## of**James E.** **McGreevey Department** **of Environmental** **Protection Bradley** **M. Campbe** **Governor Commissioner** **MEMO TO:** **William O'Sullivan,** **Director Division** **of Air** **Quality**

# THROUGH:**Iclal Atay,** **Acting Assistant** **DirectorA^^ j^J^~J^-p><\** **Air Quality** **Permitting Element** **FROM: Serpil** **Guran, Rule** **Manager^, f^-** 

## Air**Quality Management** **•*******° DATE:** **May 8,** **2003 SUBJECT:** **Analysis for** **Coal Burning** **Boilers Mercury** **Emissions Levels** **and Control** **Options. (N.J.A.C.** **7:27-27. 8)** **A. Introduction** **The December** **17, 2002** **Mercury Rulemaking** **Launch Memo** **states that** **it will** **be useful** **for New** **Jersey to** **propose mercury** **emissions limits** **for coal** **burning boilers** **prior to** **the USEPA** **and in** 

### conjunction**with efforts** **by other** **states in** **the northeast.** **The USEPA** **rule is** **expected to** **be proposed** **in December,** **2003.**

### This**memo is** **prepared by** **the coal** **burning boilers** **subgroup of** **mercury rulemaking** **team to** **determine the** **mercury standard** **to be** **proposed for** **coal burning** **boilers, to** **analyze the** **impact of** **the proposed** **standard on** **the affected** **facilities, and** **the compliance** **options of** **these sources.** **For each** **of the** **different compliance** **options a cost** **analysis is** **also included,** **to outline** **the cost** **of compliance** **with the** **proposed standard.** **This is** **followed by** **the recommendations** **of the** **coal burning** **boilers subgroup.** **New Jersey** **is an** **Equal Opportunity** **Employer Recycled** **Paper B.** **Mercury Standard** **Based on** **the information** **available to** **date to** **the Utility** **MACT Working** **Group, the** **Mercury**

### Study**Report to** **Congress, and** **the pilot** **tests conducted** **at coal** **burning boilers** **for control** **of mercury** **emissions, the** **mercury standard** **should be** **mg/ MW-hr** **or 90** **percent control** 

### efficiency,**both annual** **average. Compliance** **with this** **standard should** **be determined** **by conducting** **at least** **three tests** **per quarter,** **each quarter** **in calendar** **year, and** **then averaging** **all test** **results.**

### The**Basis of** **this recommended** **standard is** **explained in** **Attachment I.** **As can** **be seen** **from the** **statistical analysis** **of the** **data, the** **recommended standard** **provide sufficient** **margin of** **safety for** **compliance purposes** **to New** **Jersey facilities.** **C. Impact** **of the** **Standard On** **Affected Coal** **Burning Boilers** 

### There**are seven** **facilities, between** **four companies,** **with total** **often coal** **burning boilers** **that will** **be affected** **with this** **standard. They** **are listed** **in Table** **of the** **Attachment II.** **i. US.** **Generating Co.** **Carney's Point** **and Logan** **boilers are** **equipped with** **SCRs, dry** **scrubbers and** **baghouses. Their** **current mercury** **emissions are** **less than** **10 mg/MW-hr.** **These**

