CjLJ!

# ~ Progress Energy

Mrs. Geneva S. Thigpen ChiefClerk North Carolina Utilities Commission 4325 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4325 March 30, 2006

Re: Annual NC Clean Smokestacks Act Compliance Report Docket No. E-2, Sub 815 Dear Mrs. Thigpen: ProgreSs Energy Carolinas, Inc. submits the attached report for calendar year 2005 regarding the status of compliance with the provisions ofthe North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act. Section 9(i) ofthe Act requires that an annual report of compliance progress be submitted to the Commission by April I of each year for the previous calendar year.

LSA:mhm Attachment 232822

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC P.O. Box 1551 R<:Jieigh. NC 27602 

### Very truly yours,

# ~~ J.

# ~tt"' LenS. Anthony Deputy General Counsel-Regulatory Affairs

AIR OUAUTY DI'!ISION



### Olf!ECTORS O'flef

# ~Progress Energy

March 30, 2006



### Mr. William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary North Carolina Department ofEnvironmentand Natural Resources 160

### I Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Dear Secretary Ross: ('"_

''"'' -'**·-~** "" '"""·:,_·..

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) submits the attached report for calendar year 2005 regarding the status of compliance with 

### the provisions of the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act. Section 9(i) ofthe Actrequires thatan annual complianceprogress report be submitted by April I ofeach year for the previous calendar year. PEC appreciates the efforts ofyour staffto work with us and looks forward to continuing our positive working relationship to facilitate fulfillment ofPEC'sobligations with this important Jaw. Please don'thesitate to contact me at (919) 546-3775 

### ifyouhave anyquestions. Sincerely,

Director, Environmental Services

c: North CarolinaUtilities Commission Keith Overcash, DAQ

Progren Energy Service Company, LLC P-0. fle»: 1551 Ra!Clgh, NC Z!602 

### 1

### Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act

Calendar Year2005 Progress Report

On June 20, 2002, North Carolina Senate Bill I078, also known as the "Clean Smokestacks Act," was signed into effect. This lawrequires significant reductions in the emissions ofnitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (S02) 

### from utility owned coalfired power plants located in North Carolina. Section 9(i) ofthebill, which is now incorporated as Section 62-!33.6(i) ofthe North Carolina General Statutes, requires that an annual progressreport regarding compliance with the Clean Smokestacks Law be submitted on orbefore April I ofeach year. The reportmust contain the following elements, takenverbatim from the statute: I. A detailedreport on the investor-owned public utility's plans for meeting the emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.!07D. 2. The actual environmental compliance costs incurred by the investor-owned public utility inthe previous calendar year, including a description ofthe construction undertaken and completed that year. 3. The amount ofthe investor-ownedpublic utility's environmental compliance costs amortized inthe previous calendar year. 4. An estimate ofthe investor-owned public utility's environmental compliance costs and the basis for any revisions ofthose estimates when compared to the estimates submitted during the previous year. 5. A description ofall permits required in order to comply withtheprovisions of G.S. 143-2!5.!07Dfor which the investor-owned public utility has applied and the status ofthose permits or permit applications. 6. A description ofthe construction related to compliance with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.1070that is anticipated during the following year. 7. A description ofthe applications for permitsrequired in order to comply with the provisions ofG.S. 143-215.1070 thatare anticipated during the following year. 8. The results ofequipmenttesting related to compliance with G.S. 143-2!5.107D. 9. The number oftons ofoxides ofnitrogen (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (S02) 

### emitted during the previous calendar year from the coal-fired generating units that are subject to the emissions limitations set out 

### in G.S. 143-2!5.107D. 10. The emissions allowances described in G.S. 143-215.107D(i)thatareacquired by the investor-ownedpublic utility that result from compliance withthe emissions limitations set out 

### in G.S. 143-215.1070. II. Any otherinformationrequested bythe Commission orthe Department of Environment andNatural Resources. Informationresponsive to each ofthese report elements follows. The responses are given byitem number inthe order in which they are presented above.



