# P:\PACIFICORP\370414BART2\TECHNICAL_MEMORANDUM_DEL IVERABLES\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 1 

# TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM



# Addendum to Naughton Unit 3 BART Report

PREPARED FOR: 

# Wyoming Division of Air Quality

PREPARED BY: 

# CH2M HILL

COPIES: 

# Bill Lawson/PacifiCorp

DATE: 

# March 26, 2008



# Introduction

In compliance with the Regional Haze Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51), the

Wyoming Division of Air Quality (WDAQ) required PacifiCorp Energy to conduct a detailed

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) review to analyze the effects to visibility in nearby

Class I areas from plant emissions, both for ba seline and for reasonable control technology

scenarios. PacifiCorp submitte d these evaluations to WDAQ in January 2007. A revised report

was submitted in October 2007.

On January 3, 2008, PacifiCorp Energy personnel met with WDAQ staff to discuss the status of

the BART reviews. At that time, the state re quested that additional modeling scenarios for

several of the PacifiCorp facilities be performed to aid in their BART review. This memorandum

presents the economics analysis for two scenar ios modeled, referred to as Scenario A and

Scenario B and described as follows:

• 

# Scenario A: PacifiCorp committed controls at permitted rates—low nitrogen oxide (NO

x 

# )

burners (LNBs) with over-fire air (OFA), wet flue gas desu lfurization (FGD), new fabric

filter baghouse

• 

# Scenario B: PacifiCorp committed controls and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) at

permitted rates

The CALPUFF modeling system (v. 5.711a) was used for this analysis. All technical options and

model triggers used in CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST are consistent with those used for

the previous BART analyses and described in the BART report submitted in October 2007.



# Stack Parameters, Emissions Information, and Capital Cost

Table 1 summarizes the control equipment for Scenarios A and B as well as the current

equipment installed at the plant. The overall capital cost of installing these options is also shown.

# ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 2



# TABLE 1 

# Control Scenario Summary
Naughton Unit 3

Equipment Type Capital Cost

NO

x 

# SO 2 

# PM 10 

# Million dollars

Baseline LNB Wet sodium FGD ESP —

Scenario A LNB with OFA Wet sodium FGD Fabric filter $128.0

Scenario B LNB with OFA and SCR Wet sodium FGD Fabric filter $263.8



# Emissions were modeled for the following pollutants:

• 

# Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

# )

• 

# NO

x



# • 

# Coarse particulate (PM 2.5 

# <diameter<PM 10 

# )

• 

# Fine particulate (diameter<PM 2.5 

# )

• 

# Sulfates

Table 2 shows stack parameters and emission rates that were used for the Naughton Unit 3

BART modeling and analysis.

TABLE 2 

# Calpuff Model Inputs
Naughton Unit 3

BART Comparison (d)



# Model Input Data Baseline Scenario

A (e) 

# Scenario

B (f)



# Hourly Heat Input (mmBtu/hour) 3,700 3,700 3,700

Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 1,840 814 814

Nitrogen Oxide (NO

x 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 1,656 1,369 259

PM 10 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 348 55.5 55.5

Coarse Particulate (PM 2.5 

# <diameter< PM 10 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) (a) 

# 149 23.9 23.9

Fine Particulate (diameter<PM 2.5 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) (b) 

# 198 31.6 31.6

Sulfuric Acid (H 2 

# SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 34 34.0 58.5

Ammonium Sulfate [(NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# ] Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 4.3

(NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 7.4

H 2 

# SO 4 

# as Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 33.4 33.3 57.3

(NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 3.1

(NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 6.2

# ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 3



# TABLE 2 

# Calpuff Model Inputs
Naughton Unit 3

BART Comparison (d)



# Model Input Data Baseline Scenario

A (e) 

# Scenario

B (f)



# Total Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) (lb/hr) (c) 

# 33.2 33.3 66.6

Stack Conditions

Stack Height (meters) 145 145 145

Stack Exit Diameter (meters) 8.08 8.08 8.08

Stack Exit Temperature (Kelvin) 323 322 322

Stack Exit Velocity (meters per second) 23.8 20.2 20.2

NOTES:

(a) 

# Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the coarse particulates are counted as a percentage of PM 10 

# . This equates to 43%
ESP and 57% Baghouse. PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# refer to particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers, respectively,

in aerodynamic diameter.

