11203434-rpt-jal 3 four factor analysis report...cc: carolyn blackaller – energy transfer ghd |...

GHD 14998 West 6th Avenue Suite 800 Golden Colorado 80401 USA T 720 974 0935 F 720 974 0936 W www.ghd.com

October 30, 2019 Reference No. 11203434 Mark Jones New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau 525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 Dear Mr. Jones: Re: Four Factor Analysis

Jal No. 3 Gas Plant ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd.

GHD Services, Inc. (GHD) is submitting, on behalf of ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd., a four-factor analysis for

the Jal No. 3 Gas Plant to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). This report is for the NMED

Regional Haze Second Planning Period Progress Analysis under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Regional

Haze Rule (40 CFR §51.300 to 51.309).

If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 720-974-0937 or Carolyn Blackaller at 817-302-

9766.

Sincerely, GHD

Sergio Guerra Project Manager sg/aw/1

Encl. Four-Factor Analysis cc: Carolyn Blackaller – Energy Transfer

GHD | 14998 West 6th Avenue Suite 800 Golden Colorado 80401 USA | 11203434 | Report 1 | October 30 2019

Four-Factor Analysis for Regional Haze Planning in New Mexico Jal No. 3 Gas Plant Lea County, New Mexico Title V Operating Permit No. P090-R3 NSR Permit No. 1092-M8R4 AIRS No. 35-025-0008

ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd.

GHD | Four Factor Analysis for Regional Haze Planning in New Mexico | 11203434 (1) | Page i

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1

2. Source Category Analysis for RICE Engines ............................................................................... 2

2.1 Source Category Description ............................................................................................. 2

2.2 Clean Air Act and State Regulations ................................................................................. 3

2.3 NOx Emissions and Control Options ................................................................................. 3

2.3.1 NOx Emissions ................................................................................................. 3 2.3.2 Low Emission Controls (LEC) ........................................................................... 3 2.3.3 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) ................................................................ 4 2.3.4 Four Factor Analysis of Potential NOx Control Options ................................... 4 2.3.4.1 Factor 1: Cost of Compliance ........................................................................... 4 2.3.4.2 Factor 2: Time Necessary for Compliance ....................................................... 5 2.3.4.3 Factor 3: Energy and Non-Air Impacts ............................................................. 5 2.3.4.4 Factor 4: Remaining Useful Life of the Source ................................................. 6

3. Source Category Analysis for Flares and Thermal Oxidizers ........................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Source Category Description ............................................................................................. 6

3.2 Clean Air Act and State Regulations ................................................................................. 7

3.3 SO2 Emissions from Thermal Oxidizer .............................................................................. 7

3.3.1 SO2 Emissions and Control Options ................................................................ 7

4. References ................................................................................................................................... 8

Table Index

Table 1.1 Summary of Jal 3 GP Four Factor Analysis Results ......................................................... 2

Table 2.1 Summary of Jal 3 GP RICE Units...................................................................................... 2

Table 2.2 Summary of Potential NOx Control Options ...................................................................... 4

Table 2.3 Summary of Cost Effectiveness of Potential NOx Control Options ................................... 5

Table 3.1 Summary of Jal 3 GP Flares and Thermal Oxidizer Units ................................................ 6

Appendix Index Appendix A Cameron Compression Systems LEC quote

Appendix B RICE Engine Baseline Emissions, Reductions, and Control Cost Analysis

GHD | Four Factor Analysis for Regional Haze Planning in New Mexico | 11203434 (1) | Page ii

