Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation BACT Issues – A Technical Perspective Presented to: American Public Power Association APPA New Generation Meeting:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation BACT Issues – A Technical Perspective Presented to: American Public Power Association APPA New Generation Meeting:"— Presentation transcript:

1 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation References for developing BACT analysis Overall BACT considerations Pollutant-specific issues/precedents for PC boilers Mercury Outline of Presentation

3 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation RBLC Clearinghouse National Coal-fired Utility Projects spreadsheet (updated 10/05) – verify accuracy (http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#misc) DOE Summary of Coal-fired projects (03/06) ( Clean Air Task Force - New Coal Plant Opposition Draft and Final Permits (http://www.catf.us/projects/power_sector/new_coal_plant_opposition/permits.php) Networking Summaries contained in recently submitted permit applications Identifying Relevant Projects

5 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 SO 2 emissions EPA dockets (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/) State and regional databases References for Emission Limits and BACT Discussions

6 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 Important BACT Considerations

7 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 Tuning Periods/Feasibility Studies

8 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Planned PC Boiler Installations Plant/LocationDescription (size, fuel)Status NRG, Limestone #3, TX800 MW; PRB coalApplication filed 6/06 Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station (# 5 and 6), NC MW units;N. Appalachian and eastern bituminous coal Application submitted 5/06 Nets out of PSD for SO2 and HF TXU - Big Brown (#3), Monticello (#4), Martin Lake (#4), TX3 800 MW units; PRB coalApplication submitted 4/06 Sandy Creek Energy Station, TX800 MW, PRB and otherPermit issued 5/06 TXU, Oak Grove (#1, #2), TX2 800 MW units; lignite Application submitted 1/05; contested hearing ended 6/06 CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX750 MW, PRB coal Netted out of Fed PSD for NOx and SO2 Permit issued 12/05; construction started! Great Plains Energy, Kansas City P&L, Iatan (#2), MO850 MW, subbituminous coal Permit issued 1/06 Construction to start in late '06; targeted to go into service '10 City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MO275 MW, subbituminousPermit issued 12/04. Funding approved 6/06! Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MT116 MW, PRBPermit issued 1/06 construction began 03/06. Big Cajun 2 (#4), LA675 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 8/05; scheduled to begin operation in 2010 Xcel Energy Comanche Station (#3), CO750 MW, subbituminous coal Permit issued 7/05; netted out of PSD for SO2 was under appeal, 6/06 District Court issued order upholding PSD permit

9 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Planned PC Boiler Installations (continued) Plant/LocationDescription (size, fuel)Status Newmont Nevada Energy, TS plant, NV200 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 5/05 Under construction; proposed online date 6/08 Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, IL MW, bituminous (can also use Illinois No. 5/6 coal) Permit issued 4/05 Construction not started as of 6/06 Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NE660 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 3/05 Construction started 10/05; expected online May '09 Longview Power, WV600 MW, bituminous Permit issued 3/04 Final settlement on air permit appeal 7/04 Hastings Utilities, Whelan Energy Center #2, NE220 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 3/04 Construction started summer '05; anticipated online '09 Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WI500 MW, PRB coal Approval granted 10/04; appealed but permit upheld; permit finalized 2/06 Construction 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, AR800 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 8/03 Construction began 4/06; commercial operation targeted for '10

10 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Planned PC Boiler Installations (continued) Plant/LocationDescription (size, fuel)Status MidAmerican Energy (#4),Council Bluffs, IA790 MW, PRB coal Permit issued 6/03 construction started September 2003; plans to be in service summer '07 Bull Mountain Roundup, MT2 390 MW, subbituminous Permit issued '03; extension issued 11/05 to 12/06 with more stringent controls; no construction yet Thoroughbred, KY2 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 G&E, Trimble Station, KY750 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), SC2 660 MW, Bituminous Permit issued 2/04; construction underway. April '06 announcement to build another 600MW facility near Kingsburg SC

11 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Planned PC Boiler Installations (continued) Plant/LocationDescription (size, fuel)Status Unisource Energy Tucson Electric, AZ2 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, WY500 MW, subbituminous Permit issued 9/02 Construction began 8/05, expected finish by early '08 Sand Sage Power, KS660 MW, PRBPermit issued 10/02; revised 6/05 Longleaf Energy Associates, GA MW, PRB or Central Appalachian bituminousPermit 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation SO 2 PC BACT Emission Rates Plant/LocationFuel 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 (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 P&L, Iatan (#2), MO Subbituminous coal 0.09 (30-day rolling) wet scrubber City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MO Subbituminous (30-day rolling) dry scrubber Originally limit was 0.12, but was changed to during BACT and visibility negotiations.