(b) 

# Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the fine parti culates are counted as a percentage of PM 10 

# . This equates to 57%
ESP and 43% Baghouse.

(c) 

# Total Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) (lb/hr) = H 2 

# SO 4 

# as Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) + (NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions
(lb/hr) + (NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr)

(d) 

# SO 2 

# , NO

x 

# , and PM rates are expressed in terms of permitted emission rates. Actual emissions will be less than

the permitted rates.

(e) 

# PacifiCorp Committed Cont rols @ permitted rates : LNB with OFA, Wet FGD, New Fabric Filter

(f) 

# PacifiCorp Committed Controls and SCR @ permitted rates



# Economic Analysis

In completing this additional analysis to supplement the previous BART study, technology

alternatives were investigated and potential reductions in NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# emissions rates

were identified.

A comparison of Scenarios A and B on the basis of costs, design control efficiencies, and tons of

pollutant removed is summarized in Tables 3 through 5. Capital costs were provided by

PacifiCorp. The complete economic analyses for these two scenarios are provided as

Attachment 1.ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC4TABLE 3Scenario A Control CostNaughton Unit 3NOxControl SO2Control PM10Control Scenario ALNB with OFAWet FGDFabric FilterControl CostTotal Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $1.00 $6.00 $121.0 $128.0Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $0.95 $0.57 $11.51 $12.18First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) — $0.62 $1.12 $1.736Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$0.95 $1.19 $12.63 $13.91Power Consumption (MW)—0.332.062.39Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr)—2.6016.2418.84Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.370.220.02—Additional Tons of Pollutant Removedper Year over Baseline1,1674,0847886,403First Year Average Control Cost ($/Tonof Pollutant Removed) 82 290 16,037 2,173NOTE:(a)First year annualized costs include power consumption costs.ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC5TABLE 4Scenario B Control CostNaughton Unit 3NOxControl SO2Control PM10Control Scenario BLNB with OFA &SCRWet FGDFabric FilterControl CostTotal Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $136.8 $6.00 $121.0 $263.8Annualized First-Year CapitalCosts $13.01 $0.57 $11.51 $25.09First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars)$2.67 $0.62 $1.12 $4.41Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$15.68 $1.19 $12.63 $29.50Power Consumption (MW)1.990.332.064.38Annual Power Usage (MillionkWh/Yr) 15.692.60 16.24 34.53Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.070.220.02—Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed perYear over Baseline5,5424,08478810,779First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton ofPollutant Removed)2,830 290 16,037 2,737NOTE:(a)First year annualized costs include power consumption costs.ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC6TABLE 5Incremental Control Costs, Scenario B compared to Scenario ANaughton Unit 3NOxControl SO2Control PM10ControlTotalControl CostIncremental Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $135.8 0 0 $135.8Incremental Annualized First-YearCapital Costs$12.9200$12.92Incremental First Year Fixed & VariableO&M Costs (million dollars)$2.6700$2.67Incremental First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$15.59 0 0 $15.59Incremental Power Consumption (MW)1.99001.99Incremental Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr)15.690015.69Incremental Improvement in Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu)0.3000—Incremental Tons of PollutantRemoved4,376 0 0 4,376Incremental First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of PollutantRemoved)3,562 0 0 3,562NOTE:(a)Incremental first year annualized costs include power consumption costs.

# ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 7 

# Modeling Results and Least-Cost Envelope Analysis

CH2M HILL modeled Naughton Unit 3 for two post- control scenarios. The results determine

the change in deciview based on each alternative at the Class I areas specific to the project.

The Class I areas potentially affected are Br idger Wilderness and Fitzpatrick Wilderness for

this unit.

Modeled Scenarios

Current operations (baseline) a nd two alternative control scenar ios were modeled to cover the

range of effectiveness for the combination of the individual NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM control

technologies being evaluated. The mode led scenarios incl ude the following:

• 

# Baseline: Current operations with LNB, wet sodium FGD, and ESP

• 

# Scenario A: LNB with OFA, Wet sodium FGD, and Fabric filter

• 

# Scenario B: Scenario A with SCR

Summary of Visibility Analysis

Tables 6 and 7 present a summary of the modeling period (2001–2003) results for each

scenario and Class I area.

