You are on page 1of 31

Technical Support Document for the Revisions to Definition of Cogeneration Unit in Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), CAIR

Federal Implementation Plan, Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), and CAMR Proposed Federal Plan; Revision to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Technical Corrections to CAIR and Acid Rain Program Rules

Methodology for Thermal Efficiency and Energy Input Calculations and Analysis of Biomass Cogeneration Unit Characteristics

EPA Docket number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0012 April 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

This Technical Support Document (TSD) has several purposes. One purpose of the TSD is to set forth the methodology for determining the thermal efficiency of a unit for purposes of applying the definition of the term cogeneration unit under the existing CAIR, the CAIR model trading rules, the CAIR FIP, CAMR, the CAMR Hg model trading rule, and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan. Another purpose of the TSD is to present information relevant to the proposed revisions, and other potential revisions for which EPA is requesting comment, concerning the thermal efficiency standard. One of the critical values used in the determination of thermal efficiency is the total energy input of the unit. Consequently, in connection with setting forth the methodology for determining thermal efficiency, the TSD specifically addresses what formula is to be used in calculating a units total energy input under the existing rules.

There are two major issues concerning the calculation of total energy input. The first issue is whether, under the existing rules, total energy input is determined based on the higher or lower heating value of the fuel or fuels combusted in the unit and how to calculate heating value. As discussed below, EPA maintains that, under the existing rules, total energy input constitutes the lower heating value of the fuel or fuels combusted by the unit, and EPA is requesting comment on whether the existing rules should be revised to state explicitly the formula for calculating total energy input using lower heating value. The second issue is whether and to what extent the existing rules should be revised to exclude non-fossil fuel (such as biomass) from the calculation of total energy input. As discussed below, EPA is requesting comment on the proposed revision, and other potential revisions, concerning such exclusion. EPA is not requesting comment on any other aspects of the thermal efficiency standard such as, for example, the adoption of a standard as part of the definition of the term cogeneration unit, the specific percentages of total energy output that must be met, or the treatment of useful thermal energy in the thermal efficiency standard.

Another purpose of the TSD is to address the information that EPA has developed concerning the units potentially affected by the proposed change to the existing rules concerning the extent to which non-fossil fuel should be excluded from the calculation of a units total energy input. As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule for which this TSD is provided, EPA has taken

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

a number of steps to gather the most complete information we could about the number, size, location, industry, fuel use, electricity sales, and environmental impacts of the units potentially affected by the proposed change concerning the exclusion of non-fossil fuel from the calculation of total energy input. The TSD provides more detailed information about the biomass cogeneration unit inventory, data sources, and emissions calculations that EPA used in its analysis for the proposed rule.

I. Thermal Efficiency and Total Energy Input In this section of the TSD, EPA describes the methodology for calculating thermal efficiency of a unit in order to help determine whether the unit qualifies for the cogeneration unit exemption. In addition, EPA addresses the definition and calculation of total energy input, which is used in calculating thermal efficiency in order to determine whether the unit qualifies for the cogeneration unit exemption.

A. Determining Thermal Efficiency In CAIR, the CAIR model trading rules, the CAIR FIP, CAMR, the CAMR Hg model trading rule, and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan, EPA included, as one criterion that a unit must meet in order to potentially qualify for the cogeneration unit exemption, the requirement that the unit meet a thermal efficiency standard. In adopting a thermal efficiency standard, EPA decided to use the thermal efficiency standard adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in determining whether a unit is a qualifying cogeneration unit under section (3)(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (as amended by the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA)). However, EPA decided to make the thermal efficiency standard applicable to all fuels combusted by a unit, while the FERC limited application of the standard to natural gas and oil. (See 18 CFR 292.205(a)(2) and (b)(1). See 70 FR 25277).

The methodology for determining thermal efficiency adopted by EPA in the existing rules can be represented as the following: Thermal Efficiency = (Net Electric Output + Net Thermal Output/2)/Fuel Heat Input (LHV)

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

More background on the decision to use a thermal efficiency standard and how to perform the thermal efficiency calculation can be found in the Cogeneration Unit Efficiencies Calculation TSD for CAIR.1

B. Calculating Total Energy Input 1. Higher Heating Value vs. Lower Heating Value A critical value used in applying the thermal efficiency standard is the total energy input for the year for which thermal efficiency is being calculated. One of the first steps in determining the total energy input for a unit is identifying the units fuel mix and the heat content or heating value of the fuel or fuels combusted by the unit. Heating value, commonly expressed in Btu, can be measured in several ways, but the most common are to use gross heat content (referred to as higher heating value or HHV) or to use net heat content (referred to as lower heating value or LHV). According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of U.S. Department of Energy, higher heating value includes, while low heating value excludes, the energy used to vaporize water (contained in the original energy form or created during the combustion process).2 As discussed above, EPA adopted in the existing rules the same thermal efficiency standard as that adopted by FERC in determining whether a unit is a qualifying cogeneration unit, except that EPA applied the thermal efficiency standard to all fuels and the FERC limited application of the standard to natural gas and oil. FERCs regulations that included the thermal efficiency standard stated that energy input in the form of natural gas and oil is to be measured by the lower heating value of the natural gas or oil. See 18 CFR 292.202(m). As explained by FERC when it adopted these regulations in 1980 (45 FR 17959, 17962 (1980)): Lower heating values were specified in the proposed rules in recognition of the fact that practical cogeneration systems cannot recover and use the latent heat of water vapor formed in the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. By specifying that energy input to a

Cogeneration Unit Efficiencies Calculation, March 2005. OAR-2003-0053-2087 http://epa.gov/cair/pdfs/tsd_cogen.pdf 2 http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/glossary_h.htm

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

facility excludes energy that could not be recovered, the commission hoped that the proposed energy efficiency standards would be easier to understand and apply.

Because the thermal efficiency standard on which EPAs thermal efficiency standard was based is premised on using LHV to determine total energy input, EPA believes that the thermal efficiency standard in the existing CAIR, CAIR model trading rules, CAIR FIP, CAMR, CAMR Hg model trading program, and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan should be interpreted as similarly requiring the use of LHV of all fuels combusted at the unit in calculating a units total energy input. EPA notes that, if a unit uses HHV for the calculations and meets the thermal efficiency standard on that basis, the unit would necessarily meet the standard using LHV. See 45 FR 17962.

2. Definition of Lower Heating Value (LHV) Although FERC regulations use lower heating value to measure a units energy input from natural gas and oil, the regulations do not specify a formula for calculating lower heating value. While there may be alternative definitions of, or formulas for calculating, LHV, EPA maintains that the following formula is consistent with the FERC approach for calculating LHV of fuels by excluding from the higher heating value of such fuels the latent heat of water vapor formed in the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. See 45 FR 17962. Under this formula, the relationship between the lower heating value of a fuel and the higher heating value of that fuel is: LHV = HHV 10.55(W + 9H) Where: LHV = lower heating value of fuel in Btu/lb, HHV = higher heating value of fuel in Btu/lb, W = Weight % of moisture in fuel, and H = Weight % of hydrogen in fuel.

EPA believes that the existing CAIR, CAIR model trading rules, CAIR FIP, CAMR, CAMR Hg model trading rule, and the proposed CAMR Federal Plan should be interpreted to require use of this formula for calculating lower heating value for purposes of determining total energy input.

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

This formula is consistent not only with the description of lower heating value by FERC, but also with EIAs description of the term. Moreover, the formula reflects a standard approach to calculating lower heating value. See the International Flame Research Foundation Combustion Handbook, http://www.handbook.ifrf.net (IFRF 1999-2000) (discussing relationship between higher and lower calorific value of a fuel).

