Operating company Otter Tail Power PGE 

Facility

Big Stone 

Generating Station Boardman

State SD OR

Proposed Controls SD/FF LSD/FF

Unit #1

Boiler type cyclone wall-fired

Fuel PRB PRB sub-bituminous

Rating (MW Gross) 475 617

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) or 0.15 0.15

Presumptive BART limit 95% 95%

Reductions (tpy) 16,120 11,988

Capital Cost $ 141,300,000 $ 247,300,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 297 $ 401

Total Annual Cost $ 23,570,000 $ 36,600,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,462 $ 3,053

Proposed BART Limit 0.09 0.12

units lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

Proposed BART Limit

by SD DENR OR DEQ

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.156 1.04

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 51,350,763 $ 35,192,308

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.719 10.59

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 32,759,951 $ 3,456,091
Minnesota Power Dominion PacifiCorp PacifiCorp PacifiCorp

Boswell Energy Center Brayton Point Jim Bridger Jim Bridger Jim Bridger

MN MA WY WY WY

wet FGD 0.5% S residual oil FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade

Unit #3 #4 JB #1 JB #2 JB #3

tangential DB wall-fired tangential tangential tangential

sub-bituminous #6 oil sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

375 530 530 530

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

95% 95% 95% 95%

 57,458 550 4,021 4,021 4,021

$ 79,000,000 $ - $ 12,999,990 $ 12,999,990 $ 12,999,990

$ 211 $ - $ 25 $ 25 $ 25

$ 17,933,022 $ 1,728,198 $ 2,494,857 $ 2,494,857 $ 2,494,857

$ 1,640 3,043 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620

0.09 0.15 0.15 0.15

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

0.5% S residual oil

MPCA MassDEP PacifiCorp PacifiCorp PacifiCorp

1.02

$ 33,919,486
PacifiCorp Mirant Mirant Great River Energy Great River Energy

Jim Bridger Canal Station Canal Station Coal Creek Coal Creek

WY MA MA ND ND

FGD Upgrade 0.5% S residual oil FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade

JB #4 #1 #2 #1 #2

tangential DB wall-fired DB wall-fired tangential tangential

sub-bituminous #6 oil #6 oil ND lignite ND lignite

530 550 550

0.15 0.15 0.15

95% 95% 95%

 1,656 20,760 20,760

$ 5,759,814 $ 76,222,700 $ 76,222,700

$ 11 $ 139 $ 139

$ 1,206,614 $11,520,000 $11,520,000

$ 729 $ 3,170 $ 3,170 $ 555 $ 555

0.15 0.15 0.15

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

0.5% S residual oil

PacifiCorp MassDEP MassDEP ND DOH ND DOH

 1.041 1.041

$ 11,064,070 $ 11,064,070

 1.939 1.939

$ 5,941,232 $ 5,941,232
Colorado Springs Utilities PacifiCorp PacifiCorp

Martin Drake Martin Drake Dave Johnston Dave Johnston

CO CO WY WY IL IL

new LSD new LSD Dry FGD+FF Dry FGD+FF new DSI+Trona new DSI+Trona

#6 #7 DJ #3 DJ #4 #1 #2

wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired cell burner tangential cyclone cyclone

bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

85 145 230 330 660 660

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

 2,368 3,610 11,589 5,657 2,904 2,901

$ 169,500,000 $ 222,776,105 $ 30,000,000 $ 30,000,000

$ - $ - $ 737 $ 675 $ 45 $ 45

$6,665,771 $8,216,864 $21,419,765 $26,833,206 $12,410,000 $12,410,000

$ 2,815 $ 2,276 $ 1,848 $ 4,743 $ 4,274 $ 4,277

0.13 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.18

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

PacifiCorp PacifiCorp IL EPA IL EPA

 0.240 0.390 1.217 1.017

$ 27,774,046 $ 21,068,882 $ 16,703,531 $ 16,703,531

 2.049 1.673

$ 9,439,943 $ 9,439,943

Dominion

Kincaid
Xcel Energy PacifiCorp PacifiCorp PacifiCorp Basin Electric Power

King Laramie River Laramie River Laramie River Leland Olds

MN WY WY WY ND

FGD upgrade Upgrade wet FGD Upgrade wet FGD existing Dry FGD FGD addition 

Unit #1 LRS #1 LRS #2 LRS #3 #1

cyclone wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired

sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous ND lignite & PRB

550 550 550 550 216

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

 20,244 234 233 32,949

$ 2,363,000 $ 2,363,000 $ 107,220,000

$ 4 $ 4 $ 496

$ 1,000,000 $366,000 $366,000 $ 19,310,000

$ 49 $ 1,564 $ 1,571 $ 586

0.15 0.15 0.15 either 0.15

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

or 95% reduction

MPCA PacifiCorp PacifiCorp PacifiCorp ND DOH

 1.216

$ 15,885,246

 2.425

$ 7,962,711
Basin Electric Power Minnkota Power Boston Generating

Leland Olds MR Young MR Young Mystic Station

ND ND ND ND MA

FGD addition FGD addition

95% FGD 

upgrade 90% FGD upgrade 

0.5% S residual 

oil

#2 #1 #2 #2 #7

cyclone cyclone cyclone cyclone tangential

ND lignite & PRB ND lignite ND lignite ND lignite 1% S #6 oil

440 257 477 477 600

0.15 either 0.15 0.15 0.15

95% or 95% or 95% or 95%

 64,465 20,443 14,898 29,630

$ 147,600,000 $ 111,776,000 $ 24,989,000 $ 19,225,000

$ 335 $ 435 $ 52 $ 40

$ 29,840,000 $ 22,584,000 $8,414,000 $7,333,000

$ 463 $ 1,105 $ 565 $ 247 $ 4,270 

either 0.15 95% 95% either 0.15

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

or 95% reduction or 95% reduction

0.5% S residual 

oil

ND DOH ND DOH ND DOH ND DOH MassDEP

95%

 2.378 1.831 1.186 0.685

$ 12,546,601 $ 12,331,999 $ 7,096,430 $ 10,705,109

 4.745 3.187 2.201 1.479

$ 6,289,167 $ 7,085,547 $ 3,823,387 $ 4,958,080
PacifiCorp PacifiCorp PacifiCorp Northshore Mining

Rochester Public 

Utilities

Naughton Naughton Naughton

Silver Bay Power 

Plant Silver Lake Plant

WY WY WY MN MN

new wet FGD new wet FGD upgraded wet FGD DSI+FF dry FGD

#1 #2 #3 Unit #2 Unit #4

tangential tangential tangential wall-fired wall-fired

sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous bituminous

160 210 330 75 60

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

 7,657 9,934 4,084 897 1,504

$ 89,400,000 $ 117,400,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 46,360,000

$ 559 $ 559 $ 18 $ 618

$13,068,302 $16,889,165 $1,186,280 $ 6,556,000

$ 1,707 $ 1,700 $ 290 $ 7,309

0.15 0.15 0.27 0.60

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

PacifiCorp PacifiCorp MPCA MPCA

 0.845 0.926 0.695 0.25

$ 15,471,844 $ 18,244,289 $ 1,706,878 $ 26,224,000

 1.033 1.577 1.098 0.00028

$ 12,650,331 $ 10,712,715 $ 1,080,401
Dominion Xcel Energy Great River Energy

Salem Harbor Sherburne County Generating Station Stanton

MA MN ND

0.5% S residual oil FGD upgrade FGD upgrade

Proposed new 

LSD/FF

Proposed new 

LSD/FF

#4 Unit #1 Unit #2 #1 #1

DB wall-fired tangential tangential wall-fired wall-fired

#6 oil sub-bituminous sub-bituminous ND lignite PRB sub-bituminous

690 683 188 188

0.15 0.15 either 0.15 either 0.15

or 95% or 95%

 550 4,200 4,200 8,438 5,594

$ 3,700,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 79,514,000 not available

