p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 12)11-1- 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:18 AM Sheet 12 of 142P. 2 

# A-^o-3 7 

# TT-I-' H

TERR Y c . BRANSTA0 , GOVERNO R DEPARTMEN T O F NATURA L RESOURCE S 

### Marc h 4,199 3 LARR Y J 

### ' WIUS0N



### - 0iKCrc 

### *

Willia mB.Mar x President Council o f Industria l Boiler Owner s 603 5 Burk e Centre Parkway , Suit e 36 0 Burke , Virgini a2201 5
Dea r Mr
. Marx : Thi s i s in respons e t o you r faxe dcop y o f correspondenc e addresse dt o Pete r Hamlin o f

m y staff , receive dthi s date
. Yo u requeste da n extensio n o f

th e commen

t perio do n apropose d Preventio n o f

Significan t Deterioratio n Permit

fo r ADM' s planne dboiler

# 4 at Ceda r Rapids , Iowa
. Thi s department

ha s followedal

l federa l an dstate procedural step s i

n reviewin g thi s permit application , includin g providin g ample notic e an dopportunit

y fo r publi c comment
. Thi s publi c commen t perio dremain s ope n throug h Monday , March 8 , 1993
. I se e n o vali dreaso n fo r furthe r extendin g thi s commen

t period
. Your

reques t fo r extensio n i s therefor

e denied
. Sincerely ,

Alla n E
. Stoke s Administrato r Environmenta

l Protectio n Divisio n
cc : Pete r

HamlinP. 3

r



### Marc h 4 , 199 3

Pete r R . Hamlin , Chie f Ai r Qualit yBurea u Wallac e Stat e Offic e Buildin g De s Moines , I A5031 9 Dea r Mr . Hamlin ,

. Thi s i s confirmatio n o f m yphon e reques t toda ytha t th e commen t perio d o n th e AD M PS D reques t o n Boile r # 4 a t Ceda r Rapid s b e extende d fo r on e week . Thi s woul d allo w th e Counci l o f Industria l Boile r Owner s (CIBO ) tim e t o prepar e a comprehensiv e statemen t o n th e state' s draf t permit
. Yo u explaine d tha t sinc e th e applicabl e PS D procedure s ha d bee n followe d th e reques t wa s denied
. Whil e you r positio n meet s th e statutor yrequirements , CIBO' s reques t fo r extensio n i s wel l justifie d o n th e basi s o f th e nationa l interest , sinc e you r propose d permi t condition s woul d se t a ne w leve l o f stringenc yfo r al l coal-fire d units , whic h migh t becom e a baselin e fo r industria l (an d utility ) project s i n othe r states . Therefore , w e urgently.reques t a reconsideratio n o f you r denia l o f ou r reques t fo r a 7-da yextension
. Sincerely , yilliamB . Marx ' Presiden t WBM/b j o cc : A . Preszios i

COUNCI L OF INDUSTRIA L BOILE R OWNER S

603 5 Burk

e Centr e Parkway

. Suit e 360

. Burke

. Virgini a 2201 5 • Phone : (703 ) 250-904 2 • FAX : (703 ) 239-904 2P. 4 

# cito #

MEMORANDU M Februar y 17 , 199 3 TO :


### FROM : SUBJECT : NO x Subcommitte e

Environmenta l Committe e Willia mB . Mar x 

# ioSH^. Iow a Departmen t o f Natura l Resources , AD M PS D Permi t Request , Ceda r Rapid s Boile r No . 4 Enclose d pleas e fin d th e followin g documents :
a . PUBLI C NOTICE , Th e Iow a Departmen t o f Natura l Resources , Arche r Daniel s Midlan d Company ; b . Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n Permi t Revie w Fac t Sheet ;
c . IDN

R Projec t No . 90-222 , Plan t Numbe r 57-01-080 ; d . NO x BAC T Analysis , AD M Ceda r Rapid s Boile r #4 , Contro l Technolog yFeasibility
. CIB O plan s t o suppor t AD M i n it s objectio n t o th e state' s condition s - 0.0 6 lbs/MM B SD 2 

### , 0.0 6 lbs/MM B NO x (50ppm ) and 0.2 0 lbs/MM B CO , a s wel l a s limit s o n fluoride , lea d and beryllium- b yfa r th e mos t onerou s we'v e see n t o dat e fo r coal . Thes e conditions , i f allowe d t o stand , migh t wel l becom e a preceden t an d b e th e deat h knel l fo r futur e industria l coa l use . Pleas e giv e thi s matte r you r ful l an d immediat e attentio n - i t i s bot h urgen t an d important
. Not e th e commen t perio d close s Marc h 8 ; therefor e b e sur e you r comment s ar e i n Laure n Laabs ' hand s n o late r tha n 5 p.m. , Thursday , Marc h 4 , copyt o CIBO . Thank s fo r you r cooperation
. WBM/bj o
cc : Mar k Calme s Ky d Brenne r Denni s C . William s Join t Fuels/Environmenta l Committe e 2/11/9 3 Attendees

COUNCI L O F INDUSTRIA L BOILE R OWNER S 603 5 Burk e Centr e Parkway

. Suit e 360

. Burke

. Virgini a 2201 5 • Phone : (703 ) 250-904 2 • FAX : (703 ) 239-904 2P. 5



### * " ' PUBLI C NOTIC E Th e Iow a Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s ' Arche r Daniel s Midland Compan y• (ADM ) ha s applie d t o th e Iow a Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s (DNR ) fo r a Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n o f Ai r Qualit y(PSD ) permi t t o instal l a ne w fluidize d be d combustio n stea mboile r and relate d cogeneratio n equipmen t a t it s cor n processin g plan t locate d nea r Ceda r Rapids , Iowa . Th e propose d projec t I s considere d a "majo r modification " o f a n existin g stationar ysourc e becaus e emission s o f nitroge n oxides , sulfu r dioxide , particulates , carbo n monoxide , an d fluorid e wil l increas e b

ya n amoun t i n exces s o f significan t level s specifie d i n th e PS D regulations
. Base d upo n th e informatio n provide d b yAD M o n o r abou t Novembe r 5 , 1990 ; o n Octobe r 19 , 1992 ; an d i n othe r applicabl e submissions , DN R ha s determine d tha t th e propose d projec t meet s th e requirement s o f 4 0 CF R 52.2 1 (1 ) throug h (r ) a s adopte d b yDN R b yreferenc e a t 56 7 Iow a Administrativ e Cod e sectio n 22.4 . DN R ha s furthe r determine d tha t emission s fromth e propose d projec t wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS) . Therefore , DN R i s issuin g a draf t permi t approvin g th e propose d project
. I t i s DNR' B 

### determinatio n tha t thi s propose d projec t wil l consum e < 0. 1 ug/m 3 o f th e nitroge n oxide-increment , leavin g 24. 8 ug/zn 3 o f availabl e nitroge n oxid e incremen t a t thi s location
. I t i s DNR' s determinatio n tha t thi s propose d projec t wil l consum e < 22.2 , < 6.7 , an d < 0. 4 ug/m 3 o f th e 3-hour , 24-hour , an d annua l sulfu r dioxid e increment , respectively
. Thi s leave s > 4 04.6 , > 56.5 , an d > 18.0 7 ug/m 3 o f th e 3-hour , 24-hour , an d annua l sulfu r dioxid e increment , respectively , -availabl e a t thi s location
. I t i s DNR' s determinatio n tha t thi s propose d projec t wil l consum e < 0. 4 an d < 0. 1 ug/m 3 o f th e 24-hou r an d annua l particulat e increment , respectively
. Thi s leave s 5. 8 an d 15. 7 ug/m 3 o f th e 24-hou r an d annua l particulat e increment , respectively , availabl e a t thi s location
. Acop yo f al l the . material s submitte d b yth e applicant , th e draf t PS D permit , an

d a fac t shee t describin g th e projec t an d revie w i n greate r detai l ar e availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n a t th e Lin n Count yHealt h Department , 50 1 Thirteent h stree t N.W. , Ceda r Rapids , Iowa , 52405 . I n addition , a cop yo r summar yo f othe r material s considere d i n makin g th e preliminar ydetermination , includin g comment s receive d following a previousl yhel d publi c hearing , wil l b e availabl e a t thi s location
. Acomplet e recor d o f th e permi t revie w i s availabl e fo r inspectio n a t th e Iow a Departmen t o f Natura l Resources , Filt h Floor , Wallac e Stat e Offic e Building , De s .Moines , Iowa 50319 . A t th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t period , comment s receive d b yDN R als o wil l b e mad e availabl e a t th e Lin n Count yHealt h Departmen t an d a t DNR . Additionally , whe n a fina l determinatio n i s mad e b yDNR , tha t fina l determinatio n wil l b e mad e availabl e a t thes e locations
.P. 6

t 7 PaREVENTIO N O F SIGNIFICAN T DETERIORATIO N PERMI T REVIE W FAC T SHEET ' ARCHE RDANIEL S MIDLAN D COMPAN Y Introductio n Arche rDaniel s Midlan d Compan y (ADM ) ha s applie d t o th e Iow aDepartmen to f Natura l Resource s (DNR ) fora Preventio n o f Significan tDeterioratio n o f Ai rQualit y (PSD) - permi tan d aStat e o f Iow aAi rQualit y Constructio n Permi tt o instal l ane w fluidized be d combustio n stea m generato ran d relate d cogeneratio n equipmen ta tit s co m processin g plan tlocate d nea rCeda rRapids , Lin n County , Iowa . D N Rfinds tha tth e propose d projec ti s subjec tt o th e requirement s o f 56 7 Iow a Administrativ e Cod e chapte r2 2 ao d tha taStat e o f Iow aAi rQualit y permi tshoul d issue . Thes e propose d ne w source s als o hav e bee n reviewe d t o determin e whethe rthe y ar e subjec tt o th e PS D regulation s promulgate d pursuan tt o 4 2 U.S. C section s 747 0 e tal . (Clea n Ai rAc t(CAA ) section s 16 0 c tal. ) an d foun d i n 4 0 C.F.R . Par t5 1 Thi s revie w ha s bee n conducte d a s aresul to f th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s delegatio n t o D N Ro f th e responsibilit y t o revie w source s i n Iow afo rcomplianc e wit h PSD . DN R finds tha tth e propose d projec ti s subjec tt o thes e regulations . T h e purpos e o f

PS D i s t o preven tsignifican tdeterioratio n o f th e ai rqualit y i n identifie d regions . Withi n thes e regions , ther e i s aclassificatio n syste m whic h declare s whethe ran d th e exten tt o whic h th e ai rqualit y ma y b e deteriorated . PS D regulation s affec ttb e constructio n o rmodificatio n o f majo rindustria l facilitie s occurrin g i n thes e areas . Constructio n i s conditione d upo n obtainin g apermit , on e o f th e ke y requirement s fo r whic h i s a n obligatio n upo n th e regulate d sourc e t o us e th e Bes tAvailabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT) . T o b e reviewabl e fo rPSD , th e sourc e t o b e constructe d firstmus tb e locate d i n a n are a wher e th e Nationa l Ambien tAi rQualit y Standard s (NAAQS ) hav e no tbee n exceede d foran y o f th e criteri apollutant s liste d i n sectio n 10 7 o f th e CA A an d whic h b designate d a s "attainment * o r"unclassifiable. " Second , th e propose d constructio n projec tmus tb e considere d a"majo rstationar y source " o r"majo remittin g facility, " define d i n sectio n 16 9 o f th e CA A a s an y on e o f 2 8 type s o f

source s wit h th e potentia l t o emi t10 0 ton s pe r yea r(TPY ) o rmor e o f

an y pollutan tregulate d b y th e CA A o ran y othe rtyp e o f sourc e wit h th e potentia l t o emi tregulate d pollutant s i n amount s equa l t o o rgreate rtha n 25 0 TPY , o ra"majo rmodification, " whic h include s an y physica l chang e i n th e racthod o f operatio n o f

amajo rstationar y sourc e whic h woul d resul ti n asignifican tne temission s increas e o f

an y pollutan tregulate d b y th e CAA . 'Potentia l t o emit " i s th e capabilit y a t maximu m desig n capacit y t o emi tapollutan tafte rth e applicatio n o f ai rpollutio n contro l equipmen tan d afte rtakin g int o accoun tal l federall y enforceabl e limitation s restrictin g th e hour s o f

operation s o rth e typ e o f amoun to f

materia l combuste d o rprocessed . Ther e ar e thre e possibl e classification s fo rarea s covere d b y PSD ; Clas s I , Clas s U , an d Clas s IU . Clas s I area s includ e nationa l park s an d wildernes s areas , an d ar e considere d t o b e th e area s wher e ai rqualit y i s th e highes tCas s I I include s al l area s no tdesignate d - a s Clas s I o ra s Clas s III . Clas s I I area s ma y b e redesignate d a s Clas s II I area s b y aStat e afte ra n opportunit y forpubli c comment . Redesignatio n ta aClas s II I are a allow s fo rFEB - ,3-935 . WE D T:3 T DN R W 3

mor e degradatio n o f

th e ai rqualit

y i n tha tarea . However , th e allowanc e fo r dcgradauo n o f th e ai rqualit

y i n Clas s I area s mus tremai n constant , and PS D require s tha teac h permi tapplicatio n analyz e th e passibl e effect s o f th e propose d facilit

y o n Clas s I area s i n th e vidnity . Descriptio n o f

Sourc e an d Emission s AD M operate s a cor n starch processin g plan tlocate d i n Ceda r Rapids , Lin n County , Iowa . Th e plan ti s locate d i n a n attainmen tarea fo ral l criteri a pollutants , includin g sulfu rdioxid e (SO,) , lead , particulate matte r(TSP) , PM-10 , nitroge n dioxid e (NOx) , carbo n monoxid e (CO) , an d ozone . Th e neares tPS D Clas s I are a i s ove r25 0 mile s from th e plant . Ther e exist s a potentia l 7 2 J TP Y increas e i n emission s o f total suspende d particulate s (TSP) . Th e majorit

y o f TS P emissions , whic h amounts t o a tleas t6 0 TPY , i s likel y to b e comprise d o f

matte rhavin g a mea n particl e diamete r o f te n (10 ) micron s o r les s (PM 10) . Additionally , ther e i s a potentia l 48 3 TP Y inaeas e i n sulfu r dioxid e emissions ; a potentia l 24 2 TP Y increas e i n nitroge n oxide s emissions ; a potentia l 48 4 TP Y inaeas e i n carbo n monoxid e emissions; and a potentia l 3 J TP Y inaeas e i n fluorides. Th e applicantha s estimate d tha temission s o f othe r pollutants regulate d unde r PS D fro m thi s sourc e wil l includ e VO C emission s o f 8. 8 TPY ; lea d emission s o f 0.0000 7 TPY ; berylliu m emission s o f