### 3

### 1. A detailed report on the investor-owned public utility's plans for meeting the emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D. The plan for Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. was originally submitted onJuly 29, 2002. Appendix A contains an updated version ofthisplan, effective April 1, 2006. We continue to evaluate various design, technology and generation options that could affect ourfuture compliance plans. 

### 2. The actual environmental compliance costs incurred by the investor-owned public utility in the previous calendaryear, including a description ofthe construction undertaken and completed thatyear. The actual capital costs incurred by Progress Energy in 2005 were $181,274,000. We successfullyplaced in service our first wet scrubberonAsheville Unit 1 in November 2005. A significant amount ofwork was performed atthe Asheville plantin2005 in order toplacethe Unit 1 scrubber in service. This work included the installation ofelectrical power and control cables and circuits, piping, pumps, valves, oxidation 

### air compressors, instruments and controls (including the scrubber distributed control system), agitators, absorber tower outlet hood, spray headers, trays and othertowerinternals, limestone and gypsumhandling equipment, and gypsum dewateringequipment. Work efforts also included constructing the wetlands and industrial wastewater treatment system for treating scrubberblowdown wastewater, completing ductwork from theprecipitatorto the scrubbertower and from the scrubbertowerto the stack, and installing new induced draft fans and various otherprocess equipment. Much ofthe equipment noted above was also installed for the Asheville Unit 2 scrubber, which will be placedin service in 2006. In addition to the scrubberprojects atAsheville, detailed design, engineering and procurement activities began for the Asheville Unit 1 SCR, which will be installed and operational in late 2007. Based onthe changes in forecasted energy demand, the inservice date for these NOx controls was accelerated from 2008 to ensure compliance with tbe Act's annual tonnage cap. Detailed design and engineering activities included preparation ofvarious specifications and bill ofmaterials, civil engineering offoundation systems, structural engineering offlue gas path components and associated structural steel, and mechanical engineering for various piping systems. Work onthe Asheville Unit 1 SCRalso included issuing purchase orders forthe SCR catalyst, ammonia injection grids, static mixers, urea to ammonia system equipment, ash handling system changes, and sonic horns. Atthe Roxboro plant, environmental projects workincreased si&'Ilificantly in 2005. Engineering, procurement and constructionbeganor continued for each oftbefour units. The newelectrical switchgear building that will providepower for much ofthe common 

### 4scrubber equipment was completed. Various power distribution panels and load centers located in the electrical switchgearbuilding were placed into service. Purchase orders were issued for most ofthe major equipment. Structural steel was erected, along with various floor elevations for the newlimestone preparation/gypsum dewatering building. Erection began on the limestone ball mills and the limestone storage silos. Two new concrete chimney shells (one for Units 1 and 2 and one for Units 3 and 4) were constructed. Many ofthe fiberglass reinforced plastic sections that make up the flue gas liners were fabricated offsite to be ready for installationbeginning in early 2006. Foundations were completed for all four absorber towers and their adjacent pump buildings. The ceramic tile-lined concrete absorbertowerfor the Unit 2 scrubber was built. Excavation began for the limestone storage pile and conveying equipment. Erection also started on the pipe bridge between the absorbertowers and the limestone preparation/ gypsum dewatering building. Atthe Mayo plant, initial general arrangement drawings for the wet scrubberwere developed. Engineering studies were completed for the scrubber distributed controls system, electrical power distribution, and induced 

### draft fans options. Work began on the water supply, scrubber blowdown wastewatertreatment, andboiler/ductwork transient analysis studies. Engineering was also performed to support the modeling required to determine the height ofthe new chimney. A purchase order was issued for the absorber recycle pumps. The procurement ofthesepumps requires a longlead time; they were purchased in 2005 to ensure availability and minimize cost increases. A milestone project schedule was developed. There were no construction activities in 2005. Atthe Lee plant, preliminary engineering, design, andprocurementactivities were initiated for the installation oflow-NOxburners in 2006. The PSDpermit application was prepared and submitted to the Division of

### Air Qualityfor reviewand approval. There were no construction activities in 2005. Atthe Sutton Plant, preliminary engineering, design, andprocurement activities were initiated for the installation oflow-NOxburners in 2006. There were no construction activities in 2005. 

