Allam Appa Rao Page 1 of 25 Page 1 of 25 Professor Allam Appa ...
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the...
-
Upload
vivian-hudson -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the...
Analysis of Existing and PotentialRegulatory Requirements and EmissionControl Options for theSilver Lake Power PlantAPPA Engineering & Operations Technical ConferenceMarch 8, 2004
Ivan Clark, P.E. Joseph Hensel
Screening Study Scope
Regulatory summary and applicability review Identification and review of emission control
technologies, including emerging technologies Review Silver Lake Plant Site and generating
units with respect to emission control additions Screen and evaluate emission control
technologies for application to the Silver Lake Plant
Identify and evaluate various control technology scenarios
Evaluate specific scenarios Maintain 1999-2000 Base Case emission levels Application of “state of the art” emission controls
Public Participation and Review
A group of interested local citizens was invited to participate in the process. The group was named the Emission Control Study Input Group.
The Input Group met with the project team five times, including a tour of the Silver Lake Plant to review and receive input on the study and report. All of the meetings were open to the public; the local newspaper generally attended and frequently reported on the progress in articles and editorials.
There were also numerous individual questions and comments received during this process.
Public meeting was held on October 30, 2003 for review and comment on the report.
All of the materials, including various presentations, draft information and final report were posted on the RPU web site.
Existing Silver Lake Plant
Four Units; Coal and Natural Gas Fuel ≈ 100 mw Boiler #1 – 116 mmBtu/hr (1949) Boiler #2 – 153 mmBtu/hr,
200 ft Common Stack (1952) Boiler #3 – 285 mmBtu/hr, 200 ft Stack
(1962) Boiler #4 – 615 mmBtu/hr, 300 ft Stack (1969)
1999 – 2000 Fuel Use Coal 125,000 tons Gas 160,000 mcf
Existing Permit Limits SO2 – 3.2 lb/mmBtu with TACWEF Coal Consumption – 350,000 TPY
Current & Future Emission RegulationsThat May Affect the Silver Lake Plant
8-hr Ozone Standard
PM2.5 Standard
Regional Haze Rule
Utility Boiler MACT
Industrial Boiler MACT
Clear Skies Act of 2003
Clean Power Act of 2003
Clean Air Planning Act
Interstate Air Quality Rule
Pollutants of Concern
Sulfur Dioxide (“SO2”) Nitrogen Oxide (“NOx”) Particulate Matter (“PM or PM10”) Mercury (“Hg”)
SO2 Control Technologies/Options
Wet Scrubbers (lime/limestone) Dry Scrubbers (spray dryer absorbers) Lime Injection into Ducts/Boiler Low Sulfur Coal (“compliance coal”) Emerging Technologies
NOX Control Technologies
Low NOX Burners and/or Combustion Modifications
Gas Reburn Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
System (SNCR) Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Combination of the above Emerging Technologies
PM Control Technologies
Fabric Filters (“Baghouse”) Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector
(“COHPAC”) Electrostatic Precipitator (“ESP”) Combination of the above
Mercury Control Technologies
Concurrent reductions resulting from control of SO2 and/or PM
Sorbent Injection
Emission Control TechnologyScreening Criteria
Emission reduction capability (i.e. efficiency) Plant site space for required structures Commercial demonstration of technology Ability to achieve reductions consistent with
future regulatory requirements Cost Installation schedule
Emission Control Scenariosfor Silver Lake Power Plant
Emission control for each individual unit Emission controls for combined flue gas
streams from units Use of high efficiency controls on larger
units with less control on smaller units Use of multi-pollutant control
technologies
