# ^{-t

.J'Z } 1 EAST

KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE --I

John Lyons

Sean Alteri Mike Binkley

4775 Lexinston

Rood40391 PO. Box TOT,Winchester Kentucky

4O392-O7O7 March18,

2009

Martin Luther Program Planning & Adminiskation Kentucky Division for Air Quality 200 Fair Oaks Lane, First Floor Frankfort, Kentucky 4060 1 RE: John ShermanCooper Generating StationRevised BART Analvsis Dear Mr. Luther: As you know, Units I and 2 atthe East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EKPC) John ShermanCooper Station (Cooper Station) are subjectto the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination guidelines turder40 CFR Part 51. EKPC submitted its BART determination modeling and control strategyto the Division in a report dated July 23,2007. T\e July 2007 submittal identified wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD) and wet electrostatic precipitators (WESP) as BART for Cooper Units I and 2 andthose controls were specified in Kentucky's June2008 Regional Haze SIP. Sinceits July 2001 submittalandthe submittalof the Regional Haze SIP, EKPC has determined,with the assistance of Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., that Dry FGD and Fabric Filtration (DFGD/FF) will be at leastas effective asWFGD/WESP for the Cooper Units. Therefore, EKPC is requestingthat KDAQ amendthe 2008 Regional Haze SIP to allow substitution of DFGD/FF at Cooper Station for the previously approved

WFGD/WESP. Basedupon our discussions with you and other representatives

of KDAQ last fall, EKPC hasprepared the enclosed

analysis,

including modeling, in support of this request. After you have reviewed the enclosedsubmittal, EKPC looks forward to addressing any questions

you may have. In order to comply with the obligations under the Consent Decree in the case styled,United States

v. East Kentuclry

Power Cooperative,

Inc., Civ. ActionNo.04-34-KSP (E.D. Ky.) (entered

Sept. 27,2007), EKPC must complete the retrofit of Unit 2 completed and operational

by June30,2012. Sincerely, 

# /4X,/k46"/r.2u JerryPurvis,

Manager Environmental

Affairs JP:MBjkr Enclosure Jacqueline Quarles Chris Wathen. Kenvirons

Tel. (859)

744-4812 Fox (859)

744-6008 http://www.ekpc.coop 

## l|4AR 1B 2OO9 tlgn

A Touchstone Energy Cooperarive Xf)1I. INTRODUCTION

East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EKPC) is a power generationand transmission utility that owns and operates severalelectric generatingunits (EGUs) in Kentucky. Someof the EGUs owned and operated by EKPC consist

of coal-fired units that are subjectto the Regional Haze rule and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination

guidelines

promulgated

under 40 CFR Part 51. hr response to EPA rulemaking and at the requestof the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), EKPC previously evaluatedBART for its subject EGUs and conductedmodeling in accordance with the protocol approvedby KDAQ. This work culminated in the submittal to KDAQ of the report entitled,Best Available Retrofit Technology(BART) Source Specific Modeling - East Kentucky Power Cooperative Hugh L. Spurlock GeneratingStation and. John Sherman

CooperGenerating

Station,dated

July 23,2007 (2007 BART Submittal). ' As setout in the2007 BART Submittal,CooperUnits 1 and2 areBART-eligible sources and are subjectto BART sincethe 98th percentile visibility impacts predicted for both BART-eligible sources were above

the exemption

threshold

of 0.5 deciviews (dv). At the time the 2007 BART Submittal was prepared,EKPC was in the midst of negotiating a Consent Decree with EPA to resolvecertainallegations of noncompliance

with CleanAir Act requirements,

and it was anticipatedthat the negotiatedresolution would require retrofitting the Cooper BART-eligible units with wet flue gas desulfurization systems (WFGDs) for SOz

control and wet electrostaticprecipitators (WESPs) for PM control. 2007 BART Submittal, at 4-3. Taking into consideration the anticipated ConsentDecree, EKPC determinedat the time that WFGD and WESP were BART for Cooper Units 1 and 2. KDAQ accepted

EKPC's demonstration of BART andthe associated regionalhaze modeling and utilized that information as a componentof Kentucky's RegionalHaze SP, dated June 2008. SIP,Section

7.5.3andTable7.5.3-I. As subsequently

discussed

with KDAQ, the ConsentDecreeas ultimately entered did not mandate WFGD andWESPs. Consent Decree, Paragraphs

