p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 24)11-1-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:19 AM Sheet 24 of 142P. 2



### . 3 AI RSCIENCE S IN C 

# /9-^7 RECEIVE D Aprill7,198 9 \ ? ^ ^ \AP RU 198 9 Projec t 48-0 2 \ S^^^Z^^W^ ^PONTRO l niVISIO N

. V ,. _STAT.0N«rt. Y *& y .tt*& 8 PROGRA M Ms . Cath y Rhode s Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Divisio n Colorad o Departmen t

o f Healt h 421 0 E . 11t h Avenu e Denver , C O 8022 0 Re : Additiona l infonnatio n regardin g Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y fo r th e Cimarro n Chemica l Projec t - Permi t No . 89BA06 0 Dea r Cathy : A s discusse di n ou r

telephon e conversatio n o f Marc h 29,1989 , Ai r

Science s i s providin g herein

- th e followin g infonnatio n o n th e Cimarro n Chemical , Inc . (CCl ) Project :

• Supportin g infonnatio n fo r fue l cost s

• Supportin g informatio n fo r additiona l wate r

resourc e developmen t

• Estimate dcost s o

f Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR ) NO x contro l fo r specifi c applicatio n t o th e CC l Project . Thes e cost s ar e prepare dt o addres s th e to p dow n approac h t o Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y analysis . Cost s o f stea minjectio n NO x contro l for th e projec t

wer e previousl y submitte di n ou r lette r date d Marc h 23,1989 . • CC l Projec t

BAC T justificatio n Supportin g informatio n summarizin g projecte dfue l cost s fo r th e CC l projec t ar e presente da s Attachmen t A . Thi s summar y wa s develope dfro mfinancia l resources , reference s of whic h ar e note di n th e attachment . Detail s o f cost s associate dwit h additiona l wate r resourc e developmen t

ar e presente da s Attachmen t B . Thes e cost s wer e develope db y Malcol mJone s an dAssociates . SC RCos t Estimatio n SC Rtechnolog y involve s th e injectio n o f ammoni aint o th e turbin e exhaus t an d passin g th e mixtur e ove r afixedcatalys t

be dt o affec t

NO x reductio n t o N2 . Th e ammoni ainjecte di s consume ddurin g th e reactio n an dth e consumptio n rat e i s directl y proportiona l t o th e amoun t of NO x presen t

i n th e exhaus t

stream . Therefore , i t

i s most.optima l wit h regar dt o costs , tha t th e NO x concentratio n o f th e

1259 6 West

Bayau dAvenue . Lakewood . Colorad o 8022 8 303/98 8 296 0 FA X 98 8 296 8P. 3

Apri l 17,198 9 ' ^ r Ms . Cath y Rhode s Pag e 2 exhaus t strea mb e a s lo w a s possibl e prio r t o it s treatmen t

b y SCR . Fo r

thi s reason , NO x concentratio n mus t b e reduce dt o a t

leas t 2 5 pp mthroug h th e us e o f stea m injectio n whe n SC Rtechnolog y i s used . SC Runit s ca n achiev e aNO x reductio n t o abou t 9 ppm . .Annualize dcost s fo r

SC Rar e estimate dfor

plan t operatio n a t

averag e annua l conditions , an dusin g engineerin g an deconomi c dat aan dcos t factors . Cost s wer e estimate dusin g traditiona l cos t recover y an dtim e valu e o f mone y considerations , an drepresen t

approximat e rathe r

tha n rigorou s estimate s o n abefore-ta x basis . Fixe dcapita l cost s ar e annualize dove r a n assume d1 5 yea r

usefu l equipmen t

lif e a t a1 5 percen t

discoun t rate . Annualize dcost s of

SC Rar e base do n installin g tw o SC Runits . Include di n thes e cost s ar e incrementa l increase s for th e boiler s an dcontro l system . Th e catalys t i s sensitiv e t o hig h temperature s s o tha t th e strea mpasse dove r

th e catalys t

mus t b e coole dprio r

t o treatment . Typically , th e boiler s ar e spli t s o tha t mos t o f th e hea t containe di n th e exhaus t strea mi s recovere dprio r t o feedin g tiie strea mt o th e SC R equipment , an dremainin g hea t i s recovere db y asecon dboile r section . Significan t increase s i n boile r

cost s ar e incurre da s aresul t o f th e two-sectio n boile r requirement .