13 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation SO 2 PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuel 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) thereafter dry scrubber Provides for optimization period Big Cajun 2 (#4), LAPRB 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 >0.45%, 0.09 (24-hour rolling) 95% (30-day rolling) If S content <0.45%, (24 hr rolling) 91% (30-day) dry scrubber Different requirements depending on S content; % removal; Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, IL Bituminous (30-day rolling) wet scrubber 98% control (12-month rolling), effective 18 months after start-up Not required to wash mine-mouth coal, but required to wash IL No. 5&6 coal Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NE PRB coal (30-day) dry scrubber

14 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation SO 2 PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuel Emission Limit and Type of Scrubber Comments Longview Power, WVBituminous 0.12 (24-hr rolling) (calendar year) part of settlement agreement wet scrubber WVDEP stated that the 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation SO 2 PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuel Emission Limit and Type of Scrubber Comments Thoroughbred, KYBituminous 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, KSSubbituminous 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation SO 2 BACT Issues The basics: –Some type of flue gas desulfurization system (FGD); –SO 2 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation SO 2 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Limits for Dry Scrubbers Limits for dry are often contested, and have been ratcheted downward –Argument: unrealistic to base SO 2 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 lb/MMBtu (30 day rolling average) Omaha Public Power Nebraska Cities – 0.10 to 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 >0.45%; lb/MMBtu, if fuel S content <0.45% S

20 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation NO x PC BACT Emission Rates Plant/LocationFuelEmission LimitComments 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 NO x " coal TXU - Big Brown (#3), Monticello (#4), Martin Lake (#4), TX PRB subbituminous coal0.05 (12-month rolling) Sandy Creek Energy Station, TXPRB and other coal 0.07 (30-day rolling) 0.05 (12-month rolling) TXU, Oak Grove (#1, #2), TXLignite0.08 (30-day rolling) Must specify 0.05 in proposals; 2-year demonstration period CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TXPRB coal (30 day rolling) 0.05 (12-month rolling) Option for optimization study for NO x, PM 10, Hg, H 2 SO 4 Great Plains Energy, Kansas City P&L, Iatan (#2), MOSubbituminous coal0.08 (30 day) City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MOSubbituminous0.08 (30-day) Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MTPRB0.09 (30-day) Provides for optimization period Big Cajun 2 (#4), LAPRB coal0.07 (12 month)

21 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation NO x PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuelEmission LimitComments Xcel Energy Comanche Station (#3), CO Subbituminous coal0.08 (30 day) Project netted out of PSD for NO x, but limit considered comparable to BACT; includes SSM, except for cold start-ups Newmont Nevada Energy, TS plant, NVPRB coal0.067 (24-hr rolling) Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, ILBituminous0.07 (30-day rolling) Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NEPRB coalinterim: 0.12 ; after 18 months, 0.07 Allows for optimization period Longview Power, WVBituminous 0.08 (24-hr) 0.07 (30-day) (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, NEPRB coal 0.08 (30-day); for first 18 months after startup, 0.12 (30-day) 18 month demonstration period Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WIPRB coal 0.07 (30-day rolling) 0.06 (12-month rolling) Limits reduced after appeal Intermountain Power Service Corp, UTPRB coal0.07 (30-day)

22 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation NO x PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuelEmission LimitComments Plum Point Energy, ARPRB coal0.07 (30-day rolling) MidAmerican Energy (#4),Council Bluffs, IAPRB coal0.07 (30-day rolling) Bull Mountain Roundup, MTSubbituminous0.07 (24-hr) Thoroughbred, KYBituminous0.08 (30-day) Louisville G&E, Trimble Station, KYEastern bituminous Nets out of PSD review for SO2 Wisconsin Energy Elm Road, WI (Oak Creek)Bituminous 0.15 dry scrubber Santee Cooper (#3 & 4), SCBituminous0.08 (annual) Black Hills Wygen 2, WYSubbituminous0.07 (30-day) Sand Sage Power, KSSubbituminous0.08 (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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation NO x BACT Issues The basics: –Controls: SCR + combustion controls –CEMS Averaging time is critical Quantity of NO x generated depends on type of coal(?) Ammonia slip –Approx 3 ppm, annual –Higher short-term - ~10 ppm, hourly Several permits have optimization studies