$ 5 $ 5 $ 423 not available

$ 1,728,198 $ 1,000,000 $ 990,000 $11,220,000 $11,220,000

 3,043 $ 238 $ 236 $ 1,330 $ 2,006

0.15 0.15 0.24 0.16

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

0.5% S residual oil or 90% reduction or 90% reduction

MassDEP MPCA MPCA ND DOH ND DOH

1.38 0.275 0.275 0.772 0.512

$ 25,082,697 $ 3,636,364 $ 3,600,000 $ 14,533,679 $ 21,922,100

0.795 0.795 1.511 1.002

$ 1,257,862 $ 1,245,283 $ 7,427,184 $ 11,202,909
MN Power Florida Power & Light PacifiCorp

Taconite Harbor Wyman Wyodak

MN ME WY

FSI and new FF 1% S #6 oil

Upgraded Dry FGD 

& Fabric Filter

Unit #3 3

tangential Tangentially-fired wall-fired

bit/sub-bituminous 2%S #6 oil sub-bituminous

75 100 335

0.15 0.15 0.15

95% 95% 95%

880 1,190 6,272

$ 15,508,000 354 $ 7,686,328

$ 207 1.803 $ 23

$ 1,868,000 $ 680,000 $8,954,051

$ 5,300 $ 2,189 $ 1,428

0.32 0.90 0.16

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

50.0%

MPCA 4,699 PacifiCorp

 (4,345)

 0.990 0.200

$ 686,869 $ 44,730,957

 2.610 0.406

$ 260,536 $ 22,055,587
SO2 Summary Statistics BART at 37 EGUs

Median Mean Max

Rating (MW Gross) 475 393 690

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.15

Reductions (tpy) 4,200 11,051 64,465

Capital Cost $ 30,000,000 $ 61,351,160 $ 247,300,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 45 $ 199 $ 737

Total Annual Cost $ 8,315,432 $ 10,113,639 $ 36,600,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,571 $ 1,966 $ 7,309

Proposed BART Limit 0.15 0.25 0.95

units lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.926 0.863 2.378

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 15,885,246 $ 18,369,830 $ 51,350,763

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.577 2.084 10.590

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 6,687,357 $ 8,249,505 $ 32,759,951
Min Totals

60 14,558

0.15

 233 408,881

$ - $ 1,901,885,971

$ - $ 131

$ 366,000 $ 364,091,007

$ 49 $ 890

0.09

lb/mmBtu

0.156 21.6

$ 686,869 $ 16,873,755

0.000 43.8

$ 260,536 $ 8,317,828
Operating company Otter Tail Power 

Facility Big Stone Generating Station

State SD

Contact

Proposed Controls SD/FF company report SD/FF DENR

Unit #1 company report #1 DENR

Boiler Type cyclone company report cyclone DENR

Fuel PRB company report PRB DENR

Rating (MW Gross) 475 company report 475 company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 company report 0.15 DENR

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 5,609 company report 5,609 DENR

Current Emissions (tpy) 18,000 company report 18,000 DENR

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.86 company report 0.86 company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 90% company report 90% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.09 company report 0.09 DENR

New Emissions (tpy) 1,880 company report 1,880 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 16,120 company report 16,120 DENR

Capital Cost $ 141,300,000 company report $ 141,300,000 DENR

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 297 calculated $ 297 calculated

O&M Cost $ 7,660,000 company report $ 7,660,000 DENR

Total Annual Cost $ 23,570,000 company report $ 23,570,000 DENR

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,462 company report $ 1,462 DENR

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.09 company report

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.09 DENR

Effective Reduction from Current 90% calculated 90% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,211 calculated 2,211 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 15,789 calculated 15,789 calculated

Visibility analyses According to DENR:

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.079 company report 1.079 DENR Otter Tail Power Company did not provide a cost per deciview reduction 

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.620 company report 0.923 calculated for each of the proposed control options. DENR calculated a cost per deciview 

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.459 calculated 0.156 calculated reduction by summing the annualized cost of each of the control alternatives 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 51,350,763 calculated $51,350,763 DENR associated with the control options and dividing by the visibility reduction 

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.000028 calculated 0.000010 calculated identified by the modeling from the baseline condition. 

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 3.447 calculated 3.447 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 2.73 calculated 2.73 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.719 calculated 0.719 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 32,759,951 calculated $ 32,759,951 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.000045 calculated 0.000045 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)
Operating company PGE 

Facility Boardman

State OR

Contact Brian Finneran finneran.brian@deq.state.or.us 503-229-6278

Proposed Controls OR DEQ recommended LSD/FF

Boiler type wall-fired OR DEQ BART Report subcritical, opposed wallFuel PRB sub-bituminous OR DEQ BART Report fired boiler that operates on balanced draft.

Rating (MW Gross) 617 OR DEQ BART Report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) or 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW only low-sulfur 

Presumptive BART limit 95% BART Guidelines > 200 (~0.3% by weight) sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming has been 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 5,793 Company report burned in the boiler, although other types of coal could be fired

Current Actual Control Efficiency 0% OR DEQ BART Report

Current Emissions (tpy) 14,037 OR DEQ BART Report Sulfur dioxide: 

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.2 OR DEQ BART Report

The Department considers a semi-dry flue gas desulfurization system to be BART for the 

Cost-benefit Analyses following reasons: 

Reduction 90% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.12 OR DEQ BART Report The Department recommends semi-dry flue gas desulfurization (SDFGD) as BART 

New Emissions (tpy) 2,049 calculated because it provides slightly more visibility improvement than wet flue gas desulfurization 

Reductions (tpy) 11,988 OR DEQ BART Report and the cost is $135 million dollars less. 

Capital Cost $ 247,300,000 OR DEQ BART Report SDFGD is consistent with EPA’s BART analysis for coal fired electric generating units 

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 401 OR DEQ BART Report greater than 200 MW located at 750 MW plants. The unit at the Boardman plant is 617 

O&M Cost MW even though the plant is less than 750 MW. 

Total Annual Cost $ 36,600,000 OR DEQ BART Report EPA expected that a semi-dry flue gas desulfurization system can achieve 90% emissions 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 3,053 OR DEQ BART Report reductions or 0.15 lb/mmBtu heat input. The Department’s proposed control 

effectiveness of 0.12 lb/mmBtu heat input is more stringent than EPA’s BART analysis. 

Proposed BART Limit 0.12 OR DEQ BART Report The control effectiveness proposed by the Department is actually slightly better than 

Effective Reduction from Current 90% calculated demonstrated in practice at similar units. 

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 3,045 calculated A wet flue gas desulfurization system has the following negative drawbacks: 

Effective Reduction from Current 11,988 calculated

o More water is required for a wet system and the plant is located in a semi-arid 

Visibility analyses region. 

