BACT Issues

1
BACT Issues A Technical Perspective
Presented to American Public Power
Association APPA New Generation Meeting
Anticipating New Permitting Issues, IGCC
Technology Options, Atmospheric Modeling, and
Anticipating the Publics Reaction Presented
by Jennifer Sharp Seinfeld, P.E. Principal Zephyr
Environmental Corporation June 28, 2006
2
Outline of Presentation

• References for developing BACT analysis
• Overall BACT considerations
• Pollutant-specific issues/precedents for PC
  boilers
• Mercury

3
Finding Information

• The good news
• A lot of useful relevant information is on the
  web
• The bad news
• A lot of useful relevant information is on the
  web!

4
Identifying Relevant Projects

• RBLC Clearinghouse
• http//cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/cfm/basicsearch.cfm
• National Coal-fired Utility Projects spreadsheet
  (updated 10/05) verify accuracy
  (http//www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.htmlmisc)
• DOE Summary of Coal-fired projects (03/06)
• ( http//www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
• Clean Air Task Force - New Coal Plant Opposition
  Draft and Final Permits (http//www.catf.us/proj
  ects/power_sector/new_coal_plant_opposition/permit
  s.php)
• Networking
• Summaries contained in recently submitted permit
  applications

5
References for Emission Limits and BACT
Discussions

• RBLC Clearinghouse
• Other permits (final, draft proposed)
• Permit applications, related documents, hearing
  transcripts, written comments and other
  correspondence
• Test/CEMS data from existing units
• Acid Rain database for historical SO2 emissions
  http//www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/prelimarp/
  index.html
• EPA dockets
• (http//yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/)
• State and regional databases

6
Important BACT Considerations

• Type of unit
• Fuel type, sulfur content
• Averaging times, different limits for different
  averaging times
• Cost-effectiveness analyses
• Startup, shutdown, malfunction emissions
• Method of demonstrating ongoing compliance
• CEMS
• Test methods

7
Tuning Periods/Feasibility Studies

• The middle ground in negotiations
• Pros
• Progress toward permit issuance and start of
  project
• Flexibility in not having to be in compliance
  with a challenging limit immediately
• Cons
• Review/regulatory scrutiny continues