TABLE 6 

# Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Bridger Wilderness
Naughton Unit 3

Scenario Controls Total First Year

Annualized
Cost Highest Δ dV 98 th



# Percentile

Δ dV Maximum

Annual

Number of

Days Above

0.5 dV

Baseline Current Operations with FGD

and ESP — 5.657 1.971 66

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls $13,912,688 4.943 1.574 52

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls and SCR $29,499,964 2.488 0.800 26

# ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 8 

# TABLE 7 

# Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Fitzpatrick Wilderness
Naughton Unit 3

Scenario Controls Total First Year

Annualized

Cost Highest Δ dV 98 th



# Percentile

Δ dV Maximum

Annual

Number of

Days Above

0.5 dV

Baseline Current Operations with FGD

and ESP — 3.862 0.939 24

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls $13,912,688 3.074 0.737 18

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls and SCR $29,499,964 1.529 0.351 4



# Results

Tables 8 and 9 present a summary of the cost s and modeling results for each scenario and

Class I area.

TABLE 8 

# Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Bridger Wilderness
Naughton Unit 3

Scenario

Comparison Controls Incremental

Annualized

Cost (Million$) Reduction in

98 th



# Percentile

maximum

dV Reduction in

Number of

Days Above

0.5 dV Cost per dV

Reduction (Million$/dV

Reduced) Cost per Day

to Achieve a

Reduction in

the Days

above 0.5 dV (Million$/Day)

Scenario A
Compared to

Baseline Scenario A:
PacifiCorp

Committed Controls $13.91 0.397 14 $35.04 $0.99

Scenario B
Compared to

Baseline Scenario B:
PacifiCorp

Committed Controls

and SCR $29.50 1.171 40 $25.19 $0.74

Scenario B
Compared To

Scenario A Addition of SCR $15.59 0.774 26 $20.14 $0.60

# ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 9 

# TABLE 9 

# Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Fitzpatrick Wilderness
Naughton Unit 3

Scenario

Comparison Controls Incremental

Annualized

Cost (Million$) Reduction in

98 th



# Percentile

maximum

dV Reduction in

Number of

Days Above

0.5 dV Cost per dV

Reduction (Million$/dV

Reduced) Cost per Day

to Achieve a

Reduction in

the Days

above 0.5 dV (Million$/Day)

Scenario A
Compared to

Baseline Scenario A:
PacifiCorp

Committed Controls $13.91 0.202 6 $68.87 $2.32

Scenario B
Compared to

Baseline Scenario B:
PacifiCorp

Committed Controls

and SCR $29.50 0.588 20 $50.17 $1.47

Scenario B
Compared To

Scenario A Addition of SCR $15.59 0.386 14 $40.38 $1.11



# Least-Cost Envelope Analysis

The least-cost envelope graphs for Bridger Wilderness are shown in Figures 1 and 2 and for

Fitzpatrick Wilderness are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

# ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 10 

# FIGURE 1

Least Cost Envelope

PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3 - Bridger Wilderness

Baseline Scenario A Scenario B

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45



# Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)



# FIGURE 2

Least Cost Envelope

PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3 - Bridger Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40



# 98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

# ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 11 

# FIGURE 3

Least Cost Envelope

PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3 - Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0

0 5 10 15 20 25



# Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)



# FIGURE 4

Least Cost Envelope

PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 3 - Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70