### 3. The amount ofthe investor-owned public utility's environmental compliance costs amortized in the previous calendaryear. Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. amortized $147 million in2005. 

### 4. An estimate ofthe investor-owned public utility's environmental compliance costs and the basis for any revisions ofthose estimateswhen compared to the estimates submitted during the previous year. Appendix B contains the capital costs incurredtoward compliance with G.S. 143- 215.107D in 2005 and the projected costs for future years through 2013, which showthe net costto PEC excluding the portionfor which the Power Agency is responsible. The


## 5estimated total capital costs, including escalation, are currently projected to be between $l.lB and $1.4B, with the current point estimatebeing $1.36B. This represents an increase of52% from the 2005 cost estimate of$895 million. Prior reports have discussedthe costimpact ofproject scope changes such as the use ofa wet scrubber at Asheville inlieu ofa 

### dry scrubber, the capabilityto burnhigher sulfur coals, and increased sulfur removal efficiency; all ofwhichprovide increased fuel flexibility for the Asheville, Roxboro, andMayo plants. These additional cost increases reflect I) increased costs for materials ofconstruction, such as steel, concrete, and electrical power and control cables; 2) the need for a greater volume ofthese materials 

### than originally forecast; 3) increased costs for equipment, such as pumps, fans, and electrical transformers; 4) the addition ofwastewater treatment facilities, which were not included inthe original program estimate; and 5) adjusting future project costs based on the actual project costs for ourfirst completed scrubber and the current detailed cost estimates for the scrubbers under construction. It should be noted that significant design work remains to be completed, especially for the S02 controls at Mayo, Cape Fear, and Sutton. Our current estimates are subject to further adjustment as the engineeringfor these projects is completed. The costincreases that we are experiencing are not unique to PEC. Other utilities with majorconstruction projects for environmental controls are experiencing similar increases. Significant cost increases are also being experienced on other, non-utility, large construction projects inNorth Carolina, especially in the Raleigh area. Forexample, the project costs for the expansion ofTerminal C atthe Raleigh Durham International Airport were recently reported to have increased by23% overthe last 3 years due to inflation and rising building costs; projected costs for new Wake County schools were recently reported to have increased by 18-20% a year compared with an overall inflation rate of2.7 to 3.4% due to higherprices for construction materials; the project costs for the planned commuterrail service from Raleigh to Durham were recently reported to have increasedby 9% since 2004 (not adjusted for inflation); and the costs for the new Raleigh convention centercurrently under construction were recently reported to have increased by 12%dueto the volatility ofequipment and material prices inthe construction market. Independent cost indices, such as the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index, also show thatthe costs for construction labor and materials have increased sharply. The net overall plant escalation from December2002 throughNovember2005 was 19%, which is substantially higher 

### than the 2.0 to 2.5% per year (7.7% overthe same December 2002- November 2005 period) escalationrates used forthe original program costestimates.



### 5. A description ofall permits required in orderto comply with the provisions of 

### G.S. 143-215.1070 for which the investor-owned public utility has applied and the status ofthose permits orpermit applications. Progress Energy applied for the following permits in 2005:



### 6Asheville Plant Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Several updates were submitted for the erosion and sedimentation control plan:

• Rev H for the wastewater treatment dischargepipeline, truck scale, truck wash

· station was approved April 6, 2005. • Rev 1 for the riverpumps conduit was approved June 2, 2005. • Rev I for the Unit I SCRwas approvedNovember 14,2005. NPDES Permit 

### An Authorization to Construct (ATC) the wastewatertreatment system for the pretreatment offlue gas desulfurization wastewater was approved March 29, 2005 -A TC No. 0000396A03. The ATC engineer's certifications for pretreatment and constructed wetlands were submittedNovember 8, 2005. Roxboro Plant AitPermit 

### Anupdate to the airpermit for coal handling and limestone handling was submitted on August 25, 2005. This permit was issued onFebruary 9, 2006. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Several updates were submitted for the erosion and sedimentation control plan:

• Rev G for the gypsum storage area was approvedJanuary21, 2005 • Rev H was rolled in with Rev G (revision H was a response to questions on revision G) and so was also approved January 21,2005. • Rev I for the emergency access road, fire protectionpiping, conduit, temporary haul road was approved May 17, 2005. • Rev J for the makeupwaterpipeline, gypsum conveyor foundations, settling pond andbioreactor sitewas approved September 13, 2005 Wetlands Permitting 

### An Army Corps ofEngineers permit and water quality certification to fill wetlands for gypsum storage area was received September 6, 2005. NPDES permit 

### 7

### An 

### NPDES permit for the

### wastewater treatment system was received August 10, 2005. Submissions were made for the Authorizationto Construct (ATC) the wastewater treatment system on October 3, November 1and December 2, 2005. Approval for construction ofthe settling basin is expected in March 2006. Approval forthe construction ofthe bioreactor is expected in the second quarter of2006. Damllmpoundment Safety Progress Energy's letterto the NCUC identifying work inthe ashpond was approved December 5, 2005. Lee Plant Air Permit A prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) permit application for the installation of low NOx burners 

### was submitted on December 7, 2005. A draft

### permitwas received February 13, 2006 and is expected to be final inMarch 2006. Sutton Plant Air Permit Airpermit 01318T18 for the installation ofLow

### NOx Burners was received February 21, 2005. 6. A description ofthe construction related to compliance with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D that is anticipated during the following year. 

### Appendix C presentsthe planned construction schedule for compliance with G.S. 143- 215.107D. Please note that this is a projected schedule ofconstruction activitythrough 2013 that is subject to modification. The schedule will be updated as part ofthis report each year. The planned construction activities at Asheville in 2006 include the completion ofthe mechanical, electrical and controls systems for the Unit 2 scrubber. 1bis includes completion ofthe flue gas ductwork from the precipitatorto the absorber tower, and installation, checkout and commissioning ofthe**m~or** 

### equipment including the distributed controls system and absorber recycle pumps. Systems common to both Units 1and 2 were commissioned during the checkout and startup activities forthe Unit I scrubber. The unit 2 scrubber is expected to be placed into service atthe end ofMay Construction activities will also begin forthe Asheville Unit 1 SCRproject. These activities include installation offoundations for the new SCR structural steel; fabrication, 

### 8delivery and erection ofthe SCR support steel; fabrication and delivery ofthe inlet and outlet ducts for the SCR and the SCRreactor modules; and various mechanical and electrical activities to support placing this SCR in service in 2007. AtRoxboro, the significant construction activities for the Unit 2 scrubber include installation ofthe absorberrecycle pumps, hydroclones, oxidation air compressors, absorbertower outlet hood, flue gas ductwork from theprecipitatorto the absorbertower and from the absorbertower to the chimney, spray headers, trays and othertower internals, agitators, and various process piping and

### tanks. Flue liners for eachboiler will be installed in the chimney. The structural steel for the absorber recycle pump building will be erected. Systems common to the scrubbers for all units such as the gypsum handling conveyors, limestone handling and preparation equipment (conveyors, feeders, silos, and ball mills), dewatering equipment (belt filters), wastewater treatment settling ponds and hie-reactor will be installed. Various mechanical, electrical and controls equipment that support the scrubber process will also be installed. Installation ofthe gypsum conveyorfrom the dewateringbuilding to the storage pile will begin. Construction activities for the Unit 3 and Unit4 scrubbers will include the erection ofthe absorbertower for each unit and installation ofthe flue gas liners inthe Units 3 and 4 chimneys. Installation will begin for various electrical power and control cables and circuits along with the installation ofvarious process equipment and piping. Minimal construction activities for Unit I will be performed. Construction ofthese systems and the scrubber blowdown wastewatertreatment system will continue through 2008. 7. ·A description ofthe applications for permits required 

### in order to comply with the provisions ofG.S. 143-215.107D that are anticipated during the following year. Several recent changes to permitting processes inthe state have dramatically increased the lead time to prepare andreview environmental permits necessary for Clean Smokestacksprojects. A recent court decision [D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals Decision in