8
Planned PC Boiler Installations
Plant/Location Description (size, fuel) Status
NRG, Limestone 3, TX 800 MW PRB coal Application filed 6/06
Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station ( 5 and 6), NC 2 800 MW unitsN. Appalachian and eastern bituminous coal Application submitted 5/06Nets out of PSD for SO2 and HF
TXU - Big Brown (3), Monticello (4), Martin Lake (4), TX 3 800 MW units PRB coal Application submitted 4/06
Sandy Creek Energy Station, TX 800 MW, PRB and other Permit issued 5/06
TXU, Oak Grove (1, 2), TX 2 800 MW units lignite Application submitted 1/05 contested hearing ended 6/06
CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX 750 MW, PRB coal Netted out of Fed PSD for NOx and SO2Permit issued 12/05 construction started!
Great Plains Energy, Kansas City PL, Iatan (2), MO 850 MW, subbituminous coal Permit issued 1/06Construction to start in late '06 targeted to go into service '10
City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MO 275 MW, subbituminous Permit issued 12/04. Funding approved 6/06!
Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MT 116 MW, PRB Permit issued 1/06 construction began 03/06.
Big Cajun 2 (4), LA 675 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 8/05 scheduled to begin operation in 2010
Xcel Energy Comanche Station (3), CO 750 MW, subbituminous coal Permit issued 7/05 netted out of PSD for SO2was under appeal, 6/06 District Court issued order upholding PSD permit
9
Planned PC Boiler Installations(continued)
Plant/Location Description (size, fuel) Status
Newmont Nevada Energy, TS plant, NV 200 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 5/05Under construction proposed online date 6/08
Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, IL 2 750 MW, bituminous (can also use Illinois No. 5/6 coal) Permit issued 4/05Construction not started as of 6/06
Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NE 660 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 3/05Construction started 10/05 expected online May '09
Longview Power, WV 600 MW, bituminous Permit issued 3/04Final settlement on air permit appeal 7/04
Hastings Utilities, Whelan Energy Center 2, NE 220 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 3/04 Construction started summer '05 anticipated online '09
Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WI 500 MW, PRB coal Approval granted 10/04 appealed but permit upheld permit finalized 2/06Construction started 11/04 anticipated online in '08
Intermountain Power Service Corp, UT 900 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 10/04 (appeal denied due to standing) construction scheduled to begin spring, 2007
Plum Point Energy, AR 800 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 8/03Construction began 4/06 commercial operation targeted for '10
10
Planned PC Boiler Installations(continued)
Plant/Location Description (size, fuel) Status
MidAmerican Energy (4),Council Bluffs, IA 790 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 6/03 construction started September 2003 plans to be in service summer '07
Bull Mountain Roundup, MT 2 390 MW, subbituminous Permit issued '03 extension issued 11/05 to 12/06 with more stringent controls no construction yet
Thoroughbred, KY 2 750 MW, bituminous Permit issued 10/02 Permit revised 12/02 and 2/05 challenged by Sierra Club 12/05, permit remanded for BACT analysis
Louisville GE, Trimble Station, KY 750 MW, eastern bituminous draft permit 7/05 (nets out of PSD for NOx and SO2)Approved 3/06 plans to begin construction 7/06
Wisconsin Energy Elm Road, WI (Oak Creek) 2 615 MW, bituminous Permit issued 1/04 construction began 7/05 proposed in service first unit in 2009 second in 2010
Peabody Mustang Energy, NM 300 MW, Clean Coal Initiative grant from DOE 10/04 received DOE grant from DOE. 5/06 news article says project on hold. .
Santee Cooper (3 4), SC 2 660 MW, Bituminous Permit issued 2/04 construction underway. April '06 announcement to build another 600MW facility near Kingsburg SC
11
Planned PC Boiler Installations(continued)
Plant/Location Description (size, fuel) Status
Unisource Energy Tucson Electric, AZ 2 400 MW units Permit issued 4/02 (netted out of PSD for SO2)under construction hopes to be online late '06
Black Hills Wygen 2, WY 500 MW, subbituminous Permit issued 9/02Construction began 8/05, expected finish by early '08
Sand Sage Power, KS 660 MW, PRB Permit issued 10/02 revised 6/05
Longleaf Energy Associates, GA 2 600 MW, PRB or Central Appalachian bituminous Permit 11/04
Cornbelt Energy, Prairie Energy Plant, IL 91 MW partially funded by DOE to test new coal reburn system for lower NOx emissions Permit issued 12/02
12
SO2 PC BACT Emission Rates
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Scrubber Comments
Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station ( 5 and 6), NC N. Appalachian and eastern bituminous coal Unknown limits wet scrubber project nets out of PSD for SO2 no SO2 limits included in PSD application
TXU - Big Brown (3), Monticello (4), Martin Lake (4), TX PRB subbituminous coal 0.10 (12 month rolling)dry scrubber Proposed limit in application
Sandy Creek Energy Station, TX PRB and other coal 0.10 (12 month rolling)0.12 (30 day rolling)dry scrubber  
TXU, Oak Grove (1, 2), TX Lignite 0.192 (30 day rolling)wet scrubber  
CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX PRB coal 0.10 (30 day rolling)0.06 (12-month rolling)wet scrubber  
Great Plains Energy, Kansas City PL, Iatan (2), MO Subbituminous coal 0.09 (30-day rolling)wet scrubber  
City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MO Subbituminous 0.095 (30-day rolling) dry scrubber Originally limit was 0.12, but was changed to 0.095 during BACT and visibility negotiations.
13
SO2 PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Scrubber Comments
Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MT PRB 0.12 during 18 month optimization period 0.11 (30-day rolling) thereafterdry scrubber Provides for optimization period
Big Cajun 2 (4), LA PRB coal 0.10 ( 30 day)wet or dry scrubber Permit provides for evaluating both wet and dry scrubbing systems
Xcel Energy Comanche Station (3), CO Subbituminous coal 0.10 (30 day rolling)dry scrubber Project netted out of PSD for SO2 limit not considered BACT
Newmont Nevada Energy, TS plant, NV PRB coal if S content gt0.45, 0.09 (24-hour rolling) 95 (30-day rolling)If S content lt0.45, 0.065 (24 hr rolling) 91 (30-day)dry scrubber Different requirements depending on S content removal
Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, IL Bituminous 0.182 (30-day rolling)wet scrubber98 control (12-month rolling), effective 18 months after start-up Not required to wash mine-mouth coal, but required to wash IL No. 56 coal
Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NE PRB coal 0.095 (30-day)dry scrubber  
14
SO2 PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Scrubber Comments
Longview Power, WV Bituminous 0.12 (24-hr rolling)0.095 (calendar year) part of settlement agreementwet scrubber WVDEP stated that the 0.095 was not considered BACT
Hastings Utilities, Whelan Energy Center 2, NE PRB coal 0.12 (30-day), 1.1 (3-hr rolling)dry scrubber  
Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WI PRB coal 0.10 (30-day rolling)0.09 (12-month rolling)dry scrubber Limits include SSM emissions also mass limits on 3-hr rolling averages
Intermountain Power Service Corp, UT PRB coal 0.09 (30-day) wet scrubber  
Plum Point Energy, AR PRB coal 0.16 dry scrubber  
MidAmerican Energy (4),Council Bluffs, IA PRB coal 0.10 (30 day rolling)dry scrubber Does not include SSM emissions
Bull Mountain Roundup, MT Subbituminous 0.12 dry scrubber
15
SO2 PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Scrubber Comments
Thoroughbred, KY Bituminous 0.167 wet scrubber, wet ESP BACT being re-evaluated
Wisconsin Energy Elm Road, WI (Oak Creek) Bituminous 0.15 dry scrubber  
Santee Cooper (3 4), SC Bituminous 0.13 (annual average)wet scrubber PSD avoidance limits
Black Hills Wygen 2, WY Subbituminous 0.10 (30-day)dry scrubber  
Sand Sage Power, KS Subbituminous 0.12 (30-day)dry scrubber  
Longleaf Energy Associates, GA PRB, subbituminous or central Appalachian bituminous 0.12 (30-day)dry scrubber  
Cornbelt Energy, Prairie Energy Plant, IL   0.15 wet scrubber  
16
SO2 BACT Issues