### units**would meet** **the recommended** **standard with** **powdered activated** **carbon (PAC)** **injection. ii.** **PSEG PSEG** **Boilers are** **currently equipped** **with selective** **non- catalytic** **reduction (SNCR)** **and electro-static** **precipitators (ESP).** **There is** **also Consent** **Decree that** **requires the** **installation of** **Selective Catalytic** **Reduction (SCR)** **and Flue-Gas** **Desulfurization (FGD)** **as follows.** **Mercer SCR** **by May** **1,2004 FGD** **by December** **31,2010. Mercer** **SCR by** **May 1,2005** **FGD by** **December 31,** **2012 Hudson** **SCR by** **May 1,2007** **FGD by** **December 31,2006** **Polishing Baghouse** **by December** **31,2006 Mercer** **and Mercer** **2 mercury emissions** **are less** **than 20** **mg/MW-hr. These** **units could** **comply with** **very high** **carbon injection** **rates, or preferably** **by installing** **polishing baghouse** **following the** **existing ESP.** **If the** **polishing baghouse** **option is** **selected, activated** **carbon would** **be injected** **following the** **ESP. Therefore,** **the impact** **on the** **fly-ash quality** **would be** **minimal Most** **of the** **fly-ash would** **be collected** **in the** **ESP, and** **would be** **salable. The** **amount of** **fly ash** **that would** **need to** **be landfilled** **would be** **minimized and** **the amount** **of activated** **carbon used** **would be** **less. Hudson** **mercury emissions** **are less** **than 10** **mg/ MW-hr. Hudson** **would comply** **by injecting** **powdered activated** **carbon following** **the existing** **ESP, prior** **to the** **polishing baghouse.** **Fly-ash related** **discussions are** **the same** **as Mercer** **and above.** **iii. Conectiv** **Atlantic Electric** **B.L. England** **Unit is** **equipped with** **Selective Non-Catalytic** **Reduction (SNCR)/ESP.** **The mercury** **emissions from** **this boiler** **are around** **60- 80** **mg/MW-hr. This** **boiler has** **pending low-sulfur** **coal authorization** **and Prevention** **of Significant** **Deterioration (PSD)** **non-compliance issues.** **To resolve** **these issues** **Conectiv may** **decide to** **either install** **scrubber on** **this boiler** **or permanently** **shut it** **down. If** **scrubber is** **installed, compliance** **with the** **mercury standard** **could be** **achieved with** **chemical additive** **into the** **scrubbing solution** **such as** **sodium hypochlorite.** **Atlantic Electric** **B.L. England** **Unit is** **equipped with** **SNCR, scrubber** **and ESP.** **The mercury** **emissions are** **around 27-32** **mg/MW-hr. It** **appears that** **there is** **some reduction** **of mercury** **emissions by** **the scrubber,** **because the** **boilers burn** **the same** **coal. Unit** **boiler could** **achieve compliance** **with the** **proposed standard** **with a chemical** **additive into** **the scrubbing** **solution such** **as sodium** **hypochlorite.**

### Alternately,**Conectiv may** **install polishing** **baghouse following** **the ESP** **on both** **Atlantic Electric** **B.L. England** **Unit and** **2. Atlantic** **Electric Deepwater** **Boiler is** **equipped with** **baghouse and** **currently the** **mercury emissions** **are less** **than 10** **mg/MW-hr, similar** **to US** **Generating Company's** **boilers. Therefore,** **this boiler** **could achieve** **compliance with** **powdered activated** **carbon (PAC)** **injection. iv.** **City of** **Vineland Boiler** **10 is** **currently equipped** **with an** **ESP. City** **of Vineland's** **current mercury** 

### emissions**are less** **than 15** **mg/MW-hr. City** **of Vineland** **could either** **inject PAC** **into existing** **ESP, or** **alternately install** **polishing baghouse** **and inject** **PAC following** **the ESP.** **D. Cost** **of Compliance** **With the** **Proposed Standard** **1. Compliance** **with PAC** **injection to** **existing air** **pollution controls:** **i. ESP** **system with** **high PAC** **injection rate** 

### Facilities**with existing** **ESP, could** **retrofit their** **systems by** **installing the** **activated carbon** **injection (PAC)** **system. Currently,** **in New** **Jersey none** 

### of**the facilities** **have PAC** **storage and** **injection system** **installed and** **installation of** **storage and** **injection of** **PAC would** **cost 3,000/MW.** **For 250** **MW plant,** **the carbon** **storage and** **injection equipment** **would cost** 

## approximately**750,000.*****In addition** **to PAC** **installation cost,** **the PAC** **usage would** **cost to** **facilities around** **$0.50/lb. Facilities,** **such as** **PSEG Mercer** **#1, #2** **Conectiv Atlantic** **Electric/BL England** **#1,#2 and** **City of** **Vineland Boiler** **#2 may** **need to** **inject high** **amounts of PAC** **to achieve** **mg/MW-hr or** **90 percent** **control efficiency** **(annual average).** **However PSEG** **Hudson #2** **would**

