
MAIDSVILLE
3/2/2004
12/6/2002
11/5/2004
8/15/2007
1/23/2009
8/24/2004
11/20/2008
8/14/2003
9/26/2007
3/15/2010
5/29/2008
12/1/2009
7/16/2008
3/10/2005
3/31/2008
10/10/2003
10/21/2008
4/22/2008
5/17/2010
9/3/2009
3/1/2006
5/17/2010
9/21/2004
8/5/2010
12/3/2010
8/6/2009
8/24/2006
8/16/2005
4/22/2008
3/4/2010
8/6/2009
10/9/2007
10/9/2007
12/16/2010
10/10/2003
2/20/2004
8/25/2006
8/25/2006
7/6/2011
1/30/2009
1/30/2009
10/5/2010
12/16/2010
5/22/2009
12/17/2010
3/9/2006
9/4/2003
1/26/2010
2/3/2009
10/26/2004
7/23/2007
4/22/2008
2/18/2010
8/31/2006
2/20/2009
7/5/2005
7/28/2008
Process Description
Throughput Rate
EMERGENCY GENERATORS - UNITS LX024 AND LX02

2206 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1750 KW
LARGE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (>600
1232 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATORS (DOCK & TANK FARM) (21-08 & 2 USE OF DIESEL WITH A SULFUR CONTENT OF 15 PPMV OR LESS
FIRE PUMP
575 HP
12 GAL/H
OPERATING ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION
2000 KW
ENGINE DESIGN AND LIMIT ON HOURS OF OPERATION (<500 H/YR)
660 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GOOD ENGINE DESIGN INCO
575 HP Each
660 HP EacH
GOOD ENGINE DESIGN AMD PROPER OPERATING PRACTICES
DIESEL ENGINES FOR SWITCHING, LOCOMOTIVE &a
1500 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
EMERGENCY DIESEL POWER GENERATOR ENGINES
1341 HP Each COMPLY WITH 40 CFR 60 SUBPART IIII
670 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION.
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
97.73 GAL/H
1850 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION
1850 BHP
LIMITED OPERATION, DESIGN
525 HP
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GOOD ENGINE DESIGN INCO
TEMPORARY, PORTABLE CRUDE I GENERATOR
EU ID 58, CAMP ENGINE 3
1041 HP
FIRE PUMP
540 HP
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IS SPECIFED. ENGINE IS REQU
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1500 KW
NO SPECIFIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IS SPECIFED. ENGINE IS REQU
FIRE PUMP
525 HP
ENGINE DESIGN AND OPERATION. 15 PPM SULFUR FUEL
749 BHP
ENGINE DESIGN AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
IC ENGINES, (48)
550 HP
LIMITING THE TREATED LANDFILL GAS HEAT INPUT RATION TO 50%
5.46 MMBTU/H
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
10.9 MMBTU/H
0
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
700 KW
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
575 HP
750 KW
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
2000 KW
3000 KW
SCR OXIDATION CATALYST
Emergency Generator
1200 HP
EMERGENCY BLACK START GENERATOR
24.1 MMBTU/H GOOD ENGINE DESIGN IS PROPOSED AS BACT
IC ENGINES
2935 HP
2.5 MW
PURCHASED MODEL IS AT LEAST AS STRINGENT AS THE BACT VALU
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1801 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1350 HP
5211 KW
2168 HP Each GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES AND GOOD ENGINE DESIGN INCO
2200 HP
17.21 MMBTU/H
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
2922 HP
600 KW
ELECTRIC GENERATION
550 HHP
ENGINE CONTROL MODULE
Page 1 of 1
Emission Limit
CASE-BY-CASE_BASIS
0.0018 LB/HP-H
0.0055 LB/HP-H
0.0055 LB/HP-H
0.0067 LB/HP-H
0.0067 LB/HP-H
0.1 LB/T
0.202 LB/MMBTU
0.22 G/B-HP-H
0.3 LB/H
0.37 LB/H
0.55 LB/H
0.61 LB/MMBTU
0.62 LB/H
0.76 LB/MMBTU
0.78 G/B-HP-H
0.85 LB/MMBTU
0.85 LB/MMBTU
1 G/B-HP-H
1 G/B-HP-H
1.6 LB/H
2.16 LB/H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.66 LB/MMBTU
3.3 LB/MMBTU
3.5 G/HP-H
3.5 G/KW-H
3.5 G/KW-H
3.5 G/KW-H
3.5 G/KW-H
3.5 G/KW-H
3.5 G/KW-H
4.4 LB/H
6.6 LB/H
7.01 LB/H
8.5 G/B-HP-H
8.5 G/HP-H
8.85 LB/H
9.02 LB/H
10.5 LB/H
12.24 LB/H
12.66 LB/H
14.63 LB/H
15.18 LB/H
15.2 LB/H
240 T/YR
LAER
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
Table G-16. RBLC CO Summary for Small Internal Combustion Engines (< 500 HP)
RBLC ID
OK-0110
OK-0111
LA-0194
MN-0054
CA-1073
NV-0047
OH-0281
CA-1144
IA-0062
IA-0062
IA-0067
LA-0204
MN-0053
OK-0090
MI-0367
OH-0275
OH-0317
WI-0228
OH-0252
LA-0192
TX-0352
TX-0407
LA-0224
IA-0084
FL-0322
MD-0040
MD-0040
OK-0129
OH-0254
MN-0079
WI-0228
AZ-0051
*FL-0324
OH-0281
VA-0285
WV-0023
MI-0389
CA-0998
NC-0101
NC-0101
OH-0252
WI-0227
MT-0022
Facility Name
Permit Dates
Issuance
Updated