. . SC Rsystem s requir e frequen t tunin g an dadjustment . A s such , acontro l syste mcapabl e o

f controllin g ammoni ainjection , stea minjection , fue l suppl y rat e an dgenerato r

powe r outpu t simultaneousl y wil l b e required . Suc h acontro l syste m wil l involv e acontinuou s NO x stac k monitorin g syste mintegrate dwit h SC Ran d turbin e operatin g controls . Othe r fixedcost s includ e th e initia l catalys t cost , vessels , piping , an da n ammoni ainjectio n system . Financin g charge s fo r th e SC Rinstallatio n (1 5 year s a t 1 2 percent ) ar e adjuste dt o presen t valu e an dthe n annualize dove r 1 5 year s a t

a1 5 percen t discoun t rate , a s ar e al l othe r

fixedcosts . Operatin g cost s fo r

th e SC Rproces s includ e ammoni aconsumption , replacemen t

o f th e SC Rcatalys t

bed s ever y thre e years , consideratio n of cos t increase s du e t o reduce dplan t performanc e an dincrementa l increase s i n wate r consumptio n associate dwit h th e highe r require dstea minjectio n rates . Thes e annua l cost s ar e levelize dt o accoun t for escalatio n o

f commodit y prices . Economi c calculation s fo r th e SC Rcas e ar e presente di n Attachmen t C . Th e incrementa l annua l an dtota l lifetim e cost s of NO x contro l ar e presente di n Tabl e 1 . Th e cost s o f

stea minjectio n contro l previousl y submitte di n th e Marc h 23 , 198 9 lette r ar e als o presente di n Tabl e 1 for completeness . Tabl e 2 summarize s presen t valu e incrementa l cost s for th e variou s contro l levels .P. 4

Apri l 17,198 9 Ms . Cath y Rhode s Pag e 3

TABL E 1

INCREMENT S ANNUA L AN D TOTAL COST S FO RSTEA M

INJECTIO N AN D SC RCONTRO L

(tw o turbines ) Cos t Basi s 100-7 5 pp m75-42pp m42- 9 pp m10-0 9 pp m .Annua l • $247,100/y r $891,720/y r

$3,593,525/y r

$4,732,345/y r Tota l $3,706,50 0 $13,375,50 0 $53,902,87 5 $70,985,17 5 (1 5 years ) TABL E 2

INCREMENTA L COST S O FSTEA M INJECTIO N AN D SC RCONTRO L (presen t valu e dollars , tw o turbines ) Cos t Impac t Componen t

100-7 5 pp m75-42pp m42- 9 pp m100- 9 pp m Operatin g Cost s Fue l $120,00 0 Wate r Treatmen t

Chemical s 26,19 4 Boile r Feedwate r

Chemical s 5,61 3 Additiona l Ra w Wate r

8,16 0 Ammoni a Catalys t Operatin g Cos t

Tota l ($/yr ) Capita l Cost s Wate r Treatmen t

Equipmen t

$63,75 0 Pipin g 3,00 0 Pum p an dDesuperheate r 4,00 0 Capacit y Additiona l Wate r

Resourc e Developmen t SC RSyste m Ammoni aSyste m Incrementa l Boile r

Increas e Incrementa l Contro l Syste m Increas e Installatio n Labo r

17,50 0 Capita l Cos t

Tota l ($ ) $88,25 0 $200,00 0 75,49 9 16,17 8 23,52 0 $159,96 7 $315,19 7

$183,75 0 9,00 0 6,00 0 1,000,00 0 $141,89 4

67,79 5 14,53 0 21,12 0 190,08 0 508,77 6 $944,19 5 $165,00 0 7,00 0 2,80 0 3,400,00 0 400,00 0 800,00 0 100,00 0 $461,89 4

169,48 8 36,32 1 52,80 0 190,08 0 508,77 6 $1,419,35 9 $412,50 0 19,00 0 12,800 76,80 0 1,076,80 0

3,400,00 0 400,00 0 800,00 0 100,00 0 50,00 0 1,237,90 0 1,305,40 0 $1,248,75 0 $6,189,50 0 $7,526,05 0P. 5



### Apri l 17,198 9 Ms . Cath y Rhode s Pag e 4 Tabl e 1 an d2 cost s ar e expresse da s incrementa l increase s becaus e thes e ar e th e tru e cost s o

f increasin g th e contro l level . Eac h successiv e increas e i n contro l effectivenes s cost s more pe r to n o f pollutan t controlle dtha n doe s th e previou s leve l o f control . BAC T Justificatio n Th e followin g i s atop dow n analysi s o

f Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT) fo

r th e CC l Facility an di s limite dto nitroge n oxide s emissions . Th e analysi s i s base do

n th e definition s o

f BAC T an dLowes t

Achievabl e Emissio n Rat e (LAER) a s provide di n th e Common Provisions o f th e Colorado Regulations . Bot h BAC T an dLAE

Rar e triggere dby "majo

r source " status . BAC

T i s applie di n area s designate dattainmen t

o f th e ambien t

nitroge n oxide s standar dan dtake s int o consideratio n energy , environmental , economi c an dothe r cost s o f contro l application . LAE