Unit TechnologyCapital
Costs, $
Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity
Annual O&M
Costs, $
Total Annual Costs, $
Total Unit Costs
$/MWhr
Estimated Emission
Rate, lb/MMBtu
Potential Projected Emissions
(ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
Reduction Cost, $/ton of Pollutant Removed
1Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air
338,958 34 -- 27,184 2.01 0.36 38.02 120 385
2Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air
356,462 25 -- 28,588 0.42 0.36 160.83 229 96
3Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air
364,419 15 -- 29,226 0.27 0.34 230.73 68 68
4 Overfire Air/SNCR 1,364,137 23 351,662 488,349 1.56 0.21 337.45 91 1,769
1Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
7,402,960 740 69,848 663,566 49 0.15 16.29 51 7,187
2Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
8,023,587 573 169,437 812,928 12 0.15 68.93 98 2,081
3Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
9,045,233 362 228,852 954,280 9 0.14 98.88 29 1,703
4Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
13,095,750 218 431,284 1,481,563 5 0.06 92.03 25 2,841
NOX Control Technology Summary Table
Unit TechnologyCapital
Costs, $
Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity
Annual O&M
Costs, $
Total Annual Costs, $
Total Unit Costs
$/MWhr
Estimated Emission
Rate, lb/MMBtu
Potential Projected Emissions
(ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
Reduction Cost, $/tonof Pollutant Removed
1Spray Dryer Absorber
14,124,823 1,412 384,595 1,517,406 112 0.29 31.52 69 12,036
2Spray Dryer Absorber
14,289,262 1,021 535,943 1,681,942 25 0.31 140.25 131 2,998
3Spray Dryer Absorber
15,257,864 610 655,191 1,878,872 17 0.27 283.06 39 2,566
4Spray Dryer Absorber
23,233,710 387 1,250,723 3,114,066 10 0.37 594.24 33 1,310
1 Wet Scrubber 16,556,405 1,656 432,401 1,760,225 130 0.15 15.76 34 12,411
2 Wet Scrubber 16,749,489 1,196 549,760 1,893,069 28 0.16 70.12 66 3,000
3 Wet Scrubber 17,804,024 712 649,383 2,077,266 19 0.13 91.53 19 2,522
4 Wet Scrubber 26,506,587 442 1,167,784 3,293,612 11 0.18 297.12 17 1,232
SO2 Control Technology Summary Table
UnitTechnolog
yCapital
Costs, $
Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity
Annual O&M
Costs, $
Total Annual Costs, $
Total Unit Costs
$/MWhr
Estimated Emission
Rate, lb/MMBtu
Potential Projected Emissions
(ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
Reduction Cost, $/ton of Pollutant Removed
1 Fabric Filter 8,477,652 848 2,863 682,770 51 0.015 1.60 29 39,229
2 Fabric Filter 8,560,402 611 14,544 701,088 10 0.015 6.78 68 11,878
3 Fabric Filter 9,100,400 364 23,234 753,086 7 0.015 10.18 23 10,072
4 Fabric Filter 13,556,180 226 66,351 1,153,557 4 0.015 24.38 8 2,304
1 COHPAC 6,358,239 636 2,863 512,793 38 0.015 1.60 29 29,463
2 COHPAC 6,420,302 459 14,544 529,452 8 0.015 6.78 68 8,970
3 COHPAC 6,825,300 273 23,344 570,623 5 0.015 10.18 23 7,632
4 COHPAC 10,167,135 169 66,351 881,756 3 0.015 24.38 8 1,761
PM Control Technology Summary Table
Unit TechnologyCapital
Costs, $
Capital Cost, $/kw
Capacity
Annual O&M
Costs, $
Total Annual Costs,
$
Total Unit
Costs $/MWhr
Estimated Emission
Rate, lb/MMBtu
Projected Emissions
(ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
Reduction Cost, $/ton of Pollutant Removed Comments
1Sorbent Injection
1,763,216 176 5,834 147,599 11 * * * *
Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.
2Sorbent Injection
1,763,216 126 24,677 167,590 2 * * * *
Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.
3Sorbent Injection
1,845,966 74 37,037 187,339 2 * * * *
Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.
4Sorbent injection
2,531,307 42 88,702 297,115 1 * * * *
Mercury emissions are not evaluated since Base Case emission data was not available from the SLP.