24 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation PM/PM 10 PC BACT Emission Rates Plant/LocationFuel Emission Limit and Type of ControlsComments Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station (# 5 and 6), NC N. Appalachian and eastern bituminous coal (PM/PM 10 ) for filterable only; no limit proposed for condensible portion or for PM 2.5 Application states that little data is available from wet ESPs; and does not propose an emissions limit for PM 2.5 or the condensible portion of PM 10 TXU - Big Brown (#3), Monticello (#4), Martin Lake (#4) PRB subbituminous coal filterable 0.04 filterable + condensible baghouse Sandy Creek Energy Station PRB and other coal filterable 0.04 filterable + condensible baghouse TXU Oak Grove (#1, #2), TXLignite filterable 0.04 filterable + condensible baghouse CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX 750 MW, PRB coal (filterable) (filterable + condensible PM/PM 10 ) baghouse Option for optimization study for NO x, PM 10, Hg, H 2 SO 4 Great Plains Energy, Kansas City P&L, Iatan (#2), MO Subbituminous coal filterable PM (3-hr rolling) filterable PM 10 (3-hr rolling) total PM 10 (30-day rolling) baghouse Required to have CEMS for PM City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MOSubbituminous (3-hr) baghouse

25 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation PM/PM 10 PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuel Emission Limit and Type of ControlsComments Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MT PRB (filterable) during optimization period (filterable) post optimization (filterable and condensible) fabric filter Provides for optimization period Big Cajun 2 (#4), LAPRB coal PM 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 (filterable PM) filterable PM total PM total PM 10 baghouse Newmont Nevada Energy, TS plant, NVPRB coal0.012 (24 hr rolling); filterable only Total PM 10 (filterable and condensible) factors to be established during stack test Peabody Energy Corp Prairie State Generating Station, ILBituminous filterable PM/PM total PM 10 ESP, Wet ESP Permit stipulates that total PM/PM 10 limit subject to reduction based on stack test data Omaha Public Power Nebraska City Station, NEPRB coal filterable and condensible PM/PM 10 fabric filter Longview Power, WVBituminous hr rolling (PM) hr rolling (PM 10, including filterable and condensible) wet scrubber

26 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation PM/PM 10 PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuel Emission Limit and Type of ControlsComments Hastings Utilities, Whelan Energy Center #2, NEPRB coal 0.018, filterable and condensible baghouse Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WIPRB coal 0.02 PM 10 (includes filterable and condensible) Intermountain Power Service Corp, UTPRB coal PM PM baghouse Plum Point Energy, ARPRB coal baghouse MidAmerican Energy (#4),Council Bluffs, IAPRB coal PM PM 10 (includes condensibles) baghouse Bull Mountain Roundup, MTSubbituminous baghouse

27 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation PM/PM 10 PC BACT Emission Rates (continued) Plant/LocationFuel Emission Limit and Type of ControlsComments Thoroughbred, KYBituminous PM (no condensibles) wet scrubber, wet ESP Wisconsin Energy Elm Road, WI (Oak Creek)Bituminous wet ESP Santee Cooper (#3 & 4), SCBituminous (PM) (PM 10 ) scrubber Unisource Energy Tucson Electric, AZ Type of coal PM PM 10 Black Hills Wygen 2, WYSubbituminous fabric filter Sand Sage Power, KSSubbituminous0.015 Fabric filter Longleaf Energy Associates, GA PRB, subbituminous or Central Appalachian bituminous fabric filter Cornbelt Energy, Prairie Energy Plant, IL 0.02 (3-hr block) ESP

28 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation 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 – PM 10, filterable –Method 202 –condensible or fine PM Method 202 may overstate PM 10 emissions, due to ammonia and sulfate compounds created in the sampling system

30 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation PM BACT Issues PM/PM 10 compliance demonstration –PM CEMS Performance specifications, PS-11 for PM CEMS Only measures filterable PM –Typical requirements are periodic tests for PM 10 and operational requirements for the PM control device

31 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation CO/VOC BACT Control technology - not an issue, but even these limits keep going down Good combustion practices; trade-off with NO x control CO CEMS; some permits use CO CEMS as a surrogate to estimate VOC emissions

32 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental CorporationMercuryMercury 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental CorporationMercuryMercury Some states have more stringent requirements and/or not opt-in to national trading program Level of detail for application?

34 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental CorporationSummarySummary 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 © 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation Contact Information Jennifer Sharp Seinfeld, P.E. Zephyr Environmental Corporation Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 320 Columbia, Maryland visit us at And


Download ppt "© 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation BACT Issues – A Technical Perspective Presented to: American Public Power Association APPA New Generation Meeting:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google