### inject**lower amounts** **of PAC** **to achieve** **the requirements** **because it** **will have** **polishing baghouse** **as required** **by the** **consent decree.** **Facilities may** **also experience** **revenue loss** **if they** **inject high** **amounts of** **PAC into** **ESP since** **this would** **create carbon-contaminated** **fly-ash which** **is non-salable** **to cement** **industry. Currently,** **fly-ash price** **from coal** 

### burning**boilers is** **approximately $30/ton.2** **If facility** **can not** **sell its** **carbon contaminated** **fly- ash,** **it would** **need to** **dispose it** **with the** **cost of** 

### $10**/ton. If** **there is** **no available** **landfill this** **cost may** **increase to** 

## $15/ton.3**The revenue** **loss to** **facility with** **400 MW** **coal burning** **boiler, burning** **eastern bituminous** **coal with** **six percent** **ash (85** **percent of** 

### this**ash is** **fly-ash) which** **generates 35,700** **tons fly-ash** **per year4,** **would be** **$1,428,000 including** **disposal costs.** **The revenue** **loss to** **PSEG Hudson** **#2 would** **be none,** **because PAC** **would be** **injected after** **the ESP,** **prior to** **the polishing** **baghouse. However,** **there would** **be the** **disposal cost** **of fly** 

### ash**and PAC** **collected in** **the baghouse.** **The cost** **of fly-ash** **is assumed** **as**

## $30/ton**and disposal** **is assumed** **as 10/ton.5** **The cost** **estimates are** **summarized in** **Attachment II,** **Table 3.** **ii. Baghouse** **system with low** **PAC injection** **rate In** **New Jersey,** **US Generating** **(Carney's point)** **#1, #2** **and Logan** **#1 and** 

### Conectiv**Atlantic Electric** **Deepwater Boiler** **#8 are** **currently employing** **baghouses. PSEG** **Hudson #2** **is required** **by the** **consent decree** **to install** **polishing baghouse** **by 2006.** **These facilities** **would need** **to retrofit** **with PAC** **injection system** **to achieve** **mg/MW-hr or** **90 percent** **control efficiency** **(annual average).** **The cost** **of installation** **of PAC** **storage and** **injection cost** **would be** **similar to** **the cost** **mentioned in** **paragraph (i).** 

### PSEG**Hudson #2** **would only** **contaminate approximately** **five percent** **of**

### its**fly-ash with** **PAC since the** **amount of** **fly-ash collected** **by the** **ESP and** **eventually sold** **would not** **be impacted,** **there would** **be no** **revenue loss** **for Hudson** **#2. However,** **there would** **be the** **disposal cost** **of the** **amount of** 

### fly-ash**and PAC** **collected in** **the polishing** **baghouse. US** **Gen. Boilers** **fly-ash, and** **Deepwater #8** **fly-ash would** **be totally** **contaminated with** 

### PAC.**The revenue** **loss issue** **would be** **similar to** **paragraph (i)** **above. The** **cost estimates** **for these** **facilities are** **summarized in** **Attachment II,** **Table 4.** 

### Table**shows cost** **estimates of** **retrofitting the** **existing baghouses** **with**

### polishing**baghouses. This** **would allow** **injection of** **PAC after** **primary baghouse** **therefore the** **fly-ash would** **not be** **contaminated. There** **would**

### be**no revenue** **loss due** **non-salable fly-ash,** **and the** **disposal costs** **would be** **much lower.** **The overall** **cost of** **this option** **is lower.** 

### 2.**Compliance achievement** **with retrofitting** **the existing** **ESP by** **installing polishing** **baghouse following** **an ESP** **system:**

### Facilities**with existing** **ESP, may** **retrofit the** **system by** **installing polishing** 

### baghouse.**The cost** **of polishing** **baghouse would** **be approximately** **$24,000/14^ including** **installation. This** **estimate does** **not include** **additional fan** **and electrical** **wiring. However,** **the polishing** **baghouse system** **allows PAC** **injection after** **the ESP** **and this** **eliminates revenue** **loss resulting** **from PAC** **contaminated, non** **salable fly-ash** **generation and** **large amounts** **of fly-ash** **disposal cost.** **Retrofitting**