• The basics
• Some type of flue gas desulfurization system
  (FGD)
• SO2 CEMS
• For BACT analysis in application, typically
  expressed in units of lb/MMBtu
• Common to have multiple emission limits for
  different averaging times
• Short-term 1 or 3 hrs and/or 24 hrs
• Long-term 30-day and/or annual
• Coal washing sometimes raised as an issue
• Control efficiency as a permit limit

17
SO2 BACT Issues Wet vs. Dry Scrubber

• Mix of wet and dry scrubbers in recent permits
  majority are dry scrubbers
• In general, wet scrubbers are more efficient, but
  dry scrubbers can still obtain approval
• Cost-effectiveness arguments necessary?
• Some with tuning periods

18
BACT Arguments for Dry Scrubbers

• Infrastructure
• Maintenance considerations
• Power and water requirements
• Market for wet scrubber byproducts
• Generally, higher ground level concentrations
  with wet scrubber
• Better control of sulfuric acid mist, fine
  particulates, many HAP emissions from wet
  scrubber (?)

19
Limits for Dry Scrubbers

• Limits for dry are often contested, and have been
  ratcheted downward
• Argument unrealistic to base SO2 emissions on
  continuous use of highest sulfur fuel
• Use of acid rain data base for typical sulfur
  content
• Examples of recent dry scrubber limits
• City Utilities of Springfield 0.12 to 0.095
  lb/MMBtu (30 day rolling average)
• Omaha Public Power Nebraska Cities 0.10 to
  0.095 lb/MMBtu (based on EPA comments)
• WI Public Service, Weston 4 0.09 lb/MMBtu
  (12-month average) (based on Sierra Club
  comments)
• Newmont Nevada Energy 0.09 lb/MMBtu, if fuel S
  content gt0.45 0.065 lb/MMBtu, if fuel S content
  lt0.45 S