10/21/2005
10/14/2005
11/24/2004
12/4/2003
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION/FAC PLANNING/I 8/14/2003
2/26/2008
6/10/2004
4/25/2007
12/20/2002
12/20/2002
6/17/2003
2/27/2009
7/15/2004
3/21/2003
GM POWERTRAIN DIVISION
5/19/2004
8/24/2004
11/20/2008
WPS - WESTON PLANT
10/19/2004
12/28/2004
CRESCENT CITY POWER
6/6/2005
12/31/2002
12/6/2002
3/20/2008
ADM POLYMERS
11/30/2006
SWEET SORGHUM-TO-ETHANOL ADVANCED BIOREFIN12/23/2010
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
CPV ST CHARLES
11/12/2008
1/23/2009
8/14/2003
MINNESOTA POWER, INC. - BOSWELL ENERGY CTR. 8/13/2009
WPS - WESTON PLANT
10/19/2004
DRAKE
4/12/2006
12/23/2010
6/10/2004
1/6/2004
MAIDSVILLE
3/2/2004
12/29/2009
WESTERN DEVCON
1/7/2003
9/29/2005
9/29/2005
12/28/2004
10/13/2004
BULL MOUNTAIN, NO. 1, LLC - ROUNDUP POWER PRO 7/21/2003
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
9/3/2009
8/24/2006
2/14/2006
10/21/2008
5/8/2007
3/17/2008
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
12/3/2010
8/6/2009
9/21/2004
10/10/2003
10/25/2004
8/31/2006
2/20/2009
8/31/2006
7/5/2005
4/8/2008
5/24/2005
10/26/2004
6/26/2008
8/6/2009
7/6/2011
2/20/2009
2/20/2009
2/18/2010
7/5/2005
8/5/2010
8/31/2006
8/6/2009
6/24/2011
5/8/2007
3/25/2004
2/3/2009
12/16/2010
9/4/2003
8/30/2006
8/30/2006
7/5/2005
8/31/2006
6/29/2004
Process Description
Throughput Rate
300 HP Each
290 HP
240 BHP
0.58 MMBTU/H
FIRE PUMP
303 HP
25 MMBTU/H
2.59 MMBTU/H
DIESEL FIRE PUMP
27.8 GAL/H
250 HP
265 BHP
ENGINE TEST CELLS/DYNAMOMETERS
303.33 MMBTU/H
1.6 MMBTU/H
300 HP
265 HP
FIRE WATER PUMP (1)
265 HP
300 HP
FIRE WATER PUMP
300 HP
310 HP
FIRE PUMP ENGINE
460 HP
0
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE - EMERGENCY FIRE WATER
300 HP
267 HP
400 HP
EMERGENCY GEN. UNIT 3 - 300Kw - CU
300 KW
460 HP
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
210 KW
0
4.68 MMBTU/H
350 KW
85 HP
FIRE BOOSTER PUMP
40 KW
IC ENGINE
415 HP
11.4 MMBTU/H
11.4 MMBTU/H
500 KW
7.6 MMBTU/H
15.3 MMBTU/H
Page 1 of 1