### existing**ESP with** **polishing baghouse** **results in** **lesser amount** **of PAC** **usage cost** **compared to that** **with ESP.** **The cost** **estimates of** **retrofitting existing** **ESP with** 

### polishing**baghouse for** **the facilities** **with an** **ESP are** **summarized in** **Attachment II,** **Table 6.** **3. Units** **with wet** **scrubbers may** **achieve compliance** **with Sodium** **hypochlorite additive** **in the** **scrubbing solution:** 

### Facilities**with existing** **wet scrubbers,** **may utilize** **then*****system to** **reduce mercury** **emissions. They** **may add** **chemical additives** **into the** **scrubbing solution** **such as** **sodium hypochlorite.** **If facility** **does not** **have an** **existing scrubber,** **the capital** **cost would** **be approximately** **$14 per** **standard cubic** **meter of** **flue gas** **flow rate** **per hour.** **The operating** **costs would** **be approximately** **$1.4 per** **standard cubic** 

### meter**of flue** **gas flow** **rate per** **hour. This** **cost does** **not include** **salaries.7 The** **cost estimates** **are summarized** **in Attachment** **II, Table** **7. G.** **Recommendations The** **technical and** **the cost** **analysis indicates** **retrofitting the** **coal fired** **boilers with** **ESP's or** **baghouses with** **polishing baghouses** **would be** **the best** **option. Therefore,** **the subgroup** **is recommending** **the following** **standard. mg/MW-hr** **or 90** **percent control** **efficiency, annual** **average. Compliance** **to be** **determined by** **conducting at** **least three** **tests per** **quarter, each** **quarter in** **calendar year,** **and by** **averaging all** **tests performed** **during the** **calendar year.** **Standard to** **be in** **effect beginning** **calendar year** **2008. The** **affected units** **should begin** **testing the** **first quarter** **of 2008.** **The estimated** **mercury emissions** **reduction as** **result of** **implementing the** **above**

### recommendation**would be** **422 pounds** **per year** **(see Attachment** **II, Table** **2). C:** **Alyssa Wolfe,** **DAG Janis** **Hoagland, OLA** **Michael Aucott** **Leo Korn** **Sunila Agrawal** **Hironmoy Sikdar** **Deirdre Garrity** **ATTACHMENT Basis** **of mercury** **emissions level** **for coal** **combustion Data** **obtained from** **the USEPA** **were used** **to determine** **that the** **proposed mercury** **emissions level** **could be** **as low** **as 0.25** **pounds per** **trillion Btu** **heat input,** **which corresponds** **to 1.3** **mg per** **MW-hr. The** **USEPA data** **was developed** **through the** **program associated** **with Electric** **Utility Steam** **Generating Units** **Section 112** **Rule Making.** **As part** **of this** **program, the** **USEPA required** **electric utilities** **to analyze** **mercury content** **of combusted** **coal. It** **also required** **subset of** **these**

### utilities**to perform** **stack tests** **to provide** **speciated mercury** **emissions data.** **The speciated** **mercury emissions** **data were** **downloaded on** **9/11/02 from** **the web** **site www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.htmL** **These data** **include number** **of factors** **relevant to** **coal combustion, such** **as chlorine** **content, coal** **type, and** **other factors** **including both** **inlet and** **outlet concentrations** **in units** **of ng/dscm** **of particle-bound** **mercury, oxidized** **mercury, and** **elemental mercury** **for 79** **coal-burning units.** **Outlet concentrations** **that were** **below the** **detection limit** **were adjusted** **according to** **convention established** **with the** **cooperation of** **the USEPA** **by assuming** **these non-detect** **values were** **one-half the** **detection limit.** **Then, the** **total outlet** **concentrations (the** **sum of** **the corrected** **particle-bound mercury,** **oxidized mercury,** **and elemental** **mercury values)** **were expressed** **in terms** **of pounds per** **trillion Btu** **heat input** **using an** **"F-factor" calculation** **approved by** **the USEPA.** **This calculation** **multiplies the** **[ig/dscm value** **by (0.0283168/453.65)** **9840 (20.9/20.9-A),** **where is** **the oxygen** **value for** **each outlet** **value.**

