bact issues – a technical perspective

© 2004 Zephyr Environmental Corporation

BACT Issues – A Technical BACT Issues – A Technical PerspectivePerspective

Presented to:American Public Power Association

APPA New Generation Meeting: Anticipating New Permitting Issues,

IGCC Technology Options, Atmospheric Modeling, and Anticipating the Public’s Reaction

Presented by:

Jennifer Sharp Seinfeld, P.E.

PrincipalZephyr Environmental Corporation

June 28, 2006


•References for developing BACT analysis

• Overall BACT considerations

•Pollutant-specific issues/precedents for PC boilers

•Mercury

Outline of PresentationOutline of PresentationOutline of PresentationOutline of Presentation


Finding InformationFinding InformationFinding InformationFinding 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!


• RBLC Clearinghousehttp://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/cfm/basicsearch.cfm

• 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) ( 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/projects/power_sector/new_coal_plant_opposition/permits.php)

• Networking• Summaries contained in recently submitted permit

applications

Identifying Relevant ProjectsIdentifying Relevant ProjectsIdentifying Relevant ProjectsIdentifying Relevant Projects


• 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

References for Emission Limits References for Emission Limits and BACT Discussionsand BACT Discussions

References for Emission Limits References for Emission Limits and BACT Discussionsand BACT Discussions


•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 ConsiderationsImportant BACT ConsiderationsImportant BACT ConsiderationsImportant BACT Considerations


•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 Tuning” Periods/Feasibility StudiesStudies

““Tuning” Periods/Feasibility Tuning” Periods/Feasibility StudiesStudies


Planned PC Boiler InstallationsPlanned PC Boiler InstallationsPlanned PC Boiler InstallationsPlanned PC Boiler InstallationsPlant/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 units;N. 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; ligniteApplication submitted 1/05; contested hearing

ended 6/06

CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX 750 MW, PRB coalNetted out of Fed PSD for NOx and SO2Permit issued 12/05; construction started!

Great Plains Energy, Kansas City P&L, 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 coalPermit 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


Planned PC Boiler InstallationsPlanned PC Boiler Installations(continued)(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 2/06

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, AR 800 MW, PRB coal

Permit issued 8/03Construction began 4/06; commercial

operation targeted for '10





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 G&E, 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, NM300 MW, Clean Coal Initiative

grant from DOE10/04 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





Unisource Energy Tucson Electric, AZ 2 400 MW unitsPermit issued 4/02; (netted out of PSD for SO2)

under construction; hopes to be online late '06

Black Hills Wygen 2, WY 500 MW, subbituminousPermit issued 9/02

Construction 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, GA2 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


SOSO22 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission RatesSOSO22 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit and Type of

ScrubberComments


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 coal0.10 (12 month rolling)

dry scrubberProposed limit in

application

Sandy Creek Energy Station, TX

PRB and other coal0.10 (12 month rolling)

0.12 (30 day rolling)dry scrubber

TXU, Oak Grove (#1, #2), TX

Lignite0.192 (30 day rolling)

wet scrubber

CPS of San Antonio, JK Spruce, TX

PRB coal0.10 (30 day rolling)

0.06 (12-month rolling)wet scrubber

Great Plains Energy, Kansas City P&L, Iatan (#2), MO

Subbituminous coal0.09 (30-day rolling)

wet scrubber

City Utilities of Springfield Southwest, MO

Subbituminous0.095 (30-day rolling)

dry scrubber

Originally limit was 0.12, but was changed to 0.095 during

BACT and visibility

negotiations.


SOSO22 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

(continued)(continued)SOSO22 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

(continued)(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 coal0.10 ( 30 day)wet or dry scrubber

Permit provides for evaluating both

wet and dry scrubbing systems

Xcel Energy Comanche Station (#3), CO

Subbituminous coal0.10 (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%,

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 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 coal0.095 (30-day)

dry scrubber





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 coal0.12 (30-day), 1.1 (3-hr rolling)

dry scrubber

Wisconsin Public Service, Weston Plant, WI

PRB coal0.10 (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 coal0.09 (30-day)

wet scrubber

Plum Point Energy, AR

PRB coal 0.16 dry scrubber

MidAmerican Energy (#4),Council Bluffs, IA

PRB coal0.10 (30 day rolling)

dry scrubberDoes not include SSM

emissions

Bull Mountain Roundup, MT

Subbituminous0.12

dry scrubber




(continued)(continued)