0.0001 4 TPY : an d mercur y emission s o f

0.01 5 TP Y give n th e coal s currentl y expecte d t o b e use d i n th e boiler . I ti a believe d thattw o o f

thes e contaminants , lead(Pb ) an d beryllium , ma y inaeas e dramatically a s th e coal suppl y changes . Therefore , i ti s necessary t o establis h emissio n limits t o ensur e th e continuin g mino rmodificatio n statu s o f thi s boile r wit

h respec tt o PSD . Thes e limit s ar e se ta t1/ 2 o f th e PS D significanc e leve l t o provid e maximu m flexibility t o ADM . Bes tAvailabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) Bes tAvailabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) i s a n emission s limi tbase d o n th e maximu m degre e o f pollutio n reductio n which DN Rdetermine s i s achievabl e o n a case-by-cas e basi s taking int o accoun tenergy , environmental , economi c and othe r costs . An y majo r stationar y sourc e o rmajo rmodificatio n tha tii affecte d b

y th e PS D regulation s mus t conducta

n analysi s to ensur e tha

tBAC T i s specifie d fo r each significantpollutant . N o technolog y may b e approve d whic h woul d violate d th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) found a t4 0 C.F.R . Par t6 0 o rany applicabl e National Emissio n Standar d forHazardou s Ai r Pollutants (NESHAPS ) found a t4 0 CF.R . Par t61 . Analysi s o f

Applicatio n Onc e iti s determine d thata propose d projec ti s subjectt o PS D review , th e applican t nL««t : (1 ) demonstrat e th e Bes tAvailabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) for eac h PS D pcDutantemitte d by a ne w o rmodifie d source ; (2 ) perform a n ambien tai r qualit y analysi s t o demonstrat e tha tth e inaeas e i nP. 8

emission s du e to th e modificatio n an d associate d growt h wil l no texcee d Nationa l Ambien tAi rQualit

y Standard s (NAAQS ) o rapplicabl e PS D inaemeats ; (3 ) perform additional analysi s t o stud y th e effect s o f inacasc d emission s o n soils , vegetation , an

d visibility ; an

d (4 ) demonstrate tha

tth e sourc e wil l no tadversel y impac ta designate d PS D Clas s I area . L Bes tAvailabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) Bes tAvailabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) i s a n emission s limi tbase d o a th e maximum degre e o f pollutio n reductio n whic h DN Rdetermine s i s achievabl e o n a case-by-cas e basi s takin g int o accoun tenergy , environmental , economic , and othe r costs . An y majo r stationai y sourc e o r majo rmodificatio n tha ti s affecte d b

y th e PS D regulation s mus t conduc ta n analysi s t o ensur e tha

tBAC T is specifie d for each significan tpollutan tN o technolog y ma

y b e approve d whic

h woul d violate d th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Sttndard s (NSPS ) foun d at4 0 C.F.R . Par t6 0 o r any applicabl e Nationa l Emissio n Standar d fo rHazardou s Ai rPollutant s (NESHAPS ) foun d a t4 0 CF.R . Par t61 .
a . Sulfu rDioxid e BAC T Sulfu rdioxid e emission s fro m fluidize d be d boiler s ca n b e controlle d b y selectio n o f th e coa l used , by selectio n o f (h e be d material t o adjus tth e calciu m t o sulfu r (Ca/5 ) ratio n i n th e combustio n bed , an d b y us e o f

flu e ga s desulfurlzatio n device s (scrubbers ) which ca n als o operat e atvariou s Ca/S ratios . DN Rba s determine d tha

tBAC T fo r SO , forthi s boile r i s 0.0 8 pound s o f SOj/mmBtu input , base d o a managemen to f Ca/ S ratio s o f

both th e fluidize d be d an d lim e spra y drying (LSD ) (dr

y scrubbing ) whil e burnin g hig h sulfu r coals . Selectio n o f coal supplie s woul d modif y th e typ e o f

contro l which woul d actuall y hav e t o b e used . (Furthe rdetail s o f thi s determinatio n may b e found i n th e BAC T revie w documentatio n attached. ) b . Particulate BAC T Th e onl y ne w particulate emissio n sourc e wil l b e stack emission s from th e ne w stea m generato ritself

. Emission s from coal handling , as h handling , an d simila r activitie s will increase , butn o addition s o rmodification s to thes e othe r system s wer e proposed . Currentparticulate contro l technologie s which wil l reduc e particulate emission s includ e fabric filter dus tcollector s (baghouses) , electrostati c precipitator s (ESPs) , particulate scrubbers , an d mechanical collectors . AD M ha s propose d a particulate limi tbase d o n th e applicatio n of a baghous e o f 0.0 3 lbs/mmBt

u input . Thi s metho d o f

controllin g particulate emission s is amon g th e mos tsuccessfu l contro l technologie s an

d i s acceptabl e t o DN Ra s BACT . A baghouse , whic h i s constructe d o f

2 fabri c bag whic

h acts a s th e filtermedia ; a tubeshee tt o suppor t th e bags ; a gas-tigh tenclosure ; an d a mechanis m to dislodg e th e accumulate d dus tfrom th e bags , ca n remov e 99. 9 percen to rmor e o f incomin g particulat e matter . Th e applicabilit

y o f ESPs i s generall y restricte d t o removin g particulat e matte rfrom ga

s stream s i n whic

h th e resistivit

y o f particulat

e fall s int o a narro wP. 9

c .= > — •= » —

'=', •

margin . Further , efficiency o f collectio n i s affecte d by numerou s factors , includin g residenc e time , ga s temperature , moistur e content , particl e resistivity , flue ga s chemistry , inle tloading , and particle-siz e distribution . Th e us e o f ESP s presen ta potentia l for re-entrainmen tan d a n affinit y for a n explosiv e environment . Finally , mos tESP s operat e i n th e 95-9 9 percen tcollectio n efficienc y range . Particulate scrubbin g require s a two-ste p process . Flnt , th e particulate mus tb e Vetted, " increasin g th e effectiv e mas s o f th e material preparatio n forth e nex tstep . Th e secon d ste p i s collectio n vi a inertia ! impaction , interceptio n o r centripeta l separation . Th e efficienc y o f collectio n ii a functio n o f

wate rflow , wate r quality , an d th e pressur e dro p throughou tth e scrubber . A s wate rqualit y deteriorates , re-entrainmen tbecome s a seriou s proble m an

d particulate emission s can increas e dramatically . Scrubbers requir e a larg e capita

l investment , hav e relativel y hig h operatin g and maintenanc e costs , an d relativel y hig h energ y consumption . Scrubbers ar e mos tofte n use d t o contro l reactiv e pollutants suc h a s aci d gases . Ther e ar e thre e type s o f mechanica l collectors . Th e mos tefficien tis th e multiclone , which consist s o f a framework and stee l plate s t o which ar e welde d man y emai l cyclon e collectors , eac h wit h a diamete rbetwee n si x an d te n inches , dependin g o o th e application . Althoug h pressur e drop s vary , the y are typically thre e t o si x inche s wate r gage . Th e secon d i s th e cyclone , whic h i s a larg e diamete r centripeta l collectio n device . Cyclone s hav e relativel y lo w pressur e drop s an d lowe r efficiencie s than a multiclone . Th e thir

d typ e o f mechanical collecto ri s a settlin g chamber . In a settlin g chamber , a regio n o f lo w velocity is create d an d provide s fo r gravitational settlin g o f

th e particulate . Settlin g chambers hav e lo w collectio n efficiencie s unles s th e material s i s relativel y 'heavy. " Th e collectio n efficiencie s o f mechanical scrubbers range from 5 0 t o 9 0 percen tdependin g o n particl e siz e an d ho w wel l th e material agglomerates . Cyclone s hav e lo w collectio n efficiencie s particularly o f

PM-10 . The y als o experienc e erosio n o f th e tubes , whic h ar e ofte n plugge d wit h dus tduring period s o f high grain loading . DN Rha s determine d tba tBAC T for particulate forthi s boile r i s 0.0 3 Ibs/mmBT U base d o n th e us e o f a baghouse .
c Nitroge n Oxid e BAC T Fluidize d be d boile n ten d to emi tles s NO x than othe r boiler s becaus e o f th e lowe ran d mor e eve n temperature s a twhich they operate . Th e existin g NO x emission s ca n b e controlle d b y managemen to f

over-fir e ai r an

d b y Selectiv e Non-Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR) . Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR ) i s no t considere d feasibl e i n thi s cas e becaus e o f th e potentia l fordeactivatio n o f th e catalys tthrough contac twit h coa l contaminants and be d material . DN Rhas determine d thatBAC T forNO x for thi s boile r i s 0.0 7 pound s o f

NOx/mmBt

u input , base d o n managemen to f over-fir e ai ran

d SNCR . (Furthe rdetail s o f thi s determinatio n ma

y b e found i n th e BAC T revie w documentatio n attached. ) d . Carbo n Monoxid e BAC T Tw o method * ar e availabl e forcontrollin g C O emissions . The y ar e (1 ) combustio n optimization , an d (2 ) catalyti c oxidation . A s wit h SC Rfo r NOx ,P.10

_

r ^ a w- *- > - = » —» . - w.ynn .



### catalys tbeds presen

tpotentia l operationa

l problems . Therefore , DN Rha s determined tha

tADM' i proposa

l o f 0.2 0 lbs/m m Bt u inpu tI s BAC T for CO . e v Fluorid e BAC T Fluoride s ma

y b e emitte

d throug h coa l combustio

n a tlevel s exceeding 3 TP

Y and , therefore , ma

y b e subjec

tt o BACT determination . I ti s believe d tha

t fluoride* release d i

n the combustio

n chambe r wil l reac twit h calciu m to for m Cap , tsoli d material . A baghous e is BAC T for contro

l o f soli d particles , an

d control beyon

d thi s does no tappea

r necessary. Therefore , a baghouse i s accepted a s BAC T fo

r contro l o f fluoride emissions . Not e retarding Toxi c Pollutants : Base d o n th e 1990 amendment

s t o 1h e CAA . the consi'derijfoq o f

toxic pollutant

s is n o longe r considere

d a s par tof PSD analysis . Z PS D AmbientAi r Qualit y Analysi s Applicant s for a PS D permi

tmus tsuppl y a tleaston e year' s wort

h o f ambien tai r monitorin g dat a for thos e contaminant

s fo r whic h ther e woul d b e a significan

tincreas e i n emissions . However , DN Rma y acceptth

e result s o f monitorin g conducte

d a texistin g sites , provide

d i tmeets th e criteri

a state d i n th e EP A publicatio

n titled Ambicq

t Monitorin g Guidelines for Preventio n o f Significan

tDeierioratjon . An extensive monitorin g progra m administere

d b y DNRan d Lin n Count y i s i n place in Ceda

r Rapids . Base d o n Informatio

n submitte

d b y ADM, DNRha

s determine

d tha tthe existin

g Lin n Count y monitorin

g i s acceptable . Fo r a PS D permi

tapplicatio

n l o b e approved

, the applican

tmus tdemonstrat

e tha tth e proposed projec

twil l no tresul ti n a violatio

n o f either :
a PS D Inaemen to r
a Nationa l AmbientAi r Qualit

y Standar d (NAAQS) . a PS D Incremen

t Th e PS D incremen

ti s th e maximu

m increase i

n ambien tconcentration

s of specifi c pollutant

s whic h ii allowe

d fro m al l significan

tsources i n a particula

r are a I n this case , th e PS

D inaemen tinclude

s al l sources emittin

g SO , an d TS P whic h have bee n permitte

d since Augus

t7,1977 , an

d all sources emitting NO

x whic h hav e bee n permitte

d sinc e Februar y 8,1988 . There I

s n o PSD incremen

t for CO , NMH C o r PM-10 . The PS D increment

s allowed for th e affecte

d pollutant s ar e as follows.- Anmu.! . ?4-houn ?-noui . TS P 19ug/m3 37 pg/m 3 20ug/m 3

