### Development of Bottom Ash Handling Remote MDS Methodologies - **Conveyance Capital Cost Equations and Factors for Remote MDS**

This Excel file contains the following worksheets:

Remote MDS Capital Cost

Engineering Cost Factor This Excel workbook documents EPA's analyses to calculate equations and factors used in the bottom ash conveyance cost methodology for a remote mechanical drag system (MDS).

Contains data from Clyde Bergemann Power Group (CBPG) used to develop a cost curve to estimate equipment capital costs associated with the conveyance and intermediate storage portions of the bottom ash handling systems, based on unit capacity (in MW). Contains data from the Steam Electric Survey (Question C3-39) to evaluate the percentage of toatl capital costs represented by engineering overhead costs. The value used (the calculated median percentage) is highlighted orange.Remote Mechanical Drag System (ASHCON TM) - Development of the Capital Cost Equation

EPA used data provided by Clyde Bergemann Power Group (nonCBI), previously Delta Ducon, (below) to generate a cost curve for a remote mechanical drag system (ASHCON) based on MW. As shown in the footnote, this includes the intermediate storage for the system (Conveyance + Intermediate cap cost).

Based on the information provided in the table above, EPA used the upper MW bounds to plot MW vs. Capital Cost for the remote mechanical drag system.

**Unit MW Capital Cost**  150 4,000,000 300 6,000,000 500 9,000,000 700 11,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000900 15,000,000

EPA plotted the poi

nts above to generate a cost equation to esti mate capital costs based on unit MW. EPA selected the linear equation based on the best r-squared value. EPA used the following equation: 

## Unit Cost (2010$) = 14,227 × Capacity, MW + 2,000,000

0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000

0EPA used data provided by Clyde Bergemann Power Group (nonCBI), previously Delta Ducon, (below) to generate a cost curve for a remote mechanical drag system (ASHCON) based on MW. As shown in the footnote, this includes the intermediate storage for the system (Conveyance + Intermediate cap cost).

Based on the information provided in the table above, EPA used the upper MW bounds to plot MW vs. Capital Cost for the remote mechanical drag system.

y = 14227x + 2E+06 R2 = 0.9901 

## Unit MW vs. Capital Cost0 200 400 600 800 1000EPA's Methodology for Developing the Bottom Ash Handling Remote MDS Engineering Factor

Responses from C3-39:

Plant ID SE Unit

ID CBIFlag Project Cost Year Basis Plant ID SE Unit

ID CBIFlag Project Cost 3831 SE Unit-2 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 3831 SE Unit-2 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 3433 SE Unit-4 FALSEEngineering Overhead 279767 2003 3433 SE Unit-4 FALSE Total Capital 3448808 1245 SE Unit-1 FALSEEngineering Overhead 250000 2009 1245 SE Unit-1 FALSE Total Capital 10250000 1245 SE Unit-2 FALSEEngineering Overhead 250000 2009 1245 SE Unit-2 FALSE Total Capital 10250000 1634 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1634 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 3831 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 3831 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 1695 SE Unit-3 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1695 SE Unit-3 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 9534 SE Unit-7 FALSEEngineering Overhead 75000 2002 9534 SE Unit-7 FALSE Total Capital 580166 4781 SE Unit-2 FALSEEngineering Overhead 73242 2008 4781 SE Unit-2 FALSE Total Capital 4223311 8437 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 8437 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 249 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 249 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 8233 SE Unit-1 FALSEEngineering Overhead 15000 2007 8233 SE Unit-1 FALSE Total Capital 497000 6118 SE Unit-2 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 6118 SE Unit-2 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 2766 SE Unit-1 FALSEEngineering Overhead 9000 2003 2766 SE Unit-1 FALSE Total Capital 313000 6118 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 6118 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 8075 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 8075 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 2548 SE Unit-1 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -555 2548 SE Unit-1 FALSE Total Capital 82500 2548 SE Unit-2 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -555 2548 SE Unit-2 FALSE Total Capital 82500 8750 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 8750 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 3235 SE Unit-3 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -999 3235 SE Unit-3 FALSE Total Capital 17462901 EPA used data from the Steam Electric Survey (Questions C3-39 (conveyance) and C3-47 (intermediate storagae)) to compare engineering overhead costs to total capital costs. Using this comparison, EPA calculated a factor for estimating engineering overhead costs. EPA excluded any

responses that were marked as blank or missing, and total capital costs listed as zero.3235 SE Unit-4 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -999 3235 SE Unit-4 FALSE Total Capital 10365146

6672 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 6672 SE Unit-1 TRUE [Redacted] [Redacted] 2548 SE Unit-3 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -555 2548 SE Unit-3 FALSE Total Capital 82500 9526 SE Unit-4 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -999 9526 SE Unit-4 FALSE Total Capital 82500 3146 SE Unit-1, SE Unit-2

FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 2009 3146 SE Unit-1, SE Unit-2 FALSE Total Capital 8512055 1258 SE Units -1,2,3,4 (see comments)

FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -999 1258 SE Units -1,2,3,4 (see comments) FALSE Total Capital 4552907 3097 SE Unit-4 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -999 3097 SE Unit-4 FALSE Total Capital 2022218

Responses from C3-47:

Plant ID SE Unit

ID CBIFlag Project Cost Year Basis Plant ID SE Unit

ID CBIFlag Project Cost 1245 Outdoor Pile 1

FALSEEngineering Overhead 30000 2009 1245 Outdoor Pile 1 FALSE Total Capital 250000 1245 Outdoor Pile 2

FALSEEngineering Overhead 30000 2009 1245 Outdoor Pile 2 FALSE Total Capital 250000 9534 Silo 2 FALSEEngineering Overhead 3200 2002 9534 Silo 2 FALSE Total Capital 26253 6245 30 yard roll off

FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -555 6245 30 yard roll off FALSE Total Capital 3922 2548 1, 2, 3 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -555 2548 1, 2, 3 FALSE Total Capital 1000 9526 Other FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -999 9526 Other FALSE Total Capital 1000 6616 Other_Enclosed Buildings

FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 2009 6616 Other_Enclosed Buildings FALSE Total Capital 466732 3097 Silo 4 FALSEEngineering Overhead 0 -999 3097 Silo 4 FALSE Total Capital 98201Year

Basis Total Capital

minus Overhead Overhead

% of Capital (excludin g [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] NA 3169041 9% NA 10000000 3% NA 10000000 3% [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] NA 505166 15% NA 4150069 2% [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] NA 482000 3% [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] NA 304000 3% [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] NA 82500 0% NA 82500 0% [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] NA 17462901 0%NA 10365146 0%

[Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] NA 82500 0% NA 82500 0% NA 8512055 0% NA 4552907 0% NA 2022218 0%

Conveyance: min 0%

max 15% average 2.276% median 1.765% ** Because median for Int Storage = 0, used the value for conveyance

Year Basis Total Capital

minus Overhead Overhead

% of Capital (excludin g NA 220000 14% NA 220000 14% NA 23053 14% NA 3922 0% NA 1000 0% NA 1000 0% NA 466732 0% NA 98201 0%

Int Storage: min 0%

max 14% average 5.144%median 0.000%