64,82. EKPC retained Burns & McDonnell Engineering Comp&ny,Inc.to assist with the retrofit project for Cooper Units 1 and 2, including evaluation of available control methodologiesto satisfy the ConsentDecree. As a result of this evaluation, EKPC has determinedthat the use of a dry flue gas desulfurization system (DFGD) combinedwith a pulsejet fabric filter (FF) for Cooper Units 1 and 2 meetsor exceeds the performanceof the WFGD/WESP previously proposed

as BART. As explained in detail herein, the anticipatedtotal PM emission control achievedby the DFGD/FF control train is better than the previously approvedWFGD/VVESP, and the predicted

visibility impactsarecomparable.

t This request relates only to the BART-eligible sourcesat the John ShermanCooper Generating Station. T}ae 2OO7 BART Submittal is still applicable to the sources at the Spurlock Station.Accordingly, EKPC is submitting this revised BART analysisin support of its request

that KDAQ amendthe June2008 RegionalHaze SIP to allow for the substitution of the DFGD/FF control train in place of the WFGD^WESP.II. ANALYSIS

A. Control TechnologyComparison In the 2007 BART Submittal, EKPC determinedthat a WFGDAMESPcontrol train capable of achieving0.030 lb/mmBtu filterable PM and 0.O5?lblmmBtu total PM was BART for Cooper Units L and2. EKPC is requesting that it be allowedto substitute a DFGDiFF control train capable of achieving0.030 lb/mmBtu filterable PM and 0.045 lb/mmBtu total PM for the WFGDAMESPcontrol train previously approved. The previously approvedWFGD/WESP technolo gy uttlizes a lime or limestone slurrybased scrubbing

medium for SOzremoval in the absorber, followed by a wet ESP, which providesremoval of scrubber-generated PM aswell as sulfuric acid mist. As discussed in the 2007 BART Submittal, WFGD/WESP can provide control of filterable PM to levels of 0.030 lb/mmBtu. Total PM emissions from the WFGDAMESP control train were estimated

using the National Park Service (I.IPS) PM speciationspreadsheets (see Attachment A). At a filterable PM emission rate of 0.030 lb/mmBtu, the NPS speciation spreadsheet

for PC boilers with WFGD/WESP estimates total PM emissions

to be 0.052 lb/mmBtu. Thesevalues were used in the previous BART submittal. The proposedDFGDIFF control train utilizes a pebble lime-baseddry scrubbersystemin combination with a fabric filter for control of SOz,PM, and sulfuric acid mist. The DFGD/FF can also attainfilterable PM levels meetingthe previously accepted 0.030 lb/mmBtu filterable PM emission rate. Condensable PM emissionsfrom the DFGD/FF as specified

by Burns & McDonnell EngineeringCompdny,Inc. equate to 50%of the filterable emissions,

providing a condensable PM emission

rate of 0.015 lb/mmBtu for a total PM rate of 0.045 lblmmBtu. Basedupon this information, at equal filterable PM emission levels, the DFGD/FF actually provides better overall control for total PM than the approvedWFGD/WESP, primarily due to lower sulfuric acid emissions. The NPS spreadsheet

for WFGD/WESP determines sulfuric acid emissions(listed as inorganic condensable

PM) to be 0.018 lb/mmBtu, while the NPS spreadsheet for DFGDIFF (Attachment

A) determines

sulfuric acid emissions to be 0.012 lb/mmBtu. Table 1 provides a summaryof PM emissionratesfor the two control options. Based on theserates,the proposed DFGD/FF is more effective at controlling PM emissionsthan the WFGD/WESP control train identified in the SIP. Table I Summarv of PM Performance Levels
Control Option Filterable PM Emissionso lb/mmBtu 

### Total PM Emissions, lb/mmBtu WFGD/WESP 0.030 0.052 DFGD/FF 0.030 0.045B. BART Modeling

In order to confirm and to demonstrate the equivalenceof the DFGD/FF control train to the previously accepted WFGD/WESP control train, EKPC performed additional CALPUFF modeling to evaluate the visibility impacts in Class I areas from Cooper Units I andZ. PM emissions were speciated

in the same

manneras described

in the2007 BART Submittal, except that amaximum filterable PM limit of 0.030 and a total PM limit of 0.045 were input into the NPS speciationspreadsheets for dry-botttom PC boilers employing FGD and fabric filtration. Emissionswere then calculatedusing the spreadsheets

and a maximum continuous rate (heat input) (MCR) of 1,350mmBtu/tr for Unit 1 and2,400 mmBtu/hr for Unit 2.2 The completed NPS spreadsheets

for Cooper Units 1 and 2 areincluded in Attachment A. Table 2 summarLzes the speciated

emissions after retrofit. Table 2 

### Speciated

PM Emission

Rates for Modeling

to Evaluate

BART Gontrols

Stack parameters

for the two Cooper units subjectto the BART analysisare presented below in Table 3. The exit velocity and temperature parameters

are different than those used in the previous modeling and reflect the use of the DFGDiFF control train. 