9 1 ug/ra 3 512ug/in 3 25ugta 3

Ceda r Rapid s wa s designate

d a s a TS P non-attainmen

tare a unti l 1988 . Onl

y " aP.1 1

fe w source s othe rthan thos e herei n permitte d fall withi n th e former non attainmen tare a and wil l consum e increment . The y belon g t o th e applicant , t o Penfor d Corporatio n (recentl y permitte d expansion) , an d t o th e University o f Iow a (Boile r#11) . Outsid e th e former non-attainmen tarea , incremen t consumptio n wil l b e lowe rthan withi n becaus e total AD M concentratio n fo r th e - fourboile n i s lea thattw o microgram s pe r cubi c mete r an d Penfbrd' s contributio n i s les s that1 0 micrograms pe rcubi c meter . Th e incremen t consumptio n fo rparticulat e withi n th e forme r non-attainmen tare a wa s modele d a t33 ug/m 3 annuall y an d 31 2 ug/m 3 fo r a 24-hou rperiod . Th e inaemen t consumptio n forparticulate outsid e th e forme rnon-attainmen tare a i s significantl y les s than thi s amoun tan d i s nea r 1 0 ug/m 3 for th e 24-hou r average .
Th e incremen tconsumptio n fo r sulfu r dioxid e wa s modele d b y th e applican tat 1.9 3 ug/m 3 annually , 32L 5 ug/m3 for a 24-hou rperiod , an d 107. 4 ug/ra 3 for a 3 - hou rperiod . Th e inaemen tconsumptio n fornitroge n oxid e wa s modele d atles s tha t0. 1 ug/m 3 annually . b . Nationa l Ambien tAi rQualit y Standard s (NAAQS ) A propose d sourc e i s determine d t o contribute t o a violatio n o f NAAQ S if

i ti s expecte d t o inaeas e th e ambientconcentration s a significan tamoun ta tth e locatio n o f

a violatio n o f

a n ambien tstandard . An y contributio n t o a violatio n i s considere d significan ti f k exceeds an

y o f th e following; Pollutan t Hou i 

### SO : 

### TS P PM-1 0 

### NO x C O 2000ug/ra 3 Annual

1.0ug/m 3 1. 0 ug/m 3 1.0ug/m 3 1. 0 ug/m3

- 2 4 Hour s

• 5 ug/m3 5 ug/m3 5ug/m 3
' -

- 8 Hou n

* »

-

-

- 500ug/m 3 

## ? Hou

n 2 5 ug/m l

-

- • * «•
In thi s case , PS D permi tlimits apply to all tb e liste d contaminants becaus e eac h o f the m woul d b e emitte d i n significantl y greate r amounts b y ADM' s propose d project . Regardin g PM-10 . compute rmodelin g o f ai rdispersio n pattern s indicate d thatth e national ambien tai rqualit y standard s fo r PM-1 0 woul d b e exceede d a tseveral recepto r locations . However , a detaile d revie w o f predicte d impacts a tthes e recepto n b y emission s increase s directl y from an d associate d wit h th e boile rwa s conducte d an d i n n o cas e wa s th e annua l o r 24-hou raverag e i n excess o f

th e significanc e level s presente d above . In fact , maximu m impact s atal l location s wer e determine d t o b e insignifican tSinc e th e propose d projec t woul d no tsignificantly contribute to predicte d nonattainmen tfor PM-10 , th e requirement s o f

th e PS D regulation s have bee n me twit h regard t o PM-10 . Concentration s o f

tota l suspende d particulates , nitroge n dioxide , an d carbo n monoxid e ar e belo w th e significanc e level s designate d for eac h o f thos e pollutants . I

ta unlikel y tha

ta violation s o f

th e NAAQ S wil l occu r fo r an y o fP.1 2

- _. J u i fc_u r':'+^>J- , M K

thos e pollutants a

s a resul to f

th e propose d project . Tb e apph'can

tidentifie d thre e areas o f non-attainmen tforsulfurdioxide , base d o n compute rmodelin g performe d b y th e applicant . On e o f

thes e area s i s locate d a tIow a Electric' s Sixt

h Stree tstation , an

d th e othe rtw o ar e locate d a tIowa Electric' s Prairi e Cree k Station . DetaDe d modelin g o f th e impactvalue s from th e propose d projec twas conduae d usin g a fine grid . Base d o n thi s modeling , contribution s wer e show n t o b e belo w th e significanc e level s a tth e point s wher e nonattainmen twa s found i n on e o f th e area s an

d throughou tth e secon d an d third areas . (I tappean , therefore , tha tcomplianc e wit

h th e PS D regulation s wil l b e ha d wit

h regard t o sulfu rdioxide. ) However , ther e ar e significantconcern s regardin g thi s modeling . DN Rhas se ti n thi s permi ta 3-hou rlimi tan d a 30-da y limi twhich , whe n combined , ar e adequate to preventsignifican tcontributio n b y thi s bofl a to th e non-attainmen tareas existin g i n Ceda r Rapids . DN Rha s no tfound th e potentia l forunsaf e level s o f

an y othe r potentia l contaminant . Therefore , n o furthe r special ambientimpac tassessmen tha s bee n conducted . 3 . Effects o n Vegetation , Soils , an d Visibility • a . Vegetatio n an d Soil s t Land surroundin g th e propose d facility i s use d mostl y for cro p production . Th e propose d modificatio n wil l hav e a n insignificantimpac to n are a vegetatio n and soils . Althoug h som e type s o f vegetatio n ma

y b e damage d b y hig h concentration s o f particulate s which ar e equivalen tt o th e applicatio n o f 5 0 - 38 0 miaogram s pe r squar e centimete rpe r day , concentration s o f particulate s wer e modele d a t5 ug/m 3 pe r24-hou rperiod . Thes e concentration s ar c no tsignificant . Regardin g sulfu rdioxide , bot h chroni c an

d acut e damag e ha s bee n observed , dependin g o n th e concentratio n an d length o f

exposure . EP A studie s sho w chroni c damag e t o corn , beans , and barley wit h level s o f

400-80 0 ug/m 3 continuousl y forseve n days . Mos tchroni c damag e t o nativ e Iowa foliag e wil l occu ri n th e rang e o f

800-150 0 ug/m3 fo ra perio d o f a fe w days . Damag e ma y occu rove ra lon g perio d i f value s are consistentl y i n th e 300-50 0 ug/m 3 range . Modele d peak concentration s for th e propose d projec tar e belo w th e level s a t whic h damag e woul d oau r - 9 ug/m3 for a 24-hou r averag e an d 0. 4 ug/m3 fo r a n annua l average . Chroni c injur

y may occu rfrom nitroge n dioxid e concentration s greate r than 47 0 ug/m3 o n a long-term basis . Vegetatio n o r soi l damag e fire unlikel y a tth e modele d peak concentratio n o f les s tha n 0. 1 ug/m3 . Carbon monoxid e level s belo w approximatel y 0. 1 ug/m 3 ar e bel'eve d nott o caus e damag e t o vegetatio n an d soils . Modele d level s fo r thi s projec tar e les s than 1 ug/m3 . b . Visibilit

y Requirement sP.1 3

I n orde rto preserv e th e attractivenes s o f wildernes s area s an

d parldandj , th e PS D progra

m place s specia l limit s o n facilitie s whic h ma y contribute t o atmospheri c haze . Ther e ar e thre e contaminants primarily responsible fo r contributin g to haze . Thes e ar e particulates . SO „ an d NOx , Th e propose d modification s ar e a significantsourc e o f al l thre e o f

thes e pollutants . Calculation s sho w visibilit y impairmen ti ttwent

y (20 ) kilomcte n t o b e acceptabl e accordin g t o EP A guidelines . I ti s unlikel y tha

tth e propose d constructio n wil l impactvisibilit y i n th e neares tClas s I area , whic h i s ove r 25 0 mile s from th e plan t 4 . Wildernes s an d Parkland Protectio n Th e PS D program provide s Clas s I protectio n for national part e and wildernes s areas . Th e neares tare a receivin g thi s specia l protectio n i s th e Hercule s Glade s Wildernes s i n souther n Missouri , which i s ove r 25 0 mile s from th e plant . Th e radius o f potentia l significantimpac tforsulfu rdioxid e emission s from th e propose d projec ti n 4. 1 kllomete n o rles s tha

n 3 miles . Th e propose d modificatio n wil l no tsignificantly impact thi s wildernes s area . Preliminary Determination Base d o n informatio n i n th e administrativ e record , DN Rpropose s t o approv e th e permi t application s subjec tt

o th e condition s outline d i n th e attache d draf tpermi t An y owne ro roperato r o f a sourc e o r modificatio n tha ti s subjec tto PS D regulation s shal l no tcommenc e constructio n withou tfirstreceivin g approval from th e agenc y designate d t o implemen tth e PS D program . An y owne r o r operato r wh o constructs , modifies , relocate s o roperate s a n affecte d sourc e no ti n accordanc e wit h th e PS D permi t condition s shal l b e subjec tto federa l enforcemen tactio n unde r section s 11 3 an d 16 7 o f th e CAA . Th e PS D regulation s als o provid e tha tissuanc e of a permi tshal l no treliev e th e sourc e o f

th e obligatio n to compl y wit h al l applicabl e Stat e Implementatio n Plan (SIP ) federa l ai rpollutio n standards . Reopenin g tb e Publi c Commen tPerio d I f informatio n o rarguments submitte d t o DN Rdurin g th e publi c commen tperio d appea r t o rais e substantia l ne w question s concernin g th e draf tpermit , the n DN Rma

y prepar e a revise d draf

tpermit , a revise d fac

tshee to rma

y reope n o r exten d th e publi c commen t period . Comment s filed during th e publi c commen tperio d ma y addres s onl y th e substantial ne w question s which cause d th e publi c commen tperio d t o b e reopened . Publi c notic e o f

an y reopenin g o r extensio n o f th e publi c commen tperio d shal l b e issue d by th e centra l o f

DNR .P.1 4

, —o —•=

» • *•;_ . JUIN K K- a fcb

Januar y 28 , 199 3 AD M Ceda rRapid s JBotie

r # 4 PS D Revie w 

# S0 2 BACT Analysi s ADM Ceda

r Rapid s Boile

r # 4

Contro l Technolog y Feasibility
Th e Radia

n repor tdismisse s wester n coa

l as a fue

l sourc i fo rBACT . Thi s limits thei ranalysi s t o midwestern coa

l onl y a s a BAC T fue

l source . Th e repor

tthe n identifie s tw o type s o f coatro J technologie s applied i n th e Unite d States forcontrollin g S0 2 emission s from coal-fire d boilers: . atmospheri c fluidize d be d combustio n (AFBC ) an d flu e ga s desulfurlzatio n (FGD) . Radia n notes : "Recently , LS D system s hav e als o becom e popula rfo r utilit y boilers , industria

l cogeneratio n boilers , an

d Incinerato r system s due t o thei rhigb remova

l efficiencie s ( > 9 0 percent) , lowe r cost s an d eas e o f operatio n compared t

o we tFG D systems. " "However , LS D FG D ha s neverbeen applied t o a n AFB C unit . Additio n o f FG D generall y make s AFB C boiler s economicall y noncompetitiv e wit h conventional boiler s usin g FGD . Therefore , performance achievabl e forthi s applicatio n bas no tbee n demonstrated "(pag e 3-7) . Existin g facilitie s Th e Radia

n repor tsummarize s fluiUiztx

l be d boile rpermit

s issue d sinc e 1989 . Thi s summar y doe s nu t documentLAE

Rpermits . Th e summar y identifie s twelv e BAC T determination s fo r coal-fire d AFB C boiler s requiring $0 2 emissio n limit s ranging fro m 0.15- 6 Ib/MMBt

u t o 1. 0 Ib/MMBtu . Thi s confirm s Ou tIimeitone-inje^io n based limit s as lo w u 0.1 6 Ib/MMBt u hav e been established . Th e summar y doe s nu tidentif y Ca O levels , coa

l restriction s o r othe rrestriction s excep tt o poin tou ttw o midwester n plant s which the

y imply ar

e permitte

d to us e 6. 0 an

d 5. 4 I b S02/MMBc u coal s (pag e 3.2) . The y have foun d no combine d applicatio n o f FO D o n a

n AFB C boiler . Th e summar

y o f twelv e BAC T decision s sinc e 198 9 di d no tinclud e LAE Rdecisions . I ti s evidentfrom thi s dat a tha tS0 2 emissio n limits a s lo w a s 0.1 5 <C/mmBt

u hav e bee n established . Fue l Selectio n Th e Radia

n repor tnote s tha

tth e AD M boile r woul d have t o obtai n 90 % reductio n t o b e abl e t

o mee t thei rpropose d limi tusin g thei rwors e cas e coa l (pag e 3-2) . Thi s means thatthey ar e plannin g t o us e u p t o 7.81 b 502/MMBt u coal . Radia n als o refer