### New York v. EPA, No. 02-1387 (JWle 24, 2005)] eliminated the provision exempting pollution control equipment from new source review. ForProgress Energy Carolinas, this results in increased costs for consultants and modeling. FortheNC Division ofAir Quality (DAQ), this results in longer permit application processingtimes. For example, the application for the installation ofa low-NOx burner, which formerly took 3-4 months, nowrequires review Wider the PSDprogram, a process typically lasting a year or more. The staffatthe DAQ has expedited this process for the recentpermit submission for the Lee plant. We appreciate the collaborative efforts the DAQ staffhas made to assure our construction and installation schedules remain ontrack. However, the longerpermit processing times continue to be a serious concern for future projects as not every permit can reasonablybe expedited. PEC wishes to work collaboratively with the DAQ to prevent such delays from occurring. The following permit applications and permit approvals are anticipated for 2006:



## 9Asheville Plant Air Permit Revisions to the air permitmaybe necessary to test and, ifnecessary, install technology to reduce emissions of

# so3. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Revision 

### J for the construction ofthe demineralizer pipe, pump and ductbank 

### was approved in January 2006. Roxboro Plant AirPermit Revisions to the 

### air permit will be necessary to address fugitive emissions ofhydrogen sulfide from the wastewater treatment system. NPDES Permit The ATC for the gypsum settling pond was received March 3, 2006. Receipt ofthe ATC for the bioreactor 

### is anticipated in the second quarter 2006. Erosion and SedimentationControl Plan

• Rev K for the haul road, transformers, mainplant area wastewater pipe trench and gypsum conveyorfoundations was approved in February 2006 • Rev L for burying the wastewater pipeline

- approval is anticipated second quarter 2006 Additional revisions to the plan may be necessary. Mavo Plant 

### Air Permit A construction permitwill be required for the flue gas desulfurization system
- anticipated submission Spring 2005. NPDES Permit NPDES permit modification application for wastewatertreatment system submitted February 23, 2006.



## 10

### A request for authorization to construct the wastewatertreatment system is expected to be submitted inthe fourth quarter 2006. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan The first ofthe erosion and sedimentationplans for the main construction area and laydown yards will be submitted during the second quarter, 2006. Additional plan revisions will be necessary as construction plans are developed. Cape Fear Plant AirPermit A construction permitmayberequired to conducta trial ofan 

### airpollution control technology. 

### Ifrequired, this permit application will be submitted during the second quarter of2006. Lee Plant Air Permit A construction permit will be required for the installation ofthe Rotamix system for NOx control. This permit application will be submitted during the secondquarter 2006. 8. The results ofequipmenttestingrelated to compliance with G.S. 143-215.107». No equipmenttesting relatedto compliance with G.S. 143-215.107D occurred in2005. 9. The number oftons ofoxides ofnitrogen (NOx) and sulfurdioxide (SOz) emitted during theprevious calendaryearfrom the coal-fired generating units that are subject to the emissions limitations set out inG.S. 143-215.107». The total calendaryear 2005 emissions from the affected coal-firedProgress Energy Carolinas units are: NOx 49,621 tons SOz 202,041 tons 10. The emissions allowances described in G.S. 143-215.107D(i) that are acquired by the investor-owned public utility that resultfrom compliancewith the emissions limitations setoutin G.S.I43-215.107D. During 2005, PEC did not acquire any allowances as a result ofcompliance with the emission limitations set out in N.C. General Statute 143-215.1070.



### 1111. Any other information requested by the Commission or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. NC Clean Smokestacks Audit Public StaffDataRequest No. 5 was issued to Progress Energy Carolinas inFebruary of2005, and a response was provided on March 4, 2005. NC Clean Smokestacks Commission staffrequest was issued to Progress Energy Carolinas 

### inApril of2005, and a response was provided on May 2, 2005 with revisions filed on May 6, 2005. NC Clean Smokestacks Audit Public StaffDataRequestNo. 6 

### was issued to Progress Energy Carolinas in February of2006, and a response 

### was provided on March 24, 2006.



### 12

## Appendix A Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc's (PEC) Air Quality Improvement Plan Supplement April!, 2006 On June 20, 2002, Governor Easley signed into law SBl078, which caps emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (S02) from utility owned coal-fired power plants located in North Carolina. PEC's annual NOx emissions must be less than 25,000 tons beginning in 2007 and annual so2emissions must be less than 100,000 tons beginning in 2009 and less than 50,000 tons beginning in 2013. These caps represent a 56% reduction inNOx emissions from 2001 levels and a 74% reduction in S02 from 200!levelsfor PEC. PEC owns and operates 18 coal-fired units at seven plants in North Carolina. The locations ofthese plants are shown onAttachment 1. 

### Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Control Plan PEC has been evaluating and installing NOx emissions controls on its coal-fired power plants since 1995 in order to comply with Title·IV ofthe Clean Air Act and the NOx SIP Call rule adopted by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). Substantial NOx emissions reductions have already been achieved (50,000 tons ofNOx in 2004 compared with 112,000 tons in 1997) and further reductions will ensure compliance with the Clean Smokestacks Act 25,000 ton cap in calendar year 2007. This target will be achieved with a mix ofcombustion controls (which minimize the formation ofNOx) such as low-NOx burners and over-fire air technologies, and post-combustion controls (which reduce NOx produced during the combustion offossil fuel to molecularnitrogen) such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technologies. Attachment

### 2 details PEC's North Carolina coal-fired electric generating units, their name plate generation capacity, the control technologies already installed, and those planned for installation. As technologies evolve orother circumstances change, a different mix ofcontrols may be selected. Attachment

### 2 also projects the NOx emissions on a unit-by-unit basis based on the energy demand forecast and expected efficiencies of the NOx emissions controls employed. This information is provided only to show how compliance may be achieved and is not intended in any way to suggest unit-specific emission limits. Actual emissions for each unit may be substantially different in 2007. 

### Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Control Plan PEC will be installing wet flue gas desulfurization systems (FGD or "scrubbers") to remove 97% ofthe S02 from the flue gas ofits Asheville, Roxboro and Mayo boilers. Screening studies will be conducted for the Cape Fear 5 and 6 and Sutton 3 units to select the most appropriate technology for these plants. Wet scrubbers produce unique waste 

### 13and by-product streams. Issues related to wastewaterpermitting and solid waste disposal are being addressed for each site. PEC plans to treat the scrubber wastewater stream at the Asheville Plant using an innovative constructed wetlands treatment system to ensure compliance with discharge limits. A bioreactortechnology is being evaluatedfor the Roxboro Plant. A contracthas been executedwith a gypsum product end-userthatwill construct a wallboard facilitynear the Roxboro plantto use the synthetic gypsum produced bythe Roxboro and Mayo plants for the manufacture ofdrywall products. PEC is also negotiating with another gypsum company for the use ofthe synthetic gypsum that will be produced at the Asheville plant Specific units are listed inAttachment 3 with data onprojected schedules andprojected annual emissions in 

### 2009 and 

### 2013. These projections assume a 

### 97% S02 removal efficiency, forecasted energy demand, 3.3 lbs**S~/Mbtu** coal on scrubbed units, and 

### 1.2 lbs S021Mbtu coal onthe otherunits. Please note that these are projected schedules and are subject to revision. Particular units controlled and control technologies utilized are subject to change depending onfuture developments in S02 removal technologies, energy demand, sulfur content ofcoal, and other circumstances which may produce a more optimal planfor meeting the S02 emissions limits in 

### 2009 and 

### 2013. DENRwill be advised as changing circumstances dictate.



### 14 

# .•

# Attachment 1: Location ofPEC's Coal-Fired Power Plants in North Carolina 

# Roxboro Cape Fear

Weatherspoon • I

### Attachment 2: PEC NOx Control Plan for North Carolina Coal-fired Units Projected Unit MWRating Control Technology Operation Date 1 

### NOx Tons, 20072 

### Asheville I Asheville 2

.**·~·---------------·** 

### Cape fear 5

.. 

