REVISED BART FIVE FACTOR ANALYSIS

LAKE CATHERINE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

MALVERN, ARKANSAS (AFIN 30-00011)

Prepared By:

TRINITY CONSULTANTS, INC.

201 NW 63rd St., Suite 220

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116

(405) 848-3724

TRINITY CONSULTANTS, INC.

977 Ridge Drive, Suite 380

Lenexa, Kansas 66219

(913) 894-4500

In conjunction with:

ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.

425 West Capitol Avenue

Little Rock, Arkansas 77203

(501) 377-4000

Trinity Project No. 123701.0053

June 2013
Entergy i Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................ 1-1

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.................................................................... 2-1

3. MODELING METHODOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES ............................................. 3-1

3.1 CALMET AND CALPUFF................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 CALPOST............................................................................................................ 3-1

4. EXISTING EMISSIONS AND VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ......................................... 4-1

4.1 NOX, SO2, AND PM10 BASELINE EMISSION RATES ............................................... 4-1

4.2 BASELINE VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT....................................................................... 4-1

5. SO2 BART EVALUATION .................................................................................... 5-1

6. NOX BART EVALUATION................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE RETROFIT NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES......... 6-1

6.2 ELIMINATE TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES ............... 6-1

6.2.1 COMBUSTION CONTROLS....................................................................................6-2

6.2.1.1 Burners Out of Service (BOOS) ..........................................................6-2

6.2.1.2 Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) .............................................................6-2

6.2.1.3 Separated Overfire Air (SOFA)...........................................................6-2

6.2.1.4 Low NOX Burners................................................................................6-2

6.2.2 POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS...........................................................................6-3

6.2.2.1 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)...................................................6-3

6.2.2.2 Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)........................................6-3

6.3 RANK OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE NOX CONTROL OPTIONS BY EFFECTIVENESS.. 6-4

6.4 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS FOR FEASIBLE NOX CONTROLS ................................... 6-4

6.4.1 COST OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................6-4

6.4.2 ENERGY IMPACTS & NON-AIR IMPACTS ............................................................6-8

6.4.3 REMAINING USEFUL LIFE ...................................................................................6-8

6.5 EVALUATION OF VISIBILITY IMPACT OF FEASIBLE NOX CONTROLS ..................... 6-8

6.6 PROPOSED BART FOR NOX.................................................................................. 6-14

7. PM10 BART EVALUATION.................................................................................. 7-1

APPENDIX A (SO2 AND NOX CONTROL COST CALCULATIONS)

APPENDIX B (CALMET MODELING PROTOCOL)

APPENDIX C (CEMS DATA FROM CAMD FOR 2001 TO 2003)

APPENDIX D (SARGENT & LUNDY NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGY STUDY)
Entergy ii Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1. EXISTING VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNIT 4 .......................................1-1

TABLE 3-1. ANNUAL AVERAGE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION.....................................................3-3

TABLE 3-2. FL(RH) LARGE RH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS.....................................................................3-3

TABLE 3-3. FS(RH) SMALL RH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS.....................................................................3-3

TABLE 3-4. FSS(RH) SEA SALT RH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ...............................................................3-3

TABLE 4-1. BASELINE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR SO2, NOX, AND PM10 EMISSION RATES (AS HOURLY 

EQUIVALENTS).................................................................................................................4-1

TABLE 4-2. BASELINE VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAKE CATHERINE, UNIT 4

BY POLLUTANT................................................................................................................4-2

TABLE 6-1. AVAILABLE NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 4................................................6-1

TABLE 6-2. CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE NOX CONTROL 

TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................................................6-4

TABLE 6-3. LAKE CATHERINE UNIT 4 CAPACITY FACTORS................................................................6-5

TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR UNIT 4 NOX CONTROLS ..................................6-7

TABLE 6-5. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT BOOS FOR NOX CONTROL....6-10

TABLE 6-6. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT LNB/SOFA FOR NOX

CONTROL .......................................................................................................................6-10

TABLE 6-7. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT LNB/SOFA + SNCR FOR 

NOX CONTROL ...............................................................................................................6-10

TABLE 6-8. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT LNB/SOFA + SCR FOR 

NOX CONTROL ...............................................................................................................6-10

TABLE 6-9. SUMMARY OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH NOX CONTROL 

SYSTEM ON UNIT 4 (2001-2003)....................................................................................6-11

TABLE 6-10. INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR UNIT 4 WITH CLASS I AREA 

IMPROVEMENT (2001-2003).........................................................................................6-13
Entergy 1-1 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is a revision to the “BART Five Factor Analysis” submitted to ADEQ on March 4, 2013 

and is being submitted to provide a comprehensive document that encompasses the determination of 

the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Entergy Arkansas, Inc.’s (Entergy’s) BARTaffected electric generating unit (EGU), Unit 4 at the Lake Catherine plant including revisions made 

in response to EPA’s comments and suggestions on the previous submittal. The BART determination 

for each pollutant has not changed. 

Unit 4 is a tangentially-fired boiler with a nominal net power rating of 558 MW and a nominal heat 

input capacity of 5,850 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) that is permitted to burn 

natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil. Entergy does not project to burn fuel oil at Lake Catherine Unit 4 in 

the foreseeable future, so emissions from fuel oil are not considered in this analysis. If conditions 

change such that it becomes economic to burn fuel oil, a five factor analysis will be submitted for 

approval in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The combustion of fuel oil would not occur until 

final SIP approval. 

BART determinations for SO2 and PM10 based on the use of natural gas were approved in EPA’s 

March 12, 2012 final rule. The determinations result in no SO2 or PM10 controls needed during 

natural gas combustion. 

Based on modeling performed for this analysis, combined emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter with a mass mean diameter smaller than ten microns (PM10)

from Lake Catherine Unit 4 are predicted to cause or contribute greater than 0.5 delta deciviews (∆dv) 

to visibility impairment in four Class I Areas: Caney Creek Wilderness (CACR), Upper Buffalo 

Wilderness (UPBU), Hercules Glades Wilderness (HERC), and Mingo Wilderness (MING)1. The 

contributions of the SO2 and PM10 emissions to the visibility impairment are negligible when 

compared to the contribution of NOX. 

A summary of the existing visibility impairment attributable to the boiler based on the default natural

conditions is provided in Table 1-1. The visibility impairment summarized in Table 1-1 is based on 

recent modeling conducted by Trinity Consultants (Trinity) using emissions data based on a 

combination of stack testing, Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) data as reported to 

EPA’s Clean Air Markets Database (CAMD), and AP-42 emission factors as further described in 

Section 4 of this report.

TABLE 1-1. EXISTING VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNIT 4

CACR UPBU HERC MING

98th % 

∆dv

Days > 

0.5 ∆dv

98th % 

∆dv

Days > 

0.5 ∆dv

98th % 

∆dv

Days > 

0.5 ∆dv

98th % 

∆dv

Days > 

0.5 ∆dv

1.371 80 0.532 21 0.387 8 0.429 7

 

1 Sipsey Wilderness was included in the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's (ADEQ’s) original 

BART analyses, but is not included in this analysis because the EPA-requested change in meteorological data (to a refined, 

or "NO OBS = 0", dataset; see Section 3 and Appendix B) excludes Sipsey from the modeling domain.
Entergy 1-2 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

Trinity used the EPA’s BART guidelines in 40 CFR Part 512 to determine BART for Unit 4. 

Specifically, Trinity conducted a five-step analysis to determine BART for NOX that included the 

following:

1. Identifying all available retrofit control technologies;

2. Eliminating technically infeasible control technologies;

3. Evaluating the control effectiveness of remaining control technologies;

4. Evaluating impacts and document the results;

5. Evaluating visibility impacts.

The BART analysis concludes that for NOX, the achievement of an emission rate of 0.24 lb/MMBtu 

through the installation and use of Burners Out of Service (BOOS) represents BART.3 

 

2 The BART guidelines were published as amendments to the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR) in 40 CFR Part 

51, Section 308 on July 6, 2005.

3 EPA recently issued a final rule allowing states that are subject to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

trading program for seasonal NOX to rely on the reductions achieved through that trading program to satisfy the regional 

haze program requirements for units subject to BART. “Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to 

Source-Specific Best Available Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals and Federal Implementation 

Plans,” 77 Fed. Reg. 33651 (June 7, 2012). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit in a 2-1 decision vacated CSAPR (EME 

Homer City Generation v. EPA, --F. 3d --, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) remains 

in effect until a replacement rule, if any, is promulgated. If CSAPR ultimately is upheld and implemented in Arkansas, 

Entergy may rely on CSAPR to satisfy its NOX regional haze obligations at Unit 4. Alternatively, if CSAPR is vacated and 

CAIR remains in place, Entergy may rely on CAIR to satisfy its NOX obligations under BART as EPA has previously 

determined that the CAIR season NOX trading program provides greater visibility improvement than BART. 
Entergy 2-1 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress set a national goal to restore national 

parks and wilderness areas to pristine conditions by preventing any future, and remedying any 

existing, man-made visibility impairment. On July 1, 1999, the U.S. EPA published the final 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The objective of the RHR is to restore visibility to pristine conditions in 

156 specific areas across the United States known as Class I areas. The CAA defines Class I areas as 

certain national parks (larger than 6,000 acres), wilderness areas (larger than 5,000 acres), national 

memorial parks (larger than 5,000 acres), and international parks that were in existence on August 7, 

1977.

The RHR requires States to set goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural 

visibility conditions for each Class I area in their state. On July 6, 2005, the EPA published 

amendments to its 1999 RHR, often called the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rule, 

which included guidance for making source-specific BART determinations.4 The BART rule defines 

BART-eligible sources as sources that meet the following criteria: 

(1) Have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of a visibility-impairing pollutant; 

(2) Began operation between August 7, 1962, and August 7, 1977; and

(3) Are included as one of the 26 listed source categories in the guidance.

A BART-eligible source is subject to BART if the source is “reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in any federal mandatory Class I area.” EPA has determined that a 

source is reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment if the 98th percentile 

visibility impacts from the source are modeled to be greater than 0.5 delta deciviews (∆dv) when 

compared against a natural background.5 Air quality modeling is the tool that is used to determine a 

source’s visibility impacts. 

Once it is determined that a source is subject to BART, a BART determination must address air 

pollution control measures for the source. The visibility regulations define BART as follows:

...an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the 

application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant 

which is emitted by...[a BART-eligible source]. The emission limitation must be 

established on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, 

the cost of compliance, the energy and non air quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the 

remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which 

may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

Specifically, the BART rule states that a BART determination should address the following five 

statutory factors:

 

4 The BART guidelines were published as amendments to the EPA’s RHR in 40 CFR Part 51, Section 308.

5 The original modeling for Arkansas sources relied on screening met data and, as such, reviewed the maximum 

impact rather than the 98th percentile impact. Use of the 98th percentile impact based on the use of refined met data (such as 

that used in the modeling conducted as part of this BART analysis) is consistent with both the EPA’s 2005 BART rule and 

the 2005 Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) BART modeling guidelines. 
Entergy 2-2 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

1. Existing controls

2. Cost of controls

3. Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts

4. Remaining useful life of the source

5. Degree of visibility improvement as a result of controls

Further, the BART rule indicates that the five basic steps in a BART analysis can be summarized as 

follows:

1. Identify all available retrofit control technologies;

2. Eliminate technically infeasible control technologies;

3. Evaluate the control effectiveness of remaining control technologies;

4. Evaluate impacts and document the results;

5. Evaluate visibility impacts.

A BART determination should be made for each visibility-affecting pollutant (VAP) by following the 

five steps listed above for each VAP.

Unit 4 meets the three BART-eligibility criteria described above, and the existing visibility 

impairment attributable to the boiler is greater than 0.5 ∆dv in at least one Class I area. Thus, Unit 4 

is subject to BART. Details of the existing/baseline emissions and the contribution of the emissions 

to visibility impairment can be found in Section 4. The VAPs emitted by the boiler include NOX, 

SO2, and PM10 of various forms (filterable coarse particulate matter [PMc], filterable fine particulate 

matter [PMf], elemental carbon [EC], inorganic condensable particulate matter [IOR CPM] as sulfates 

[SO4], and organic condensable particulate matter [OR CPM] also referred to as secondary organic 

aerosols [SOA]). 
Entergy 3-1 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

3. MODELING METHODOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES

This section summarizes the dispersion modeling methodologies and procedures applied in this 

BART analysis. All dispersion modeling has been conducted using the CALPUFF modeling system, 

consisting of the CALPUFF dispersion model, the CALMET meteorological data processor, and the 

CALPOST post-processing program. These methodologies and procedures are consistent with the 

ADEQ modeling protocol submitted to EPA in June 2012. 

CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady-state puff dispersion model, which can simulate 

the effects of time and space varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport, transformation, 

and removal. CALPUFF uses three-dimensional meteorological fields developed by the CALMET 

model. In addition to meteorological data, several other input files are used by the CALPUFF model 

to specify source and receptor parameters. The selection and control of CALPUFF options are 

determined by user-specific inputs contained in the control file. This file contains all of the necessary 

information to define a model run (e.g., starting date, run length, grid specifications, technical 

options, output options). CALPOST processes concentration, deposition, and visibility impacts based 

on pollutant specific concentrations predicted by CALPUFF. 

3.1 CALMET AND CALPUFF

The CALPUFF data and parameters are based on the 2005 BART modeling guidelines prepared for 

CENRAP. The CALMET data and parameters are based on the modeling protocol included in 

Appendix B. Note that the protocol included in Appendix B summarizes modeling methods and 

procedures that were followed to predict visibility impairment as part of the BART analyses for 

several BART-eligible sources located in Oklahoma, the first of which was Oklahoma Gas & Electric 

in 2007. The CALMET dataset developed per this protocol has been used – and approved by EPA –

numerous times since its development.

3.2 CALPOST

The CALPOST visibility processing completed for this BART analysis is based on the October 2010 

guidance from the Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG)6. 

Visibility impairment is quantified using the light extinction coefficient (bext), which is expressed in 

terms of the haze index expressed in deciviews (dv). The haze index (HI) is calculated as follows:















10

(dv) 10 ln bext HI

The impact of a source is determined by comparing the HI attributable to a source relative to 

estimated natural background conditions. The change in the haze index, in deciviews, also referred to 

 

6 The 2010 FLAG guidance, which was issued in draft form on July 8, 2008, and published as final guidance in 

December 2010, makes technical revisions to the previous guidance issued in December 2000.
Entergy 3-2 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

as “delta dv,” or ∆dv, based on the source and background light extinction is based on the following 

equation:

 dv = 10*ln

b b

b

ext, background ext, source

ext, background

 















The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) workgroup adopted an 

equation for predicting light extinction as part of the 2010 FLAG guidance (often referred to as the 

new IMPROVE equation). The new IMPROVE equation is as follows:

bext

         

     

         

     Site specificRayleigh Scattering 2

Small Large

4 3 Small 4 3 Large

4 4 2 Small 4 4 2 Large

1.4 Sea Salt 0.33 NO

2.8 OC 6.1 OC 10 EC 1 PMF 0.6 PMC

2.4 NH NO 5.1 NH NO

2.2 NH SO 4.8 NH SO

 

    

 

 

RH b f

f RH f RH

f RH f RH

S S

S L

S L

Visibility impairment predictions relied upon in this BART analysis used the equation shown above. 

The use of this equation is referred to as “Method 8” in the CALPOST control file. The use of 

Method 8 requires that one of five different “modes” be selected. The modes specify the approach for 

addressing the growth of hygroscopic particles due to moisture in the atmosphere. “Mode 5” has 

been used in this BART analysis. Mode 5 addresses moisture in the atmosphere in a similar way as to 

“Method 6”, where “Method 6” is specified as the preferred approach for use with the old IMPROVE 

equation in the CENRAP BART modeling protocol.

CALPOST Method 8, Mode 5 requires the following:

 Annual average concentrations reflecting natural background for various particles and for sea 

salt

 Monthly Relative Humidity (RH) adjustment factors for large and small ammonium sulfates 

and nitrates and for sea salts

 Rayleigh scattering parameter corrected for site-specific elevation

Tables 3-1 to Table 3-4 below show the values for the data described above that were input to 

CALPOST for use with Method 8, Mode 5. The values were obtained from the 2010 FLAG 

guidance.
Entergy 3-3 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

TABLE 3-1. ANNUAL AVERAGE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION 

Class I Area

(NH4)2SO4

(μg/m3)

NH4NO3

(μg/m3)

OM

(μg/m3)

EC

(μg/m3)

Soil

(μg/m3)

CM

(μg/m3)

Sea Salt

(μg/m3)

Rayleigh 

(Mm-1)

CACR 0.23 0.1 1.8 0.02 0.5 3 0.03 11

UPBU 0.23 0.1 1.8 0.02 0.5 3 0.03 11

HERC 0.23 0.1 1.8 0.02 0.5 3 0.02 11

MING 0.23 0.1 1.83 0.02 0.51 3.05 0.04 12

TABLE 3-2. FL(RH) LARGE RH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Class I Area Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

CACR 2.77 2.53 2.37 2.43 2.68 2.71 2.59 2.6 2.71 2.69 2.67 2.79

UPBU 2.71 2.48 2.31 2.33 2.61 2.64 2.57 2.59 2.71 2.58 2.59 2.72

HERC 2.7 2.48 2.3 2.3 2.57 2.59 2.56 2.6 2.69 2.54 2.57 2.72

MING 2.73 2.52 2.34 2.28 2.53 2.6 2.64 2.67 2.71 2.56 2.56 2.73

TABLE 3-3. FS(RH) SMALL RH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 

Class I Area Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

CACR 3.85 3.44 3.14 3.24 3.66 3.71 3.49 3.51 3.73 3.72 3.68 3.88

UPBU 3.73 3.33 3.03 3.07 3.54 3.57 3.43 3.5 3.71 3.51 3.52 3.74

HERC 3.7 3.33 3.01 3.01 3.47 3.48 3.41 3.51 3.67 3.43 3.46 3.73

MING 3.74 3.38 3.07 2.97 3.39 3.52 3.57 3.64 3.72 3.47 3.43 3.74

TABLE 3-4. FSS(RH) SEA SALT RH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 

Class I Area Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

CACR 3.9 3.52 3.31 3.41 3.83 3.88 3.69 3.68 3.82 3.76 3.77 3.93

UPBU 3.85 3.47 3.23 3.27 3.72 3.78 3.69 3.7 3.84 3.64 3.67 3.86

HERC 3.86 3.51 3.23 3.22 3.66 3.72 3.69 3.73 3.81 3.57 3.65 3.88

MING 3.92 3.58 3.3 3.19 3.58 3.72 3.8 3.82 3.85 3.61 3.66 3.9
Entergy 4-1 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

4. EXISTING EMISSIONS AND VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT

This section summarizes the existing (i.e., baseline) visibility impairment attributable to Unit 4 based 

on air quality modeling conducted by Trinity. 

4.1 NOX, SO2, AND PM10 BASELINE EMISSION RATES

Table 4-1 summarizes the emission rates that were modeled for SO2, NOX, and PM10, including the 

speciated PM10 emissions. The SO2 and NOX emission rates are the highest actual 24-hour emission 

rates based on 2001-2003 continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS).

7 Please note that CEMS 

data from these years is representative of burning only natural gas.

The emission rates for the PM10 species reflect the breakdown of the filterable and condensable PM10

determined from AP-42 Table 1.4-2 Combustion of Natural Gas. All filterable PM was assumed to 

be elemental carbon, as this is the assumption that the National Park Service (NPS) uses for filterable 

PM10 from natural gas fired combustion turbines, and the NPS does not have a speciation analysis 

specific to gas fired boilers. All of the condensable PM was assumed to be SOA, except for a small 

fraction of the condensable PM that was estimated to be SO4. One-third of the estimated SO2

emissions were separated and adjusted for differences in molecular weight to represent SO4

emissions. This essentially double counts some of the fuel sulfur based emissions as SO2 but also as 

SO4. Since pipeline natural gas contains very little sulfur, both the SO2 and SO4 emission rates are 

very low.

TABLE 4-1. BASELINE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR SO2, NOX, AND PM10 EMISSION RATES (AS HOURLY 

EQUIVALENTS)

Unit SO2

8 NOX9

Total 

PM10 SO4 PMc PMf SOA EC

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

Unit 4 3.1 2,456.4 44.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 31.8 11.0

4.2 BASELINE VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT

Trinity conducted modeling to determine the visibility impairment attributable to Unit 4 in four Class 

I Areas: Caney Creek Wilderness (CACR), Upper Buffalo Wilderness (UPBU), Hercules Glades 

Wilderness (HERC), and Mingo Wilderness (MING) using the CALPUFF dispersion model. Table 

4-2 provides a summary of the modeled visibility impairment attributable to Unit 4 at CACR, UPBU, 

HERC, and MING based on the emission rates shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-2 the maximum 

 

7 See Appendix C

8 The SO2 hourly rate was derived from EPA’s CAMD. The 2001-2003 max daily rate was 74 lb/day. See

Appendix C. 

9 The NOx hourly rate was derived from EPA’s CAMD. The 2001-2003 max daily rate was 58,954 lb/day. See

Appendix C. 
Entergy 4-2 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

impairment in Δdv, the 98th percentile impacts in Δdv, and the number of days with impacts greater 

than 0.5 Δdv as well as the breakdown by pollutant species for the 98th percentile impact.

As BART is determined on a unit-by-unit basis, this baseline modeling is presented to show how the 

BART proposed controls will cause improvement, at least on a relative basis.

All of the CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST modeling files used to generate these results are 

included as part of the electronic files submitted with this document. 

TABLE 4-2. BASELINE VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAKE CATHERINE, UNIT 4

BY POLLUTANT

Year

Maximum

(Δdv)

98th 

Percentile

(Δdv)

No. of Day 

with Δdv ≥ 

0.5

98th 

Percentile

% SO4

98th 

Percentile

% NO3

98th 

Percentile

% PM10

98th 

Percentile

% NO2

Caney Creek Wilderness

2001 3.480 1.371 31 0.49 85.13 0.00 8.55

2002 3.318 0.909 21 0.31 92.53 0.00 4.18

2003 3.276 1.233 28 0.43 85.66 0.00 7.76

Upper Buffalo Wilderness

2001 1.478 0.489 7 0.33 89.54 0.00 5.99

2002 0.916 0.532 9 0.22 96.29 0.00 1.26

2003 2.044 0.412 5 0.21 97.36 0.00 0.30

Hercules Glades Wilderness

2001 0.760 0.387 4 0.30 91.12 0.00 4.92

2002 1.016 0.313 2 0.39 88.73 0.00 6.08

2003 0.881 0.311 2 0.38 93.27 0.00 2.57

Mingo Wilderness

2001 0.511 0.237 1 0.30 92.55 0.00 3.17

2002 0.763 0.429 5 0.32 96.25 0.00 0.44

2003 0.516 0.214 1 0.18 98.08 0.00 0.10
Entergy 5-1 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

5. SO2 BART EVALUATION

A BART determination for SO2 based on the use of natural gas was approved in EPA’s March 12, 

2012, final rule. The determination results in no SO2 controls needed during natural gas 

combustion.

10 

 

10 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; 

Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze. Final Rule,” 

77 Fed. Reg. 14604 (March 12, 2012). 
Entergy 6-1 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

6. NOX BART EVALUATION

6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE RETROFIT NOX CONTROL

TECHNOLOGIES

Nitrogen oxides, NOX, are produced during fuel combustion when nitrogen contained in both the fuel 

and the combustion air is exposed to high temperatures. The origin of the nitrogen (i.e. fuel vs. 

combustion air) has lead to the use of the terms “thermal” NOX and “fuel” NOX when describing NOX

emissions. Thermal NOX emissions are produced when elemental nitrogen in the combustion air is 

exposed to a high temperature zone and oxidized. Fuel NOX emissions are created during the rapid 

oxidation of nitrogen compounds contained in the fuel. 

Nitrogen oxide (NO) is typically the predominant form of NOX from fossil fuel combustion. Nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) makes up the remainder of the NOX. The formation of NOX compounds in utility 

boilers is sensitive to the method of firing. In tangentially-fired boilers, such as Unit 4, a single 

rotating flame is created in the center of the furnace, rather than the discrete flames produced by 

burners in the wall-fired boilers. Tangentially fired boilers typically have lower uncontrolled NOX

emissions than wall-fired boilers. Therefore baseline NOX emission rates can vary significantly from 

plant to plant due to method of firing as well as several other factors.

Step 1 of the BART determination is the identification of all available retrofit NOX control 

technologies. The available retrofit NOX control technologies are summarized in Table 6-1.

NOX emissions controls, as listed in Table 6-1, can be categorized as combustion or post-combustion 

controls. Combustion controls, including Burners Out of Service (BOOS), flue gas recirculation 

(FGR), overfire air / separated overfire air (SOFA), and Low NOx Burners (LNB), reduce the peak 

flame temperature and excess air in the furnace which minimizes NOX formation. Post-combustion 

controls, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR),

convert NOX in the flue gas to molecular nitrogen and water. 

TABLE 6-1. AVAILABLE NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 4

NOX Control Technologies

Combustion Controls

Burners Out of Service (BOOS)

Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)

Separated Overfire Air (SOFA)

Low NOx Burners (LNB) 

Post-Combustion Controls Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)

6.2 ELIMINATE TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Step 2 of the BART determination is to eliminate technically infeasible NOX control technologies that 

were identified in Step 1. 
Entergy 6-2 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

6.2.1 COMBUSTION CONTROLS

6.2.1.1 BURNERS OUT OF SERVICE (BOOS)

BOOS is a staged combustion technique whereby fuel is introduced though 

operational burners in the lower furnace zone to create fuel-rich conditions, 

while not introducing fuel to other burners. Additional air is then supplied to 

the non-operational burners to complete combustion. By removing fuel from 

certain zones, the temperature is reduced, and the production of thermal NOX is 

also reduced. When operated without additional controls, the estimated 

controlled NOX level for Unit 4 operating with BOOS is 0.24 lb/MMBtu.

11 

This control is a technically feasible option for the control of NOX from Unit 4.

6.2.1.2 FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION (FGR)

FGR uses flue gas as an inert material to reduce flame temperatures. In a 

typical flue gas recirculation system, flue gas is collected from the combustion 

chamber or stack and returned to the burner via a duct and blower. The 

addition of flue gas reduces the oxygen content of the “combustion air” (air + 

flue gas) in the burner. The lower oxygen level in the combustion zone reduces 

flame temperatures; which in turn reduces thermal NOX formation. When 

operated without additional controls, the estimated controlled NOX level for 

Unit 4 operating with FGR is 0.19 lb/MMBtu.

12 This control is a technically 

feasible option for the control of NOX from Unit 4. 

6.2.1.3 SEPARATED OVERFIRE AIR (SOFA)

SOFA diverts a portion of the total combustion air from the burners and injects 

it through separate air ports above the top level of burners. Staging of the 

combustion air creates an initial fuel-rich combustion zone with a lower peak 

flame temperature. This reduces the formation of thermal NOX by lowering 

combustion temperature and limiting the availability of oxygen in the 

combustion zone where NOX is most likely to be formed. When operated 

without additional controls, SOFA results in estimated NOX emissions for gas

fired boilers of 0.2-0.4 lb/MMBtu.13 This control is a technically feasible 

option for the control of NOX from Unit 4.

6.2.1.4 LOW NOX BURNERS

LNB technology utilizes advanced burner design to reduce NOX formation 

through the restriction of oxygen, lowering of flame temperature, and/or 

reduced residence time. NOX creation rates typically peak at oxygen levels of 

five to seven percent.14 LNB is a staged combustion process that is designed to 

split fuel combustion into two zones. In the primary zone, NOX formation is 

 

11Sargent & Lundy May 16, 2013 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study (S&L 2013 Study). 

12Id.

13“Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options.” Utility Boiler section. July 

1994.

14 http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/boilerburner/Workshop/RCTCombustion.htm.
Entergy 6-3 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

limited by one of two methods. Under staged fuel-rich conditions, low oxygen 

levels limit flame temperatures resulting in less NOX formation. The primary 

zone is then followed by a secondary zone in which the incomplete combustion 

products formed in the primary zone act as reducing agents. Alternatively, 

under staged fuel-lean conditions, excess air will reduce flame temperature to 

reduce NOX formation. In the secondary zone, combustion products formed in 

the primary zone act to lower the local oxygen concentration, resulting in a 

decrease in NOX formation. 