List of Acronyms AFGD ......................................................................................................Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization APCD ................................................................................................................ Air Pollution Control Division BART ........................................................................................................Best Available Retrofit Technology CAA ............................................................................................................................................Clean Air Act CAIR .........................................................................................................................Clean Air Interstate Rule CaSO3 ..................................................................................................................................... Calcium sulfite CaSO4 ................................................................................................................................... Calcium sulfate CO ...................................................................................................................................... Carbon Monoxide CO2 ........................................................................................................................................ Carbon Dioxide CPI .............................................................................................................................. Consumer Price Index DEP ................................................................................................ Department of Environmental Protection DEQ ..................................................................................................... Department of Environmental Quality DNR .......................................................................................................... Department of Natural Resources DSI ................................................................................................................................ Dry Sorbent Injection EIA ............................................................................................................ Energy Information Administration EPA ........................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency FGD ......................................................................................................................... Flue Gas Desulfurization FGR ............................................................................................................................ Flue Gas Recirculation ICI ........................................................................................................... Industrial, Commercial, Institutional HEIS ................................................................................................................ High Energy Ignition Systems LADCO ............................................................................................ Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium LNB .................................................................................................................................... Low NOx Burners MACT ................................................................................................... Most Achievable Control Technology MARAMA ....................................................................... Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association N2 ............................................................................................................................................... Nitrogen gas NCASI .............................................................................. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement NESCAUM .............................................................. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management NESHAP ............................................................. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NH3 ................................................................................................................................................. Ammonia NOx ....................................................................................................................................... Nitrogen Oxides NSCR ....................................................................................................... Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction NSPS ................................................................................................... New Source Performance Standards OFA .......................................................................................................................................... Over-Fired Air PM ...................................................................................................................................... Particulate Matter RICE ............................................................................................ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine RSCR ......................................................................................... Regenerative Selective Catalytic Reduction SCR .................................................................................................................. Selective Catalytic Reduction SD ................................................................................................................................................... Spray Dry SIP ............................................................................................................. .......... State Implementation Plan SNCR ....................................................................................................... Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction SO2 .......................................................................................................................................... Sulfur Dioxide SSM………………………………………………………………………………..Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance ULNB ..........................................................................................................................Ultra Low NOx Burners WRAP ........................................................................................................ Western Regional Air Partnership VOC .................................................................................................................. Volatile Organic Compounds

GHD | Four Factor Analysis for Regional Haze Planning in New Mexico | 11203434 (1) | Page 1

1. Executive Summary

In response to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) letter dated July 18, 2019, GHD Services, Inc. (GHD) was retained by ETC Texas Pipeline, LTD to prepare a four-factor analysis for the NMED Regional Haze Second Planning Period Progress Analysis under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR §51.300 to 51.309). As a part of this Progress Analysis, NOx and SO2 emissions were evaluated at the Jal No.3 Gas Plant (Jal 3 GP), which is a natural gas treating and processing plant.

The four-factor analysis is codified in 40 CFR §51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and is designated as a means for establishing reasonable progress goals towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The four factors to consider are:

1. The costs of compliance

2. The time necessary for compliance

3. The energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance

4. The remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources

The purpose of the four-factor analysis is to identify control measures for reducing emissions that could be used to establish the long-term strategy for attaining the states visibility goals. The NMED has requested that evaluations be completed for individual equipment that have a potential to emit (PTE) greater than ten pounds per hour of NOx or SO2. The source categories identified at the Jal 3 GP for evaluation are two existing RICE compressor engines (4A and 5A), and a thermal oxidizer (9S). Based on correspondence and guidance from Mark Jones of NMED, equipment used for startup, shutdown, and maintenance are not subject to the four-factor analysis. NMED also instructed to use actual emissions from reporting year 2016 as baseline emissions to calculate emission reductions for control options evaluated. The cost range for emission reductions reflects the range of operation time in 2016 between the two RICE compressor engines analyzed. The results of the subsequent four-factor analysis are summarized in Table 1.1 below:


Table 1.1 Summary of Jal 3 GP Four Factor Analysis Results

Source Category

Regional Haze Pollutant Analyzed and Control Option

Average Cost in 2019 Dollars (dollars per ton of pollutant reduction)

Compliance Timeframe

Energy & Non-Air Quality Impacts

Remaining Useful Life

RICE Engines

NOx ; Low Emission Controls (LEC)

$6,300-$23,900/ton 2-5 years None known for LEC

25 years for controls; Indefinite for RICE engines

RICE Engines

NOx ; Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR)

$7,500-$28,600/ton 2-5 years Generation of hazardous materials for SCR

25 years for controls; Indefinite for RICE engines

Thermal Oxidizer

SO2 N/A N/A N/A Indefinite

SSM Flares

NOx/SO2 Based on correspondence and guidance from NMED, equipment used for startup, shutdown, and maintenance are not subject to the four-factor analysis.

