# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 28 ) 11-1-2 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:19 AM Sheet 28 of 142 P. 1P. 2

.r *
COLORAD O DEPARTMEN T O F HEALT H

Divisio no r Sectio no f APCD/Stationar y Source s Program 

# ^%~37

Inter-Offic e Communicatio n 

### TO : FROM : DATE : SUBJECT : Cimarro n- Fil e

Cathy Rhotfe} ^ Jun e 26 , 198 9 MATE RAVAILABILIT Y n \) 

### • « 0 £

O nthi s date , I me t wit hDav e Nettle s o f th e Groundwate r Sectio no f th e Mate r Resource s Divisio no f the Colorad o Departmen t o f Natura l Resources . H e indicate dtha t Cimarron' s assumptio ntha t wate r sufficien t t o las t th e lif e o f th e projec t i s no t availabl e onlan dadjacen t t o thei r existin g lan di s reasonable . H e di dsuggest , however , tha t Cimarro ncoul dpossibl y obtai n wate r right s (eliminate s needt o purchas e land ) approximatel y eigh t mile s fro

m th e plant . Referrin g t o Borman' s map , th e saturatio nthicknes s woul dbe 15 0 t o 20 0 feet . * Abou t a yea r ago , Dav e indicate dwate r right s wer e goin g fo r approximatel y

S2000/acre-feet . Base don9 7 acre-fee t pe r year , thi s equate s t o approximatel y

2 millio ndollar s pe r yea r fo r water . Capita l cos t fo r piping , et c woul dcos t approximatel y 1 millio ndollars . Annualize dcost s woul dtherefor e be simila r t o thos e fo r obtainin g wate r 1 5 mile s away , however , th e uncertaint y o f bein g abl e t o secur e wate r right s exist s an d therefor e th e Divisio nagres s wit hCimarron' s wate r availabilit y analysis . 

### L CR/js g 1723 bP,3
_

AI RSCIENCE S INC
.

' * * • 1

' •'•7':'/ . i)"HC:r :

, Jun e 16,198 9 Projec t 48-0 3 Ms
. Cath y Rhode s " ' J

- , : ' ^^7: ] Ai r Pollutio nContro l Divisio n Colorad o Departmen t

o f Healt h 421 0 E
. 11t hAvenu e Denver , C O 8022 0 Re : BAC T justificatio n- Cimarro nChemical s Inc
. Cogeneratio nPlan t Dea r Cathy : O n Ma y 16,198 9 th e Colorad o Ai r Pollutio nContro l Divisio n(APCD ) informe d Ai r Science s tha t

withou t stronge r justification , 4 2 pp mnitroge noxide s (NO x ) stac k emission s woul db e considere dBAC T for th e Cimarro n(CCl ) cogeneratio n facility
. O nMa y 2 3 w e me t

t o discus s thi s issue , th e rol e of EP A i nth e Colorad o permittin g proces s an dth e type s of

justificatio ntha t

APC D coul dlegitimatel y require
. You r lette r of Ma y 3 0 summarize dth e conclusion s of tha t meetin g an dliste d severa l specifi c type s of

informatio ntha t

Cimarro nwa s t o produc e fo r th e additiona l BAC T justification
. Subsequently , th e EP A prepare dalette r date dJun e 1 , whic h discusse dEPA' s mos t

recen t appropriat e mean s o f determinin g BACT
. I nth e followin g BAC T analysis , you r earlie r infonnatio nrequirement s ar e se t asid e i n favo r of th e EP A guidanc e becaus e APC D appear s t o b e followin g EP A guidanc e o n thi s matter . Fro mth e EP A guidance , w e ar e documentin g th e following :

• secondar y cost s o

f th e additiona l contro l i nterm s o f th e wate r consumptio nfro mth e aquifer ,
• rang e of

economi c cost s for

stea minjectio ncontro l t o 4 2 pp mfor simila r facilitie s alread y permitte dan doperating ,
• economic s o

f stea minjectio ncontro l fo r th e CC l powe r

project ,
• demonstratio no

f wh y thes e CC l contro l cost s ar e unique , an d

• selectio no f

appropriat e BAC T contro l level
. Th e issu e of

appropriat e NO xcontro l leve l i s focuse do nth e primar y an d secondar y cost s o

f wate r consumption
. A t

a nemissio nleve l o

f 7 5 pp mNO x , th e wate r consumptio nfor

emissio ncontro l i s 3 8 gp m(Malcol mJones , Marc h1989)
. Wit hincrease dcontro l t o 4 2 ppm , th e wate r requiremen t

woul db e 8 7 gpm , a n increas e o

f approximatel y 5 0 gpm .

