Analysis of Existing and PotentialRegulatory Requirements and EmissionControl Options for theSilver Lake Power PlantAPPA Engineering & Operations Technical ConferenceMarch 8, 2004

Ivan Clark, P.E. Joseph Hensel

Screening Study Scope

Regulatory summary and applicability review Identification and review of emission control

technologies, including emerging technologies Review Silver Lake Plant Site and generating

units with respect to emission control additions Screen and evaluate emission control

technologies for application to the Silver Lake Plant

Identify and evaluate various control technology scenarios

Evaluate specific scenarios Maintain 1999-2000 Base Case emission levels Application of “state of the art” emission controls

Public Participation and Review

A group of interested local citizens was invited to participate in the process. The group was named the Emission Control Study Input Group.

The Input Group met with the project team five times, including a tour of the Silver Lake Plant to review and receive input on the study and report. All of the meetings were open to the public; the local newspaper generally attended and frequently reported on the progress in articles and editorials.

There were also numerous individual questions and comments received during this process.

Public meeting was held on October 30, 2003 for review and comment on the report.

All of the materials, including various presentations, draft information and final report were posted on the RPU web site.

Existing Silver Lake Plant

Four Units; Coal and Natural Gas Fuel ≈ 100 mw Boiler #1 – 116 mmBtu/hr (1949) Boiler #2 – 153 mmBtu/hr,

200 ft Common Stack (1952) Boiler #3 – 285 mmBtu/hr, 200 ft Stack

(1962) Boiler #4 – 615 mmBtu/hr, 300 ft Stack (1969)

1999 – 2000 Fuel Use Coal 125,000 tons Gas 160,000 mcf

Existing Permit Limits SO2 – 3.2 lb/mmBtu with TACWEF Coal Consumption – 350,000 TPY

Current & Future Emission RegulationsThat May Affect the Silver Lake Plant

8-hr Ozone Standard

PM2.5 Standard

Regional Haze Rule

Utility Boiler MACT

Industrial Boiler MACT

Clear Skies Act of 2003

Clean Power Act of 2003

Clean Air Planning Act

Interstate Air Quality Rule

Silver Lake Plant Site

Pollutants of Concern

Sulfur Dioxide (“SO2”) Nitrogen Oxide (“NOx”) Particulate Matter (“PM or PM10”) Mercury (“Hg”)

SO2 Control Technologies/Options

Wet Scrubbers (lime/limestone) Dry Scrubbers (spray dryer absorbers) Lime Injection into Ducts/Boiler Low Sulfur Coal (“compliance coal”) Emerging Technologies

NOX Control Technologies

Low NOX Burners and/or Combustion Modifications

Gas Reburn Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

System (SNCR) Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Combination of the above Emerging Technologies

PM Control Technologies

Fabric Filters (“Baghouse”) Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector

(“COHPAC”) Electrostatic Precipitator (“ESP”) Combination of the above

Mercury Control Technologies

Concurrent reductions resulting from control of SO2 and/or PM

Sorbent Injection

Emission Control TechnologyScreening Criteria

Emission reduction capability (i.e. efficiency) Plant site space for required structures Commercial demonstration of technology Ability to achieve reductions consistent with

future regulatory requirements Cost Installation schedule

Emission Control Scenariosfor Silver Lake Power Plant

Emission control for each individual unit Emission controls for combined flue gas