### Cape Fear 6 -· 

### Lee I Lee 2 Lee 3**-~!IY.(l** 

### 1__ Roxboro I !-=-"-



### Roxboro 2 Roxboro 3 Roxboro 4 Sutton I

----



### Sutton 2 Sutton 3 Wspn I Wspn2 Wspn 3

--------- 

### Total

AEFLGR

-- Amine-Enhanced Fh1e Lean Gas Rcbum LND- Low SOx Bumer SNCR

-- Selccth·c Non-Catalytic Reduction OFA = Q\·cl'lhe Air ROFA = Rotating Opposed-tired Air 

### 198 LNB/AEFLGR/SCR



### -- 194 LNB/OFA/SCR 143 ROFA'ROTAMIX 173 ROFA/ROTAMIX 79 WIR 76 LNB

.... 

### 252 LNB/OFA/ROTAMIX 745 LNB/OFA/SCR 385 LNB/OFA/SCR 670 TFS2000/SCR 707 LNB/OFA/SCR 700 LNB/OFA/SCR 97 SAS 106 LNB --------------. 

### 410 LNB/ROFA/ROTAMIX 49 49 78 WIR 5,Ill

ROTAMIX;, Injection ofAmmonia to further reduce**~Ox** (used ill combination with ROFA} WJH.**~** Umk:rlin: Air TFS2600 -Combination Low-NOx RumeriOverfire Air SAS = Separated Air Staging 

### 2009

- --- 

### 2006 2010

----



# ' '

-----



### 2006

1Note: This is the operation date for the control technology installed to comply with the North Carolina Improve Air Quality/Electric Utilities Act only (shown in bold). l Unit by unit emissions are illustrative onl)' tmd specific emissions limits should not be inferred Actual emissions in 2007 may be different from unit to unit 2 

### 2,625

-- 

### 432 580 770

-- 

### 928 493 1,689 I,741 1,084 1,292 2,036 1,938 I 008 I, 116 3,716

879 915 1,028 24,271

### Attachment 3: PEC S02 Control Plan for North Carolina Coal-Fired Units

- 

### Projected S02 Pt·ojected S02 Unit MW Rating Technology Operation Date •Tons, 2009 1 

### Tons, 2013 1 

### Asheville 1 198 Scrubber 2005 864 818 Asheville 2 194 Scrubber 2006 886 960 --·-·+- ---- ----- ----- --- ---.--·- 

### Cape Fear 5 

### 143 Scrubber 2012 6,249 656 

### Cape Fear 6 173 Scrubber 2011 7,725 787 Lee I 79 2,940 2,660
·-··---· 

### - Lee 2 76 2,637 2,756 Lee 3 252 10,078 7,493 Mayo I 745 Scrubber 2009 14,361 3,203 Roxboro I 385 Scrubber 2008 1,741 1,700 Roxboro2 670 Scrubber 2007 2,853 2,577 Roxboro 3 707 Scrubber 2008 2,928 3,005 Roxboro4 700 Scrubber 2007 2,363 2,902 Sulton I 97 4,402 3,217 Su!ton2 106 4,052 ?,768 Sutton 3 410 Scrubber 2012 16,269 1,823 Wspn I 49 1,458 

### ·- ____ _j**,2~----·** 

### Wspn2 49 1,587 1,286 Wspn 3 78 3,301 3,480 Total**~---·--·** 

### 5,111 86,692 44,485

1 Unit by unit emissions are illuslralive only and specificemissions limits should not be inferred. Actual emissions in 2009 and 2013 may be different from unit to unit. 2 Projectionsare based on 97% S02rcmo\'BI d11cicncy. forecasted energy demand, 3.3 lbs S021Mbtu coal on scrubbed units, and 1.21bs S02/Mbtu coal on others 3

### Appendix B PEC's Actual Costs Through 2005 and Projected Costs Through 2013 for Clean Smokestacks Compliance (thousands)

Note: Excludes ]'ower Agency ownership: 16.17% ofMayo, 3.77% ofRoxboro Common, and 12.94% ofRoxboro 4

4

# Appendix C PEC Clean Smokestacks Compliance Plan

Schedule as of4/1/2006

5**lll!!lllllfll!!i~iJ!ljill!llli** :1111111111111111111111111111111 Scrubber Design and Construction Scrubber in senAce NOx Controls Design and Construction NOx Controls in sen.ice