1259 6 West

Bayau dAvenue
. Lakewood
. Colorad o 8022 8 303/98 8 296 0 FA X 98 8 296 8P. 4

Ms
. Cath y Rhode s Jun e 16,198 9 Pag e 2

Secondar y cost s Th e wate r

for th e CC l projec t

i s t o b e pumpe dfro mth e loca l aquifer
. Wate r i s a scarc e resourc e i nth e Wals hare abecaus e i t i s availabl e onl y fro mth e aquife r an d recharg e i s slow
. Ther e ar e n o loca l (withi n4 0 miles ) non-seasona l source s of surfac e water . Wate r

tha t i s consume dfor

th e contro l o

f NO xwil l no t

b e availabl e for

futur e agricultura l purposes . I nthi s BAC T evaluation , consideratio nmus t b e give nfor

th e wis e managemen t

o f alimite dresource . Fo r purpose s of

assignin g acos t

t o th e wate r

consume dfor

NO xcontrol , tw o alternativ e mean s of

obtainin g th e wate r

fro masurfac e sourc e ar e considered , truckin g o

f 5 0 gallon s pe r

minut e t o th e Wals hare afro mth e Arkansa s Rive r (Joh n Marti nReservoir , 6 0 mile s t o th e north ) an dpipin g it
. Th e truckin g cost s wil l b e somewha t

greate r tha npipin g an dar e no t detaile dherein
. Cost s for receip t of th e wate r fro mapipelin e ar e calculate do na nattachmen t (Malcol mJones , Jun e 9 , 1989)
. Thes e cost s assum e tha t a50 0 gp mpipelin e i s t o b e built
. Fo r purpose s of calculatin g th e cos t

for replacemen t

of th e 5 0 gpm , w e assum e tha t th e pipelin e ha s bee ninstalle dfor

anothe r primar y purpos e an d5 0 gp mi s purchase dfro mth e pipeline
. Thes e cost s fo r 5 0 gpm , o na nannualize dbasis , ar e $ 717,00 0 pe r yea r o r $0.0 3 pe r gallo nan dar e prohibitiv e for agricultura l use . So , th e wate r use dfo r NO x contro l wil l b e los t

for agriculture
. Rang e of cost s for NO xcontro l t o 4 2 pp mfor simila r turbin e facilitie s Mos t ga s turbin e cogeneratio nproject s ar e locate di nmetropolita nan d industria l area s wher e wate r i s availabl e fro mapressurize dpipeline
. Sinc e th e issu e wit hCC l i s cos t

of wate r availabilit y a t

th e plan t

site , th e cos t

differenc e betwee nth e CC l projec t an dthes e other s i s ljnuted_tocostsJbrwate r an dpumping
. Th e cost s of

controllin g th e sam e cogenerationprojecFlb^louTTevelS , duvm~Ur4 2 pp m i nothe r location s ar e estimate do nth e attachment , "Cos t fo r Water-Othe r Installations"
. Wate r

cos t infonnatio nwa s gathere dfro mfive areas , representin g 2 6 othe r turbin e installation s controllin g wit hstea minjection
. Annualize dcost s fo r th e lo w an dhig hend s o f thes e cost s ar e detaile di nTable s 1 an d2 an dsummarize d i nTabl e 3
. Th e rang e i s fro m$ 740,00 0 t o $ 780,000
. Thes e cost s represen t th e rang e of stea minjectio ncost s fo

r simila r project s throughou t

th e countr y an di t

i s t o thes e cost s tha t

th e cos t for stea minjectio ni nth e Wals hare a(Tabl e 4 ) i s compared
.