streams from units Use of high efficiency controls on larger

units with less control on smaller units Use of multi-pollutant control

technologies

Unit TechnologyCapital

Costs, $

Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity

Annual O&M

Costs, $

Total Annual Costs, $

Total Unit Costs

$/MWhr

Estimated Emission

Rate, lb/MMBtu

Potential Projected Emissions

(ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

Reduction Cost, $/ton of Pollutant Removed

1Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air

338,958 34 -- 27,184 2.01 0.36 38.02 120 385

2Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air

356,462 25 -- 28,588 0.42 0.36 160.83 229 96

3Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air

364,419 15 -- 29,226 0.27 0.34 230.73 68 68

4 Overfire Air/SNCR 1,364,137 23 351,662 488,349 1.56 0.21 337.45 91 1,769

1Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

7,402,960 740 69,848 663,566 49 0.15 16.29 51 7,187

2Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

8,023,587 573 169,437 812,928 12 0.15 68.93 98 2,081

3Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

9,045,233 362 228,852 954,280 9 0.14 98.88 29 1,703

4Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

13,095,750 218 431,284 1,481,563 5 0.06 92.03 25 2,841

NOX Control Technology Summary Table

Unit TechnologyCapital

Costs, $

Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity

Annual O&M

Costs, $

Total Annual Costs, $

Total Unit Costs

$/MWhr

Estimated Emission

Rate, lb/MMBtu

Potential Projected Emissions

(ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

Reduction Cost, $/tonof Pollutant Removed

1Spray Dryer Absorber

14,124,823 1,412 384,595 1,517,406 112 0.29 31.52 69 12,036

2Spray Dryer Absorber

14,289,262 1,021 535,943 1,681,942 25 0.31 140.25 131 2,998

3Spray Dryer Absorber

15,257,864 610 655,191 1,878,872 17 0.27 283.06 39 2,566

4Spray Dryer Absorber

23,233,710 387 1,250,723 3,114,066 10 0.37 594.24 33 1,310

1 Wet Scrubber 16,556,405 1,656 432,401 1,760,225 130 0.15 15.76 34 12,411

2 Wet Scrubber 16,749,489 1,196 549,760 1,893,069 28 0.16 70.12 66 3,000

3 Wet Scrubber 17,804,024 712 649,383 2,077,266 19 0.13 91.53 19 2,522

4 Wet Scrubber 26,506,587 442 1,167,784 3,293,612 11 0.18 297.12 17 1,232

SO2 Control Technology Summary Table

UnitTechnolog

yCapital

Costs, $

Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity

Annual O&M

Costs, $

Total Annual Costs, $

Total Unit Costs

$/MWhr

Estimated Emission

Rate, lb/MMBtu

Potential Projected Emissions

(ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

Reduction Cost, $/ton of Pollutant Removed

1 Fabric Filter 8,477,652 848 2,863 682,770 51 0.015 1.60 29 39,229

2 Fabric Filter 8,560,402 611 14,544 701,088 10 0.015 6.78 68 11,878

3 Fabric Filter 9,100,400 364 23,234 753,086 7 0.015 10.18 23 10,072

4 Fabric Filter 13,556,180 226 66,351 1,153,557 4 0.015 24.38 8 2,304

1 COHPAC 6,358,239 636 2,863 512,793 38 0.015 1.60 29 29,463

2 COHPAC 6,420,302 459 14,544 529,452 8 0.015 6.78 68 8,970

3 COHPAC 6,825,300 273 23,344 570,623 5 0.015 10.18 23 7,632

4 COHPAC 10,167,135 169 66,351 881,756 3 0.015 24.38 8 1,761

PM Control Technology Summary Table

Unit TechnologyCapital

Costs, $

Capital Cost, $/kw

Capacity

Annual O&M

Costs, $

Total Annual Costs,

$

Total Unit

Costs $/MWhr

Estimated Emission

Rate, lb/MMBtu

Projected Emissions

(ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

Reduction Cost, $/ton of Pollutant Removed Comments

1Sorbent Injection

1,763,216 176 5,834 147,599 11 * * * *

Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.

2Sorbent Injection

1,763,216 126 24,677 167,590 2 * * * *

Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.

3Sorbent Injection

1,845,966 74 37,037 187,339 2 * * * *

Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.

4Sorbent injection

2,531,307 42 88,702 297,115 1 * * * *

Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.

Mercury Control Technology Summary Table

Unit TechnologyCapital

Costs, $

Capital Cost, $/kw

Capacity

Annual O&M

Costs, $

Total Annual Costs, $

Total Unit

Costs $/MWhr

Pollutant Controlled

Estimated Emission

Rate, lb/MMBtu

Potential Projected Emissions

(ton/yr)

% of Base Case

Emissions

1, 2 3, 4

RJM Corporation “RAP” Process

26,556,194 312 1,337,395 3,998,326 9.5 NOX 0.35 951.11 117

SO2 0.91 2,368.40 98

PM10 0.015 42.94 11

Mercury

4

RJM Corporation “RAP” Process

13,722,689 162 1,198,813 2,209,415 7.1 NOX 0.25 398.80 65

SO2 0.36 594.24 80

PM10 0.015 24.38 4

Mercury

RJM Corporation “RAP” Process Emerging Technology Summary

Unit TechnologyCapitalCosts $

Capital Cost, $/kw

Capacity

Annual O&M

Costs, $

Total Annual Costs, $

Total Unit

Costs $/MWhr

Pollutant Controlled

Estimated Emission

Rate, lb/MMBtu

Potential Projected Emissions (ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