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.04 OR DEQ BART Report o The water will have to be treated to avoid water pollution 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 35,192,308 calculated o A wet/visible plume will be present almost all of the time 

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00009 calculated o The wet exhaust gas is corrosive, requiring more maintenance of the duct work 

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 10.59 OR DEQ BART Report and stack 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 3,456,091 calculated o An additional fabric filter will have to be added to be compatible with potential 

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00088 calculated mercury controls 

o The existing stack will have to be replaced with a new corrosion resistant stack. 
Operating Company Minnesota Power

Facility Name Boswell Energy Center

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 0 of 4

Data Source

Proposed Controls wet FGD MPCA report

EGU Unit #3

Boiler type tangential MPCA report

Fuel sub-bituminous MPCA report

Rating each (MW gross) 375 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 BART Guidelines EGU >200 MW at facility >750 MW

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 3,750 NPS estimate

Current Emissions (tpy) 58,780 MPCA report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.95 company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 91% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.09 MPCA report

New Emissions (tpy) 1,322 MPCA report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 57,458 MPCA report

Capital Cost $ 79,000,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 211 calculated

O&M Cost $ 6,500,000 company report

Total Annual Cost $ 17,933,022 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,640 company report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.09 MPCA report The MPCA issued permit no. 06100004-003 on March 28, 2007 that allows Power boiler No. 3

Effective Reduction from Current 91% calculated to be retrofitted with Low NOX burners, over fire air and selective catalytic reduction for

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,478 calculated nitrogen oxides control. It will be retrofitted with a baghouse filter for particulate and mercury

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 57,302 calculated control, and finally, with a wet scrubber for SO2 control. Currently the only control equipment

serving the boiler is a wet scrubber for particulate emissions. Combustion controls will be

Visibility analyses not done installed and/or updated for CO control.

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Dominion

Facility Brayton Point

State MA

Contact Glenn Keith

Proposed Controls 0.5% S residual oil

Unit #4

Boiler Type DB wall-fired

Fuel #6 oil

Rating (MW Gross) each

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu)

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 4,800 company report

2002 Actual Emissions (tpy) 2,037 MassDEP

2002 Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.85 2002 CAM data

2007 Actual Emissions (tpy) 741 MassDEP

2007 Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.90 2007 CAM data

Current Actual Control Efficiency -6% calculated

Cost-benefit Analysis

Emission Reductions (tpy) 568 company report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 550 calculated @ 5% utilization

Capital Cost 0 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) 0 company report

O&M Cost $ 1,718,629 calculated @ 5% utilization

Annualized Cost $ 1,728,198 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 3,043 MassDEP

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 1% S residual oil

Proposed State BART Limit 0.5% S residual oil 0.53 lb/mmBtu

Effective Reduction from Current 41%

Visibility Analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.02 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 33,919,486 MassDEP (based upon AECOM calculation @ 100% utilization)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0019 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Jim Bridger

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade

Unit Combined JB #1 JB #2 JB #3 JB #4

Boiler Type tangential tangential tangential tangential WY DEQ report

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous WY DEQ report

Rating (MW Gross) each 2,120 530 530 530 530 WY DEQ report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Presumptive BART limit 95% 95% 95% 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 24,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 WY DEQ report

Current Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 113,496 28,374 28,374 28,374 28,374 Company report

Current Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Company report

Current Actual Emissions (tpy) 23,179 6,386 6,386 6,386 4,021 WY DEQ report

Current Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.17 WY DEQ report

Current Actual Control Efficiency 78% 78% 78% 86% Company report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Upgraded Overall Control Efficiency 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% 91.7% calculated

Upgraded Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 WY DEQ report

Upgraded Controlled emissions (tpy) 9,460 2,365 2,365 2,365 2,365 WY DEQ report

Reduction due to Upgrade 63.0% 63.0% 63.0% 41.2% calculated

Emission Reductions (tpy) 13,719 4,021 4,021 4,021 1,656 WY DEQ report

Capital Cost $ 44,759,784 $ 12,999,990 $ 12,999,990 $ 12,999,990 $ 5,759,814 WY DEQ report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 21 $ 25 $ 25 $ 25 $ 11 calculated

O&M Cost $ 4,433,211 $ 1,258,176 $ 1,258,176 $ 1,258,176 $ 658,683 WY DEQ report

Annualized Cost $ 8,691,185 $ 2,494,857 $ 2,494,857 $ 2,494,857 $ 1,206,614 WY DEQ report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 634 $ 620 $ 620 $ 620 $ 729 WY DEQ report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Company report

Proposed State BART Limit--either lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

Proposed State BART Limit--either reduction (30-day rolling average)

Effective Reduction from Current 44% 44% 44% 12% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 3,942 3,942 3,942 3,942 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current 2,444 2,444 2,444 79 tpy

Visibility Analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 4.759 1.321 0.884 1.317 1.237 Company report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.000 no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) #DIV/0! calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) - - - - -

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 10.152 2.804 1.933 2.802 2.613 calculated

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.000 no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) #DIV/0! calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) - - - - - calculated
Operating company Mirant

Facility Canal Station

State MA

Contact Glenn Keith

Proposed Controls 0.5% S residual oil

Unit #1 #2

Boiler Type DB wall-fired DB wall-fired

Fuel #6 oil #6 oil

Rating (MW Gross) each

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu)

Rating (mmBtu/hr)

2002 Actual Emissions (tpy) 13,066 8,948 MassDEP

2002 Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.96 0.92 2002 CAM data

2007 Actual Emissions (tpy) 5,169 1,506 MassDEP

2007 Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.54 0.50 2007 CAM data

Current Actual Control Efficiency 43% 46% calculated

Cost-benefit Analysis

Emission Reductions (tpy)

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW)

O&M Cost 

Annualized Cost 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 3,170 $ 3,170 MassDEP

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 1% S residual oil

Proposed State BART Limit 0.5% S residual oil 0.53 lb/mmBtu

Effective Reduction from Current 3% -6%

Visibility Analyses no visibility analyses preformed

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Great River Energy

Facility Coal Creek

State ND

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov (701) 328-5188

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 2 of 2

Proposed Controls FGD Upgrade FGD Upgrade

Unit #1 #2

Boiler Type tangential tangential

Fuel ND lignite ND lignite

Rating (MW Gross) each 550 550 ND DOH report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Presumptive BART limit 95% 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,015 6,022 ND DOH report

Current sulfur content 0.61% 0.61% ND DOH report

Current Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.82 0.75 calculated A four-module flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system for each 

Current Actual Emissions (tpy) 14,086 12,407 ND DOH report boiler removes approximately 90% of the sulfur dioxide from 60% of 

Current Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.56 0.51 ND DOH report the flue gas. Each boiler is served by a 655 foot high stack.

Cost-benefit Analysis

Baseline sulfur content 1.10% 1.10% ND DOH report

Baseline Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 76,888 76,888 ND DOH report The evaluation of alternative SO2 cleaning 

Baseline Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.49 1.35 calculated

Current Controlled Emissions (tpy) 24,604 24,604 ND DOH report equipment will be based on future dried coal with an expected 

Currrent Control Efficiency 68% 68% ND DOH report worst case (98 percentile) sulfur content of 1.10%, as 

Upgraded Overall Control Efficiency 95% 95% ND DOH report predicted for Falkirk coal and provided by GRE. Therefore, 

Upgraded Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.146 0.146 ND DOH report the uncontrolled baseline SO2 emissions above must be adjusted 

Controlled emissions (tpy) 3,844 3,844 ND DOH report to the future sulfur content so that an apples to apples 

Reduction due to Upgrade 74% 71% calculated comparison will correctly determine emission reductions 

Emission Reductions (tpy) 20,760 20,760 ND DOH report expected to result from employing the alternative equipment.