# 98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

# ATTACHMENT 1 

# Complete Economic Analyses

for Scenarios A and BECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY - FIRST YEAR COSTSNaughton 3Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PCTYPE OF EMISSIONS CONTROLSNOxControl SO2and PM ControlScenario A Scenario BTechnology Label BASE A B C D E F G G A+F D+FCurrent OperationLow NOxBurners withOverfire AirRotating Overfire AirLow NOxBurners withOverfire Air and NonSelective CatalyticReductionLow NOxBurners withOverfire Air andSelective CatalyticReductionESPWet FGD w/ wasteliquor &Wet FGD w/ soda ash Fabric FilterLNB w/OFA, Wet FGDw/waste liquor andFabric Filter BaghouseLNB w/OFA, SCR.Wet Flue GasDesulfurization andFabric Filter BaghouseECONOMIC FACTORSInterest Rate (%)7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Discount Rate (%)7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20CAPITAL INVESTMENTTotal Installed Capital Costs ($) $0 $1,000,000 $14,747,608 $15,788,530 $136,800,000 $0 $6,000,000 $27,798,972 $121,000,000 $128,000,000 $263,800,000FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE ($/Yr) $0 $95,128 $1,402,908 $1,501,929 $13,013,486 $0 $570,767 $2,644,456 $11,510,467 $12,176,361 $25,094,720FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M Costs ($/Yr)Operating Labor ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Maintenance Material ($/Yr)$0 $0 $48,000 $75,000 $156,000 $0 $21,900 $21,900 $48,666 $70,566 $226,566Maintenance Labor ($/Yr)$0 $0 $72,000 $112,500 $234,000 $0 $14,600 $14,600 $72,999 $87,599 $321,599Administrative Labor ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0TOTAL FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M COST $0 $0 $120,000 $187,500 $390,000 $0 $36,500 $36,500 $121,665 $158,165 $548,165FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr)Makeup Water Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,985 $37,985 $0 $37,985 $37,985Reagent Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $96,490 $993,460 $0 $0 $797,467 $0 $0 $993,460SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $501,000 $0 $0 $0 $187,096 $187,096 $688,096Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $410,943 $654,231 $0 $410,943 $410,943Electric Power Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $1,762,074 $130,086 $784,458 $886,950 $130,086 $130,086 $812,052 $942,138 $1,726,596TOTAL FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,762,074 $226,576 $2,278,918 $886,950 $579,013 $1,619,769 $999,148 $1,578,161 $3,857,079SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR COSTS ($/Yr)First Year Debt Service ($/Yr)$0 $95,128 $1,402,908 $1,501,929 $13,013,486 $0 $570,767 $2,644,456 $11,510,467 $12,176,361 $25,094,720First Year Fixed O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $120,000 $187,500 $390,000 $0 $36,500 $36,500 $121,665 $158,165 $548,165First Year Variable O&M Costs($/Yr)$0 $0 $1,762,074 $226,576 $2,278,918 $886,950 $579,013 $1,619,769 $999,148 $1,578,161 $3,857,079Total First Year Costs ($/Yr)$0 $95,128 $3,284,982 $1,916,004 $15,682,404 $886,950 $1,186,280 $4,300,725 $12,631,280 $13,912,688 $29,499,964CONTROL COST COMPARISONSNOxTechnology ComparisonAdditional NOxRemoved From Base Case (Tons/Yr)0 1,167 2,480 2,188 5,542First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton NOxRemoved)$0 $82 $1,325 $876 $2,830Technology Case ComparisonA-BASE B-A C-A D-AIncremental NOxRemoved (Tons/Yr)0 1,167 1,313 1,021 4,376Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton NOxRemoved)$0 $82 $2,430 $1,783 $3,562SO2Technology Comparison82.8%82.8% 92.4% 96.6%Additional SO2Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)00 4,084 5,834First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton SO2Removed)$0#DIV/0! $290 $737Technology Case ComparisonE-BASE F-E G-FIncremental SO2Removed (Tons/Yr)00 4,084 1,750Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton SO2Removed)$0#DIV/0! $73 $1,779PM Technology Comparison0.0%Additional PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)00 1,152 200 1,152First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed)$0#DIV/0! $1,030 $21,525 $10,962Technology Case ComparisonE-BASE F-E G-F G-FIncremental PM Removed (Tons/Yr)00 1,152 -952 952Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed)$0#DIV/0! $0 $0 $0SCENARIO A AND B COMPARISONSAdditional NOx, SO2, & PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)06,403 10,779First Year Average Control Cost Compared to Base Case ($/Ton Removed)$0$2,173 $2,737Incremental Tons Removed - Scenario B vs Scenario A (Tons/Yr)04,376Incremental Control Costs - Scenario B vs Scenario A ($/Ton