### Table3 Stack Parametersfor Gooper Sources

UnitlD UTM

East, km UTM North, km Stack

Height, m Base Elevation, m Stack Diameter, m Exit Velocity, m/s Stack Temp., K Cooper Unit 1 714.228 4097.212 78.9 244 5.5 21 344.26 Cooper Unit 2 714.228 4097.212 78.9 244 5.5 21 344.26 Having specifiedexhaust parameters

and calculated

the speciated

emission

rates, the CALPUFF model was run as described previously for Units 1 and 2 at Cooperfor each 'The maximum continuous rating (MCR) for Cooper Units 1 and 2 used in the prior BART modeling were 1,080 mmBtu/hr and 2,089 mmBtu/hr, respectively. (These are the MCR ratings included in the description of theseunits in the Title V permit.) EKPC decided to use potential MCR values for Unit 1 of 1,350 mmBtu/hr and2,400 mmBh/hr for Unit 2 in calculating emissions for the BART modeling to ensure that the BART modeling will be valid at all operating conditions. Source lD PM Species Emission Rates.lb/hr

SOr 

### soA PMC PMF EC Cooper Unit 1 16.0 4.0 34.3 6.0 0.2 Cooper Unit 2 28.4 7.1 60.9 10.7 0.4Class I area within 300 km. Table 4 showsthe top eight Z4-hour changes in light extinction (deciviews,

dv) from the20 % best daysfor each of the ClassI areas

subject to analysis after application of retrofit control for PM. Table 5 presents a summary of the resultsof the revisedBART modeling for the Coopersources and eachClassI area,

with the numberof daysand receptors in eachClassI areawheredv > 0.5. These tables demonstrate

compliancewith the Regional HazeRule sincethe 98th percentile modeled values lSth

trighest) or the 22"d

higheJt predictions over the three yearsmodeled, whicheverarehigher, are below the exemption threshold

of 0.5 dv in eachClassIarea. In fact, no days in any of the modeled Class I areas out of the three yearsmodeledwas predictedwhere

the change

in light extinctionwas greater than 0.5 dv. Table 6 showsa comparisonof the 2007 BART Submittal to this submittal for the 98th percentile and maximum 24-hour changein light extinction in deciviews. As shown, with the exception of Linville Gorge,

where the g8thpercentile change in light extinction goesup slightly from 0.046to 0.047,the visibility impactsdecrease for both the 98th percentile andthe maximum 24-hour. Therefore,

applicationof DFGD/FF controlsto CooperUnits 1 and 2,with a filterable PM limit of 0.030 lblmmBtu, mitigatesany adverse visibility impact in ClassI areas within 300 km of eachsourceand fulfills the BART requirements.Table 4 Results of CALPUFF Modeling for BART Control Assessment

Visibility Impact Rankings

EKPC BART-Eligible Sources GlasslArea 2001DeltaDeciview Ranks 1-8 2002

DeltaDeciview Ranks 1-8 2003

DeltaDeciview Ranks 1-8
3ooper Station Units 1 & 2 Mammoth Cave NP 0.226 0.254 0.412 0.183 0.249 0.345 0.181 0.231 0.253 0.163 0.220 0.241 0.148 0.215 0.201 0.144 0.211 0.200 0.142 0.209 0.188 0.141 0.201 0.170
3ooper Station Units 1 & 2 Great Smoky Mountains

NP 0.262 0.389 0.38s

0.243 0.346 0.280 0.241 0.237 0.252 0.236 0.213 0.252 o.225 0.199 0.190 0.223 0.165 0.183 0.219 0.1

55 0.178 0192 0.1

50 o.171

3ooper Station Units 1 & 2 JoyceKilmer-Slickrock 0.154 0.254 0.319 0.148 0.236 0.223 0.146 0.216 0.181 0.145 0.148 0.151 0.133 0.136 0.112 0.126 0.135 0.112 0.119 0.121 0.111 0.115 0.119 0.102
Cooper Station Units 1 & 2 Cohutta 0.094 0.148 0.122 0.093 0.138 0.1 1 9 0.091 0j29 0.111 0.090 0.107 0.109 0.087 0.096 0.103 0.082 0.090 0.096 0.075 0.086 0.084 0.068 0.080 0.079
Cooper Station Units 1 & 2 Shining Rock 0.064 0.070 0.127 0.053 0.070 0.084 0.049 0.064 0.072 0.049 0.053 0.06c 0.048 0.049 0.054 0.046 0.o42 0.051 0.046 0.042 0.05c 0.045 0.039 0.047

