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, Katcher & Fox (counsel to ARIPPA) 

See attached for additional attendees. 

Discussion: 

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

Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and on their comments on the proposed reconsideration issues. 
1

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

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

combustion zone for the control of SO2 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 currently meet the UMACT-MATS rule are 

highlighted in yellow

 PA CFB-Coal Refuse Facilities 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** Marysville (Coal-MW-Unknown 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 Anthracite coal refuse... announced switching to 

Natural Gas) 
Summary of Dry Sorbent Injection (D

T ti t C b i Testing a

t

Cam

b

ria 

Cogen, Eb b 

Ebens

bur

Testing Period: September 4 – 13, 2012
Cambria Cogen Company

• Owned and operated by Northern Star Generati• Located in Ebensburg Cambria County PA Located in Ebensburg, Cambria County, PA• Commenced operation in 1991• Two 560 Two 560 MMBtu/hour Pyropower Pyropower circulating fluid

circulating fluid

bed (CFB) boilers

• Equipped with limestone injection, ammonia inje

and f b i filt d

f

a

b

ric filter b h ag

house f ii tl for emission con

trol.

• Coal refuse fuel is obtained from two dedicated 

typical characteristics: typical characteristics:

– 2% to 4% sulfur by weight– 6,500 to 7,500 Btu/lb
Purpose of DSI Testing

• Feasibility of the utilization of DSI in conjunction 

limestone for enhanced SO2 control limestone for enhanced SO2 control

• Determine optimum injection point and sorbent f

emission control purposes

• Determine if DSI can allow Cambria to comply w

MATS limit of 0.002 lb/Mmbtu.

• Identify any secondary impacts of sorbent inject

Identify any secondary impacts of sorbent inject

– Opacity– Rates of NH3 use for NOx control– Mercury emission rate
Summary of Cambria DSI Test Sco

• Two sorbents

– Trona (sodium sesquicarbonate)– Hydrated lime (from two suppliers) Hydrated lime (from two suppliers)

• Injection Points

– Downstream of economizer– At inlet of bagho se At inlet of bagho

use

• Boiler Conditions

– “A” Boiler – control unit, limestone only, 200 ppm SO2 set po– “B”B il “B”B

oiler 

– t t it b ht t ith 55 200 SO

test unit, brought to either 55 ppm or 200 ppm SO

with limestone, then sorbent injected to see how much reduclimestone results keeping set point constant.

• Emissions Measured Emissions Measured

– HCl, NH3, Hg, SO2, SO3

• Ash Measurements

– Dry chemical analysis and leaching analysis Dry chemical analysis and leaching analysis
DSI Injection Test system
Significant Results of Testing Progra

• SO2 results were difficult to accurately assess, g

variation in fuel sulfur content. Injection of eithe

produced no significant reduction in limestone uproduced no significant reduction in limestone u

given SO2 setpoint. In other words, the sorbentappear to effectively control SO2. 

• Both trona and hydrated lime reduced HCl signif

and at times allowed compliance with the HCl Mlimit However the average of all test runs with limit. However, the average of all test runs with 

sorbent failed to reduce emissions to 0.002 lb/M

• Mercury emissions for the control case (limeston

easily meet the MATS Hg emission limit. Howevwhen sorbent was injected, Hg emissions increabove the MATS limit.
HCl Emission Rates With Injection of Trona

September 4, 2012

0 0400.045 Prior to Trona Injection Trona Injection Started0.0300.0350.040

u)

0.0200.025

HCl (lb/mmBt

0.0050.0100.015

MATS Limit (0.002 lb/MMBtu)

Trona Injection Halted

0.0000 005

Time
Comparison of HCl Emission Tests

Start Time End Time

Limestone Injection Rate 

(pph)

Sorbent Injection 

Rate (pph)

HCl Emissions

(lb/MMbtu)

Boiler B Boiler

B – Limestone Injection Only Limestone Injection Only

9/4/2012 – 9:30 PM 9/5/2012 – 4:30 AM 19,870 0 0.0599/5/2012 – 9:30 PM 9/6/2012 – 6:10 AM 13,004 0 0.0819/6/2012 – 5:30 PM 9/7/2012 – 6:00 AM 12,747 0 0.071

9/10/2012 - 9:00 PM 9/11/2012 – 5:30 AM 24,670 0 0.059

9/11/2012 – 8:00 PM 9/12/2012 – 6:00 AM 22,184 0 0.0709/12/2012 – 8:00 PM 9/13/2012 – 2:18 AM 18,710 0 0.061

Average of Tests Average of Tests – Limestone Injection Only= Limestone Injection Only= 0 067 .