Ri s applie di n area s designate dnonattainmen t o f th e ambien t standard . Th e analysi s consider s th e contro l o f NO x 

### wit h stea minjectio n t o thre e level s (10 0 ppm , 7 5 ppman d4 2 ppmturbin e exhaus t concentration ) a s wel l a s contro l to 9 pp mwith maximu mstea minjectio n supplemente dwit h selectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR) . Th e 10 0 pp mleve l i s considere dbaselin e control.an dit s cost s ar e no t developed . .Annua

l an dtota l lifetime economic cost s o f th e thre e contro l scenario s abov e baselin e ar e presente di n Tabl e 1 . Cos t effectivenes s o

f NO x 

### contro l i s presente di n Tabl e 3 . TABL E 3 NO x 

### REMOVA

L COS T EFFECTIVENES S (basis : 10 0 pp mcontro l leve l = $0/yr) Unit s 7 5 pp

m4 2 pp

m9 pp

m $/y r 247,100 1,138,820 4,732,34 5 ton/y r 23 4 54 2 88 2 $/ton 1,05 5 2,100 5,36 5 Ther e wil l b e environmenta l cost s fo r nitroge n oxide s contro l i n additio n t o th e direc t economi c cost s presente di n Tabl e 1 . Th e environmenta l cost s wil l b e i n term s o f increase dwate r

consumptio n i n a n ari dregio n o f th e state , increase dcarbo n monoxid e emission s an dpotentia l hazard s associate dwit h storag e an d transportatio n o

f ammonia . Wate r

i s availabl e only fro

mgroun dwate r

supplie s an d CC l us e i s i n competitio n wit h agriculture . Wate r

consumptio n i s show n i n Tabl e 4. . CO emission s wil l increas e a s steaminjectio n i s increased . Thes e emission s wil l b e a s hig h a s 15 0 ton s per yea r fo r th e highes t

steaminjectio n rat e considere di n thi s analysis . Thi s emissio n rat e i s abov e th e 10 0 to n per year C O significanc e leve l aP. 6

Apri l 17,198 9 Ms . Cath y Rhode s Pag e 5

s o tha t BAC T for

C O wil l als o hav e t o b e addressed . Approximat e C O emissio n rate s ar e als o show n i n Tabl e 4 . SC Rsystem s requir e substantia l quantitie s o f ammonia . Thi s ammoni awil l b e store do n sit e s o tha t

ther e wil l exis t

apotentia l fo

r accidenta l ammoni areleases . Furthermore , transportatio n o f ammoni at o th e projec t

wil l requir e frequen t

truc k trave l throug h th e rura l communitie s surroundin g th e project . Th e potentia l dange r o f storin g an dtransportin g larg e quantitie s o f ammoni ai s a n environmenta l cos t whic h i s no t

represente di n th e cost s liste di n Table s 1 an d2 . Estimate dammoni a consumptio n i s presente di n Tabl e 4 . TABL E 4

ENVIRONMENTA L COST S O FNO X CONTRO L NO x Contro l Leve l Componen t

Unit s 7 5 pp m4 2 pp m9 pp m Wate r Consumptio n millio n gal/y r 18. 2 41. 8 62. 9 acre-feet/y r

55. 8 128. 3 193. 0 C O Emissio n ton/y r 20. 0 46. 0 150. 0 Ammoni aConsumptio n ton/y r - - - - 95. 0 Th e mos t

stringen t

contro l scenari o i s stea minjectio n wit h supplementar y SCR , whic h wil l increas e th e leve l o f NO x contro l from10 0 pp mt o 9 pp mi n th e turbin e exhaust . Thi s contro l i s equivalen t t o th e remova l o

f 88 2 ton s pe r

yea r o f NO x a t a n annua l cos t

o f $4,732,345 . Annualize dcos t fromTabl e 3 i s $5,36 5 pe r to n o f NO x controlled . Th e environmenta l cost s i n term s o f wate r consumptio n an d hazard s ar e liste dabove . Thi s mean s o f contro l i s applie di n th e N O nonattainmen t

. area s o f th e Unite dStates . I t

i s als o applie di n th e ozone nonattainmen t area s o f Californi aa s i t

i s considere daprecurso r o f ozone . I n th e ozone nonattainmen t area s o f Californi aN O emission s ar e treate da s anonattainmen t pollutant . Fro mrevie w o f th e Jul y 198 8 U . S . EP A BACT/LAERSummar y (PB89-109060 ) thi s degre e o f emissio n treatmen t

ha s no t been applie di n othe r

area s o f th e Unite dStates . Th e cos t o f SC Rcontro l i s no t

warrante di n southeas t Colorad o wher e th e ambien t concentratio n o f

NO x i s negligibl e an dther e i s n o significan t industrializatio n withi n 10 0 miles . Furthermore , emission s fromthi s facilit y wil l hav e n o significan t