GOOD COMBUSTION
GOOD COMBUSTION
GOOD COMBUSTION
OPERATIONS LIMITED TO 200 H/YR.
Emission Limit
0.0067 LB/HP-H
0.0067 LB/HP-H
0.18 LB/H
0.25 G/B-HP-H
0.44 G/B-HP-H
0.5 G/B-HP-H
0.55 LB/H
0.7 LB/H
0.85 LB/MMBTU
0.95 LB/MMBTU
0.95 LB/MMBTU
0.95 LB/MMBTU
GOOD COMBUSTION.
0.95 LB/MMBTU
ENGINE DESIGN AND GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES
0.95 LB/MMBTU
6 NATURAL GAS-FIRED REGENERATIVE THERMAL OXIDIZERS.
0.96 LB/MMBTU
1.37 LB/H
1.72 LB/H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, ULTRA LOW S DIESEL FUEL OIL
1.77 LB/H
1.8 LB/H
1.88 LB/H
NONE INDICATED
2 LB/H
2 LB/H
USE OF LOW-SULFUR FUELS, LIMITING OPERATING HOURS AND PROP
2.07 LB/H
2.6 G/B-HP-H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.6 G/HP-H
2.76 LB/H
3 G/KW-H
GOOD COMBUSTION PRACTICES, ULTRA LOW SULFUR (0.003 WT. % S)
3.07 LB/H
3.5 G/KW-H
Use of inherently clean ultra low sulfur distillate (ULSD) fuel oil and GC 3.5 G/KW-H
3.98 LB/H
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DEVICES
4.3 LB/MMBTU
4.43 LB/H
5 G/KW-H
8.5 G/B-HP-H
9.69 LB/H
9.69 LB/H
12.6 LB/H
ENGINE DESIGN, DIESEL FUEL OIL (0.05 WT.% S).
18.85 LB/H
LIMITED TO 200 HOURS OF OPERATION PER YEAR
97.7 % Reduction
Basis
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
OTHER CASE-BY-CASE
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
Other Case-by-Case
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
N/A
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
LAER
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
BACT-PSD
App. H
APPENDIX H
DISPERSION MODELING FILES
CPV St. Charles: Dispersion Modeling File List (August 2011)