s to low-sulfu r coal s a

s no t'economicall y available ' formidwestern boilers . The y the n rejec twestern coal a

s a potentia

l fue l sourc e forth e AD M boiler . However , western coal currently i ? 'economicall y available " t o ADM' s thre e existin g boiler s a tthi s facility . Th e Radia

n repor tstate s tha

tAD M i s currentl y achievin g about9 1 % S0 2 remova l t o les s tha n 0. 4 Ib/MMBt

u wit h a blen d o f Midwestern coa

l an d low-s\ilfu r Wester

n coal , withou tadd-on controls .P.1 5

Januar y 28 . 199 3 AD M Ceda r Rapid s Boile r # 4 PS D Revie w 

## Economic s i Radia n presents thei rBAC T S0 2 Contro l Hierarch y wit

h fou r non-aggressiv e options . The y evaluat e th e Energy , Environmenta l an d Economi c impacu , wit h th e Economi c impacts th e significan treaso n t o rejec tudd-on control s o rothercoa l options . Thei reconomi c analysi s i s suppone d b y sketchy cos t figure s t u sho w th e "unreasonable " expens e t o attain stricte r S0 2 emission s control . Ammonia-induced Cos tIncrease s I n discussin g NO x control s i n thei r initia l submittal , Radia

n note s unreache

d ammonia i

n th e cyclon e coul d reac

twit h residua l sulfur trioxide s (S03 ) i n th e exhaus tstrea m t o produce ammoniu

m salts which cuul d foul th e air heateran d baghouse . I

f thi s wer e to occur , Radia n an d AD M believ e thi s coul d force boile r maintenance which coul d reduc e boile ravailabilit

y betwee n 1 an

d 1 0 percen

tas wel l as increas e visibl e emissions . I n thei rinitia

l submittal , Radia

n note s thi s reactio n woul d b e o f concern mainl y when bot h th e ammonia an d S0 3 level s ar

e 5 percen

to rgreater . Thi s i s relevantbecaus e Radia n project s the S0 3 level s a

t betwee n I an

d 6 pp m base d o n S0 2 level s o f

th e curren

toperatio n a

t.£..0.35-04 0 Ib/MMBt

u (page s 1 - 15 through 1-18) . I n discussin g NO

x control s in thei rsupplementa l submittal , Radia

n expand s o n their concern s about ammoniu m sal tproduction . Thi s effectwa s noted in the discussio n o f th e feasibility o f

Selectiv e Non Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR ) NO x control s added to a boile r configure d lik e th e existin g boilers . Anothe rvie w i s tha

tthi s coul d b e a

n adde d cos to f highe rsulfu roxid e emission s from th e fluidize d be d give n th e presenc e o f

ammonia reaction NO x controls . From thi s viewpoint . S0 2 control strategie s whic h resul tin S0 3 level s greate r tha n 83 % o f

th e curren

tmaximu

m S0 3 leve l woul d carr y a n additiona l economi c burde

n fro m th e resulting ai r beater an d baghous e fouling . Baselin e emission s Th e Radia

n repor tan d respons e t

o IDN Rcomment

s use s NSP S o f

909 S S0 2 remova

l a s baselin e (0.7 8 Ib.'MMBni) . Radia

n state s (pag e 3-12 ) "because thi s emissio n rat e i s als o NSP S for th e boiler , iti s th e baselin e emissio n leve l for estimatin g impacts. " I n thei rsupplementa

l submittal , Radia

n notes : "NSP S wa

s selecte d a

s baselin e becaus e AFB C S0 2 control usin g limeston e injectio n i s a n integra l par to f th e combustio n proces s an d boile rdesig n an

d operation . Othe

r type s o f coal-fire d boiler s (pulverize d coal , cyclone , stoker ) us e add-on control s forth e control o f S02 . AFB C boiler s ar e designe d t

o hav e som e typ e o f

be d materia l (sand , ash , o r limestone ) foroperation . Th e oe d materia

l stabilize s an

d catalyze s th e combustio n proces s allowin g th e boile rt o combus tcoal a tlowe r temperatures . Limeston e i s use d as th e be d materia

l I f S0 2 contro

l i s desire d ove rthe amoun to f S0 2 tha

twil l b e retained b y th e coal ash. " "Becaus e the be

d materia

l i s a n integra l pa n o f the combustio n process , boile r 4 operatio n usin g limeston e as the be d materia l was selecte d a

s th e baseline . NSP S leve l o f control usin g limeston e a s th e be d materia l wa s selecte d a

s the baselin e S0 2 emissio n leve l becaus e al

l large coal-fire d boilers mus tmeetthi s leve l o f control " [supplementa

l respons e #31] . 3P.1 6

FEB - 3-S> 3 

### v : D M R p . 1 •< *



### Januar y 28 . 199 3 AD M CedarRapid s Boile r# 4 PS D Revie w impactin g meta

l an d refractory U a maintenanc e problem . I f th e solid s inventor y i s increased , thi s wil l shorte n th e tim e thatth e boile rca n operat e continuously . , • * U l 

### Ther e may b e maintenanc e problem s with highe rCa/ S ratio s i n th e bed , suc h as 4. 0 o rgreate r however , thi s i s theoretica l only . IND Rcommen r#4 1 ask s Radia n t o documen tth e maintenanc e problem s expecte d wit h a hig h solid s inventor y (hig h Ca/ S ratio ) an d t o provid e th e economi c cos e o f such maintenanc e problems . Tb e respons e t o thi s commen ti s th e impac tt o cos teffectivenes s i s "insignificant" . Attachmen t9 o f

Radian' s supplementa l reportshows , for 95 % S0 2 remova l an d 1 % downtim e t o th e boile r(91 % boile rusage) , th e cos tpe r to n o f S0 2 remova l i s S4.5 . A t10 % downtim e to th e boiler , o r82 % boile rusage , th e cos tpe r to n i s S44.7 . Th e annualize d maintenanc e cost s for1 % and 10 % duwntim e are show n a s 573,00 0 an d 5655,00 0 respectively . Ho w thes e maintenanc e cost s wer e derive d > s notshuwn , Accordin g to informatio n fro m a boile rmanufacture ra s presente d i n th e Stanle y report , th e following give s expecte d performanc e data fo r the propose d FB C boile rAD M project : Cfl/ S RiU'Q 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 4. 0 S0 2 Remova l Efficienc y 85 % ' 87 % ,90 % '92 %

Lim e Spra

y Dryin g (LSD ) Scrubbe rEfficiencie s Whe n aske d in IDN Rcomment#4 2 t o documen tperformance problem s associate d wit h dry scrubbin g Radia n cite s th e 'unreasonabl y high cos teffectivenes s ove r baseline. " Thei rrespons e then goe s o n to say tha tperformance problem s referenced ar e relate d to th e expecte d abrasiv e effects o f reusin g the sorbent s i n the AFB C waste t

o mak e u p th e LS D slurry . I

n thei row n words , "Thi s i s a theoretica

l cunceptonly.... " Vendo rinformatio n presente d b y Radia n in Attachment8 say s tha tby reusin g limeston e i

n th e spra

y dryer , th

e limeston e requirement s o f th e combine d system woul d b e reduced b

y 10-20% , thu

s th e scrubbe rcoul d resulti n a saving s i n cost s du e to decrease d limeston e usage . N o performance problem s ar e mentioned . Spra y drye rmanufacturer

s have als o develope d dat a forthei requipment , again fro m the Stanley report : 

### Ca/ S Rati o 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 SQ ? Rcrpo-yal Efficienc y 60 % 70 % 89 % 92 % Th e vendo r quot

e include d i n Radian' s supplementa l Attachment8 note s wit h recycle d limeston e (fro m th e be d material ) used I

n th tspra

y dryer , efficiencie s o f

50-60 % coul d b e expected . Wit h lim e used in th e Ca/S jatio , th e efficiencie s ca n b e a s hig h as 90% , as th e Stanle y repor tindicated . Ther e i s als o a larg e discrepancy betwee n th e Radia n repor tan d th e Stanley repor

ti n term s o f

limeston e injectio n custs . Radia n conclude s tha

tlim e spra

y dryin g (LSD ) a s well a s coa l blendin g ar

e bot h to o expensiv e base

dP.1 7

Januar y 28 , 199 3 AD M Ceda rRapid s Boile r# 4 PS D Revie w -Ther e wouJ

d b e no nee

d for a n additiona

l coa l handlin g facilit

y sinc e all boiler s woul d b e usin g the sam e coa

l a tthe sam e time . Accordin g to th e Radia n repor tth e tota l capita l investmentfor a ne

w coal-handlin g facilit

y i s S 10,693,000 . -N o additiona

l contro l woul d b e needed a tthi s time which woul d eliminate a n estimated $2,500,00 0 capita

l expenditure for a scrubbe ran d als o eliminate th e continuou s operatin g an d maintenance cost s associate d wit h th e scrubber . -ItI s anticipated th e curren

tcoal pric e differentia

l favorin g Wester

n coa l ove rIowa coal wil l remain th e sam e throug h 1996 . I

n 1996 , Phas e I o f

th e Aci d Rain Provision s wil l becom e effectiv e whic h ma y eliminate th e curren

tpric e differential . A reasonabl e scenari o the

n woul d b e a graduall y increasin g coa l pric e differentia

l favorin g Iow

a coal until di e year2000 , whe n Phas e I I o f th e Aci d Rai

n Provision s woul d becom e effective . 2 . Convenin g th e thre e existin g boiler s t o th e sam e 42:5 8 blendin g progra m as boile r# 4 ' woul d allo w AD M t

o deferth e capita

l investmentunti

l th e annua

l cos to f wester n coal cost s as muc

h a s th e annualized cost s o f

th e duplicat

e coal handling facility . Thi s annua l saving s o f

J 1,193,14 7 coul d b e applie d t o th e purchas e o f

349,35 3 ton s o f

western coa

l needed for the thre e existin g boilers . Unde r thes e circumstance s the duplicativ e coal handlin g facilit

y woul d no

tb e justifie d unti

l th e western coal s becam e atleas t (51,193,147/349,35 3 ton j « $3.42/to n more expensiv e tha n midwester

n coals . (I tmus tb e noted tha

tthere woul d b e operationa l saving s eac

h yea r unti

l th e pric e differentia

l reache s thi s leve l from th e curren t~$3/to n saving s i n th e us e o f western coals) . I n th e futur

e betwee n 199 6 un

d 200 0 whe n iri s anticipate d tha tMidwester

n coa l woul d b e substantiall y cheape rtha n Wester n coa l the n a blend (42 % Midwestern , 58 % Western ) of Iow a cua i an d Wester n coa l fo ral l fou rboiler s wit

h a scrubbe r for boile r # 4 coul d b e utilize d t u achiev e a n emissio n rat

e o f 0.0 8 Ib/MMBTU forboile r#4 . Th e other thre e existin g boiler s woul d achiev e a

n emissio n rat

e o f 0.3 5 Ib/MMBTU o n th e sam e blended coal ; whic h i s wel l withi n th e existin g permitlimits . -Thi s woul d require a capita l expenditure fo r coa

l mixin g equipmen

tfo r th e existin g coa

l handlin g facility . A capita l expenditure woul d no tb e required for a separate coal handlin g facilit

y sinc e al

l fou rboiler s woul d stil l b e usin g th e sam e coa tblend . -Thi s woul d require a scrubber t o b e adde d t o boile r # 4 which woul d cos t$2,500,00 0 initiall y plu s operatin g an d maintenance costs . -Saving s fro

m burning Wester

n coa l fro m 1992 t o somewher e between 199 6 un d 200 0 woul d b e used t

o offse to rpossibl y pa

y fo r th e tota

l cos to f the capita

l expenditures . 3 . Sometim e afte

r th e year200 0 whe n iti s anticipated tha tMidwester

n coal woul d b e muc h cheapertha

n Wester n coal , the

n a switc h to burning all Midwester n coa l coul d b e made . A be

d Ca/S ratio o f

3. 0 an d a scrubbe r Ca/S rati o o f 2. 5 woul d achiev e a

n emissio n rat

e o f 0.0 8 lb/MMBT U for boile r #4 . Th e thre e existin g boiler s coul d b e operated a

ta Ca/ S be d ratio o f 4. 0 an d achiev e a

n emissio n rat

e o f 0.6 2 lb/MMBT U whic h woul d mee

tth e existin g three boilers ' permitconditions . -Thi s typ e o f

strategy allow s th e compan y the maximu

m amoun to f flexibility i

n usin g boile rbe d Ca.' S ratios , coa

l sources , coa

l handlin g an

d blendin g systems , add-o n control s an d capita l expenditure s t

o achiev e a BAC T S0 2 o f 0.0 8 Ib/MMBt

u for boile r #4 . A tP.1 8

FfcaaW - ,3-9 3 I E E T : 5 5 DN R 1 8

Januar y 28 , 199 3 AD M Ceda r Rapid s Boile rH

PS D Revie w Even so , thes e cost s Br

e s o lo w as to sugges tmof e aggressiv e contro l technologie s shoul d hav e bee n explore d an

d tha tth e curren

tBAC T proposa

l i s flawed. Other mor e aggressiv e option s inlcude : combinin g dr

y scrubbin g wit

h coa l blendin g o r Wester

n coal , additiona

l add-on S0 2 controls , mor e aggressiv e Ca O ratio s tha n used i n thi s analysis , etc . Thi s tabl e demonstrate s concern s aboutcus i increase s i n western COa l as wel l as capita

l cost s o f

coa l handlin g an

d dr y scrubbin g ar

e simpl y no

t relevant . Wester n coa l pric e differentia

l Th e cos tt

o obtai n Western coa

l ha s bee n inflated b y a "pric

e differential " o f

S5.0 0 t o $22.50/tun , du e th e assume d difficult

y o f obtainin g Wester

n coa l in th e iiirur

e du e t o provision s o f

Titl e I V o f the CAAA , aci d rain . Tni s assumptio n i s purely speculation , an d i ti s currentl y aroun

d $3.00/to n cheape r forAD M t

o obtai n Western coa

l ove r Midwester

n coal . Radia

n acknowledge s this in thei r Novembe r comments . Revise d cos testimate s i n respons e t

o IDN Rcomments , Radia n examine s a

n optio n o f

AFB C wit

h LS D (dr

y scrubber ) an

d 100 % Wester

n coal . However , th e analysi s o f thes e option s b

y Radia n an d subsequen tcos tcalculation s i s builtupo n th e incorrectbaselin e o f 0.7 8 Ib/MMBtu . Therefore , th e cos tperto n o f remova l wil l b e grossl y Inflated , sinc e th e denominato r i s 0.7 8 instead o f