20
NOx PC BACT Emission Rates
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit Comments
Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station ( 5 and 6), NC N. Appalachian and eastern bituminous coal 0.08 (30 day) application mentions consideration of burning "high NOx" coal
TXU - Big Brown (3), Monticello (4), Martin Lake (4), TX PRB subbituminous coal 0.05 (12-month rolling)  
Sandy Creek Energy Station, TX PRB and other coal 0.07 (30-day rolling)0.05 (12-month rolling)  
TXU, Oak Grove (1, 2), TX Lignite 0.08 (30-day rolling) Must specify 0.05 in proposals 2-year demonstration period
CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX PRB coal 0.069 (30 day rolling)0.05 (12-month rolling) Option for optimization study for NOx, PM10, Hg, H2SO4
Great Plains Energy, Kansas City PL, Iatan (2), MO Subbituminous coal 0.08 (30 day)  
City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MO Subbituminous 0.08 (30-day)  
Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MT PRB 0.09 (30-day) Provides for optimization period
Big Cajun 2 (4), LA PRB coal 0.07 (12 month)  
21
NOx PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit Comments
Xcel Energy Comanche Station (3), CO Subbituminous coal 0.08 (30 day) Project netted out of PSD for NOx, but limit considered comparable to BACT includes SSM, except for cold start-ups
Newmont Nevada Energy, TS plant, NV PRB coal 0.067 (24-hr rolling)  
Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, IL Bituminous 0.07 (30-day rolling)  
Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NE PRB coal interim 0.12 after 18 months, 0.07 Allows for optimization period
Longview Power, WV Bituminous 0.08 (24-hr)0.07 (30-day)0.065 (annual) WVDEP originally had 0.08 (24 hr rolling) as a permit limit has stated that the 0.065/0.07 limits are not considered BACT
Hastings Utilities, Whelan Energy Center 2, NE PRB coal 0.08 (30-day) for first 18 months after startup, 0.12 (30-day) 18 month demonstration period
Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WI PRB coal 0.07 (30-day rolling)0.06 (12-month rolling) Limits reduced after appeal
Intermountain Power Service Corp, UT PRB coal 0.07 (30-day)  
22
NOx PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit Comments
Plum Point Energy, AR PRB coal 0.07 (30-day rolling)  
MidAmerican Energy (4),Council Bluffs, IA PRB coal 0.07 (30-day rolling)  
Bull Mountain Roundup, MT Subbituminous 0.07 (24-hr)  
Thoroughbred, KY Bituminous 0.08 (30-day)  
Louisville GE, Trimble Station, KY Eastern bituminous   Nets out of PSD review for SO2
Wisconsin Energy Elm Road, WI (Oak Creek) Bituminous 0.15 dry scrubber  
Santee Cooper (3 4), SC Bituminous 0.08 (annual)  
Black Hills Wygen 2, WY Subbituminous 0.07 (30-day)  
Sand Sage Power, KS Subbituminous 0.08 (30-day) 18-month tuning period
Longleaf Energy Associates, GA PRB subbituminous or Central Appalachian bituminous 0.07 (30-day)  
Cornbelt Energy, Prairie Energy Plant, IL   0.1 allows for 24-month tuning period
23
NOx BACT Issues

• The basics
• Controls SCR combustion controls
• CEMS
• Averaging time is critical
• Quantity of NOx generated depends on type of
  coal(?)
• Ammonia slip
• Approx 3 ppm, annual
• Higher short-term - 10 ppm, hourly
• Several permits have optimization studies