2. Source Category Analysis for RICE Engines

2.1 Source Category Description

The facility is permitted for a total of fourteen (14) reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). A summary of the equipment is in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1 Summary of Jal 3 GP RICE Units

Unit No. Make/Model Permitted Capacity

NOx PTE per unit (lb/hr)

SO2 PTE per unit (lb/hr)

1A-3A Cooper Bessemer GMV-10T5 with Low Emission Technology

1,100 hp 4.9 <0.01

4A-5A Cooper Bessemer GMV-10T5 1,100 hp 27.9 <0.01 C1-C4 Caterpillar G3612 3,550 hp 3.9 <0.01 S1-S4 Superior 2416 G 3,200 hp 8.8 <0.01 S5 Superior 12SGTA 2,000 hp 8.3 <0.01

Per Table 2.1 above, the majority of the engines at this facility fall below the 10 lb/hr applicability threshold set by the NMED for both NOx and SO2. The facility has five (5) natural gas compressor engines (Unit Nos.1A-5A) serving as backup engines for recompression of residue gas to sales. Each of these engines are 1,100 horsepower two-stroke lean-burn Cooper Bessemer GMV-10TF model engines, manufactured in 1948. On average, these backup engines operate 25-50% of the time each year. Around 2007, Units 1A-3A were modified by adding low emission control technology, which reduced their NOx potential-to-emit (PTE) below the 10 lb/hr threshold. Engines


4A-5A, however, have not been significantly modified since their initial installation and their NOx PTE permit limit is 27.9 lb/hr, which exceeds 10 lb/hr, and are therefore being assessed for four factor analysis.

2.2 Clean Air Act and State Regulations

The two compressor engines (4A and 5A) are subject to the following state and federal regulations:

20.2.35 NMAC Natural Gas Processing Plant - Sulfur

All units at the facility, including units 4A and 5A, are subject to this state regulation for sulfur emissions at natural gas processing plants.

20.2.37 NMAC Petroleum Processing Facilities

All units at the facility, including units 4A and 5A, are subject to this state regulation for “new processing facilities” for which a modification commenced on or after July 1, 1974. Sections 200 (mercaptan and hydrogen sulfide emissions), 202 A. (Petroleum processing facility), 203 (ammonia emissions) and 205 (storage, handling, pumping, and blow down) apply to Jal 3 GP.

MACT 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ and 20.2.82 NMAC Emissions Standards for HAPs from RICE

Since the station is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, engines at the facility, including units 4A and 5A, are subject to the federal 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ MACT standards and the state regulation for MACT, 20.2.82 NMAC. Per §63.6590(b)(3)(ii), units 4A and 5A are subject to the regulation, but except for do not have any requirements under Subpart ZZZZ.

2.3 NOx Emissions and Control Options

2.3.1 NOx Emissions

NOx is generated by RICE from the combustion of natural gas. Exhaust gas is released to the atmosphere through stacks associated with each engine. The predominant form of NOx generated from RICE is thermal NOx which is formed when nitrogen and oxygen unite during high temperature and high pressure combustion7. Low Emission Controls (LEC) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) have been evaluated for controlling NOx emissions from engines 4A and 5A at the Jal 3 GP facility.

2.3.2 Low Emission Controls (LEC)

LEC is a combination of combustion controls in which various engine modifications, upgrades, and tuning methods provide lower emission combustion. One upgrade includes increasing the air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) to reduce thermal NOx formation by diluting combustion gases and lowering peak flame temperature. Installation of an AFR controller and turbocharger would be required. Adjusting ignition timing is another modification associated with LEC. This control delays ignition in the power stroke when the chamber is below its maximum pressure. This causes ignition at a lower temperature, thus lowering thermal NOx formation during combustion. Other LEC options include intercooling, enhanced mixing, and increased ignition energy2.


LEC have already been installed in existing engines 1A-3A at Jal 3 GP and will be evaluated for controlling NOx emissions from engines 4A and 5A.

2.3.3 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

SCR is a post-combustion control in which ammonia or urea is mixed with exhaust gases over a catalyst to convert NOx to nitrogen gas (N2) and water (H2O). While SCR has been applied to large boilers and turbines in the power generation industry, its application on new RICE in the gas transmission industry has been rare, and retrofitted applications for existing RICE have not occurred as of 20141.

There are several factors that make SCR difficult for this application. Technical concerns, such as reagent injection control, exhaust temperature requirements, and variations in the exhaust NO/NO2 ratio, pose limitations on the effectiveness and feasibility of SCR. NOx reduction may not be achieved, or, even more, ammonium sulfates may be emitted if the reagent feed rate and/or operating temperature is not precisely tuned to the fluctuating exhaust properties1.