EPA is requesting comment on the methodology described above for determining a units thermal efficiency (i.e., on the use of lower heating value in the denominator of the equation for thermal efficiency) and on the above-described formula for calculating LHV to determine a units total energy input, under the existing regulations. In addition, EPA is considering adding language to the existing regulations specifying this formula for calculating total energy input for purposes of applying the thermal efficiency standard. In particular, EPA is considering revising the definition of total energy input in the existing CAIR, CAIR model trading rules, CAIR FIP, CAMR, CAMR Hg model trading rule, and proposed CAMR Federal Plan by adding the following language to that definition: The energy input of any form of energy shall be measured by the lower heating value of that form of energy calculated as follows: LHV = HHV 10.55(W + 9H) Where: LHV = lower heating value of fuel in Btu/lb, HHV = higher heating value of fuel in Btu/lb, W = Weight % of moisture in fuel, and H = Weight % of hydrogen in fuel.

As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule for which this TSD is provided, EPA requests comment on whether the formula for calculating lower heating value shown above should be added to the existing regulations or whether some alternative formula for calculating total energy input or lower heating value is appropriate and should be added to the existing regulations.

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

3. Fuels to Include in Total Energy Input In the rulemaking for which this TSD is provided, EPA is proposing to revise the thermal efficiency standard, as applied to certain existing units, to include in total energy input only the energy input from fossil fuel combusted by the units, rather than energy input from all fuels combusted. This change would make it more likely that those existing units that burn biomass and cogenerate electricity and useful thermal energy (referred to herein as biomass cogeneration units) could meet the thermal efficiency standard and qualify as exempt cogeneration units under these rules. As discussed in the preamble of the rulemaking for which the TSD is provided, EPA is requesting comment on the proposed revision and on an alternative under which total energy input would instead be defined to include energy input from all fuels combusted, except biomass.

II. Units Affected by the Proposed Rule Change This section of the TSD discusses the approach EPA used to estimate the universe of cogeneration units potentially affected by the proposed rule. As explained in more detail below, we used several data sources and selection criteria to develop a list of units, estimate which units would possibly be affected by a rule change, and what the environmental impacts might be. These inventory lists of identified biomass cogeneration units represent EPAs best effort to identify biomass cogeneration units that meet the specified criteria, but should not be assumed to be all inclusive or a determination of rule applicability.

A. Inventory Criteria and Information To start, EPA wanted to know more about the population of biomass cogeneration units currently in use and their characteristics. We defined the appropriate criteria for the cogeneration units and then applied the criteria to help identify units that would potentially be included in CAIR and/or CAMR. The final inventory list of existing biomass cogeneration units was developed by applying the following criteria: Produced both electricity and useful thermal energy; Associated with a cogeneration generator with capacity greater than 25MW;

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

Reported some type of biomass fuel use (biomass and coal use for CAMR units) in the 2001-2004 period; and

Located in the CAIR or CAMR regions.

This exercise resulted in an inventory of 181 units in the CAIR region and 55 units in the CAMR region. The list of CAIR units includes all known units in states that participate in the NOx and/or SO2 trading programs. These inventories are not to be used to determine applicability for any biomass cogeneration units. Rather, they represent EPAs best attempt to identify units potentially affected by the proposed rule. See Appendix A for List of Identified Biomass Cogeneration Units in CAIR and CAMR Regions.

Once the units were identified, EPA collected more detailed information about the characteristics of each unit. The inventory was populated with the following types of data from 2004, the most recent baseline period year: Plant location; Industry category; Unit size (generator nameplate); Utilization Unit fuel type(s) and amounts; and Unit sales to the grid.

In addition, we had limited information about the emission controls installed on some units. The information available was sufficient to allow EPA to estimate which units were most likely to be affected by the proposed change to the CAIR and CAMR applicability provisions and cogeneration unit definition to limit total energy input for some units to fossil fuels. Other units were expected to either already be exempt from CAIR and CAMR or to remain covered by the cap-and-trade programs regardless of the proposed change.

Emissions data at the unit level was not available and had to be estimated. The approach for estimating emissions is covered later in this document.

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

B. Data Sources After researching several sources of data, EPA decided to use data reported by owners to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA data is based on Electricity Survey Forms 860 and 767. We also considered data from EPA databases, the National Emission Inventory (NEI), and Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc (EEA) Industrial Boiler database, but found that EIA had the most complete data for our needs at the individual unit level. The EIA database contains the associated generator nameplate data that is an important applicability factor for CAIR and CAMR. The associated generator nameplate is not available in the other databases. EIA also identifies whether each generator is a cogenerator, and whether it meets FERC qualifying facility requirements for cogeneration. In addition, there is an EIA data field that identifies whether the generator delivers electricity to the grid (EGU/Non-EGU status). However, the field only indicates those units that may deliver some amount of electricity to the grid, but not how much they actually sold.

For the inventory, we used the EIA-860 and EIA-767 databases to identify all boilers associated with a cogenerator with generator nameplate greater than 25 MW. The EIA-767 database has fuel use and heat content by specific fuel type. This data can be used to identify units that burn both biomass and any fossil fuel or any coal. We used this data for the inventory and identified any unit burning any amount of a biomass fuel, and biomass fuel and coal, in the 2001 to 2004 period.

EIA, and the other databases, do not provide the data necessary to determine if an EGU cogeneration unit is exempt -- percent of unit generating capacity or total amounts of electricity sold to the grid, and overall thermal efficiency. Prior to 2001, EIA provided facility electricity sales data and total facility nameplate in the non-utility version of EIA-860. This data can be used to make an estimate of the percentage of plant capacity sold, but not unit capacity. In addition, EIA does not collect unit emissions data from these sources, leaving a gap in the inventory analysis.

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

C. Developing Emissions Estimates EIA does not collect measured emissions from the units of interest, but it does collect information such as fuels burned, fuel heat and sulfur content, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) applicability, and control equipment information that can be used in conjunction with emission factors to estimate annual NOx, SO2, and Hg emissions. The emission calculations are based on 2004 fuel data and other emission-related information provided in the EIA-767 boiler database, combined with emission factor information from other sources. Estimation methods for each pollutant are outlined below.

1. NOx Emissions Whenever possible, EIA annual controlled NOx rates (lb/mmBtu) and annual fuel heat input from EIA-767 were used to calculate annual NOx emissions. The EIA annual controlled NOx rates are in lbs/mmBtu and were found in the boiler table of the EIA-767 database. The EIA-767 instructions request that these rates be based on data from continuous emission monitors (CEMs), if possible. If CEMS data are not available, these rates should be based on the method used to report emissions data to environmental authorities. The controlled NOx rates are not fuelspecific, so the same annual NOx rate was multiplied by each fuel's annual heat input in the calculations.

However, not all units reported emission rate information on EIA-767, so we had to look to additional sources for average emission factors. U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors and National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) emission factors were used when EIA factors were not available. AP-42 and NREL tables contain average emission factors for most unit type, NOx control, and fuel type combinations. The NSPS status was the main driver used in determining the most appropriate NOx emission factor since we did not have consistent boiler type information from EIA-767. These emission factors were used in conjunction with the annual fuel quantities and heat input for each boiler to calculate the annual NOx emission estimate for each fuel burned by the unit. The NOx emission factors are reported in Table 1 below.