### Then,**also in** **accordance with** **procedures used** **by the** **USEPA and** **established by** **the Clean** **Air Act** **Section 112,** **an analysis** **was carried** **out of** **the best** **performing 12%** **or five** **units, whichever** **is greater,** **of the** **relevant units.** **Only those** **units burning** **bituminous coal** **were chosen** **in this** **case, reflecting** **the fuel** **burned in** **New Jersey.** **Since there** **are 27** **units burning** **bituminous coal** **the best-performing** **five (5)** **units were** **selected. The** **mean of** **the total** **mercury emission** **in pounds** **per trillion** **Btu for** **these units** **was determined** **with the** **permutation distribution** **method.. With** **the permutation** **method, since** **each unit** **has**

### three**measurements, sample** **from this** **distribution could** **be obtained** **by taking** **one of** **the**

## samples**from each** **of the** **27 units** **considered. This** **could be done** **in 327** **different ways.** **This number** **is too** **large to** **do all** **of them,** **but sufficiently** **large number** **of samples,** **5000, was** **randomly selected.** **For each** **of the** **obtained sets** **of 27** **samples, the** **best-performing five** **were used** **to calculate** **the mean.** **The mean** **emission determined** **in this** **way is** **0.125 pounds** **mercury per** **trillion Btu,** **with 95%** **confidence interval** **of 0.108** **to 0.184** **pounds mercury** **per trillion** **Btu. more** **conventional statistical** **method could** **have been** **used, which** **requires the** **assumption of** **normality for** **estimation of** **confidence intervals.** **This method** **is based** **on some** **known properties** 

### of**the mean** **of several** **random independent** **variables. Specifically,** **given the** **mean and** **variance**

### of**independent random** **variables, Xj,** **X2, Xn9** **the variance** **of the** **mean of** **these random** 

## variables**is [Var(Xi)** **Var(X2) Var** **(X^ln2. Each** **of them's** **are taken** **to be** **the mean** **of three** **within-unit mercury** **output measurements.** **The variance** **of the** **mean of** **each unit** **is estimated** **as the** **squared sample** **standard error** **of the** **three within** **unit measurements.** **The lowest** **average outputs** **are selected,** **i.e. 5.** **With this** **method, the** **mean is** **calculated as** **0.165 pounds** **mercury per** **trillion Btu,** **with 95%** **confidence interval** **of 0.123** **to 0.207** **pounds per** **trillion Btu.** 

### Then,**in order** **to accommodate** **the variability** **likely within** **stack tests,** **the method** **described in** **an October,** **2002 memo** **from Roy** **Oommen, Eastern** **Research Group,** **to Jim** **Eddinger, USEPA** **OAQPS, (MACT** **Floor Analysis** **for the** **Industrial, Commercial,** **and Institutional** **Boilers and** **Process Heaters** **National Emission** **Standards for** **Hazardous Air** **Pollutants) was** **used. With** **this method,** **the ratio** **of high** **and low** **of the** **multiple stack** **tests (in** **this case** **normally three** **runs per** **unit) was** **determined, and** **then the** **mean ratio** **for the** **group of** **units under** **consideration was** 

### calculated.**To accommodate** **broad range** **of possible** **interpretations, mean** **was taken** **in this** **way from** **both the** **best-performing five** **bituminous coal** **burners and** **from all** **the bituminous** **burners. The** **mean ratio** **of the** **top five** **is 2.0.** **The mean** **ratio of** **all the** **bituminous coal** **burners**

### is**1.7. Multiplying** **the higher** **of these** **values by** **the mean** **emissions as indicated** **above yields** **0.125 or** **0.25 pounds** **per million** **Btu as** **the limit.** **This is** **equivalent to** **an emission** **limit of** **1.3mg/MW-hr.**