Mercury Control Technology Summary Table
Unit TechnologyCapital
Costs, $
Capital Cost, $/kw
Capacity
Annual O&M
Costs, $
Total Annual Costs, $
Total Unit
Costs $/MWhr
Pollutant Controlled
Estimated Emission
Rate, lb/MMBtu
Potential Projected Emissions
(ton/yr)
% of Base Case
Emissions
1, 2 3, 4
RJM Corporation “RAP” Process
26,556,194 312 1,337,395 3,998,326 9.5 NOX 0.35 951.11 117
SO2 0.91 2,368.40 98
PM10 0.015 42.94 11
Mercury
4
RJM Corporation “RAP” Process
13,722,689 162 1,198,813 2,209,415 7.1 NOX 0.25 398.80 65
SO2 0.36 594.24 80
PM10 0.015 24.38 4
Mercury
RJM Corporation “RAP” Process Emerging Technology Summary
Unit TechnologyCapitalCosts $
Capital Cost, $/kw
Capacity
Annual O&M
Costs, $
Total Annual Costs, $
Total Unit
Costs $/MWhr
Pollutant Controlled
Estimated Emission
Rate, lb/MMBtu
Potential Projected Emissions (ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
1, 2, 3, 4
Powerspan “ECO” System
52,615,336 619 1,069,916 6,341,973 12.6 NOX 0.034 184.09 23
SO2 1.24 949.07 39
PM10 0.015 42.94 11
Mercury
4 Powerspan “ECO” System
28,962,570 341 663,513 3,565,563 11.4 NOX 0.04 61.35 17
SO2 0.37 594.24 33
PM10 0.015 24.38 8
Mercury - - -
Powerspan “ECO” System – Emerging Technology Summary Table
Unit TechnologyCapital Costs,
Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity
Annual O&M Costs
Total Annual Costs
Total Unit Costs
$/MWhrPollutant
Controlled
Estimated Emission
Rate, lb/MMBtu
Potential Projected Emissions
(ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
3 & 4Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process
40,844,650 481 3,135,478 7,228,112 17 NOX 0.01 25.46 3
SO2 0.03 77.73 3
PM10 0.015 34.56 10
Mercury - - -
4Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process
31,508,730 371 2,322,297 5,479,472 17.5 NOX 0.01 12.27 3
SO2 0.04 59.42 3
PM10 0.015 24.38 8
Mercury - - -
Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process – Emerging Technology Summary Table
Unit PollutantControl
Technology
Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(1)
Projected Actual
Emissions(ton/yr)(2)
Percent of Base Case Emissions(Actual)(3)
Projected Potential
Emissions(ton/yr)(4)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
(Potential)(5)
1 NOX Low NOX
Burners/OverfireAir
31.66 28.18 89 38.02 120
2 NOX Low NOX
Burners/OverfireAir
70.11 119.21 170 160.83 229
3 NOX Low NOX
Burners/OverfireAir
338.97 171.01 50 230.73 68
4 NOX Overfire Air/Selective Non-
Catalytic Reduction
369.02 250.12 68 337.45 91
Total Plant
NOX 809.76 568.52 70 767.03 95
Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case Emissions NOX Emission Control Technology Summary Table – Option 1
Unit PollutantControl
Technology
Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(1)
Projected Actual
Emissions(ton/yr)(2)
Percent of Base Case Emissions (Actual)(3)
Projected Potential
Emissions(ton/yr(4)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
(Potential)(5)
1 NOX Low NOx Burners/
Overfire Air
31.66 28.18 89 38.02 120
2 NOX Low NOX Burners/
Overfire Air
70.11 119.21 170 160.83 229
3 NOX Low NOX Burners/
Overfire Air
338.97 171.01 50 230.73 68
4 NOX Selective Catalytic
Reduction
369.02 68.21 18 92.03 25
Total Plant
NOX 809.76 386.62 48 521.61 64
Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsNOX Emission Control Technology Summary Table – Option 2
Unit PollutantControl
Technology
Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(1)
Projected Actual
Emissions (ton/yr)(2)
Percent of Base Case Emissions (Actual)(3)
Projected Potential
Emissions (ton/yr)(4)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
(Potential)(5)
1 SO2 No Control 45.93 116.81 254 157.59 343
2 SO2 No Control 106.99 519.77 486 701.25 655
3 SO2 No Control 470.66 678.44 144 915.32 194
4 SO2 Spray Dryer Absorber
1787.05 440.45 25 594.24 33
Total Plant
SO2 2410.63 1755.47 73 2368.40 98
Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsSO2 Emission Control Technology Summary Table
Unit PollutantControl
Technology(1)
Base Case Emissions (ton/yr)(2)
Projected Actual
Emissions (ton/yr)(3)
Percent of Base Case Emissions (Actual)(4)
Projected Potential
Emissions (ton/yr)(5)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
(Potential)(6)
1 PM10 ESP 5.54 14.09 254 19.01 343
2 PM10 ESP 10.04 48.78 486 65.81 655
3 PM10 ESP 43.68 62.96 144 84.95 194
4 PM10 Fabric Filter 315.79 18.07 6 24.38 8
Total Plant
PM10 375.05 143.90 38 194.14 52
Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsPM10 Emission Control Technology Summary Table
UnitPollutant/