7.8 . i Th e stricte r control option s Radia n examine s are : AFBC . a t92 % contro l (4. 0 Ca/

S rati o in th e bed) , AFB C + LS D <

® 95 % control , AFB C + LS D @ 99 % control , an d 100 % Wester

n coal . Th e cost s presented fo rthes e contro l option s are over-inflate d du e t o th e incorrectbaselin e used . I f thes e number

s wer e adjusted t o reflec ta 7. 8 Ib/MMBt u baseline , a

s wa s don e i n the Stanle y report , the y would sho w muc

h lowe rnumber

s o f tota l cost/to n an

d incrementa

l S/ton . Th e Radia

n number

s als o includ e highe r cost s forothe r factors tha n were include d i

n the Stanle y report. Th e Radia

n repor tshow s a n increase d cos to f

limeston e an

d limeston e waste disposa l by approximatel y $ 1.000.00 0 ove rth e Stanley report . Th e Stanley repor treflect s a n accurat e baselin e o f

7. 8 Ib/MMBtu . I talso examine s muc

h tighte rcontro l options , a s lo w a s 0.0 7 Ib/MMBt

u S0 2 removal . A compariso n o f

costs forth e Radia

n an d Stanley report

s shows : 

### Tabl e 2 CVnw ' Qp.'V " Stanley Repor t AFBC ® 90 % SI.621.99 6 AFBC ® 92 % $1,994,34 2 (4. 0 be d ratio ) AFB C + LS D ® 95 % $2,359,82 6 AFB C + LS D $ 99 % $2,590,69 6 (98.5 % control ) 100 % Western coal $ 267,06 6 Radia n Reno n $1,659,06 9 $3,074,25 8 53,575.12 7 S4,076,42 7 $4,149,53 6 (coal $5/ton ) $8,559,69 4 (coal $22.50/ton ) Cos tDifferenc e $ 37.07 3 $1,079,91 6 Sl.215.30 1 $1,455,73 1 $3,882,47 0 $8,292,67 1P.1 9



### Januar y 8 , 199 3 ADM Ceda r Rapid s Boiler # 4 PS

D Review Th e grarj h reveals tha

tWester n coa l wit h a Ca/ S rati o o f 3. 0 an d 90 % overal

l S0 2 remova

l give s on e o f th e highestemissions reduction s fo r the leas tcost . Thi s i s tru o forWester

n coa l Wit h $ 0 pric e differentia l over Midwester

n coal , an

d for Wester

n coa l wit h a $ 5 price differentia

l ove r Midwester

n coal . Highe

r pric e differentials wer

e notevaluate

d for short-ter

m analysis . 

## Figur e 2 330 0

*wo 3200- J200 - 3100 - 100 0 2200 - 

### aace J70O 2MO 3500 - 

### Approximat e Annua l Cos

t Limi t



## AD M Ceda r Rapid s Boile r # 4 Annualize d Cost o

f Contro l pe r to n S0 2 remove d versu s Resultin g Emission s o f Sulfu r Dioxid e (S02 )

*.*/!* *

I I I I I I I I I T ' I I I I l I J I I ' I I ' ' • ' rnrrni l I I • • • • I < • • i • • • ••'
. 100 0 200 0 300 0 400 0 500 0 «00 0 

## Resultin g Emission s (tons/year )

n 

# JP.2 0

Januar y 28 , 199

3 AD M Ceda r Rapids Boile r # 4 PS D Revie w Environmen

t Radia n identifie s onl y on e environmenta l issue , th e generation o f soli d waste s from 50 2 emissio n control alternatives . They stat e tha toperating th e AFB C boile r t o achiev e 92 % reductio n (4. 0 Ca/ S ratio ) woul d increas e soli d wast e generatio n b

y 64,50 0 tons/year . Ther e is n o calculatio n shown forthis number. Radia n claim s the AFB C plu s LS D FG D optio n woul d reduc

e soli d wast e generatio n b y 20,90 0 tuns/year . Th e reductio n i n soli d wast

e b y usin g a

n LS D FGD syste m shoul d b e considere d a n environmenta

l advantage . Radia n states : "Th e primar y environmenta

l impac to f th e S0 2 emissio n contro l alternative s wil l b e fro m th e generatio n o f

soli d wastes . Operating th e CF B boile r t

o achiev e 9 2 percentreduction wil l increas e soli d wast e generatio n b y approximatel y 64,50 0 tons/yr . Th e AFB C plu s LS D FG D optio n woul d reduce soli d wast e generatio n by abou

t20.90 0 tons/yr /

(page 3-16 ) Regarding coa

l blending , Radia

n states : "Becaus e western coa

l contains les s sulfur , limeston e usag e and , therefor e soli d wast e generatio n rate s wil l b e lowe rtha tformidwester

n coal-firing . Thes e saving s ar e included i

n th e analysis " (pag e 3-18) . Unfortunately , th e cos tanalysi s presentation i s to o sketchy t o confir m this . Th e lac

k o f listin g wast

e disposa l cost s i s inconsisten twit h othersection s o f

th e Radia n repon . Fo r example , I n th e NO x BAC T analysi s Radia

n manages t

o itemiz e wast

e disposal costs , i

n tha tcas e to sho w a.cos tdisadvantag e to r the control optio o o f

ammonia injection . A

n itemizatio n o f

waste disposa l costs t

o sho w a n economi c c.i.\ tadvantage forth e western coa l o rblended coal BAC T option s i s neve r shown .



### 1 3P.2 1

Januar y 28 , 199 3 ADM Ceda rRapids Boile r # 4 PS D Revie w
Radian' s proposal o f

0.7 8 Ib/MMBt

u a s BAC T is no

ta top-down BAC T selectio n an d i s rejected . Th e emissio n leve l chose n a s BAC T i s 0.0 8 lb/MMBt u fo rS02 . Thi s wa s don e b y evaluatin g contro l option s i n th e Stanle y an d Radia n report s an d lookin g a tstricte roption s tha n eithe r report showed , i n orde r t o accomplis h a "top-down n BAC T analysis . Thi s i s show n o n Figur e 2 . Th e selecte d BAC T o f

0.0 8 Ib/MMBr

u represent

s nearl y th e NSP S limi tfo r Wester n coa l (NSP S i s 0.8 1 Ib/MMBtu) . Thi s selectio n ca n b e arrive

d a tb y variou s options , although di e mos tcost-effeaiv e option s includ e a scrubbe ro n Midwestern coa l o rWester

n coa l a ta 3. 0 Ca/

S bed ratio. . A BAC T emissio n rat

e o f 0.0 8 lb/MMBt

u wa s chose n based o n consideration s o f top-down analysi s an

d -ust-effectiveness . Tbl s ca n b e achieved wit

h limeston e injectio n ratio s in th e be d o f les s tha n 4.0 , i f thi s i s a concern . Thi s limi tca n als o b e achieve d wit

h Midwester

n coal o r a blend o f

Midwester

n an d western coals , although wit h Midwester

n coa l highe rCa/

S ratios i n th e be d an d a scrubber i s required . Wester n coa l i s no ta permitrequirement, sinc e there are other means o f achievin g 0.0 8 lb/MMBt u cmhsiio n rat

e forS02 . However , the Wester n coa l option s refle a th s greates temissio n reductions a t the leas tcost .



### 1 5P.2 2

TERR Y E

. BRANSTAO

. (JOVIANO * Januar y 28 , 1993 ' DRAF T DEPARTMEN T O F [NATURA L RESOURCE S LARR Y J . WILSON . omecTC . CERTIFIE D

1 Mr

. Mar k

E

. Calmes , Directo r' Corporat e Los s Praventio n Arche rDaniel s Midlan d Compan y Bo x147 0 Decatur ! Illinoi s 6252 5

Dea rMr

. Calmes :

• Subject : IDN R Projec t No

. 90-222 , Plan t Numbe r57-01-08 0

Thi s lerca rtransmit s th e followin g permi t fo rth e ai rcontaminan t sourc e en d relate d oontro l equipmen t describe d i n you rpermi t applicatio n o f Novembe r2 , 1990 , an d subsequen t submitta l of Octobe r14 , 1992

.
Sourc e No

. Descriptio n Uni t #4 CFB C Boile r DN R Permit U 93-A-XX X Issue d Permi t Typ e PS D

You rattentio n i s directe d to-th e Standar d an d Specia l Condition s attache d t o thes e permits

. Pursuant t o Departmenta l directiv e o f Septembe r10 , 199 1 n o revie w wa s performe d regardin g th e toxi c emission s fro m thes e sources , i f any . Thi s permi t doe s no t constitut e acceptanc e (o rlac k

thereof ) of th e modelin g demonstratio n provide d wit h th e permi t applicatio n no rapprova l (o rlac k thereof ) o f th e toxi c emission s documente d i n th e submittal

. Sincerely ,

cc : IPN R F

O # 5 Mr

. Pete i Hamlin , Chief , Ai rQualit y Burea u EPA , Regio n VI I

WAUJ.C S STAT E OFFIC E BUILDIN G / OE S MClNES

. IOW

A 5C3. 9 /

515-231-5145 /

7D 0 315-242-SS6 7 /

FAX ; 15-26 1 -835 5

### Arche rDaniel s Midlan d Compan y Boile rNumbe rFou r. *

Januar y 28 , 199 3 PS D Permi t Numbe r93-A-xx x



## PERMIT CONDITION S Th e owne ro roperato rcf th e facilit y shal l assur e tha t th e installatio n an d operatio n o f thi s facilit y i s i n complianc e wit h al l condition s liste d herein

. 

### 1
. Departmenta l Revie w Thi s permi t i s issue d base d o n informatio n submitte d b y th e applican t i n th e applicatio n form , it s attachments , an d an y additiona l submittal

. An y misinformation , fals e statement s o rmisrepresentation s b y th e applican t shal l caus e thi s permi t t o be void

. Th e propose d equipmen t ha s bee n evaluate d fo rconformanc e wit h Iow a Cod e Chapte r 455B ; 56 7 Iow a Administrativ e Cod e Chapters 20-29 ; an d 4 0 C.F.R

. Par t 52 , an d has th e potentia l t o comply

. N o revie w ha s bee n undertake n o n th e engineerin g aspect s o f th e equipmen t o rcontro l equipmen t othe rtha n th e potentia l o f tha t equipmen t fo rreducin g ai rcontaminan t emissions

. Thi s Departmen t assume s n o liability , directl y o rindirectly , fo ran y los s du e t o damag e t o person s o rpropert y cause d by , resultin g from , o rarisin g ou t o f th e design , installation , maintenanc e o roperatio n of th e propose d equipment

. 

### 2
. Initiatio n o

f Constructio n Thi s permi t shal l becom e voi d i f a continuou s progra m o f constructio n has no t bee n initiate d withi n 12 0 Ion s hundre d an d twenty ) day s aite rth e dat e of issuanc e o f thi s permit : o ri f constructio n i s discontinue d fo ra perio d o f 1 2 Itwelve ) month s o rlonger ; o ri f constructio n i s no t complete d withi n a reasonabl e perio d o f time

. Th e owne ro roperato rbear s responsibilit y t o ensure , tha t constructio n conform s t o tha t shew n o n th e plan s anc i specification s an d tha t adequat e operatio n an d maintenanc e i s provide d t o ensure tha t n o conditio n o f ai rpollutio n i s created

. An y change s mad e i n th e fina l plan s an d specification s fo rth e propose d equipmen t o rcontro l equipmen t shal l requir e a supplementa l permit

. 