When operated without additional controls, LNB results in estimated NOX

emissions for gas fired boilers of approximately 0.25 lb/MMBtu.15 When 

combined with SOFA, the estimated NOX control level is 0.19 lb/MMBtu.16

LNB systems are technically feasible for the control of NOX from Unit 4.

6.2.2 POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS

6.2.2.1 SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR)

SCR refers to the process in which NOX is reduced by ammonia over a 

heterogeneous catalyst in the presence of oxygen. The process is termed 

selective because the ammonia preferentially reacts with NOX rather than 

oxygen, although the oxygen enhances the reaction and is a necessary 

component of the process. The overall reactions are:

4NO + 4NH3 + O2  4N2 + 6H2O

2NO2 + 4NH3 + O2  3N2 + 6H2O

The SCR process requires a reactor, a catalyst, and an ammonia storage and 

injection system. The effectiveness of an SCR system is dependent on a variety 

of factors, including the inlet NOX concentration, the exhaust temperature, the 

ammonia injection rate, and the type of catalyst. When combined with SOFA

and LNB, the estimated NOX control level is 0.03 lb/MMBtu.17 This control is 

a technically feasible option for the control of NOX from Unit 4.

6.2.2.2 SELECTIVE NON-CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SNCR)

In SNCR systems, a reagent is injected into the flue gas in the furnace within an 

appropriate temperature window. The NOX and reagent (ammonia or urea) 

react to form nitrogen and water. A typical SNCR system consists of reagent 

storage, multi-level reagent-injection equipment, and associated control 

instrumentation. The SNCR reagent storage and handling systems are similar 

to those for SCR systems. However, both ammonia and urea SNCR processes 

require three or four times as much reagent as SCR systems to achieve similar 

NOX reductions. When combined with SOFA and LNB, the estimated NOX

 

15“Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options.” Utility Boiler section. July 1994. 

16 S&L 2013 Study. 

17 Id. 
Entergy 6-4 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

control level is 0.14 lb/MMBtu.18 This control is being evaluated as a 

technically feasible option for the control of NOX from Unit 4; however this 

technology is not adaptable to all gas-fired boilers.

6.3 RANK OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE NOX CONTROL OPTIONS BY 

EFFECTIVENESS

The third step in the BART analysis is to rank the technically feasible options according to 

effectiveness. Table 6-2 provides a ranking of the control levels for the controls listed in the 

previous section for Unit 4.

TABLE 6-2. CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE NOX CONTROL 

TECHNOLOGIES

Control Technology

Estimated Controlled 

Level for Unit 4 

(lb/MMBtu)

SOFA 0.30

LNB 0.25

BOOS 0.24

LNB/SOFA OR FGR 0.19

LNB/SOFA + SNCR 0.14 

LNB/SOFA + SCR 0.03

6.4 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS FOR FEASIBLE NOX CONTROLS 

Step four for the BART analysis is the impact analysis. The BART determination guidelines list four 

factors to be considered in the impact analysis:

▲ Cost of compliance

▲ Energy impacts

▲ Non-air quality impacts; and

▲ The remaining useful life of the source

6.4.1 COST OF COMPLIANCE

The capital costs, operating costs, and cost effectiveness of BOOS, LNB/SOFA, 

LNB/SOFA/SNCR and LNB/SOFA/SCR were estimated for the cost analysis. Since FGR 

results in the same controlled emission level as LNB/SOFA but at a higher cost19, FGR is 

not considered further in the analysis.

 

18 S&L 2013 Study. 

19 Id.
Entergy 6-5 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

Control Costs

Control costs were calculated using cost estimates developed by Sargent and Lundy. The 

capital costs were annualized over a 15-year period and then added to the annual operating 

costs to obtain the total annualized costs. 

The capital and operating cost estimates are provided in Appendix A of this report. 

Annual Tons Reduced

The annual tons reduced that were used in the cost effectiveness calculations were 

determined by subtracting the estimated controlled annual emission rate from the baseline

annual emission rate. 

The baseline annual emission rate was calculated using the baseline emission level of 0.48 

lb/MMBtu and an annual heat input reflecting a ten percent capacity factor.

20

EPA states in the BART guidelines that “The baseline emission rate should represent a 

realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source.” While the average 

annual capacity factor for Unit 4 from 2001-2003, which are the baseline years from which 

the peak daily NOX emission rate was determined as described in Section 4 of this report,

was approximately 20 percent, Entergy anticipates that future utilization of Unit 4 will 

remain in the range of 10 percent, which is consistent with the recent operating history of 

the unit.

Table 6-3 below illustrates the annual capacity factor values for Unit 4 over the past ten 

years (2003-2012). Typical utilization of this unit has been less than 5 percent on an 

annual basis. Utilization in 2012 was slightly higher than 10 percent due to anomalous 

grid reliability issues which resulted in a need for greater utilization. These issues are not 

expected to arise in future years and future annual capacity factors are expected to be 

comparable to those experienced by the unit in 2003-2011. EPA has stated that they agree 

that the unit has historically operated at less than a 10 percent capacity factor and that a 

source may calculate baseline emissions based on a continuation of past practice.

21 A 10

percent capacity factor has been used for this analysis as a conservative estimate.

TABLE 6-3. LAKE CATHERINE UNIT 4 CAPACITY FACTORS

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

10.4 3.2 4.2 0.5 0.7 2.7 3.0 3.1 2.3 12.8

The controlled annual emission rates were based on lb/MMBtu levels believed to be 

achievable from the control technologies multiplied by the annual heat input. The annual 

heat input used to calculate the annual controlled emission rates was the same heat input 

that was used to calculate baseline annual emissions.

 

20 The annual heat input reflecting a 10% annual capacity factor is 5,124,600 MMBtu/yr (5,850 MMBtu/hr * 

8760 hrs/yr * 10% = 5,124,600 MMBtu/yr).

21 77 Fed. Reg. 14641.
Entergy 6-6 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

Cost Effectiveness

The cost effectiveness in dollars per ton of NOX reduced was determined by dividing the 

annualized cost of control by the annual tons reduced. An incremental cost analyses was 

also performed to show the incremental increase in the cost of controls when compared to 

BOOS. The costs effectiveness analysis is summarized in Table 6-4. 

In the BART guidelines, EPA calculated that for all types of boilers other than cyclone 

boilers, combustion control technology is generally more cost-effective than postcombustion controls. EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the BART units 

(non-cyclone) could meet the presumptive NOX limits at a cost of $100 to $1,000 per ton of 

NOX removed based on the use of combustion control technology.22 For the units that 

could not meet the presumptive limits using combustion control technology, EPA estimates 

that almost all of these sources could meet the presumptive limits using advanced 

combustion controls. The EPA estimates that the costs of such controls are usually less 

than $1,500 per ton of NOX removed.23 

Table 6-4 indicates that the cost effectiveness of BOOS is approximately $150 per ton of 

NOX removed. Further, the incremental cost effectiveness of LNB/SOFA over BOOS is 

approximately $9,000/ton, while the incremental cost of LNB/SOFA/SNCR over 

LNB/SOFA is approximately $17,000/ton and the incremental cost LNB/SOFA/SCR over 

LNB/SOFA is approximately $14,000/ton. 

Table 6-4 also summarizes the improvement in the maximum of the 98th percentile 

visibility impairment results due to each control technology. Details of the post-control 

modeling results are provided later in Section 6.5, but this summary is presented here for 

convenience. As Table 6-4 clearly shows, BOOS results in over 0.5 Δdv of visibility 

improvement when compared the baseline visibility impairment. While LNB/SOFA, 

LNB/SOFA/SNCR, and LNB/SOFA/SCR offer some additional visibility improvement 

over BOOS, up to a maximum of 0.672 Δdv of additional improvement for 

LNB/SOFA/SCR, the very high incremental costs when compared to BOOS cannot be 

justified.

 

 

22 “Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART Determinations; 

Final Rule.) 77 Fed. Reg. 39134-39135 (July 6, 2005).

23 Id.
Entergy 6-7 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR UNIT 4 NOX CONTROLS

Baseline 

Emission 

Rate

Controlled 

Emission Level

Annual Heat 

Input1

Controlled 

Emission 

Rate

NOx 

Reduced Capital Cost

Annual 

Capital Cost

Annual Fixed 

O&M

Annualized 

Variable O&M

Total Annual 

Cost

Cost 

Effectiveness

 Incremental 

Cost3

Incremental 

Visbility 

Improvement 2

(tpy) (lb/MMBtu) (MMBtu/yr) (tpy) (ton/yr) ($) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/ton) ($/ton) (dv)

BOOS 1,236 0.24 5,124,600 618 618 893,000 71,964 21,000 0 92,964 150 - 0.536

LNB/SOFA 1,236 0.19 5,124,600 495 742 11,845,025 954,548 210,000 19,034 1,183,582 1,596 8,822 0.152

LNB/OFA/SNCR 1,236 0.14 5,124,600 371 865 29,295,494 2,360,819 489,000 462,000 3,311,819 3,827 17,214 0.306

LNB/OFA/SCR 1,236 0.03 5,124,600 77 1159 79,152,952 6,378,652 568,000 268,000 7,214,652 6,223 14,440 0.672

3. The incremental cost for LNB/SOFA is calculated in comparison to BOOS while the incremental costs for LNB/SOFA + SNCR and LNB/SOFA + SCR are calculated in comparison to LNB/SOFA alone.

1. The annual heat input reflects a 10% annual capacity factor (5,850 MMBtu/hr * 8760 hrs/yr * 10% = 5,124,600 MMBtu/yr)

2. The incremental visibility improvement for BOOS is the maximum visibility improvement in the 98th percentile impact compared to baseline (See Table 6-9). The incremental visibility improvement for LNB/OFA, 

LNB/OFA/SNCR, and LNB/SOFA/SCR is the difference between the maximum improvement due to LNB/OFA, LNB/SOFA/SNCR or LNB/SOFA/SCR in the four Class I areas considered in the analysis less the maximum visibility 

improvement in the four Class I areas from BOOS (See Table 6-9).
Entergy 6-8 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

6.4.2 ENERGY IMPACTS & NON-AIR IMPACTS

As noted in Table 6-4, SCR and SNCR systems are capable of achieving additional NOX

reductions when compared to combustion controls such as BOOS, LNB, or SOFA. 

However, both SCR and SNCR systems create additional energy and/or non-air 

environmental impacts. SCR and SNCR systems require electricity to operate the ancillary 

equipment. The need for electricity to help power some of the ancillary equipment creates 

a demand for energy that currently does not exist. 

SCR and SNCR can potentially cause significant environmental impacts. The primary 

avenue is related to the storage of ammonia. The storage of aqueous ammonia above 

10,000 lbs is regulated by a risk management program (RMP), since the accidental release 

of ammonia has the potential to cause serious injury and death to persons in the vicinity of 

the release. Additionally, SCR and SNCR will likely also cause the release of unreacted 

ammonia to the atmosphere. This is referred to as ammonia slip. Ammonia slip from 

SCR and SNCR systems occurs either from ammonia injection at temperatures too low for 

effective reaction with NOX, leading to an excess of unreacted ammonia, or from overinjection of reagent leading to uneven distribution; which also leads to an excess of 

unreacted ammonia. Ammonia released from SCR and SNCR systems will react with 

sulfates and nitrates in the atmosphere to form ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. 

Together, ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate are the predominant sources of 

regional haze. 

Another environmental impact associated with SCR is the disposal of catalyst waste. To 

maintain NOX-removal effectiveness, the catalyst in an SCR system must periodically be 

cleaned, regenerated, or replaced. Cleaning and regeneration are preferred, but eventually 

the catalyst reaches the end of its useful life and must be replaced. Ideally the exhausted 

catalyst can be recycled for reuse, however, if the condition of the spent catalyst does not 

warrant recycling or a market is unavailable, the old catalyst must be disposed of. Current 

regulatory interpretations indicate spent SCR catalysts are exempted from hazardous waste 

regulation via 40 CFR § 261.4(b)(4) (Bevill Exemption) as flue gas emission control 

wastes. However, ongoing efforts by EPA to increase regulatory oversight of coal 

combustion residuals could alter that exemption, and create the potential that spent SCR 

catalysts would be characterized as hazardous wastes, hence increasing the cost of disposal. 

Regardless of the regulatory treatment of the waste, the disposal creates additional 

potential financial and environmental impacts associated with an SCR system.

6.4.3 REMAINING USEFUL LIFE

The remaining useful life of Unit 4 is sufficiently long such that it does not affect the 

BART analysis.

6.5 EVALUATION OF VISIBILITY IMPACT OF FEASIBLE NOX CONTROLS 

A final impact analysis was conducted to assess the visibility improvement for existing emission rates 

when compared to the emission rates associated with BOOS, LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA/SNCR, and
Entergy 6-9 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

LNB/SOFA/SCR. Section 4 of this report documented the existing visibility impairment attributable 

to Unit 4. In order to assess the visibility improvement associated with BOOS, LNB/SOFA, SCR and 

SNCR systems, the NOX emission rates associated with the control systems were modeled using 

CALPUFF. The controlled emission level associated with BOOS is 0.24 lb/MMBtu; the controlled 

emission level associated with an LNB/SOFA system is 0.19 lb/MMBtu; the controlled emission 

level associated with an LNB/SOFA/SNCR system is 0.14 lb/MMBtu, and the controlled emission 

level associated with an LNB/SOFA/SCR system is 0.03 lb/MMBtu. These levels were multiplied by 

the maximum heat input (5,850 MMBtu/hr) to derive hourly the hourly emission rates used in the 

modeling. 

Tables 6-5 through 6-8 summarize the NOX emission rates that were modeled to reflect the BOOS, 

LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA/SNCR and LNB/SOFA/SCR control options. The emission rates for the 

other pollutants shown in Tables 6-5 through 6-8 are the same as in the baseline modeling. 
Entergy 6-10 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

TABLE 6-5. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT BOOS FOR NOX CONTROL

SO2

(lb/hr)

SO4

(lb/hr)

NOX

(lb/hr)

PMC

(lb/hr)

PMF

(lb/hr)

SOA

(lb/hr)

EC

(lb/hr)

PM10, total

(lb/hr)

Unit 4 3.1 1.5 1,404.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 11.0 44.3

TABLE 6-6. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT LNB/SOFA FOR NOX

CONTROL

SO2

(lb/hr)

SO4

(lb/hr)

NOX

(lb/hr)

PMC

(lb/hr)

PMF

(lb/hr)

SOA

(lb/hr)

EC

(lb/hr)

PM10, total

(lb/hr)

Unit 4 3.1 1.5 1,111.5 0.0 0.0 31.8 11.0 44.3

TABLE 6-7. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT LNB/SOFA + SNCR FOR 

NOX CONTROL

SO2

(lb/hr)

SO4

(lb/hr)

NOX

(lb/hr)

PMC

(lb/hr)

PMF

(lb/hr)

SOA

(lb/hr)

EC

(lb/hr)

PM10, total

(lb/hr)

Unit 4 3.1 1.5 819.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 11.0 44.3

TABLE 6-8. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES MODELED TO REFLECT LNB/SOFA + SCR FOR NOX

CONTROL

SO2

(lb/hr)

SO4

(lb/hr)

NOX

(lb/hr)

PMC

(lb/hr)

PMF

(lb/hr)

SOA

(lb/hr)

EC

(lb/hr)

PM10, total

(lb/hr)

Unit 4 3.1 1.5 175.5 0.0 0.0 31.8 11.0 44.3

Table 6-9 provides a comparison of the existing visibility impairment and the visibility impairment 

associated with the addition of NOX controls on Unit 4 in all affected Class I areas, including the 

maximum modeled visibility impact, 98th percentile modeled visibility impact, and the number of 

days with a modeled visibility impact greater than 0.5 Δdv. 
Entergy 6-11 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

TABLE 6-9. SUMMARY OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH NOX CONTROL SYSTEM ON UNIT 4 (2001-2003)

Caney Creek Wilderness Upper Buffalo Wilderness Hercules Glades Wilderness Mingo NWR Maximum Impact (Δdv) 98% Impact (Δdv) # Days > 0.5 Δdv Maximum Impact (Δdv) 98% Impact (Δdv) # Days > 0.5 Δdv Maximum Impact (Δdv) 98% Impact (Δdv) # Days > 0.5 Δdv Maximum Impact (Δdv) 98% Impact (Δdv)

# Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Existing Emission Rate 3.480 1.371 80 2.044 0.532 21 1.016 0.387 8 0.763 0.429 7

BOOS 2.154 0.835 37 1.232 0.307 11 0.6 0.229 2 0.447 0.253 0

Post Control 

Improvement

1.326 0.536 43 0.812 0.225 10 0.416 0.158 6 0.316 0.176 7

LNB/SOFA 1.759 0.683 28 0.996 0.25 9 0.482 0.185 0 0.358 0.204 0

Incremental Post 

Control Improvement 

over BOOS

0.395 0.152 9 0.236 0.057 2 0.118 0.044 2 0.089 0.049 0

LNB/SOFA/SNCR 1.349 0.529 16 0.755 0.193 4 0.362 0.141 0 0.268 0.154 0

Incremental Post 

Control Improvement 

over BOOS

0.805 0.306 21 0.477 0.114 7 0.238 0.088 2 0.179 0.099 0

LNB/SOFA/SCR 0.452 0.163 0 0.211 0.057 0 0.101 0.043 0 0.082 0.042 0

Incremental Post 

Control Improvement 

over BOOS

1.702 0.672 37 1.021 0.25 11 0.499 0.186 2 0.365 0.211 0

†The visibility improvement shown in the table has been calculated from 98th percentile baseline and controlled impacts that include more decimal places than what is 

shown in the table. Due to rounding of the baseline and controlled 98th percentile impacts shown in the table, the visibility improvement calculated from the baseline and 

controlled 98th percentile impacts shown in the table may be slightly different than the visibility improvement reflected in the table.
Entergy 6-12 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

As shown in Table 6-9, based on visibility predictions from the CALPUFF modeling system, the 

operation of a BOOS will result in up to a 0.536 Δdv improvement (depending on the Class I area) to 

the existing visibility impairment attributable to Unit 4. This visibility improvement increases by

0.152 Δdv for LNB/SOFA (0.835-0.683 = 0.152), 0.306 Δdv for LNB/SOFA/SNCR (0.835-0.529 = 

0.306), and 0.672 Δdv for LNB/SOFA/SCR (.835-0.163 = 0.672).

For convenience, Table 6-10 provides a condensed summary of these predicted improvements 

alongside the estimated control costs. The incremental visibility benefit of going from BOOS to 

either LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA/SCNR or LNB/SOFA/SCR is clearly not justified by the high 

incremental cost difference. The control technologies are very expensive from an initial capital 

investment and prohibitively more expensive from an incremental cost effectiveness standpoint than 

BOOS. 
Entergy 6-13 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

TABLE 6-10. INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR UNIT 4 WITH CLASS I AREA IMPROVEMENT (2001-2003)

Control Description

NOx 

Emissions 

(lb/MMBtu)

Control Eff. 

From 

Baseline 

(% )

Emission 

Reduction 

from Baseline 

(tons/yr)

Installed 

Cost 

($)

Total 

Annual 

Control Cost 

($)

Pollution 

Control 

Cost 

($/ton)

Incremental 

Cost1

($/ton) Class I Area

Baseline 

98th 

Percentile 

∆dv

Controlled 

98th 

Percentile 

∆dv

Improvement 

in 98th 

Percentile 

∆dv

Baseline # 

Days > 0.5 

∆dv

Controlled 

# Days > 

0.5 ∆dv

Caney Creek 1.371 0.835 0.536 80 37

Hercules-Glades 0.387 0.229 0.158 8 2

Mingo 0.429 0.253 0.176 7 0

Upper Buffalo 0.532 0.307 0.225 21 11

Caney Creek 1.371 0.683 0.688 80 28

Hercules-Glades 0.387 0.185 0.202 8 0

Mingo 0.429 0.204 0.225 7 0

Upper Buffalo 0.532 0.250 0.282 21 9

Caney Creek 1.371 0.529 0.842 80 16

Hercules-Glades 0.387 0.141 0.246 8 0

Mingo 0.429 0.154 0.275 7 0

Upper Buffalo 0.532 0.193 0.339 21 4

Caney Creek 1.371 0.163 1.208 80 0

Hercules-Glades 0.387 0.043 0.344 8 0

Mingo 0.429 0.042 0.387 7 0

Upper Buffalo 0.532 0.057 0.475 21 0

1. The incremental cost for LNB/SOFA is calculated in comparison to BOOS while the incremental costs for LNB/SOFA + SNCR and LNB/SOFA + SCR are calculated in comparison to LNB/SOFA 

alone.

1,183,582 1,596 8,822

LNB/SOFA + SNCR 0.14 70% 865 29,295,494 3,311,819

LNB/SOFA 0.19 60% 742 11,845,025

14,440

3,827 17,214

LNB/SOFA + SCR 0.03 94% 1,159 79,152,952 7,214,652 6,223

BOOS 0.24 50% 618 893,000 92,964 150 -
Entergy 6-14 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

6.6 PROPOSED BART FOR NOX 

Entergy proposes a BART emission rate of 0.24 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis, 

achievable through use of BOOS at Unit 4.24 

 

24 If CSAPR is upheld and implemented in Arkansas, Entergy will rely on CSAPR to satisfy its regional haze 

obligations at Lake Catherine. If CSAPR is vacated and CAIR remains in effect, EPA’s prior determination that the 

reductions provided under CAIR’s seasonal NOX trading program provide greater visibility improvements than BART 

should allow Entergy to rely on the seasonal CAIR program to satisfy its NOX obligations under BART.
Entergy 7-1 Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

7. PM10 BART EVALUATION

A BART determination for PM10 based on the use of natural gas was approved in EPA’s March 12, 

2012, final rule. The determination results in no PM10 controls needed during natural gas 

combustion.

25 

 

25 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; 

Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze. Final Rule,” 

77 Fed. Reg. 14604 (March 12, 2012). 
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

APPENDIX A

CONTROL COST CALCULATIONS
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

BOOS Capital and O&M Cost Estimate 

Implementation Cost1893,000

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)

2

0.08

Fixed O&M Costs321,000

Variable O&M Costs

4

0

Annualized Implementation Cost 71,964

Total Annual Costs 92,964

3: The fixed O&M cost estimate for BOOS is based on the fixed O&M cost 

estimate for BOOS as provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx 

Control Technology Cost and Performance Study

4: The variable O&M cost estimate for BOOS is based on the variable O&M 

cost estimate for BOOS as provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 

NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study

N/A 

Annual Costs

Capital Cost

Operational Data

1: It is anticipated that BOOS can be implemented on the unit without any 

capital expenditures. The one-time costs associated with BOOS 

implementation would instead be incorporated into the facility’s O&M 

budget for the fiscal year. In order to provide an apples-to-apples 

comparison with the other NOx control options, these one-time additional 

O&M costs were treated as if the cost were a capital expenditure. This cost 

is is based the Sargent & Lundy 5/16/2013 NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study.

2: CRF = [ I x (1+i)^a]/[(1+i)^a - 1], where I = interest rate, a = equipment life

 Equipment CRF, 30-yr actual service life, 7% interest
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

LNB-SOFA Capital and O&M Cost Estimate 

Maximum HI (MMBtu/hr) 5850

Average Annual Operating Hours, 2009-2011 1205

Installed Capital Cost111,845,025

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)20.08

Fixed O&M Costs3210,000

Variable O&M Costs419,034

Annualized Capital Cost 954,548

Total Annual Costs 1,183,582

Annual Costs

Capital Cost

Operational Data

2: CRF = [ I x (1+i)^a]/[(1+i)^a - 1], where I = interest rate, a = equipment life

1: The installed capital cost estimate for LNB/OFA + SNCR is based on the installed capital cost estimate 

provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study 

($8,762,000) plus additional cost not accounted for in the S&L cost estimate, including cost for permitting and 

legal/regulatory support (estimated by Entergy to be $112,500), cost for Entergy employee labor and loaders 

(estimated by Entergy to be $1,634,363), cost for capital suspense (estimated by Entergy to be $751,978), and 

cost for AFUDC (estimated by Entergy to be $584,184) .

3: The fixed O&M cost estimate for LNB/OFA is based on the fixed O&M cost estimate for LNB/OFA as 

provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study

 Equipment CRF, 30-yr actual service life, 7% interest

4: The variable O&M cost estimate for LNB/OFA is based on an equation documented in the Eastern Research 

Group report "Analysis of Combustion Controls for Reducing NOx Emissions from Coal-fired EGUs in the 

WRAP Region" September 6, 2005. Section 4.3.1 and Appendix D as shown below. 

Variable O&M = (0.027 mills/kW-hr/1000) x (1 kW-hr/10,000 Btu) x H x C x 10^6 Btu/mmBtu

Where:

H = Annual operating hours

C = Boiler design capacity (mmBtu/hr)

Note: The variable rate used for variable O&M costs was 0.027 mills/kW-hr. This is the rate listed in Appedix D
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

LNB-OFA + SNCR Capital and O&M Cost Estimate 

Maximum HI (MMBtu/hr) 5850

Average Annual Operating Hours, 2009-2011 1205

Installed Capital Cost1 29,295,494

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)20.08

Fixed O&M Costs 489,000

Variable O&M Costs 462,000

Annualized Capital Cost 2,360,819

Total Annual Costs 3,311,819

Capital Cost

Operational Data

4: The variable O&M cost estimates are based on the cost estimates provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx 

Control Technology Cost and Performance Study. Adding LNB/OFA to SNCR makes the variable O&M costs less than that 

of SNCR alone due to a lower NOx concentration and resulting less reagent usage.

1: The installed capital cost estimate for LNB/OFA + SNCR is based on the installed capital cost estimate provided by 

Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study ($24,269,000) plus additional cost 

not accounted for in the S&L cost estimate, including cost for permitting and legal/regulatory support (estimated by Entergy 

to be $112,500), cost for Entergy employee labor and loaders (estimated by Entergy to be $1,634,363), cost for capital 

suspense (estimated by Entergy to be $1,821,939), and cost for AFUDC (estimated by Entergy to be $1,457,962 for each unit) .

2: CRF = [ I x (1+i)^a]/[(1+i)^a - 1], where I = interest rate, a = equipment life

 Equipment CRF, 30-yr actual service life, 7% interest

3: The fixed O&M cost estimate for LNB/OFA + SNCR is based on the fixed O&M cost estimate for LNB/OFA + SNCR as 

provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study

Annual Costs 3
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

LNB-OFA + SCR Capital and O&M Cost Estimate 

Maximum HI (MMBtu/hr) 5850

Annual Operating Hours, 2009-2011 1205

Installed Capital Cost 79,152,952

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)20.08

Fixed O&M Costs 568,000

Variable O&M Costs 268,000

Annualized Capital Cost 6,378,652

Total Annual Costs 7,214,652

Capital Costs 1

Operational Data

4: The variable O&M cost estimates are based on the cost estimates provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx Control 

Technology Cost and Performance Study. Adding LNB/OFA to SCR makes the variable O&M costs less than that of SCR alone 

due to a lower NOx concentration and resulting less reagent usage.

1: The installed capital cost estimate for LNB/OFA + SCR is based on the installed capital cost estimate provided by Sargent & 

Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study ($68,349,000) plus additional cost not accounted for 

in the S&L cost estimate, including cost for permitting and legal/regulatory support (estimated by Entergy to be $387,500), cost for 

Entergy employee labor and loaders (estimated by Entergy to be $1,634,363), cost for capital suspense (estimated by Entergy to be 

$4,888,377 ), and cost for AFUDC (estimated by Entergy to be $3,956,212) .