Description
No. of Files
File Name
(Folder)
File Description
CLASS II ANALYSIS
AERMOD MET DATA
AERMOD Receptor File
Folder
MET DATA
CPVYY.SFC
Dulles surface meteorological data, 1991 - 1995
CPVYY.PFL
Sterling upper air meteorological data, 1991 - 1995
Folder
Inline
Back-to-Back
INLINE.rou
INLINE.rou
Modeled receptors
(Receptor)
GEP Files
inline.BPI
stacked.BPI
Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) input file
(BPIP)
inline.PRO
stacked.PRO
Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) output file - brief
inline.SUP
stacked.SUP
Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) output file - detailed
CO - 1 Hour and 8 Hour
10
in3_YYCO.ADI
BB3_YYCO.ADI
AERMOD input files for CO, 1991-1995 metdata
(CO)
10
IN3_YYCO.ADO
BB3_YYCO.ADO
AERMOD output files for CO, 1991-1995 metdata
140
IN3_1_YYCO##.PLT
BB_1_YYCO##.PLT
1-hour plot files
140
IN3_8_YYCO##.PLT
BB3_8_YYCO##.PLT
8-hour plot files
PM10 - 24-Hour and Annual
10
in3_YYPM.ADI
BB4_YYPM.ADI
AERMOD input files for PM10, 1991 to 1995 metdata
(PM)
10
IN3_YYPM.ADO
BB4_YYPM.ADO
AERMOD output files for PM10, 1991 to 1995 metdata
140
IN3_24_YYPM##.PLT
BB4_24_YYPM##.PLT
24-hour plot files
140
IN3_P_YYPM##.PLT
BB4_P_YYPM##.PLT
Annual plot files
NOx - 1-Hour
10
in3_YYNOx.ADI
BB3_YYNOx.ADI
AERMOD input files for NOx 1-Hour
(NOx)
10
IN3_YYNOX.ADO
BB3_YYNOX.ADO
AERMOD output files for NOx 1-Hour
140
IN3_1_YYNOX##.PLT
BB3_1_YYNOX##.PLT
1-Hour plot files
NOx - Annual
10
in3_YYNOx_ANNUAL.ADI
BB3_NOx_ANNUAL.ADI
AERMOD input files for NOx Annual
(NOx)
10
IN3_YYNOX_ANNUAL.ADO
BB3_NOx_ANNUAL.ADO
AERMOD input files for NOx Annual
140
1-hour NO2 NAAQS Analysis

5-Year Meteorological Data
Significance Runs
Significant Impact Receptors
IN3_P_YYNOX##_ANNUAL.PLT BB3_P_YYNOX##_ANNUAL.PLT Annual plot files
1-HOUR NO2
1-HOUR NO2
CPV 91-95.SFC
Dulles 5-year meteorological data, 1991 - 1995
CPV 91-95.PLF
Sterling 5-year meteorological data, 1991 - 1995
SIG1HNOX.ADI
SINOBB.ADI
AERMOD input files for significant NOx impacts
SIG1HNOX.ADO
SINOBB.ADO
AERMOD output files for significant NOx impacts
SIG1HNOX.OUT
SINOBB.OUT
MAXCONT output for significant NOx impacts
SIG1HNOX.PLT
SINOBB.PLT
Plot files for significant NOx impacts
INLINE_SIG.ROU
BB_SIG.ROU
Significant impact receptors for 1-hour NOx NAAQS runs
Page 1 of 2
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\APPH.XLSX8/24/2011
CPV St. Charles: Dispersion Modeling File List (August 2011)

Description
No. of Files
File Name
(Folder)
Cumulative Modeling Runs
File Description
INLNOXT2.ADI
BBNOXT2.ADI
AERMOD NO2 Tier 2 NAAQS input files
INLNOXT2.ADO
BBNOXT2.ADO
AERMOD NO2 Tier 2 NAAQS output files
INLNOXT2.OUT
BBNOXT2.OUT
AERMOD NO2 Tier 2 NAAQS MAXCONT fileS
INLNOXT2.PLT
BBNOXT2.PLT
AERMOD NO2 Tier 2 NAAQS plot files
CLASS I ANALYSIS
Class I/PUFF-INP
Class I/PUFF-OUT
Class I/POST-INP
Class I/POST-OUT
Class I/OZONE
Total Files
Files for Brigantine NWA
Files for Shenandoah NP
CPV01B.PUI
CPV01S.PUI
CALPUFF input files for 2001 model year
CPV02B.PUI
CPV02S.PUI
CPV03B.PUI
CPV03S.PUI
CPV01B.PUO
CPV01S.PUO
CALPUFF output list files for 2001 model year
CPV02B.PUO
CPV02S.PUO
CPV03B.PUO
CPV03S.PUO
CPV01B.CON
CPV01S.CON
CALPUFF output concentration files for 2001 model year
CPV02B.CON
CPV02S.CON
CPV03B.CON
CPV03S.CON
CPV1NO2B.PTI
CPV1NO2S.PTI
CALPOST input file for NOx and year 2001
CPV2NO2B.PTI
CPV2NO2S.PTI
CPV3NO2B.PTI
CPV3NO2S.PTI
CPV1PMB.PTI
CPV1PMS.PTI
CALPOST input file for PM and year 2001
CPV2PMB.PTI
CPV2PMS.PTI
CPV3PMB.PTI
CPV3PMS.PTI
CPV1NO2B.PTO
CPV1NO2S.PTO
CALPOST output file for NOx and year 2001
CPV2NO2B.PTO
CPV2NO2S.PTO
CPV3NO2B.PTO
CPV3NO2S.PTO
CPV1PMB.PTO
CPV1PMS.PTO
CALPOST output file for PM and year 2001
CPV2PMB.PTO
CPV2PMS.PTO
CPV3PMB.PTO
CPV3PMS.PTO
OZONE_01.DAT
2001 ozone data for input to CALPUFF
OZONE_02.DAT
OZONE_03.DAT
1003
Notes: The designation "YY" is the last two digits of the model year.
The operating case numbers (##) range from 1 to 14.
Source: ECT, 2011.
Page 2 of 2
Y:\GDP-11\CPV\PSD\APPH.XLSX8/24/2011
CPV St. Charles