### 3
. Permi t Not Transferabl e Thi s permi t i s no t transferabl e fro m on e piec e o f equipmen t t o another

. Further , thi s permi t i s no t transferabl e fro m on e locatio n t o another

. I t an y o f th e existin g boilers ar e replace d b

y th e owner/operato rfo ran y reason , th e owner/operato rmus t obtai n approva l fro m th e IDN R centra l offic e before beginnin g constructio n th e replacemen t unit

. Approva l ma y b e conditione d o n additiona l requirement s t o thi s permit

. 

### 4
. Permitte e Responsibilit y Issuanc e o f thi s permi t shal l not reliev e th e owne ro roperato ro f th e responsibilit y t o compl y full y witl i applicabl e provision s o f th e stat e implementatio n pla n (SIP ) an d wit h th e provision s o f applicabl e local , state , an d federa l laws , regulations , ordinances , an d othe rreauiremant s applyin g t o thi s installation

.P.2 4

- Arche rDaniel s Midlan d Compan y Boiie rNumbe rFou r4 Januar y 28 , 199 3 PS D Permi t Numbe r93-A-xx x
8

. Sourc e Characteristic s Tni s permi t i s fo rth e constructio n an d operatio n o f a Tampell a Keela r477,00 0 pp h stea m circulatin g fluidize d be d combustio n (CFBC ) boile rt o b e operate d a t n o mor e tha n 551. 5 millio n BTU s pe rhou r(MMBtu/hr ) an d ducte d t o th e stac k detaile d below

.
Heiah t Diamete rTemoeratur e Flu e Ga s Flo w 35 0 fee t 3.4 5 meter s " 32 0 F 200,89 1 ACF M UT M Locatio n 4,642,020. 0 meter s Northerl y an d 608.775. 0 meter s Easterl y
9

. Limitation s o n Othe rSources

. A

. Emission s Limit s Effectiv e o n an d afte rth e dat e th e 30-da y S0 2 complianc e demonstratio n i s completed , emission s fro m th e existin g dryer s (unit s #2, # 4 an d #5 ) shal l no t excee d th e following : Sourc e Pollutan t Emissio n Limi t Averaqin q Perio d Existin g Unit s #3.# 4 an d * 5 combine d S0 2 15 0 lb/hou r- • 3-hou r
B

. Fue l Usag e O n an d afte rth e startup.dat e o f th e propose d boiler , th e owner/operato ro f th e plan t sha l no t combus t a fue l othe rtha n natura l ga s i n th e existin g dryer s (Unit s nZ.ffA. an d #5).
10

. Initia l Complianc e Demonstration s Th e owner/operat e shal l verif y initia l complianc e wit h th e emissio n limitation s containe d i n Sectio n # 6 an d submi t a writte n repor t o f th e result s withi n 6 0 day s o f achievin g maximu m productio n an d n o late rtha n 18 0 day s afte rth e startu p dat e o f th e propose d bojler

. Th e owner/operato rshal l submi t a writte n repor t t o th e DN R centra l offic e of eac h initia l complianc e demonstratio n attempt , whethe rsuccessfu l o rnot , postmarke d no t late rtha n 3 0 day s afte rth e completio n o f th e tes t perio d o rth e terminatio n o f th e attempt , whicheve roccur s first

. A

. Lon g Ter m Emissio n Limit s 1

. 30-Da y Rollin g NO xan d S0 2 Emissio n Rat e Complianc e Th e initia l performanc e test s usin g Continuou s Emissio n Monitor s (CEMS ) shal l b e conducte d ove rth e firs t 3 0 consecutiv e boile roperatin g days

. Th e firs t da y o f thes e test s shal l b e complete d withi n 3 0 day s afte rachievin g maximu m productio n rat e bu t n o late rtha n 18 0 da y afte rinitia l startu p o f th e facility

. Fo rth e initia l 30-da y rollin g averag e complianc e test , NO x an d S0 2 fro m th e boile rsha l b e monitore d fo r3 0 consecutiv e boile roperatin g days

. Th e 30-da y averag e emissio n lim nP.2 5



### Arche rDaniel s Midlan d Compan y Boile rNumbe rFou r' 6 Januar y 28 , 199 3 PS D Permi t Numbe r93-A-xx x D

. Pretes t Meetin g A pretes t meetin g shal l b e hel d at a mutuall y agreeabl e sit e n o late rtha n thirt y (30 ) day s prio rt o th e dat e o f eac h complianc e tes t o rth e dat e of eac h CEM S performanc e evaluation , whicheve roccur s firs t i f performe d a t differen t times

. Eac h meetin g shal l b e attende d b

y representative s o f th e DN R centra l office , th e owne ran d th e complianc e testin g firm , i f used

. Representative s o f th e Lin n Count y Healt h Departmen t shal l b e invite d t o atten d eac h pretes t mastin g an d eac h complianc e demonstration

. I t shal l be th e responsibilit y o f th e ow.ne rt o coordinat e an d schedul e eac h meeting , an d t o formall y notif y al l participant s o f eac h pretes t meetin g date , complianc e tes t date , an d CE M performanc e evaluatio n date

. - - Upo n bein g notified , th e DN R wil l sen d t o th e owne ra "propose d tes t plan " questionnaire

. Th e questionnair e shal l be complete d by th e owne ran d submitte d t o th e DN R a s directed

. Th e complete d questionnair e mus t b e receive d b y th e DN R n o late rtha n fiftee n (15 ) workin g day s prio rt o th e pretes t meetin g date

. E

. Additiona l Notice s Th e Departmen t reserve s th e righ t t o impos e additional , different , o rmor e detaile d testin g requirement s a

s th e nee d arises

. I t i s th e responsibilit y o f th e owner/operato rt o locat e th e tes t port s t o b

e use d durin g complianc e testing

. 11

. Operatin g Conditio n Monitoring : » 

### Th e owne rshal l maintai n a record o f period s "o

f startup , shutdow n o rmalfunction ; th e type , quality , an d quantit y o f fue l combuste d i n existin g boiler s #2, #3 , # 4 an d th e propose d uni t #4 ; an d an y othe rinformatio n necessar y t o verif y complianc e wit h th e condition s o

f thi s permit

. 12

. Continuou s Emissio n Monitorin g A

. S0 2 an d NO

x Th e owne rshal l continuousl y demonstrat e complianc e wit h th e S0 2 an d NO x emissio n limitations , opacity , an d S0 2 percen t reductio n requirement s of thi s permi t throug h th e us e of continuou s emissio n monitorin g system s (CEMS) an d a fue l samplin g an d analysi s (FSA ) system
. Thes e system s shal l b e installed , operatin g an d calibrate d prio rt o beginnin g th e initia l complianc e demonstratio n se t fort h i n Conditio n #1 0 accordin g t o 4 0 CF R 60.13

. ir

. th e cas e wher e th e CE M i s t o b e use d a s th e tes t metho d fo rdemonstratin g compliance , th e performanc e certificatio n repor t shal l b e submitte d t o th e agenc y prio rt o initiatin g th e facilit y complianc e testing

. Verificatio n o

f complianc e wit h th e emissio n limi t shal l b e mad e b y th e owner/operato ra t th e en d o

f eac h boile roperatin g hour , usin g th e dat a collecte d b y th e Continuou s Emis.sio n Monitorin g Syste m (CEMS)

. Th e three-hou raverag e i s calculate d a s th e arithmeti c averag e of al l vali d hourl y dat a collecte d durin g th e previou s thre e boile roperatin g hours

. Complianc e wit h th e S0 2 an d NO x emissio n rat e limitation s an d th e S0 2 percen t reductio n requirement s shal l b e calculate d a

s th e averag e o

f al l vali d hourl y emissio n rat e dat a an d vali d hourl y S0 2 percen t reductio n dat a fo rth e 3 0 previou s boile roperatin g aay s durin g whic h eac h standard applies

. Th e owner/operato rshal l calculat e a ne w 30-day averag e a t th e en d o f eac h boile roperatin g day

.Archer'Daniel s Midlan d Compan y Boile rNumbe rFou r

'Januar y 28

. 199 3 PS D Permi t Numbe r93-A-xx x 

### Equivalen t S0 2 inle t rat e o f individua l bunke r %S

---- - K , GHV wher e K= 20.000(lb # BTU)/( % 'IVIMBTU )
I f th e equivalen t inle t S0 2 rate s fo rcoa l containe d i n eac h da y bunke rwhic h feed s t o a singl e boile rdiffe rb y 0. 2 lb s S02/MMBT U hea t inpu t o rless , th e arithmeti c averag e o f th e tw o equivalen t S0 2 inle t rate s shal l b e use d a s th e "equivalen t hourl y averag e S0 2 inle t rate " fo reac h hourl y percen t reductio n calculatio n durin g th e boile roperatio n day

. Otherwise , th e owner/operato rshall ; .(1 ) us e th e smalle ro f th e tw o equivalen t S0 2 inie t rate s a s th e "equivalen t hourl y averag e S0 2 inle t rate " fo reac h hourl y percen t reductio n calculatio n durin g th e boile roperatin g da y o r(2 ) calculat e a n "equivalen t hourl y averag e S0 2 inle t rate " fo reac h hou ro f operatio n usin g th e followin g hea t inpu t weighte d equation

. W1 # %S 1 + W2*%S 2 Equivalen t hourl y averag e S0 2 inle t rat e = K WI # GHV 1 + W2*GHV 2 W l = Ton s o f coa l fe d t o firs t o f paire d da y bunker s durin g hou r W 2 = Ton s o f coa l fe d t c secon d o f paire d da y bunker s durin g hou r %S 1 = Weigh t percen t sulfu ro f coa l containe d i n firs t bunke r %S 2 = Weigh t percen t sulfu ro f coa l containe d i n secon d bunke r GHV l = Gros s heatin g valu e o f coa l containe d i n firs t bunke r GHV 2 = Gros s heatin g valu e o f coa l containe d i n secon d bunke r K= 20.00 0 (ro"BTU)/(%*MMBTU ) i B

. Particulate , Lea d an d Berylliu m A continuou s monitorin g syste m fo rmeasurin g th e opacit y o f emission s discharge d int o tn e atmospher e shal l b e installed , calibrated , operated , an d maintaine d durin g al l period s o f ooeratio n o f th a boile rexcep t fo rcontinuou s monitorin g syste m breakdown s an d repairs

. Operatio n shal l b a i n conformanc e wit h 4 0 CF R 60.48 b whic h include s recordin g th e outpu t o f th e system,
. Reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirement s shal l b e i n conformanc e wit h 4 0 CF R 60.49 b whic h shal l includ e filin g a quarterl y repor t o f exces s emission s a s outline d therein

. An y existin g monito rshal l b e recertifie d acccordin g t o th e procedure s specifie d b y th e Department

. 13

. Notification

. Reportin g an d Recordkeeping

. A

. Th e owner/operato rshal l furnis h th e DN R writte n notificatio n o f th e follow s conditions ; 1

. An y usag e o f thi s sourc e contrar y t o thos e limitation s specifie d i n Conditio n 6 a s require d b y Chapte r2 4 o f th e IAC

. 2

. Th e dat e tha t constructio n o f th e boile rha s begu n postmarke d withi n seve n (7 ) cay s o f tha t date

. 3

. Th e anticipate d dat e of initia l startu p o f th e propose d boiler , postmarke d no t mor e tha n sixt y (60 ) day s no rles s tha n thirt y (30 ) day s prio rt o suc h date

. 4

. Th e actua l dat e o f star t of operatio n postmarke d withi n 1 5 (fifteen ) day s followin g th e star t o f operation

. 5

. Th e anticipate d dace of eac h performanc e tes t postmarke d no t mor e tha n forty-fiv e (45 ) day s no rles s tha n thirt y (30 ) day s prio rt o th e dat e o f th e test
. 6

. Th e actua l dat e o f installatio n an d startu p o f eac h CEM S require d herein , postmarke d withi n fiftee n (15 ) day s o f completion

. 7

. Th e anticipate d date s o f th e operationa l tes t period , tes t protocol , an d dail y schedul e of th e monito rtest s postmarke d thirt y (30 ) day s prio rt o suc h activities

.P.2 7



### IOW A DEPARTMEN T O F NATURA L RESOURCE S

Ai rQuality Sectio n 

## 4 

# ' NO x BAC T Analysi s ADM Ceda

r Rapid s Boile

r # 4

Contro l Technolog y Feasibility < Backgroun d Th e infdal Radian repo n conuin s a summar y o f fluidize d bed boile rpermits issue d sinc e 198 5 includin g thos e murin g Issuance . Thi s summary document s LAE Rpennie s issue d i n 1985-8 7 settin g NO x limit s from 0.0 4 through 0.1 0 lb/MMBt u base d o n Selectiv e Non-Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR) ; BAC T permits I n 1988-8 9 settin g NO x limit s o f 0.29-0.5 0 lb/MMB m base d o n combustio n control s (CC) ; and BAC T permits i n 1990-9 2 settin g NO x limit s fro m 0.11-0.2 9 lb/MMBt u base d o n SNC Rwith on e exceptio n a t0.4 0 lb/MMBtu base d o n Combustio n Contro l (CC) . Se e Figur e 1 . Figur e I show s th e trend i n BAC T determination s toward s th e 1985-198 7 LAE Rlimits . Thi s i s wha twoul d b e expecte d wi & a properl y conducte d BAC T review . Th e Radian reportconfirm s thatboth C C and SNC Rrequirements hav e bee n establishe d an d th e system s hav e bee n operatin g base d o n permit s fro m 198 8 an d 198 5 respectively . Emissio n limits hav e range d from 0.0 4 t o 0.5 0 l b NO x /MMBt u wit h th e mos trecen tBAC T limi t0.1 6 lb/MMBtu (Figur e 1 an d Radia n Repor tTabl e 2-2) . Tb e mos trecen tpermi tdetermination s mor s accuratel y refle a th e curren t technolog y an

d economics . Thes e ar e significan tsinc e BAC T i s a case-by-cas e revie w considerin g th t economic s o f

th e technolog y a

tth e tim e o f

review . 