2: CRF = [ I x (1+i)^a]/[(1+i)^a - 1], where I = interest rate, a = equipment life

 Equipment CRF, 30-yr actual service life, 7% interest

3: All O&M cost estimateswere provided by Sargent & Lundy in the 5/16/2013 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance 

Study

Annual Costs 3
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

APPENDIX B

MODELING PROTOCOL

As stated in Section 3.1, the meteorological data used in the analyses presented in this report was 

originally developed in 2007 and was first used in a BART determination for Oklahoma Gas & 

Electric. Because the development of a set of CALMET/CALPUFF meteorological data is so 

intensive, this same dataset has been used numerous times since 2007 for various other BART 

projects in EPA Region 6. The protocol that accompanied the original development has followed the 

dataset in each case and is doing so here again.
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

APPENDIX C

CEMS DATA FROM CAMD FOR 2001 TO 2003
CALMET DATA PROCESSING PROTOCOL  BART DETERMINATION

OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC

MUSKOGEE GENERATING STATION

SEMINOLE GENERATING STATION

SOONER GENERATING STATION

Prepared by:

Vern Choquette  Principal Consultant

Eugene Chen, PE  Senior Consultant

Jeremy Townley  Consultant

TRINITY CONSULTANTS

120 East Sheridan

Suite 205

Oklahoma City, OK 73104

(405) 228-3292

January 23, 2008

Project 083701.0004
OG&E i Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY RULE BACKGROUND ......................... 1-1

1.2 OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 LOCATION OF SOURCES AND RELEVANT CLASS I AREAS...................................... 1-2

2. CALPUFF MODEL SYSTEM ............................................................................... 2-1

2.1 MODEL VERSIONS................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 MODELING DOMAIN ............................................................................................. 2-1

3. CALMET............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 GEOPHYSICAL DATA............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 TERRAIN DATA ...................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 LAND USE DATA.................................................................................................3-2

3.1.3 COMPILING TERRAIN AND LAND USE DATA.......................................................3-3

3.2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA ..................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 MESOSCALE MODEL METEOROLOGICAL DATA .................................................3-3

3.2.2 SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL DATA ...................................................................3-4

3.2.3 UPPER AIR METEOROLOGICAL DATA.................................................................3-5

3.2.4 PRECIPITATION METEOROLOGICAL DATA..........................................................3-6

3.2.5 BUOY METEOROLOGICAL DATA.........................................................................3-7

3.3 CALMET CONTROL PARAMETERS....................................................................... 3-8

3.3.1 VERTICAL METEOROLOGICAL PROFILE..............................................................3-8

3.3.2 INFLUENCES OF OBSERVATIONS .........................................................................3-9

APPENDIX A- METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

APPENDIX B – SAMPLE CALMET CONTROL FILE (CALPUFF VERSION 5.8)

APPENDIX C – SAMPLE CALMET CONTROL FILE (CALPUFF VERSION 6)
OG&E ii Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1. BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES ...............................................................................................1-2

TABLE 1-2. DISTANCE FROM STATION TO SURROUNDING CLASS I AREAS .......................................1-2

TABLE 2-1. CALPUFF MODELING SYSTEM VERSIONS .....................................................................2-1

TABLE 3-1. VERTICAL LAYERS OF THE CALMET METEOROLOGICAL DOMAIN................................3-9

TABLE A-1. LIST OF SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS ...........................................................A-1

TABLE A-2. LIST OF UPPER AIR METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS.........................................................A-5

TABLE A-3. LIST OF PRECIPITATION METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS..................................................A-6

TABLE A-4. LIST OF OVER WATER METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS..................................................A-14
OG&E iii Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1. PLOT OF SOURCES AND NEAREST CLASS I AREAS .........................................................1-3

FIGURE 2-1. REFINED METEOROLOGICAL MODELING DOMAIN.........................................................2-2

FIGURE 3-1. PLOT OF LAND ELEVATION USING USGS TERRAIN DATA ............................................3-2

FIGURE 3-2. PLOT OF LAND USE USING USGS LULC DATA.............................................................3-3

FIGURE 3-3. PLOT OF SURFACE STATION LOCATIONS........................................................................3-5

FIGURE 3-4. PLOT OF UPPER AIR STATIONS LOCATIONS ...................................................................3-6

FIGURE 3-5. PLOT OF PRECIPITATION METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS .................................................3-7

FIGURE 3-6. PLOT OF BUOY METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS ................................................................3-8
OG&E 1-1 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

1. INTRODUCTION

Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) owns and operates three electric generating stations near

Muskogee, Oklahoma (Muskogee Generating Station), Seminole, Oklahoma (Seminole Generating 

Station), and Stillwater, Oklahoma (Sooner Generating Station). These generating stations are

considered eligible to be regulated under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. This protocol 

describes the proposed methodology for conducting the CALMET data processing for the refined 

CALPUFF BART modeling analysis for OG&E’s Muskogee, Seminole, and Sooner Generating 

Stations. A detailed CALPUFF BART modeling protocol will be submitted in the near future and 

will include a discussion of the CALPUFF parameters as well as the post processing methodologies 

to be used in the refined modeling analysis for each station.

1.1 BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY RULE BACKGROUND

On July 1, 1999, the U.S. Environmental EPA published the final Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The 

objective of the RHR is to improve visibility in 156 specific areas across with United States, known 

as Class I areas. The Clean Air Act defines Class I areas as certain national parks (over 6000 acres), 

wilderness areas (over 5000 acres), national memorial parks (over 5000 acres), and international 

parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977.

On July 6, 2005, the EPA published amendments to its 1999 RHR, often called the BART rule, which 

included guidance for making source-specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determinations. The BART rule defines BART-eligible sources as sources that meet the following 

criteria: 

(1) Have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of a visibility-impairing pollutant,

(2) Began operation between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and

(3) Are listed as one of the 26 listed source categories in the guidance.

A BART-eligible source is not automatically subject to BART. Rather, BART-eligible sources are 

subject-to-BART if the sources are “reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any federal mandatory Class I area.” EPA has determined that sources are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment if the visibility impacts from a source are 

greater than 0.5 deciviews (dv) when compared against a natural background.

Air quality modeling is the tool that is used to determine a source’s visibility impacts. States have the 

authority to exempt certain BART-eligible sources from installing BART controls if the results of the 

dispersion modeling demonstrate that the source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. Further, states also have the authority to define 

the modeling procedures for conducting modeling related to making BART determinations. 
OG&E 1-2 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

1.2 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this document is to provide a protocol summarizing the modeling methods and 

procedures that will be followed to conduct the CALMET data processing necessary to complete a

refined CALPUFF modeling analysis for the OG&E generating stations discussed above. The 

modeling methods and procedures contained in this protocol and the CALPUFF protocol yet to be 

submitted will be used to determine appropriate controls for OG&E’s BART-eligible sources that can 

reasonably be anticipated to reduce the sources’ effects on or contribution to visibility impairment in 

the surrounding Class I areas. It is OG&E’s intent to determine a combination of emissions controls 

that will reduce the impact of each generating station to a degree that the 98th percentile of the 

visibility impact predicted by the model due to all the BART eligible sources at each station 

collectively is below EPA’s recommended visibility contribution threshold of 0.5 dv.

1.3 LOCATION OF SOURCES AND RELEVANT CLASS I AREAS

The sources listed in Table 1-1 are the sources that have been identified by OG&E as sources that 

meet the three criteria for BART-eligible sources.

TABLE 1-1. BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES

EPN Description

Muskogee Sources

Unit 4 5,480 MMBtu/hr Coal Fired Boiler

Unit 5 5,480 MMBtu/hr Coal Fired Boiler

Seminole Sources

SM1 5,480 MMBtu/hr Natural Gas Fired Boiler

SM2 5,480 MMBtu/hr Natural Gas Fired Boiler

SM3 5,496 MMBtu/hr Natural Gas Fired Boiler

Sooner Sources

Unit 1 5,116 MMBtu/hr Coal Fired Boiler

Unit 2 5,116 MMBtu/hr Coal Fired Boiler

As required in CENRAP’s BART Modeling Guidelines, Class I areas within 300 km of each station 

will be included in each analysis. The following table summarizes the distances of the four closest 

Class I areas to each station. As seen from this summary, some Class I areas are more than 300 km 

from the certain stations. However, in order to demonstrate that each station will not have an adverse 

effect on the visibility at any of the four nearest Class I areas, OG&E has opted to include those Class 

I areas more than 300 km away in this analysis. Note that the distances listed in the table below are 

the distances between the stations and the closest border of the Class I areas. 

TABLE 1-2. DISTANCE FROM STATION TO SURROUNDING CLASS I AREAS

CACR HEGL UPBU WIMO

Muskogee 180 230 164 324

Seminole 242 386 310 178

Sooner 345 363 327 234
OG&E 1-3 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

A plot of the Class I areas with respect to the each station is provided in Figure 1-1.

 FIGURE 1-1. PLOT OF SOURCES AND NEAREST CLASS I AREAS

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting (km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

LCC Northing (km)

Seminole Station

Muskogee Station

Sooner Station

WIMO

CACR

UPBU

HEGL

Class I Areas
OG&E 2-1 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

2. CALPUFF MODEL SYSTEM

The main components of the CALPUFF modeling system are CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST. 

CALMET is the meteorological model that generates hourly three-dimensional meteorological fields 

such as wind and temperature. CALPUFF simulates the non-steady state transport, dispersion, and 

chemical transformation of air pollutants emitted from a source in “puffs”. CALPUFF calculates 

hourly concentrations of visibility affecting pollutants at each specified receptor in a modeling 

domain. CALPOST is the post-processor for CALPUFF that computes visibility impacts from a 

source based on the visibility affecting pollutant concentrations that were output by CALPUFF.

2.1 MODEL VERSIONS

The versions of the CALPUFF modeling system programs that are proposed for conducting OG&E’s 

BART modeling are listed in Table 2-1. A detailed refined CALPUFF BART modeling protocol will 

be submitted in the near future.

TABLE 2-1. CALPUFF MODELING SYSTEM VERSIONS

Processor Version Level

TERREL 3.3 030402

CTGCOMP 2.21 030402

CTGPROC 2.63 050128

MAKEGEO 2.2 030402

CALMET 5.53a 040716

CALPUFF 5.8 070623

POSTUTIL 1.3 030402

CALPOST 5.51 030709

2.2 MODELING DOMAIN

The CALPUFF modeling system utilizes three modeling grids: the meteorological grid, the 

computational grid, and the sampling grid. The meteorological grid is the system of grid points at 

which meteorological fields are developed with CALMET. The computational grid determines the 

computational area for a CALPUFF run. Puffs are advected and tracked only while within the 

computational grid. The meteorological grid is defined so that it covers the areas of concern and 

gives enough marginal buffer area for puff transport and dispersion. A plot of the proposed 

meteorological modeling domain with respect to the Class I areas being modeled is also provided in 
OG&E 2-2 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Figure 2-1. The computational domain will be set to extend at least 50 km in all directions beyond 

the Muskogee, Seminole, and Sooner Generating Stations and the Class I areas of interest. Note that 

the map projection for the modeling domain will be Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) and the datum 

will be the World Geodetic System 84 (WGS-84). The reference point for the modeling domain is

Latitude 40oN, Longitude 97oW. The southwest corner will be set to -951.547 km LCC, -1646.637 

km LCC corresponding to Latitude 24.813 oN and Longitude 87.778oW. The meteorological grid 

spacing will be 4 km, resulting in 462 grid points in the X direction and 376 grid points in the Y 

direction.

FIGURE 2-1. REFINED METEOROLOGICAL MODELING DOMAIN

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting (km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

L

C

C

N

o

r

t

h

i

n

g

(

k

)m

Seminole Station

Muskogee Station

Sooner Station

WIMO

CACR

UPBU

HEGL

Class I Areas

Meteorological Modeling Domain

Computational Modeling Domain 1
OG&E 3-1 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

3. CALMET

The EPA Approved Version of the CALMET meteorological processor will be used to generate the 

meteorological data for CALPUFF. CALMET is the meteorological processor that compiles 

meteorological data from raw observations of surface and upper air conditions, precipitation 

measurements, mesoscale model output, and geophysical parameters into a single hourly, gridded 

data set for input into CALPUFF. CALMET will be used to assimilate data for 2001- 2003 using 

National Weather Service (NWS) surface station observations, upper air station observations, 

precipitation station observations, buoy station observations (for overwater areas), and mesoscale 

model output to develop the meteorological field. 

3.1 GEOPHYSICAL DATA

CALMET requires geophysical data to characterize the terrain and land use parameters that 

potentially affect dispersion. Terrain features affect flows and create turbulence in the atmosphere 

and are potentially subjected to higher concentrations of elevated puffs. Different land uses exhibit 

variable characteristics such as surface roughness, albedo, Bowen ratio, and leaf-area index that also 

effect turbulence and dispersion. 

3.1.1 TERRAIN DATA

Terrain data will be obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 

1-degree (1:250,000 scale or approximately 90 meter resolution) digital format. The

USGS terrain data will then be processed by the TERREL program to generate grid-cell 

elevation averages across the modeling domain. A plot of the land elevations based on the 

USGS data for the modeling domain is provided in Figure 3-1.
OG&E 3-2 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

FIGURE 3-1. PLOT OF LAND ELEVATION USING USGS TERRAIN DATA

3.1.2 LAND USE DATA

The land use land cover (LULC) data from the USGS North American land cover 

characteristics data base in the Lambert Azimuthal equal area map projection will be used 

in order to determine the land use within the modeling domain. The LULC data will be 

processed by the CTGPROC program which will generate land use for each grid cell 

across the modeling domain. A plot of the land use based on the USGS data for the 

modeling domain is provided in Figure 3-2.

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting(km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

L

C

C

N

o

r

t

h

i

n

g

(

k

)m

Seminole Station

Muskogee Station

Sooner Station

0

982

1960

2950

3930

Terrain 

Elevation (m)
OG&E 3-3 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

FIGURE 3-2. PLOT OF LAND USE USING USGS LULC DATA

3.1.3 COMPILING TERRAIN AND LAND USE DATA

The terrain data files output by the TERELL program and the LULC files output by the 

CTGPROC program will be uploaded into the MAKEGEO program to create a 

geophysical data file that will be input into CALMET. 

3.2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA 

CALMET will be used to assimilate data for 2001, 2002, and 2003 using mesoscale model output and 

National Weather Service (NWS) surface station observations, upper air station observations,

precipitation station observations, and National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administrations (NOAA) 

buoy station observations to develop the meteorological field. 

3.2.1 MESOSCALE MODEL METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Hourly mesoscale data will also be used as the initial guess field in developing the 

CALMET meteorological data. It is OG&E’s intent to use the following 5th generation 

mesoscale model meteorological data sets (or MM5 data) in the analysis:

 2001 MM5 data at 12 km resolution generated by the U.S. EPA 

 2002 MM5 data at 36 km resolution generated by the Iowa DNR

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting (km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

L

C

C

N

o

r

t

h

i

n

g

(

k

)m

10

27.5

45

62.5

80

Land Use

Sooner Station

Muskogee Station

Seminole Station
OG&E 3-4 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

 2003 MM5 data set at 36 km resolution generated by the Midwest RPO

The specific MM5 data that will be used are subsets of the data listed above. As the 

contractor to CENRAP for developing the meteorological data sets for the BART 

modeling, Alpine Geophysics extracted three subsets of MM5 data for each year from 

2001 to 2003 from the data sets listed above using the CALMM5 extraction program. The 

three subsets covered the northern, central, and southern portions of CENRAP. TXI is 

proposing to use the southern set of the extracted MM5 data. 

The 2001 southern subset of the extracted MM5 data includes 30 files that are broken into 

10 to 11 day increments (3 files per month). The 2002 and 2003 southern subsets of 

extracted MM5 data include 12 files each of which are broken into 30 to 31 day increment

files (1 file per month). Note that the 2001 to 2003 MM5 data extracted by Alpine

Geophysics will not be able to be used directly in the modeling analysis. To run the Alpine 

Geophysics extracted MM data in the EPA approved CALMET program, each of the MM5 

files will need to be adjusted by appending an additional six (6) hours, at a minimum, to 

the end of each file to account for the shift in time zones from the Greenwich Mean Time 

(GMT) prepared Alpine Geophysics data to Time Zone 6 for this analysis. No change to 

the data will occur. 

The time periods covered by the data in each of the MM5 files extracted by Alpine 

Geophysics include a specific number of calendar days, where the data starts at Hour 0 in 

GMT for the first calendar day and ends at Hour 23 in GMT on the last calendar day. In 

order to run CALMET in the local standard time (LST), which is necessary since the 

surface meteorological observations are recorded in LST, there must be hours of MM5 data 

referenced in a CALMET run that match the LST observation hours. Since the LST hours 

in Central Standard Time (CST) are 6 hours behind GMT, it is necessary to adjust the data 

in each MM5 file so that the time periods covered in the files match CST. 

Based on the above discussion, the Alpine Geophysics MM5 data will not be used directly. 

Instead the data files will be modified to add 8 additional hours of data to the end of each

file from the beginning of the subsequent file. CALMET will then be run using the 

appended MM5 data to generate a contiguous set of CALMET output files. The converted 

MM5 data files occupy approximately 1.2 terabytes (TB) of hard drive space.

3.2.2 SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Parameters affecting turbulent dispersion that are observed hourly at surface stations 

include wind speed and direction, temperature, cloud cover and ceiling, relative humidity, 

and precipitation type. It is OG&E’s intent to use the surface stations listed in Table A-1 

of Appendix A. The locations of the surface stations with respect to the modeling domain 

are shown in Figure 3-3. The stations were selected from the available data inventory to 

optimize spatial coverage and representation of the domain. Data from the stations will be 

processed for use in CALMET using EPA’s SMERGE program.
OG&E 3-5 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

FIGURE 3-3. PLOT OF SURFACE STATION LOCATIONS

3.2.3 UPPER AIR METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Observations of meteorological conditions in the upper atmosphere provide a profile of 

turbulence from the surface through the depth of the boundary layer in which dispersion 

occurs. Upper air data are collected by balloons launched simultaneously across the 

observation network at 0000 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) (6 o’clock PM in Oklahoma) 

and 1200 GMT (6 o’clock AM in Oklahoma). Sensors observe pressure, wind speed and 

direction, and temperature (among other parameters) as the balloon rises through the 

atmosphere. The upper air observation network is less dense than surface observation 

points since upper air conditions vary less and are generally not as affected by local effects 

(e.g., terrain or water bodies). The upper air stations that are proposed for this analysis are 

listed in Table A-2 of Appendix A. The locations of the upper air stations with respect to 

the modeling domain are shown in Figure 3-4. These stations were selected from the 

available data inventory to optimize spatial coverage and representation of the domain. 

Data from the stations will be processed for use in CALMET using EPA’s READ62 

program.

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting (km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

L

C

C

N

o

r

t

h

i

n

g

(

k

m)

Seminole Station

Muskogee Station

Sooner Station

WIMO

CACR

UPBU

HEGL

Class I Areas

Surface Stations
OG&E 3-6 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

FIGURE 3-4. PLOT OF UPPER AIR STATIONS LOCATIONS

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting (km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

LCC Northing (km)

Seminole Station

Muskogee Station

Sooner Station

WIMO

CACR

UPBU

HEGL

Class I Areas

Upper Air Stations

3.2.4 PRECIPITATION METEOROLOGICAL DATA

The effects of chemical transformation and deposition processes on ambient pollutant 

concentrations will be considered in this analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to include 

observations of precipitation in the CALMET analysis. The precipitation stations that are 

proposed for this analysis are listed in Table A-3 of Appendix A. The locations of the 

precipitation stations with respect to the modeling domain are shown in Figure 3-5. These 

stations were selected from the available data inventory to optimize spatial coverage and 

representation of the domain. Data from the stations will be processed for use in 

CALMET using EPA’s PMERGE program.
OG&E 3-7 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

FIGURE 3-5. PLOT OF PRECIPITATION METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting (km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

LCC Northing (km)

Seminole Station

Muskogee Station

Sooner Station

WIMO

CACR

UPBU

HEGL

Class I Areas

Precipitation Stations

3.2.5 BUOY METEOROLOGICAL DATA

The effects of land/sea breeze on ambient pollutant concentrations will be considered in 

this analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to include observations of buoy stations in the 

CALMET analysis. The buoy stations that are proposed for this analysis are listed in Table 

A-4 of Appendix A. The locations of the buoy stations with respect to the modeling 

domain are shown in Figure 3-6. These stations were selected from the available data 

inventory to optimize spatial coverage and representation of the domain along the 

coastline. Data from the stations will be prepared by filling missing hour records with the 

CALMET missing parameter value (9999). No adjustments to the data will occur. 
OG&E 3-8 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

FIGURE 3-6. PLOT OF BUOY METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

LCC Easting (km)

-1600

-1400

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

LCC Northing (km)

Seminole Station

Muskogee Station

Sooner Station

WIMO

CACR

UPBU

HEGL

Class I Areas

Buoy Stations

3.3 CALMET CONTROL PARAMETERS

Appendix B provides a sample CALMET input file used in OG&E’s modeling analysis. A few 

details of the CALMET model setup for sensitive parameters are also discussed below. 

3.3.1 VERTICAL METEOROLOGICAL PROFILE

The height of the top vertical layer will be set to 3,500 meters. This height corresponds to 

the top sounding pressure level for which upper air observation data will be relied upon. 

The vertical dimension of the domain will be divided into 12 layers with the maximum 

elevations for each layer shown in Table 3-1. The vertical dimensions are weighted 

towards the surface to resolve the mixing layer while using a somewhat coarser resolution 

for the layers aloft. 
OG&E 3-9 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

TABLE 3-1. VERTICAL LAYERS OF THE CALMET METEOROLOGICAL DOMAIN

Layer Elevation (m)

1 20 

2 40

3 60

4 80

5 100

6 150

7 200

8 250

9 500

10 1000

11 2000

12 3500

CALMET allows for a bias value to be applied to each of the vertical layers. The bias 

settings for each vertical layer determine the relative weight given to the vertically 

extrapolated surface and upper air wind and temperature observations. The initial guess 

fields are computed with an inverse distance weighting (1/r

2

) of the surface and upper air 

data. The initial guess fields may be modified by a layer dependent bias factor. Values for 

the bias factor may range from -1 to +1. A bias of -1 eliminates upper-air observations in

the 1/r2interpolations used to initialize the vertical wind fields. Conversely, a bias of +1 

eliminates the surface observations in the interpolations for this layer. Normally, bias is set 

to zero (0) for each vertical layer, such that the upper air and surface observations are given 

equal weight in the 1/r2interpolations. The biases for each layer of the proposed modeling 

domain will be set to zero.

CALMET allows for vertical extrapolation of surface wind observations to layers aloft to 

be skipped if the surface station is close to the upper air station. Alternatively, CALMET 

allows data from all surface stations to be extrapolated. The CALMET parameter that 

controls this setting is IEXTRP. Setting IEXTRP to a value less than zero (0) means that 

layer 1 data from upper air soundings is ignored in any vertical extrapolations. IEXTRP 

will be set to -4 for this analysis (i.e., the similarity theory is used to extrapolate the surface 

winds into the layers aloft, which provides more information on observed local effects to 

the upper layers).

3.3.2 INFLUENCES OF OBSERVATIONS

Step 1 wind fields will be based on an initial guess using MM5 data and refined to reflect 

terrain affects. Step 2 wind fields will adjust the Step 1 wind field by incorporating the 

influence of local observations. An inverse distance method is used to determine the 

influence of observations to the Step 1 wind field. RMAX1 and RMAX2 define the radius 

of influence for data from surface stations to land in the surface layer and data from upper 

air stations to land in the layers aloft. In general, RMAX1 and RMAX2 are used to 

exclude observations from being inappropriately included in the development of the Step 2
OG&E 3-10 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

wind field if the distance from an observation station to a grid point exceeds the maximum 

radius of influence. 

If the distance from an observation station to a grid point is less than the value set for 

RMAX, the observation data will be used in the development of the Step 2 wind field. R1 

represents the distance from a surface observation station at which the surface observation 

and the Step 1 wind field are weighted equally. R2 represents the comparable distance for 

winds aloft. R1 and R2 are used to weight the observation data with respect to the MM5 

data that was used to generate the Step 1 wind field. Large values for R1 and R2 give 

more weight to the observations, where as small values give more weight to the MM5 data. 

In this BART modeling analysis, RMAX 1 will be set to 20 km, and R1 will be set to 10 

km. This will limit the influence of the surface observation data from all surface stations to 

20 km from each station, and will equally weight the MM5 and observation data at 10 km. 