TABL E3 INCREMENTA LCOST S FO RSTEA M INJECTIO NCONTRO L

Annua l Cos t

($ ) Uni t

cos t ($/ton ) Locatio n100-7 5 pp m100-4 2 pp m100-7 5 pp m100-4 2 pp m Low-en dOthe r

241,00 0 740,00 0 1,03 1 1,36 5 High-en dOthe r

252,00 0 780,00 0 1,07 6 1,44 0 Wals h247,00 0 1,875,00 0 1,05 5 3,45 9P. 5



### Ms
. Cath y Rhode s Jun e 16,198 9 Pag e 3

TABL E 1 INCREMENTA L COST

S O F STEA M INJECTIO N CONTRO L LOW-EN D OTHE R INSTALLATION S (presen t valu e dollars , tw o turbines ) Cos t Impac t Componen t Operatin g Cost s Fuel ' Wate rTreatmen t Chemicals 1 Boile rFeedwate rChemicals 1 Additiona l Ra wWater 2 Operatin g Cos t Tota l ($/yr ) Capita l Cost s Wate rTreatmen t Equipment 1 Piping 1 Pum p an d Desuperheater 1 Capacity 1 Additiona l Wate rResourc e Developmen t Installatio n Labor 1 Capita l Cos t Tota l ($ ) 55-»4 2 pp m 100-»4

2 pp m $120,00 0 26,19 4 5,61 3 3.83 5 $155,64 2 $ 63,75 0 3,00 0 64,00 0

17,41 0 3,73 0 2.54 7 87,68 7 42,38 0 2,40 0 56,00 0

21,11 0 4,52 0 3.09 3 84,72 3
51.37 5 2,40 0 80,00 0

36,98 0 7,93 0 5,41 4 130,32 4 90,00 0 4,20 0 320,00 0

101,69 4 21,79 3 14,88 9 458,37 6 247,50 5 12.00 0 4,00 0 17.50 0 $ 88,25 0 1,70 0

11.30 0 57,78 0 1,80 0

13.70 0 69,27 5 2.50 0

25.00 0 121.70 0 10,00 0

67.50 0 337,00 5 Levelize d Operatin g Cos t (15yrs15%disc..5%esc ) Annualize d Capita l Cos t (1 5 yr s 15 % disc. , 12 % Finance ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t $208,07 8 117,22 9 33.23 5 $241,31 3 21.76 0

138,98 9 113,26 6

26,08 9 139,35 5 174,23 0

45.83 2 220,06 2 612,80 3

126,91 6 739,71 9

1 Malcol m Jones , Marc h 198 9 2 Cost s fo r Water-Othe r Installation sP. 6

Ms
. Cath y Rhode s Jun e 16,198 9 P.ig e 4

Cos t Impac t Componen t Operatin g Cost s Fuel 1 Wate rTreatmen t Chemicals ' Boile rFeedwate rChemicals 1 Additiona l Ra wWater 2 Operatin g Cos t Tota l ($/yr ) Capita l Cost s Wate rTreatmen t Equipment 1 Piping 1 Pum p an d Desuperheate r Capacity 1 Additiona l Wate rResourc e Developmen t Installatio n Labor 1 Capita l Cos t Tota l ($ ) TABL E 2 INCREMENTA L COST

S O F STEA M INJECTIO N CONTRO L HIGH-EN D OTHE R INSTALLATION S (presen t dollars , tw o turbines ) 100*7 5 pp m $ 120,00 0 26,19 4 5.61 3 11.66 9 $163,47 6 $ 63,75 0 3,00 0 4.00 0 17.50 0 $ 88,25 0 75*65pp m 65*5 5 pp m

64,00 0 17,41 0 3,73 0 7,75 1 92,89 0 42,38 0 2,40 0 1.70 0 11.30 0 57,78 0 56,00 0

21,11 0 4,52 0 9,40 9 91,03 9 51,37 5 2,40 0 1,80 0 13.70 0 69,27 5 55*4 2 pp m

80,00 0 36,98 0 7,93 0 16,47 4 141,38 4 90,00 0 4,20 0 2,50 0 25,00 0 121,70 0 100*4 2 pp m

320,00 0 101,69 4 21,79 3 45,30 3 488,78 9 247,50 5 12,00 0 10,00 0 67.50 0 337,00 5 Levelize d Operatin g Cos t (1 5 yrs , 5 % esc , 15 % discount ) Annualize d Capita l Cos t (1 5 yrs , 15 % disc. , 12 % finance ) Tota l Annualize d Cos t $218,55 1 124,18 5 33,23 5 $251,78 6 21,760