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

Table 1 NOx Emission Factors (AP42 and NREL)


Emission Factor
1.66 lbs/1000 gals 24 lbs/1000 gals

Unit Type
Non-NSPS Boiler Non-NSPS Recovery Furnace Non-NSPS Boiler Non-NSPS Recovery Furnace D Boiler D Recovery Furnace Non-NSPS Boiler Non-NSPS Recovery Furnace Da Boiler Db Boiler D Recovery Boiler Non-NSPS Boiler Non-NSPS Recovery Boiler Non-NSPS Recovery Boiler Da Boiler Db Boiler Non-NSPS Boiler D Recovery Furnace Da Recovery Furnace Non-NSPS Recovery Furnace Non-NSPS Boiler Non-NSPS Boiler Non-NSPS Boiler D Boiler Non-NSPS Boiler

EIA Fuel
Wood/Woodwaste Liquids Other Biomass Liquids Distillate Fuel Oil

Factor Source
NREL Table 12.6b

AP42 Table 1.3-1

Residual Fuel Oil Waste Oil (petroleum based liquid waste) Residual Fuel Oil Waste Oil (petroleum based liquid waste) Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Propane Gas Wood Waste Solids

40 lbs/1000 gals

AP42 Table 1.3-1

47 lbs/1000 gals

AP42 Table 1.3-1

0.14 lb/mmBtu 0.19 lb/mmBtu 0.27 lb/mmBtu 0.27 lb/mmBtu 0.22 lb/mmBtu

AP42 Table 1.4-1 AP42 Table 1.4-1 AP42 Table 1.4-1 AP42 Table 1.5-1 AP42 Table 1.6-2

Black Liquor

1.5 lbs/ton

NREL Table 12.6a

Other Biomass Solids Sludge Waste Tire Derived Fuel Bituminous Coal Bituminous Coal Petroleum Coke Waste Coal Agricultural By-Products

1.2 lbs/ton 5 lbs/ton 22 lbs/ton 10 lbs/ton 15 lbs/ton

NREL Table 12.6a NREL Table 12.6a NREL Table 12.6a AP42 Table 1.1-3 AP42 Table 1.1-3

Non-NSPS Boiler

1.2 lbs/ton

NREL Table 12.6a

10

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

2. SO2 Emissions The SO2 emissions were similarly calculated based on EIA fuel quantity, heat content, and fossil fuel sulfur content from EIA-767, combined with SO2 emission factors from AP-42, NREL, 40 CFR Part 75, and NESCAUM. EIA fuel sulfur content was used in all of the fossil fuel emission estimates except for natural gas, propane gas, and petroleum coke. The Part 75 default SO2 emission rate of 0.0006 lb/mmBtu was used for natural gas and propane gas. We assumed a petroleum coke sulfur content of 4.5% since none of the facilities that burned petroleum coke had reported the sulfur content to EIA.

SO2 emission factors for all of the non-fossil fuels, except for wood waste solids and black liquor, were taken from the same NREL document used for the non-fossil fuel NOx emission factors. The wood waste solids emission factor was taken from AP-42. The black liquor emission factor was based on information from a NESCAUM document. The SO2 emission factors are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 SO2 Emission Factors (AP42, Part 75, NREL, NESCAUM)
EIA Fuel
Wood/Wood Waste Liquids Other Biomass Liquids Wood Waste Solids Sludge Waste Agricultural By-Products Other Biomass Solids Black Liquor Distillate Fuel Oil Residual Fuel Oil Waste Oil Natural Gas Propane Gas Tire Derived Fuel Bituminous Coal (CFB Boiler) Bituminous Coal

Emission Factor
1.42 lbs/1000 gals 0.025 lb/mmBtu 2.8 lbs/ton 0.08 lb/ton 1.5 lb/ton -- 3 to 5% S, with less than 1% of sulfur emitted. 157 (%S) lbs/1000 gals

Factor Source
NREL Table 12.6a AP42 Table 1.6-2 NREL Table 12.6a NREL Table 12.6a NESCAUM BART AP42 Table 1.3-1

0.0006 lb/mmBtu 0.0006 lb/mmBtu 38 lbs/ton 31 (%S) lbs/ton 38 (%S) lbs/ton

Part 75 Default Rate Part 75 Default Rate NREL Table 12.6a AP42 Table 1.1-3 AP42 Table 1.1-3

11

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

EIA Fuel
Subbituminous Coal Waste Coal (CFB Boiler)1 Petroleum Coke (CFB Boiler) Petroleum Coke
1

Emission Factor
38 (%S) lbs/ton 31 (%S) lbs/ton 31 (%S) lbs/ton -- assumed S content of 4.5% 38 (%S) lbs/ton -- assumed S content of 4.5%

Factor Source
AP42 Table 1.1-3 AP42 Table 1.1-3 AP42 Table 1.1-3 AP42 Table 1.1-3

The EIA reported standard of 0.129 lb/mmBtu was used for one waste coal/petroleum coke fired CFB unit in place of the petroleum coke sulfur content assumption used for other petroleum coke units.

EIA flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit SO2 removal efficiencies for different types have been included in the calculation. We are unsure how complete the FGD data are, so we also capped NSPS unit SO2 emission rates at the emission limit in the applicable subpart. EIA-767 information on FGD units was used to identify units with SO2 control devices, and the FGD control efficiency.

3. Hg Emissions Although fuel Hg content is not reported by EIA, the annual Hg emissions had to be calculated for coal burning units in CAMR. We decided to use the uncontrolled emission factors and emission modification factors (from the Integrated Planning Model (IPM)) for the coal type and control equipment that was reported to EIA. For the biomass cogeneration Hg estimate, we calculated a median emission factor for bituminous coal and sub-bituminous coal from the EPA emission factor clusters. The median emission factor for bituminous coal was 12.07 lbs/TBtu, and 5.02 lbs/TBtu for sub-bituminous coal. The emission modification factors are based on boiler type, coal type, and control equipment. The EIA data did not consistently identify boiler type, so our assignment of emission modification factors was limited to coal type and control equipment. The emission modification factors that we used for the biomass cogeneration inventory are listed below in Table 3.

12

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

Table 3 Emission Modification Factors Used in Biomass Unit Hg Estimates


Hg Emission Modification Factor
0.05 0.05 0.64 0.1 0.11 0.34 0.64 0.64 0.9 0.97 1.0
1 2

Unit Type1
Fluidized Bed Fluidized Bed Fluidized Bed -

Coal Type2
BIT BIT BIT BIT BIT BIT BIT BIT BIT SUB BIT

NOx PostCombustion Control


SNCR None None None None None None None None None None

Particulate Matter Control


Fabric Filter Fabric Filter Cold Side ESP Fabric Filter Fabric Filter Cold Side ESP Cold Side ESP Cold Side ESP Wet Scrubber Cold Side ESP Hot Side ESP

SO2 Post Combustion Control


Yes, Not Identified None None Dry FGD None Wet FGD None Dry FGD None None None

Unit type was only identified for fluidized bed units. Waste coal and synthetic coal were treated as bituminous.

D. Determining Affected Units With an estimated universe of biomass cogeneration units and their attributes, the next step was to try to estimate which ones were most likely to be affected by a change to the CAIR and CAMR applicability provisions and cogeneration unit definition to limit total energy input to fossil fuels for some units. This subset consists of units that are (1) below the threshold for electricity sales and also (2) operating below the thermal efficiency standard. Because EPA does not have either of these important pieces of information from EIA or the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), we had to use the information we did have to make a reasonable assessment.

13

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

Any units that reported to EIA that they did not have the ability to sell power to the grid were eliminated first. There are 79 units in the inventory that reported they do not sell power to the grid. Units at plants that sold more than the threshold (i.e., more than 1/3 potential electric output capacity or 219,000 MWh) in 1999 or 2000 (the most recent years for which such data exists) were also eliminated because they would still not qualify as exempt cogeneration units from CAIR and CAMR, even with the proposed revisions to the applicability provisions and cogeneration unit definition to limit total energy input to fossil fuels for some units. Using data that EPA analyzed in developing the NOx NODA Allocations, we identified 15 more units above the electricity sales threshold. 3 Since EPA did not have any evidence that any other units had surpassed the threshold, it assumed that the rest had electricity sales below the threshold level to be conservative in its estimates. EPA recognizes that some of these remaining units may have sales above the threshold in unreported years and therefore also not qualify for the cogeneration unit exemption. In addition, one unit in the inventory was found to have irreconcilable data problems and not included in the results.

