# March 19, 2013

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with ARIPPA

Attendees :

EPA:

Robert Wayland, EPA

William Maxwell, EPA, by phone

Paul Versace, EPA, by phone

Nick Hutson, EPA, by phone

Kevin Culligan, EPA, by phone

ARIPPA:

Jeff A. McNelly, Executive Director, ARIPPA

Bart Cassidy, Manko, Gold, Katche r & Fox (counsel to ARIPPA)

See attached for additional attendees.

Discussion :

A general discussion was held regarding ARIPPA’s pe tition for reconsideration of the final Mercury and

Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and on their co mments on the proposed reconsideration issues.

# 1 

# As of March 20, 2013: There are twenty CFB (circulating fluidized bed) c ombustion units that: utilize

coal refuse as a primary fuel source (anthracite culm and/or bitu minous “gob”), inject limestone in the

combustion zone for the control of SO 2 gases, and beneficially utilize CFB ash ( listed below). There

are independent EGU Qualifying Facilities (QFs) in Pennsylvania (15)

, West Virginia (2), Montana

(1), Utah (1), and Illinois (1). Those plants that do not current ly meet the UMACT-MATS rule are

highlighted in yellow

PA CFB-Coal Refuse Faciliti es Attendee Capacity-Fuel

1 Cambria Cogen Company-Ebensburg Dave Kellermeyer 85 Bituminous



# 2 Colver Power Project -Colver (Inter-Power-Ahlcon) Gary Merritt 102 Bituminous



# 3 Ebensburg Power Company-Ebensburg Gary Anderson 50 Bituminous



# 4 Gen-On (RRI-Reliant)-Seward **(Wholesale-Utility) 525 Bituminous



# 5 Gilberton Power Company-Frackville

(John B Rich Memorial Power Station) 80 Anthracite



# 6 Kimberly Clark-Chester (KC Chester ) Boiler MACT 60 Anthracite



# 7 Mt. Carmel Cogen-Mt. Carmel (Foster Wheeler) 40 Anthracite



# 8 Northampton Generating Company, L.P.- Northampton Dan Traynor 107 Anthracite



# 9 Northeast Power Co-McAdoo

(NEPCO-Kline Twp Cogen Facility) 52 Anthracite



# 10 Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC-Nesquehoning

(Panther Creek Energy Facility) 83 Anthracite



# 11 Piney Creek L.P. -Clarion 32 Bituminous



# 12 Schuylkill Energy Resources –Shenandoah

(SER-St. Nicholas) 80 Anthracite



# 13 Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P.-Kennerdell Dan Traynor 83 Bituminous



# 14 Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co- Frackville Jeff Morris 42 Anthracite



# 15 Westwood Generation, LLC-Tremont John Oelbracht 30 Anthracite

Total PA MW 1,451



# WV CFB Coal Refuse Facilities: City MW Capacity-Fuel

1. American Bituminous (Am-Bit Edison-Grant Town) Grant Town 80 Bituminous

2. Morgantown Energy Associates Morgantown 50 Bituminous

Total WV MW 130



# GRAND TOTAL: PA-WV Region (MW) 1,581

OTHER STATES CFB Coal Refuse Facilities:

Illinois

1. Southern Illinois Power Plant (Marion Power) ** Marion 120 Bituminous



# Montana

2. Rosebud (Colstrip Energy LP) ** Colstrip 42 Bituminous



# Utah

3. Sunnyside Cogeneration Associates** Sunnyside 58 Bituminous

Total OTHER States MW 220



# GRAND TOTAL: PA-WV- Other States (MW) 1,801

NOTES: **Currently Non- ARIPPA members



# Not listed above are those CFB Coal Refuse Facilities that are: Known to currently use coal refuse

secondarily: Kentucky Spurlock Power Station** Marysv ille (Coal-MW-Unkn own Bituminous) Montana Yellowstone Power

Plant ** Billings (Pet Coke-70 Bituminous) Currently non-operational: New York Black River ** (55MW-Bituminous) West

Virginia Dominion North Branch** (87MW-Bituminous) Non CFB known to secondarily use coal refuse currently nonoperational: Pennsylvania Sunbury Generating** Sunbury (Coal 425 MW Anth racite coal refuse... announced switching to

