Dominion Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center
Response to Data Request
Hullihen Moore, Member, Air Pollution Control Board
Table of Contents
| Response Number | Data Page | Data Request |
|---|---|---|
Pg 1 | For sulfur, ash, and each of the hazardous air pollutants: (1) provide the average content (and range) of each substance in the coal burned by each boiler for each EGU in Virginia for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 and (2) average for all EGUs combined (simple and weighted averages). | |
Pg 1 | The average Btu content of the coal burned in each boiler for each EGU in Virginia for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Also provide the range of Btu content for each year for each boiler. | |
Pg 1 | The average Btu content of the coal burned by all Virginia EGUs combined for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. The average should be weighted by ton. | |
Pg 2 | The source and total number of tons of coal burned in each boiler for each EGU in Virginia for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Include the country, state, and, if Virginia, the county and mine. If coal came from more than one source, provide the tons from each source for each boiler. Also state the total number of tons of coal burned by all Virginia EGUs combined for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. | |
Pg 2 | The average cost per ton (including delivery, washing, cleaning, treating, and/ or otherwise preparing) of the coal burned in each boiler for each EGU in Virginia for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. | |
Pg 2 | The average cost per ton (including delivery, washing, cleaning, treating, and/or otherwise preparing) of the coal burned by all EGUs in Virginia combined. The average should be weighted by ton. | |
Pg 2 | The average cost per ton (including delivery, washing, cleaning, treating, and/or otherwise preparing) of coal burned by all Virginia EGUs combined for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 for each of sulfur content category (use the average percentage content for each boiler for each year as shown in response to request 1 to determine the appropriate category). The average should be weighted by ton. | |
Pg 2 | The average cost per ton (including delivery, washing, cleaning, treating, and/or preparing) of coal burned by all Virginia EGUs combined for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 for each mercury content category in ppm (use the average ppm content for each boiler for each year as shown in response to request 1 to determine the appropriate category). The average should be weighted by ton. | |
Pg 3 | The average cost per ton (including delivery, washing, cleaning, treating, and/or otherwise preparing) of coal burned by all Virginia EGUs combined for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 for each Btu content category (use the average Btu content for each boiler for each year as shown in response to request 2 to determine the appropriate category). The average should be weighted by ton. | |
Pg 3 | Prepare a matrix for the Wise County facility that will show sulfur emissions in lb/MMBtu and lb/MWhr with the following variables: Btus/lb: 8,000; 9,000; 10,000; 11,000; 12,000; 12,500; 13,000 Percent Sulfur: .75; .8; .9; 1.0; 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 1.75; 2.0; 2.25 Percent Sulfur removal rate: 90; 92; 95; 98; 99; 99.5 Prepare an Excel spreadsheet or sheets that will allow the user to see the impact of changing the variables listed above and emissions in lb/MMBtus and lb/MWhr. | |
Pg 3 | Prepare a matrix for the Wise County facility that will show mercury emissions in lb/MMBtu and lb/GWhr with the following variables: Btus/lb: 8,000; 9,000; 10,000; 11,000; 12,000; 12,500; 13,000 Mercury content in ppm: .05; .1; .12; .14; 1.6; .18; .2; .3; .35; .4; .5 Percent mercury removal rate: 90; 92; 95; 98; 99; 99.5 Prepare an Excel spreadsheet or sheets that will allow the user to see the impact of changing the variables listed above and emissions in lb/MMBtus and lb/MWhr. | |
Pg 4 | Prepare the necessary data and a matrix comparing current limits and actual emissions of each EGU with the proposed permit limits for all substances that are controlled or limited by the proposed permits. | |
Pg 4 | Provide a list and description of the “various coal types proposed as fuel for the CFB boilers.” Also, provide the “coal fuel list” from which the 0.51 ppm mercury content coal was taken. Was the same sample used for both the sulfur and mercury limits? Were other coals, coal types, or blends presented to, or otherwise considered by, staff related to sulfur, mercury or any other substance. | |
Pg 4 | Provide the basis for the ROM coal price, sulfur content, and heat content | |
Pg 5 | Provide the number of tons of coal burned by each EGU without cleaning, washing, treating, or otherwise preparing for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. State the type of such coal, run-of-mine, waste coal, etc. | |
Pg 5 | Provide the number of tons of coal burned by each EGU with cleaning, washing, or treating or otherwise preparing for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Describe the change or difference that is achieved by washing, cleaning, treating, or preparing with respect to Btu and ash content and each substance controlled or limited by the proposed permits for each Virginia EGU. | |
Pg 5 | Several ways to reduce mercury content prior to combustion were discussed the Mercury Conference, including washing and treating. What are those techniques, how could they be applied to the coal for this plant, and what would the impact be? | |
| Data from Cogentrix on down show Mercury content in lb/ton rather than ppm. Please obtain or convert so we have ppm for all units. HCI is stated differently also. I would think it best to have one way and use for all plants. Please see if this can be done. | ||
| Please confirm that these are Vepco only data that are averaged on a ton weighted basis. If not provide detail of what is averaged and how; also provide a ton weighted average for Vepco for each year and over the three years for items covered in each item. | ||
| Vepco answer is not responsive. The question is the same as items 7 and 9, except its for Mercury concentrations rather than Sulfur and Btus. Attachment 1 of item 1 shows mercury concentrations for each station and the company knows the coal involved; it’s the same coal used to provide the data in 7 and 9. | ||
For item 15, let me supplement the question. Please provide how much coal at each station for each of the years was: just screened by Vepco or any other entity; was washed by Vepco or any other entity and if there are various levels of washing, describe each level and list tons washed at each level; was treated by Vepco or any other entity; had any other kind of cleaning or processing and describe the processing. In this item I’m trying to understand what happens to the coal before it is burned and how much coal at each station and overall has each kind of processing. If coal is subjected to several layers of processing explain and show tons etc. Please work to obtain the data so we can understand what is done and what and how much coal its done to.
After item 15, there should be a list of various screenings, washings, cleanings, and treatments that Vepco uses for its coals and how much coal at each station and overall is subjected to the various levels of processing, cleaning, etc. In item 16, we will learn how much of a difference each such process makes separately and collectively. In other words, we can understand what is done and the result. For example, if coal a particular plant is screened and washed, we may find that screening increases Btu content by x% and decreases sulfur by y%. We may also learn that subsequent washing decreases sulfur by an additional z% and decreases Mercury by a%, etc. We can see how various coals for various stations are impacted by different levels of washing, cleaning, treating, etc. | ||
| Are the data, except as shown on Attachment 1, Vepco only data and averages? For example, “all EGU” averages appear to be given at end of Attachment 1, and items 6, 7, and 9. I like the idea of having not only station averages and all EGU averages, but also averages for these data by company or EGU. I think that’s what Vepco did. Please confirm and ask others to do the same. Then you folks can do the overall average. I need to make certain that we have overall averages at the EGU and statewide levels for these various categories that are weighted by ton. 10 tons at 1% and 20 at 2%; weighted avg is 1.667%. In addition to all other data, make sure we have that for at least each EGU and all coal burned. I think Vepco has done that for itself; please confirm and ask others to do the same. |