That left a total of 86 units that were selling power to the grid and assumed to be below the sales threshold. EPA then analyzed the heat input of the remaining units to determine which ones were likely to meet the thermal efficiency standard in the existing rules and therefore, already qualify for the exemption from CAIR and CAMR for cogeneration units. The best indicator to make this determination was the ratio of fossil heat input to total heat input. In general, the higher the percentage of heat input from fossil fuels, the more likely a biomass cogeneration unit is to meet the existing efficiency standard because there is less moisture in the fuel (moisture lowers the thermal efficiency). To estimate which units were likely to meet the existing efficiency standard in the cogeneration unit definition, EPA calculated the percentage of heat input from biomass and the percentage of heat input from fossil fuel. We also performed calculations on what percentage of fossil fuel was generally needed for a unit to be likely to meet the existing efficiency standard based on the type of biomass and type of fossil fuel or fuels burned. To do this, a number of assumptions about unit characteristics and performance
EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) with initial unit NOx allocations for the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan trading programs, Notice of Data Availability for EGU NOx Annual and NOx Ozone Season Allocations for the Clean Air Interstate Rule Federal Implementation Plan Trading Programs, 71 FR 44283.
3

14

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

attributes were required. These assumptions and calculations are EPAs best estimate, but are not definitive measures of unit efficiency.

For units burning bituminous coal, EPA calculated that at least 40% of the heat input would have to come from coal and the remainder from biomass. For other fossil fuels, the heat input percentages were found to be at least 30% for heating oil and 10% for natural gas and the remaining heat input from biomass. These are assumptions based on model unit characteristics and may not apply to all units. Not all units with fossil fuel input above these levels are guaranteed to meet the existing efficiency standard and not all units below these levels are guaranteed not to meet the existing efficiency standard due to their particular boiler and turbine characteristics. More information about the fuel and heat input assumptions and the thermal efficiency calculation is available in the following sections.

Units with fossil heat input above the minimum are assumed to already meet the existing efficiency standard and be eligible for the cogeneration unit exemption. We have assumed that those units below the minimum are unlikely to meet the existing efficiency standard and will not be eligible for the exemption, as currently written. These are the units that would be affected by the proposed change in the efficiency standard to limit total energy input for some units to fossil fuels. After calculating the heat input ratios for each unit, there were 55 units in this subset for NOx emissions, 46 units for SO2 emissions, and 6 units for Hg emissions. The other units who would not be affected by the change consist of 31 units for NOx emissions, 28 units for SO2 emissions, and 30 units for Hg emissions. The number of units for NOx and SO2 are not identical because the state of Arkansas is only required to make NOx emissions reductions under CAIR, not SO2 reductions. See Appendix B for the List of Biomass Cogeneration Units Potentially Affected by the Proposal in CAIR and CAMR Regions.

E. Thermal Efficiency Estimates for Fossil Fuels As discussed earlier in this TSD, the thermal efficiency standard is based on the ratio of energy output to energy input determined by using the fuels lower heating value (LHV). EPA estimated the amounts of fossil fuels required to be co-fired with biomass to allow cogeneration

15

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

units to meet the existing thermal efficiency standard of 42.5%. Units already meeting the existing thermal efficiency standard would not be affected by the proposed action. The following assumptions and methodologies were used to develop the estimates used to determine which units were likely to be affected by the proposed rule: 1. Heat balance for a typical cogeneration unit firing biomass that does not meet the existing EPA-specified thermal efficiency standard is shown in Table 4.4 This heat balance was used as a basis for estimating the amounts of various fossil fuels required for co-firing with biomass to improve the unit thermal efficiency to reach the 42.5% standard. The cogeneration unit represented in Table 4 uses a backpressure turbine and provides process steam at two different pressures. The boiler efficiency for this unit is only 69% and the overall unit thermal efficiency based on the lower heating value of biomass is 39.6% -below the thermal efficiency standard. TABLE 4 Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Unit Heat Balance Parameter Unit Value Unit gross output Unit net output Unit net output Turbine inlet steam flow Turbine inlet steam pressure Turbine inlet steam temperature Turbine inlet steam enthalpy Process steam #1 flow Process steam #1 pressure Process steam #1 temperature Process steam #1 enthalpy Process steam #2 flow Process steam #2 pressure MW MW Btu/hr lb/hr psig
o

6.6 4.1 13,993,300 200,000 900 800 1,411 65,000 175 420 1,225 135,000 50

Btu/lb lb/hr Psig


o

Btu/lb Lb/hr psig

AF&PAs Policy, Practical, and Legal Concerns about Inclusion of Biomass Fired Cogeneration Units in the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Report Submitted by American Forest & Paper Association to EPA, September 18, 2006

16

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

Parameter Process steam #2 temperature Process steam #2 enthalpy Makeup water enthalpy Process thermal output Power to heat ratio Boiler efficiency Boiler feedwater temperature Boiler feedwater enthalpy Fuel heat input (higher heating value) Fuel heat input (lower heating value) Thermal efficiency Thermal efficiency (based on EPA efficiency standard)

Unit
o

Value 320 1,190 41 232,075,000 0.06

Btu/lb Btu/lb Btu/hr

%
o

69 250 218 345,797,101 328,507,246 71.2 39.6

Btu/lb Btu/hr Btu/hr % %

2. Table 5 shows typical biomass and fossil fuel ultimate analyses used in the estimates. The fossil fuels include bituminous coal, sub-bituminous coal, lignite, natural gas, and residual oil. The analysis for biomass was selected to match the 69% boiler efficiency shown in Table 4. TABLE 5 Fuel Ultimate Analyses Bituminous SubLignite(2) (2) Coal Bituminous Coal(2) 63.74 4.5 1.25 50.25 3.41 0.65 36.27 2.42 0.71

Fuel Property Carbon, wt. % Hydrogen, wt. % Nitrogen, wt. %

Biomass(1)

Natural Gas(1) 69.26 22.68 8.06

Residual Oil(3) 85.70 10.50 0.40

28.49 3.14 0.11

17

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

Oxygen, wt. % Sulfur, wt. % Moisture, wt. % Ash, wt. % Higher heating value, Btu/lb

21.12 0.06 45.00 2.08 4,807

6.89 2.51 11.12 9.70 11,667

13.55 0.22 27.40 4.50 8,800

10.76 0.64 31.24 17.92 6,312

21,824

0.52 2.50 0.30 0.08 18,660

NOTES: 1. Source: Steam, Babcock & Wilcox, 40th Edition. The analysis of natural gas is based on the following volumetric analysis: CH4: 90.0%; C2H6: 5.0%; and N2: 5.0%. 2. Source: Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coal-Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal Technologies, EPA-430/R-06/006, July 2006. 3. Source: Combustion, Combustion Engineering, 3rd Edition

3. Compared to biomass, the analyses of all fossil fuels in Table 5 show lower moisture contents, greater carbon contents, and greater heating values. If these fossil fuels are cofired with biomass, the boiler efficiency would improve, with the amount of improvement depending on the amount of each fossil fuel in the fuel mix. A certain increase in the boiler efficiency would be anticipated with the co-firing of each fossil fuel to improve the overall thermal efficiency of the cogeneration plant to the required 42.5%. Therefore, the main objective of these estimates was to determine the amount of each fossil fuel in the fuel mix that would provide sufficient increase in the boiler efficiency to meet the existing thermal efficiency standard. 4. Boiler efficiencies and the lower and higher heating value ratios were estimated using different proportions of biomass and fossil fuels in the fuel mix. These estimates were based on well-established industry practices.5 The estimates were used in the cogeneration unit heat balance (Table 4) to determine the boiler efficiency and the amount of co-fired fossil fuel that would result in an overall unit thermal efficiency of 42.5%. Since the heating values of residual and distillate oils are close, the results of this analysis for residual oil would also apply to distillate oil.
5

Steam, Babcock & Wilcox, 40th Edition.