Capital Cost $ 76,222,700 $ 76,222,700 GRE report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 139 $ 139 calculated

O&M Cost $ 2,090,296 $ 2,090,296 GRE report

Annualized Cost $11,520,000 $11,520,000 ND DOH report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 555 $ 555 ND DOH report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 0.15 0.15 GRE report The Department proposes that BART is scrubbing 100% of the 

Proposed State BART Limit--either 0.15 0.15 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)flue gas stream, the use of wet scrubber modifications to 

Proposed State BART Limit--either 95% 95% reduction (30-day rolling average)achieve a minimum control efficiency of 94% (30-day rolling 

Effective Reduction from Current 73% 71% calculated average) on the inlet sulfur dioxide concentration to the 

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 3,952 3,956 calculated scrubber or 0.15 lb/106 Btu (30-day rolling average). Unit 1 

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 10,134 8,451 calculated and Unit 2 emissions may be averaged provided the average does 

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 72% 68% reduction not exceed the limit.

Effective Reduction from Current (lb/mmBtu) basis) 73% 71% reduction

Effective Reduction from Future (lb/mmBtu) basis) 90% 89% reduction

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 72,936 72,932 tpy

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 95% 95% reduction

Visibility Analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.041 1.041 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 11,064,070 $ 11,064,070 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00005 0.00005 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.939 1.939 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 5,941,232 $ 5,941,232 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00009 0.00009 calculated
Operating company Colorado Springs Utilities

Facility Martin Drake

State CO

Contact Jim Geier james.geier@state.co.us (303) 692-3167

Proposed Controls new LSD new LSD

Unit #6 #7

Boiler Type wall-fired wall-fired CDPHE report

Fuel bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix CSU report

Rating (MW Gross) each 85 145 CDPHE report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) or 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines

Presumptive BART limit 95% 95% BART Guidelines

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 850 1,336 CDPHE report

Current Emissions (tpy)

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.00 0.99 CDPHE report

CDPHE Cost-benefit Analysis

Future Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) - -

Future Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy)

Overall Control Efficiency (FGD) 85% 85% CDPHE report

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu)

Controlled emissions (tpy)

Emission Reductions (tpy) 2,368 3,610 CDPHE report

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ - $ - calculated

O&M Cost 

Annualized Cost $6,665,771 $8,216,864 CDPHE report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 2,815 $ 2,276 CDPHE report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) none none CSU report Accordingly, as part of its five factor consideration the state has elected to generally

Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.13 0.13 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average employ criteria for NOx post-combustion control options to aid in the assessment and

Effective Reduction from Current determinations for BART – a $/ton of NOx removed cap, and two minimum applicable

Effective BART Limit (tpy) Δdv improvement figures relating to CALPUFF modeling for certain emissions control

types, as follows.

Visibility analyses - For the highest-performing NOx post-combustion control options (i.e., SCR

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.240 0.390 CDPHE report systems for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 27,774,046 $ 21,068,882 calculated reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00010 0.00011 calculated from CDPHE report on 0.50 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that level of control is

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) not provided generally viewed as reasonable.

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) not provided - For lesser-performing NOx post-combustion control options (e.g., SNCR

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) not provided technologies for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of

pollutant reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled

visibility benefit of 0.20 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that

level of control is generally viewed as reasonable.
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Dave Johnston

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls Dry FGD+FF Dry FGD+FF

Unit Combined DJ #3 DJ #4

Boiler Type wall-fired cell burner tangential Company report

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous Company report

Rating (MW Gross) 560 230 330 Company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Presumptive BART limit 95% 95% 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,600 2,500 4,100 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 21,398 13,316 8,082 Company report

Current Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.21 0.50 Company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 87.6% 70.0% Company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 Company report

New Emissions (tpy) 4,081 1,656 2,425 Company report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 17,246 11,589 5,657 Company report

Capital Cost $ 392,276,105 $ 169,500,000 $ 222,776,105 Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 700 $ 737 $ 675 calculated

O&M Cost $ 10,936,598 $5,295,598 $5,641,000 Company report

Total Annual Cost $ 48,252,971 $21,419,765 $26,833,206 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 2,798 $ 1,848 $ 4,743 Company report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.15 0.15 Company report

Effective Reduction from Current 87.6% 70.0% Company report

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,643 2,694 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 11,674 5,388 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.217 1.017 no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 16,703,531 $ 16,703,531 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00010 0.00018 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 2.049 1.673 no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 9,439,943 $ 9,439,943 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00018 0.00030 calculated
Operating company Dominion

Facility Kincaid

State IL

Contact

Proposed Controls new DSI+Trona new DSI+Trona

Unit #1 #2

Boiler Type cyclone cyclone IL EPA

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous IL EPA

Rating (MW Gross) 660 660 Company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,634 6,406 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 8,891 8,774 IL EPA

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.55 0.54 IL EPA

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 67.3% 66.9% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.18 0.18 IL EPA

New Emissions (tpy) 1,129 1,128 IL EPA

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 2,904 2,901 IL EPA

Capital Cost $ 30,000,000 $ 30,000,000 Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 45 $ 45 Company report

O&M Cost $8,910,000 $8,910,000 Company report

Total Annual Cost $12,410,000 $12,410,000 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 4,274 $ 4,277 calculated

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.18 0.18 Company report

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.18 0.18 IL EPA

Effective Reduction from Current 67.3% 66.9% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 5,230 5,050 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 1,404 1,356 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating Company Xcel Energy

Facility Name Allen S. King Generating Plant

State MN

Contact Anne Jackson Permit action 005 authorized modification of the King Plant. The Rehabilitation Project is

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 0 of 1

Data Source complete and includes the installation of new pollution control equipment, modification of the

Proposed Controls FGD upgrade MPCA report plant heat rejection system, and rehabilitation and life extension of the main (EU 001, coal-fired)

EGU Unit #1 boiler. The rehabilitation allows the plant to operate at a capacity approaching its original design

Boiler type cyclone MPCA report rating.

Fuel sub-bituminous MPCA report

Rating each (MW gross) 550 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 calculated

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr)

Current Emissions (tpy) 23,271

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.47 CAM data for 2002 - 2004

Cost-benefit Analyses company report The boiler rehabilitation consisted of:

Control Efficiency 87% calculated 0.25 company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.12 company report • Installation of new cyclone burners and re-entrant throats.

New Emissions (tpy) 3,027 MPCA report • Replacement of furnace sidewalls and furnace floor tubes.

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 20,244 company report • Installation of induced draft fans to accommodate additional draft requirements of new

Capital Cost control equipment.

Capital Cost ($/kW) The new (additional) control equipment consists of:

O&M Cost • Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) reactor for control of NOX emissions.

Total Annual Cost $ 1,000,000 MPCA report • Spray dryer absorber lime-based semi-dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system for

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 49 MPCA report control of SO2 emissions

• Pulse-Jet cleaned Fabric Filter (PJFF) for additional control of PM.

