## Ash Handling Conversion Data and Fly Ash Cost Data

This PDF documents EPA’s conversations with Clyde Bergemann Power Group (previously Delta Ducon), containing data on ash handling conversions and specific cost data for fly ash handling conversions.

The PDF contains the following documents:

Conversion from Wet to Dry Ash Handling Systems Telecon Discussion between Gary Mooney, Clyde Bergemann Power Group (CBPG) and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, about EPA’s request for information and cost data on fly ash and bottom ash handling conversions.
Email from Gary Mooney, CBPG to Elizabeth Sabol, ERG Email on November 17, 2010 delivering Gary Mooney’s initial responses to the ash handling request sent by ERG in November 2010.

CBPG Response to EPA’s Ash Handling Request PDF file containing CBPG’s responses to EPA’s request for information and cost data for fly ash and bottom ash handling conversions.

Email from Gary Mooney, CBPG to Elizabeth Sabol, ERG Email on November 18, 2010 delivering Gary Mooney’s estimates for fly ash handling conversion costs.

CBPG Fly Ash Conversion Cost Estimates PDF file containing CBPG’s fly ash conversion cost estimates for vacuum, pressure, and combination vacuum/pressure systems.

CBPG Fly Ash Conversion Bill of Materials for System Conversions PDF file containing the bill of materials for the three different systems (for each of the four different conveying line sizes).

Email from Gary Mooney, CBPG to Elizabeth Sabol, ERG Email on November 22, 2010 delivering fly ash conversion costs with associated steel silo costs.

CBPG Fly Ash Conversion Costs with Silo Costs PDF file containing the revised fly ash conversion costs, including costs for a steel silo.

Email from Gary Mooney, CBPG to Elizabeth Sabol, ERG Email on October 26, 2011 discussing foundations for silo costs.Project No.: 0172.09.029.043 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 2

_
Project Name: Steam Electric Rulemaking

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD
Outgoing Call Date: 11/18/2010 Time: 1:00 PM

Company Name: Clyde Bergemann Delta Ducon Contact Name: Gary Mooney

Phone No.: 610- 560 -4302

Name: Elizabeth Sabol

GENERAL SUBJECT : Conversion from Wet to Dry Ash Handling Systems

– Fly and Bottom



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On November 8, 2010, I sent an e

- mail to Ron Grabowski requesting information on wet to dry fly/bottom ash handling conversions including equipment, operations, and capital costs, and operation costs . Gary Mooney responded to the request on November 15 stating that he would be providing responses to the attachment sent to Mr. Grabowski.

On November 17, Mr. Mooney delivered the first draft of his responses on November 17, 2010. See the attachment “Delta Ducon_Ash Handling Attachment_GDM Response s.pdf” below. As a follow up to this delivery, Mr. Mooney and I had a call at 1:00 PM to discuss his responses. A summary of our discussion is presented below.

First, Mr. Mooney and I discussed the ASCHONTM (r emote submerged chain conveyor (SCC) ) system. The ASCHONTM is an SCC not located underneath the boiler. The sluice is sent, by pipe, to the ASCHONTM and it is dewatered and collected for disposal. Mr. Mooney explained that the ASCHONTM works like a dewatering bin, there is an underflow baffle and an overflow, a weir on the sides, and overflow troughs on the sid e. The ash sluice drops into the conveyor and is moved up an incline, dewatering as it is removed from the sluice water bath. The resulting bottom ash is approximately 20 percent water by weight. Mr. Mooney explain ed that the handling of the w ater overflow is site specific. The overflow could be sent to a clarifier for additional solids removal or sent to a setting basin. Mr. Mooney also stated that the overflow could be recycled. Mr. Mooney also explained that water quality of the overflow is different than dewatering bin overflow because the ASCHONTM is operated continuously, compared to the ash sitting in dewatering bins and removed in batch processes.
Mr. Mooney explained that the ASCHONTM is an answer to plants that don’t have any room underneath the bo ilers to install a S CC or dry system. Mr. Mooney stated that the dewatering bin system is dated and expensive, based on the amount of power to pump the ash to a dewatering bin 100 feet in the air. Mr. Mooney said that new boilers are installing SCC systems

. Second, Mr. Mooney and I discussed treatment required for dewatering bin systems/complete recirculation systems. Mr. Mooney stated that no water treatment was necessary, just pH control.

### Finally, Mr. Mooney and I walked through the responses he provid ed in the PDF attachment “ Delta Ducon_Ash Handling Attachment_GDM Response s.pdf”. Below, I’ve summarized the additional notes taken during our conversation. I’ve noted the section and page number of the PDF attachment for reference.

Cost Methodology Backg round – Fly Ash Conversion (Additional Notes) Wet Vacuum Pneumatic System (Page 1)

• Recycle options for this system are available, the same amount of water is used when the plant is sluicing ash or collecting it dry using the vacuum from the sluice water.