### Figur e 1

o

co

# 36': 

# a



# l o ,

—CN 

# cd : "in V ) U J 

### AD M Ceda r Ropid s Boile r §4

BAC T an d LAE

R Determination s fo r simila r boiler s ove r Tim e

BAC T Detirinat'on i

LAE Rdetermination s •^* .



### o8 4 I I 1 v I I I I i | . . I 1 ) i . • I



### 8 6 iii i i t c | i ii. i i » i i j i i i i T r i I i • 

### 8 8 9 0 9 2 9 4 

# Yea rP.2 8



### Januar y 11 , 199 3 

## Figure 2 AD M Ceda rRapid s Boile r# 4 PS D Revie w



## O O . •. 

### O : CN ; O : O . 

# tr i

» % 

## Q : 

# c
Q .

(f l 0 ) v . 

# o qto 3 

# AD

M Ceda rRapid s Boile r# 4 BAC T Determinatio n Interes t Rate s ove rTim e
Prim e Interes t Rate ADM' s • Propose d Rat e 

# X EP A Repor t Rate

o 1 1 I i i | i i I I | i i i I 1 1 i i i | . . 

# ci8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 i | 111 1 1 1 i'f i 1 1 r i i j I 1 1 i | i 111 1 1 1 1 1 | i i I i | 

# 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 

# Ye a

Ammoni a induce d cos tincrease s AD M allege s thatresidua l ammoni a level s i n th e as h wil l increas e wast e disposa l cost s 2. 5 time s th e curren tcosts . I n addition , AD M claim s thai ammoni a reaction s wit h sulfu rdioxid e an d chlorin e emission s fro m th e coa l wil l increas e maintenanc e requirements makin g th e boile runavailabl e betwee n un e an d ten percen t( 1 -10% ) o f th e time . Th e Departmen ti s unawar e o f any requiremen twhic h woul d increas e disposa l cost s becaus e o f th e trac e ammoni a level s projected . Similarly , th e potential los s o f recyclin g opportunitie s wa s determine d t o b e insignifican ti n ligh to f

th e substantia l oversuppl y o f usabl e as h i n th e region . Th e possibilit y exist s thatammoniu m sal tdeposit s coul d requir e greate rmaintenanc e reducin g boile r availability . Thi s wa s take n int o accoun tin th e economi c analysi s prepare d b y Radia n an d i s reflecte d i n thi s report .P.2 9

Januar y 28 , 199 3 AD M Ceda r Rapids Boile r# 4 PS D Revie w moderatio n o f

th e substantia

l mass o f aggregat e in the turbulen

tfluidized combustio n bed (supplementa l response s #2. 4 an

d 22] . Acceptin g ADM' s clai m tha ta fluidize d bed wit

h ovetftr e air emittin g NO x a t0.4 0 lb/MMBt

u i s baselin e (" a realisti c scenari o o f upperboun

d uncontrolle d emissions" ) woul d chang e th e Department' s economi c analysis . Upo n revie w o f ADM' s argumen

ta s wel l a

s operatin g record s fo r existin g Boiler s # 1 throug

h #3 (summarized below) , th e Departmen

tagree s tha

tth e baselin e fo r thi s particula rboile r i s 0.4 0 l b NOx/MMBt

u o f boile rinput.

Emissio n averagin g Tim e A 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio n limi twa s propose d b y the Departmentt o satisf y bot h PS D an d NSP S requirements . I

n thei r supplementa

l submitta

l Radia n support

s thi s averagin g perio d [supplementa l respons e #3 1 an

d provide s dat

a t o indicat e wh y startu p temperatur

e limitation s preclud e short-ter m NO x limits [supplementa

l respons e #18] . Thi s averagin g tim e wil l b e used .

Combustio n Control (CC ) Efficiencie s Although 0.4 0 Ib/MMBc u ma y b e th e 'reasonabl e scenari o o f upper bound uncontrolle d emission s fo r th e source" , thi s boile r desig n ca n reasonably b e expecte d t o perfor m more efficientl y when manage d fu rNO x control . O

f significanc e fro

m on e Emissio n Dat

a Repor t(3r d quarte r 1991 ) fo

r existin g boiler s * l throug h # 3 i s th e stabilit

y o f bot h hourl y an d 30-day emissions . Th e 30-day average s persiste d for a wee k o rlonge rwithou tchangin g b y 0.0 1 lb/MMBtu . Notin g a 30-da y rollin g averag e consist s o f ove r70 0 hourl y readings , eve n a dramatic chang e in-emission s (suc h a s a dro p t o 0.1 9 lb/MMBt

u (8/22/91) ) did no treduc e th e 30-day rollin g average . Boile r# 1 ha

d 30-da v rollin g average s of : 0.3 2 Ib/MMBtufror

a 7/1 - throug

h 7/ 8 , 0.3 1 lb/MMBtufro m 7/ 9 throug h 7/25 , 0.3 0 Ib/MMBtufror

a 7/2 6 throug

h J/ 2 , 0.3 1 Ib/MMBtufrom 8/ 3 throug h 8/14 , 0.3 0 Ib/MMBtufror

a 8/1 5 throug

h 8/29 , 0.2 9 Ib/MMBtufrom 8/3 0 throug h 9/12 , 0.3 0 Ib/MMBtufro

m 9/1 3 throug

h 9/24 , 0.3 1 lb/MMBtuo n 9/25 , 0.3 0 Ib/MMBtufro

m 9/2 6 throug

h 9/28 , 0.3 1 Ib/MMBtufrom 9/2 9 throug h 9/30+ . wit h hourly emission s fro

m 0.1 9 Ib/MMBt

u (I hou r o n 8/22 ) t

o 0.3 6 lb/MMBt

u ( 1 hour o n 9/21) . Boile r 11 ha

d 30-dav rollin g average s of : 0.3 0 lb/MMBtufrom 7/1 - throug h 8/18 , 0.2 9 Ib/MMBtufrom 8/1 9 through 8/29 , 0.2 8 Ib/MMBtufrom 8/3 0 throug h 9/ 6 , 0.2 9 lb/MMBtufro m 9/7 throug h 9/12 , 0.3 0 Ib/MMBtufro

m 9/1 3 throug

h 9/21 , 0.3 1 lb/MMBtufro m 9/2 2 throug h 9/30+ . wit h hourly emission s fro

m 0.2 4 lb/MMBt

u (1 4 hou

r o n 8/24 ) t

o 0.3 6 lb/MMBt

u ( 1 hou r o n 9/22) . Boile r# 3 ha d 30-da v rolling sveraEes of ; 0.3 3 Ib/MMBtuthroug

h 7/1- . 0.3 4 lb/MMBtuo n 7/2 , 0.3 3 lb/MMBtufro m 7/

3 throug h 7/6 , 0.3 2 lb/MMBtufro m 7/ 7 throug h 7/24 , 0.3 1 Ib/MMBtufro

m 7/2 5 throug

h 8/2 , 0.3 2 lb/MMBtufro m 8/ 3 throug h 8/8 . 0.3 1 Ib/MMBtufror

a 8/ 9 throug h 8/18 , 0.3 0 lb/MMBtufro m 8/1 9 throug h 9/4 , 0.3 1 Ib/MMBrufro

m 9/ 5 throug h 9/8 . 0.3 2 lb/MMBtufro m 9/ 9 throug h 9/17 , 0.3 3 Ib/MMBtufrom 9/1 8 throug h 9/20 , 0.3 4 lb/MMBtufro m 9/2 1 throug h 9/27 . an

d 0.3 i lb/MMBtufro m 9/2 8 throug h 9/30 + (thi s boile r wa s take

n dow n tw o hours int

o 9/2 8 fou

rhour s afte

r NO x level s reached 0.5 0 lb/MMBtu. )P.3 0

Januar y 28 , 1993 AD M Ceda rRapids Boile r # 4 PS D Revie w reductio n wa

s corrected t o us e a singl e baseline . Ib | ADM' s costs . jc ] wit

h revise d availabilit

y cost s a s calculate d b

y Radia n an d discusse d above , j 1 1 from Tabl e A- 3 NOxOU T costs (becaus e it' s cheaper) ,

Othe r SNC RContro

l Efficiencie s Control t o 0.1 1 Ib/MMBt

u I n thei rinitia

l repor tRadia n indicate s a NO x emissio n limi to f 0.1 1 lb/MMBt

u ha s bee n 'provisionall y guaranteed ' a

s they wer e developin g th e 0.1 2 Ib/MMBt u optio n (pag e 2-21) . Despit e this , Radia n addresse s th e tw o SNC Rtechnologie s a s on e option . I

n their supplementa

l submitta

l Radia n explain s thi s decisio n wa s based o n th e similaritie s in th e reactio n chemistr

y o f th e two techniques rathe r tha n • thei r performance o reconomi c nuance s (supplementa

l respons e #17] . I n bot h case s Radia

n state s thi s wa

s subjectt o a maximu

m NH 3 sli p o f

2 0 ppm . From thi s statemen t th e cost s fo r the 0.1 2 lb/MMBt u Therma l DeNO x optio n appea

r to b e th e sam : a

s th e cost s forth e 0.1 1 lb/MMBt u provisional guarantee . Therefore , thes e cost s ar e calculate d wit

h th e correc tbaseline . Control t o 0.0 7 Ib'MMBt

u Th e initia

l Radia n repor tstates : .
" A lowe remissio n limi to f 0.0 7 lb/MMBt

u fo rSNC Rplu s C C wa s considere d technicall y infeasibl e due t o hig h ammonia sli p levels. " "Th e cyclon e temperatures ot * th e AD M Ceda

rRapids boile r 1-

3 typicall y operat

e a t 148 5 -160 0 F . Thi s temperatur e i s muc h lowe rtha

n th e optima

l SNCR"temperatur

e o f 190 0 F. , an

d lowe rtha

n man y othe rCFB boile rapplications . Th e lowe rtemperatur e windo w requires a high reagentt o N0 2 ratio t

o reduc e NO x emission s dow n t o 0.0 7 lb/MMBtu . Thi s woul d resulti n ammonia sli p level s a

tprobably 2 t

o 3 time s greater tha n 2 0 ppm. Thi s woul d resulti n ammoni

a emissio n concentratio n equa l to o r greate r tha n th e .NO

x emissions . Additionally , the hig h ammonia sli p level s woul d caus e ammonia saltformation/deposition/emissio n problems tha twoul d significantl y affec tplan e availabilit y an d waste disposa

l handling . Bot

h Exxo n an

d NALC O decline d t

o giv e guarantees fo

r a NOx emissio n rat

e o f 0.0 7 Ib/M.MBt

u wit h a n ammonia sli p les s tha

n 2 0 ppm . Becaus e SNC Rplus C C wit h a n emissio n limi to f

0.0 7 lb/MMBt

u wit h les s tha n 2 0 pp m sli p was notconsidered technicall y feasibl e fo r th e proposed CF B boiler , the environmental , energy , an d economi c impact

s wer e no

tassessed. " (pag e 2-22 ) I n theirsupplementa

l submitta

l Radia n stil l ha s concern s abou

tth e feasibility o f

th e lowe r emissio n limit becaus e o f

th e ammoni

a emission s whic

h woul d b e expected . Radia n expects the

y woul d need a four fol d increas e i

n reagen tinjectio n rate

s wit h injectio n ratio s simila r to thos e required in Californi a fo r emissio n limits o f

0.0 4 t o 0.06 5 lb/MMBt

u (supplementa

l respons e #20] . Alternately , AD M coul d us e reactio n enhancer

s [supplementa

l respons e #4 ] bu

tth e economic s o f

thi s optio n ar

e notye tdefined . Radia n overstate s th

e significanc e o f

highe r ammoni

a slip . Th e Stat

e o f Iowa doe s no thave a

n ai r toxic s progra m s o ammonia level s ar e no ta direc

tconcern . Thes e are , however , discusse d i n th e environmenta

l revie w whic

h follows .P.3 1

Januar y 28 , 1993 AD M Ceda r Rapid s Boile r # 4 PS D Revie w Th e analysi s t

o thi s pointaccepted Radian' s cos tcomponents (othe r tha n soli d waste disposal ) a tface value , includin g operationa l cost s (supplementa

l respons e #25] . Th e Departmentha s use d th e economi c analysi s develope d fo r th e Benzen e NESHA P regulation s a s a guid e fo r"reasonabl e costs " i n BAC T determinations , l n th e benzen e rulemakin g a n economi c cos to f

