^{-t

.J'Z} 

--I 1 EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE

John Lyons

Sean Alteri

Mike Binkley

4775 Lexinston Rood 40391

PO. Box TOT,Winchester

Kentucky 4O392-O7O7

March 18, 2009

Martin Luther

Program Planning & Adminiskation

Kentucky Division for Air Quality

200 Fair Oaks Lane, First Floor

Frankfort, Kentucky 4060 1

RE: John Sherman Cooper Generating StationRevised BART Analvsis

Dear Mr. Luther:

As you know, Units I and 2 atthe East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EKPC) John

Sherman Cooper Station (Cooper Station) are subject to the Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) determination guidelines turder 40 CFR Part 51. EKPC submitted its BART

determination modeling and control strategy to 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 June 2008 Regional Haze SIP. Since its July 2001 submittal andthe submittal of 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 least as

effective as WFGD/WESP for the Cooper Units. Therefore, EKPC is requesting that KDAQ

amend the 2008 Regional Haze SIP to allow substitution of DFGD/FF at Cooper Station for the

previously approved WFGD/WESP. Based upon our discussions with you and other

representatives of KDAQ last fall, EKPC has prepared the enclosed analysis, including modeling,

in support of this request.

After you have reviewed the enclosed submittal, 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 June 30,2012.

Sincerely,

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

Jerry Purvis, 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)1
I. INTRODUCTION

East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EKPC) is a power generation and transmission

utility that owns and operates several electric generating units (EGUs) in Kentucky.

Some of the EGUs owned and operated by EKPC consist of coal-fired units that are

subject to 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 request of the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), EKPC

previously evaluated BART for its subject EGUs and conducted modeling in accordance

with the protocol approved by 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 Generating Station and.

John Sherman Cooper Generating Station, dated July 23,2007 (2007 BART Submittal). '

As set out in the2007 BART Submittal, CooperUnits 1 and 2 are BART-eligible sources

and are subject to BART since the 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 resolve certain allegations of noncompliance with Clean Air

Act requirements, and it was anticipated that the negotiated resolution would require

retrofitting the Cooper BART-eligible units with wet flue gas desulfurization systems

(WFGDs) for SOz control and wet electrostatic precipitators (WESPs) for PM control.

2007 BART Submittal, at 4-3. Taking into consideration the anticipated Consent Decree,

EKPC determined at the time that WFGD and WESP were BART for Cooper Units 1 and

2. KDAQ accepted EKPC's demonstration of BART and the associated regionalhaze

modeling and utilized that information as a component of Kentucky's RegionalHaze SP,

dated June 2008. SIP, Section 7 .5.3 and Table 7 .5.3-I.

As subsequently discussed with KDAQ, the Consent Decree as ultimately entered did not

mandate WFGD and WESPs. 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 methodologies to satisfy

the Consent Decree. As a result of this evaluation, EKPC has determined that the use of

a dry flue gas desulfurization system (DFGD) combined with a pulse jet fabric filter (FF)

for Cooper Units 1 and 2 meets or exceeds the performance of the WFGD/WESP

previously proposed as BART.

As explained in detail herein, the anticipated total PM emission control achieved by the

DFGD/FF control train is better than the previously approved WFGD/VVESP, and the

predicted visibility impacts are comparable.

t This request relates only to the BART-eligible sources at the John Sherman Cooper Generating Station.

T}ae 2OO7 BART Submittal is still applicable to the sources at the Spurlock Station.
Accordingly, EKPC is submitting this revised BART analysis in support of its request

that KDAQ amend the June 2008 RegionalHaze SIP to allow for the substitution of the

DFGD/FF control train in place of the WFGD^WESP.
II. ANALYSIS

A. Control Technology Comparison

In the 2007 BART Submittal, EKPC determined that a WFGDAMESP control train

capable of achieving 0.030 lb/mmBtu filterable PM and 0.O5?lblmmBtu total PM was

BART for Cooper Units L and2. EKPC is requesting that it be allowed to substitute a

DFGDiFF control train capable of achieving 0.030 lb/mmBtu filterable PM and 0.045

lb/mmBtu total PM for the WFGDAMESP control train previously approved.

The previously approved WFGD/WESP technolo gy uttlizes a lime or limestone slurrybased scrubbing medium for SOz removal in the absorber, followed by a wet ESP, which

provides removal of scrubber-generated PM as well 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 speciation spreadsheets (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. These values were used in the previous BART submittal.