### (As**noted above,** **mean of** **0.165 pounds** **mercury per** **trillion Btu** **can also** **be arrived** **at with** 

### less**sophisticated statistical** **method. If** **this value** **is chosen,** **0.165 would** **be multiplied** **by 2.0,** **as above.** **This translates** **to 0.33** **lbs. per** **trillion Btu,** **or 1.7** **mg/MW-hr.) ATTACHMENT** **II Table** **1: New** **Jersey Coal** **Burning Boilers** **Facility Name** **PSEG Mercer** **#1 PSEG** **Mercer #2** **PSEG Hudson** **#2 City** **of Vineland** **Boiler #10** **US Generating** **(Carney's Point)** **Boiler #1** **US Generating** **(Carney's Point)** **Boiler U.S.** **Generating (Logan)** **Boiler #1** **Atlantic Electric** **BL England-1** **Concctiv Atlantic** **Electric BLEngland-2** **Conectiv**

### II**Atlantic Electric** **|| Deep** **water Boiler** **#8 II** **Conectiv Boiler** **Type Nominal** **Size inMW** **Wall/Wet PC** **300 Wall/Wet** **PC 300** **Wall/Dry PC** **640 Wall/Dry** **PC 23** **Wall/Dry PC** **112 Wall/Dry** **PC 112** **Wall/Dry PC** **200 Cyclone/Wet** **135 Cyclone/Wet** **160 Face** **Fired/Dry 82** **APC ESP/SNCR/** **AEFLG ESP/SNCR/** **AEFLG ESP** **ESP SCR/Scrubber/** **Baghouse SCR/Scrubber/** **Baghouse SCR/Scrubber/** **Baghouse SNCR/ESP** **SNCR/Scrubber/ ESP** **BH Stack** **Test Date** **10/94 10/95** **09/98 10/94** **10/95 08/98** **07/01 7/95** **3/02 2/94** **2/94 11/94** **9/95 2/97** **9/95 6/97** **5/94 MW** **at the** **time of** **stack test** **326 330** **327 331** **330 325** **327 620** **25.25 122** **115 211** **129 125** **156 165** **77.2 Hg** **Emissions Ib/MW-hr** **0.00003 0.00004** **0.00003 0.00002** **0.00004 0.000007** **0.000007 0.00002** **0.00003 0.00002** **0.00002 0.00001** **0.00014 0.00017** **0.00007 0.00006** **0.00002 Hg** **Emissions mg/MW-hr** **13.61 18.14** **13.61 9.07** **18.14 3.17** **3.17 9.07** **1336 9.07** **9.07 4.54** **633 77.11** **31.75 27.22** **9.072 10** **ATTACHMENT II** **Table 2:** **New Jersey** **Coal Burning** **Boilers Actual** **Mercury Emissions** **Facility Name** **PSEG Mercer** **#1 PSEG** **Mercer #2** **PSEG Hudson** **#2 CityofVineland** **Boiler #10** **US Generating** **(Carney's Point)** **Boiler #1** **US Generating** **(Carney's Point)** **Boiler HI** **VS. Generating** **(Logan) Boiler** **#1 Atlantic** **Electric BL** **England-1 Conectiv** **Atlantic Electric** **BL England-2** **Conectiv Atlantic** **Electric Deepwater** **Boiler #8** **Conectiv Total** **Capacity (MW)** **300 300** **640 23** **112 112** **200 135** **160 82** **Hourly Hg** **Emissions (Ib/hr)** **0.0087 0.0023** **0.012 0.0019** **0.0055 0.001** **0.002 0.014** **0.0048 0.00133** **Annual Hg** **Emissions (Ib/yr)** **76.21 20.15** **105.12 16.64** **48.18 8.76** **17.52 122.64** **42.05 11.65** **469 Projected** **90 Hg** **reduction (Ib/yr)** **68.59 18.14** **94.61 14.98** **43.36 7.8** **15.77 110.38** **37.85 10.49** **422 Most** **recent stack** **test data** **11 ATTACHMENT** **II Table** **3: Cost** **Retrofitting Existing** **ESP with** **PAC Injection** **PSEG Mercer** **#1 300** **68.59 4,441,320** **900,000 45,000** **829,829 276,610** **81,539 18,643** **3.27 PSEG** **Mercer #2** **300 18.14** **4,441,320 900,000** **45,000 740,685** **246,895 301,759** **18,246 3.20** **City of Vineland** **Boiler #10** **23 14.98** **453,015 69,000** **3,450 32,132** **10,711 33,332** **21,709 3.81** **Atlantic Electric** **BL England** **Conectiv 135** **110.38 1,605,708** **405,000 20,250** **343,237 114,412** **18,877 15,434** **2.71 Atlantic** **Electric BL** **England Conectiv** **160 37.85** **1,605,708 480,000** **24,000 423,163** **141,054 57,964** **13,712 2.41** **Basis: -Fly-Ash** **price: $30/ton** 