RMAX2 will be set to 50 km, and R2 will be set to 25 km. This will limit the influence of 

the upper air observation data from all surface stations to 50 km from each station, and will 

equally weight the MM5 and observation data at 25 km. These settings of radius of 

influence will allow for adequate weighting of the MM5 data and the observation data 

across the modeling domain due to the vast domain to be modeled. RAMX 3 will be set to 

500 km. 
OG&E A-1 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

APPENDIX A- METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

TABLE A-1. LIST OF SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC North

(km) Long Lat

1 KDYS 69019 -267.672 -834.095 96.9968 39.9925

2 KNPA 72222 932.565 -1020.909 97.0110 39.9908

3 KBFM 72223 857.471 -996.829 97.0101 39.9910

4 KGZH 72227 946.767 -899.515 97.0112 39.9919

5 KTCL 72228 870.843 -706.104 97.0103 39.9936

6 KNEW 53917 674.172 -1078.342 97.0080 39.9903

7 KNBG 12958 677.719 -1104.227 97.0080 39.9900

8 BVE 12884 741.996 -1153.463 97.0088 39.9896

9 KPTN 72232 550.88 -1124.295 97.0065 39.9898

10 KMEI 13865 774.911 -814.225 97.0092 39.9926

11 KPIB 72234 728.416 -915.165 97.0086 39.9917

12 KGLH 72235 557.072 -703.097 97.0066 39.9936

13 KHEZ 11111 540.777 -912.22 97.0064 39.9918

14 KMCB 11112 622.755 -949.618 97.0074 39.9914

15 KGWO 11113 640.102 -695.286 97.0076 39.9937

16 KASD 72236 692.381 -1043.261 97.0082 39.9906

17 KPOE 72239 363.294 -984.839 97.0043 39.9911

18 KBAZ 72241 -102.133 -1140.886 96.9988 39.9897

19 KGLS 72242 215.108 -1185.604 97.0025 39.9893

20 KDWH 11114 140.413 -1101.174 97.0017 39.9900

21 KIAH 12960 158.266 -1108.37 97.0019 39.9900

22 KHOU 72243 167.147 -1147.402 97.0020 39.9896

23 KEFD 12906 178.551 -1152.782 97.0021 39.9896

24 KCXO 72244 152.739 -1069.309 97.0018 39.9903

25 KCLL 11115 60.898 -1044.381 97.0007 39.9906

26 KLFK 93987 214.643 -969.355 97.0025 39.9912

27 KUTS 11116 136.056 -1026.773 97.0016 39.9907

28 KTYR 11117 150.451 -846.207 97.0018 39.9924

29 KCRS 72246 56.655 -882.642 97.0007 39.9920

30 KGGG 72247 214.572 -841.163 97.0025 39.9924

31 KGKY 11118 -9.365 -812.25 96.9999 39.9927

32 KDTN 72248 304.827 -821.713 97.0036 39.9926

33 KBAD 11119 312.743 -825.101 97.0037 39.9925

34 KMLU 11120 465.834 -816.211 97.0055 39.9926

35 KTVR 11121 561.446 -840.225 97.0066 39.9924

36 KTRL 11122 68.599 -806.417 97.0008 39.9927

37 KOCH 72249 216.81 -930.252 97.0026 39.9916

38 KBRO 12919 -44.167 -1571.387 96.9995 39.9858
OG&E A-2 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC North

(km) Long Lat

39 KALI 72251 -103.012 -1363.74 96.9988 39.9877

40 KLRD 12920 -246.548 -1381.603 96.9971 39.9875

41 KSSF 72252 -143.386 -1183.35 96.9983 39.9893

42 KRKP 11123 -4.965 -1324.914 96.9999 39.9880

43 KCOT 11124 -219.097 -1280.964 96.9974 39.9884

44 KLBX 11125 150.245 -1207.466 97.0018 39.9891

45 KSAT 12921 -143.024 -1160.935 96.9983 39.9895

46 KHDO 12962 -211.702 -1178.172 96.9975 39.9894

47 KSKF 72253 -154.625 -1177.555 96.9982 39.9894

48 KHYI 11126 -84.156 -1122.487 96.9990 39.9899

49 KTKI 72254 38.788 -754.791 97.0005 39.9932

50 KBMQ 11127 -118.39 -1027.031 96.9986 39.9907

51 KATT 11128 -67.587 -1075.97 96.9992 39.9903

52 KSGR 11129 131.478 -1151.702 97.0016 39.9896

53 KGTU 11130 -65.624 -1033.173 96.9992 39.9907

54 KVCT 12912 6.587 -1236.788 97.0001 39.9888

55 KPSX 72255 73.878 -1253.33 97.0009 39.9887

56 KACT 13959 -22.12 -929.156 96.9997 39.9916

57 KPWG 72256 -30.147 -944.073 96.9996 39.9915

58 KILE 72257 -65.288 -988.507 96.9992 39.9911

59 KGRK 11131 -79.643 -990.173 96.9991 39.9911

60 KTPL 11132 -38.203 -981.19 96.9996 39.9911

61 KPRX 13960 143.317 -703.663 97.0017 39.9936

62 KDTO 72258 -17.018 -752.974 96.9998 39.9932

63 KAFW 11133 -29.564 -777.061 96.9997 39.9930

64 KFTW 72259 -34.302 -795.502 96.9996 39.9928

65 KMWL 11134 -99.769 -798.767 96.9988 39.9928

66 KRBD 11135 12.453 -810.467 97.0002 39.9927

67 KDRT 11136 -384.069 -1170.59 96.9955 39.9894

68 KFST 22010 -566.418 -988.838 96.9933 39.9911

69 KGDP 72261 -739.127 -873.302 96.9913 39.9921

70 KSJT 72262 -333.338 -952.54 96.9961 39.9914

71 KMRF 23034 -676.265 -1042.616 96.9920 39.9906

72 KMAF 72264 -489.668 -878.107 96.9942 39.9921

73 KINK 23023 -586.882 -890.654 96.9931 39.9920

74 KABI 72265 -252.044 -836.353 96.9970 39.9924

75 KLBB 13962 -445.006 -689.313 96.9948 39.9938

76 KATS 11137 -696.818 -763.258 96.9918 39.9931

77 KCQC 11138 -785.757 -515.724 96.9907 39.9953

78 KROW 23009 -698.822 -712.898 96.9918 39.9936

79 KSRR 72268 -789.593 -686.226 96.9907 39.9938

80 KCNM 11139 -682.79 -822.109 96.9919 39.9926

81 KALM 36870 -838.056 -752.338 96.9901 39.9932

82 KLRU 72269 -931.527 -804.112 96.9890 39.9927

83 KTCS 72271 -952.353 -695.469 96.9888 39.9937
OG&E A-3 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC North

(km) Long Lat

84 KSVC 93063 -1042.03 -752.033 96.9877 39.9932

85 KDMN 72272 -1006.77 -799.231 96.9881 39.9928

86 KMSL 72323 854.846 -536.687 97.0101 39.9952

87 KPOF 72330 578.62 -336.733 97.0068 39.9970

88 KGTR 11140 779.065 -689.108 97.0092 39.9938

89 KTUP 93862 753.875 -600.337 97.0089 39.9946

90 KMKL 72334 727.051 -454.383 97.0086 39.9959

91 KLRF 72340 440.654 -550.661 97.0052 39.9950

92 KHKA 11141 643.365 -424.419 97.0076 39.9962

93 KHOT 72341 358.094 -604.603 97.0042 39.9945

94 KTXK 11142 278.022 -720.623 97.0033 39.9935

95 KLLQ 72342 488.655 -698.008 97.0058 39.9937

96 KMWT 72343 254.18 -599.224 97.0030 39.9946

97 KFSM 13964 237.97 -512.87 97.0028 39.9954

98 KSLG 72344 224.881 -419.064 97.0027 39.9962

99 KVBT 11143 248.074 -399.892 97.0029 39.9964

100 KHRO 11144 343.525 -405.601 97.0041 39.9963

101 KFLP 11145 404.239 -399.142 97.0048 39.9964

102 KBVX 11146 480.712 -457.853 97.0057 39.9959

103 KROG 11147 258.44 -397.685 97.0031 39.9964

104 KSPS 13966 -138.053 -664.886 96.9984 39.9940

105 KHBR 72352 -186.121 -551.123 96.9978 39.9950

106 KCSM 11148 -198.844 -513.911 96.9977 39.9954

107 KFDR 11149 -181.653 -625.205 96.9979 39.9944

108 KGOK 72353 -35.905 -458.97 96.9996 39.9959

109 KTIK 72354 -34.581 -506.938 96.9996 39.9954

110 KPWA 11150 -58.596 -493.951 96.9993 39.9955

111 KSWO 11151 -7.42 -425.828 96.9999 39.9962

112 KMKO 72355 146.972 -479.879 97.0017 39.9957

113 KRVS 72356 91.059 -438.276 97.0011 39.9960

114 KBVO 11152 87.136 -357.069 97.0010 39.9968

115 KMLC 11153 110.647 -563.566 97.0013 39.9949

116 KOUN 72357 -40.731 -527.298 96.9995 39.9952

117 KLAW 11154 -129.405 -600.222 96.9985 39.9946

118 KCDS 72360 -300.297 -610.668 96.9965 39.9945

119 KGNT 72362 -985.117 -475.563 96.9884 39.9957

120 KGUP 11155 -1059.48 -427.151 96.9875 39.9961

121 KAMA 23047 -425.319 -518.171 96.9950 39.9953

122 KBGD 72363 -395.603 -466.083 96.9953 39.9958

123 KFMN 72365 -993.449 -297.944 96.9883 39.9973

124 KSKX 72366 -770.464 -355.855 96.9909 39.9968

125 KTCC 23048 -597.271 -511.241 96.9930 39.9954

126 KLVS 23054 -732.565 -448.329 96.9914 39.9960

127 KEHR 72423 812.573 -199.695 97.0096 39.9982

128 KEVV 93817 822.929 -172.715 97.0097 39.9984
OG&E A-4 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC North

(km) Long Lat

129 KMVN 72433 704.666 -154.54 97.0083 39.9986

130 KMDH 11156 676.745 -218.041 97.0080 39.9980

131 KBLV 11157 617.659 -136.018 97.0073 39.9988

132 KSUS 3966 547.898 -130.122 97.0065 39.9988

133 KPAH 3816 725.985 -293.319 97.0086 39.9974

134 KJEF 72445 419.01 -145.496 97.0050 39.9987

135 KAIZ 11158 387.096 -200.609 97.0046 39.9982

136 KIXD 72447 182.322 -126.913 97.0022 39.9989

137 KWLD 72450 0 -298.57 97.0000 39.9973

138 KAAO 11159 -18.976 -248.773 96.9998 39.9978

139 KIAB 11160 -23.392 -263.471 96.9997 39.9976

140 KEWK 11161 -24.645 -215.58 96.9997 39.9981

141 KGBD 72451 -161.892 -180.781 96.9981 39.9984

142 KHYS 11162 -195.191 -124.723 96.9977 39.9989

143 KCFV 11163 126.442 -319.698 97.0015 39.9971

144 KFOE 72456 114.618 -115.26 97.0014 39.9990

145 KEHA 72460 -432.761 -320.089 96.9949 39.9971

146 KALS 72462 -777.592 -245.892 96.9908 39.9978

147 KDRO 11164 -945.713 -259.163 96.9888 39.9977

148 KLHX 72463 -568.426 -195.178 96.9933 39.9982

149 KSPD 2128 -494.076 -285.176 96.9942 39.9974

150 KCOS 93037 -664.022 -102.596 96.9922 39.9991

151 KGUC 72467 -857.452 -115.301 96.9899 39.9990

152 KMTJ 93013 -940.981 -109.358 96.9889 39.9990

153 KCEZ 72476 -1020.87 -233.14 96.9880 39.9979

154 KCPS 72531 591.652 -136.14 97.0070 39.9988

155 KLWV 72534 808.939 -94.46 97.0096 39.9992

156 KPPF 74543 130.433 -293.855 97.0015 39.9973

157 KHOP 74671 841.751 -324.569 97.0099 39.9971

158 KBIX 74768 778.252 -1028.514 97.0092 39.9907

159 KPQL 11165 814.599 -1019.583 97.0096 39.9908

160 MMPG 76243 -348.007 -1248.779 96.9959 39.9887

161 MMMV 76342 -446.576 -1449.334 96.9947 39.9869

162 MMMY 76394 -316.664 -1581.176 96.9963 39.9857
OG&E A-5 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

TABLE A-2. LIST OF UPPER AIR METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

1 KABQ 23050 -869.46 -501.713 96.9897 39.9955

2 KAMA 23047 -425.319 -518.171 96.9950 39.9953

3 KBMX 53823 951.609 -702.935 97.0112 39.9936

4 KBNA 13897 920.739 -377.164 97.0109 39.9966

5 KBRO 12919 -44.167 -1571.39 96.9995 39.9858

6 KCRP 12924 -51.535 -1360.35 96.9994 39.9877

7 KDDC 13985 -259.352 -242.681 96.9969 39.9978

8 KDRT 22010 -384.069 -1170.59 96.9955 39.9894

9 KEPZ 3020 -914.558 -852.552 96.9892 39.9923

10 KFWD 3990 -28.034 -793.745 96.9997 39.9928

11 KJAN 3940 650.105 -826.452 97.0077 39.9925

12 KLCH 3937 364.461 -1089.15 97.0043 39.9902

13 KLZK 3952 432.063 -560.441 97.0051 39.9949

14 KMAF 23023 -489.668 -878.107 96.9942 39.9921

15 KOUN 3948 -40.731 -527.298 96.9995 39.9952

16 KSHV 13957 298.869 -831.166 97.0035 39.9925

17 KSIL 53813 698.079 -1054.03 97.0082 39.9905
OG&E A-6 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

TABLE A-3. LIST OF PRECIPITATION METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

1 ADDI 10063 906.825 -601.428 97.0107 39.9946

2 ALBE 10140 917.606 -821.64 97.0108 39.9926

3 BERR 10748 892.454 -683.388 97.0105 39.9938

4 HALE 13620 881.928 -601.878 97.0104 39.9946

5 HAMT 13645 863.663 -612.725 97.0102 39.9945

6 JACK 14193 898.014 -915.623 97.0106 39.9917

7 MBLE 15478 851.953 -1022.41 97.0101 39.9908

8 MUSC 15749 880.113 -567.484 97.0104 39.9949

9 PETE 16370 935.558 -908.259 97.0110 39.9918

10 THOM 18178 900.858 -915.326 97.0106 39.9917

11 TUSC 18385 895.631 -713.223 97.0106 39.9936

12 VERN 18517 825.585 -685.773 97.0098 39.9938

13 BEEB 30530 462.394 -532.485 97.0055 39.9952

14 BRIG 30900 318.015 -554.857 97.0038 39.9950

15 CALI 31140 419.619 -731.44 97.0050 39.9934

16 CAMD 31152 386.546 -699.659 97.0046 39.9937

17 DIER 32020 268.114 -643.184 97.0032 39.9942

18 EURE 32356 286.738 -390.862 97.0034 39.9965

19 GILB 32794 383.362 -435.625 97.0045 39.9961

20 GREE 32978 450.594 -483.201 97.0053 39.9956

21 STUT 36920 509.943 -596.328 97.0060 39.9946

22 TEXA 37048 278.022 -720.623 97.0033 39.9935

23 ALAM 50130 -749.044 -267.856 96.9912 39.9976

24 ARAP 50304 -441.903 -152.324 96.9948 39.9986

25 COCH 51713 -819.794 -148.582 96.9903 39.9987

26 CRES 51959 -828.107 -119.911 96.9902 39.9989

27 GRAN 53477 -451.781 -203.82 96.9947 39.9982

28 GUNN 53662 -829.573 -141.995 96.9902 39.9987

29 HUGO 54172 -539.364 -81.948 96.9936 39.9993

30 JOHN 54388 -483.95 -201.915 96.9943 39.9982

31 KIM 54538 -544.501 -283.337 96.9936 39.9974

32 MESA 55531 -993.391 -256.696 96.9883 39.9977

33 ORDW 56136 -549.552 -55.741 96.9935 39.9995

34 OURA 56203 -904.197 -168.246 96.9893 39.9985

35 PLEA 56591 -1005.94 -229.472 96.9881 39.9979

36 PUEB 56740 -633.961 -176.872 96.9925 39.9984

37 TYE 57320 -662.095 -242.254 96.9922 39.9978

38 SAGU 57337 -790.269 -176.061 96.9907 39.9984
OG&E A-7 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

39 SANL 57428 -726.777 -285.47 96.9914 39.9974

40 SHEP 57572 -714.046 -252.189 96.9916 39.9977

41 TELL 58204 -920.205 -215.382 96.9891 39.9981

42 TERC 58220 -708.229 -296.023 96.9916 39.9973

43 TRIN 58429 -642.489 -293.805 96.9924 39.9973

44 TRLK 58436 -646.185 -295.727 96.9924 39.9973

45 WALS 58781 -654.989 -262.821 96.9923 39.9976

46 WHIT 58997 -619.615 -250.12 96.9927 39.9977

47 ASHL 110281 684.787 -169.285 97.0081 39.9985

48 CAIR 111166 697.177 -301.436 97.0082 39.9973

49 CARM 111302 772.938 -177.782 97.0091 39.9984

50 CISN 111664 758.146 -151.446 97.0090 39.9986

51 FLOR 113109 751.801 -139.837 97.0089 39.9987

52 HARR 113879 762.044 -246.62 97.0090 39.9978

53 KASK 114629 650.464 -239.886 97.0077 39.9978

54 LAWR 114957 829.038 -128.708 97.0098 39.9988

55 MTCA 115888 827.797 -149.966 97.0098 39.9986

56 MURP 115983 682.261 -251.649 97.0081 39.9977

57 NEWT 116159 766.098 -72.902 97.0090 39.9993

58 REND 117187 731.633 -185.058 97.0086 39.9983

59 SMIT 118020 770.027 -283.638 97.0091 39.9974

60 SPAR 118147 658.275 -185.973 97.0078 39.9983

61 VAND 118781 685.449 -127.048 97.0081 39.9989

62 WEST 119193 778.655 -147.215 97.0092 39.9987

63 EVAN 122738 842.476 -172.871 97.0100 39.9984

64 NEWB 126151 855.854 -223.713 97.0101 39.9980

65 PRIN 127125 836.901 -153.449 97.0099 39.9986

66 STEN 128442 859.099 -156.613 97.0101 39.9986

67 JTML 128967 788.703 -239.572 97.0093 39.9978

68 ARLI 140326 -101.734 -271.373 96.9988 39.9976

69 BAZI 140620 -210.423 -201.758 96.9975 39.9982

70 BEAU 140637 59.762 -288.39 97.0007 39.9974

71 BONN 140957 211.236 -103.29 97.0025 39.9991

72 CALD 141233 -32.689 -330.586 96.9996 39.9970

73 CASS 141351 54.006 -217.645 97.0006 39.9980

74 CENT 141404 170.503 -206.038 97.0020 39.9981

75 CHAN 141427 150.257 -286.094 97.0018 39.9974

76 CLIN 141612 155.623 -157.682 97.0018 39.9986

77 COLL 141730 -265.465 -156.95 96.9969 39.9986

78 COLU 141740 220.541 -316.555 97.0026 39.9971
OG&E A-8 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

79 CONC 141867 58.918 -175.589 97.0007 39.9984

80 DODG 142164 -226.497 -277.655 96.9973 39.9975

81 ELKH 142432 -400.112 -321.784 96.9953 39.9971

82 ENGL 142560 -264.927 -324.066 96.9969 39.9971

83 ERIE 142582 162.669 -291.383 97.0019 39.9974

84 FALL 142686 83.491 -288.177 97.0010 39.9974

85 GALA 142938 -136.931 -176.83 96.9984 39.9984

86 GARD 142980 -304.059 -215.308 96.9964 39.9981

87 GREN 143248 64.308 -307.161 97.0008 39.9972

88 HAYS 143527 -190.307 -161.342 96.9978 39.9985

89 HEAL 143554 -292.133 -175.921 96.9966 39.9984

90 HILL 143686 214.018 -174.006 97.0025 39.9984

91 INDE 143954 139.335 -315.058 97.0016 39.9972

92 IOLA 143984 153.451 -269.438 97.0018 39.9976

93 JOHR 144104 134.784 -203.41 97.0016 39.9982

94 KANO 144178 -50.289 -181.177 96.9994 39.9984

95 KIOW 144341 -113.967 -329.843 96.9987 39.9970

96 MARI 145039 -4.343 -195.712 97.0000 39.9982

97 MELV 145210 137.104 -186.781 97.0016 39.9983

98 MILF 145306 39.504 -106.05 97.0005 39.9990

99 MOUD 145536 152.624 -318.136 97.0018 39.9971

100 OAKL 145888 -306.378 -96.814 96.9964 39.9991

101 OTTA 146128 158.639 -178.635 97.0019 39.9984

102 POMO 146498 143.864 -176.707 97.0017 39.9984

103 SALI 147160 -29.426 -166.908 96.9997 39.9985

104 SMOL 147551 -34.639 -171.31 96.9996 39.9985

105 STAN 147756 225.026 -164.85 97.0027 39.9985

106 SUBL 147922 -303.514 -292.808 96.9964 39.9974

107 TOPE 148167 139.116 -104.91 97.0016 39.9991

108 TRIB 148235 -387.855 -180.643 96.9954 39.9984

109 UNIO 148293 211.43 -272.537 97.0025 39.9975

110 WALL 148535 -376.076 -152.432 96.9956 39.9986

111 WICH 148830 -23.729 -288.579 96.9997 39.9974

112 WILS 148946 -111.502 -156.22 96.9987 39.9986

113 BENT 150611 781.608 -348.109 97.0092 39.9969

114 CALH 151227 865.268 -261.635 97.0102 39.9976

115 CLTN 151631 749.287 -365.634 97.0088 39.9967

116 HERN 153798 859.01 -352.458 97.0101 39.9968

117 MADI 155067 854.116 -265.064 97.0101 39.9976

118 PADU 156110 753.185 -293.024 97.0089 39.9974
OG&E A-9 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

119 PCTN 156580 834.464 -280.496 97.0099 39.9975

120 ALEX 160103 433.824 -959.253 97.0051 39.9913

121 BATN 160549 562.794 -1032.4 97.0066 39.9907

122 CALH 161411 436.113 -817.451 97.0052 39.9926

123 CLNT 161899 578.969 -999.986 97.0068 39.9910

124 JENA 164696 455.225 -912.366 97.0054 39.9918

125 LACM 165078 364.784 -1089.92 97.0043 39.9901

126 MIND 166244 346.708 -812.651 97.0041 39.9927

127 MONR 166314 463.225 -814.905 97.0055 39.9926

128 NATC 166582 369.451 -905.316 97.0044 39.9918

129 SHRE 168440 299.526 -831.143 97.0035 39.9925

130 WINN 169803 408.309 -884.596 97.0048 39.9920

131 BROK 221094 621.827 -914.236 97.0073 39.9917

132 CONE 221900 737.007 -823.513 97.0087 39.9926

133 JAKS 224472 650.361 -826.097 97.0077 39.9925

134 LEAK 224966 805.886 -943.78 97.0095 39.9915

135 MERI 225776 774.942 -814.558 97.0092 39.9926

136 SARD 227815 658.33 -593.661 97.0078 39.9946

137 SAUC 227840 763.399 -1005.93 97.0090 39.9909

138 TUPE 229003 753.571 -600.03 97.0089 39.9946

139 ADVA 230022 657.892 -298.102 97.0078 39.9973

140 ALEY 230088 505.348 -305.864 97.0060 39.9972

141 BOLI 230789 331.651 -291.689 97.0039 39.9974

142 CASV 231383 310.855 -392.187 97.0037 39.9965

143 CLER 231674 575.868 -302.209 97.0068 39.9973

144 CLTT 231711 307.465 -190.83 97.0036 39.9983

145 COLU 231791 421.287 -155.672 97.0050 39.9986

146 DREX 232331 228.23 -185.776 97.0027 39.9983

147 ELM 232568 257.758 -159.419 97.0030 39.9986

148 FULT 233079 470.408 -150.668 97.0056 39.9986

149 HOME 233999 619.93 -415.469 97.0073 39.9962

150 JEFF 234271 424.774 -172.095 97.0050 39.9984

151 JOPL 234315 238.245 -318.262 97.0028 39.9971

152 LEBA 234825 402.239 -276.263 97.0048 39.9975

153 LICK 234919 480.849 -280.775 97.0057 39.9975

154 LOCK 235027 302.048 -300.612 97.0036 39.9973

155 MALD 235207 659.982 -377.876 97.0078 39.9966

156 MARS 235298 332.062 -94.655 97.0039 39.9991

157 MAFD 235307 391.968 -300.033 97.0046 39.9973

158 MCES 235415 471.737 -143.942 97.0056 39.9987
OG&E A-10 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

159 MILL 235594 309.516 -311.398 97.0037 39.9972

160 MTGV 235834 426.937 -310.43 97.0050 39.9972

161 NVAD 235987 243.915 -272.715 97.0029 39.9975

162 OZRK 236460 349.133 -390.626 97.0041 39.9965

163 PDTD 236777 334.055 -265.018 97.0039 39.9976

164 POTO 236826 572.215 -251.455 97.0068 39.9977

165 ROLL 237263 484.503 -253.958 97.0057 39.9977

166 ROSE 237300 500.59 -175.393 97.0059 39.9984

167 SALE 237506 498.94 -274.122 97.0059 39.9975

168 SENE 237656 233.959 -383.703 97.0028 39.9965

169 SPRC 237967 238.112 -373.616 97.0028 39.9966

170 SPVL 237976 332.385 -309.374 97.0039 39.9972

171 STEE 238043 503.354 -205.135 97.0059 39.9981

172 STOK 238082 310.911 -279.239 97.0037 39.9975

173 SWSP 238223 324.053 -150.325 97.0038 39.9986

174 TRKD 238252 340.418 -395.428 97.0040 39.9964

175 TRUM 238466 326.883 -197.796 97.0039 39.9982

176 UNIT 238524 238.567 -154.494 97.0028 39.9986

177 VIBU 238609 519.633 -267.258 97.0061 39.9976

178 VIEN 238620 470.383 -193.872 97.0056 39.9983

179 WAPP 238700 606.68 -358.746 97.0072 39.9968

180 WASG 238746 556.425 -164.993 97.0066 39.9985

181 WEST 238880 489.373 -377.809 97.0058 39.9966

182 ALBU 290234 -869.46 -501.713 96.9897 39.9955

183 ARTE 290600 -689.529 -773.897 96.9919 39.9930

184 AUGU 290640 -973.07 -598.391 96.9885 39.9946

185 CARL 291469 -680.335 -811.474 96.9920 39.9927

186 CARR 291515 -819.836 -665.132 96.9903 39.9940

187 CLAY 291887 -547.124 -374.102 96.9935 39.9966

188 CLOV 291939 -566.973 -599.296 96.9933 39.9946

189 CUBA 292241 -890.304 -392.495 96.9895 39.9965

190 CUBE 292250 -951.142 -489.293 96.9888 39.9956

191 DEMI 292436 -1007.99 -799.087 96.9881 39.9928

192 DURA 292665 -767.148 -577.618 96.9909 39.9948

193 EANT 292700 -735.089 -366.94 96.9913 39.9967

194 LAVG 294862 -738.245 -461.163 96.9913 39.9958

195 PROG 297094 -811.39 -578.971 96.9904 39.9948

196 RAMO 297254 -733.737 -615.175 96.9913 39.9944

197 ROSW 297610 -698.544 -712.921 96.9918 39.9936

198 ROY 297638 -644.735 -422.422 96.9924 39.9962
OG&E A-11 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

199 SANT 298085 -807.375 -445.708 96.9905 39.9960

200 SPRI 298501 -676.681 -374.272 96.9920 39.9966

201 STAY 298518 -810.491 -495.501 96.9904 39.9955

202 TNMN 299031 -912.488 -413.425 96.9892 39.9963

203 TUCU 299156 -604.359 -508.834 96.9929 39.9954

204 WAST 299569 -638.605 -820.288 96.9925 39.9926

205 WISD 299686 -856.967 -756.366 96.9899 39.9932

206 AIRS 340179 -212.731 -597.062 96.9975 39.9946

207 ARDM 340292 -12.242 -645.633 96.9999 39.9942

208 BENG 340670 174.368 -568.011 97.0021 39.9949

209 CANE 341437 71.857 -637.935 97.0009 39.9942

210 CHRT 341544 203.233 -632.067 97.0024 39.9943

211 CHAN 341684 10.494 -475.655 97.0001 39.9957

212 CHIK 341750 -83.175 -547.26 96.9990 39.9951

213 CCTY 342334 -165 -479.536 96.9981 39.9957

214 DUNC 342654 -88.38 -610.04 96.9990 39.9945

215 ELKC 342849 -216.769 -507.879 96.9974 39.9954

216 FORT 343281 -129.964 -541.113 96.9985 39.9951

217 GEAR 343497 -118.53 -482.187 96.9986 39.9956

218 HENN 344052 -31.964 -601.206 96.9996 39.9946

219 HOBA 344202 -189.062 -547.36 96.9978 39.9951

220 KING 344865 24.538 -664.103 97.0003 39.9940

221 LKEU 344975 141.702 -520.6 97.0017 39.9953

222 LEHI 345108 71.634 -612.05 97.0009 39.9945

223 MACI 345463 -254.63 -466.154 96.9970 39.9958

224 MALL 345589 -55.127 -425.644 96.9994 39.9962

225 MAYF 345648 -258.49 -512.583 96.9970 39.9954

226 MUSK 346130 149.764 -466.905 97.0018 39.9958

227 NOWA 346485 121.551 -364.038 97.0014 39.9967

228 OKAR 346620 -88.424 -473.338 96.9990 39.9957

229 OKEM 346638 63.188 -504.958 97.0008 39.9954

230 OKLA 346661 -54.198 -510.562 96.9994 39.9954

231 PAOL 346859 -23.665 -573.142 96.9997 39.9948

232 PAWH 346935 57.704 -369.174 97.0007 39.9967

233 PAWN 346944 16.927 -398.139 97.0002 39.9964

234 PONC 347196 -8.871 -363.068 96.9999 39.9967

235 PRYO 347309 150.763 -407.824 97.0018 39.9963

236 SHAT 348101 -256.963 -407.368 96.9970 39.9963

237 STIG 348497 171.02 -523.736 97.0020 39.9953

238 TULS 348992 99.361 -419.873 97.0012 39.9962
OG&E A-12 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

239 TUSK 349023 156.629 -592.395 97.0019 39.9946

240 WMWR 349629 -156.42 -581.308 96.9982 39.9947

241 WOLF 349748 30.212 -538.388 97.0004 39.9951

242 BOLI 400876 760.886 -500.256 97.0090 39.9955

243 BROW 401150 710.048 -480.346 97.0084 39.9957

244 CETR 401587 877.35 -456.294 97.0104 39.9959

245 DICS 402489 872.14 -391.132 97.0103 39.9965

246 DYER 402680 695.792 -409.316 97.0082 39.9963

247 GRNF 403697 760.795 -395.69 97.0090 39.9964

248 JSNN 404561 765.932 -476.414 97.0090 39.9957

249 LWER 405089 885.291 -487.757 97.0105 39.9956

250 LEXI 405210 790.003 -471.897 97.0093 39.9957

251 MASO 405720 694.163 -496.166 97.0082 39.9955

252 MEMP 405954 671.8 -522.492 97.0079 39.9953

253 MWFO 405956 681.292 -516.15 97.0080 39.9953

254 MUNF 406358 678.65 -495.241 97.0080 39.9955

255 SAMB 408065 697.077 -382.536 97.0082 39.9965

256 SAVA 408108 800.788 -498.682 97.0095 39.9955

257 UNCY 409219 711.595 -384.605 97.0084 39.9965

258 ABIL 410016 -251.753 -836.027 96.9970 39.9924

259 AMAR 410211 -425.302 -517.839 96.9950 39.9953

260 AUST 410428 -67.587 -1075.97 96.9992 39.9903

261 BRWN 411136 -43.861 -1571.39 96.9995 39.9858

262 COST 411889 60.611 -1044.72 97.0007 39.9906

263 COCR 412015 -51.832 -1360.01 96.9994 39.9877

264 CROS 412131 -204.599 -868.469 96.9976 39.9922

265 DFWT 412242 -1.867 -786.341 97.0000 39.9929

266 EAST 412715 -171.024 -840.253 96.9980 39.9924

267 ELPA 412797 -886.583 -860.763 96.9895 39.9922

268 HICO 414137 -97.323 -888.181 96.9989 39.9920

269 HUST 414300 157.976 -1108.38 97.0019 39.9900

270 KRES 414880 -434.746 -611.717 96.9949 39.9945

271 LKCK 414975 99.734 -693.521 97.0012 39.9937

272 LNGV 415348 220.962 -844.674 97.0026 39.9924

273 LUFK 415424 214.652 -969.69 97.0025 39.9912

274 MATH 415661 -86.438 -1330.47 96.9990 39.9880

275 MIDR 415890 -489.385 -878.123 96.9942 39.9921

276 MTLK 416104 -672.024 -1008.98 96.9921 39.9909

277 NACO 416177 223.065 -925.966 97.0026 39.9916

278 NAVA 416210 28.358 -892.028 97.0003 39.9919
OG&E A-13 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

Number

Station 

Acronym

Station 

ID

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC 

North

(km) Long Lat

279 NEWB 416270 239.111 -721.818 97.0028 39.9935

280 BPAT 417174 288.962 -1110.65 97.0034 39.9900

281 RANK 417431 -472.048 -959.488 96.9944 39.9913

282 SAAG 417943 -333.338 -952.54 96.9961 39.9914

283 SAAT 417945 -143.322 -1161.27 96.9983 39.9895

284 SHEF 418252 -463.759 -1019.19 96.9945 39.9908

285 STEP 418623 -112.988 -857.918 96.9987 39.9922

286 STER 418630 -376.683 -897.195 96.9956 39.9919

287 VALE 419270 -720.749 -1015.17 96.9915 39.9908

288 VICT 419364 6.882 -1236.45 97.0001 39.9888

289 WACO 419419 -21.834 -928.823 96.9997 39.9916

290 WATR 419499 -353.767 -916.015 96.9958 39.9917

291 WHEE 419665 57.489 -1008.99 97.0007 39.9909

292 WPDM 419916 262.792 -737.786 97.0031 39.9933

293 DORA 232302 433.256 -378.797 97.0051 39.9966

294 DIXN 112353 756.057 -267.193 97.0089 39.9976

295 DAUP 12172 864.408 -1050.41 97.0102 39.9905

296 FREV 123104 847.031 -117.884 97.0100 39.9989

297 WARR 18673 890.447 -788.703 97.0105 39.9929

298 MDTN 235562 493.264 -87.222 97.0058 39.9992
OG&E A-14 Trinity Consultants

CALMET Processing Protocol 083701.0004

TABLE A-4. LIST OF OVER WATER METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS

Number

Station 

ID

Input file 

Name

LCC 

East 

(km)

LCC North

(km) Long Lat

1 42001 42001 746.874 -1541.35 89.67 25.9

2 42002 42002 265.486 -1650.616 94.42 25.19

3 42007 42007 795.674 -1063.667 88.77 30.09

4 42019 42019 163.178 -1342.917 95.36 27.91

5 42020 42020 30.212 -1453.738 96.7 26.94

6 42035 42035 254.465 -1193.539 94.41 29.25

7 42040 42040 859.497 -1160.066 88.21 29.18

8 BURL1 42045 743.116 -1202.117 89.43 28.9

9 DPIA1 42046 861.385 -1039.466 88.07 30.25

10 GDIL1 42047 687.984 -1164.910 89.96 29.27

11 PTAT2 42048 -4.980 -1353.398 97.05 27.83

12 SRST2 42049 288.163 -1175.682 94.05 29.67
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

Date

 SO2 

(tons)

 Avg. NOx Rate 

(lb/MMBtu)

 NOx 

(tons)

 Heat Input 

(MMBtu)

1/1/2001 0.014 0.202 4.787 46,087

1/2/2001 0.015 0.2243 5.535 48,831

1/3/2001 0.016 0.2324 6.465 54,856

1/4/2001 0.015 0.2472 6.835 51,150

1/5/2001 0.015 0.2295 5.827 48,783

1/6/2001 0.014 0.2258 5.828 48,253

1/7/2001 0.01 0.161 2.72 32,070

1/8/2001 0.013 0.1819 4.203 41,767

1/9/2001 0.014 0.207 5.35 45,700

1/10/2001 0.013 0.1957 4.699 43,529

1/11/2001 0.012 0.1942 4.459 41,573

1/12/2001 0.015 0.2103 6.049 50,330

1/13/2001 0.013 0.1802 4.325 42,266

1/14/2001 0.009 0.148 2.24 30,269

1/15/2001 0.01 0.1638 2.999 34,364

1/16/2001 0.012 0.1739 3.935 41,489

1/17/2001 0.013 0.1896 4.397 41,694

1/18/2001 0.015 0.2143 5.91 51,559

1/19/2001 0.012 0.1832 3.987 40,093

1/20/2001 0.01 0.1459 2.602 32,991

1/21/2001 0.012 0.1796 4.014 41,428

1/22/2001 0.013 0.1769 4.102 42,797

1/23/2001 0.013 0.185 4.93 42,499

1/24/2001 0.01 0.145 2.436 32,177

1/25/2001 0.011 0.1736 3.66 37,899

1/26/2001 0.013 0.1962 5.122 43,715

1/27/2001 0.009 0.1487 2.3 29,992

1/28/2001 0.008 0.1265 1.786 28,231

1/29/2001 0.012 0.1878 4.319 39,764

1/30/2001 0.01 0.1594 2.883 33,206

1/31/2001 0.01 0.1529 2.646 32,017

2/5/2001 0.006 0.086 1.466 20,118

2/6/2001 0.016 0.2086 6.165 53,744

2/7/2001 0.009 0.1866 3.213 31,084

2/18/2001 0.001 0.0188 0.038 3,928

2/19/2001 0.007 0.0982 1.368 24,718

2/20/2001 0.009 0.1274 1.913 29,778

2/21/2001 0.01 0.1512 2.869 34,778

2/22/2001 0.017 0.2335 7.695 56,681

2/23/2001 0.012 0.1743 3.807 39,905

2/24/2001 0.009 0.1102 1.623 29,044
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

2/25/2001 0.009 0.13 1.917 29,477

2/26/2001 0.009 0.1329 2.099 30,616

2/27/2001 0.003 0.1306 0.7 10,554

3/4/2001 0.001 0.0184 0.034 3,433

3/5/2001 0.002 0.0515 0.267 7,045

3/6/2001 0.014 0.221 6.083 48,166

3/7/2001 0.015 0.1927 5.478 48,645

3/8/2001 0.012 0.1555 3.269 38,946

3/9/2001 0.015 0.1743 4.568 50,545

3/10/2001 0.011 0.1549 2.964 35,761

3/11/2001 0.01 0.1379 2.435 33,295

3/12/2001 0.012 0.158 3.691 39,661

3/13/2001 0.012 0.1647 3.496 39,647

3/14/2001 0.009 0.1211 1.73 28,569

3/15/2001 0.01 0.141 2.735 33,742

3/16/2001 0.009 0.1279 1.961 30,403

3/17/2001 0.011 0.1602 3.19 36,852

3/18/2001 0.009 0.119 1.786 29,585

3/19/2001 0.014 0.207 5.529 47,177

3/20/2001 0.018 0.2443 8.471 59,677

3/21/2001 0.012 0.1685 3.87 39,580

3/22/2001 0.01 0.142 2.625 33,865

3/23/2001 0.012 0.1767 4.124 40,557

3/24/2001 0.012 0.1817 4.169 40,503

3/25/2001 0.011 0.1617 3.538 37,819

3/26/2001 0.021 0.2919 11.813 68,929

3/27/2001 0.018 0.2611 8.918 60,896

3/28/2001 0.02 0.2639 10.097 67,036

3/29/2001 0.014 0.1788 4.609 45,838

3/30/2001 0.016 0.2006 5.744 52,185

3/31/2001 0.011 0.159 3.131 37,184

4/1/2001 0.013 0.1752 4.115 42,033

4/2/2001 0.02 0.2338 8.676 66,851

4/3/2001 0.02 0.2369 8.8 66,241

4/4/2001 0.017 0.2038 6.068 55,481

4/5/2001 0.018 0.2004 6.511 60,051

4/6/2001 0.016 0.1907 5.821 52,912

4/7/2001 0.018 0.2262 7.664 59,423

4/8/2001 0.018 0.2364 8.721 58,721

4/9/2001 0.023 0.2954 12.863 76,082

4/10/2001 0.019 0.2176 7.726 64,086

4/11/2001 0.018 0.2098 6.773 58,358

4/12/2001 0.016 0.2128 6.479 54,940

4/13/2001 0.013 0.1945 4.508 42,639
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

4/14/2001 0.013 0.1562 3.497 42,801

4/15/2001 0.012 0.1644 3.577 40,030

4/16/2001 0.018 0.251 9.291 61,371

4/17/2001 0.014 0.167 4.133 45,200

4/18/2001 0.016 0.2087 6.585 52,319

4/19/2001 0.016 0.1903 5.171 51,766

4/20/2001 0.015 0.1854 4.984 49,224

4/21/2001 0.018 0.217 7.923 60,062

4/22/2001 0.014 0.1674 4.429 45,026

4/23/2001 0.022 0.3043 13.43 74,361

4/24/2001 0.016 0.2062 5.866 52,154

4/25/2001 0.011 0.1527 3.108 37,695

4/26/2001 0.017 0.2286 7.555 56,092

4/27/2001 0.016 0.2169 7.077 51,677

4/28/2001 0.015 0.1953 5.461 48,962

4/29/2001 0.014 0.1772 4.859 47,124

4/30/2001 0.017 0.2 6.797 56,452

5/1/2001 0.023 0.3154 14.69 78,193

5/2/2001 0.022 0.2717 11.62 71,844

5/3/2001 0.018 0.2036 7.091 61,269

5/4/2001 0.016 0.2144 7.245 54,351

5/6/2001 0.002 0.0339 0.123 5,083

5/7/2001 0.015 0.1868 5.25 50,120

5/8/2001 0.011 0.1553 3.234 37,663

5/9/2001 0.017 0.2099 7.313 57,056

5/10/2001 0.021 0.2753 11.622 69,100

5/11/2001 0.015 0.2005 5.819 51,008

5/12/2001 0.014 0.1828 4.776 45,391

5/13/2001 0.012 0.189 4.196 39,970

5/14/2001 0.015 0.1792 5.128 50,519

5/15/2001 0.02 0.2335 9.346 65,047

5/16/2001 0.019 0.2378 9.333 63,118

5/17/2001 0.02 0.2367 8.716 66,585

5/18/2001 0.016 0.184 5.893 52,147

5/19/2001 0.014 0.167 4.463 45,811

5/20/2001 0.013 0.1558 3.867 44,248

5/21/2001 0.011 0.1592 3.108 37,242

5/22/2001 0.008 0.153 2.12 27,721

5/23/2001 0.012 0.1763 3.876 39,538

5/24/2001 0.01 0.1579 3.086 34,319

5/25/2001 0.009 0.1198 1.699 28,368

5/26/2001 0.013 0.1813 4.857 43,433

5/27/2001 0.013 0.1806 4.355 42,547

5/28/2001 0.011 0.1718 3.231 35,115
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

5/29/2001 0.013 0.1931 5.097 43,171

5/30/2001 0.012 0.1745 3.803 40,685

5/31/2001 0.01 0.1417 2.62 33,567

6/1/2001 0.012 0.1624 3.551 39,572

6/2/2001 0.015 0.1946 5.796 49,384

6/3/2001 0.013 0.1658 4.242 44,794

6/4/2001 0.015 0.1862 5.395 50,776

6/5/2001 0.014 0.1903 5.198 46,681

6/6/2001 0.01 0.1415 2.706 34,818

6/7/2001 0.01 0.147 2.676 34,163

6/8/2001 0.013 0.1805 4.463 44,347

6/9/2001 0.01 0.1477 2.744 33,898

6/10/2001 0.012 0.1572 3.357 38,638

6/11/2001 0.017 0.2095 7.511 57,735

6/12/2001 0.019 0.2257 8.151 62,453

6/13/2001 0.019 0.2262 8.396 63,287

6/14/2001 0.019 0.218 7.851 62,402

6/15/2001 0.017 0.2161 7.572 57,158

6/16/2001 0.017 0.2303 7.86 57,767

6/17/2001 0.015 0.1928 5.518 50,985

6/18/2001 0.011 0.154 3.944 37,549

6/19/2001 0.003 0.0882 0.39 8,841

7/4/20010 0.012 0.002 340

7/5/2001 0.007 0.0781 1.602 24,168

7/6/2001 0.017 0.2128 7.052 56,775

7/7/2001 0.018 0.2179 7.562 60,597

7/8/2001 0.012 0.1569 3.968 39,226

7/9/2001 0.006 0.0961 1.025 21,338

7/10/2001 0.012 0.1546 4.264 41,608

7/11/2001 0.019 0.2223 8.412 63,578

7/12/2001 0.013 0.1621 4.021 43,458

7/13/2001 0.011 0.157 3.255 37,270

7/14/2001 0.013 0.1955 4.735 42,380

7/15/2001 0.013 0.1699 4.156 41,999

7/16/2001 0.019 0.2452 9.083 61,972

7/17/2001 0.019 0.2417 9.109 64,826

7/18/2001 0.016 0.2237 8.871 53,151

7/19/2001 0.007 0.1258 2.653 23,336

7/20/2001 0.019 0.249 9.25 64,264

7/21/2001 0.02 0.2328 8.491 65,463

7/22/2001 0.02 0.2443 9.321 68,224

7/23/2001 0.02 0.224 8.157 65,909

7/24/2001 0.02 0.2445 9.159 67,299

7/25/2001 0.019 0.2355 8.694 64,989
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

7/26/2001 0.013 0.1794 4.211 43,236

7/27/2001 0.013 0.1774 4.508 44,375

7/28/2001 0.019 0.2528 10.205 63,064

7/29/2001 0.019 0.2475 9.877 63,148

7/30/2001 0.022 0.2758 12.376 71,671

7/31/2001 0.022 0.2781 12.547 72,866

8/1/2001 0.019 0.2373 9.073 62,425

8/2/2001 0.021 0.2795 12.222 69,430

8/4/2001 0.016 0.1885 7.963 54,373

8/5/2001 0.021 0.2535 11.118 69,392

8/6/2001 0.025 0.2972 15.248 84,978

8/7/2001 0.025 0.2612 12.576 82,822

8/8/2001 0.025 0.3036 14.997 82,983

8/9/2001 0.025 0.3064 14.974 82,680

8/10/2001 0.019 0.2215 8.202 63,423

8/12/2001 0.013 0.1633 5.452 44,824

8/13/2001 0.006 0.1483 1.688 19,487

8/14/2001 0.002 0.0623 0.246 5,337

8/15/2001 0.008 0.1385 2.604 25,423

8/16/2001 0.018 0.2429 8.743 60,910

8/17/2001 0.018 0.2434 9.046 60,599

8/18/2001 0.015 0.1771 4.996 50,262

8/19/2001 0.014 0.1915 5.261 48,081

8/20/2001 0.018 0.2217 8.411 61,514

8/21/2001 0.021 0.2575 11.024 69,191

8/22/2001 0.017 0.2267 7.102 55,132

8/23/2001 0.016 0.1806 5.129 51,909

8/24/2001 0.022 0.2213 8.506 72,974

8/25/2001 0.022 0.2256 8.811 72,126

8/26/2001 0.02 0.2177 7.642 65,753

8/27/2001 0.02 0.2303 7.848 66,030

8/28/2001 0.021 0.2293 8.581 70,504

8/29/2001 0.021 0.2264 8.509 71,148

8/30/2001 0.022 0.2056 7.903 72,119

8/31/2001 0.015 0.1776 4.423 48,572

9/4/2001 0.017 0.1992 8.364 57,635

9/5/2001 0.02 0.2337 9.682 65,332

9/6/2001 0.024 0.2887 13.929 80,508

9/7/2001 0.026 0.3046 15.043 87,673

9/8/2001 0.019 0.2353 8.989 64,371

9/9/2001 0.012 0.1626 3.702 40,954

9/10/2001 0.019 0.2765 11.064 64,465

9/11/2001 0.015 0.2078 5.686 49,648

9/12/2001 0.02 0.2698 11.86 67,987
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

9/13/2001 0.023 0.287 13.566 75,247

9/14/2001 0.015 0.2122 6.49 50,987

9/15/2001 0.012 0.1745 4.057 41,586

9/16/2001 0.01 0.1532 2.834 34,143

9/17/2001 0.018 0.2053 7.027 59,845

9/18/2001 0.017 0.1845 5.837 55,340

9/19/2001 0.02 0.29 12.096 67,446

9/20/2001 0.014 0.1873 5.165 48,024

9/21/2001 0.015 0.1985 5.829 50,294

9/22/2001 0.017 0.2183 7.653 56,805

9/23/2001 0.009 0.1337 2.095 30,464

9/24/2001 0.011 0.153 3.113 36,686

9/25/2001 0.009 0.1394 2.293 31,182

9/26/2001 0.009 0.1375 2.009 29,212

9/27/2001 0.013 0.1991 4.898 43,804

9/28/2001 0.011 0.1601 3.348 38,249

9/29/2001 0.009 0.1273 1.879 29,507

9/30/2001 0.009 0.1299 1.915 29,494

10/1/2001 0.016 0.2279 7.078 54,478

10/2/2001 0.02 0.2719 10.453 67,704

10/3/2001 0.021 0.2808 11.517 70,491

10/4/2001 0.018 0.217 7.058 59,238

10/5/2001 0.017 0.2193 6.911 58,101

10/6/2001 0.011 0.1701 3.541 37,099

10/7/2001 0.012 0.173 4.088 40,906

10/8/2001 0.018 0.2333 7.922 60,878

10/9/2001 0.021 0.2618 10.653 71,124

10/10/2001 0.025 0.3041 14.046 84,843

10/11/2001 0.022 0.2695 10.787 72,705

10/12/2001 0.014 0.1858 4.721 46,018

10/13/2001 0.009 0.1202 1.806 30,005

10/14/2001 0.009 0.1397 2.083 29,826

10/15/2001 0.014 0.1868 4.97 46,963

10/16/2001 0.015 0.1948 5.346 50,101

10/17/2001 0.014 0.1865 5.001 46,094

10/18/2001 0.015 0.2042 5.707 49,980

10/19/2001 0.016 0.1879 5.568 54,454

10/20/2001 0.011 0.1695 3.665 38,306

10/21/2001 0.014 0.2021 5.378 46,550

10/22/2001 0.017 0.2118 7.204 57,917

10/23/2001 0.019 0.2224 8.303 64,766

10/24/2001 0.02 0.2506 9.924 68,044

10/25/2001 0.014 0.1916 4.787 46,344

10/26/2001 0.012 0.1569 3.256 39,305
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

10/27/2001 0.014 0.1796 4.434 45,299

10/28/2001 0.012 0.1632 3.641 40,671

10/29/2001 0.019 0.2607 9.652 64,118

10/30/2001 0.012 0.1614 3.716 41,285

10/31/2001 0.007 0.1413 1.716 22,574

11/2/2001 0.001 0.005 0.006 2,211

11/3/2001 0.012 0.1404 3.282 38,466

11/4/2001 0.009 0.1343 2.105 30,533

11/5/2001 0.017 0.2186 6.839 55,453

11/6/2001 0.019 0.2791 9.677 62,493

11/7/2001 0.022 0.3063 13.163 74,177

11/8/2001 0.016 0.226 6.573 53,905

11/9/2001 0.017 0.2095 6.302 56,263

11/10/2001 0.011 0.1513 2.83 35,031

11/11/2001 0.009 0.1295 1.881 29,044

11/12/2001 0.023 0.3233 14.175 76,017

11/13/2001 0.018 0.2403 8.093 59,969

11/14/2001 0.022 0.32 13.545 73,986

11/15/2001 0.019 0.2603 9.307 64,252

11/16/2001 0.02 0.2591 9.545 66,804

11/17/2001 0.015 0.2233 6.084 49,215

11/18/2001 0.01 0.1308 2.387 33,118

11/19/2001 0.015 0.1822 4.938 50,936

11/20/2001 0.014 0.181 4.702 46,801

11/21/2001 0.013 0.1629 3.929 42,621

11/28/2001 0.002 0.0235 0.15 7,641

11/29/2001 0.014 0.1843 4.9 47,614

11/30/2001 0.013 0.154 3.552 42,054

12/1/2001 0.013 0.1705 3.903 41,932

12/2/2001 0.011 0.1418 2.96 36,214

12/3/2001 0.012 0.1432 3.148 40,199

12/4/2001 0.009 0.1379 2.27 31,592

12/24/2001 0.002 0.0137 0.043 6,050

12/25/2001 0.01 0.1203 2.38 34,423

12/26/2001 0.013 0.1618 4.148 43,510

12/27/2001 0.014 0.1483 3.732 45,410

12/28/2001 0.011 0.1311 2.488 35,588

12/29/2001 0.011 0.1445 3.136 37,497

12/30/2001 0.015 0.1716 4.954 48,976

12/31/2001 0.012 0.1348 2.943 39,026

1/1/2002 0.011 0.1289 2.741 37,107

1/2/2002 0.019 0.2159 7.77 62,305

1/3/2002 0.014 0.1767 4.509 47,734

1/4/2002 0.013 0.1619 3.518 42,761
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

1/5/2002 0.015 0.1869 4.642 49,164

1/6/2002 0.011 0.1285 2.462 35,085

1/7/2002 0.014 0.1835 4.424 46,324

1/8/2002 0.012 0.1583 3.56 41,383

1/9/2002 0.009 0.1222 1.888 28,489

2/9/2002 0.016 0.011 0.296 52,507

2/10/2002 0.02 0.0207 0.606 66,669

2/11/2002 0.011 0.1331 2.365 36,624

2/12/2002 0.011 0.1611 3.084 36,846

2/13/2002 0.01 0.1785 3.229 34,397

2/14/2002 0.013 0.2097 4.987 43,360

2/15/2002 0.014 0.2086 5.029 45,459

2/16/2002 0.012 0.2087 4.505 41,526

2/17/2002 0.01 0.1814 2.984 31,880

2/18/2002 0.011 0.1988 3.921 37,465

2/19/2002 0.014 0.1981 4.872 45,380

2/20/2002 0.014 0.2173 5.256 45,213

2/21/2002 0.017 0.2381 6.925 55,851

2/22/2002 0.014 0.2127 5.232 46,535

2/23/2002 0.014 0.2037 4.945 46,575

2/24/2002 0.01 0.1896 3.281 32,913

2/25/2002 0.009 0.1759 2.747 30,582

2/26/2002 0.012 0.1834 3.845 41,052

2/27/2002 0.013 0.1826 3.942 42,493

2/28/2002 0.01 0.1566 2.711 34,015

3/1/2002 0.006 0.2166 2.028 18,483

3/15/2002 0.002 0.0235 0.123 7,253

3/16/2002 0.015 0.2207 5.787 49,573

3/17/2002 0.013 0.2006 4.429 42,117

3/18/2002 0.015 0.2198 5.663 49,072

3/19/2002 0.013 0.2061 4.707 42,893

3/20/2002 0.014 0.2145 5.842 47,868

3/21/2002 0.018 0.2544 8.371 59,345

3/22/2002 0.018 0.2707 9.128 58,545

3/23/2002 0.011 0.192 3.909 37,607

3/24/2002 0.011 0.1744 3.501 37,051

3/25/2002 0.019 0.2433 8.382 62,097

3/26/2002 0.018 0.2377 7.865 60,967

3/27/2002 0.014 0.2157 5.6 47,319

3/31/2002 0.001 0.0128 0.016 2,498

4/1/2002 0.012 0.1843 4.136 40,687

4/2/2002 0.014 0.2243 5.561 46,508

4/3/2002 0.015 0.2472 6.462 49,758

4/4/2002 0.014 0.2277 6.031 48,076
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

4/5/2002 0.012 0.2001 4.283 40,215

4/6/2002 0.011 0.191 3.747 37,023

4/7/2002 0.011 0.1853 3.678 36,988

4/8/2002 0.009 0.1468 2.22 30,245

4/9/2002 0.01 0.172 2.907 32,815

4/10/2002 0.013 0.2167 4.962 43,831

4/11/2002 0.016 0.2274 6.512 54,319

4/12/2002 0.016 0.2247 6.09 51,709

4/13/2002 0.017 0.2069 6.17 55,381

4/14/2002 0.013 0.1926 4.747 44,077

4/15/2002 0.018 0.2423 7.569 59,682

4/16/2002 0.019 0.2365 7.739 63,103

4/17/2002 0.02 0.2336 8.481 67,506

4/18/2002 0.018 0.224 7.316 61,168

4/19/2002 0.02 0.2517 8.836 65,022

5/2/2002 0.001 0.0148 0.017 2,211

5/3/2002 0.007 0.0993 1.714 24,898

5/4/2002 0.012 0.1863 3.914 40,781

5/5/2002 0.011 0.1728 3.337 37,451

5/6/2002 0.018 0.2097 6.908 59,594

5/7/2002 0.019 0.2303 8.425 64,152

5/8/2002 0.023 0.2361 9.35 75,224

5/9/2002 0.016 0.2122 5.898 52,439

5/10/2002 0.013 0.1986 4.614 44,164

5/11/2002 0.014 0.1765 4.683 47,444

5/12/2002 0.017 0.191 5.519 55,482

5/13/2002 0.009 0.1702 2.581 30,206

5/14/2002 0.009 0.161 2.348 29,134

5/15/2002 0.011 0.173 3.44 37,392

5/16/2002 0.021 0.2479 9.731 69,029

5/17/2002 0.012 0.2209 5.043 41,299

5/18/2002 0.01 0.188 3.206 33,448

5/19/2002 0.009 0.1645 2.379 28,929

5/20/2002 0.004 0.1594 1.021 12,647

6/1/2002 0.002 0.0113 0.034 5,847

6/2/2002 0.019 0.2273 9.398 63,706

6/3/2002 0.024 0.2836 13.792 81,176

6/4/2002 0.022 0.2306 9.943 73,180

6/5/2002 0.018 0.2241 7.916 61,459

6/6/2002 0.015 0.1971 5.382 48,636

6/7/2002 0.013 0.1934 4.553 43,848

6/8/2002 0.015 0.186 4.854 49,505

6/9/2002 0.013 0.1597 3.658 44,556

6/10/2002 0.017 0.1751 5.207 55,339
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

6/11/2002 0.016 0.1805 5.309 53,865

6/12/2002 0.017 0.1882 5.673 55,975

6/13/2002 0.017 0.1988 6.108 56,375

6/14/2002 0.011 0.1794 3.37 36,087

6/15/2002 0.013 0.1893 4.432 44,130

6/16/2002 0.011 0.169 3.104 35,720

6/17/2002 0.014 0.2101 5.291 47,773

6/18/2002 0.014 0.2049 5.253 47,076

6/19/2002 0.016 0.1944 5.498 52,049

6/20/2002 0.016 0.1911 5.7 54,348

6/21/2002 0.016 0.1905 5.506 53,336

6/22/2002 0.016 0.1816 5.251 54,099

6/23/2002 0.018 0.2016 6.77 59,249

6/24/2002 0.022 0.2445 10.128 72,397

6/25/2002 0.022 0.2426 10.262 72,043

6/26/2002 0.018 0.1814 5.963 60,244

6/27/2002 0.015 0.1849 4.94 50,555

6/28/2002 0.015 0.1851 5.1 51,646

6/29/2002 0.021 0.2412 9.898 69,078

6/30/2002 0.021 0.2355 9.247 68,381

7/1/2002 0.019 0.2164 7.691 64,385

7/2/2002 0.018 0.197 6.338 59,640

7/3/2002 0.017 0.1985 6.01 55,029

7/4/2002 0.019 0.2203 7.709 62,456

7/5/2002 0.021 0.2533 10.409 70,091

7/6/2002 0.021 0.2369 9.529 69,859

7/7/2002 0.02 0.2567 10.354 68,153

7/8/2002 0.024 0.2977 13.867 78,883

7/9/2002 0.022 0.2421 10.008 73,374

7/10/2002 0.019 0.2155 7.915 64,969

7/11/2002 0.006 0.1143 1.23 18,875

7/12/2002 0.013 0.168 3.94 43,917

7/13/2002 0.013 0.1685 3.834 43,460

7/14/2002 0.013 0.1713 3.981 42,789

7/15/2002 0.018 0.2131 7.348 59,142

7/16/2002 0.016 0.1863 5.406 53,142

7/17/2002 0.015 0.1769 4.941 51,354

7/18/2002 0.013 0.1603 3.517 42,566

7/19/2002 0.015 0.1703 4.591 50,001

7/20/2002 0.019 0.2103 7.674 63,309

7/21/2002 0.02 0.211 8.165 66,038

7/22/2002 0.018 0.1994 6.706 59,449

7/23/2002 0.017 0.1995 6.439 56,379

7/24/2002 0.014 0.1683 4.345 47,462
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