The proposed DFGDIFF control train utilizes a pebble lime-based dry scrubber system in

combination with a fabric filter for control of SOz, PM, and sulfuric acid mist. The

DFGD/FF can also attain filterable PM levels meeting the previously accepted 0.030

lb/mmBtu filterable PM emission rate. Condensable PM emissions from the DFGD/FF

as specified by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Compdny,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. Based upon this information, at equal filterable PM

emission levels, the DFGD/FF actually provides better overall control for total PM than

the approved WFGD/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 summary of PM emission rates for the two control options. Based on

these rates, the proposed DFGD/FF is more effective at controlling PM emissions than

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 0.045
B. BART Modeling

In order to confirm and to demonstrate the equivalence of 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 manner as 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 speciation spreadsheets for dry-botttom PC boilers

employing FGD and fabric filtration. Emissions were then calculated using the

spreadsheets and a maximum continuous rate (heat input) (MCR) of 1,350 mmBtu/tr for

Unit 1 and 2,400 mmBtu/hr for Unit 2.2 The completed NPS spreadsheets for Cooper

Units 1 and 2 are included 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 subject to the BART analysis are 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.

Table 3

Stack Parameters for Gooper Sources

Unit lD

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 specified exhaust parameters and calculated the speciated emission rates, the

CALPUFF model was run as described previously for Units 1 and 2 at Cooper for 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 these units 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 0.4
Class I area within 300 km. Table 4 shows the top eight Z4-hour changes in light

extinction (deciviews, dv) from the20 % best days for each of the Class I areas subject to

analysis after application of retrofit control for PM. Table 5 presents a summary of the

results of the revised BART modeling for the Cooper sources and each Class I area, with

the number of days and receptors in each Class I areawhere dv > 0.5. These tables

demonstrate compliance with the Regional HazeRule since the 98th percentile modeled

values lSth trighest) or the 22"d higheJt predictions over the three years modeled,

whichever are higher, are below the exemption threshold of 0.5 dv in each Class Iarea.

In fact, no days in any of the modeled Class I areas out of the three years modeled was

predictedwhere the change in light extinctionwas greater than 0.5 dv. Table 6 shows a

comparison of the 2007 BART Submittal to this submittal for the 98th percentile and

maximum 24-hour change in light extinction in deciviews. As shown, with the exception

of Linville Gorge, where the g8thpercentile change in light extinction goes up slightly

from 0.046 to 0.047, the visibility impacts decrease for both the 98th percentile and the

maximum 24-hour.

Therefore, application of DFGD/FF controls to Cooper Units 1 and 2,with a filterable

PM limit of 0.030 lblmmBtu, mitigates any adverse visibility impact in Class I areas

within 300 km of each source and fulfills the BART requirements.
Table 4

Results of CALPUFF Modeling for BART Control Assessment

Visibility Impact Rankings

EKPC BART-Eligible

Sources Glass lArea

2001

DeltaDeciview

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

Joyce Kilmer-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 0.047
F L trLO

fSrF=!t

'-+6 E9E U.9

6 + Elr 

t =NC - :

Nnoo) @

c?o

o,

a?O

@$

ci

N

ct

@

o) qo

!rg

F g; E T,

Af,o H.9 8e+5r

ts..Y

9E g a F

E € 5g 

r

i2'='=

go

ct ooo

tr

ooO

ooo

oGo

oo

oOOo

!rg

Eolt

e. fi8 E

fl E * + I

E E g$ 

F

EE5.E 2 2 

'=

go

cr o

(tou

Oo

Oooo

o

nt o

ooo

Ooo

rrg

EoE

e. fi8 

E

8 p 1= 

N

E E E$ 

R

EE5.= 2 2 

'=

2ooo

(,o

tr

oo

OOoo

o

.Eo

OooO

oo

n g

Eolt

[ fiE E

f E I + E

E ; =-$ 

F

EE5.s 2 2 't

pooo

(,o

E,

oooO

oo

oGo

oo

oOoO

A

5 q -, 

$

H E $ 

E

frEss oa

o

ca

N@

@ (\

C\

cf) (o

(\l

(o

C\

+)A-

()/E-aa

c) 0a

-

A' vL

+)/-oQF

IY,

FqL

A,

t

AD

ln .! g6

.a€

cga

Fr

trFr -

A , -

, t I

CEoa

'{-) ---

u) q)

rl. -

fr

ct A

tsl -l a

FI

-t--o
Table 6

Comparison of the 2007 BART Submittal Results using WFGD/WESP

to Results using DFGD/FF

MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES

All input and output files from the additional CALPUFF modeling system BART

analysis for Cooper Units 1 and 2 are provided on CD-ROM. A11 model input files have

a file extension of .itp, while all model output files have an extension of .lst. An

example set of file names, these representing the modeling for the Cooper Station sources

for Mammoth Cave National Park (MACA), are listed below for the 20AL modeling:

CALPUFF Input - 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 Percentile Impact with BART

Controls

(change in dv)

Maximum 24-hour Impact

for 3-year period

(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 0.098
CONCLUSION

As explained above, EKPC has determined that use of a DFGD/FF for Cooper Units 1

and 2 is at least as effective as the 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 account the alternative control train for

Cooper Units I and2. The predicted visibility impacts are comparable to impacts noted

in EKPC's 2007 BART Submittal. Accordingly, EKPC requests that KDAQ amend the

June 2008 RegionalHaze SIP to allow EKPC to substitute the DFGDIFF control train for

the previously accepted WFGDAMESP control train for Cooper Units I and2.

9
ATTACHMENTA

NPS PARTICULATE SPECIATION SPREADSHEETS

POST-CONTROL PM EMISSIONS
a?cc!cca

t@o(o90 (t)r(o

g8ts65

$#HEE

ssssss

\otlaqg (c)oo@(oo

nNo

SFfi5g

hooEE

8f;ii88

at, Ioo

IJ)FE!o

tro

ooqx

IJJ

t

luoF

n

E

,oos

sq@

ooO'x

IJJ

'rt

(e

|l, o

\tn

ooros

sa(o

(\I

-a

,oFos

sq

(")

(t

x

JJ

oO

o

uJo

it

=as

st

x

uJoao

II

oos

o

iI

aos

s

x

uJ

oo

c, eo

oos

soo

o

-ogo=II

aoox

(L

(U

.oF

EoFos

soo

c

o

1

oIgo!Eeo

c, l

tuooDo6oFE

ct o)=c

do

()x

Ltl I ao

(n

o

,c

o

t)

.g

,9EeI oX

uJ

TIn

oo:o

.o=

q2qDnD

rt I cc€o xJ ooc

.o Ito

o

iI

cc

.c

C)

rnIo

0.1 c

(0o

oeo

ccc

1O(!

0qo

Eo=tJ-ToLEoF

ro

o!

ctT

rO\oa

o

(It u

g0D

trU

ooo

tts0) o;x

]Joo:

$cq

=I

' l

rtoqo

oEGo

Foo;X

]J6o

TxI

\tan

(oc0

=I

tlel

Elsl= x! F

c) o

o

oI

(\

X

JJnoI o

(o

c)co

oI

(t(ooqo

x! qo e(t 9$

(f)qo I=6o !T

(0osooT

(oo

(oqo

ooF

il Iuo

(DEEsqf

CL :oeoEs

!O! Ft

3 E. E

trg O F

HT 6EL

O E EL

O E

o o

o s

t

E :, co

t)o

tr

.9o

.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 B
o?\aar9

ooooNr\ (oF (! 

O

eEs55 g##EE

ssssss t-o)tttll(o<>

EoioS.F

gEfig5

SH#EE

oo

,9. E

LIJ o=

-9

q) E

a!

q) x

.rJoo

so

U)

Ts

sq

(o

ooe(! I IT

Tu

(?, ;o(t)

=t-

' l

sv

(o(\

s

sq

(t,

(7)

x! o

(!s

s.qo

ooo=o

,oos

s4

t,

=(!oFs

s(9o

q) o

C)

o

EoFos

5

t!To=&EoF

-$

.oro

;e

sq

t-(o

=aFs

s

go

oo

a?Iroo;eo

q, 6soDog9

ahIc

IJfELo

(D=0o

oo

()x

LlJoo

to

t,?f

ox

[!6o

T' v;

'ncDn II

?lo ol@ <l$

Slcj

6) oO

o I

(o

rOoco

cc

onocI o€I

rt;

o

.I -o x

uJ

q)eooo

o

-9ogog

iI

o

,a

o4c I=IL

(to

tlr,

roaI Ioo!ce

!,oGEoDo6gE

JJcELooIo

!)oOx

IJJ

{(n

EE

toqo

o) oFoL

ooqx

LrJ

rl)

.9F Ixs-n

x;

, 1

EF=

(oqe

oo

a l

9l

Dle

FIS

Ele

3l

x

UJ

oo

UJ

q)

iI

E

x

' l o

n

l!

oo

)ocli EE

.o

n0

x

IJ

o) o

|l,e

tr

$

rt;

oEoT

(oo+

C) o

oEo-

@

(o

IDo

o

()

ll I

E.

Ito€

(DEEoQt

f{

o. ;

(gooEos

rfr' r.q'

(\r :.., -g

D E

r i

trg

O F

ET 6k L

o 6 CL

O E

o o

o s

{

eooog

.9o

.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