ScrubberComments

Thoroughbred, KY Bituminous0.167

wet scrubber, wet ESPBACT being re-

evaluated

Wisconsin Energy Elm Road, WI (Oak Creek)

Bituminous0.15 dry scrubber

Santee Cooper (#3 & 4), SC

Bituminous0.13 (annual average)

wet scrubberPSD avoidance limits

Black Hills Wygen 2, WY

Subbituminous0.10 (30-day)

dry scrubber

Sand Sage Power, KS Subbituminous0.12 (30-day)

dry scrubber

Longleaf Energy Associates, GA

PRB, subbituminous or central Appalachian bituminous

0.12 (30-day)dry scrubber


0.15 wet scrubber


SOSO22 BACT Issues BACT IssuesSOSO22 BACT Issues 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


SOSO22 BACT Issues – Wet vs. BACT Issues – Wet vs.

Dry Scrubber Dry Scrubber SOSO22 BACT Issues – Wet vs. BACT Issues – Wet vs.

Dry Scrubber 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


BACT Arguments for Dry BACT Arguments for Dry ScrubbersScrubbers

BACT Arguments for Dry BACT Arguments for Dry ScrubbersScrubbers

• 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 (?)


Limits for Dry ScrubbersLimits for Dry ScrubbersLimits for Dry ScrubbersLimits 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 >0.45%; 0.065 lb/MMBtu, if fuel S content <0.45% S


NONOxx PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission RatesNONOxx PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission RatesPlant/Location Fuel Emission Limit Comments



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 P&L, 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)


Big Cajun 2 (#4), LA PRB coal 0.07 (12 month)


NONOxx PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

(continued)(continued)NONOxx PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

(continued)(continued)Plant/Location Fuel Emission Limit Comments


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)


NONOxx PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

(continued)(continued)NONOxx PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

(continued)(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 G&E, 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


PRB subbituminous or Central Appalachian bituminous

0.07 (30-day)


0.1allows for 24-month

tuning period


NONOxx BACT Issues BACT IssuesNONOxx BACT Issues 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


PM/PMPM/PM1010 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission RatesPM/PMPM/PM1010 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates


Controls Comments



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 + condensible

baghouse

Sandy Creek Energy Station PRB and other coal


baghouse

TXU Oak Grove (#1, #2), TX Lignite


baghouse

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 P&L, 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


PM/PMPM/PM1010 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates

(continued)(continued)PM/PMPM/PM1010 PC BACT Emission Rates PC BACT Emission Rates


Emission Limit and Type of Controls Comments

Rocky Mount Power, Hardin Generating Station, MT

PRB

0.015 (filterable) during optimization period

0.012 (filterable) post optimization0.024 (filterable and condensible)

fabric filter


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


Subbituminous coal

0.013 (filterable PM)0.012 filterable PM10

0.022 total PM0.020 total PM10

baghouse

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/PM10

0.035 total PM10

ESP, 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/PM10

fabric filter

Longview Power, WV Bituminous

0.018 6 hr rolling (PM)0.018 6 hr rolling (PM10, including

filterable and condensible)wet scrubber






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 PM10

0.013 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






Controls Comments

Thoroughbred, KY Bituminous0.018 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


PRB, subbituminous or Central Appalachian bituminous

0.033fabric filter


0.02 (3-hr block)ESP


PM BACT IssuesPM BACT IssuesPM BACT IssuesPM 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)


PM BACT Issues PM BACT Issues PM BACT Issues 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


PM BACT IssuesPM BACT IssuesPM BACT IssuesPM 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


CO/VOC BACTCO/VOC BACTCO/VOC BACTCO/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


MercuryMercuryMercuryMercury

• 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


MercuryMercuryMercuryMercury

• Some states have more stringent requirements and/or not opt-in to national trading program

• Level of detail for application?


SummarySummarySummarySummary• 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


Contact InformationContact Information Contact InformationContact Information

Jennifer Sharp Seinfeld, P.E.Zephyr Environmental Corporation

10420 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 320

Columbia, Maryland 21044

410-312-7915

[email protected]

visit us at www.ZephyrEnv.com

And www.HazMatAcademy

bact issues – a technical perspective

Documents