Removed)$0$3,562JMS ES032008003SLC\First Yr Summary\Naughton 3 appendix.xlsPAGE 1 OF 1INPUT CALCULATIONSNaughton 3Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PCPARAMETERCurrentOperationNOxControl TechnologiesPM control Scenario A Scenario BControl TechnologiesNOxEmission Control SystemLNCFS II LNBTune Exsisting LNBw/OFAROFA SNCRTune Exsisting LNBw/OFA & SCRTune Exsisting LNBw/OFATune Exsisting LNBw/OFA & SCRSO2Emission Control SystemWet FGDN/AWet FGD w/ wasteliquorWet FGD w/ soda ash Fabric FilterWet FGD w/ wasteliquorWet FGD w/ wasteliquorPM Emission Control System ESPESPESP w/ GasConditioningFabric Filter Fabric FilterGeneral Plant Design and Operating DataType of Unit PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PCAnnual Power Plant Capacity Factor 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%Annual Operation (Hours/Year) 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884Net Power Output (kW) 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW-Hr)11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212 11,212Boiler Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Hr)3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700Annual Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Year)29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485 29,170,485Boiler Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Hr)3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700Annual Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Year)29,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,80029,170,800Plant Fuel SourceBoiler Fuel Source Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer MineCoal Heating Value (Btu/Lb) 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950Coal Sulfur Content (wt.%) 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.450% 1.450% 1.45% 1.45%Coal Ash Content (wt.%) 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 5.50%Coal Flow Rate (Lb/Hr) 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855 371,855Coal Consumed (Ton/Yr) 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853 1,465,853Nitrogen Oxide EmissionsNOxEmission Rate (Lb/MMBtu)0.45 0.37 0.28 0.30 0.070.37 0.07NOxEmission Rate (Lb/Hr)1,665 1,369 1,036 1,110 2591,369 259NOxEmission Rate (Lb Moles/Hr)55.48 45.62 34.52 36.99 8.6345.62 8.63NOxEmission Rate (Ton/Yr)6,563 5,397 4,084 4,376 1,0215,397 1,021Add'l NOxRemoved from Current Operations (Lb/Hr)0 296 629 555 1,406296 1,406Add'l NOxRemoved from Current Operations (Ton/Yr)0 1,167 2,480 2,188 5,5421,167 5,542Sulfur Dioxide EmissionsUncontrolled SO2(Lb/MMBtu)2.912.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91Uncontrolled SO2(Lb/Hr)10,77310,773 10,773 10,773 10,773 10,773Uncontrolled SO2(Lb Moles/Hr)168.16168.16 168.16 168.16 168.16 168.16Uncontrolled SO2(Tons/Yr)42,46842,468 42,468 42,468 42,468 42,468Controlled SO2Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu)0.500.50 0.22 0.10 0.22 0.22SO2Removal Efficiency (%)82.8%82.8% 92.4% 96.6% 92.4% 92.4%Controlled SO2Emissions (Lb/Hr)1,8501,850 814 370 814 814Controlled SO2Emissions (Ton/Yr)7,2937,293 3,209 1,459 3,209 3,209SO2Removed (Lb/Hr)8,9238,923 9,959 10,403 9,959 9,959SO2Removed (Ton/Yr)35,17535,175 39,259 41,009 39,259 39,259Add'l SO2Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr)00 1,036 1,480 1,036 1,036Add'l SO2Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr)00 4,084 5,834 4,084 4,084Particulate Matter EmissionsUncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/Hr) 16,36216,362 16,362 16,362 16,362 16,362 16,362Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/MMBtu) 4.4224.422 4.422 4.422 4.422 4.422 4.422Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Tons/Yr) 64,49864,498 64,498 64,498 64,498 64,498 64,498Controlled Fly Ash Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.0940.094 0.015 0.040 0.015 0.015 0.015Controlled Fly Ash Removal Efficiency (%) 97.9%97.9% 99.7% 99.1% 99.7% 99.7% 99.7%Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Lb/Hr) 348348 56 148 56 56 56Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Ton/Yr) 1,3711,371 219 583 219 219 219Fly Ash Removed (Lb/Hr) 16,01416,014 16,306 16,214 16,306 16,306 16,306Fly Ash Removed (Ton/Yr) 63,12763,127 64,279 63,914 64,279 64,279 64,279Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Lb/Hr) 00 292 200 292 292 292Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Ton/Yr) 00 1,152 788 1,152 1,152 1,152Economic FactorsInterest Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Discount Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20SO2Control TechnologiesJMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\Naughton 3 appendix.xlsPAGE 1 