Natural Gas)Summary of Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI)T ti t C b iCEb b PATesting atCambriaogen,Ebensburg,PATesting Period: September 4 – 13, 2012Cambria Cogen Company• Owned and operated by Northern Star Generation•Located in Ebensburg Cambria County PALocatedinEbensburg,CambriaCounty,PA• Commenced operation in 1991•Two 560MMBtu/hourPyropowercirculating fluidizedTwo560Pyropowercirculatingfluidizedbed (CFB) boilers• Equipped with limestone injection, ammonia injection,d f b i filtb hf ii tlandfabricfilteraghousefor emission control.• Coal refuse fuel is obtained from two dedicated sites withtypical characteristics:typicalcharacteristics:– 2% to 4% sulfur by weight– 6,500 to 7,500 Btu/lb2Purpose of DSI Testing• Feasibility of the utilization of DSI in conjunction withlimestone for enhanced SO2 controllimestoneforenhancedSO2control• Determine optimum injection point and sorbent foremission control purposes• Determine if DSI can allow Cambria to comply with HClMATS limit of 0.002 lb/Mmbtu.•Identify any secondary impacts of sorbent injection:Identifyanysecondaryimpactsofsorbentinjection:– Opacity– Rates of NH3 use for NOx control– Mercury emission rate3Summary of Cambria DSI Test Scope• Two sorbents– Trona (sodium sesquicarbonate)Hydrated lime (from two suppliers)–Hydratedlime(fromtwosuppliers)• Injection Points– Downstream of economizerAt inlet of bagho se–Atinletofbaghouse• Boiler Conditions– “A” Boiler – control unit, limestone only, 200 ppm SO2 set point“B”B ilt t it b ht t ith 55 200 SO2t it–“B”Boiler–testunit,broughtto either55ppm or200ppmSO2sepontwith limestone, then sorbent injected to see how much reduction inlimestone results keeping set point constant.•Emissions MeasuredEmissionsMeasured– HCl, NH3, Hg, SO2, SO3• Ash Measurements–Dry chemical analysis and leaching analysisDrychemicalanalysisandleachinganalysis4DSI Injection Test system5Significant Results of Testing Program• SO2 results were difficult toaccurately assess, given thevariation in fuel sulfur content. Injection of either sorbentproduced no significant reduction in limestone use at aproducednosignificantreductioninlimestoneuseatagiven SO2 setpoint. In other words, the sorbents did notappear to effectively control SO2.• Both trona and hydrated lime reduced HCl significantly,and at times allowed compliance with the HCl MATSlimit However the average of all test runs with eitherlimit.However,theaverageofalltestrunswitheithersorbent failed to reduce emissions to 0.002 lb/MMBtu.• Mercury emissions for the control case (limestone only)easily meet the MATS Hg emission limit. However,when sorbent was injected, Hg emissions increased toabove the MATS limit.6HCl Emission Rates With Injection of TronaSeptember 4, 20120 0400.045Prior to Trona Injection Trona Injection Started0.0300.0350.040