18

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

5. Table 6 presents the results of the analysis, showing the estimated percentage of each fossil fuel (on a heat input basis) required to be co-fired with biomass in order to meet the existing thermal efficiency standard. The corresponding ratio of lower to higher heating value and boiler efficiency for each fossil fuel is also shown. The estimated amounts of fossil fuels required to be co-fired with biomass on a heat input basis to meet the existing thermal efficiency standard are as follows (rounded): Lignite: Sub-bituminous coal: Bituminous coal: Residual oil: Natural gas: 60% 50% 40% 30% 10%

TABLE 6 Amounts of Fossil Fuels Required for Co-firing Co-fired Fuel Amount of Fuel Co-fired, % of heat input 60 50 40 30 10 Lower to Higher Heating Value Ratio 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 Boiler Efficiency, % 74.4 74 74 73.4 73.3

Lignite Sub-Bituminous Coal Bituminous Coal Residual Oil Natural Gas

6. The results of this analysis presented in Table 6 may vary due to differences in the assumed fuel or cogeneration unit characteristics. For example, the boiler efficiency may vary with a different biomass analysis, especially if the moisture content is significantly different from what has been assumed and shown in Table 5. The overall thermal efficiency of the cogeneration unit may also be different as a result of different design parameters. However, it is expected that the results from different cogeneration unit and fuel characteristics would not be significantly different from what is presented in the estimates for this document. 19

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

APPENDIX A LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 944 35 60 751 1,253 702 453 85 192 748 1,980 579 468 9,921 499 453 399 73 103 777 564 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 824 22 122 108 1,174 669 438 332 115 696 656 445 642 2,395 193 173 169 472 697 691 471

Abitibi Consolidated Sheldon Alabama Pine Pulp Alabama Pine Pulp Alabama River Pulp Alabama River Pulp Ashdown Ashdown Ashdown Ashdown Ashdown Brunswick Cellulose Brunswick Cellulose Brunswick Cellulose Cedar Bay Generating LP Chester Operations Cogentrix Roxboro Cogentrix Roxboro Cogentrix Roxboro Covington Facility Covington Facility Covington Facility Covington Facility

TX AL AL AL AL AR AR AR AR AR GA GA GA FL PA NC NC NC VA VA VA VA

Harris Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Little River Little River Little River Little River Little River Glynn Glynn Glynn Duval Delaware Person Person Person Covington Covington Covington Covington

50253 54429 54429 10216 10216 54104 54104 54104 54104 54104 10605 10605 10605 10672 50410 10379 10379 10379 50900 50900 50900 50900

1PB RB2 PB2 PB1 RB1 PB2 RB3 RB2 PB3 PB1 6RB 4PB 5RB CBC 10 1B 1A 1C 7PB 8PB 2RB 1RB

322122 322 322 322 322 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 22 322122 22 22 22 32213 32213 32213 32213

0 8,621 8,354 8,473 8,263 8,532 8,452 8,441 8,436 8,543 8,445 8,356 8,356 7,560 7,381 6,213 4,631 5,148 8,528 8,404 8,400 8,486 13,734,572 1,874,440 3,495,210 10,848,070 7,117,398 10,257,299 6,672,803 7,376,715 3,816,794 11,867,833 5,341,232 7,446,729 7,549,458 5,304,331 942,177 845,747 826,070 2,152,560 3,205,000 8,819,082 5,719,188 52,430 39,096 27,023 33,311 498,960 862,400 8,517,312 5,246,688 13,541,792 1,705,600 3,264,000 10,348,480 2,174,400 10,175,520 6,573,720 6,795,000 3,468,600 11,840,000 3,996,125 7,361,280 192,780 168,840 231,210 499,590 4,942,998 81,779 99,083 581,715 348,194 27,833 1,317,207 85,449 7,549,458 5,251,901 738,106 659,978 633,326 1,653,600 2,342,600 301,770 472,500

20

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 63 8 522 3,446 531 29 367 20 19 43,512 220,046 3,641,435 2,801,935 343,350 161,752 142,380 80,010 3,643,154 3,643,154 868,042 611,189 80,360 204,166 653,940 3,907,890 474,008 689 72 5,398 4,306 345 43 490 305 7,799 7,799 55 40 757 730 768 4,634 29 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 865 319 572 1,914 500 280 186 23 22 965 673 1,077 943 716 401 377 240 1,284 1,284 1,281 304 719 694 415 758 281

DeRidder Mill DeRidder Mill DeRidder Mill Escanaba Paper Company Escanaba Paper Company Escanaba Paper Company Finch Pruyn Finch Pruyn Finch Pruyn Flint River Operations Flint River Operations Gadsden Gadsden Gaylord Container Bogalusa Gaylord Container Bogalusa Gaylord Container Bogalusa Gaylord Container Bogalusa Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs Georgia Pacific Crossett Georgia Pacific Crossett Georgia Pacific Crossett Georgia Pacific Naheola Mill Georgia Pacific Palatka Operations Georgia Pacific Palatka Operations Georgia Pacific Port Hudson

LA LA LA MI MI MI NY NY NY GA GA AL AL LA LA LA LA GA GA AR AR AR AL FL FL LA

Beauregard Beauregard Beauregard Delta Delta Delta Warren Warren Warren Macon Macon Etowah Etowah Washington Washington Washington Washington Early Early Ashley Ashley Ashley Choctaw Putnam Putnam East Baton Rouge

10488 10488 10488 10208 10208 10208 10511 10511 10511 50465 50465 7 7 54427 54427 54427 54427 54101 54101 10606 10606 10606 10699 10611 10611 10612

PB1 PB2 REC 11 10 9 9 8 10 RB PB 2 1 12 10C 21 20 PB1 PB2 10A 9A 8R 4 4 COMB 4RB PB1

322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322 322 22 22 322122 322122 322122 322122 32213 32213 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122

8,605 8,398 8,171 8,497 8,486 8,310 8,077 7,901 8,118 8,254 8,484 5,542 7,582 8,568 8,568 8,568 8,568 8,280 8,240 8,479 8,040 8,437 8,387 8,462 8,094 8,590

6,796,955 2,767,967 7,754,583 7,654,422 7,842,134 2,502,776 1,497,730 1,385,790 1,337,700 8,770,620 2,693,406 3,649,559 2,811,935 6,360,750 3,611,452 5,820,780 3,719,610 5,552,354 5,552,354 5,228,500 3,804,691 11,061,260 11,085,696 3,494,440 6,364,690 2,814,008

4,839,024 2,191,752 7,139,571 3,147,145 7,521,423 2,317,500 1,047,280 1,385,790 1,337,700 8,727,108 2,473,360 8,124 10,000 6,017,400 3,449,700 5,678,400 3,639,600 1,909,200 1,909,200 4,360,458 3,193,502 10,980,900 10,881,530 2,840,500 2,456,800 2,340,000

1,647,931 576,215 615,013 4,507,277 320,711 185,276 450,450

21

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 552 358 94 98 67 28 445 394 624 1,287 735 60 471 442 611 331 372 768 2,098 819 537 555 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 622 384 45 57 48 21 427 436 583 935 688 551 216 726 1,301 451 295 53 1,098 482 488 231