7/25/2002 0.018 0.2057 7.026 59,366

7/26/2002 0.019 0.2195 7.913 61,670

7/27/2002 0.02 0.2344 9.085 65,785

7/28/2002 0.02 0.2329 9.219 66,319

7/29/2002 0.018 0.2211 7.091 60,135

7/30/2002 0.019 0.1987 7.016 62,413

7/31/2002 0.02 0.2116 8.065 67,140

8/1/2002 0.02 0.2348 9.19 67,723

8/2/2002 0.02 0.2204 8.544 65,919

8/3/2002 0.021 0.233 9.727 71,119

8/4/2002 0.022 0.2389 10.048 72,709

8/5/2002 0.023 0.2528 11.034 76,430

8/6/2002 0.022 0.2487 10.381 72,419

8/7/2002 0.02 0.2277 8.971 66,020

8/8/2002 0.016 0.1953 5.712 54,134

8/9/2002 0.02 0.2207 8.389 66,924

8/10/2002 0.019 0.2229 8.173 63,200

8/11/2002 0.019 0.2428 9.007 64,645

8/12/2002 0.019 0.2223 8.197 63,315

8/13/2002 0.015 0.177 4.992 51,591

8/14/2002 0.013 0.1615 3.639 44,028

8/15/2002 0.014 0.1525 3.574 45,965

8/16/2002 0.014 0.178 4.527 47,668

8/17/2002 0.02 0.2145 8.039 66,775

8/18/2002 0.021 0.2241 9.121 71,329

8/19/2002 0.022 0.2147 8.779 72,190

8/20/2002 0.019 0.21238 64,039

8/21/2002 0.021 0.2276 9.215 69,432

8/22/2002 0.021 0.2321 9.377 71,456

8/23/2002 0.023 0.235 9.958 75,098

8/24/2002 0.023 0.2532 10.574 78,007

8/25/2002 0.003 0.1184 0.839 9,352

8/26/2002 0.016 0.1796 6.672 54,640

8/27/2002 0.018 0.2074 7.099 59,167

8/28/2002 0.017 0.2014 7.045 57,669

8/29/2002 0.015 0.1921 5.529 51,098

8/30/2002 0.017 0.2171 7.671 57,804

8/31/2002 0.015 0.1841 5.165 51,198

9/1/2002 0.014 0.1783 4.742 48,187

9/2/2002 0.02 0.2379 9.75 67,051

9/3/2002 0.022 0.2633 11.663 74,026

9/4/2002 0.022 0.2336 10.178 73,496

9/5/2002 0.021 0.2239 9.081 69,350

9/6/2002 0.019 0.2164 8.132 63,607
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

9/7/20020 0.142 0.077 1,086

9/8/2002 0.002 0.0866 0.477 7,847

9/9/2002 0.02 0.2438 9.69 68,073

9/10/2002 0.022 0.2685 12.292 74,588

9/11/2002 0.02 0.2608 10.642 66,892

9/12/2002 0.017 0.227 7.805 55,975

9/13/2002 0.016 0.2185 6.919 54,441

9/14/2002 0.017 0.201 6.647 58,026

9/15/2002 0.015 0.1733 4.41 48,560

9/16/2002 0.015 0.1741 4.554 49,299

9/17/2002 0.014 0.1813 4.473 46,893

9/18/2002 0.019 0.2025 7.282 62,050

9/19/2002 0.015 0.1645 4.117 48,986

9/20/2002 0.016 0.1949 5.813 54,811

9/21/2002 0.017 0.2213 7.779 57,523

9/22/2002 0.015 0.1887 4.946 48,475

9/23/2002 0.017 0.2053 6.094 57,656

9/24/2002 0.009 0.1612 2.532 31,042

9/25/2002 0.009 0.1522 2.184 28,696

9/26/2002 0.009 0.1447 2.192 30,380

9/27/2002 0.016 0.1781 5.067 53,614

9/28/2002 0.02 0.2236 9.112 65,596

9/29/2002 0.018 0.2112 7.366 58,893

9/30/2002 0.024 0.2666 12.481 79,285

10/1/2002 0.02 0.22 8.269 65,225

10/2/2002 0.017 0.1763 5.171 55,756

10/3/2002 0.01 0.148 2.42 32,066

10/4/2002 0.024 0.2682 12.474 81,557

10/5/2002 0.02 0.2543 9.726 68,123

10/6/2002 0.021 0.2488 10.73 70,725

10/7/2002 0.017 0.2079 6.327 55,178

10/8/2002 0.009 0.1534 2.324 30,329

10/9/2002 0.011 0.1682 3.296 37,760

10/10/2002 0.011 0.1739 3.359 37,865

10/11/2002 0.013 0.1826 3.949 42,777

10/12/2002 0.016 0.1726 4.821 52,701

10/13/2002 0.012 0.1787 3.52 38,416

10/14/2002 0.014 0.1891 4.577 45,296

10/15/2002 0.011 0.1567 2.851 35,609

10/16/2002 0.012 0.1799 3.735 39,422

10/17/2002 0.009 0.1603 2.453 28,618

10/20/2002 0.002 0.0122 0.036 5,771

10/21/2002 0.018 0.2094 7.817 62,036

10/22/2002 0.02 0.2096 7.478 65,071
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

10/23/2002 0.013 0.1826 4.527 44,437

10/24/2002 0.015 0.1721 4.372 49,483

10/25/2002 0.014 0.1658 4.185 47,824

10/26/2002 0.011 0.1546 2.944 35,938

10/27/2002 0.013 0.1601 3.608 43,240

10/28/2002 0.02 0.2088 7.729 65,115

10/29/2002 0.016 0.194 5.532 54,367

10/30/2002 0.015 0.188 4.794 48,862

10/31/2002 0.011 0.1581 2.904 35,231

11/1/2002 0.011 0.1485 2.819 36,574

11/2/2002 0.01 0.145 2.383 31,903

11/3/2002 0.011 0.1482 2.848 35,811

11/4/2002 0.023 0.2648 12.133 78,254

11/5/2002 0.021 0.2342 9.378 68,889

11/6/2002 0.015 0.1738 4.608 49,173

11/7/2002 0.02 0.2313 8.749 65,161

11/8/2002 0.017 0.1781 5.178 56,524

11/9/2002 0.009 0.136 2.161 31,346

11/10/2002 0.01 0.1448 2.362 31,887

11/11/2002 0.013 0.1856 4.725 44,136

2/14/2003 0.001 0.015 0.013 1,699

2/16/2003 0.001 0.008 0.018 4,605

2/17/2003 0.017 0.007 0.196 55,932

2/18/2003 0.012 0.1238 2.05 41,073

2/19/2003 0.003 0.1366 0.708 9,395

3/28/2003 0.002 0.0242 0.107 7,599

3/29/2003 0.013 0.1843 4.455 44,910

3/30/2003 0.011 0.1648 3.195 37,684

3/31/2003 0.011 0.1599 3.049 37,123

4/1/2003 0.009 0.1645 2.533 30,638

4/2/2003 0.009 0.1578 2.455 30,591

4/3/2003 0.006 0.1202 1.32 19,515

4/4/2003 0.005 0.102 0.967 15,489

4/5/2003 0.009 0.1568 2.442 30,236

4/6/2003 0.009 0.1436 2.17 29,975

4/7/2003 0.011 0.15 3.071 37,476

4/8/2003 0.012 0.1548 3.05 38,738

4/9/2003 0.015 0.1841 5.177 50,011

4/10/2003 0.01 0.141 2.445 34,069

4/11/2003 0.009 0.1414 2.113 29,972

4/12/2003 0.009 0.1431 2.162 30,296

4/13/2003 0.008 0.1405 1.976 28,127

4/14/2003 0.01 0.1486 2.56 33,621

4/15/2003 0.007 0.1452 1.758 24,188
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

4/25/2003 0.003 0.0553 0.492 11,035

4/26/2003 0.01 0.1436 2.364 32,877

4/27/2003 0.01 0.1418 2.309 31,985

4/28/2003 0.008 0.1336 1.711 25,610

5/9/2003 0.004 0.0611 0.614 12,647

5/10/2003 0.017 0.2021 6.54 57,405

5/11/2003 0.01 0.1643 2.778 32,877

5/12/2003 0.01 0.17 3.027 34,463

5/13/2003 0.01 0.1454 2.497 33,067

5/14/2003 0.008 0.1238 1.727 27,904

5/15/2003 0.009 0.1203 1.765 28,349

5/16/2003 0.009 0.129 2.082 31,551

5/17/2003 0.008 0.1178 1.644 27,919

5/18/2003 0.01 0.1452 2.588 34,093

5/19/2003 0.016 0.1815 4.992 51,799

5/20/2003 0.004 0.1189 0.738 11,975

6/1/2003 0.002 0.0204 0.091 7,884

6/2/2003 0.01 0.125 2.122 33,776

6/3/2003 0.009 0.1308 1.946 29,693

6/4/2003 0.01 0.1464 2.454 32,222

6/5/2003 0.007 0.1192 1.338 21,933

6/6/2003 0.007 0.1182 1.317 21,747

6/7/2003 0.006 0.1135 1.1 19,380

6/8/2003 0.006 0.1165 1.136 19,497

6/9/2003 0.002 0.1092 0.387 6,865

6/30/2003 0.002 0.0148 0.051 6,666

7/1/2003 0.01 0.1128 1.846 32,090

7/2/2003 0.01 0.1271 2.185 32,181

7/3/2003 0.01 0.136 2.453 33,123

7/4/2003 0.006 0.0813 1.036 21,649

7/5/2003 0.007 0.1085 1.225 21,943

7/6/2003 0.009 0.1127 1.813 29,175

7/7/2003 0.012 0.138 3.41 40,692

7/8/2003 0.011 0.1252 2.581 36,435

7/9/2003 0.01 0.1078 2.01 34,360

7/10/2003 0.007 0.1007 1.228 23,077

7/11/2003 0.01 0.1343 2.455 33,518

7/12/2003 0.01 0.1307 2.379 32,929

7/13/2003 0.009 0.1247 1.94 29,003

7/14/2003 0.013 0.1405 3.51 43,006

7/15/2003 0.015 0.185 4.892 50,793

7/16/2003 0.014 0.1793 5.3 47,457

7/17/2003 0.013 0.1686 3.913 42,782

7/18/2003 0.013 0.165 4.07 43,826
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

7/19/2003 0.008 0.1224 1.76 25,804

7/20/2003 0.01 0.1375 2.73 34,139

7/21/2003 0.013 0.1501 3.85 44,737

7/22/2003 0.006 0.103 1.121 21,104

7/23/2003 0.006 0.1008 1.011 19,929

7/24/2003 0.006 0.1075 1.072 19,935

7/25/2003 0.009 0.1438 2.495 31,066

7/26/2003 0.011 0.1486 3.135 35,801

7/27/2003 0.013 0.173 5.431 44,064

7/28/2003 0.017 0.2069 6.998 58,049

7/29/2003 0.011 0.1515 3.021 36,394

7/30/2003 0.007 0.1108 1.516 24,235

7/31/2003 0.009 0.1397 2.345 31,381

8/1/2003 0.01 0.1266 2.392 34,091

8/2/2003 0.006 0.092 0.892 19,398

8/3/2003 0.006 0.0904 0.875 19,360

8/4/2003 0.009 0.1192 2.303 30,760

8/5/2003 0.01 0.1227 2.572 34,455

8/6/2003 0.008 0.1203 1.763 26,244

8/7/2003 0.008 0.1309 1.829 25,444

8/8/2003 0.008 0.1298 2.097 27,401

8/9/2003 0.007 0.1191 1.409 22,463

8/10/2003 0.006 0.1079 1.061 19,660

8/11/2003 0.006 0.1075 1.061 19,738

8/12/2003 0.006 0.1095 1.08 19,725

8/13/2003 0.006 0.1065 1.048 19,690

8/14/2003 0.008 0.1326 2.107 28,151

8/15/2003 0.01 0.1322 2.58 33,848

8/16/2003 0.013 0.1526 3.956 42,216

8/17/2003 0.013 0.1577 4.289 43,090

8/18/2003 0.014 0.1655 4.59 47,382

8/19/2003 0.014 0.1708 5.163 46,902

8/20/2003 0.015 0.1618 5.32 49,507

8/21/2003 0.014 0.1881 5.674 48,299

8/22/2003 0.012 0.166 3.744 41,589

8/23/2003 0.01 0.1376 2.684 32,518

8/24/2003 0.01 0.1334 2.577 33,755

8/25/2003 0.014 0.1732 4.318 45,380

8/26/2003 0.013 0.1547 3.525 42,822

8/27/2003 0.01 0.1459 2.67 33,331

8/28/2003 0.01 0.1498 2.62 32,451

8/29/2003 0.013 0.1693 3.995 43,374

8/30/2003 0.012 0.1627 3.506 40,500

8/31/2003 0.006 0.0985 0.948 19,262
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

9/1/2003 0.01 0.1333 2.529 33,302

9/2/2003 0.008 0.1248 1.888 27,757

9/3/2003 0.008 0.1173 1.595 25,074

9/4/2003 0.008 0.1225 1.797 26,458

9/5/2003 0.006 0.105 1.099 20,221

9/6/2003 0.006 0.1046 1.019 19,416

9/7/2003 0.006 0.1108 1.228 21,382

9/8/2003 0.009 0.1403 2.307 29,597

9/9/2003 0.01 0.1442 2.718 32,493

9/10/2003 0.009 0.1393 2.427 30,284

9/11/2003 0.008 0.126 1.829 26,313

9/12/2003 0.006 0.1015 0.992 19,325

9/13/2003 0.009 0.1308 2.093 28,954

9/14/2003 0.007 0.1298 1.696 24,158

9/15/2003 0.007 0.129 1.71 24,800

9/16/2003 0.007 0.1279 1.697 24,474

9/17/2003 0.007 0.1288 1.716 24,273

9/18/2003 0.007 0.1259 1.509 22,736

9/19/2003 0.006 0.1163 1.157 19,547

9/20/2003 0.008 0.1318 1.753 25,392

9/21/2003 0.007 0.1188 1.465 23,212

9/22/2003 0.01 0.1355 2.401 34,680

9/23/2003 0.009 0.1447 2.381 31,309

9/24/2003 0.01 0.1484 2.635 34,458

9/25/2003 0.01 0.1461 2.608 32,192

9/26/2003 0.011 0.1719 3.773 37,670

9/27/2003 0.012 0.1762 4.114 40,712

9/28/2003 0.006 0.1263 1.249 19,773

9/29/2003 0.006 0.1286 1.388 21,146

9/30/2003 0.007 0.1355 1.688 23,273

10/1/2003 0.006 0.1358 1.542 21,627

10/5/2003 0.002 0.0366 0.114 5,808

10/6/2003 0.01 0.1548 2.763 32,216

10/7/2003 0.013 0.1837 4.234 44,450

10/8/2003 0.009 0.156 2.64 30,400

10/18/20030 0.0105 0.007 1,196

10/19/2003 0.009 0.1316 2.367 28,415

10/20/2003 0.015 0.1955 5.096 51,193

10/21/2003 0.017 0.2215 7.467 57,794

10/22/2003 0.028 0.3428 16.509 93,036

10/23/2003 0.025 0.2927 12.561 82,673

10/24/2003 0.024 0.2452 9.877 79,990

10/25/2003 0.03 0.3455 17.916 98,845

10/26/2003 0.023 0.2924 12.033 78,223
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Lake Catherine - Unit 4

CEMS Data from CAMD

10/27/2003 0.012 0.1688 3.629 38,963

10/28/2003 0.012 0.1751 3.723 38,838

10/29/2003 0.01 0.1726 3.271 34,783

10/30/2003 0.008 0.1362 1.893 25,485

10/31/2003 0.005 0.1143 1.042 17,440

11/9/2003 0.002 0.0359 0.172 7,344

11/10/2003 0.006 0.1283 1.306 20,363

11/11/2003 0.026 0.3002 15.338 85,158

11/12/2003 0.037 0.4825 29.477 122,153

11/13/2003 0.02 0.3162 14.539 67,701

11/14/2003 0.016 0.2494 9.144 53,543

11/15/2003 0.023 0.309 14.475 76,658

11/16/2003 0.014 0.2057 7.065 47,591

11/17/2003 0.011 0.1664 3.785 37,220

11/18/2003 0.004 0.1328 0.842 11,838

12/11/2003 0.001 0.024 0.051 3,992

12/12/2003 0.008 0.1213 1.843 25,998

12/13/2003 0.009 0.137 2.2 28,738

12/14/2003 0.006 0.118 1.209 20,460

12/15/2003 0.009 0.1466 2.348 30,084

Max (tpd) --> 0.037 29.477

Max (lb/hr) --> 3.1 2456.4

Note: Dates with no operation/emissions not shown
Entergy Trinity Consultants

BART Analysis – Lake Catherine

APPENDIX D

SARGENT & LUNDY NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGY STUDY
Prepared for 

Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman, P.A. 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

 and Performance Study 

Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine

SL-011439 

Final Report 

Rev. 4 

May 16, 2013 

Project No.: 13027-001

Prepared by 

55 East Monroe Street 

Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. ii 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This report (“Deliverable”) was prepared by Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C. ("S&L"), expressly for the sole use 

of Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman, P.A. ("Client") in accordance with the agreement between S&L 

and Client. This Deliverable was prepared using the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by 

engineers practicing under similar circumstances. Client acknowledges: (1) S&L prepared this 

Deliverable subject to the particular scope limitations, budgetary and time constraints, and business 

objectives of the Client; (2) information and data provided by others may not have been independently 

verified by S&L; and (3) the information and data contained in this Deliverable are time sensitive and 

changes in the data, applicable codes, standards, and acceptable engineering practices may invalidate the 

findings of this Deliverable. Any use or reliance upon this Deliverable by third parties shall be at their 

sole risk. 


Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. v 

1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1

1.1. OBJECTIVE...................................................................................................................................1

1.2. UNIT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................................1

1.2.1. White Bluff - Units 1 & 2...............................................................................................................1

1.2.2. White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler..........................................................................................................1

1.2.3. Lake Catherine - Unit 4 ..................................................................................................................1

1.3. ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................2

1.3.1. Capital Cost Estimates....................................................................................................................2

1.3.2. Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates...................................................................................3

1.4. DESIGN TARGET vs. COMPLIANCE NOX EMISSION RATES ..............................................3

2. WHITE BLUFF - UNITS 1 & 2.....................................................................................................4

2.1. FUEL SWITCHING OPTIONS.....................................................................................................4

2.1.1. Natural Gas.....................................................................................................................................4

2.1.2. Propane...........................................................................................................................................4

2.2. COMBUSTION CONTROLS........................................................................................................4

2.2.1. Low NOx Burners and Over-Fire Air ............................................................................................4

2.2.2. Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)........................................................................................................5

2.2.3. Neural Network ..............................................................................................................................5

2.3. POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS.............................................................................................6

2.3.1. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction ................................................................................................6

2.3.2. Selective Catalytic Reduction.........................................................................................................7

2.4. CAPITAL COSTS..........................................................................................................................8

2.5. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ............................................................................9

3. WHITE BLUFF AUXILIARY BOILER .....................................................................................11

3.1. FUEL SWITCHING.....................................................................................................................11

3.2. COMBUSTION CONTROLS......................................................................................................11

3.2.1. Low NOx Burners + Over-Fire Air..............................................................................................11

3.2.2. Flue Gas Recirculation .................................................................................................................11

3.2.3. Low NOx Burners + Over-fire Air + Flue Gas Recirculation......................................................11

3.2.4. Neural Network ............................................................................................................................12

3.3. POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS...........................................................................................12

3.3.1. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction ..............................................................................................12

3.3.2. Selective Catalytic Reduction.......................................................................................................12
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. vi 

3.4. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES ...................................................................................................13

3.5. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES .....................................................13

4. LAKE CATHERINE - UNIT 4....................................................................................................15

4.1. FUEL SWITCHING.....................................................................................................................15

4.2. COMBUSTION CONTROLS......................................................................................................15

4.2.1. Burners-Out-Of-Service ...............................................................................................................15

4.2.2. Low NOx Burners + Over-Fire Air..............................................................................................16

4.2.3. Flue Gas Recirculation .................................................................................................................16

4.2.4. Water Injection .............................................................................................................................16

4.2.5. Neural Network ............................................................................................................................17

4.3. POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS...........................................................................................17

4.3.1. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction ..............................................................................................17

4.3.2. Selective Catalytic Reduction.......................................................................................................17

4.4. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES ...................................................................................................18

4.5. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES .....................................................19

APPENDIX A: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE........................................................................................2

1. BASIS OF ESTIMATES................................................................................................................2

2. CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEETS ........................................................2

APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................................................3

1. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULES........................................................................................3

APPENDIX C..............................................................................................................................................4

1. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES .......................................................4

APPENDIX D..............................................................................................................................................5

1. BOOS AT FULL UNIT LOAD .....................................................................................................5
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. OBJECTIVE 

The intent of this study is to provide Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman, P.A. with a technology 

evaluation and cost estimates for available methods of NOx control at two Entergy stations including: 

White Bluff – Units 1 & 2, the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler, and Lake Catherine – Unit 4. The 

information developed in this study will be used to create a BART analysis, for compliance with 

Arkansas DEQ regulations. 

1.2. UNIT DESCRIPTIONS 

1.2.1. White Bluff - Units 1 & 2 

White Bluff - Units 1 & 2 are Alstom-designed, tangentially-fired, pulverized-coal fueled units, rated at 

815 MWnet and 844 MWnet respectively. Powder River Basin coal is the primary fuel source for Units 1 

& 2. Currently, the units have no NOx controls installed. 

1.2.2. White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler 

The White Bluff Auxiliary boiler is a small industrial boiler capable of producing 140,000 lb/hr of steam, 

used for startup of the White Bluff coal units. The auxiliary boiler combusts No. 2 Diesel Oil, and does 

not have any existing NOx controls. 

1.2.3. Lake Catherine - Unit 4 

Lake Catherine - Unit 4 is an Alstom-designed, tangentially-fired, natural gas fueled unit, capable of 

generating 558 MWnet. The unit was originally designed as a dual-fuel unit, able to use natural gas or 

No. 2 Fuel Oil as fuel. This evaluation will be for natural gas firing only. If No. 2 Fuel Oil is to be 

combusted in the future, a separate BART analysis will be submitted. The unit currently has no NOx 

controls. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 2 

1.3. ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY 

1.3.1. Capital Cost Estimates 

S&L’s capital cost estimates for retrofit NOx control technologies for White Bluff Units 1&2, White 

Bluff Auxiliary Boiler and Lake Catherine – Unit 4 encompass the equipment, material, labor, and all 

other required direct costs. The underlying assumption is that the project will be implemented on a 

multiple-contracting basis. The capital cost estimates provided herein are “total plant cost,” and include 

the following: 

 Equipment and material 

 Installation labor 

 Indirect field costs and BOP engineering 

 Contingency (percentage varies with project size) 

 Erection contractor profit (at 10% of material and labor) 

 General and administration (at 5% of material and labor) 

 Freight on material (at 5% of material) 

 Freight on equipment (included with equipment costs) 

 Sales/use tax (not included) 

 Startup and commissioning (at 1% of construction cost) 

 Spare parts (included with equipment costs) 

 Consumables (0.5% of material and labor) 

Owner’s engineering and other Owner’s costs were not included. Engineering, Procurement & Project 

Services and Contingency varied depending on the size of the project. License fees and royalties are not 

expected for the proposed control strategies. The Basis of Estimate and capital costs are summarized in 

Appendix A. 

Capital cost estimates were calculated in one of three ways. In some cases, vendors were contacted to 

provide budgetary estimates for equipment and labor. These vendor’s costs were used to create Total 

Installed Cost Estimates. In situations where Sargent & Lundy had performed cost estimates for these 

units previously, the existing cost estimates were updated to reflect current equipment, labor, and 

currency values. Remaining cost estimates were developed from similar projects that Sargent & Lundy 

has completed and adjusted for unit size. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 3 

1.3.2. Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates 

Operating and Maintenance Costs for White Bluff - Units 1 & 2 and Lake Catherine – Unit 4 were 

developed from similar projects Sargent & Lundy has completed. Costs were applied to the units on a 

$/kW basis, and assuming a 10% capacity factor for Lake Catherine – Unit 4, and 76% for White Bluff—

Units 1 & 2. Operating and Maintenance Costs include the following costs: 

 Fixed Operating and Maintenance 

 Variable Operating and Maintenance 

 Fuel Impact Costs 

For the White Bluff Auxiliary boiler, costs were developed using Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) calculations, assuming a 10% capacity factor. 

1.4. DESIGN TARGET vs. COMPLIANCE NOX EMISSION RATES 

NOx control systems retrofit onto existing coal or gas-fired boilers are typically designed to achieve 

varying levels of NOx removal efficiencies from 10%-94%, depending on the control technologies 

selected. Controlled NOx emissions fluctuate during normal boiler operation in response to a number of 

design/operating parameters including, but not necessarily limited to: inlet NOx concentrations, boiler 

load, load changes, particulate matter loading, flue gas temperatures, flue gas velocities and mixing, 

catalyst volume and surface area, NH3:NOx stoichiometric ratio, catalyst age and activity, and the 

quantity of ammonia slip deemed to be acceptable. 

The “design target” NOx emission rate is the rate that a NOx control technology vendor would be willing 

to guarantee. Based on engineering judgment, and taking into consideration emissions data from existing 

coal- and gas-fired sources, a compliance margin above the design target is recommended for high 

removal efficiency/low emission rate technologies (such as SCR) to establish an enforceable permit limit 

based on long-term (e.g., annual average) emissions. Additional compliance margin would be required to 

establish enforceable permit limits based on shorter-term averaging times. For example, S&L 

recommends a compliance margin of 0.02 to 0.03 lb/MMBtu for coal units and 0.01 to 0.02 lb/MMBtu 

for gas units above the design target emission rate for permit limits based on a 30-day rolling average for 

control strategies including SCR. The NOx control technology emission rates for strategies including 

SCR in this report have been adjusted to include margin for compliance. The permit level NOx emission 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 4 

rates for SCR are higher by 0.02 to 0.03 lb/MMBtu for coal units and 0.01 to 0.02 lb/MMBtu for gas 

units. 

2. WHITE BLUFF - UNITS 1 & 2 

2.1. FUEL SWITCHING OPTIONS 

2.1.1. Natural Gas 

For White Bluff Units 1 & 2, fuel switching is not a feasible option. Typically, units could be switched 

from coal to natural gas or propane for NOx reductions. The nearest natural gas pipeline to the White 

Bluff facility is approximately 20 miles away. Construction of a pipeline is currently estimated at $2M 

per mile resulting in a cost of $40M to bring natural gas to the site, not including the additional upgrades 

the boiler would require to burn natural gas instead of coal. 

2.1.2. Propane 

White Bluff – Units 1 & 2 are each over 800 MWnet. Units of this size require more heat input than can 

practically be achieved with a propane delivery and storage system. Since a propane pipeline is not 

available, fuel switching to propane is not a feasible option. 

2.2. COMBUSTION CONTROLS 

2.2.1. Low NOx Burners and Over-Fire Air 

Low NOx burners (LNB) limit NOx formation by controlling both the stoichiometric and temperature 

profiles of the combustion flame in each burner flame envelope. Control is achieved with design features 

that regulate the aerodynamic distribution and mixing of the fuel and air, yielding reduced oxygen (O2) in 

the primary combustion zone, reduced flame temperature, and reduced residence time at peak combustion 

temperatures. The combination of these techniques produces lower NOx emissions during the combustion 

process. 