Cooper Station Units 1 & 2 Linville Gorge 0.098 0.094 0.Q74 0.088 0.071 0.067 0.073 0.064 0.05€ 0.065 0.062 0.057 0.051 0.045 0.054 0.050 0.044 0.051 0.046 0.041 0.048 0.046 0.041 0.047F L trLO fSrF=!t E9E U.9 '-+6 

## 6 + Elr t =NC - : N



### n o o)

@ c? o o, a? O @ $ ci N ct @ o) q o

!rg 

## F g; E T, Af,o H.9 

# 8e+5r

ts..Y 9E g a F 

# E € 5gr i2'='= g

o ct o o o tr o o O o o o

o G o o o o O O o

!rg Eolt 

# e. fi8 E 

# fl E * + I 

# EEg$ F EE5.E 

## 2 2 '= g o cr o (t o 

### u O o O o o o

o nt o o o o O o o

rrg EoE 

# e. fi8 E 8 p 1= N 

# E E E$ R EE5.= 

## 2 2 '= 2 o o o (, o tr o o O O o o

o .E o O o o O o o

n g Eolt 

# [ fiE E 

# f E I + E 

# E ; =-$F EE5.s 

## 2 2 't p o o o (, o E, o o o O o o

o G o o o o O o O

A 

# 5 q -, $ 

# HE $ E frEss oa o

ca N @ @ (\

C\ cf) (o (\l (o C\ +) A
- () / E
- a a c) 0 a

-A' v L +) /

- o Q 

### F IY, 

### Fq L A, 

### tAD ln .! 

### g6 .a€ cga 

### Fr tr Fr

- A ,
- , t 

### I CE o a '{-)

-
- - u) q) rl.

- fr ct A tsl -l a FI -t
- - 

### o

### Table6 Comparison

of the 2007

BART Submittal Results using WFGD/WESP to Results

using DFGD/FF

MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES All input andoutput

files from the additional

CALPUFFmodeling

system BART analysis for Cooper

Units 1 and

2 are provided on CD-ROM. A11

modelinput files have a file extension

of .itp, while all model

output fileshave

anextension

of .lst. An example setof file names,

these representing

the modeling

for the Cooper

Station sources for Mammoth

Cave NationalPark(MACA), arelistedbelowfor the 20AL modeling: CALPUFFInput- PUFF-COOPER-MACA-200 1 .INP CALPUFF

Output - PUFF-COOPER-MACA-200 1 .LST POSTUTIL

Input- PU-COOPER-MACA-200 I .INP POSTUTIL

Output - PU-COOPER-MACA-2001 .LST CALPOST

Input - POST-COOPER-MACA-200 1 .INP CALPOST

Output - POST-COOPER-MACA-2001.INP Class I Area 98th

PercentileImpact with BART Controls (change in dv) Maximum 24-hour Impact for 3-yearperiod (change in dv) WT'GD/WESP DFGD/FF'

(proposed) WF'GD/WESP DT'GD/FF' (proposed) Mammoth Cave NP 

### 0.252 0.201 0.648 

### 0.412 Great Smokey Mbrs NP 0.219 0.t92 0.323 0.389 Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 

### 0.122 0.119 0.269 0.319 Cohutta 0.087 0.080 0.173 0.148 Shining Rock 0.049 0.047 0.075 

### 0.t27 Linville Gorge 0.046 0.047 0.104 0.098CONCLUSION

As explained

above,EKPC hasdetermined that use of a DFGD/FF for CooperUnits 1 and2 is at least as effective asthe WFGD/WESP previously accepted by KDAQ as BART. EKPC has performed additional CALPUFF modeling to evaluate the visibility impacts of its BART-eligible units taking into accountthe alternativecontrol train for CooperUnits I and2. The predicted visibility impactsare comparable to impactsnoted in EKPC's 2007 BART Submittal. Accordingly, EKPC requests that KDAQ amendthe June2008 RegionalHaze SIP to allow EKPC to substitutethe DFGDIFF control train for the previously accepted WFGDAMESPcontrol train for Cooper Units I and2.