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.12

Effective Reduction from Current 92%

Effective BART Limit (tpy) -

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy)

Visibility analyses company report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) none done

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Laramie River

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls Upgrade wet FGD Upgrade wet FGD existing Dry FGD

Unit LRS #1 LRS #2 LRS #3

Boiler Type wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired Company report

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous Company report

Rating (MW Gross) each 550 550 550 Company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Presumptive BART limit 95% 95% 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,420 6,420 6,600 Company report

Current Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.28 1.28 Company report

Current Actual Emissions (tpy) 3,745 3,725

Current Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.16 0.16 Company report

Current Actual Control Efficiency 87.5% 87.5% Company report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Upgraded Overall Control Efficiency 88.3% 88.3% Company report

Upgraded Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 Company report

Upgraded Controlled emissions (tpy) 3,511 3,492 Company report

Reduction due to Upgrade 6.3% 6.3% Company report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 234 233 Company report

Capital Cost $ 2,363,000 $ 2,363,000 Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 4 $ 4 calculated

O&M Cost $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Company report

Annualized Cost $366,000 $366,000 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,564 $ 1,571 Company report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 0.15 0.15

Proposed State BART Limit--either lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

Proposed State BART Limit--either reduction (30-day rolling average)

Effective Reduction from Current 6% 6% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 4,218 4,218 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (473) (493) tpy

Visibility Analyses see combined control/pollutant reduction analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) calculated
Operating company Basin Electric Power

Facility Leland Olds

State ND

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov (701) 328-5188

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Proposed Controls FGD addition FGD addition 

Unit #1 #2

Boiler Type wall-fired ND DOH report cyclone ND DOH report

Fuel ND lignite & PRB ND DOH report ND lignite & PRB ND DOH report

Rating (MW Gross) each 216 ND DOH report 440 ND DOH report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW 

Presumptive BART limit 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 2,622 ND DOH report 5,130 ND DOH report

Current Emissions (tpy) 16,666 ND DOH report 30,828 ND DOH report

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.82 ND DOH report 1.83 ND DOH report

Current Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 16,666 ND DOH report 30,828 ND DOH report

Current Control Efficiency 0% ND DOH report 0% ND DOH report

ND DOH Cost-benefit Analysis

Future Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 34,683 ND DOH report 67,858 ND DOH report

Future Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 3.02 ND DOH report 3.02 ND DOH report

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 ND DOH report 0.15 ND DOH report

Overall Control Efficiency (FGD) 95% ND DOH report 95% ND DOH report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 1,734 ND DOH report 3,393 ND DOH report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 32,949 ND DOH report 64,465 calculated

Capital Cost $ 107,220,000 company report $ 147,600,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 496 calculated $ 335 calculated

O&M Cost $ 8,350,000 company report $ 14,210,000 company report

Annualized Cost $ 19,310,000 ND DOH report $ 29,840,000 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 586 ND DOH report $ 463 calculated

ND DOH Proposed BART Limits #1

Future Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 3.90 ND DOH report 4.04 ND DOH report BART is an emission 

Proposed BART Limit (company) 0.39 lb/mmBtu 0.19 lb/mmBtu reduction efficiency of 95% of the inlet sulfur 

Proposed State BART Limit--either 0.15 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) 0.15 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) dioxide concentration to the scrubber or 0.15 lb/106 

Proposed State BART Limit--or 95% reduction (30-day rolling average) 95% reduction (30-day rolling average) Btu on a 30-day rolling average basis.

Effective Limit (tpy) 1,723 tpy 3,393 tpy #2

Effective Reduction from Current (lb/mmBtu) basis) 92% reduction 92% reduction The Department proposes that BART is 95% 

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 14,943 tpy 27,435 tpy reduction efficiency from the inlet of the scrubber 

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 90% reduction 89% reduction #2

Effective Reduction from Future (lb/mmBtu) basis) 96% reduction 96% reduction The Department proposes that BART is 95% 

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 32,960 tpy 64,465 tpy reduction efficiency from the inlet of the scrubber 

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 95% reduction 95% reduction to the outlet of the scrubber, or 0.15 lb/106 Btu, 

on a 30-day rolling average basis. 

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.216 calculated 2.378 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 5.596 NPS resuts uisng P-G stability

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 15,885,246 calculated $ 12,546,601 calculated $ 5,332,063 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00004 calculated 0.00004 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 0.00009 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 2.425 calculated 4.745 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 9.417 NPS resuts uisng P-G stability

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 7,962,711 calculated $ 6,289,167 calculated $ 3,168,625 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00007 calculated 0.00007 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 0.00015 calculated
Operating company Minnkota Power

Facility MR Young

State ND

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov (701) 328-5188

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Proposed Controls FGD addition 95% FGD upgrade or 90% FGD upgrade 

Unit #1 #2 #2

Boiler Type cyclone cyclone cyclone

Fuel ND lignite ND lignite ND lignite

Rating (MW Gross) each* 257 ND DOH report 477 ND DOH report 477 ND DOH report *actual capacity may be greater

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) either 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Presumptive BART limit or 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW or 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW or 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 3,200 ND DOH report 6,300 ND DOH report 6,300 ND DOH report

Current Emissions (tpy) 20,148 ND DOH report 12,404 ND DOH report 12,404 ND DOH report Unit 2 is equipped with a lime/flyash scrubber that achieved 

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.88 ND DOH report 0.67 ND DOH report 0.67 ND DOH report an average SO2 reduction efficiency (inlet to outlet) of 

Current Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 20,148 ND DOH report 34,805 calculated 34,805 ND DOH report approximately 65% for the period 2000-2004. It is obvious 

Current Control Efficiency 0% ND DOH report 64% calculated 64% calculated that upgrading the existing scrubber to either 90% and 95% 

control efficiency will be the most cost effective 

ND DOH Cost-benefit Analysis alternative.

Future Baseline Emissions (tpy) 21,519 ND DOH report 16,728 ND DOH report 30,965 calculated

Future Baseline Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 3.48 ND DOH report

Control Efficiency 95% ND DOH report 95% ND DOH report 96% calculated

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 1,076 ND DOH report 1,830 ND DOH report 1,335 calculated

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 ND DOH report 0.10 ND DOH report 0.15 ND DOH report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 20,443 ND DOH report 14,898 ND DOH report 29,630 calculated

Capital Cost $ 111,776,000 company report $ 24,989,000 company report $ 19,225,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 435 calculated $ 52 calculated $ 40 calculated

O&M Cost $ 10,282,000 company report $ 4,993,000 company report $ 4,530,000 company report

Annualized Cost $ 22,584,000 ND DOH report $8,414,000 ND DOH report $7,333,000 ND DOH report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,105 ND DOH report $ 565 ND DOH report $ 247 calculated

ND DOH Proposed BART Limits

Future Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 3.48 ND DOH report 3.48 ND DOH report 3.48 ND DOH report

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.15 lb/mmBtu 0.30 lb/mmBtu 0.30 company report

Proposed State BART Limit--and 0.15 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

Proposed State BART Limit--and 95% reduction (30-day rolling average) 95% reduction (30-day rolling average) 96% reduction (30-day rolling average)

Effective Reduction from Current 95% 78% reduction

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,076 calculated 836 calculated 4,139 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 19,072 calculated 11,568 calculated 8,265 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.831 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 1.186 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 0.685 calculated from company & ND DOH reports

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 12,331,999 calculated $ 7,096,430 calculated $ 10,705,109 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00009 calculated 0.00008 calculated 0.00002 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 3.187 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 2.201 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 1.479 calculated from company & ND DOH reports

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 7,085,547 calculated $ 3,823,387 calculated $ 4,958,080 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00016 calculated 0.00015 calculated 0.00005 calculated

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. operates the Milton R. Young Station near Center, North Dakota. Minnkota has proposed that BART is The Consent Decree that covers M.R. Young Station A scrubber operating at 95% removal efficiency will 

