POWER July 2016 - 58

FUELS
3. Plying the pile. The 102-MW Colver Power Project in Cambria County-a bituminous
coal mining region in western Pennsylvania-began operations in May 1995. The plant, owned
by independent power producer Inter-Power/AhlCon Partners, is equipped with a large circulating
fluidized bed boiler. It is one of the state's newest bituminous coal refuse power plants.
Courtesy: ARIPPA
said that the " EPA reasonably decided that
separate standards for coal-refuse-fired CFBs
were not warranted. "
Looking to Congress for a
Resolution
Underscoring its message that " one regulation
does not fit all plants the same, " the industry
has continued its fight to keep afloat
amid the deluge of environmental rules targeting
coal plants. Its cause has now been
taken up in Congress.
Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) last October
introduced the Satisfying Energy Needs
and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act,
legislation that would modify the EPA's
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) by
allocating additional SO2
allowances for coal
[Pennsylvania] were granted permits in 2005
to release higher levels of [sulfur dioxide
(SO2
) and nitrogen oxides (NOx
Meanwhile, the emissions of greenhouse
)] and other
air pollutants than the normal pulverized coal
power plant proposed near Morgantown,
W.Va., " the group pointed out. Also, " If 100
tons of waste coal are burned, 85 tons will
remain as waste coal ash, " it said.
A better solution to the coal refuse problem
would be to plant beach grass, which it says,
citing research from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, " has been shown to
bring life back to long-dead waste coal piles for
only 6-10% of the cost of conventional methods.
Within a few years, beach grass enabled
native plants to take over, allowing organic
matter to accumulate around plants, forming
a plant layer that stopped erosion, held water,
cooled the surface, and looked better. "
ARIPPA contests the air pollution charge,
saying its members take precautions to control
emissions of SO2
, NOx, air toxics, filterable
particulate matter, and total particulate
matter. Coal refuse power plants use CFB
boilers, which use limestone injection for
acid gas control, and they are also equipped
with fabric filter systems to control filterable
particulate matter emissions, it explained.
The nation's coal refuse plants are also the
lowest emitters of mercury of all coal generation
facilities, even though coal refuse may
be higher in mercury content, ARIPPA said,
noting that multiple coal-refuse units were
included in the EPA's Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) floor calculations
(top 12% performing units) used to
establish the emission standards for mercury
and non-mercury metals as outlined in its
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
58
gases (GHGs) from these units can be considered
as offset due to the eventual in-place
burning of coal refuse piles, ARIPPA said.
" Coal refuse fires also result in the uncontrolled
release of the same pollutants that
these plants control with high removal rates.
Because these units provide electricity to the
grid they also reduce emissions from other
fossil fuel-fired [electric generating units
(EGUs)] which otherwise would be operating.
The reclamation and re-vegetation of
coal refuse sites also results in the expansion
of green spaces which aids in the sequestration
of GHGs, " it said.
The EPA told POWER that it has considered
and requested comment on separate
emission standards for coal refuse generators
for various proposals. " In fact, EPA has established
subcategory SO2
and NOx
emission
standards for new, modified and reconstructed
coal refuse-fired EGUs, " it said.
However, in the final MATS rule, the EPA
noted that the waste coal hazardous air pollutant
emissions are not sufficiently different
from other coal-fired generators to warrant
further subcategorization. " There are EGUs
firing bituminous, subbituminous, and coal
refuse among the top performing units for
mercury emissions. EGUs firing bituminous,
subbituminous, lignite, and coal refuse are
also all among the top performers for the acid
gas and non-mercury metallic emissions.
This indicates that the MACT floor limits established
based on these units are achievable
by units burning all ranks of coal, " it said.
This approach, the EPA noted, was upheld
by the D.C. Circuit's April 2014 decision in
White Stallion v. EPA. The court, in that case,
www.powermag.com
refuse generators (but reducing allowances
elsewhere so the overall program cap does
not change). The bill also creates an alternative
means of demonstrating compliance
with the hydrochloric acid (HCl) standard
under MATS by assuming that a 93% reduction
in SO2
demonstrates compliance with
the HCl standard.
But the Obama administration has threatened
to veto the bill, raising concerns that
it chooses " winners and losers " because it
favors coal refuse generators over other facilities.
At a House Subcommittee on Energy
and Power hearing on the bill this February,
speaking on ARIPPA's behalf, Brisini refuted
that argument, underscoring that coal varieties
have unique characteristics.
Anthracite refuse plants can meet the
CSAPR alternative 2.0 standard because sulfur
content in coal refuse from the anthracite
region is lower, but bituminous plants cannot,
he said. " It is not because the technology is
different or they have anything special and it is
part of the problem when you lump all of these
things together not recognizing the [technical
differences] in these kinds of fuels. " Meanwhile,
he noted, only two bituminous coal
refuse plants can meet the HCl requirements
under MATS. " No other plants, whether they
are bituminous coal refuse [or] anthracite coal
refuse, they don't do it, " he said.
The bill continues its course through Congress
and is currently under consideration by
the Senate. Brisini remains hopeful that the
acid gas issue is resolved by the SENSE Act
or other regulatory amendments.
If all fails, " the measures that would have
to be taken by bituminous coal refuse-fired
electric generating units to allow them to
meet the acid gas limit would likely prevent
them from successfully participating in the
PJM wholesale electric market, with the exception
of the last coal refuse fired facility
built, " he noted. ■
-Sonal Patel is a POWER associate editor.
POWER | July 2016

http://www.powermag.com

POWER July 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER July 2016