Air Dispersion Modeling Files
August 2011
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
CPV Maryland, LLC
Environmental Consulting
& Technology, Inc.
ECT No. 110122-0200

CPV St. Charles Revised PSD - 082411

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPV St. Charles Revised PSD - 082411

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH AIR

QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AND

CPV ST. CHARLES PROJECT

3701 Northwest 98th Street

ECT No. 110122-0200

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY

FACILITY DESCRIPTION, LOCATION MAPS, AND

NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

NATIONAL AND STATE AAQS

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT REQUIREMENTS

STATE AND FEDERAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

NSPS SUBPART DCSMALL INDUSTRIALCOMMERCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL STEAM

NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSES

LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSIONS RATE

5.1.3.1 Potential Control Technologies

LAER ANALYSIS FOR VOC

5.1.4.1 Potential Control Technologies

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

5.2.3.1 Potential Control Technologies

BACT ANALYSIS FOR CO

5.2.4.1 Potential Control Technologies

BACT ANALYSIS FOR GHG

Step 1Identify Available Control

ALTERNATIVES AND BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

SITE AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

7.10.1 ON-PROPERTY SOURCES

RESULTS OF AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSES

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS

ADDITIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

GROWTH IMPACT ANALYSIS

COOLING TOWER PLUME

CLASS I IMPACT RESULTS

10.6 RECEPTOR GRIDS

Maximum Criteria Pollutant Emissions Rates for Three Unit Loads

Maximum PSD Noncriteria Pollutant Emissions Rates for Three

Stack Parameters for Three Unit Loads and Three Ambient

Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Auxiliary Boiler

Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Fuel Heater

PM10 Emissions and Stack Parameters for the Wet Mechanical

Operating Scenarios and Annual Emissions Rates for St. Charles

Maximum Annualized Emissions Rates (with GE 7FA.05

National and Maryland Air Quality Standards

Projected CPV St. Charles Facility Maximum Emissions

PSD De Minimis Ambient Impact Levels

PSD Significant Impact Levels

EPA Significant Impact LevelsClass I Areas

PSD Allowable Increments

Proposed NOx LAER Emissions Limits

Proposed VOC LAER Emissions Limits

Summary of LAER Control Technologies

Proposed PM/PM10 BACT Emissions Limits

Proposed CO BACT Emissions Limits

Summary of BACT Control Technologies

Building/Structure Dimensions Used in Downwash Analysis

Summary of AERMET Surface Characteristics for Dulles

Stack Parameters and Emissions Rates for Offsite NOx Sources

AERMOD Results: Overall SummaryInline Cooling Tower

NOx 1-Hour Ambient Impact Analysis Results, 14 CasesInline