u)0.0200.025

HCl (lb/mmBt0.0050.0100.015MATS Limit (0.002 lb/MMBtu)Trona Injection Halted0.0000 005Time7Comparison of HCl Emission TestsStart Time End TimeLimestone Injection Rate(pph)Sorbent InjectionRate (pph)HCl Emissions(lb/MMbtu)Boiler B–Limestone Injection OnlyBoilerBLimestoneInjectionOnly9/4/2012 – 9:30 PM9/5/2012 – 4:30 AM 19,870 0 0.0599/5/2012 – 9:30 PM9/6/2012 – 6:10 AM 13,004 0 0.0819/6/2012 – 5:30 PM9/7/2012 – 6:00 AM 12,747 0 0.0719/10/2012 - 9:00 PM9/11/2012 – 5:30 AM 24,670 0 0.0599/11/2012 – 8:00 PM9/12/2012 – 6:00 AM 22,184 0 0.0709/12/2012 – 8:00 PM9/13/2012 – 2:18 AM 18,710 0 0.061Average of Tests–Limestone Injection Only=0 067AverageofTestsLimestoneInjectionOnly=.Boiler B – Trona Injection9/4/2012 – 2:48 PM9/4/2012 – 3:53 PM 17,608 2,020 0.0029/4/2012 – 4:48 PM9/4/2012 – 6:03 PM 18,444 1,293 0.0019/5/2012 – 12:58 PM9/5/2012 – 2:01 PM 19,000 632 0.0109/5/2012 – 5:30 PM9/5/2012 – 6:33 PM 19,000 680 0.0129/6/2012–12:04 PM9/6/2012–1:08 PM9 9701 8240 0039/6/201212:04PM9/6/20121:08PM,,.9/7/2012 – 11:40 AM9/7/2012 – 12:44 PM 15,740 696 0.002Average of Tests – Trona Injection = 0.005Boiler B – Hydrated Lime Injection9/10/2012 – 12:00 PM9/10/2012 – 1:05 PM 26,030 1,124 0.0019/10/2012 – 3:30 PM9/10/2012 – 4:35 PM 21,600 725 0.0039/11/201210:30 AM9/11/201211:36 AM21 1507510 0209/11/2012–10:30AM9/11/2012–11:36AM,.9/11/2012 – 4:00 PM9/11/2012 – 5:05 PM 20,400 1,026 0.0019/12/2012 – 1:15 PM9/12/2012 – 2:19 PM 16,830 1,634 0.0019/12/2012 – 4:45 PM9/12/2012 – 5:48 PM 26,050 734 0.0129/13/2012 – 11:05 AM9/13/2012 – 12:09 PM 14,430 735 0.0099/13/2012 – 3:04 PM9/13/2012 – 4:08 PM 16,500 866 0.002Average of Tests – Hydrated Lime Injection = 0.0068Summary of Mercury Emission TestsBoiler Test Date Start Time End Time SorbentSorbent InjectionRate (pph)Hg Emission Rate(lb/TBtu)A( )9/7/2012 9:58 AM 11:01 AM NA NA 0.41/ /(baseline)9112012 7:50 AM 8:54 AM NANA0.249/12/2012 8:40 AM 9:43 AM NA NA 0.299/13/2012 8:26 AM 9:30 AM NA NA 0.31Average of Baseline Test Runs: 0.33B(DSI)9/4/2012 2:48 PM 3:53 PM Trona 1,114 15.069/4/20124 58 PM6 03 PMT1 3089 11(DSI)9/4/20124:58PM6:03PMrona,.9/5/2012 12:58 PM 2:01 PM Trona 636 7.079/5/2012 5:30 PM 6:33 PM Trona 735 2.409/6/2012 12:04 PM 1:08 PM Trona 1,834 31.69/7/2012 11:40 AM 12:44 PM Trona 833 5.64Average of DSITronaTest Runs:11 78AverageofDSITestRuns:.B(DSI)9/10/2012 12:00 PM 1:05 PM Hyd. Lime 1,245 0.919/10/2012 3:30 PM 4:35 PM Hyd. Lime 725 0.679/11/2012 10:30 AM 11:36 AM Hyd. Lime 751 0.979/11/2012 4:00 PM 5:05 PM Hyd. Lime 1,026 1.449/12/20121:15 PM2:19 PMHyd Lime1 6341 659/12/20121:15PM2:19PMHyd.Lime,.9/12/2012 4:45 PM 5:48 PM Hyd. Lime 734 1.599/13/2012 11:05 AM 12:09 PM Hyd. Lime 734 0.849/13/2012 3:04 PM 4:08 PM Hyd. Lime 866 1.65Average of DSI Hydrated Lime Test Runs: 1.239Note:TheMATSlimitforHgapplicabletoCambriais1.2lb/TBtu.Additional Results of Test Program• The emissions of mercury were significantly higher when injectingsorbent (either one) compared to the baseline (limestone only) case.This may be because removal ofHClfrom the gas stream reducesThismaybebecauseremovaloffromthegasstreamreducesthe fraction of oxidized mercury, an easily controlled form.• Ash quality was not dramatically affected by either sorbent, althoughtrona produced high sodium levels in ash and leachate as well astronaproducedhighsodiumlevelsinashandleachateaswellasone (possibly anomalous) extremely high sulfate concentration inleachate tests. As a result, theuse of trona could threaten futurebeneficial use of ash in mine reclamation.• At high levels of trona injection, the plant experienced a spike inopacity.• Theplantoperatorsnoticedstrongammoniaodorsintheashduringp a t ope ato s ot ced st o g a o a odo s t e as du gtrona use.• Trona was difficult to utilize, because of its tendency to plug injectionnozzles and solidifyin thepresence of anymoisture.p y10Major Conclusions• DSI is not a feasible or cost effective approach for SO2control.• DSI appears to very effectively remove HCl. However,the control of HCl appears to occur at the expense ofincreasing Hg emissions particularly whentronais theincreasingHgemissions,particularlywhensorbent being used. Compliance with the MATS limit forHg cannot be assured if aggressive HCl control isi drequre.11