24
PM/PM10 PC BACT Emission Rates
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Controls Comments
Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station ( 5 and 6), NC N. Appalachian and eastern bituminous coal 0.015 (PM/PM10) for filterable only no limit proposed for condensible portion or for PM2.5 Application states that little data is available from wet ESPs and does not propose an emissions limit for PM2.5 or the condensible portion of PM10
TXU - Big Brown (3), Monticello (4), Martin Lake (4) PRB subbituminous coal 0.015 filterable0.04 filterable condensiblebaghouse  
Sandy Creek Energy Station PRB and other coal 0.015 filterable0.04 filterable condensiblebaghouse  
TXU Oak Grove (1, 2), TX Lignite 0.015 filterable0.04 filterable condensiblebaghouse  
CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX 750 MW, PRB coal 0.015 (filterable)0.022 (filterable condensible PM/PM10)baghouse Option for optimization study for NOx, PM10, Hg, H2SO4
Great Plains Energy, Kansas City PL, Iatan (2), MO Subbituminous coal 0.015 filterable PM (3-hr rolling)0.014 filterable PM10 (3-hr rolling) 0.0236 total PM10 (30-day rolling)baghouse Required to have CEMS for PM
City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MO Subbituminous 0.018 (3-hr)baghouse  
25
PM/PM10 PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Controls Comments
Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MT PRB 0.015 (filterable) during optimization period0.012 (filterable) post optimization0.024 (filterable and condensible)fabric filter Provides for optimization period
Big Cajun 2 (4), LA PRB coal 0.015PM controls depend on which type of scrubber Appears to be only filterable Method 5 is included in permit
Xcel Energy Comanche Station (3), CO Subbituminous coal 0.013 (filterable PM)0.012 filterable PM100.022 total PM0.020 total PM10baghouse  
Newmont Nevada Energy, TS plant, NV PRB coal 0.012 (24 hr rolling) filterable only Total PM10 (filterable and condensible) factors to be established during stack test
Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, IL Bituminous 0.015 filterable PM/PM100.035 total PM10ESP, Wet ESP Permit stipulates that total PM/PM10 limit subject to reduction based on stack test data
Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NE PRB coal 0.018 filterable and condensible PM/PM10fabric filter  
Longview Power, WV Bituminous 0.018 6 hr rolling (PM)0.018 6 hr rolling (PM10, including filterable and condensible)wet scrubber  
26
PM/PM10 PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Controls Comments
Hastings Utilities, Whelan Energy Center 2, NE PRB coal 0.018, filterable and condensiblebaghouse  
Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WI PRB coal 0.02 PM10 (includes filterable and condensible)  
Intermountain Power Service Corp, UT PRB coal 0.012 PM100.013 PMbaghouse  
Plum Point Energy, AR PRB coal 0.018baghouse  
MidAmerican Energy (4),Council Bluffs, IA PRB coal 0.027 PM0.025 PM10 (includes condensibles)baghouse  
Bull Mountain Roundup, MT Subbituminous 0.015baghouse  
27
PM/PM10 PC BACT Emission Rates(continued)
Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of Controls Comments
Thoroughbred, KY Bituminous 0.018 PM (no condensibles)wet scrubber, wet ESP  
Wisconsin Energy Elm Road, WI (Oak Creek) Bituminous 0.018wet ESP  
Santee Cooper (3 4), SC Bituminous 0.015 (PM)0.018 (PM10)scrubber  
Unisource Energy Tucson Electric, AZ Type of coal 0.015 PM0.055 PM10  
Black Hills Wygen 2, WY Subbituminous 0.012fabric filter  
Sand Sage Power, KS Subbituminous 0.015 Fabric filter  
Longleaf Energy Associates, GA PRB, subbituminous or Central Appalachian bituminous 0.033fabric filter  
Cornbelt Energy, Prairie Energy Plant, IL   0.02 (3-hr block)ESP  
28
PM BACT Issues

• Basic controls
• Dry FGD
• Baghouse
• Wet FGD
• ESP or baghouse for primary filterable PM control
  
• In some cases, wet (or polishing) ESPs downstream
  of the wet FGD are proposed (e.g., Thoroughbred,
  Duke Energy, Prairie Generating Station)

29
PM BACT Issues

• Inconsistency in various permit limits
• Measurement method really defines particulate
  matter
• Method 5 or 17 all sizes of PM, filterable
• Method 201A PM10, filterable
• Method 202 condensible or fine PM
• Method 202 may overstate PM10 emissions, due to
  ammonia and sulfate compounds created in the
  sampling system

30
PM BACT Issues

• PM/PM10 compliance demonstration
• PM CEMS
• Performance specifications, PS-11 for PM CEMS
• Only measures filterable PM
• Typical requirements are periodic tests for PM10
  and operational requirements for the PM control
  device

31
CO/VOC BACT

• Control technology - not an issue, but even
  these limits keep going down
• Good combustion practices trade-off with NOx
  control
• CO CEMS some permits use CO CEMS as a surrogate
  to estimate VOC emissions

32
Mercury

• Not subject to Federal PSD-BACT no more
  case-by-case analysis
• Subject to CAMR (70 FR 28606, revised 71 FR
  33388)
• CAMR highlights
• New coal-fired units NSPS, Subpart Da
• New and existing units cap and trade
• Monitoring requirements
• CEMS certified 90 operating days/180 calendar
  days after operation for new units

33
Mercury

• Some states have more stringent requirements
  and/or not opt-in to national trading program
• Level of detail for application?

34
Summary

• Build a good library of information and continue
  to update it
• Careful review of permit application it will be
  scrutinized by many!
• Careful negotiations with vendors for emission
  guarantees
• Consider
• SSM emissions
• Averaging periods
• Method of compliance
• Optimization periods

35
Contact Information

• Jennifer Sharp Seinfeld, P.E.
• Zephyr Environmental Corporation
• 10420 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 320
• Columbia, Maryland 21044
• 410-312-7915
• jseinfeld_at_zephyrenv.com

visit us at www.ZephyrEnv.com And
www.HazMatAcademy