Boiler B – Trona Injection

9/4/2012 – 2:48 PM 9/4/2012 – 3:53 PM 17,608 2,020 0.0029/4/2012 – 4:48 PM 9/4/2012 – 6:03 PM 18,444 1,293 0.001

9/5/2012 – 12:58 PM 9/5/2012 – 2:01 PM 19,000 632 0.010

9/5/2012 – 5:30 PM 9/5/2012 – 6:33 PM 19,000 680 0.012

9/6/2012 9/6/2012 – 12:04 PM 12:04 PM 9/6/2012 9/6/2012 – 1:08 PM 1:08 PM 9 970 , 1 824 , 0 003 .

9/7/2012 – 11:40 AM 9/7/2012 – 12:44 PM 15,740 696 0.002

Average of Tests – Trona Injection = 0.005

Boiler B – Hydrated Lime Injection

9/10/2012 – 12:00 PM 9/10/2012 – 1:05 PM 26,030 1,124 0.001

9/10/2012 – 3:30 PM 9/10/2012 – 4:35 PM 21,600 725 0.003

9/11/2012 9/11/2012 – 10:30 AM 10:30 AM 9/11/2012 9/11/2012 – 11:36 AM 11:36 AM 21 150 , 751 0 020 .

9/11/2012 – 4:00 PM 9/11/2012 – 5:05 PM 20,400 1,026 0.0019/12/2012 – 1:15 PM 9/12/2012 – 2:19 PM 16,830 1,634 0.0019/12/2012 – 4:45 PM 9/12/2012 – 5:48 PM 26,050 734 0.012

9/13/2012 – 11:05 AM 9/13/2012 – 12:09 PM 14,430 735 0.009

9/13/2012 – 3:04 PM 9/13/2012 – 4:08 PM 16,500 866 0.002

Average of Tests – Hydrated Lime Injection = 0.006
Summary of Mercury Emission Tes

Boiler Test Date Start Time End Time Sorbent

Sorbent Injection 

Rate (pph)

H

A

( )

9/7/2012 9:58 AM 11:01 AM NA NA 

(baseline) 9/ / 11 2012 7:50 AM 8:54 AM N

A

N

A 

9/12/2012 8:40 AM 9:43 AM NA NA 9/13/2012 8:26 AM 9:30 AM NA NA 

Average of Baseline Test Runs: 

B

(DSI)

9/4/2012 2:48 PM 3:53 PM Trona 1,114 

(DSI) 9/4/2012 9/4/2012 4 58 PM 4:58 PM 6 03 PM 6:03 PM

Trona 1 308 , 

9/5/2012 12:58 PM 2:01 PM Trona 636 9/5/2012 5:30 PM 6:33 PM Trona 735 9/6/2012 12:04 PM 1:08 PM Trona 1,834 9/7/2012 11:40 AM 12:44 PM Trona 833 

Average of DSI Average of DSI Trona Test Runs: Test Runs: 

B

(DSI)

9/10/2012 12:00 PM 1:05 PM Hyd. Lime 1,245 9/10/2012 3:30 PM 4:35 PM Hyd. Lime 725 9/11/2012 10:30 AM 11:36 AM Hyd. Lime 751 9/11/2012 4:00 PM 5:05 PM Hyd. Lime 1,026 

9/12/2012 9/12/2012 1:15 PM 1:15 PM 2:19 PM 2:19 PM Hyd Lime Hyd. Lime 1 634 , 9/12/2012 4:45 PM 5:48 PM Hyd. Lime 734 9/13/2012 11:05 AM 12:09 PM Hyd. Lime 734 9/13/2012 3:04 PM 4:08 PM Hyd. Lime 866 

Average of DSI Hydrated Lime Test Runs: 

Note: The MATS limit for Hg applicable to Cambria is 1.2 lb/TBtu.
Additional Results of Test Program

• The emissions of mercury were significantly higher when 

sorbent (either one) compared to the baseline (limestone 

This may be because removal of This may be because removal of HCl from the gas stream 

from the gas stream 

the fraction of oxidized mercury, an easily controlled form

• Ash quality was not dramatically affected by either sorben

trona produced high sodium levels in ash and leachate as trona produced high sodium levels in ash and leachate as 

one (possibly anomalous) extremely high sulfate concentrleachate tests. As a result, the use of trona could threatebeneficial use of ash in mine reclamation.

• At high levels of trona injection, the plant experienced a s

opacity.

• Th

e p a t ope ato s ot ced st o g a o a odo s t e 

pla

n

t ope

rato

r

s noticed st

r

o

n

g

amm

oni

a odo

r

s in 

t

h

e 

trona use.

• Trona was difficult to utilize, because of its tendency to plu

nozzles and solidif

yp y in the 

presence of an

y moisture.
Major Conclusions

• DSI is not a feasible or cost effective approach f

control.

• DSI appears to very effectively remove HCl. Ho

the control of HCl appears to occur at the expenincreasing Hg emissions particularly when increasing Hg emissions, particularly when trona 

sorbent being used. Compliance with the MATS Hg cannot be assured if aggressive HCl control 

requi d re .