impac t o n an y NO x nonattainmen t areas . Th e nex t leve l o f emissio n contro l i s wit h stea minjectio n an dth e degre e o f contro l varie s wit h th e quantit y o f stea minjected . Tw o level s o f stea mcontro l abov e abaselin e o

f 10 0 pp mar e considere dhere , 4 2 pp man d7 5 ppm" . Th e cost s associate d wit h stea mcontro l ar e fro mplumbin g equipment , wate r treatmen t

an dincrease d fue l an dwate r

consumption . A s wit h mos t contro l systems , th e effectivenes s o f th e stea minjectio n i n term s o f emissio n contro l pe r

uni t o f stea minjecte ddecrease s wit hP. 7



### Apri l 17,198 9 Ms . Cath y Rhode s Pag e 6 increase dsteaminjection . I n othe r words , th e incrementa l increas e o f on e to n o

f stea mpe r hou r wil l contro l mor

e N0 X 

### whe n goin g fro

mfive ton s to si x ton s pe r hou r injectio n tha n fro

m1 0 ton s t o 1 1 ton s per

hour . Fro mTabl e 3 , th e cos t

fo r contro l to 4 2 ppmi s $1,138,80 0 pe r year an dthi s wil l contro l 54 2 ton s o

f NO x 

### pe r yea r fo r acontro l rat e o

f $2,10 0 per

annua l to n NO x 

### . Thi s leve l o

f contro l ha s bee n considere dBACT on som e installation s a s liste di n th e BACT/LAE

RClearinghouse . However , ther e i s a n unusua l an dsubstantia l cos t fo r wate r i n southeas t

Colorado becaus e it s availabilit y i s limited . Wate r use dfo r th e CC l projec t

wil l com e fro mgroun dwate r

supplies . A wel l fieldextendin g beyon dth e existin g property wil l b e require dt o obtai n th e quantit y o

f wate r require dfo

r contro l t o 4 2 ppm , whic h involve s th e purchas e o f additiona l land . Ther e i s an adde denvironmenta l cos t o f consumin g 41. 8 millio n gallon s o f wate r pe r yea r (128. 3 acre-feet/yr) i n thi s are ao f Colorado becaus e th e wate r could otherwis e b e use dfo

r agriculture . Becaus e o

f thi s environmenta l cos t an dth e unusuall y hig h direc t

cos t fo r th e wate r an don-site purification , thi s contro l leve l i s no t propose da s BAC

T fo r CC L

, Th e nex t

contro l leve l considere di s 7 5 ppm . Fro mTabl e 1 , annua l cos t wil l b e $247,10 0 fo

r contro l to thi s leve l an dwil l decreas e NO x 

### emission s b y 23 4 ton s per year . Thi s cos t

i s equivalen t

t o $1,05 5 pe r

to n o f NO x 

### controlled . Th e argumen t fo r no t considerin g thi s a s BACT i s th e sam e a s fo r contro l to 4 2 ppm , bu t

i t i s no t a s strong . Th e primary issu e fo r thi s leve l o

f contro l i s th e relativ e importanc e o f th e 55. 8 acre-fee t

o f wate r consumedannuall y fo

r emissio n contro l balance dwith th e valu e o f controllin g 23 4 ton s o

f NO x 

### i n arura l area , wel l awa y fro msignifican t industria l activity . CC l propose s tha t th e economic an denvironmenta l cost s ar e to o hig h considerin g tha t

th e regio n i s rura l an dth e primary industr y i s agriculture . CC l propose s tha t

contro l t o th e leve l o

f 10 0 ppm , whic h i s bette r

tha n Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS) , i s BACT . A ga s turbin e projec t

wit h similar wate r limitation s ha s recentl y bee n issue da PS D permi t

i n th e Stat e o

f Alaska . Thi s permi t

wa s issue dt

o Alask aElectrica l Generatio n an dTransmissio n fo r an 8 0 M W combustio n turbin e facility (permi t numbe r 8622-AA002) . Th e locatio n o f thi s projec t

i s sufficiently fa

r fro mAnchorag e tha t existin g ambien t

NO x 

### concentration s were considere dnegligible . BAC T fo r thi s projec t wa s determine dto b e 7 5 pp mNO x 

### i n th e exhaus t

strea mcontrolle dvi awate r injection .P. 8



### Apri l 17,198 9 Ms . Cath y Rhode s Pag e 7 Pleas e contac t

m e a s soo n a s i s convenien t

if yo u hav e an y furthe r

question s regardin g thi s informatio n or any othe r issue s fo r th e Cimarro n application .

GWM:cm f cc : Ms . Elizibeth Sumerli n - CCl Sincerely , GatyW.McFaddi n —"* " Projec t Enginee r