OFA involves injecting combustion air downstream of the fuel-rich primary combustion zone by using 

over-fire air or side-fired air ports. The fuel-rich mixture that is fed to the burners reduces the flame 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 5 

temperature and oxygen concentration thus reducing the formation of thermal NOx. Generally, OFA is 

more effective when used with low nitrogen content fuels such as natural gas and propane, since OFA is 

more effective in controlling thermal NOx rather than fuel NOx. 

LNB + OFA is a technically feasible retrofit solution for White Bluff - Units 1 & 2. The combination of 

LNB + OFA is capable of achieving a NOx emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. From Unit 1’s baseline 

emissions of 0.33 lb/MMBtu, this is approximately 54.5% NOx removal efficiency. A removal efficiency 

of 61.5% can be expected for Unit 2, with a baseline NOx of 0.39 lb/MMBtu. 

2.2.2. Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) 

NOx reduction efficiency data for coal-fired units with FGR are limited. The amount of NOx reduction 

achievable with FGR depends primarily on the fuel nitrogen content and amount of FGR used. Generally, 

FGR is more effective when used with low nitrogen content fuels such as natural gas and propane, since 

FGR is more effective in controlling thermal NOx rather than fuel NOx. Industry experience with FGR on 

coal-fired units for steam temperature control has shown very high maintenance on the gas recirculation 

fans due to erosion and corrosion. Many of the units with FGR for steam temperature control have 

removed the recirculation fans from service. The NOx control achievable on tangentially fired units like 

White Bluff – Units 1&2 with LNB+OFA has been comparable to that of FGR at lower capital and O&M 

cost. Currently, FGR technology is not offered by OEMs for coal-fired units. For these reasons, FGR is 

not a feasible technology for the White Bluff coal-fired units. 

2.2.3. Neural Network 

Neural Network (NN) systems are on-line enhancements to digital control systems (DCS) and plant 

information systems that improve boiler performance parameters such as heat rate, NOx emissions, and 

CO levels. The Neural Network model is based on historical data and parametric test data. The software 

applies an optimizing procedure to identify the best set points for the boiler, which are implemented 

without operator intervention (closed loop), or, at the plant’s discretion, conveyed to the plant operators 

for implementation (open loop). 

A Neural Network system is a technically feasible retrofit option for the White Bluff units. A NN is 

already installed for monitoring and controlling heat rate at White Bluff – Units 1&2. The reprogrammed 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 6 

NN would be optimized first for minimizing NOx emissions and second for heat rate. It is possible that 

heat rate may increase as a result. Based on information available from vendors, it is expected that Neural 

Network technology on a coal-fired boiler can maintain the guaranteed performance of low NOx burners 

and potentially can achieve approximately 10% NOx reduction over a period of years, resulting in NOx 

emission rates of 0.30 lb/MMBtu, at max load for Unit 1, and of 0.35 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2. The cost for 

modifying the existing NNs at White Bluff is estimated to be approximately $250,000 per unit. 

2.3. POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS 

2.3.1. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) involves the direct injection of ammonia (NH3) or urea 

(CO(NH2)2) into the furnace at high flue gas temperatures (approximately 1600 oF – 2000 oF). The 

ammonia or urea reacts with NOx in the flue gas to produce N2 and water as shown in the following 

equations: 

(CO(NH2)2) + 2NO + 1⁄2O2 → 2H2O + CO2 + 2N2

2NH3 + 2NO + 1⁄2O2 → 2N2 + 3H2O 

Flue gas temperature at the point of reactant injection can greatly affect NOx removal efficiencies and the 

quantity of NH3 or urea that will pass through the furnace unreacted (referred to as NH3 slip). In general, 

SNCR reactions are effective at a temperature range of 1600 oF – 2000 oF. At temperatures below the 

desired operating range, the NOx reduction reactions diminish and unreacted NH3 emissions increase. 

Above the desired temperature range, NH3 is oxidized to NOx resulting in low NOx reduction 

efficiencies. 

Mixing of the reactant and flue gas within the reaction zone is also an important factor to SNCR 

performance. In large boilers, the physical distance over which reagent must be dispersed increases, and 

the surface area/volume ratio of the convective pass decreases. Both of these factors make it difficult to 

achieve good mixing of reagent and flue gas, delivery of reagent in the proper temperature window, and 

sufficient residence time of the reactant and flue gas in that temperature window. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 7 

The temperatures and residence times required for an SNCR system make it a feasible option for NOx 

reduction for White Bluff - Units 1 & 2. Based on vendor input, a unit with no additional controls and a 

baseline NOx of 0.33 lb/MMBtu could see a 26.5% NOx reduction, for an outlet rate of 0.24 lb/MMBtu 

on Unit 1. For Unit 2, with a baseline NOx of 0.39 lb/MMBtu could see a 26.5% reduction to an outlet 

rate of 0.29 lb/MMBtu. 

SNCR systems can also be installed in conjunction with LNB + OFA controls. On these coupled systems, 

the starting NOx of approximately 0.15 lb/MMBtu can be reduced to 0.13 lb/MMBtu, for a total reduction 

(LNB + OFA + SNCR) of around 61% for Unit 1 and 67% for Unit 2. In addition to the SNCR 

equipment, the process requires additional demineralized water at a rate of 170 gpm. An additional water 

treatment system capable of providing the required flows is included in the capital cost. The cost of the 

SNCR equipment for the combination technology would be approximately 10% lower based on the lower 

starting NOx rate with LNB/OFA. 

2.3.2. Selective Catalytic Reduction 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) involves injecting ammonia into boiler flue gas in the presence of a 

catalyst to reduce NOx to N2 and water. The overall SCR reactions are: 

4NH3 + 4NO + O2 → 4N2 + 6H2O 

8NH3 + 4NO2 + 2O2 → 6N2 + 12H2O 

The optimal temperature range depends on the type of catalyst used, but is typically between 560 °F and 

800 °F to maximize NOx reduction efficiency and minimize ammonium sulfate formation. Below this 

range, ammonium sulfate is formed resulting in catalyst deactivation. Above the optimum temperature, 

the catalyst will sinter and thus deactivate rapidly. Another factor affecting SCR performance is the 

condition of the catalyst material. As the catalyst degrades over time or is damaged, NOx removal 

decreases which is typically compensated by increased ammonia slip. 

SCR has been installed on many large coal-fired and some gas-fired boilers and is considered a feasible 

technology. Because of the expense of the reagent, SCR systems are usually installed on units with 

existing LNB + OFA systems, or the upgrades are done simultaneously. At White Bluff, an 

SCR+LNB/OFA system is capable of removing approximately 90% of NOx emissions on a continuous 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 8 

long-term basis. With a starting NOx of 0.33 lb/MMBtu (Unit 1) to 0.39 lb/MMBtu (Unit 2), an SCR can 

be expected to achieve permitted emissions compliance at 0.055 lb/MMBtu. 

2.4. CAPITAL COSTS 

Capital costs for the technically feasible control options for the White Bluff coal units are listed in Table 

2.1. The cost of SCR on White Bluff – Unit 1 is higher than for White Bluff – Unit 2 because the 

ductwork arrangement is different and there is more total ductwork, support steel, and foundations for 

Unit 1. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 9 

Table 2.1: Expected NOx Emissions and Capital Costs, White Bluff Units 1 & 2 

Controlled NOx 

(lb/MMBTU) Technology 

Unit 1 Unit 2 

Unit 1 Total 

Installed Capital 

Cost (2012$) 

Unit 2 Total 

Installed Capital 

Cost (2012$) 

Baseline 0.33 0.39 NA NA 

LNB + OFA 0.15 0.15 7,804,0001 11,831,000 

Neural Network 0.30 0.35 250,0002 250,0002

SNCR 0.24 0.29 9,372,000 9,372,000 

SNCR (+ LNB/OFA) 0.13 0.13 16,290,0001 20,317,000 

SCR (+ LNB/OFA) 0.055 0.055 202,601,000 178,240,000 

1. LNB/OFA material already purchased for Unit 1. The total cost to Entergy would be the same for 

Unit 1 as shown for Unit 2. 

2. The cost for modifying the existing neural networks on Units 1 & 2. 

2.5. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

Annual Operating and Maintenance costs for each of the feasible technologies for White Bluff Units 1 & 

2 are shown in Table 2.2. Costs were calculated assuming full load operation, and a capacity factor (C.F.) 

of 76%. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 10 

Table 2.2: Operating and Maintenance Costs, White Bluff – Units 1 & 2 (Based on a C.F. of 76%) 

 Unit 1 Unit 2 

Technology 

Variable 

O&M1 

Costs 

(2012$)

Fixed 

O&M 

Costs 

(2012$) 

Total 

O&M 

Costs 

(2012$) 

Variable 

O&M1

Costs 

(2012$) 

Fixed 

O&M 

Costs 

(2012$) 

Total 

O&M 

Costs 

(2012$) 

LNB + OFA -- 142,000 142,000 -- 142,000 142,000 

Neural Network -- 50,000 50,000 -- 50,000 50,000 

SNCR 5,658,000 169,000 5,827,000 6,671,000 169,000 6,840,000 

SNCR (+ LNB/OFA) 4,538,000 311,000 4,849,000 4,542,000 311,000 4,853,000 

SCR (+ LNB/OFA) 2,836,000 608,000 3,444,000 2,858,000 608,000 3,466,000 

Note 1: Variable O&M includes fuel cost impacts. 

Note 2: The current costs of ammonia and urea are highly volatile and may exceed the values used in this 

report. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 11 

3. WHITE BLUFF AUXILIARY BOILER 

3.1. FUEL SWITCHING 

The White Bluff auxiliary boiler is a B&W, single burner boiler, firing No. 2 diesel oil, rated at 140,000 

lb/hr of steam. Fuel switching to natural gas or propane is not practical because the nearest natural gas 

pipeline is 20 miles from the site. The costs to convert the White Bluff aux boiler to either natural gas or 

propane would not be justified based on the low capacity factor. 

3.2. COMBUSTION CONTROLS 

3.2.1. Low NOx Burners + Over-Fire Air 

For an auxiliary boiler such as the one at White Bluff, NOx reduction can be achieved with a combination 

of technologies. LNB + OFA for aux boilers achieve NOx reduction under the same principles as a coal 

boiler. By modifying temperatures and fuel-rich areas, less NOx is generated. LNB + OFA are feasible 

technologies for auxiliary boilers, and vendor data indicates that the White Bluff Aux Boiler could 

achieve 35% reduction with LNB + OFA, for a final emission of 0.11 lb/MMBtu. The baseline NOx 

emissions from the White Bluff aux boiler are calculated using US EPA’s AP-42 emissions factors. 

3.2.2. Flue Gas Recirculation 

NOx reduction efficiency data for oil-fired units with FGR are limited. The amount of NOx reduction 

achievable with FGR depends primarily on the fuel nitrogen content and amount of FGR used. Generally, 

FGR is more effective when used with low nitrogen content fuels such as natural gas and propane, since 

FGR is more effective in controlling thermal NOx rather than fuel NOx. FGR is a feasible technology for 

the White Bluff auxiliary boiler. With a recirculation of 15% of the flue gas, the unit could expect to see 

13% NOx removal, for an outlet of 0.149 lb/MMBtu. 

3.2.3. Low NOx Burners + Over-fire Air + Flue Gas Recirculation 

These three technologies are often installed simultaneously for greater NOx reduction. A vendor has 

proposed that for the White Bluff aux boiler, a combination of LNB + OFA + FGR will reduce the NOx 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 12 

from 0.171 lb/MMBtu to 0.100 lb/MMBtu when burning No. 2 Fuel Oil. This reduction of 42% will 

come from a new LNB and OFA system and the recirculation of 15% of the flue gas flow. 

3.2.4. Neural Network 

The White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler is not a candidate for a neural network (NN) because there are few 

controllable variables to be optimized. The aux boiler also uses a relatively new PLC control system. 

3.3. POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS 

3.3.1. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

SNCR control has proven to be difficult to apply to industrial boilers because of the temperature and 

mixing requirements, especially industrial boilers that modulate or cycle frequently. In order to 

effectively reduce NOx emissions, the reactant (ammonia or urea) must be injected into the flue gas 

within a specific flue gas temperature window, and must remain within that temperature window for a 

sufficient residence time. In industrial boilers that cycle frequently, the location of the specific exhaust 

gas temperature window is constantly changing. Thus, SNCR has not been effective on industrial boilers 

that have high turndown capabilities and modulate or cycle frequently. Based on the temperature and 

residence time requirements associated with effective NOx reduction, the planned use of the auxiliary 

boiler, and the limited availability of SNCR control systems for industrial boilers, it has been determined 

that SNCR is not technically feasible for the White Bluff auxiliary boiler. 

3.3.2. Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SCR for NOx control on auxiliary boilers is not common, because of their cycling operation, and the use 

of fuel oil. SCRs have critical operating temperature ranges, which are difficult to achieve and maintain 

in short periods of time. Because of the sulfur content of diesel oil, the SCR catalyst can become 

poisoned, resulting in a lower NOx removal efficiency. With this lower efficiency and high cost, an SCR 

is not considered a feasible technology. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 13 

3.4. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 

Capital costs for the technically feasible control options for the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler are listed in 

Table 3.1. 

Table 3.1: Expected NOx Emissions and Capital Costs, White Bluff Units 1 & 2 

Technology Controlled NOx Total Installed Capital 

Cost (2012$) 

Baseline 0.171 -- 

LNB 0.111 255,000 

OFA 0.137 231,000 

FGR 0.149 366,000 

LNB + OFA + FGR 0.100 852,000 

3.5. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES 

Annual Operating and Maintenance costs for each of the feasible technologies for White Bluff Units 1 & 

2 are shown in Table 3.2. Costs were calculated assuming full load operation and a capacity factor (C.F.) 

of 10%. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 14 

Table 3.2: White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler Operating and Maintenance Costs (Based on a C.F. of 10%) 

Technology 

Variable O&M 

Costs (2012$) 

Fixed O&M 

Costs (2012$) 

Total O&M 

Costs (2012$) 

LNB 4,000 4,000 8,000 

OFA 5,000 4,000 9,000 

FGR 0 7,000 7,000 

LNB + OFA + FGR 9,000 15,000 24,000 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 15 

4. LAKE CATHERINE - UNIT 4 

4.1. FUEL SWITCHING 

Lake Catherine - Unit 4 already combusts natural gas, which has the lowest NOx formation of potential 

fuels. Because fuel switching would not result in a lower NOx emission rate, it is not a feasible option for 

NOx control. 

4.2. COMBUSTION CONTROLS 

4.2.1. Burners-Out-Of-Service 

Burners-Out-Of-Service (BOOS) allows operators to stop fuel flow to certain burners in the boiler 

(typically the top level of burners), while air flow is maintained. By removing fuel from the top row of 

burners, the combustion air becomes over-fire air and the production of thermal NOx is reduced. While 

the reduction of NOx can be significant, the tradeoff is a reduced generating capacity, if no further 

modifications to the firing system are made. BOOS is a feasible technology for Lake Catherine - Unit 4. 

Testing of BOOS at Lake Catherine by Entropy Technology & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ETEC) 

with the top levels of burners out resulted in a maximum load of 405 MW, a 28% reduction in capacity, 

and NOx levels of 0.12 lb/MMBtu, a reduction of 55% from the baseline while using the existing burners. 

Recovery of the lost unit capacity is possible by increasing the fuel fired in the three levels of burners that 

remain in service. The burners remaining in service would have to increase fuel throughput by 25%. The 

natural gas piping to each burner may also have to be increased in size for the higher fuel flow rates. 

ETEC, Inc. has experience with several units similar in design to Lake Catherine – Unit 4 that have been 

able to achieve full capacity by increasing the original “high” burner header pressure (BHP) to increase 

fuel flow to the burners (See Appendix D). The increase in BHP from 42 to 50 psig at Lake Catherine – 

Unit 4 would increase fuel flow by 25% and the burners would be operated “fuel rich”, lowering NOx 

formation. Using this approach would reduce NOx emissions at a small capital cost. The costs for BOOS 

with recovery of full unit capacity were based on vendor cost information for a previous project adjusted 

on a $/kW basis to Lake Catherine – Unit 4 and escalated to 2012. The cost provided does not include 

any modifications to the boiler. A boiler OEM or consultant would need to evaluate the existing fuel 

piping, superheat and reheat attemperation sprays, tube metal temperatures and burner tilt positions for 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 16 

the new operating conditions. The expected NOx reduction would range from 40% at low load to 50% at 

full load and NOx levels of 0.24 lb/MMBtu. 

4.2.2. Low NOx Burners + Over-Fire Air 

Low NOx Burners and Over-Fire Air for a gas-fired unit function similarly to coal-fired boilers, as 

discussed for White Bluff - Units 1 & 2. By controlling the temperature and stoichiometric profiles, the 

NOx produced as a result of thermal processes is reduced. 

LNB + OFA are commonly installed on gas-fired units of this size, and are a feasible retrofit technology 

for Lake Catherine - Unit 4. With the installation of LNB + OFA, Lake Catherine could expect a 60% 

reduction in NOx, from 0.4825 lb/MMBtu to 0.19 lb/MMBtu. 

4.2.3. Flue Gas Recirculation 

Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) reduces NOx by recirculating flue gas to the furnace. This recirculated gas 

has lower oxygen content than ambient air usually used for combustion. Lower oxygen and lower flame 

temperatures reduces thermal NOx formation. FGR can be installed on a unit in two ways. Traditional 

FGR installations require a new recirculation fan. Induced FGR, or IFGR, installs ductwork from the air 

preheater outlet to the suction of the existing forced draft fan. IFGR does not require a separate fan, but 

due to FD fan capacity restrictions, IFGR is not available at higher loads, because the forced draft fans 

were not designed for the higher air and gas flow rate. 

FGR is technically feasible on Lake Catherine - Unit 4 and can result in reductions of 60%. For Unit 4, 

this would be equivalent to NOx emissions of 0.19 lb/MMBtu. 

4.2.4. Water Injection 

Water injection operates on similar principles to LNB + OFA and FGR. By injecting water into the 

furnace, the temperature of the flue gas is reduced, thereby reducing the amount of thermal NOx formed. 

Water injection is a feasible technology for Lake Catherine - Unit 4, and can reduce NOx emissions by 

9% at full load. Water injection is typically used as a trimming technology at high load. On Unit 4, the 

emissions would be lowered from the baseline of 0.4825 lb/MMBtu to 0.44 lb/MMBtu. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 17 

4.2.5. Neural Network 

Lake Catherine – Unit 4 could also install a neural network (NN) but for the low capacity factor and 

current lack of NOx CEMS, a NN would not be practical. Several of the other technologies would provide 

greater NOx reductions. 

4.3. POST COMBUSTION CONTROLS 

4.3.1. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction for gas-fired units operates under the same principles as SNCR for 

coal-fired units, with a few design changes. One of the keys of SNCR design is adequate chemical 

distribution at the right temperature for the reaction. Lake Catherine - Unit 4 has horizontal superheat 

platens, which requires multiple-nozzle lances to distribute the urea; the gas pattern does not provide 

adequate distribution. The reaction and temperature requirements are the same for gas-fired boilers as 

they are for coal-fired units. 

SNCR has been installed on boilers such as Lake Catherine 4 and is considered a feasible technology, 

although the residence time in the desired temperature zone is lower for a gas-fired unit and the 

temperature window moves as unit load changes. The unit could expect to see reductions in NOx from 

the baseline of 0.4825 lb/MMBtu to 0.29 lb/MMBtu, or approximately 40% reduction at full load. In 

addition to the SNCR equipment, the process requires additional demineralized water at a rate of 85 gpm. 

An additional water treatment system capable of providing the required flows is included in the capital 

cost. 

SNCR can be combined with LNB/OFA to achieve a combined NOx removal efficiency of 70% for an 

outlet emission of approximately 0.14 lb/MMBtu, 

4.3.2. Selective Catalytic Reduction 

Selective Catalytic Reduction units are similar for gas and coal-fired units. Ammonia or urea reagent 

reacts with NOx to form nitrogen and water, in the presence of a catalyst. Because gas boilers do not 

have particulate control or sulfur dioxide control, they typically have a shorter distance from the 

economizer outlet to the stack, which may result in long ductwork runs to and from the SCR. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 18 

SCR is a feasible technology for Lake Catherine - Unit 4. Combined with a LNB + OFA installation, 

which is typical of SCR installations, the unit could achieve a combined NOx removal efficiency of 94%, 

for a permitted outlet NOx of 0.03 lb/MMBtu at full load. This includes a margin for compliance as 

discussed in Section 1.4. Without the LNB + OFA installed, the SCR can also be designed to achieve 

90% removal efficiency for an outlet emission of approximately 0.05 lb/MMBtu. 

4.4. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 

Capital costs for the technically feasible control options for Lake Catherine - Unit 4 are listed in Table 

4.1. 

Table 4.1: Expected NOx Emissions and Capital Costs, Lake Catherine Unit 4 

Technology 

Controlled NOx 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Total Installed Capital 

Cost (2012$) 

Baseline 0.4825(1) -- 

BOOS (at full capacity) 0.24 893,000 

LNB / OFA 0.19 8,762,000 

IFGR (below 500 MW) 0.39 2,166,000 

FGR 0.19 11,489,000 

Water Injection 0.44 2,177,000 

SNCR 0.29 15,507,000 

SNCR (+ LNB/OFA) 0.14 24,269,000 

SCR 0.05 59,587,000 

SCR (+ LNB/OFA) 0.03 68,349,000 

Note 1: The baseline NOx rate is the maximum daily emission rate from the 2001-2003 

baseline period. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 19 

4.5. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES 

Annual Operating and Maintenance costs for each of the feasible technologies for Lake Catherine - Unit 4 

are shown in Table 4.2. Costs were calculated assuming full load operation, and a capacity factor (C.F. of 

10%). 

Table 4.2: Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs, Lake Catherine Unit 4 (Based on C.F. of 10%) 

Technology 

Variable 

O&M1,2 

Costs 

(2012$)

Fixed 

O&M 

Costs 

(2012$) 

Total 

O&M 

Costs 

(2012$) 

BOOS -- 21,000 21,000 

LNB + OFA -- 210,000 210,000 

IFGR -- 52,000 52,000 

FGR 142,000 207,000 349,000 

Water Injection 486,000 52,000 538,000 

SNCR 1,640,000 279,000 1,919,000 

SNCR (+ LNB/OFA) 462,000 489,000 951,000 

SCR 254,000 358,000 612,000 

SCR (+ LNB/OFA) 268,000 568,000 836,000 

Note 1: Variable O&M includes fuel cost impacts. 

Note 2: The current costs of ammonia and urea are highly 

volatile and may exceed the values used in this report. 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 2 

APPENDIX A: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 

1. BASIS OF ESTIMATES 

2. CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEETS 
Client:  Entergy  Preparer:  A Hays 

Station:  White Bluff/Lake Catherine  Date:         09/04/2012 (Rev 0) 

Project No.: 13027‐001 

 

Basis of Estimate 

Estimates: 

31813A – Lake Catherine, Unit 4 - Low NOx Burners and Over Fired Air 

31814A – Lake Catherine, Unit 4 - SCR 

31815A – Lake Catherine, Unit 4 - SNCR 

31816A – White Bluff, Unit 1 - Low NOx Burners and Over Fired Air 

31817A – White Bluff, Unit 1 – SCR 

31818A – White Bluff, Unit 2 – SCR 

31819A – White Bluff, Units 1 and 2 – SNCR 

31820A – White Bluff, Auxiliary Boiler – Low NOx Burners, Over Fired Air, and Flue Gas Recirculation 

31832A – White Bluff, Unit 2 - Low NOx Burners and Over Fired Air 

General Information 

Project Type – Compliance study for Lake Catherine Unit 4 and White Bluff Station Units 1&2. 

Type of estimates – Conceptual Cost Estimate for the SCR Case and Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates for all 

other cases. 

Project location – White Bluff: Close to Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Lake Catherine: Close to Mahern, AR 

MW rating: White Bluff Unit 1: 815 MW, Unit 2: 844 MW; Lake Catherine Unit 4: 558 MW 

Unique site issues – Existing Site. 

Contracting strategy – Multiple Lump Sum. 

The major components of the capital cost consist of equipment, field materials and supplies, direct labor, indirect 

field labor, and indirect construction costs. The capital cost was determined through the process of estimating 

the cost of equipment, components and bulk quantity. 

The cost estimates are based largely on Sargent & Lundy LLC experience on similar projects. Detailed 

engineering has not been performed to firm up the project details, and specific site characteristics have not been 

fully analyzed. We have attempted to assign allowances where necessary to cover issues that are likely to arise 

but are not clearly quantified at this time. 

Estimate Development

The cost estimates for the Low NOx Burners/Over Fired Air cases were based on a previous estimate prepared 

in 2011. Equipment costs were escalated to current pricing level. Also, material and labor have been updated to 

2012 pricing. 

Cost estimates for the SNCR technology (two cases) were based on budgetary quotes received from 

engineering and on previous estimates. 

The cost estimates for the White Bluff SCR was mainly based on similar size and scope cost estimates from 

other projects and structural takeoffs from engineering. All equipment common to both Units was divided evenly 

between the two estimates. 

The cost estimate for Lake Catherine SCR was adjusted from another cost estimate for a gas fired power station. 

White Bluff’s auxiliary boiler cost estimate for Low NOx Burners/Over Fired Air/Flue Gas Recirculation was also 

adjusted from a similar project. 

Pricing and Quantities

The data used to develop these estimates is based on using material and equipment types and sizes typically 

used in a power plant. 

Equipment and material costs were estimated on the basis of S&L in house data, vendor catalogs, industry 

publications and other related projects. In most cases, the costs for bulk materials and equipment were derived 

from recent vendor or manufacturer’s quote for similar items on other projects. Where actual or specific 

information regarding equipment specifications was available, that information was used to size and quantify 

material and equipment requirements. Where information was not furnished or was not adequate, requirements 

were assumed and estimated based on information available from project estimates of similar type and size. 

Page 1 of 3 
Client:  Entergy  Preparer:  A Hays 

Station:  White Bluff/Lake Catherine  Date:         09/04/2012 (Rev 0) 

Project No.: 13027‐001 

 

Quantities contained herein are intended to be reasonable and representative of projects of this type. All 

quantity data was developed internally by S&L. Quantities were developed based on project experience of a 

plant of comparable size and then adjusted based on actual size and capacity differences and also taking into 

consideration the specific site layout based on the general arrangement drawing. While project specifics will 

certainly have an impact on these quantities, we feel they are appropriate for a study at this level. 

Labor Wage Rates

Labor Profile – Union 

Labor wage rate selected for the estimate - 2012 Union rates for Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Base craft rates are as 

published in RS Means Labor Rates for the Construction Industry, 2012 Edition. The craft rates are then 

incorporated into work crews appropriate for the activities by adding allowances for small tools, construction 

equipment, insurance, and site overheads to arrive at crew rates detailed in the cost estimate. A 1.15 regional 

labor productivity multiplier is included based on the Compass International Global Construction Yearbook. 

Labor Work Schedule and Incentives - Assumed 5x10 work week for regular work and 7x10 work week for 

outage work. 10% of the work is assumed to be outage related. 

 

Project Direct & Construction Indirect Costs

The estimate is constructed in such a manner where most of the direct construction costs are determined directly 

and several direct construction cost accounts are determined indirectly by taking a percentage of the directly 

determined costs and are identified as “Variable Accounts”. These percentages are based on our experience 

with similar type and size projects. Sales tax is specific to location. Listed below are the variable accounts. 