MRYS is a steam electric generating plant with two units. Unit No. 1 is a Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) a wet scrubber operating at 95% control efficiency Unit 2 only requires 90% reduction of SO2 emissions achieve an emission rate of 0.11 lb/106 Btu based on 

cyclone-type coal-fired boiler burning lignite coal, serving a turbine generator with a nameplate rating with an emission limit of 0.15 lb/106 Btu. The by the scrubber. Minnkota has proposed that BART average coal or 0.17 lb/106 Btu based on a design 

of 257 MW. 2 Particulate control is provided by a Research-Cottrell Electrostatic Precipitator rated at Department concurs with the use of a wet scrubber is represented by improvements to the existing sulfur content of 1.46%. The existing scrubber is 

approximately 99% control. Unit 1 has no sulfur dioxide (SO2) control system and exhausts to a 300 achieving a 95% reduction efficiency. Minnkota is scrubber such that a 90% reduction efficiency will a mid 1970s design and maintaining 95% reduction 

foot tall stack. Unit No. 2 is a B&W cyclone-fired unit burning lignite coal, with a turbine-generator a party to a Consent Decree which resolved alleged be achieved on a 30-day rolling average basis. continuously will be more difficult than with new 

name plate rating of 477 MW. 2 Particulate control for Unit 2 is provided by a Wheelabrator-Lurgi New Source Review violations at the M.R. Young Minnkota states that the costs associated with each designs that are 30 years more advanced. Because 

precipitator rated at approximately 99% control. Unit 2 has a Combustion Equipment Associates wet Station. The Consent Decree states that if alternative (90% or 95% reduction) are reasonable of the age of the scrubber and some uncertainty in 

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system (modified by Combustion Engineering) that treats Minnkota installs a wet scrubber, they must comply based on other regulatory analysis. Minnkota has the future coal sulfur content, the Department 

approximately 78 percent of the flue gas with the remaining flue gas by-passed for stack gas reheat. with a 95% reduction requirement with no not identified any energy or non-air quality proposes that an alternative limit be incorporated 

The FGD system achieves approximately 75 percent SO2 removal and exhausts to a 550 foot tall alternative emission rate (lb/106 Btu) limit. impacts that would preclude either alternative. into the BART limit. Minnkota has agreed to limit 

stack. Unit 1 began commercial operation on November 20, 1970 and Unit 2 on May 11, 1977. Therefore, the Department proposes that BART is a Minnkota’s choice of 90% reduction as BART is based SO2 emissions to no more than 0.15 lb/106 Btu. The 

On 17 June 2002, Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from reduction efficiency of 95% of the inlet sulfur on the visibility modeling results. The Department proposes that BART is 95% reduction or 

EPA. The NOV states that Minnkota allegedly violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration dioxide concentration to the scrubber on a 30-day difference, according to Minnkota’s results, 0.15 lb/106 Btu on a 30-day rolling average basis. 

(PSD) regulations. The NOV was issued pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act. The alleged rolling average basis (30 d.r.a.) indicate an average visibility impact reduction of However, the 

violation was caused by modifications to both Unit 1 and 2 at MRYS which allegedly resulted in a only 0.082 deciviews based on the 90th percentile Consent Decree requires a minimum of 90% reduction. 

potential increase of SO2, NOX and PM. Without an admission of liability, Minnkota entered into a value (0.250 dv based on 98th percentile). However, This requirement will also be incorporated into the 

settlement in the form of a Consent Decree (CD) with the EPA and NDDH to resolve the issues. The the difference in visibility impact between the two BART limit. 

CD requires that Minnkota install a level of control for SO2, NOX and PM on both Unit 1 and 2 at alternatives will be as much as 0.228 deciviews 

MRYS, equivalent to BACT. The effect of the CD on the BART analysis and the requirement to based on the 90th percentile (0.479 deciviews based 

install BACT-level controls are discussed later in the report. on 98th percentile) for year 2001 in TRNP-NU.

After considering the cost of compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, 

the remaining useful life (> 20 years) and the 

degree of visibility improvement, the Department 

proposes that BART is represented by improvements 

to the existing wet scrubber which will achieve 

approximately 95% reduction in SO2 emissions. BART 

is 95% reduction efficiency from the inlet of the 

scrubber to the outlet of the scrubber. 
Operating company Boston Generating

Facility Mystic Station

State MA

Contact Glenn Keith

Proposed Controls 0.5% S residual oil MassDEP

Unit #7

Boiler Type tangential MassDEP

Fuel 1% S #6 oil MassDEP

Rating (MW Gross) each 600

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu)

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,000 company report

2002 Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 3,727 MassDEP

2002 Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.49 2002 CAM data

2007 Actual Emissions (tpy) 1,922 MassDEP

2007 Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.31 2007 CAM data

Current Actual Control Efficiency 36% calculated

Cost-benefit Analysis

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW)

O&M Cost 

Annualized Cost 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 4,270 MassDEP

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 1.0% S residual oil company report

Proposed State BART Limit 0.5% S residual oil 0.53 lb/mmBtu

Effective Reduction from Current -69% calculated

Visibility Analyses no visibility analyses preformed

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Naughton

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls new wet FGD new wet FGD upgraded wet FGD

Unit #1 #2 #3 Combined

Boiler Type tangential tangential tangential Company report

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous Company report

Rating (MW Gross) each 160 210 330 Company report 700

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Presumptive BART limit 95% 95% 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,850 2,400 3,700 WY DEQ report 7950

Current Emissions (tpy) 8,624 11,187 7,293 WY DEQ report 27104

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.20 1.20 0.50 WY DEQ report

Current Actual Control Efficiency 0% 0% 82.8% Company report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 87.5% 87.5% 92.4% Company report

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.21 WY DEQ report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 1,094 1,419 3,063 Company report 5,576

Emission Reductions (tpy) 7,657 9,934 4,230 Company report 21,821

Capital Cost $ 89,400,000 $ 117,400,000 $ 6,000,000 WY DEQ report $ 212,800,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 559 $ 559 $ 18 calculated $ 304

O&M Cost $ 4,563,874 $ 5,721,158 $ 615,513 WY DEQ report $ 10,900,545

Annualized Cost $ 13,068,302 $ 16,889,165 $ 1,186,293 WY DEQ report $ 31,143,760

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,707 $ 1,700 $ 280 WY DEQ report $ 1,427

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 0.15 0.15

Proposed State BART Limit--either lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

Proposed State BART Limit--either reduction (30-day rolling average)

Effective Reduction from Current 88% 88% 58% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,215 1,577 3,403 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current 7,409 9,610 3,890 tpy

Visibility Analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) no modeling results for SO2 controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) calculated
Operating Company Northshore Mining

Facility Name Silver Bay Power Plant

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Data Source

Proposed Controls DSI+FF MPCA report The Silver Bay Power

EGU Unit #2 plant has two boilers identified as Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 has a wall-fired configuration with

Boiler type wall-fired MPCA report a maximum heat input rating of 517 MMBtu/hr heat input and about 35 megawatts output. Unit

Fuel sub-bituminous MPCA report 2 has a dry bottom, front-wall fired configuration with a maximum heat input rating of 765

Rating each (MW gross) 75 MPCA report MMBtu/hr and an output of 75 megawatts. Both units are permitted to fire natural gas and coal,

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 BART Guidelines and both use a fabric filter to control particulate matter (PM). NOX emissions are controlled

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 765 MPCA report through good combustion practices. There are no post-combustion SO2 controls.

Current Emissions (tpy) 1,551 calculated Boiler No. 2 at the facility is subject to BART as start-up for this unit was in 1963. Boiler No. 1

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.45 calculated is not subject to BART because start-up of that unit was in 1959, prior to the BART-eligibility

date of 1962.

Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 55% company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.27 MPCA report 0.25 company report

New Emissions (tpy) 654 company report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 897 MPCA report

Capital Cost $ 46,360,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 618 calculated

O&M Cost $ -

Total Annual Cost $ 6,556,000 MPCA report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 7,309 MPCA report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.48 MPCA report If the MPCA were to rely on pollutant by pollutant reduction options, BART appears to be the

Effective Reduction from Current -6% calculated use of Low NOX burners and overfire air on Unit 2 to achieve an emissions rate of 0.31

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 905 calculated lb/MMBtu, and spray drying/fabric filters to achieve an SO2 emissions rate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu.