Georgia Pacific Port Hudson Georgia Pacific Port Hudson Green Power Kenansville Green Power Kenansville Inland Paperboard Packaging Rome Inland Paperboard Packaging Rome Inland Paperboard Packaging Rome Inland Paperboard Packaging Rome Inland Paperboard Packaging Rome International Paper Augusta Mill International Paper Augusta Mill International Paper Augusta Mill International Paper Augusta Mill International Paper Courtland Mill International Paper Courtland Mill International Paper Eastover Facility International Paper Eastover Facility International Paper Eastover Facility International Paper Franklin Mill International Paper Franklin Mill International Paper Franklin Mill International Paper Franklin Mill

LA LA NC NC GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA AL AL SC SC SC VA VA VA VA

East Baton Rouge East Baton Rouge Duplin Duplin Floyd Floyd Floyd Floyd Floyd Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Lawrence Lawrence Richland Richland Richland Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Isle of Wight

10612 10612 10381 10381 10426 10426 10426 10426 10426 54358 54358 54358 54358 50245 50245 52151 52151 52151 52152 52152 52152 52152

RB2 RB1 1B 1A RF3 RF4 PB3 PB1 RF5 PB1 RB3 PB3 RB2 PB3 RB3 PB2 RF1 RF2 7PB 6PB 6RB 5RB

322122 322122 22 22 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122

8,520 8,520 2,266 2,980 1,599 788 8,599 6,916 8,175 8,347 8,438 8,426 8,359 8,241 8,363 8,664 8,480 8,458 8,507 8,364 8,477 8,324

8,183,330 5,293,371 273,702 344,871 316,052 151,164 2,997,150 3,190,642 8,130,490 5,126,835 11,453,163 4,973,896 2,974,331 9,549,151 8,054,211 3,022,823 4,629,895 10,593,852 4,650,553 3,194,246 6,631,494 2,723,140

8,004,000 5,185,200 96,000 165,000 10,880 32,640 2,482,004 2,724,776 8,087,272 2,860,011 11,406,957 4,821,606 2,716,595 8,997,300 8,041,050 2,502,600 4,569,600 10,534,800 1,289,330 1,437,660 6,612,340 2,340,380

179,330 108,171 165,502 155,471 305,172 118,524 485,116 465,866 43,218 2,266,824 46,206 152,290 257,736 242,851 13,161 45,923 60,295 59,052 3,361,223 1,756,586 19,154 382,760

22

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 194 1,249 1,105 556 651 1,481 310 346 96 363 360 541 38 167 163 67 1,491 115 509 123 508 154 121 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 182 766 751 387 475 48 326 341 756 114 104 521 303 171 164 356 838 355 467 447 704 555 606

International Paper Franklin Mill International Paper Georgetown Mill International Paper Georgetown Mill International Paper Georgetown Mill International Paper Georgetown Mill International Paper Louisiana Mill International Paper Louisiana Mill International Paper Louisiana Mill International Paper Pensacola International Paper Pensacola International Paper Pensacola International Paper Pine Bluff Mill International Paper Pine Bluff Mill International Paper Pine Bluff Mill International Paper Pine Bluff Mill International Paper Prattville Mill International Paper Prattville Mill International Paper Prattville Mill International Paper Prattville Mill International Paper Quinnesec Mich Mill International Paper Quinnesec Mich Mill International Paper Riegelwood Mill International Paper Riegelwood Mill

VA SC SC SC SC LA LA LA FL FL FL AR AR AR AR AL AL AL AL MI MI NC NC

Isle of Wight Georgetown Georgetown Georgetown Georgetown Morehouse Morehouse Morehouse Escambia Escambia Escambia Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Autauga Autauga Autauga Autauga Dickinson Dickinson Columbus Columbus

52152 54087 54087 54087 54087 54090 54090 54090 50250 50250 50250 10627 10627 10627 10627 52140 52140 52140 52140 50251 50251 54656 54656

4RB PB01 PB02 RB01 RB02 3PB 5REC 6REC 4PB 2RB 1RB RB4 BB1 RB2 RB3 PB1 PB2 RF1 RF2 WTB RB PB2 PB5

322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 322 322 32213 32213

7,626 8,587 8,609 8,308 8,487 8,564 8,405 8,522 8,249 8,320 8,267 7,770 8,012 8,316 7,971 8,527 8,567 8,421 8,561 8,468 8,490 8,232 8,304

2,483,460 4,257,583 4,173,126 5,673,035 7,031,535 5,661,928 4,741,380 5,158,971 4,444,719 5,575,360 5,468,656 8,079,931 2,677,907 2,565,437 2,484,848 2,839,307 4,407,171 4,865,477 6,728,681 2,980,069 7,406,214 4,662,061 5,206,612

2,483,460 2,419,217 2,509,147 5,505,938 6,864,382 3,264,525 4,469,760 5,040,120 3,492,873 5,443,200 5,400,000 7,977,980 2,589,830 2,460,300 2,396,580 1,328,718 2,161,412 4,604,890 6,513,894 2,812,320 7,367,160 3,434,065 4,265,518 1,119,166 954,079 167,097 167,153 1,020,403 271,620 118,851 951,846 132,160 68,656 101,951 88,076 105,137 88,268 1,510,589 2,245,759 260,586 214,787 167,749 39,054 1,227,996 941,094

23

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 204 407 949 80 350 3,552 820 2,070 508 420 1,982 348 347 81,762 56,650 7,566,803 143,232 143,232 3,421,440 4,263,600 4,620,946 4,812,786 2,001,650 4,897,991 95,146 516,702 498,206 1,030,691 893,175 136,957 100,155 252,332 104,337 361 16 609 157 158 1,242 1,362 324 329 29 61 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 109 304 743 639 333 2,043 802 842 234 407 547 326 326 357 5 516 313 316 548 397 304 312 254 546

International Paper Riegelwood Mill International Paper Riegelwood Mill International Paper Riegelwood Mill International Paper Riverdale Mill International Paper Riverdale Mill International Paper Savanna Mill International Paper Savanna Mill International Paper Texarkana Mill International Paper Vicksburg Mill International Paper Vicksburg Mill Jefferson Smurfit Fernandina Beach Jefferson Smurfit Fernandina Beach Jefferson Smurfit Fernandina Beach Johnsonburg Mill Luke Mill Luke Mill M L Hibbard M L Hibbard Mansfield Mill Mansfield Mill Mansfield Mill Mansfield Mill Mead Coated Board Mead Coated Board

NC NC NC AL AL GA GA TX MS MS FL FL FL PA MD MD MN MN LA LA LA LA AL AL

Columbus Columbus Columbus Dallas Dallas Chatham Chatham Cass Warren Warren Nassau Nassau Nassau Elk Allegany Allegany St Louis St Louis De Soto De Soto De Soto De Soto Russell Russell

54656 54656 54656 54096 54096 50398 50398 54097 54100 54100 10202 10202 10202 54638 50282 50282 1897 1897 54091 54091 54091 54091 54802 54802

RB3 RB4 RB5 BLRB2 BLRR2 13PB 15RB PB2 N1BABO N1REBO 5PWR 4REC 5REC RB01 2RB 3RB 3 4 PB2 PB1 RB1 RB2 BB1 BB3

32213 32213 32213 322122 322122 32213 32213 32213 322122 322122 32213 32213 32213 322122 322122 322122 22 22 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213

5,568 8,215 7,879 8,532 8,532 8,592 8,592 8,376 8,480 8,480 8,520 8,605 8,452 8,426 655 8,592 6,611 6,616 8,471 8,508 8,478 8,516 7,717 7,765