1, 2, 3, 4

Powerspan “ECO” System

52,615,336 619 1,069,916 6,341,973 12.6 NOX 0.034 184.09 23

SO2 1.24 949.07 39

PM10 0.015 42.94 11

Mercury

4 Powerspan “ECO” System

28,962,570 341 663,513 3,565,563 11.4 NOX 0.04 61.35 17

SO2 0.37 594.24 33

PM10 0.015 24.38 8

Mercury - - -

Powerspan “ECO” System – Emerging Technology Summary Table

Unit TechnologyCapital Costs,

Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity

Annual O&M Costs

Total Annual Costs

Total Unit Costs

$/MWhrPollutant

Controlled

Estimated Emission

Rate, lb/MMBtu

Potential Projected Emissions

(ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

3 & 4Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process

40,844,650 481 3,135,478 7,228,112 17 NOX 0.01 25.46 3

SO2 0.03 77.73 3

PM10 0.015 34.56 10

Mercury - - -

4Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process

31,508,730 371 2,322,297 5,479,472 17.5 NOX 0.01 12.27 3

SO2 0.04 59.42 3

PM10 0.015 24.38 8

Mercury - - -

Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process – Emerging Technology Summary Table

Unit PollutantControl

Technology

Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(1)

Projected Actual

Emissions(ton/yr)(2)

Percent of Base Case Emissions(Actual)(3)

Projected Potential

Emissions(ton/yr)(4)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

(Potential)(5)

1 NOX Low NOX

Burners/OverfireAir

31.66 28.18 89 38.02 120

2 NOX Low NOX

Burners/OverfireAir

70.11 119.21 170 160.83 229

3 NOX Low NOX

Burners/OverfireAir

338.97 171.01 50 230.73 68

4 NOX Overfire Air/Selective Non-

Catalytic Reduction

369.02 250.12 68 337.45 91

Total Plant

NOX 809.76 568.52 70 767.03 95

Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case Emissions NOX Emission Control Technology Summary Table – Option 1

Unit PollutantControl

Technology

Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(1)

Projected Actual

Emissions(ton/yr)(2)

Percent of Base Case Emissions (Actual)(3)

Projected Potential

Emissions(ton/yr(4)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

(Potential)(5)

1 NOX Low NOx Burners/

Overfire Air

31.66 28.18 89 38.02 120

2 NOX Low NOX Burners/

Overfire Air

70.11 119.21 170 160.83 229

3 NOX Low NOX Burners/

Overfire Air

338.97 171.01 50 230.73 68

4 NOX Selective Catalytic

Reduction

369.02 68.21 18 92.03 25

Total Plant

NOX 809.76 386.62 48 521.61 64

Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsNOX Emission Control Technology Summary Table – Option 2

Unit PollutantControl

Technology

Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(1)

Projected Actual

Emissions (ton/yr)(2)

Percent of Base Case Emissions (Actual)(3)

Projected Potential

Emissions (ton/yr)(4)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

(Potential)(5)

1 SO2 No Control 45.93 116.81 254 157.59 343

2 SO2 No Control 106.99 519.77 486 701.25 655

3 SO2 No Control 470.66 678.44 144 915.32 194

4 SO2 Spray Dryer Absorber

1787.05 440.45 25 594.24 33

Total Plant

SO2 2410.63 1755.47 73 2368.40 98

Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsSO2 Emission Control Technology Summary Table

Unit PollutantControl

Technology(1)

Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(2)

Projected Actual

Emissions (ton/yr)(3)

Percent of Base Case Emissions (Actual)(4)

Projected Potential

Emissions (ton/yr)(5)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

(Potential)(6)

1 PM10 ESP 5.54 14.09 254 19.01 343

2 PM10 ESP 10.04 48.78 486 65.81 655

3 PM10 ESP 43.68 62.96 144 84.95 194

4 PM10 Fabric Filter 315.79 18.07 6 24.38 8

Total Plant

PM10 375.05 143.90 38 194.14 52

Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsPM10 Emission Control Technology Summary Table

UnitPollutant/

Technology Capital Costs, $Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity

Annual O&M Costs, $

Total Annual Costs, $

Total Unit Costs $/MWhr

Reduction Cost, $/ton of

Pollutant Removed

NOX

1,2 & 3 Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air

1,059,839 22 -- 84,998 0.44 106

4 Overfire Air/SNCR 1,364,137 23 351,662 488,349 1.56 1,769

SO2

1,2 &3 No new control -- -- -- -- -- --

4 Spray Dryer Absorber w/ Fabric Filter

23,233,710 387 1,250,723 3,114,066 10 1310

PM10

1,2&3 Existing ESP –No new control

-- -- -- -- -- --

4 Fabric Filter (included with SO2 control above)

(included with SO2 control above)

