POWER August 2012 - 60

ENVIRONMENTAL
benefit from a further reduction in emission
thresholds and that the rule promulgated in
2010 should be maintained.
Plants that currently fall under PSD permitting
and participate in Title V programs
of the Clean Air Act are affected by this regulation.
For the Title V program, this applies
to both new and existing operating permits.
Existing facilities will be required to address
GHGs if a modification to the facility triggers
a PSD review during the term of the permit.
From a GHG standpoint, a PSD modification
is one that increases the net emissions
by 75,000 t/yr CO2
e. If it doesn't, then GHGs
will have to be addressed when renewal of
the Title V permit occurs.
This is critical because the likelihood of
power generating facilities needing to address
GHGs at some point during their service
has greatly increased. Unlike the NSPS
for CO2
, CCS has not been determined to be
the default technology of choice. For those
facilities that trip PSD thresholds, GHGs will
need to be addressed through the detailed
case-by-case BACT analysis outlined above.
Due to the sizable number of permits expected
by the EPA that will be required to
address GHGs, the agency is currently developing
presumptive BACT for GHGs. This
presumptive BACT as defined by the EPA is
a " standardized BACT for certain emissions
units. " As noted in the proposed update to
Step 3 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, very few
permits have been issued addressing GHG
emissions. In fact, as of Dec. 1, 2011, only
18 permits nationwide had been issued with
a GHG provision.
Because of the lack of permits that address
GHG emissions, there has not been a determination
of presumptive BACT. Those permits
that have been issued to address GHGs have
held that plant efficiency is the most effective
method for reducing GHGs, with some
permits requiring a minimum plant heat rate
to be maintained.
Achieving Emissions Targets
Through Plant Efficiency
For a coal plant, the requirement of a more
stringent plant maintenance program to uphold
a minimum plant heat rate may be considered
BACT at this time.
Congress established the New Source Review
(NSR) permitting program as part of
the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. NSR
is a preconstruction permitting program that
serves two purposes:
■ First, it seeks to ensure that air quality is
not significantly degraded from new and
modified factories, industrial boilers, and
power plants.
■ Second, it seeks to offer assurances that
August 2012 | POWER
any large new or modified industrial
source will be as clean as possible and that
advances in pollution control occur side
by side with industrial expansion.
NSR specifies three types of permitting
requirements. A source may have to meet one
or more of these permitting requirements:
■ PSD permits, which are required for new
major sources or a major source making a
major modification in a so-called " attainment
area. "
■ Nonattainment NSR permits, which are
required for new major sources or major
sources making a major modification in a
nonattainment area.
■ Minor source permits.
When Congress passed the Clean Air
Act, the electric utility industry argued that
its oldest plants should be exempt from new
limits, saying that those plants would likely
be replaced by newer plants built under PSD
and subject to BACT. Congress granted existing
facilities " grandfather status " that
shielded them from the more stringent emission
control requirements. This meant that
routine maintenance, repair, and replacement
activities were excluded in the regulations
from being a physical change that could trigger
PSD.
But although PSD excludes routine maintenance,
repair, and replacement activities
from triggering PSD, the regulations also
stopped short of defining " routine. " Industry
kept many older plants up and running and so
avoided the need to decommission and replace
them. Many of these older facilities remain in
operation today and have never been required
to meet Clean Air Act requirements.
The best guidance to define " routine "
maintenance came from the court case known
as Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (WEPCO)
vs. Reilly. The case came about after WEPCO
planned a retrofit project on existing
coal-fired boilers. In 1988, WEPCO sued the
EPA for failing to grant a PSD exemption
under the routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement provisions. The court's decision
(known as the " WEPCO rule " ) outlined
a test for routine that used five factors: nature,
extent, purpose, frequency, and cost of
an improvement project. But this outline still
stopped short of offering a clear definition of
" routine. " The effect is that NSR discourages
plant improvements that might increase efficiency,
which is the goal of the EPA's recent
GHG rulemaking.
A second court case (U.S. et al. v. DTE Ener24-hour
Emergency Service 800-383-0313
MartinPLUS®
Tough,
tested,
and
innovative
material
handling
solutions
since
1944
SSilo Cleaning
Problem Indicators
ilos | Bins | Hoppers | Bunkers
* Off-center loading
* Material discharges in chunks
* Shorter & more frequent
fi ll cycles
Benefi ts
visit martin-eng.com | call 800.544.2947 ext 586
email silocleaning@martin-eng.com
A Global Company
® Registered trademark of Martin Engineering Company in the US and other select locations. © 2012 Martin Engineering Company.
Additional information can be obtained at www.martin-eng.com/trademarks.
CIRCLE 30 ON READER SERVICE CARD
www.powermag.com
61

http://www.martin-eng.com http://www.martin-eng.com/trademarks http://www.powermag.com

POWER August 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER August 2012