OF 2INPUT CALCULATIONSNaughton 3Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PCPARAMETERCurrentOperationNOxControl TechnologiesPM control Scenario A Scenario BControl TechnologiesNOxEmission Control SystemLNCFS II LNBTune Exsisting LNBw/OFAROFA SNCRTune Exsisting LNBw/OFA & SCRTune Exsisting LNBw/OFATune Exsisting LNBw/OFA & SCRSO2Emission Control SystemWet FGDN/AWet FGD w/ wasteliquorWet FGD w/ soda ash Fabric FilterWet FGD w/ wasteliquorWet FGD w/ wasteliquorPM Emission Control System ESPESPESP w/ GasConditioningFabric Filter Fabric FilterSO2Control TechnologiesInstalled Capital CostsNOxEmission Control System ($2006)$1,000,000 $14,747,608 $15,788,530$136,800,000$1,000,000 $136,800,000SO2Emission Control System ($2006)$0 $6,000,000 $14,499,464 $6,000,000 $6,000,000PM Emission Control System ($2006)$0 $13,299,508 $121,000,000 $121,000,000 $121,000,000Total Emission Control System Capital Costs ($2006) $1,000,000 $14,747,608 $15,788,530 $136,800,000 $0 $6,000,000 $27,798,972 $121,000,000 $128,000,000 $263,800,000NOxEmission Control System ($/kW)$3 $45 $48 $415$3 $415SO2Emission Control System ($/kW)$18 $44 $18 $18PM Emission Control System ($/kW)$367 $367 $367Total Emission Control Capital Costs ($/kW) $3 $45 $48 $415 $18 $84 $367 $388 $799Fixed Operating & Maintenance CostsOperating Labor ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Maintenance Material ($)$0 $48,000 $75,000 $156,000 $0 $21,900 $21,900 $48,666 $70,566 $226,566Maintenance Labor ($)$0 $72,000 $112,500 $234,000 $0 $14,600 $14,600 $72,999 $87,599 $321,599Administrative Labor ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total 1st Fixed Year O&M Cost ($)$0 $120,000 $187,500 $390,000 $0 $36,500 $36,500 $121,665 $158,165 $548,165Annual Fixed O&M Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Fixed O&M Cost ($/Yr)$0 $142,260 $222,282 $462,346 $0 $43,271 $43,271 $144,234 $187,505 $649,851Variable Operating & Maintenance CostsWater CostMakeup Water Usage (gpm)0 0 0 0 0 66 66 0 66 66Unit Price ($/1000 gallons)$1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22First Year Water Cost ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,985 $37,985 $0 $37,985 $37,985Annual Water Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Water Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,031 $45,031 $0 $45,031 $45,031Reagent CostType of ReagentNone None UreaAnhydrous NH3Waste Liquor Soda Ash none Waste LiquorWaste Liquor &Anhydrous NH3Unit Cost ($/Ton)$0.00 $370.00 $400.00 $91.25 $0.00 $81.00 $0.00Unit Cost ($/Lb)$0.000 $0.185 $0.200 $0.046 $0.000 $0.041 $0.000Molar Stoichiometry0.00 0.45 1.00 1.40 1.02 1.02 0.00Reagent Purity (Wt.%)100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 100% 90%Reagent Usage (Lb/Hr)66 630 0 1,943 2,498 0First Year Reagent Cost ($)$0 $96,490 $993,460 $0 $0 $797,467 $0 $0 $993,460Annual Reagent Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 3.61%Levelized Reagent Costs ($/Yr)$114,389 $1,177,749 $0 $0 $945,399 $0 $0 $1,177,749SCR Catalyst / Fabric Filter Bag Replacement CostMaterial ReplacedSCR Catalyst Bags Bags Bags Bags & SCR CatalystAnnual SCR Catalyst (m3) / No. FF Bags167 0 1,799SCR Catalyst ($/m3) / Bag Cost ($/ea.)$3,000 $104 $104First Year SCR Catalyst / Bag Replacement Cost ($)$501,000 $0 $187,096 $187,096 $688,096Annual SCR Catalyst / Bag Cost Escalation Rate (%)2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 0% 1.46%Levelized Catalyst/Fabric Fitler Bag Costs ($/Yr)$593,937 $0 $221,803 $0 $593,937FGD Waste Disposal CostFGD Solid Waste Disposal Rate, Dry (Lb/Hr)0 4,285 6,821 0 4,285 4,285FGD Waste Disposal Unit Cost ($/Dry Ton)$24.33 $24.33 $24.33 $24.33 $24.33 $24.33First Year FGD Waste Disposal Cost ($)$0 $410,943 $654,231 $0 $410,943 $410,943Annual Waste Disposal Cost Esc. Rate (%)2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr)$0 $487,174 $775,593 $0 $487,174 $487,174AuxiliaryPower CostAuxiliary Power Requirement (MW) 0.00 4.47 0.33 1.99 2.25 0.33 0.33 2.06 2.39 4.38Auxiliary Power Requirement (% of Plant Output) 0.00% 1.35% 0.10% 0.60% 0.68% 0.10% 0.10% 0.62% 0.72% 1.33%Auxilliary Power Useage (MWh)0 35,241 2,602 15,689 17,739 2,602 2,602 16,241 18,843 34,532Unit Cost ($2006/MW-Hr)$50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00First Year Auxiliary Power Cost ($)$0 $1,762,074 $130,086 $784,458 $886,950 $130,086 $130,086 $812,052 $942,138 $1,726,596Annual Power Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Auxilliary Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $2,088,944 $154,217 $929,977 $1,051,482 $154,217 $154,217 $962,690 $1,116,907 $2,046,885JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\Naughton 3 appendix.xlsPAGE 2 OF 2