Technology Capital Costs, $Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity
Annual O&M Costs, $
Total Annual Costs, $
Total Unit Costs $/MWhr
Reduction Cost, $/ton of
Pollutant Removed
NOX
1,2 & 3 Low- NOX Burners/Overfire Air
1,059,839 22 -- 84,998 0.44 106
4 Overfire Air/SNCR 1,364,137 23 351,662 488,349 1.56 1,769
SO2
1,2 &3 No new control -- -- -- -- -- --
4 Spray Dryer Absorber w/ Fabric Filter
23,233,710 387 1,250,723 3,114,066 10 1310
PM10
1,2&3 Existing ESP –No new control
-- -- -- -- -- --
4 Fabric Filter (included with SO2 control above)
(included with SO2 control above)
(included with SO2 control above)
(included with SO2 control above)
(included with SO2 control above)
(included with SO2 control above)
See Table 11-3
Mercury
1,2&3 No new control -- -- -- -- -- --
4 Control assumed with SO2 above
(included with SO2 control above)
(included with SO2 control above)
(included with SO2
control above)(included with SO2
control above)(included with SO2
control above)--
Total Costs 25,657,686 235 1,602,385 3,687,413 7.31 --
Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case Emissions Summary Cost Table – Option 1
TechnologyControlled
Units Capital Cost, $ Total Annual Cost, $
RJM “RAP” Process Unit 4 15,062,528 2,294,413
Powerspan “ECO” System Unit 4 28,962,570 3,565,563
Enviroscrub “Pahlman” Process
Unit 4 31,508,730 5,479,472
Case 1: Maintain 1999–2000 Base Case EmissionsEmerging Control Technology Cost Summary Table
Unit Pollutant State-of-the-Art Technology
Base Case Emissions
(ton/yr)Projected Actual
Emissions (ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
Projected Potential
Emissions (ton/yr)
Percent of Base Case Emissions
1 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 31.66 12.08 38 16.29 51
2 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 70.11 51.09 73 68.93 98
3 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 338.97 73.29 22 98.88 29
4 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 369.02 68.21 18 92.03 25
1 SO2 Wet Scrubber 45.93 11.68 25 15.76 34
2 SO2 Wet Scrubber 106.99 51.98 49 70.12 66
3 SO2 Wet Scrubber 470.66 67.84 14 91.53 19
4 SO2 Wet Scrubber 1787.05 220.23 12 297.12 17
1 PM10 Fabric Filter 5.54 1.19 21 1.60 29
2 PM10 Fabric Filter 10.04 5.03 50 6.78 68
3 PM10 Fabric Filter 43.68 7.54 17 10.18 23
4 PM10 Fabric Filter 315.79 18.07 6 24.38 8
State-of-the-Art Emission Control Technology Summary Table
Case 2 - State-of-the-Art Emission Control, Summary Cost Table
UnitPollutan
tState-of-the-Art
TechnologyCapitalCosts, $
Capital Cost, $/kw Capacity
Annual O&M Costs, $
Total Annual Costs, $
Total Unit
Costs $/MWhr
Reduction Cost, $/ton of
Pollutant Removed
1 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 7,402,960 740 69,848 663,566 49 7,187
2 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 8,023,587 573 169,437 812,928 12 2,081
3 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 9,045,233 362 228,852 954,280 9 1,703
4 NOX Selective Catalytic Reduction 13,095,750 218 431,284 1,481,563 5 2,841
1 SO2 Wet Scrubber 16,556,405 1,656 432,400 1,760,225 130 12,411
2 SO2 Wet Scrubber 16,749,489 1,196 549,760 1,893,069 28 3,000
3 SO2 Wet Scrubber 17,804,024 712 649,383 2,077,266 19 2,522
4 SO2 Wet Scrubber 26,506,587 442 1,167,784 3,293,612 11 1,232
1 PM10 Fabric Filter 8,477,652 636 2,863 682,770 51 39,229
2 PM10 Fabric Filter 8,560,402 459 14,544 701,088 10 11,878
3 PM10 Fabric Filter 9,100,400 273 23,234 753,086 7 10,072
4 PM10 Fabric Filter 13,556,180 169 66,351 1,153,557 4 2,304
1 Mercury Sorbent Injection 1,763,216 176 5,834 147,599 11 --
2 Mercury Sorbent Injection 1,763,216 126 24,677 167,590 2 --
3 Mercury Sorbent Injection 1,845,966 74 37,037 187,339 2 --
4 Mercury Sorbent Injection 2,531,307 42 88,702 297,115 1 --
Total 162,782,374 1,493 3,961,990 17,026,653 33.77
Silver Lake Power Plant Emission ControlsReview Phase II
Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05
Federal Clean Air Act Congressional Action
SLP Emission Controls Feasibility Study & Business Case Analysis
Silver Lake Power Plant Conceptual Site Feasability Review
Industrial Boiler MACT Finalized
Utility MACT Finalized
Silver Lake Power Plant Emission Testing for Mercury, HAP & Particulate Matter
Power Supply Study
Long-Range Core Business Plan Developed
Fuel Supply Options Study
Operate Under the Terms & Conditions of Major Amendments to Air Emission Permit No. 10900011-003 , i.e. Reduced Annual Coal Burn, Lower Sulfur Content, Mercury Control Through Purchase, etc.
Integrated Resource Plan