### -Fly-Ash**disposal cost:** **$10/ton**

## -PAC**Injection Rate:** **201b/Macfm -Generator** **Capacity Factor:** **65**

### -Cost**of PAC** **injection: $l,000/ton** 

## -Cost**of PAC** **installation: $3,000/MW** **12 ATTACHMENT** **II Table** **4: Cost** **Estimates of** **Baghouse System** **with Activated** **Carbon US** **Gen Carney's** **Point #1** **112 4336** **336,000 16,800** **236,284 518,880** **172,960 21,793** **8,437 1.48** **US Gen** **Carney's Point** **U2 112** **7.80 336,000** **16,800 236,284** **526,200 175,400** **122395 8,524** **1.50 US** **Gen Logan** **200 15.80** **600,000 30,000** **336,453 807,900** **269300 91370** **7,218 1.27** **Atlantic Electric** **Deepwate r#8** **82 10.50** **246,000 12300** **143,489 273,270** **91,090 49,538** **6,343 1.11** **PSEG Hudson** **#2 640** **94.61 1,920,000** **96,000 1,229,904** **89,253 29,751** **15,272 2,258** **0.40 Basis:** **-5% of Fly-Ash** **is collected** **in the** **and baghouse** **is non-salable** **for Hudson** **Unit #2** **-100% of** **fly-ash is** **collected in** **the Baghouse** **and non-salable** **for US** **Gen. Units** **and Deepwater.** 

### -Fly-Ash**price: $30/ton** **-Fly-Ash disposal** **cost: $10/ton** 

### -PAC**Injection Rate:** **31b/Macfm 10** **-Generator Capacity** **Factor: 65** **-Cost of** **PAC injection:** **$l,000/ton**

### -Cost**of PAC** **installation: $3,000/MW** **13 ATTACHMENT** **II Table** **7: Cost** **Estimates of** **Sodium Hypochlorite** **Additive to** **Scrubber Conectiv** **BL England** **#1 135** **110.38 633,874** **633,707 6,882** **8,417 0.79** **Conectiv BL** **England #2** **160 37.85** **583,030 610,470** **5,341 22,578** **0.61 Basis:** 

### Cost**of sodium** **hypochlorite additive:** **$1.4 NCM/hr** **17 Dr.** **Michael Durham,** **President, ADA** **Environmental Solutions,** **personal communication.** **David Goss,** **Vice President,** **American Coal** **Ash Association,** **personal communication.** **Jim Roewer,** **Edison Electric** **Institute, personal** **communication Jim** **LeCates, PSEG,** **Mercer Generating** **Station, personal** **communication.**

### Opcit**(reference #3)** **Estimate From** **Vendor By** **Phone. Vendor:** **Hamon-Research Cottrell** **Estimate from** **Miltec Int.** **National Energy** **Technology Laboratory** **personal Communication** **Opcit(reference #1)** 

### 10**Opcit (reference** **#8) 11** **Opcit(reference #1)** **12 Opcit** **(reference #8)** **13Opcit(reference#l) 14** **Opcit (reference** **8) l5Opcit(reference#l)** **16 Opcit** **(reference #6)** **17 Opcit** **(reference #7)** **16**