 Cost of overtime – 5-10’s Hour Days and Outage Work at a 7-10 Schedule 

 Subsistence (per diem) – not included 

 Consumables – 0.5% of material and labor 

 Freight on Equipment - included with equipment cost 

 Freight on Material @ 5% of material 

 Spare Parts – included with equipment costs 

 Contractors G&A Expense @ 10% 

 Contractors Profit @ 5% 

Project Indirect Costs

Included are the following: 

 Engineering, Procurement & Project Services varied depending on the size of the project estimated. 

o 31813A @ 19% of construction cost 

o 31814A @ 8% of construction cost 

o 31815A @ 8% of construction cost 

o 31816A @ 16% of construction cost 

o 31817A @ 6% of construction cost 

o 31818A @ 6% of construction cost 

o 31819A @ 8% of construction cost 

o 31820A @ 12% of construction cost 

o 31832A @ 16% of construction cost 

 Construction Management varied depending on the size of the project estimated. 

o 31813A @ 6% of construction cost 

o 31814A @ 3% of construction cost 

o 31815A @ 2% of construction cost 

o 31816A @ 6% of construction cost 

o 31817A @ 2% of construction cost 

Page 2 of 3 
Client:  Entergy  Preparer:  A Hays 

Station:  White Bluff/Lake Catherine  Date:         09/04/2012 (Rev 0) 

Project No.: 13027‐001 

 

Page 3 of 3 

o 31818A @ 2% of construction cost 

o 31819A @ 2% of construction cost 

o 31820A @ 0% of construction cost 

o 31832A @ 6% of construction cost 

 Craft start-up and commission support @ 1% of construction cost 

 General Owner’s Costs, including Owners Engineering & Bond Fees – not included 

 EPC Fee – not included 

These percentages are based on our experience with similar type and size projects. 

Escalation

Not included. 

Contingency 

The contingency rates vary for each project based on the project’s size. The rates are based on past history of 

similar projects. This rate relates to pricing and quantity variation in the specific scope estimated. The 

contingency does not cover new scope outside of what has been estimated, only the variation in the defined 

scope. This is a composite rate and already takes into account the plus and minuses of expected actual costs. 

The rate does not represent the high range of all costs, nor is it expected that the project will experience all 

actual costs be realized at the maximum value of their range of variation. 

Exclusions

There are items that have been specifically excluded from the estimate. In order to establish the overall project 

costs, the following items must also be accounted for. This list is for information only and is not intended to be all 

inclusive. 

 Permitting costs 

 Rock excavation 

 Remediation of soil for hazardous materials 

 Power outage cost during construction 

Assumptions

 No rock excavation, no dewatering 

 Assumed that asbestos removal or lead paint abatement will not be required. 

 No obstruction for the ammonia pipe routing. 6” clearing & grubbing of existing terrain is included, no 

tree removal. 

 Directional boring underneath the existing railroad tracks is included, but with no major interferences or 

obstructions. 

 Electrical equipment and wiring installation is based on non-hazardous location. 

 Adjustments for plant unit size were made based on good engineering practice. Actual design and 

quantities may be significantly different than the quantities shown in the estimates. 
ESTIMATE NO.: 31813A2 ENTERGY - LAKE CATHERINE

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 LOW NOX BURNERS AND OVERFIRE AIR SYSTEMS - UNIT 4

ISSUE DATE: CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: 

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 331,677

Material 125,263

Subcontract 2,850,000

Equipment

Other 2,000,000

5,306,940 5,306,940 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 46,000

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 41,000

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 2,000

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 6,000

91-9 Freight on Process Equip. 100,000

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 65,000

91-12 Contractor's Profit 32,000

292,000 5,598,940 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 1,064,000

93-2 CM Support 168,000

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 56,000

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

1,288,000 6,886,940 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 50,000

94-4 Contingency on Labor 145,000

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 713,000

94-6 Contingency on Equipment 525,000

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 386,000

1,819,000 8,705,940 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

8,705,940 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

8,705,940 USD

Total 8,705,940 USD

PRINT DATE 8/23/2012 4:24 PM Page 3

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\Lake Catherine - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31814A ENTERGY - LAKE CATHERINE

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 SCR SYSTEM - UNIT 4ISSUE DATE: 8/31/2012 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATEPREP./REV.: ADH/APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 19,780,000Material 15,815,652Subcontract 2,590,000EquipmentOther 8,290,000

46,475,652 46,475,652 USD

91-1 Scaffolding91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days91-4 Per Diem91-5 Consumables91-6 Freight on Equipment91-7 Freight on Special Equip.91-8 Freight on Material91-9 Freight on Process Equip.91-10 Sales Tax91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense91-12 Contractor's Profit

46,475,652 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 3,718,10093-2 CM Support 1,394,30093-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 464,80093-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts93-5 Excess Liability Insur.93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects93-7 Owners Cost93-8 EPC Fee

5,577,200 52,052,852 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip94-3 Contingency on Material 2,372,40094-4 Contingency on Labor 2,967,00094-5 Contingency on Sub. 388,50094-6 Contingency on Equipment 1,243,50094-7 Contingency on Indirect 836,600

7,808,000 59,860,852 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip96-3 Escalation on Material96-4 Escalation on Labor96-5 Escalation on Sub.96-6 Escalation on Process Equ96-7 Escalation on Indirect

59,860,852 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

59,860,852 USD

Total 59,860,852 USD

PRINT DATE 9/19/2012 10:49 AM Page 3\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\Lake Catherine - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31815A ENTERGY - LAKE CATHERINE

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 SNCR SYSTEM - UNIT 4

ISSUE DATE: 9/7/2012 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 2,629,958

Material 1,083,165

Subcontract 80,600

Equipment

Other 6,193,056

9,986,779 9,986,779 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 445,600

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 311,700

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days 99,200

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 18,600

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 54,200

91-9 Freight on Process Equip.

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 458,800

91-12 Contractor's Profit 229,500

1,617,600 11,604,379 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 928,400

93-2 CM Support 232,100

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 116,000

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

1,276,500 12,880,879 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 390,000

94-4 Contingency on Labor 1,209,300

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 24,200

94-6 Contingency on Equipment 619,300

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 383,000

2,625,800 15,506,679 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

15,506,679 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

15,506,679 USD

Total 15,506,679 USD

PRINT DATE 9/7/2012 3:39 PM Page 4

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\Lake Catherine - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31816A ENTERGY - WHITE BLUFF

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 LOW NOX BURNERS AND OVERFIRE AIR SYSTEMS - UNIT 1

ISSUE DATE: 8/31/2012 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 653,648

Material 306,347

Subcontract 3,700,000

Equipment

Other

4,659,995 4,659,995 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 48,000

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 77,000

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days 24,000

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 5,000

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 15,000

91-9 Freight on Process Equip.

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 112,000

91-12 Contractor's Profit 55,000

336,000 4,995,995 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 799,000

93-2 CM Support 300,000

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 50,000

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

1,149,000 6,144,995 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 110,000

94-4 Contingency on Labor 279,000

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 925,000

94-6 Contingency on Equipment

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 345,000

1,659,000 7,803,995 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

7,803,995 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

7,803,995 USD

Total 7,803,995 USD

PRINT DATE 8/31/2012 10:32 AM Page 3

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\White Bluff - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31819A ENTERGY - WHITE BLUFF

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 SNCR SYSTEM - UNIT 1

ISSUE DATE: 9/7/2012 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 2,255,791

Material 1,089,242

Subcontract 68,100

Equipment

Other 1,948,100

5,361,233 5,361,233 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 368,000

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 267,300

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days 85,100

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 16,700

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 54,500

91-9 Freight on Process Equip.

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 408,200

91-12 Contractor's Profit 204,100

1,403,900 6,765,133 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 541,200

93-2 CM Support 135,300

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 67,700

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

744,200 7,509,333 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 392,100

94-4 Contingency on Labor 1,032,500

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 20,400

94-6 Contingency on Equipment 194,800

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 223,300

1,863,100 9,372,433 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

9,372,433 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

9,372,433 USD

Total 9,372,433 USD

PRINT DATE 9/7/2012 3:11 PM Page 4

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\White Bluff - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31817A ENTERGY - WHITE BLUFF

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 SCR - UNIT 1

ISSUE DATE: 8/31/2012 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 56,778,212

Material 34,013,262

Subcontract 8,156,000

Equipment

Other 21,324,260

120,271,734 120,271,734 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 2,270,000

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 6,730,000

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days 2,142,000

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 454,000

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 1,701,000

91-9 Freight on Process Equip.

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 10,238,000

91-12 Contractor's Profit 5,120,000

28,655,000 148,926,734 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 8,936,000

93-2 CM Support 2,979,000

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 1,489,000

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

13,404,000 162,330,734 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 8,163,000

94-4 Contingency on Labor 15,726,000

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 1,631,000

94-6 Contingency on Equipment 4,265,000

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 2,681,000

32,466,000 194,796,734 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

194,796,734 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

194,796,734 USD

Total 194,796,734 USD

PRINT DATE 8/31/2012 10:50 AM Page 3

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\White Bluff - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31832A ENTERGY - WHITE BLUFF

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 LOW NOX BURNERS AND OVERFIRE AIR SYSTEMS - UNIT 2

ISSUE DATE: 8/31/2012 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 653,648

Material 306,347

Subcontract 3,700,000

Equipment

Other 2,600,000

7,259,995 7,259,995 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 48,000

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 77,000

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days 24,000

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 5,000

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 15,000

91-9 Freight on Process Equip.

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 112,000

91-12 Contractor's Profit 55,000

336,000 7,595,995 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 1,215,000

93-2 CM Support 456,000

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 76,000

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

1,747,000 9,342,995 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 110,000

94-4 Contingency on Labor 279,000

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 925,000

94-6 Contingency on Equipment 650,000

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 524,000

2,488,000 11,830,995 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

11,830,995 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

11,830,995 USD

Total 11,830,995 USD

PRINT DATE 8/31/2012 10:37 AM Page 3

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\White Bluff - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31840A ENTERGY - WHITE BLUFF

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 SNCR SYSTEM - UNIT 2

ISSUE DATE: 9/7/2012 CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 2,255,791

Material 1,089,242

Subcontract 68,100

Equipment

Other 1,948,100

5,361,233 5,361,233 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 368,000

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 267,300

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days 85,100

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 16,700

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 54,500

91-9 Freight on Process Equip.

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 408,200

91-12 Contractor's Profit 204,100

1,403,900 6,765,133 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 541,200

93-2 CM Support 135,300

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 67,700

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

744,200 7,509,333 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 392,100

94-4 Contingency on Labor 1,032,500

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 20,400

94-6 Contingency on Equipment 194,800

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 223,300

1,863,100 9,372,433 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

9,372,433 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

9,372,433 USD

Total 9,372,433 USD

PRINT DATE 9/7/2012 3:24 PM Page 4

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\White Bluff - Confidential
ESTIMATE NO.: 31818A ENTERGY - WHITE BLUFF

PROJECT NO.: 13027-001 SCR - UNIT 2

ISSUE DATE: CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE

PREP./REV.: ADH/

APPROVED: MNO

Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals

Labor 48,597,255

Material 26,751,692

Subcontract 6,577,640

Equipment

Other 21,324,260

103,250,847 103,250,847 USD

91-1 Scaffolding 1,884,000

91-2 OT Working 5-10 Hour Days 5,759,000

91-3 OT Working 7-10 Hr Days 1,834,000

91-4 Per Diem

91-5 Consumables 377,000

91-6 Freight on Equipment

91-7 Freight on Special Equip.

91-8 Freight on Material 1,338,000

91-9 Freight on Process Equip.

91-10 Sales Tax

91-11 Contractor's G&A Expense 8,520,000

91-12 Contractor's Profit 4,261,000

23,973,000 127,223,847 USD

93-1 EP&P Services 7,633,000

93-2 CM Support 2,544,000

93-3 Start-Up/Commissioning 1,272,000

93-4 Start-Up/Spare Parts

93-5 Excess Liability Insur.

93-6 Sales Tax On Indirects

93-7 Owners Cost

93-8 EPC Fee

11,449,000 138,672,847 USD

94-1 Contingency on Equipment

94-2 Contingency on Engr Equip

94-3 Contingency on Material 6,421,000

94-4 Contingency on Labor 13,444,000

94-5 Contingency on Sub. 1,316,000

94-6 Contingency on Equipment 4,265,000

94-7 Contingency on Indirect 2,290,000

27,736,000 166,408,847 USD

96-1 Escalation on Equipment

96-2 Escalation on Engr Equip

96-3 Escalation on Material

96-4 Escalation on Labor

96-5 Escalation on Sub.

96-6 Escalation on Process Equ

96-7 Escalation on Indirect

166,408,847 USD

98 - Interest During Constr

166,408,847 USD

Total 166,408,847 USD

PRINT DATE 8/31/2012 10:45 AM Page 3

\\sltimberline\estimating\PROJECTS\ENTERGY\White Bluff - Confidential
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 3 

APPENDIX B 

1. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULES 
....Activity ID Activity Name Org Dur

(months)

Entergy - NOx Strategy Study - Aux Boiler (LNB/OFA/FGR)... 15m

Permitting 12m

A1000 Project Authorization 0mA1010 Air Permit - Prepare/Review/Approve 12m

Engineering 8m

A1020 Engineering 8m

Procurement of Major Equipment 6m

A1030 LNB/OFA Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1070 GWC Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3m

Vendor Engineering/Fab/Delivery 5m

A1040 LNB/OFA Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 5m

Installation 1m

A1050 Installation 1m

Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

A1060 Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Month

Run Date: 09-17-12 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study for

Entergy Services, Inc. White Bluff and Lake Catherine

Aux Boiler Low NOx Burner/Over-Fire Air/Flue Gas Recirculation (LNB/OFA/FGR) 
....Activity ID Activity Name Org Dur

(months)

Entergy - NOx Strategy Study - Neural Network 24m

Permitting 8m

A1000 Project Authorization 0mA1010 Air Permit - Prepare/Review/Approve 8m

Engineering 3m

A1020 Engineering 3m

Procurement of Major Equipment 3m

A1030 Neural Network Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3m

Vendor Engineering/Fab/Delivery 6m

A1040 NN Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 6m

Installation 1m

A1050 Installation 1m

Commissioning & Start-Up 12m

A1060 Commissioning & Start-Up 12m

-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1

Month

Run Date: 09-17-12 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study for

Entergy Services, Inc. White Bluff and Lake Catherine

Neural Network 
....Activity ID Activity Name Org Dur

(months)

Entergy - NOx Strategy Study - Low NOx Burners/Over Fire Air (LNB/OFA) ... 19m

Permitting 12m

A1000 Project Authorization 0mA1010 Air Permit - Prepare/Review/Approve 12m

Engineering 8m

A1020 Engineering 8m

Procurement of Major Equipment 7m

A1030 LNB/OFA Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1070 GWC Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3m

Vendor Engineering/Fab/Delivery 6m

A1040 LNB/OFA Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 6m

Installation 3m

A1050 Installation 3m

Commissioning & Start-Up 4m

A1060 Commissioning & Start-Up 4m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

Month

Run Date: 09-17-12 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study for

Entergy Services, Inc. White Bluff and Lake Catherine

Low NOx Burners/Over-Fire Air (LNB/OFA) 
....Activity ID Activity Name Org Dur

(months)

Entergy - NOx Strategy Study - Induced Flue Gas Recirculation (IFGR) ir... 17m

Permitting 2m

A1000 Project Authorization 0mA1010 Air Permit - Prepare/Review/Approve 2m

Engineering 9m

A1020 BOP Engineering 9m

Procurement of Major Equipment 6m

A1140 FGR Duct Procurement Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1030 Mech Install Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1120 Elec Install Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3m

Vendor Engineering/Fab/Delivery 6m

A1040 FGR Duct Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 6m

Installation 4m

A1050 Installation 4m

Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

A1060 Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

Month

Run Date: 09-17-12 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study for

Entergy Services, Inc. White Bluff and Lake Catherine

Induced Flue Gas Recirculation (IFGR) 
....Activity ID Activity Name Org Dur

(months)

Entergy - NOx Strategy Study - Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) on ... 22m

Permitting 8m

A1000 Project Authorization 0mA1010 Air Permit - Prepare/Review/Approve 8m

Engineering 10m

A1020 BOP Engineering 10m

Procurement of Major Equipment 6m

A1150 FGR Fan Procurement Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1140 FGR Duct Procurement Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1030 Mech Install Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1120 Elec Install Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3m

Vendor Engineering/Fab/Delivery 10m

A1040 FGR Duct Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 6mA1160 FGR Fan Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 10m

Installation 5m

A1050 Installation 5m

Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

A1060 Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

Month

Run Date: 09-17-12 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study for

Entergy Services, Inc. White Bluff and Lake Catherine

Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) 
....Activity ID Activity Name Org Dur

(months)

Entergy - NOx Strategy Study - Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) tic ... 16m

Permitting 12m

A1000 Project Authorization 0mA1010 Air Permit - Prepare/Review/Approve 12m

Engineering 8m

A1020 BOP Engineering 8m

Procurement of Major Equipment 6m

A1030 SNCR Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1070 Civil/Structural Installation Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1080 Mech Installation Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1090 Elec/I&C Installation Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3m

Vendor Engineering/Fab/Delivery 6m

A1040 SNCR Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 6m

Installation 3m

A1050 Installation 3m

Commissioning & Start-Up 1m

A1060 Commissioning & Start-Up 1m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Month

Run Date: 09-14-12 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study for

Entergy Services, Inc. White Bluff and Lake Catherine

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) 
....Activity ID Activity Name Org Dur

(months)

Entergy - NOx Strategy Study - Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Red... 32m

Permitting 12m

A1000 Project Authorization 0mA1010 Air Permit - Prepare/Review/Approve 12m

Engineering 16m

A1020 BOP Engineering 16m

Procurement of Major Equipment 12m

A1140 Ammonia Injection System Procurement Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1150 Catalyst Procurement Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1170 Fan Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1190 Ductwork Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1130 Structural Steel Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1030 Mech Install Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3mA1120 Elec Install Spec - Prep/Bid/Eval/Award 3m

Vendor Engineering/Fab/Delivery 16m

A1160 Catalyst Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 12mA1210 Structural Steel Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 7mA1200 Ductwork Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 10mA1040 Ammonia Injection System Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 16mA1180 Fan Vendor Engineering/Fabrication/Delivery 12m

Installation 18m

A1050 Installation 18m

Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

A1060 Commissioning & Start-Up 2m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1

Mo

Run Date: 09-17-12 NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study for

Entergy Services, Inc. White Bluff and Lake Catherine

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 4 

APPENDIX C 

1. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES 
NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study NOX Compliance Costs 

Unit Name White Bluff 1

Unit Data

Size (Gross kW) 815,000 Aq.Ammonia $/t $700Average NOx Emission Rate (lb/MMBtu at full load) 0.33 An.Ammonia $/t $400

Nominal Max. Boiler Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 8,950.0 Urea $/t $350Avg. Heat Rate (Btu/kwh) 10,981.6 N/F-T Urea $/t $618Aux. Power (kw) - Coal Cost, $/Mbtu 2.650Est. Capacity Factor (%) 76.00Boiler Type T/F

Water Cost, $/1000 gal (3) 2

Boiler Eff. (%) 84 Electricity, $/MWh 41.50Estimated NOx, tons/day Max 26.936Emission Limit, tons -

NOx Sales/Buy rate, $/ton -

Fuel - PRB

Seasonal Days 153

Basis 0

Analysis - Enter "0" for Annual and 1 for Seasonal

CF For Variable O&M 76.00

Estimated Reduction 

from Baseline

Emission Rate After 

Control

Tons of NOx Emission, 

Seasonal/Annual

Tons of NOx Removed, 

season/annual Estimated Capital C

Technology % (lb/mmBtu) tons tons $/kW 

LNB + OFA (Note 5) 54.5 0.15 4,469 5,363 9.6 $7Neural Net 10.0 0.30 8,848 983 0.3 $Full SNCR 26.5 0.24 7,229 2,602 11.5 $9LNB+OFA+Full SNCR 61.4 0.13 3,799 6,033 20.0 $1LNB+OFA+Full SCR 83.3 0.055 1,639 8,193 248.6 $20

(1) Aux. Power cost is calculated based on variation in capacity factor(2) Assumed water cost of $2/1000 gallons.(3) Assumed that 15% urea will be used for SNCR technology.(4) Assumed that initial catalyst life is 12,000 hours (5) LNB/OFA material already purchased for Unit 1. The total cost to Entergy would be the same for Unit 1 as shown for Unit 2.(6) For SCR technology, the variable O&M costs are based on operating at NOx outlet emissions marginally below the compliance emission rate.

Reagent Costs

Entergy - NOX Compliance Cost Worksheet - 051613/White Bluff 1 
NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study NOX Compliance Costs 

Unit Name White Bluff 2

Unit Data

Size (Gross kW) 844,000 Aq.Ammonia $/t $700Average NOx Emission Rate (lb/MMBtu at full load) 0.39 An.Ammonia $/t $400

Nominal Max. Boiler Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 8,950.0 Urea $/t $350Avg. Heat Rate (Btu/kwh) 10,604.3 N/F-T Urea $/t $618Aux. Power (kw) - Coal Cost, $/Mbtu 2.650Est. Capacity Factor (%) 76.00Boiler Type T/F

Water Cost, $/1000 gal (3) 2

Boiler Eff. (%) 84 Electricity, $/MWh 41.50Estimated NOx, tons/day Max 31.833Emission Limit, tons -

NOx Sales/Buy rate, $/ton -

Fuel - PRB

Seasonal Days 153

Basis 0

Analysis - Enter "0" for Annual and 1 for Seasonal

CF For Variable O&M 76.00

Estimated Reduction 

from Baseline

Emission Rate After 

Control

Tons of NOx Emission, 

Seasonal/Annual

Tons of NOx Removed, 

season/annual Estimated Capital C

Technology % (lb/mmBtu) tons tons $/kW 

LNB + OFA 61.5 0.15 4,469 7,150 14.0 $1Neural Net 10.0 0.35 10,457 1,162 0.3 $Full SNCR 26.5 0.29 8,544 3,076 11.1 $9LNB+OFA+Full SNCR 67.3 0.13 3,799 7,821 24.1 $2LNB+OFA+Full SCR 85.9 0.055 1,639 9,981 211.2 $17

(1) Aux. Power cost is calculated based on variation in capacity factor(2) Assumed water cost of $2/1000 gallons.(3) Assumed that 15% urea will be used for SNCR technology.(4) Assumed that initial catalyst life is 12,000 hours (5) For SCR technology, the variable O&M costs are based on operating at NOx outlet emissions marginally below the compliance emission rate.

Reagent Costs

Entergy - NOX Compliance Cost Worksheet - 051613/White Bluff 2 
NOx Control Technology Cost and Performance Study NOX Compliance Costs 

Unit name Lake Catherine Unit 4

Unit Data

Size (Gross kW) 558,000 Aq.Ammonia $/t $700Average NOx Emission Rate (lb/MMBtu) 0.4825 An.Ammonia $/t $400 

Nominal Max. Boiler Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 5,850.0 Urea $/t $350 Avg. Heat Rate (Btu/kwh) 10,483.9 N/F-T Urea $/t $618 Aux. Power (kw) - Gas Cost, $/MBtu 4.900 Est. Capacity Factor (%) 10.00

Water Cost, $/1000 gal (3) 2

Boiler Type T/F Electricity, $/MWh 41.50

Boiler Eff. (%) 82Estimated NOx, tons/day Max 3.387Emission Limit, tons -

NOx Sales/Buy rate, $/ton 2500.0

Fuel Gas

Seasonal Days 153

Basis 0

Analysis - Enter "0" for Annual and 1 for Seasonal

CF For Variable O&M 10.00

Estimated Reduction 

from Baseline

Emission Rate After 

Control

Tons of NOx Emission, 

Seasonal/Annual

Tons of NOx Removed, 

season/annual Estimated Capital C

Technology % (lb/mmBtu) tons tons $/kW 

Baseline 0 0.4825

BOOS (at 558 MW) 50.0 0.24 618 618 1.6 $LNB + OFA 60.0 0.19 495 742 15.7 $SCR 90.0 0.05 124 1,113 106.8 $5SNCR 40.0 0.29 742 495 27.8 $1Water Injection 9.1 0.44 1,124 113 3.9 $2IFGR (below 500 MW) 19.0 0.39 1,001 235 3.9 $2FGR 60.0 0.19 495 742 20.6 $1LNB/OFA + SNCR 70.0 0.14 371 865 43.5 $2LNB/OFA + SCR 94.0 0.03 74 1,162 122.5 $6

(1) Aux. Power cost is calculated based on variation in capacity factor(2) Assumed water cost of $2/1000 gallons.(3) Assumed that 15% urea will be used for SNCR technology.(4) Assumed that initial catalyst life is 40,000 hours.(5) Water Injection is used only for trimming at high load. Approximately 66% of Hours are affected.(6) For SCR technology, the variable O&M costs are based on operating at NOx outlet emissions marginally below the compliance emission rate.

Reagent Costs

Entergy - NOX Compliance Cost Worksheet - 051613/LC4 '03 Data 
Entergy Services, Inc. 

White Bluff & Lake Catherine 

Project No. 13027-001 

NOx Control Technology Cost 

and Performance Study 

SL-011439 

Final Report Rev. 4 

5/16/2013 

Page No. 5 

APPENDIX D 

1. BOOS AT FULL UNIT LOAD 
To: DAVID H PARK/Sargentlundy@Sargentlundy, 

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Fw: BOOS for NOx Control

From: STEVE M KATZBERGER/Sargentlundy - Thursday 03/28/2013 03:32 PM

From: Stephen Wood [mailto:swood@etecinc.net] 

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:20 PM

To: HANTZ, JOSEPH

Subject: BOOS for NOx Control

Joe,

The attached PDF file contains background information on utilizing burners out of service for NOx

control, as well as, predicted Lake Catherine Unit 4 burner header pressures and NOx emissions, utilizing

the top burner elevation out of service (4BOOS). If you have any questions, please let me know.

Regards,

Steve Wood

Principal Officer

Entropy Technology & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ETEC Inc.)

12337 Jones Rd. Suite 414

Houston, TX 77070

Ph: 281-807-7007

Cell: 713-253-8230

Fax: 281-807-1414

Website: www.etecinc.net

************************************************************************

This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain ETEC Inc. proprietary

information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright

belonging to the ETEC Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the

individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended

recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and

attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If

you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately

and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any

printout. Thank You.

******************************* BOOS for NOx Control.pdf 
Combustion Modification (BOOS) for NOx Control 

Implementation of Burner Out Of Service (BOOS) operation is a practical and cost-effective 

means for achieving staged combustion (i.e., modifying burner stoichoimetry to reduce NOx 

emissions formation) on an existing gas/oil fired electric utility boiler. Utilizing BOOS operation 

for NOx control is well documented in the literature, e.g., EPA 456/F-99-006R "Nitrogen 

Oxides (NOx), Why And How They Are Controlled", November 1999, and EPRI TR-108181 

"Retrofit NOx Control Guidelines for Gas- and Oil-Fired Boilers, Version 2.0", June 1997, 

among numerous others. 

The technique of BOOS operation involves terminating the fuel flow to selected burners on the 

top elevation while leaving the air registers open. The remaining burners operate fuel-rich, 

thereby limiting oxygen availability, lowering peak flame temperatures, and reducing NOx 

formation. The un-reacted products combine with the air from the above terminated-fuel burners 

to complete burnout before exiting the furnace. I have personally been involved with 

implementing BOOS operation on virtually every gas fired electric utility boiler design across 

the country since the mid 1970's. In almost every case, the original "high" burner header pressure 

(BHP) set point had to be increased to accommodate BOOS operation. No adverse operational 

or maintenance problems corresponding to BOOS implementation have been reported. 

BOOS operation can be a very effective NOx reduction technology, depending on the degree of 

staging, as shown for Ninemile Unit 4 (750 mw CE Tangential Fired) in Figure 1. The 

corresponding BOOS pattern is shown in Figure 2. The BHP corresponding to 4BOOS operation 

on Lake Catherine Unit 4 is shown in Figure 3. The "High" BHP set point would need to be 

increased from 42 to 50 psig. The predicted NOx emissions corresponding to 4BOOS operation 

are presented in Figure 4. 
Figure 1- Stoichiometry Modification (BOOS) NOx Reduction 

NM4 4BOOS 

NM4 Baseline 
Figure 2- Ninemile Units 4 and 5 BOOS Pattern 

(Top Elevation Out of Service & Air Registers Open) 

Level 1

Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

SW SE NW NE

BOOS BOOS BOOS BOOS
Figure 3- Lake Catherine Unit 4 Burner Header Pressure 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

BHP, psig

Load, mwn

Lake Catherine Unit 4 Burner Header Pressure

Baseline

4BOOS
Figure 4- Lake Catherine Unit 4 NOx Emissions Prediction 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

NOx, lb/mmbtu

LOAD, MWG

Lake Catherine Unit 4 Predicted NOx with 4BOOS

Baseline

BOOS