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 646 calculated The cost-effectiveness of this combined pollutant reduction is

$2,634. This cost is nearly indistinguishable from the biomass co-firing alternative preferred by

Visibility analyses NSM and modified by the MPCA

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.25 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 26,224,000 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00028 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating Company Rochester Public Utilities

Facility Name Silver Lake Plant

State MN

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Proposed Controls dry FGD

EGU Unit #4 MPCA report

Boiler type wall-fired MPCA report

Fuel bituminous MPCA report

Rating each (MW gross) 60 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu)

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 600 NPS assumption

Current Emissions (tpy) 7,725 MPCA report 1666 CAM data for 2002 - 2004

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.61 CAM data for 2002 - 2004

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 63% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.60 MPCA report

New Emissions (tpy) 6,221 MPCA report 621 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 1,504 calculated 1044 calculated

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW)

O&M Cost 

Total Annual Cost 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.60 SO2 controls consist of installing a spray-dryer absorber designed to achieve a 70 - 85% removal

Effective Reduction from Current 63% rate. The MPCA has determined that installation of this system represents BART for SO2 on

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,577 Unit 4. To control PM, the existing ESP will be replaced by a fabric filter that includes a bag

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) leak indicator. The MPCA has determined that installation of this system represents BART for

PM10 on Unit 4.

Visibility analyses none conducted

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Dominion

Facility Salem Harbor

State MA

Contact Glenn Keith

Proposed Controls 0.5% S residual oil

Unit #4

Boiler Type DB wall-fired

Fuel #6 oil

Rating (MW Gross) each

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu)

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 4,800 company report

2002 Actual Emissions (tpy) 2,886 MassDEP

2002 Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.94 2002 CAM data

2007 Actual Emissions (tpy) 164 MassDEP

2007 Actual Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.49 2007 CAM data

Current Actual Control Efficiency 48% calculated

Cost-benefit Analysis

Emission Reductions (tpy) 568 company report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 550 calculated @ 5% utilization

Capital Cost 0 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) 0 company report

O&M Cost $ 1,718,629 calculated @ 5% utilization

Annualized Cost $ 1,728,198 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 3,043 MassDEP

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) 1% S residual oil

Proposed State BART Limit 0.5% S residual oil 0.53 lb/mmBtu

Effective Reduction from Current -8%

Visibility Analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.38 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 25,082,697 MassDEP (based upon AECOM calculation @ 100% utilization)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0024 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating Company Xcel Energy

Facility Name Sherburne County Generating Station

State MN

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 3 of 3

Data Source The air pollution control equipment for Units 1 and 2 consists primarily of spray towers (wet

Proposed Controls FGD upgrade FGD upgrade MPCA report scrubbing) and high efficiency wet electrostatic precipitators to control particulate and sulfur

EGU Combined Unit #1 Unit #2 dioxide (SO2) emissions. In 2007 Xcel installed low NOX burners, separated/close coupled overfire

Boiler type tangential tangential MPCA report air systems, and a combustion optimization system for Unit 1. For Unit 2, Xcel installed a

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous MPCA report computer based combustion optimization system for the overfire air system in 2006.

Rating each (MW gross) 1373 690 683 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines EGU >200 MW at facility >750 MW

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 14,222 7,111 7,111 company report

Uncontrolled emissions 0.98 0.98 calculated from company coal data

Current Emissions (tpy) 15,000 7,500 7,500 calculated SO2 is controlled by wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (scrubbers) for each unit, which currently achieve 75% removal. Xcel Energy proposes

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.27 0.27 company report to retrofit the existing scrubbers with sparger tubes and lime injection.

Current control efficiency 72% 72% calculated

Cost-benefit Analysis

Proposed control Efficiency 88% 88% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.12 0.12 MPCA report

New Emissions (tpy) 6,600 3,300 3,300 company report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 8,400 4,200 4,200 MPCA report

Capital Cost $ 7,400,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 3,700,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 calculated

O&M Cost $ 1,267,000 $ 667,000 $ 600,000 company report

Total Annual Cost $ 1,990,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 990,000 MPCA report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 237 $ 238 $ 236 MPCA report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.12 0.12 MPCA report The MPCA has determined that the SO2 emissions limitation of 0.12 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling

Effective Reduction from Current 56% 56% calculated average is BART for Sherco Units 1 and 2. The emission limit is achieved with the installation of

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 3,738 3,738 calculated sparger tubes in the existing scrubbers and the injection of lime to lower pH of the scrubbing

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 3,762 3,762 calculated system. The technology achieves the “presumptive BART” emissions rate, and does not prohibit or

prevent the future installation of any known additional SO2 control technology.

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.68

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.550 0.275 0.275 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 3,600,000 $ 3,636,364 $ 3,600,000 company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 calculated

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 6.81

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.590 0.795 0.795 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 1,245,283 $ 1,257,862 $ 1,245,283 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 calculated
Operating company Great River Energy

Facility Stanton

State ND

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov (701) 328-5188

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Proposed Controls Proposed new LSD/FF Proposed new LSD/FF Stanton Station is currently permitted to fire both Lignite and PRB 

Unit #1 #1 coal. 

Boiler Type wall-fired ND DOH report wall-fired ND DOH report The use of two coals with different sulfur contents offers a degree of 

Fuel ND lignite ND DOH report PRB sub-bituminous ND DOH report complexity in terms of SO2 emissions for Unit 1. To respond to NDDH’s request, PRB 

Rating (MW Gross) 188 ND DOH report 188 ND DOH report has been included as an operational control in conjunction with post combustion control 

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) either 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW either 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW associated limits can be determined based upon each fuel, cost effectiveness and most 

Presumptive BART limit or 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW or 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW importantly, expected deciview improvements. 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1800 ND DOH report 1800 ND DOH report technologies. GRE does not intend to blend fuels. Therefore, BART controls and 

Current Emissions (tpy) 8,242 ND DOH report not relevant ND DOH report Actual SO2 emissions from Unit 1 at the Stanton Station were 

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.70 ND DOH report not relevant ND DOH report approximately 0.44 lb/million Btu heat input for calendar year 

Current Control Efficiency 0% ND DOH report 0% ND DOH report 2006. However, Great River Energy has indicated that the mine 

from which the current PRB coal is received has a contractual 

ND DOH Cost-benefit Analysis arrangement with Great River to supply coal with a sulfur 

Baseline Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.81 ND DOH report 1.2 ND DOH report content which equates to an SO2 emission limit no greater than 

Baseline Emissions (tpy) 9,376 ND DOH report 6,216 ND DOH report 0.8 lb/million Btu heat input with a financial penalty if the 

Control Efficiency 90% ND DOH report 90% ND DOH report sulfur content is greater than this amount. The mine uses a 

Controlled emissions (tpy) 938 ND DOH report 622 ND DOH report sulfur reject value of 1.2 lb/million Btu heat input. 

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.181 ND DOH report 0.120 ND DOH report Great River Energy has indicated that the contract for PRB 

Emission Reductions (tpy) 8,438 ND DOH report 5,594 ND DOH report coal from the existing mine expires in 2009 and has indicated 

Capital Cost $ 79,514,000 company report not available that other potential PRB coal mines have PRB coal average 

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 423 calculated not available sulfur contents of 0.34% sulfur, 1.28% sulfur and 1.60% 

O&M Cost $ 4,071,674 company report not available sulfur,

Annualized Cost $11,220,000 ND DOH report $11,220,000 ND DOH report For purposes of this analysis, an SO2 emission rate of 1.2 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,330 ND DOH report $ 2,006 ND DOH report lb/million Btu will be used to calculate uncontrolled 

emissions when combusting PRB coal.