Another challenge is that combustion byproducts and engine oil carryover often contaminate the catalytic elements in SCR applications. Routine cleaning and replacement as well as greater management are required for effective use1.

For these reasons, LEC is the preferred control method for the RICE engines, units 4A and 5A.

Table 2.2 Summary of Potential NOx Control Options

Technology Description Applicability Feasibility Performance (% reduction)

Low Emissions Controls (LEC)

Engine tuning improvements to increase combustion efficiency.

Applicable based on previous installment of technology on same model engines.

Feasible based on previous installment of technology on same model engines.

81-89% based on actual NOx emissions from 2016 emissions inventory

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

Exhaust control that converts NOx to nitrogen and water using ammonia or urea.

Not applicable based on documented difficulty implementing technology on RICE engines

Not feasible based on documented difficulty implementing technology on RICE engines

70-90%5

2.3.4 Four Factor Analysis of Potential NOx Control Options

2.3.4.1 Factor 1: Cost of Compliance

In July 2007, the Jal 3 GP facility implemented a NOx reduction initiative including the installation of LEC in engines 1A-3A for a quoted cost of $644,875 per engine (see Appendix A). The quote was provided by Cameron Compression Systems and LEC included new power cylinder heads, gas ignitors, high efficiency turbocharger, and miscellaneous on-engine assemblies. If the same type of LEC were installed in engines 4A and 5A, the cost in 2019 dollars based on a CPI inflation rate of 1.79% per year during that period would be approximately $751,930 per engine. Assuming a target


reduced NOx emission factor of 1 g/hp-hr from the LEC and using actual NOx emission rates from the 2016 emissions inventory, the percent reduction in emissions would be 81-89% at a cost of $6,300-$23,900 per ton depending on annual hours or operation (see Appendix B). The LEC is more cost effective per ton of NOx emissions with increased annual hours of operation. This estimate of cost effectiveness does not account for additional annual costs from operation and maintenance.

The capital costs for SCR, if one were to assume this was an ‘achievable technology’ for this application, are varied. There are a number of published cost estimates for typical coal- oil- and gas-fired medium to large sized boilers. The same cannot be said for a retrofit of a natural gas-fired compressor engine. In addition, the cost to retrofit SCR is much higher than an original installation, which would apply to this analysis. SCR systems used to retrofit an existing unit increase costs up to about 30%5. O&M costs may also be substantially dependent on reagent usage, catalyst replacement, and increased electrical usage. The average cost effectiveness of SCR was estimated from $7,500 to $28,600 per ton removed.

Table 2.3 Summary of Cost Effectiveness of Potential NOx Control Options

Control Option Specific Design Parameters

Cost Effectiveness (2019 $/ton)

Factors Affecting Cost

Potential Applicability to Specific Affected Units

Low Emissions Controls (LEC)

Power cylinder heads, gas ignitors, high efficiency turbocharger, and miscellaneous on-engine assemblies.

$6,300-$23,900/ton (calculated assuming target NOx emission factor of 1 g/hp-hr)

Annual hours of operation, target NOx emission factor

Potentially applicable to units 4A, 5A

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

Exhaust control that converts NOx to nitrogen and water using ammonia or urea.

$7,500-$28,600/ton (calculated assuming target NOx emission factor of 1 g/hp-hr)

Contamination from byproducts, excessive routine maintenance

Potentially applicable to units 4A, 5A

2.3.4.2 Factor 2: Time Necessary for Compliance

Based on the 2007 quote from Cameron Compression Systems, the delivery of LEC parts package would take about 32-36 weeks per engine considering limited inventory and engineering back log. Installation of LEC controls is estimated at 27 working days per engine (see Appendix A). Taken together, a minimum of two years is estimated to install LEC technology on engines 4A and 5A. According to NMED guidance, sources are generally given between two and five years to implement changes for compliance with new regulations and implementation of this LEC would fall within that timeframe. Although no specific data was found, it would be reasonable to assume that a two to five year period would also be appropriate for the installation of SCR.

2.3.4.3 Factor 3: Energy and Non-Air Impacts

As described above, SCR systems require ammonia (aqueous and/or anhydrous) or urea-to-ammonia reagents. Anhydrous ammonia is considered a hazardous material, and would be subject to storage, transportation, and operational regulations. The LEC technology does not require the


handling or storage of hazardous materials and does not require changes that could create an energy demand penalty.