(included with SO2 control above)

(included with SO2 control above)

(included with SO2 control above)

(included with SO2 control above)

See Table 11-3

Mercury

1,2&3 No new control -- -- -- -- -- --

4 Control assumed with SO2 above

(included with SO2 control above)

(included with SO2 control above)

(included with SO2

control above)(included with SO2

control above)(included with SO2

control above)--

Total Costs 25,657,686 235 1,602,385 3,687,413 7.31 --

Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case Emissions Summary Cost Table – Option 1

TechnologyControlled

Units Capital Cost, $ Total Annual Cost, $

RJM “RAP” Process Unit 4 15,062,528 2,294,413

Powerspan “ECO” System Unit 4 28,962,570 3,565,563

Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process

Unit 4 31,508,730 5,479,472

Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsEmerging Control Technology Cost Summary Table

Unit Pollutant State-of-the-Art Technology

Base Case Emissions

(ton/yr)Projected Actual

Emissions (ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

Projected Potential

Emissions (ton/yr)

Percent of Base Case Emissions

1 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 31.66 12.08 38 16.29 51

2 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 70.11 51.09 73 68.93 98

3 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 338.97 73.29 22 98.88 29

4 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 369.02 68.21 18 92.03 25

1 SO2 Wet Scrubber 45.93 11.68 25 15.76 34

2 SO2 Wet Scrubber 106.99 51.98 49 70.12 66

3 SO2 Wet Scrubber 470.66 67.84 14 91.53 19

4 SO2 Wet Scrubber 1787.05 220.23 12 297.12 17

1 PM10 Fabric Filter 5.54 1.19 21 1.60 29

2 PM10 Fabric Filter 10.04 5.03 50 6.78 68

3 PM10 Fabric Filter 43.68 7.54 17 10.18 23

4 PM10 Fabric Filter 315.79 18.07 6 24.38 8

State-of-the-Art Emission Control Technology Summary Table

Case 2 - State-of-the-Art Emission Control, Summary Cost Table

UnitPollutan

tState-of-the-Art

TechnologyCapitalCosts, $

Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity

Annual O&M Costs, $

Total Annual Costs, $

Total Unit

Costs $/MWhr

Reduction Cost, $/ton of

Pollutant Removed

1 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 7,402,960 740 69,848 663,566 49 7,187

2 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 8,023,587 573 169,437 812,928 12 2,081

3 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 9,045,233 362 228,852 954,280 9 1,703

4 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 13,095,750 218 431,284 1,481,563 5 2,841

 

1 SO2 Wet Scrubber 16,556,405 1,656 432,400 1,760,225 130 12,411

2 SO2 Wet Scrubber 16,749,489 1,196 549,760 1,893,069 28 3,000

3 SO2 Wet Scrubber 17,804,024 712 649,383 2,077,266 19 2,522

4 SO2 Wet Scrubber 26,506,587 442 1,167,784 3,293,612 11 1,232

 

1 PM10 Fabric Filter 8,477,652 636 2,863 682,770 51 39,229

2 PM10 Fabric Filter 8,560,402 459 14,544 701,088 10 11,878

3 PM10 Fabric Filter 9,100,400 273 23,234 753,086 7 10,072

4 PM10 Fabric Filter 13,556,180 169 66,351 1,153,557 4 2,304

 

1 Mercury Sorbent Injection 1,763,216 176 5,834 147,599 11 --

2 Mercury Sorbent Injection 1,763,216 126 24,677 167,590 2 --

3 Mercury Sorbent Injection 1,845,966 74 37,037 187,339 2 --

4 Mercury Sorbent Injection 2,531,307 42 88,702 297,115 1 --

Total 162,782,374 1,493 3,961,990 17,026,653 33.77

Regulation Timeline

Silver Lake Power Plant Emission ControlsReview Phase II

Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05

Federal Clean Air Act Congressional Action

SLP Emission Controls Feasibility Study & Business Case Analysis

Silver Lake Power Plant Conceptual Site Feasability Review

Industrial Boiler MACT Finalized

Utility MACT Finalized

Silver Lake Power Plant Emission Testing for Mercury, HAP & Particulate Matter

Power Supply Study

Long-Range Core Business Plan Developed

Fuel Supply Options Study

Operate Under the Terms & Conditions of Major Amendments to Air Emission Permit No. 10900011-003 , i.e. Reduced Annual Coal Burn, Lower Sulfur Content, Mercury Control Through Purchase, etc.

Integrated Resource Plan