### 9

## ATTACHMENTA

NPSPARTICULATE SPECIATIONSPREADSHEETS

POST-CONTROL

PM EMISSIONSa?cc!cca t@o(o90 (t)r(o


### g8ts65 

# $#HEE

ssssss \otlaqg (c)oo@(oo nNo 

### SFfi5g hooEE 8f;ii88 at, I o o IJ )

F E
! o tr o o o q x IJJ t
lu o F n

E ,o o s s q @

o o O ' x IJJ 'r t (e |l, o \t n

o o r o s s a (o (\I

- a ,o Fo s s q (") (t

x JJ o O

o uJ o it = a s s t

x uJ

o a o II o o s

o iI a

o s s

x uJ o o

c, e o o o s s o o

o -o g o = II a o o x

(L (U .o F E o F o s s o o

c o 1 o I g o ! E e o c, l tu o o D o 6 o
F E ct o) =
c d o ()
x Ltl I

a o (
n

o ,c o t)

.g ,9 E e I o
X uJ T I n o o :

o .o = q 2

q D n

D rt

I c c € o

x J o o

c .o I t o

o iI c c .c C) rn I o

0.1 c (0 o

o e o c c c 1O (! 0q o

E o = tJ- 

### T
o L E o F ro o! ct 

### T
rO \o a

o (It u g 0 D

tr U o o otts 0) o ; x ]J o o : $

c q

=
I ' l rt o q o

o E G o F o o ; X ]J 6 o T x

I \t a n
(o c 0 =
I 

### tlel 

# Elsl=

x ! F c) o o

o I (\

X JJ

n o

I o (o c) c o

o I (t (o o q o

x ! q o

e (t 9 $ (f) q o

I = 6 o ! 

### T(0 o s o o 

### T (o o (o q o

o o F il I u

o (D E E 

## s q

f CL : o 

### e o E s !O ! F t 3 E . E trg O F 

### HT 6E
L O E EL O E o o o s t E :, c o t) o tr .9 o .9, fib e€ g rlJ. : ;t u !66 5 'aO = ;lt 6 ePr $ |o'= E oo t r gE € $e 6 

## *E a 

# Eg F
tr o. :::.' OED E C '5'E b t; _g Ot o ^ o =E e >; . = Fr a -s i n E5 E
= !t tlr. oo I €'@ E F> d , 56 Bo?\aar9 ooooNr\ (oF (! O



## eEs55 

# g##EE

ssssss t-o)tttll(o<> EoioS.F 

### gEfig5 

# SH#EE o
o ,9. E LIJ o = -9 q) E a! q)

x .rJ o o s

o U)

T s s q (o

o o e (! I IT T u (?, ; o (t)

= t- ' l s v (o (\

s s q (t, (7)

x ! o

(! s s .q o

o o o
= o ,o o s s 4 t,

= (! o F s s (9 o

q) o C) o
E o F o s 5

t! 

### T o = & E o F - $ .o r o ;e s q t- (o

= a F s s

g o o o a ? I r o o ; e
o q, 6 s o D o g 9 ah I c IJ f E L o (D = 0 o o o ()
x LlJ o o t

o t, ? f

o

x [! 6 o T' v ; 'n

c D n

I I ?lo ol@ <l$ Slcj

6) o O o

I (o rO o c o

c c

o n o c
I o € I rt ;

o .I -o

x uJ

q) e o o o o

-9 o g o g iI

o ,a o 4 c

I = IL (t otlr, ro a

I I o o !
c e !, o G E o D o 6 g E JJ c E L o o I o !) o O x IJJ { (
n

E E t o q o

o) o F o L o o q x LrJ rl) .9
F I x

s - n

x ; , 1 E F = (o q e

o o

a l 9l Dle FIS Ele 3l

x UJ o o

UJ q) iI E

x o ' l

n
l! o o ) o c l i

E E .o n 0

x IJ o) o

|l, e tr $ rt ;

o E o T (o o + C) o

o
E o
- @ (o

ID o o () ll I E. It o € (D E E o Q t f{

o. ; (g o o E o s rfr' r.q' (\r :..,
- g D E r i trg O F 

### ET 6k

L o 6 CL O E o o o s {

e o o o g .9 o .9 ,Eb e€ g
Fll. : -t u cd6 5 qro = ;tt 6 ;Pr o o,= E oo c lsE € $o 6 

# t! $

co , €g ,.1 'E'E b g.; E Ult O 

### e* ; Fd ' * le E gg i 90 y EO E 

# 8E fr