ND DOH Proposed BART Limits

Future Uncontrolled Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 2.40 ND DOH report 1.6 ND DOH report

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.24 company report 0.15 company report

Proposed State BART Limit--either 0.24 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) 0.16 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

Proposed State BART Limit--either 90% reduction (30-day rolling average) 90% reduction (30-day rolling average)

Effective Reduction from Current (lb/mmBtu) basis) 86% calculated 91% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,892 calculated 1,261 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 6,350 calculated 6,981 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 77% calculated 85% calculated

Effective Reduction from Future (lb/mmBtu) basis) 90% reduction 90% reduction

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 7,484 tpy 4,955 tpy

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 80% reduction 80% reduction

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.772 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 0.512 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 14,533,679 calculated $ 21,922,100 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00009 calculated 0.00009 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.511 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 1.002 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 7,427,184 calculated $ 11,202,909 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00018 calculated 0.00018 calculated

Based upon information submitted by Great River Energy, the Based upon information submitted by Great River Energy, the 

lignite coal to be combusted in the future could have a sulfur possibility exists that PRB coal received in the future could 

content which would result in uncontrolled SO2 emissions (on have a sulfur content which would result in uncontrolled SO2 

a 30 day rolling average basis) of approximately 2.4 emissions of approximately 1.6 lb/million Btu heat input. 

lb/million Btu heat input. Therefore, BART for SO2 when Therefore, BART for SO2 when combusting PRB coal is an SO2 

combusting lignite coal is an SO2 emission limit of 0.24 emission limit of 0.16 lb/million Btu heat input on a 30 day 

lb/million Btu heat input (on a 30 day rolling average) or a rolling average basis or a reduction efficiency of 90% (on a 

reduction efficiency of 90% (on a 30 day rolling average) on 30-day rolling average basis) on the inlet SO2 concentration 

the inlet SO2 concentration to the pollution control to the pollution control equipment.

equipment. 
Operating Company MN Power

Facility Name Taconite Harbor

State MN

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Data Source Data Source Data Source Minnesota Power has undertaken an emissions reduction project for the three generating units,

EGU Unit #3 Unit #3 Unit #3 referred to as the Arrowhead Regional Emissions Abatement (AREA) Project. Minnesota Power

Boiler type tangential MPCA report tangential MPCA report tangential MPCA report selected to begin the project with the retrofitting of Unit 2, which is not a BART eligible unit due

Fuel bit/sub-bituminous MPCA report bit/sub-bituminous MPCA report bit/sub-bituminous MPCA report to its construction date (1957). The MPCA issued permit no. 03100001-006 on January 8, 2007

Rating each (MW gross) 75 MPCA report 75 MPCA report 75 MPCA report that allows Power boiler No. 2 to be retrofitted with additional air pollution controls as a

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 BART Guidelines 0.15 BART Guidelines 0.15 BART Guidelines demonstration project.

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 745 MPCA AREA report 745 MNPWR report 745 MNPWR report

Current Emissions (tpy) 1,854 2,190 MNPWR report 2,190 MNPWR report The emissions reduction project involves the installation of Nalco-Mobotec’s ROFA/Rotomix

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.454545455 0.70 MNPWR report 0.70 MNPWR report control system to reduction NOx and SO2. Additionally, Mobotec’s “Minplus” injection system

was installed to control mercury emissions. The project also involved modifying the electrostatic

Proposed Controls FSI MPCA AREA report FSI and new FF MNPWR report FSI and new FF MPCA report precipitators from “hot-side” to “cold-side”.

Control Efficiency 55% company report 55% MNPWR report 54% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.24 MPCA AREA report 0.25 company report 0.32 MPCA report Operation of the Rotamix system throughout 2008 demonstrated that the ROFA/Rotamix system

New Emissions (tpy) 654 company report 986 calculated 1,310 calculated controlled emissions below the “presumptive BART” level for very large power boilers of 0.15

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 1200 MPCA AREA report 1,205 calculated 880 MPCA report lb/MMBtu. Operation of the system however did not achieved SO2 removals as planned.

Capital Cost $ 46,360,000 company report $ 15,508,000 MNPWR report $ 15,508,000 MNPWR report Therefore the MPCA requested Minnesota Power prepare a BART analysis for Unit 3. The

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 618 $ 207 calculated $ 207 calculated analysis for NOx, SO2 and PM was submitted November 2008, recommending the installation of

O&M Cost $ 1,868,000 MNPWR report $ - a fabric filter to achieve up to 50% removal of SO2 with the use of Rotamix.

Total Annual Cost $ 1,139,000 MPCA AREA report $ 4,679,000 MNPWR report $ 1,868,000 MPCA report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 949 calculated $ 3,900 MNPWR report $ 5,300 MPCA report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.25 MNPWR report 0.32 MPCA report The MPCA concurs with Minnesota Power’s assessment of controls and their costs. NalcoEffective Reduction from Current 64% calculated 54% calculated Mobotec is BART for NOx; furnace sorbent injection with a PM10 control limit of 0.012

Effective BART Limit (tpy) +R[-11]C*R[-17]C*8760/2000 816 calculated 1,044 calculated lb/MMBtu, achievable with the installation of a new fabric filter, is BART for SO2 and PM10.

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) #VALUE! 1,374 calculated 1,146 calculated

Visibility analyses none conducted none conducted none conducted

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.25 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 4,556,000

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

With a baghouse however, we [MN PWR]estimate the system will readily achieve a capture efficiency of

55+%. Based on this, the cost-effectiveness of the hydrate injection/baghouse combination will be

lower than the hydrate injection/ESP conversion option.
Operating company Florida Power & Light

Facility Wyman

State ME

Contact

Proposed Controls 1% S #6 oil

Unit 3

Boiler Type Tangentially-fired Company report

Fuel 2%S #6 oil Company report

Rating (MW Gross) 100 Company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW 

Presumptive BART limit 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,190 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 354 Company report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.803 Company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Proposed control efficiency 50% Company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.90 calculated

New Emissions (tpy)

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 311 calculated

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW)

O&M Cost 

Total Annual Cost $ 680,000 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 2,189 Company report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.90 Company report

Effective Reduction from Current 50.0% Company report

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 4,699 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) (4,345) calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.36 Company report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.37 Company report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.990 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 686,869 Company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00319 calculated

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 9.73 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 7.12 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 2.610 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 260,536 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00840 calculated
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Wyodak

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls Upgraded Dry FGD & Fabric Filter

Unit

Boiler Type wall-fired Company report Wyodak is equipped with a wall-fired boiler manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox

Fuel sub-bituminous Company report

Rating (MW Gross) 335 Company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 BART Guidelines > 200 MW 

Presumptive BART limit 95% BART Guidelines > 200 MW 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 4,049 Company report

Current Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 1.61 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 9,264 Company report Joy Niro, three-tower, lime-based spray dryer was added for

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.50 Company report flue gas desulfurization (FGD) in 1986.

Current Actual Control Efficiency 69% Company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Proposed control efficiency 90% Company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.16 Company report

New Emissions (tpy) 2,992 Company report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 6,272 Company report

Capital Cost $ 7,686,328 Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 23 calculated

O&M Cost $1,267,722 Company report

Total Annual Cost $8,954,051 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,428 Company report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.16 Company report

Effective Reduction from Current 68.0% Company report

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,838 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 6,426 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.200 no modeling results for PM controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 44,730,957 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00003 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.406 no modeling results for PM controls alone

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 22,055,587 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00006 calculated