2.3.4.4 Factor 4: Remaining Useful Life of the Source

Although engines 4A and 5A were manufactured in 1948, they are planned for continuous operation until they are no longer functional. The estimated service life of the assessed control equipment (LEC and SCR) is 25 years4. Based on this information, the control options are considered the limiting factor for useful life of the source. The cost effectiveness for applying the control options considers this as the minimum lifespan.

3. Source Category Analysis for Flares and Thermal Oxidizers

3.1 Source Category Description

The facility is permitted for a total of three (3) flares and one (1) thermal oxidizer. A summary of the equipment is in Table 3.1 below:

Table 3.1 Summary of Jal 3 GP Flares and Thermal Oxidizer Units

Unit No. Make/Model Permitted Capacity

NOx PTE per unit (lb/hr)

SO2 PTE per unit (lb/hr)

9S Entec Thermal Oxidizer 8 MMBtu/hr 3.500 275.3 8F John Zink Gas Plant Flare 10 MMcfd 0.050 0.0075 9F John Zink Treatment Flare 2.9 MMcfd 0.250 0.029 10F John Zink Inlet Flare 75 MMcfd 0.080 0.011 Flare 9F SSM

John Zink Treatment Flare 2.9 MMcfd 2.010 3820.86

Flare 10F SSM

John Zink Inlet Flare 75 MMcfd 430.00 2773.21

SSM-Inlet (Flare 10F)

John Zink Inlet Flare 75 MMcfd 0.660 2.90

Per Table 3.1 above, the SO2 emissions of 275.3 lb/hr for the thermal oxidizer (Unit 9S) exceed the 10 lb/hr threshold requested by the NMED for both SO2 and NOx. SSM emissions from Flares 9F and 10F also exceed the 10 lb/hr threshold, however based on correspondence with and guidance from Mark Jones of NMED, emissions from SSM activities are not subject to the four factor analysis evaluation for New Mexico’s implementation of the Regional Haze Second Planning Period Progress Analysis under the CAA.

The facility is a natural gas treating and processing plant. Natural gas is treated in amine sweetening units to remove acid gas, consisting of approximately 70% CO2 and 18% H2S, with traces of other gases. Acid gas removed from the natural gas stream by the sweetening units is directed to either the sulfur recovery unit (SRU) where the bulk of the H2S is converted to elemental sulfur, which is


then disposed-of; or to a Class II underground injection disposal well, permitted by the Oil Conservation Division (OCD). The remaining acid gas from the SRU, consisting of CO2 and the remaining H2S in the gas stream, are vented to a thermal oxidizer (Unit 9S), where the H2S is combusted to form SO2. Throughput through the amine units is limited to 50 long tons of sulfur a day, pursuant to 20.2.35.110.A NMAC and 20.2.35.110.B NMAC, as appropriate. The thermal oxidizer (Unit 9S) combusting H2S to form SO2 has a potential-to-emit permit limit of 275.3 lb/hr for SO2, which exceeds the 10 lb/hr threshold for New Mexico’s state implementation of CAA Regional Haze Planning, and is therefore being assessed for the four factor analysis.

3.2 Clean Air Act and State Regulations

The thermal oxidizer controlling H2S emissions at the facility (Unit 9S) is subject to the following state and federal regulations:

20.2.35 NMAC Natural Gas Processing Plant - Sulfur

All units at the facility, including unit 9S, are subject to this state regulation for sulfur emissions at natural gas processing plants.

20.2.37 NMAC Petroleum Processing Facilities

All units at the facility, including unit 9S, are subject to this state regulation for “new processing facilities” for which a modification commenced on or after July 1, 1974. Sections 200 (mercaptan and hydrogen sulfide emissions), 202 A. (Petroleum processing facility), 203 (ammonia emissions) and 205 (storage, handling, pumping, and blow down) apply to Jal 3 GP.

20.2.77 NMAC New Source Performance

Unit 9S is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, as amended through January 31, 2009.

NSPS 40 CFR 60, Subpart LLL Standards for SO2 Emissions

The facility is a natural gas processing plant, including a sweetening unit followed by a sulfur recovery unit and thermal oxidizer (Unit 9S), constructed after January 20, 1984, and meets the applicability criteria of 40 CFR 60.640. This regulation applies to the sweetening unit with or without the SRU and thermal oxidizer. As given in 40 CFR 60.640(e), this regulation does not apply to amine unit when it sends acid gas to acid gas re-injection well (AGI).