1,516,419 4,452,702 10,969,433 4,257,388 5,383,661 8,695,526 10,719,437 6,465,027 1,482,201 6,029,106 4,337,240 5,044,840 5,034,400 5,133,165 56,650 7,661,949 659,934 641,438 5,399,254 6,101,037 4,757,903 4,912,941 2,253,982 5,002,328

1,403,460 4,345,980 10,767,770 3,936,072 5,347,132 1,095,726 10,251,000 2,904,700 127,750 5,932,500 2,849,180 5,044,840 5,034,400 5,051,402

112,959 106,722 201,663 321,316 36,529 7,599,800 468,437 3,560,327 1,354,451 96,606 1,488,060

24

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 44 394 498 35 58 196 230 417 1,788 34 445 585 34 35 34 3,950 429 456 1,093 425 191 195 53 495 1,427 908 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 392 373 468 603 285 190 219 392 908 255 413 436 292 296 292 647 356 192 1,083 399 179 183 432 467 637 696

Mead Coated Board Mead Coated Board Mead Coated Board MeadWestvaco Evadale MeadWestvaco Evadale MeadWestvaco Evadale MeadWestvaco Evadale MeadWestvaco Evadale Mobile Energy Services LLC MW Custom Papers MW Custom Papers Northhampton Generating LP Okeelanta Cogeneration Okeelanta Cogeneration Okeelanta Cogeneration P H Glatfelter P H Glatfelter Packaging Corp of America Packaging Corp of America Packaging Corp of America Packaging Corp of America Packaging Corp of America Port Wentworth Mill (Stone Savanah) Port Wentworth Mill (Stone Savanah) Rayonier Jesup Mill Rayonier Jesup Mill

AL AL AL TX TX TX TX TX AL OH OH PA FL FL FL PA PA TN TN TN TN TN GA GA GA GA

Russell Russell Russell Jasper Jasper Jasper Jasper Jasper Mobile Ross Ross Northampton Palm Beach Palm Beach Palm Beach York York Hardin Hardin Hardin Hardin Hardin Chatham Chatham Wayne Wayne

54802 54802 54802 50101 50101 50101 50101 50101 50407 10244 10244 50888 54627 54627 54627 50397 50397 50296 50296 50296 50296 50296 50804 50804 10560 10560

BB2 REC1 REC2 PB2 PB6 RB2 RB3 RB4 7PB 6 9 BLR1 C A B 5PB036 REC037 C1 C2 R3 R1 R2 4 RE01 POWB RB6

32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 22 322122 322122 22 22 22 22 322122 322122 32213 32213 32213 32213 32213 322 322 322 322

8,358 8,273 8,160 8,442 8,483 8,167 8,606 8,712 8,472 8,443 8,756 7,709 7,519 7,659 7,495 8,496 8,280 7,488 8,585 8,507 8,210 8,380 8,560 8,300 7,864 8,449

3,591,949 5,844,992 7,511,587 4,979,311 5,175,146 2,887,374 3,362,895 6,055,062 5,924,678 2,323,216 4,643,845 9,282,185 4,033,714 4,050,826 3,995,462 4,795,518 7,129,373 1,476,074 6,566,343 6,376,690 2,868,389 2,928,369 3,788,955 7,072,124 5,089,289 10,710,627

3,521,973 5,742,185 7,494,670 2,766,400 4,648,800 2,842,000 3,340,800 6,043,600 3,223,894 2,293,569 4,586,326 221,888 4,011,110 4,031,120 3,983,290 1,230,394 7,111,380 288,129 4,425,874 6,372,000 2,868,000 2,928,000 3,604,500 7,008,032 3,094,580 10,400,400

69,976 102,807 16,917 2,212,911 526,346 45,374 22,095 11,462 2,700,784 29,648 57,519 9,060,298 22,604 19,706 12,172 3,565,124 17,993 1,187,945 2,140,469 4,690 389 369 184,455 64,092 1,994,709 310,227

25

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 557 89 16 30 620 9,623 8,601 2,377 3,089 38 224 447 1,031 359 226 212 428 395 695 337 381 271 828 75 455 293 742 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 455 578 102 233 451 927 863 150 1,419 886 254 431 1,081 330 993 934 488 283 355 521 439 1,034 554 247 437 276 550

Rayonier Jesup Mill S D Warren Muskegon Sappi Cloquet Mill Sappi Cloquet Mill Sappi Cloquet Mill Savannah River Mill Savannah River Mill SP Newsprint Stone Container Florence Mill Stone Container Hodge Stone Container Hodge Stone Container Hodge Stone Container Hopewell Mill Stone Container Hopewell Mill TES Filer City Station TES Filer City Station Ticonderoga Mill Ticonderoga Mill West Point Mill (St Laurent Paper) West Point Mill (St Laurent Paper) West Point Mill (St Laurent Paper) Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS Weyerhaeuser Kentucky Mills Weyerhaeuser Kentucky Mills Weyerhaeuser Kentucky Mills Weyerhaeuser New Bern NC

GA MI MN MN MN GA GA GA SC LA LA LA VA VA MI MI NY NY VA VA VA MS MS KY KY KY NC

Wayne Muskegon Carlton Carlton Carlton Effingham Effingham Laurens Florence Jackson Jackson Jackson Hopewell City Hopewell City Manistee Manistee Essex Essex King William King William King William Lowndes Lowndes Hancock Hancock Hancock Craven

10560 50438 50639 50639 50639 10361 10361 54004 50806 50810 50810 50810 50813 50813 50835 50835 54099 54099 10017 10017 10017 50184 50184 55429 55429 55429 50188

RB5 4PB 7PB 9PB 10RB 5B 3B PB2 PB4 CB 3RB 2RB CB1 RB1 2 1 PB1 RB1 RF04 PB10 RF05 COMB REC BFB 4REC 3REC RB

322 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 22 22 322122 322122 322 322 322 322122 322122 322 322 322 322

8,484 8,177 7,950 8,561 8,525 8,454 8,533 8,520 8,385 8,516 8,459 8,309 8,568 8,401 8,658 8,098 8,400 8,400 8,263 8,424 8,068 8,600 8,496 8,439 8,455 8,228 8,424

7,092,217 3,303,319 1,486,311 2,589,894 8,682,091 3,462,113 3,196,370 3,742,462 8,599,602 7,108,390 3,521,448 6,458,318 4,316,175 5,010,480 3,347,713 3,154,695 4,688,267 3,062,078 5,542,140 4,615,480 5,456,026 6,461,390 12,314,380 3,290,933 6,674,654 4,261,330 8,541,576

6,960,000 542,080 1,097,220 2,109,440 8,569,288 21,980 21,980 780,494 3,498,600 2,961,000 3,192,000 6,372,600 2,556,000 4,976,050 145,195 145,195 949,381 2,906,400 5,142,720 4,320,640 5,322,550 6,056,400 12,249,600 2,950,500 6,594,600 4,247,920 8,364,000

132,217 2,761,239 389,091 480,454 112,803 3,440,133 3,174,390 1,527,746 5,101,002 4,147,390 329,448 85,718 1,760,175 34,430 3,135,318 2,942,299 3,738,886 155,678 399,420 294,840 133,476 404,990 64,780 340,433 80,054 13,410 177,576

26

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAIR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Hours Under Load Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual SO2 Emissions (tons) 48 576 765 1,907 779 468 363 363 140 140 140 Est. Annual NOx Emissions (tons) 499 772 553 1,242 1,056 770 674 686 131 131 131

Weyerhaeuser Pine Hill Operations Weyerhaeuser Pine Hill Operations Weyerhaeuser Pine Hill Operations Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill

AL AL AL NC NC NC WI WI WI WI WI

Wilcox Wilcox Wilcox Martin Martin Martin Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood

54752 54752 54752 50189 50189 50189 10477 10477 10477 10477 10477

1PB 2PB RECB 2HFB 5REC 1HFB P1 P2 R1 R2 R3

32213 32213 32213 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122

8,549 8,506 8,270 8,470 8,507 8,262 8,599 8,538 7,876 8,234 8,421

4,118,160 5,372,115 7,303,421 8,604,948 11,733,121 6,751,997 2,541,915 2,541,915 2,023,040 2,023,040 2,023,040

2,304,050 3,681,550 6,916,617 5,125,092 11,613,003 6,242,418 994,875 994,875 2,023,040 2,023,040 2,023,040

1,814,110 1,690,565 386,804 3,479,856 120,118 509,579 1,547,040 1,547,040

27

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAMR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual Hg Emissions (lbs) 53.44 4.54 1.49 0.98 0.88 0.84 6.79 9.61 53.07 27.52 21.32 38.32 38.32 0.22 0.21 5.86 5.55 22.18 25.03 13.57 10.02 8.03 5.60 10.61 13.86 1.33

Ashdown Bucksport Mill Cedar Bay Generating LP Chester Operations Cogentrix Roxboro Cogentrix Roxboro Cogentrix Roxboro Covington Facility Covington Facility Escanaba Paper Company Gadsden Gadsden Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs Georgia Pacific Cedar Springs Green Power Kenansville Green Power Kenansville Inland Paperboard Packaging Rome Inland Paperboard Packaging Rome International Paper Augusta Mill International Paper Franklin Mill International Paper Franklin Mill International Paper Georgetown Mill International Paper Georgetown Mill International Paper Louisiana Mill International Paper Pensacola International Paper Prattville Mill International Paper Quinnesec Mich Mill International Paper Riegelwood Mill International Paper Riegelwood Mill

AR ME FL PA NC NC NC VA VA MI AL AL GA GA NC NC GA GA GA VA VA SC SC LA FL AL MI NC NC

Little River Hancock Duval Delaware Person Person Person Covington Covington Delta Etowah Etowah Early Early Duplin Duplin Floyd Floyd Richmond Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Georgetown Georgetown Morehouse Escambia Autauga Dickinson Columbus Columbus

54104 50243 10672 50410 10379 10379 10379 50900 50900 10208 7 7 54101 54101 10381 10381 10426 10426 54358 52152 52152 54087 54087 54090 50250 52140 50251 54656 54656

PB2 8 CBC 10 1B 1A 1C 7PB 8PB 11 2 1 PB1 PB2 1B 1A PB3 PB1 PB1 7PB 6PB PB01 PB02 3PB 4PB PB2 WTB PB2 PB5

322122 322122 22 322122 22 22 22 32213 32213 322122 22 22 32213 32213 22 22 32213 32213 32213 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 32213 322 32213 32213

7,117,398 2,768,668 7,549,458 5,304,331 942,177 845,747 826,070 2,152,560 3,205,000 7,654,422 3,649,559 2,811,935 5,552,354 5,552,354 273,702 344,871 2,997,150 3,190,642 5,126,835 4,650,553 3,194,246 4,257,583 4,173,126 5,661,928 4,444,719 4,407,171 2,980,069 4,662,061 5,206,612

2,174,400 1,601,490 52,430 39,096 27,023 33,311 498,960 862,400 3,147,145 8,124 10,000 1,909,200 1,909,200 96,000 165,000 2,482,004 2,724,776 2,860,011 1,289,330 1,437,660 2,419,217 2,509,147 3,264,525 3,492,873 2,161,412 2,812,320 3,434,065 4,265,518

4,942,998 829,228 7,549,458 5,251,901 738,106 659,978 633,326 1,653,600 2,342,600 4,507,277 3,641,435 2,801,935 3,643,154 3,643,154 165,502 155,471 485,116 465,866 2,266,824 3,361,223 1,756,586 1,119,166 954,079 1,020,403 951,846 2,245,759 167,749 1,227,996 941,094

28

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

LIST OF IDENTIFIED BIOMASS COGENERATION UNITS IN THE CAMR REGION


PLANT NAME STATE COUNTY PLANT CODE BOILER ID NAICS CODE Total HI (mmBtu) Biomass HI (mmBtu) Fossil HI (mmBtu) Est. Annual Hg Emissions (lbs) 91.73 2.51 2.42 5.76 8.57 30.23 3.23 42.90 24.85 28.25 23.71 20.63 0.50 0.66 11.80 60.93 13.20 3.78 3.55 2.84 16.14 11.29 4.57 0.33 7.53 7.53

International Paper Savanna Mill M L Hibbard M L Hibbard Mansfield Mill Mansfield Mill Mobile Energy Services LLC Northhampton Generating LP P H Glatfelter Packaging Corp of America Rumford Cogeneration Rumford Cogeneration S D Warren Muskegon Savannah River Mill Savannah River Mill SP Newsprint Stone Container Florence Mill Stone Container Hopewell Mill TES Filer City Station TES Filer City Station Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS Weyerhaeuser Longview WA Weyerhaeuser Pine Hill Operations Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill Wisconsin Rapids Pulp Mill

GA MN MN LA LA AL PA PA TN ME ME MI GA GA GA SC VA MI MI MS WA AL NC NC WI WI

Chatham St Louis St Louis De Soto De Soto Mobile Northampton York Hardin Oxford Oxford Muskegon Effingham Effingham Laurens Florence Hopewell City Manistee Manistee Lowndes Cowlitz Wilcox Martin Martin Wood Wood

50398 1897 1897 54091 54091 50407 50888 50397 50296 10495 10495 50438 10361 10361 54004 50806 50813 50835 50835 50184 50187 54752 50189 50189 10477 10477

13PB 3 4 PB2 PB1 7PB BLR1 5PB036 C2 6 7 4PB 5B 3B PB2 PB4 CB1 2 1 COMB 11B 2PB 2HFB 1HFB P1 P2

32213 22 22 32213 32213 22 22 322122 32213 22 22 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 322122 22 22 322122 322122 32213 322122 322122 322122 322122

8,695,526 659,934 641,438 5,399,254 6,101,037 5,924,678 9,282,185 4,795,518 6,566,343 4,486,241 3,796,003 3,303,319 3,462,113 3,196,370 3,742,462 8,599,602 4,316,175 3,347,713 3,154,695 6,461,390 5,529,500 5,372,115 8,604,948 6,751,997 2,541,915 2,541,915

1,095,726 143,232 143,232 3,421,440 4,263,600 3,223,894 221,888 1,230,394 4,425,874 1,358,300 1,156,000 542,080 21,980 21,980 780,494 3,498,600 2,556,000 145,195 145,195 6,056,400 4,192,700 3,681,550 5,125,092 6,242,418 994,875 994,875

7,599,800 516,702 498,206 1,030,691 893,175 2,700,784 9,060,298 3,565,124 2,140,469 2,340,541 1,964,203 2,761,239 3,440,133 3,174,390 1,527,746 5,101,002 1,760,175 3,135,318 2,942,299 404,990 1,336,800 1,690,565 3,479,856 509,579 1,547,040 1,547,040

29

Technical Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Cogeneration Definition in CAIR, CAIR FIP, CAMR, and Proposed CAMR Federal Plan

APPENDIX B The List of Identified Biomass Cogeneration Units Potentially Affected by the Proposal in CAIR and CAMR Regions is available on the CAIR and CAMR websites on the Technical Information pages: http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/technical.html

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html

The TSD and Appendix B are also available in the public docket for the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0012): http://www.regulations.gov

30