145,94 5 121,71 0

26,08 9 147,79 9 189,01 6

45,83 2 234,84 8 653,46 2

126,91 6 780,37 8

1 Malcol m Jones , Marc h 198 9 2 Cost s fo r Water-Othe r Installation sP. 7

Ms
. Cath y Rhode s Jun e 16,198 9 Pag e 5

Economic s of

Stea minjectio ncontro l for CC l I f CC l i s t o us e additiona l wate r for NO xcontro l i t

wil l come fro mgroun dwate r becaus e o

f th e hig hcos t

o f receivin g i t

fro msurfac e sources . Ther e i s n o pipelin e i n plac e currentl y fro mwhic ht o bu y th e water , s o th e cost s define dabov e a s secondar y cost s fo r pipin g 5 0 gp mcanno t b e used
. A nattache dlette r fro mTe dZoric h& Associate s (Jun e 14 , 1989 ) discusse s th e limitation s i nobtainin g reliabl e groundwate r

an dth e nee dfor

purchasin g additiona l lan dwit hwell s i f tota l plan t consumptio nexceed s presentl y estimate dplan t requirement s wit hNO xcontro l t o 7 5 ppm . Th e 5 0 gp mof

wate r for contro l t o 4 2 shoul dcome fro manothe r source . Th e sourc e i s t o b e reliabl e and
. fro mth e Zoric hreport , th e leas t expensiv e sourc e meetin g thes e requirement s i s abou t 1 6 mile s t o th e east , i nth e Ogallal aAquifer
. Cost s fo r thi s lan dar e estimate di nth e attache dWalke r lette r (Jun e 13,1989 ) a t $40 0 t o 45 0 pe r

acre . CC l ha s estimate dth e cos t for lan dpurchase , wel l test s an d rehabilitatio na t

$914,00 0 (dat ashee t

i n"Estimatio no

f Cost s for Additiona l Groun d Water " attachment)
. Jone s (Jun e 15,1989 ) estimate s th e piping , tie-i nan dpumpin g statio ncost s fo r

th e additiona l well s a t

$ .2,040*0.00
. Th e tota l annualize dcost s fo r th e additiona l wate r

t o contro l t o 4 2 pp mwil l b e $l7B 7 million
. Cost s fo r NO xcontro l wit hth e adde dgroun dwate r requirement s ar e liste di nTabl e 4
. Fo r purpose s o f

thi s cos t analysis , i t

i s assume dtha t

ther e i s enoug hwate r availabl e fro malread y purchase dsource s t o suppor t NO xcontro l t o 7 5 ppm . Thes e cost s ar e summarize di n Tabl e 3
. Uniquenes s o f

contro l cost s Th e difficult y of

acquirin g wate r

for NO xcontro l a t

th e CC l facilit y i nth e Wals hare ai s th e uniqu e featur e i ndeterminin g BACT
. Thi s uniqu e featur e add s bot hdirec t

an dsecondar y costs . N o beneficia l valu e fo r th e adde dconsumptio no f wate r i s apparen t

excep t i ndecreasin g th e emission s o f NO x . Th e benefi t

i nterm s of lowe r ambien t impact s wil l b e negligible
. Thi s uniqu e problem , th e scarcit y o f water , add s direc t

cost s t o th e projec t

a s show no nFigur e 1
. Th e dat afor Figur e 1 ar e fro mTable s 1,2 , an d4
. I t i s apparen t tha t annualize dcos t

for contro l i s highe r

i nth e Wals hare aan dwel l ou t o f th e rang e o f contro l cost s for

turbine s i nth e othe r

areas . Fro mFigur e 1 norma l annualize dcost s for stea minjectio ncontro l t o 4 2 pp m ar e abou t $760,000
. Th e comparabl e cos t t o CC l i s abou t

$1,875,00 0 o r

ove r twic eP. 8



### Ms
. Cath y Rhode s Jun e 16,198 9 Pag e 6

Cos t Impac t Componen t Operatin g Costs Fuel 1 Wate rTreatmen t Chemicals 1 Boile rFeedwate rChemicals 1 Additiona l Ra wWater 1 (pumpin g costs : $1.00/ 1 .OOOgal) 1 Operatin g Cos t Tota l ($/yr ) - Capita l Costs Wate rTreatmen t Equipment 1 Piping 1 Pum p an d Desuperheate r Capacity 1 Additiona l Wate rResourc e Development 3 Installatio n Labor 1 Capita l Cos t Tota l ($ ) Levelize d Operatin g Cost/y r (15 % disc. , 1 5 yrs , 5 % esc ) Annualize d Capita l Cos t (15 % disc. , 1 5 yrs , 12 % Finance ) Tota l Annualize d Cost/y r