3.3 SO2 Emissions from Thermal Oxidizer

3.3.1 SO2 Emissions and Control Options

SO2 emissions are generated from the combustion of H2S. The facility operates two amine units to remove H2S from the natural gas stream. From the amine units, the remaining acid gas is sent to a sulfur recovery unit (SRU) which scrubs H2S from the gas at a 92% efficiency. The leftover H2S from the SRU is sent to the thermal oxidizer to be combusted in the form of SO2. During SRU/TO downtime, the H2S is controlled by being sent to acid gas injection (AGI) wells and during AGI well downtime, the H2S is sent to the SRU/TO.


These existing controls are the best known technologies for controlling acid gas and, to our knowledge, there are no other technically feasible control options available to further reduce SO2 emissions from the thermal oxidizer.

4. References

INGAA Foundation, Inc. Availability and Limitations of NOx Emission Control Resources for Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engine Prime Movers Used in the Interstate Natural Gas Transmission Industry. July 2014.

INGAA Foundation, Inc. Potential Impacts of the Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS on Retrofit NOx Control for Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Compressor Drivers. December 2017.

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, Internal Combustion Engines. December 2000.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 6th Edition, USEPA Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2002.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). EPA Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet for SCR.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period. August 20, 2019.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Technical Support Document for Controlling NOx Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines. March 2007.

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). Reasonable Progress Source Identification and Analysis Protocol, WRAP Regional Haze Planning Work Group – Control Measures Subcommittee. February 2019.

GHD | Four Factor Analysis for Regional Haze Planning in New Mexico | 11203434 (1)

Appendices


Appendix A Cameron Compression Systems LEC Quote


Appendix B RICE Engine Baseline Emissions, Reductions,

and Control Cost Analysis

Appendix B

RICE Engine Baseline Emissions, Reductions, and Control Cost AnalysisJal No.3 Gas Plant - Lea County, New Mexico

2016 Emissions Inventory Unit 4A If reduced to 1 g/hp-hrRated HP 1,100 Rated HP 1100

Operating Hours 560NOx Emission Factor (g/hp-hr)

1

NOx Emission Rate (lb/hr) 22.68 2016 Operating Hours 560

NOx emissions (ton/yr) 6.35New NOx Emission Rate (lb/hr)

2.43

NOx Emission Equivalent (ton/yr)

0.68

Difference (tons) 5.67% Reduction 89%2019 $/ton (LEC) 23,9322019 $/ton (SCR) 28,561

2016 Emissions Inventory Unit 5A If reduced to 1 g/hp-hrRated HP 1100 Rated HP 1100

Operating Hours 4290NOx Emission Factor (g/hp-hr)

1

NOx Emission Rate (lb/hr) 12.47 2016 Operating Hours 4290

NOx emissions (ton/yr) 26.75New NOx Emission Rate (lb/hr)

2.43

NOx Emission Equivalent (ton/yr)

5.20

Difference (tons) 21.55% Reduction 81%2019 $/ton (LEC) 6,2982019 $/ton (SCR) 7,517

LEC Cost Description 2007 $ 2019 $Base Parts and Labor 607,375 751,930Start-up & Commissioning 37,500 46,425Total Capital Cost 644,875 798,355Annual O&M Cost (estimate) 83,834 103,786Total Annual Cost per Year 109,629 135,720

*Cumulative rate of Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation from 2007 to 2019: 23.8 %*Estimated useful life of LEC: 25 years*Estimated Annual O&M cost as a percent of the Total Capital Investment: 13 %

SCR Cost Description 1994 $ 2019 $Total Capital Cost 389,420 674,865Annual O&M Cost (estimate) 77,884 134,973Total Annual Cost per Year 93,461 161,968

*Cumulative rate of Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation from 1994 to 2019: 73.3 %*Estimated useful life of SCR: 25 years

20 %

LEC Cost

SCR Cost

*Estimated Annual O&M cost as a percent of the Total Capital Investment, includes labor and cost of reagent and catalyst replacement:

GHD | Four Factor Analysis for Regional Haze Planning in New Mexico | Appendix B | 11203434 (1)

Sergio Guerra [email protected] 720.974.0937

11203434-rpt-jal 3 four factor analysis report...cc: carolyn blackaller – energy transfer ghd |...

Documents