- $3.000/to n o f

contaminantremove d wa s considere d acceptable . Althoug h benzen e i s considere d a "hazardous " contaminant , th e criteri a pollutants i n PS D ar e specificall y selecte d becaus e o f thei r clear threa tt o publi c health . Hence , the publi c healt h compariso n i s valid . I ti s eviden tal

l th e option s hav e reasonabl e costs . However , 0.0 7 lb/MMBt u NO x emission s is a

tth e limi tused b y th e Departmentpreviousl y fo r averag e cost s analysis . SNC Rperfbrmanc e efficiencie s ar

e dependen to n reagentinjectio n rates . A s a result , SNC Rcontro l efficienc y ca n b e manage

d b y adjusting injectio n rates withi n th e limits o f reagen tstorag e an

d handlin g equipmentan d th e feasibilit

y limits o f th e technology . l n thei rsupplementa

l submittal , Radia

n describe s th e factor

s whic h chang e a

s control limit

s fo r SNC R ar e tightened . Radia

n estimate d th e capita

l cost s fo r0.0 7 lb/MMBt u optio n from 0.1 2 lb/MMBt u cost s usin g th e "slx-tenrh s facto r rule " a s follows : A * C,-C,-(Q,/Q J I n th e sam e respons e Radia n indicates : [supplementa l respons e #20 ]

"Circulatin g AFB C boiler s in Californi a hav e NH3 t o NO x injectio n ratio' s o f 2: 1 t o 4:1 , th e lowe rrati o forunit s wit h emissio n limits o f

0.09-0.1 0 lb/MMBt

u an d th e highe r rati o fo remissio n limits o f

0.04-O.6 5 lb/MMBtu . Base d on thi s informatio n , i twas assumed tha

ta n injectio n rati

o o f 4: 1 woul d be necessary t o achiev e a

n emissio n limi t of0.0 7 1b:MMBtu... " From th e economi c documentation , iti s eviden tth e 0.1 2 lb/MMBt u calculation s ar

e base d o n a ratio or ' 1:1 . Th e Radia

n cos trelationship s ar

e use d to develo p additiona l efficienc y option s o f

70 % (th e nomina l 0.1 2 option) , 72.5 % (th e nomina l 0.1 1 option) , 75% , 77.5% , 80% , an d 82. 5 (th e nomina

l 0.0 7 option ) assumin g a linearrelationshi p betwee n th e tw o reagen tratio s o f th e 0.1 2 an

d 0.0 7 Ib/MMBt

u options . Th e resultin g cost s ar

e summarized i

n Tabl e 3 an

d Figur e 3 . Tabl e 3 (continuatio n o f Tabl e 2 ) Control Techniqu e emission s emissio n Annualize d reductio n Costs lb/MMBt u TP Y (fro

m baseline ) Cost/To n ofNOxreducio n
C C 12.5 % SNC R

_70 % C C 12.5 % SNC R@72.5 % C C 12.5 % SNCR © 75 % C C 12.5 % SNC RQV.5% CC 12.5 % SNC R& 80 % C C 12.5 % SNCR ® 82.5 % w / 1 % reductio n i n capacit y w / 10% " 

### 0.105 0.09625 0.0875 0.07875 0.0 7 0.06125 267

24 4 222 20 0 17 8 15 6 15 4 13 9 622 64 5 667 68 9 71 1 733 73 5 75 0 760,00 0

760,00 0 1,146,00 0 1,545,00 0 1,940,00 0 2,335,00 0 2,389,00 0 2,905.00 0 $1,17

6 WxOJT) $1,68 6 (Therma

l deNOx ) $2,10 8 " $2,49 4 ' $2,84 9 " $3,17 9 " $3,25 0 " S3.73 6 "P.3 2

1,11 1 

### 77 8 26 7 26 4 23 8 — 

### 33 3 84 4 84 7 87 3 d d d d j — 

### ? 732,000fb ] 799.000(b ) 1,331,0001b ! 0

$867.3 0 $943.3 3 $1,524.6 3 Januar y 28 , 199 3 ADM Ceda r Rapids Boile r # 4 PS D Revie w I n thei rsupplementa

l repor tRadia n states : "over rwo-thirds o f th e annua

l cos to f th e SNC Rtechnologie s i s reagentconsumption... " (pag e 6) . A s a result , th e actua l cost s shoul d b e significand y les s tha n indicated i

n Radian' s analysis . I f ADM' s contentio n o f

0.4 0 lb/MMBt

u baselin e wer e to be rejected , th e economic s woul d b e a s shown i n Tabl e 4 . I

tshoul d b e note

d th e abilit

y to operate combustio n control s (CC ) presents no capita l costs an d wuul d hav e unknown annua l costs no tdocumented b y ADM . I

ti s assumed C C present s n o annualize d costs . 

## Tabl e 4 (Tabl e 2 continued ) ' Statu s Control Techniqu e emission s emissio n Annualize d Cost/To n reduction Cost s o f NO x reductio n lb/MMBt u TP

Y (fro m baseline ) baselin e uncontrolle d J>.0.5 0

CC 0.4 0 C C an d SNC R0.1 2 w / 1 % reduction i

n capacit y w / 10 % reductio n i

n capacit y
!d | emissio n reductio n corrected t o apparen tuncontrolle d baselin e
Incrementa

l Cos tAnalysi s Increase s «

n incrementa

l cost/to n or emission s removed i n switchin g from on e contro l optio n t o anothe r ma y b e used alon g wit

h average cost/to n o f

emission s reduce

d whe n th e averag e cost s ar e nearing th

e cos tcutoff

, l n analyzin e goin g from 80 % t o 82.5 % SNC Refficiency , th e incrementa l cos tfo r Therma l deNO x i s [$(3,179-2,849)/ton ] = $330/to n increas e in costs fora n additional ((178-156)ton ] = 2 2 tons o f NO x removal . Thi s results i n a n incrementa

l cos to f SI5.00/to n for eac

h additiona

l ton o f contaminantremove d an d i s a n acceptable incrementa

l cost . Summar y Th e selectio n o f

a baselin e doe s notsufficientl y impac tth e economic s t

o chang e th e BAC T selection . Th e mos tstringentemissio n limi tmus tb e establishe d a

s BAC T unles s othe r criteri a overrid e th e economics . Thi s economic-base d BAC T limi ti s 0.0612 5 l b NOx/MMBt

u utilizin g combustio n control s wit h a i leas t12. 5 % remova

l efficiency an

d ammonia-based selectiv e non-catalyti c reduction (SNCR) wit h a tleas t82. 5 % efficiency . The resultin g cos ti s $3,185/to n o f NOx removed base

d o n the 0.4 0 .h/MMBt u baselin e (depending o n downtime which could resul tfro m ammoniu

m sal tformation) . However , even wit

h a 1 % increas e i

n boile r downtim e du

e t o ammoni a sal tformation , th e cos tincreas e i s onl y - S70/ton , increasin g th e tota l cos tt o $3,255/.on . Increase s beyon d 1 % ar e considered extremel y unlikel y du

e t o th e abilit

y t o operat e combustio n control s a tbette rtha

n 12.5 % (i e .£.0.3 5 lb/MMBtu) . an

d th e abilit v t o manag e othe rfactors affectin g sal tdeposition . Improvin g combustio n contro l efficienc y t

o 2^.4 ^ (<.0.3 1 Ib/MMBtu) woul d allo w SNC Rcontro l efficienc y to b e decreased t o 80.25 % an

d stil l mee

tth e specifie d emissio n limit .



### 1 1P.3 3



### Januar y 11 , 199 3 

## Figure 4 AD M Ceda rRapid s Boile r# 4 PS D Revie w



## AD M Ceda rRapid s Boile r#4 , Nitroge n Oxid e an d Ammoni a Emission s versu s Nitroge n Oxid e Emissio n Limi t

x O • I I I I I I I 1 f I i I I I ! t , , ) I . . I I I . I I ! < I 1 ! •. I i I | . . I I , | I . I 1 I I I I I i . 1 , | 

## O.O O 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.4 0 ;0.5 0 0.6 0 

# NO xEmissio n Limi t (lb/MMBtu )

Ammoni a bandling/Hazardou s materia l spill s Ammoni a injectio n wil l probabl y involv e th e shipmem , storag e an d handlin g o f anhydrou s ammonia . A s note d i n th e Radia n report : 'Exposur e t o NH 3 i n th e even to f a tank truck loading/unloadin g acciden to r failur e o f th e storag e tank , coul d resul tin stvtrt advers e healt

h effects . A tlo w concentration s (1 0 t o 2 0 ppm ) ammoni a cause s irritatio n o f tb e nose , throat , eves , and th e respirator y system . A thighe rconcentrations , (greate rtha n 50 0 ppm ) NH 3 i s toxi c t o human s an

d animals . Hig h concentration s produc e sever e symptom s involvin g laryngea l spasm , bronchial pneumonia , and fatality . I n th e even to f a larg e anhydrou s ammoni a spill , concentrauon s greate rthan 50 0 pp m woul d occu ri n th e vicinit y o f th e spill . Ammoni a i s classifie d a

s a Clas s 1 , Divisio n 2 , Grou p H hazard b y th e Nationa l Fir e Protectio n Association. " (pag e 2-19 ) 

## 1 3P.3 4

/ • ' • ' •- •

Januar y 28 , 199 3 AD M Ceda r Rapid s Boile r # 4 PS D Revie w presenc e in th e boile r ash ma y alte r th e disposal leachat

e characteristic s and/o r effectth e reusabilit y o f th e boile rash. " "The ash fro

m ADM' s curren

tcirculatin g AFB C boiler s 1-3 a tth e Ceda

r Rapids cogeneratio n facility i s currently bein g dispose d o f in th e min e o f

th e Iow a coal sourc e an d reus e opdon s ar

e bein g investigated... . i f SNC Ri s applied , th e absorbe d NH 3 coul d reduc e th e wast e reus e potential . Additionally , th e NH 3 an d ammoniu

m salts ma

y chang e th e ash characteristic s sufficientl y t o require a more costl y landfill option. " (pag e 2-18 ) Radia n applie s a $15/to n surcharg e t o accountfo

rth e potentia

l highe r disposa

l costs . Radia

n did not documentth e cos to f

leachate tests o r th e sensitivity o f the ash to failin g th e leacbat e tes ttha tmigh t apply . I n thei rsupplementa

l submittal , Radia

n continue s t

o us e thes e highe r wast e disposal cos t projection s [supplemental respons e #24 ] eve n thoug h the respons e t

o the Department' s requestfor substantiatio n i s ". . w e d o notknow the impac to f th e resultin g ash... " [supplementa l respons e #14j . Even if additiona l cost s wer e incurred , the en d resul twoul d provid e equivalentenvironmenta l protection . Thi s concern i s reduced t o a n economi c concern which i s addresse d in Radian' s cos tcalculations . Thes e just s mus tb e confirme d as wel l a s th e sensitivity o f

th e emissio n opacity t

o operationa

l parameters . Th e Departmen

ti s unawar

e o f an y requiremen

twhich woul d increas e disposal costs becaus e o f the trac e ammoni a level s projected . Th e potentia

l reus e optio n fo rth e soli d wast e generate d from ammonia injectio n i s cementmanufacture . Give n the man

y source s o f

usabl e ash currently bein g landfilled , th e Department' s opinio n i s tha tan y damag e t o th e as h produced a

ton e (o r even all ) o f

th e fou r AD M boiler s fro

m ammonia injectio n woul d no teffectpotentia

l as h us e in Iowa . 

## Energ y Impact s o f alternativ e energ

y productio n Radia n discusse s highe remission s whic h woul d b e produce

d b y AD M usin g alternat

e source s o f

energy i n th e metr

o are a durin g boile rdowntime . The y sugges tthe environmen twoul d b e better serve d b y assurin g maximu

m utilizatio n o f

thi s boiler . I

ti s possibl e di e propose d boile r woul d emi tles s pe r kilowatt-hou rtha

n existin g utilit y boiler s a s currently managed . However , the aci d rai n provision s o

f th e 199 0 Clean Ai rA a Amendment s ar e th e appropriat

e means o f

addressing thi s issu e an d wil l substantiall y reduce environmenta l impact s from thes e sources . Thi s i s no ta vali d criteri a for selectio n o f a contro l technolog y fo rthi s application .

. NO x BAC T Determinatio n Citin g EPA' s publi c comments : "Th e Proposed NOx BAC T o f 0.1 0 lb/millio n Bt

u o f hea tinpu tappear s t o b e to o hig

h .. " and , "

A NO x limi to f

0.0 8 lb/millio n BT

U woul d b e mor

e appropriate. " Tt u initia l Radia n teportstatts : "Recen tBAC T permitlimits setfo r circulatin g AFB C boiler s firing hig h sulfu r coal s hav e highe rlimit s forNOx (0.11-0.1 6 lb/MMBtu ) tha n th e LAE Rdeterminatio n limit s (0.04-0. 1 lb /

MMBtn) o f

the Californi a circulatin g AFB C boilers. " (pag e 2-21 )

1 5