1 Malcol m Jones , Marc h 198 9 2 Cost s fo rWater-Othe rInstallation s

- 1 Estimation s o f Cost

s fo rAdditiona l Groun d Wate r TABL E 4

INCREMENTA L COST

S O F STEA M INJECTIO N CONTRO L WALS H INSTALLATIO N (presen t dollars , tw o turbines ) 100*7 5 oo m $ 120,00 0 26,19 4 5,61 3 8.16 0 $159,96 7 $ 63,75 0 3,00 0 4,00 0 17.50 0 $ 88,25 0 $213,86 0 33,23 5 $ 247,09 5 75*65pp m 65

64,00 0 17,41 0 3,73 0 5.42 0 90,56 0 42,38 0 2,40 0 1,70 0 - 681,00 0 > 11,30 0 738,78 0 121,07 0 278,22 5 399,29 4
i 

### 1 *5 5 pp m

56,00 0 21,11 0 4,52 0 6.58 0 88,21 0 51,37 5 2,40 0 1,80 0 826,00 0 13.70 0 895,27 5 117,92 8 337,16 1 455,08 9 55*4 2 pp m

80,00 0 36,98 0 7,93 0 11,52 0 136,43 0 90,00 0 4,20 0 2,50 0 1,447,00 0 - 25,00 0 1,568,70 0 182,39 3 590,77 2 773,16 6 100*4 2 pp m

320,00 0 101,69 4 21,79 3 31,68 0 475,16 7 247,50 5 12,00 0 10,00 0 ~*2,954,00 0 67.50 0 3,291,00 5 635,25 1 1.239,39 3 1,874,64 4P. 9

Ms
. Cath y Rhode s Jun e 16,198 9 Pag e 7

th e cost . O nacos t

pe r uni t o f NO xcontrolled , norma l cost s ar e abou t $1,40 0 pe r

to n an dCC l cost s wil l b e abou t $3,50 0 pe r

ton . I nterm s o

f secondar y costs , th e nor mi s t o hav e wate r availabl e fro ma n existin g sourc e wit ha n unrestricte dsupply
. I nWalsh , ther e i s afixedan dlimite d suppl y o f wate r availabl e t o agriculture , th e primar y sourc e o f incom e i nth e region
. Whateve r

wate r i s use dfo r

NO xcontro l i s los t

for agriculture
. Selectio no

f BAC T Fro mth e Jun e 1 EP A BAC T guidanc e letter , i t i s apparen t

tha t BAC T i s t o b e th e industr y nor munles s uniqu e condition s exis t i naparticula r

projec t resultin g i n cost s beyon dth e norm . I t i s th e burde no

f CC l t o sho w tha t

cost s o f controllin g t o 4 2 pp mar e beyon dth e nor man dtha t the y woul dplac e a nunreasonabl e burde no n CCl
. I nth e previou s paragraph s CC l ha s demonstrate dtha t th e cost s for

contro l t o 4 2 pp mar e beyon dth e norm . CC l consider s cost s whic har e doubl e thos e of th e industr y nor mt o b e unreasonable
. BAC T i s selecte da t acos t t o CC l equivalen t

t o tha t pai d b y th e industr y norm . BAC T i s selecte da s th e leve l of NO xcontro l tha t

i s equivalen t

i ncos t t o contro l t o 4 2 pp mfor

othe r installations
. Fro mFigur e 1 , th e rang e o f cost s for contro l t o 4 2 pp ma t othe r installation s i s equivalen t t o contro l t o 6 2 t o 6 3 pp mi nWalsh
. Thi s i s a nappropriat e BAC T leve l for th e CC l installatio ni nWalsh
.
I f yo u shoul dhav e an y question s regardin g thi s o r previousl y submitte d information , giv e Da nZunic h(713-621-5303 ) o r m e acall
. Sincerely ,
Rodge r G
. Stee n Principa l RGS.sl s cc : Joh nDal e - U
. S
. EP A

## • V 22-14 1 S O SHEET S 22-14 2 10 0 SHEET

S 42-14 4 20 0 SHEET

S

T~or/*LAu*ju/k.t*.ea Coir

C*/y)

( V o 2

- i 

### J 

### r 

### r c m r

6 , c I k C P e.

H

n o