• S ome plants (i.e., TVA) use a vooner pump to create this water vacuum to pull the ash from the hopper. No one has used this pump in the last thirty years. Additionally, plants can use hydrovactors or liquid ring vacuum pumps. Additionally, there is constant wearing and corrosion because of the design of the pumps. Pressure System (Page 1)

• Mr. Mooney stated that the pressure system is not necessarily needed, just more vacuum lines are required. The advantages to the system include the ability to move the ash unlimited/longer distances, the system is less sensitive to temperatures, the system can deliver ash to more than one destination and less equipment is required at the destination. However, the systems also leak ash out to the atmosphere if punctured, require larger equipment at the ash pick up point, and require more expensive equipment at each pickup point.

Cost Methodology Background – Bottom Ash Conversion /Installation (Additional Notes) Complete Recycle system (Page 2)

• No plants are going with this option any more.
General Fly Ash System Design (Additional Notes) Fly Ash System Capacity and Conveying Distance (Page 3)

• General rule of thumb: Conveyance Capacity = Generating Capacity x 2

• Units with a conveyance capacity of 80 TPH would require 2 40 TPH sys tems Outage Requirement for Installation (Page 3)

• 90 percent of conversion s keep the equipment under the boiler Wet Vacuum Pneumatic Discharges (Page 5)

• Some plants send this waste stream to a clarifier and discharge

. T he stream can also be recycled.

Gene ral Bottom Ash System Design (Additional Notes) Pneumatic Bottom Ash Conveyance System (Page 5)

• The room required underneath the boiler requires approximately 5 feet plus a hopper with storage for 8 to 12 hours (1 ft above the line, 1 ft funnel, 1 ft choking point, and 2/3 ft grinder). Complete Recycle Systems (Page 6)

• The recycle stream does not need chemical addition to control solids; just mechanical separation is required.

Silo Configuration Sizing, Number, and MOC for Intermediate Ash Storage Silo (Page 7)

• Carbon steel silos are mainly constructed because the material is cheaper and easy to supply.

• Sometimes stainless steel silos are construction if the plant is in an area with high salt in the air.

### On November 18, 2011, Mr. Mooney provided additiona l cost data for different sized fly ash system conversions, including a bill of materials for each of the system designs costed. On November 19, Gary provided additional cost information for silo costs. On November 22, 2011, Gary provided updated silo cost s.
On December 8, 2011, I called Mr. Mooney again to discuss the fly ash conversion and silo costs he provided November 18 and 22, 2011. Mr. Mooney stated that there is no strong correlation between tons per hour and distance the ash must travel. Mr. Moo ney explained that any additional piping costs for a longer conveyance distance is miniscule in comparison to the entire ash handling conversion.

Below is a list of the attachments relevant to the information presented above:

1. Email from Gary Mooney to Elizabeth Sabol, November 17, 201 0 (Initial Response to Ash Information) 2. Delta Ducon Response to November 2010 Request for Ash Conversion Information ( Delta Ducon_Ash Handling Attachment_GDM Response s.pdf) 3. Email from Gary Mooney t o Elizabeth Sabol, November 18, 201 0 (Fly Ash Conversion Costs) 4. Delta Ducon Fly Ash Conversion Cost Estimates 5. Delta Ducon Fly Ash Bill of Materials for System Conversions 6. Email from Gary Mooney to Elizabeth Sabol November 22, 201 0 (Silo Costs – Revised) 7. De lta Ducon Fly Ash Conversion Costs with Silo Costs 8. Email from Gary Mooney to Elizabeth Sabol October 26, 2011 (Information about foundations)

### From: <GaryM@deltaducon.com> To: <elizabeth.sabol@erg.com> CC: <RonG@deltaducon.com> Date: 11/17/2010 11:39 AM Subject: Re: EPA/ERG Ash Handling Data Request Attachments: Delta Ducon_Ash Handling Attachment_11.10 _ GDM Responses.pdf

Elizabeth: I attach my first run through your Questionnaire.

In the beginning, I needed to clarify your system definitions and add some you were not aware of that are very relev ant to our active bids for ash pond removal.

Since I have been working on many Bottom Ash systems myself this year, I was able to add some cost information for those systems at the end.

Assuming you understand and accept the answers I have provided so far, I will work up some System Costs for the Fly Ash Systems - at least for the ones we bid regularly.

Okay ?

Best regards,

Gary D. Mooney Sales Engineer Clyde Bergemann Delta Ducon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS <<

___________________________________________
Phone: 610 -560-4302 Fax: 610 -695-9724 Email garymooney@clydebergemann.com Internet: www.deltaducon.com

Clyde Bergemann Delta Ducon | 33 Sproul Road | Malvern | PA | 19355

### Page 1 November 17, 2010 Introduction

EPA is currently developing a methodology to estimate the cost of conversions from wet to dry fly ash handling and the in stallation/conversion of bottom ash handling systems with systems that do not discharg e sluice water. Below please find a brief overview of this methodology and a list of questi ons/cost requests that will assist EPA is further developing this methodology.

Cost Methodology Background

Fly Ash Conversion

EPA is developing a methodology that will estimate costs associated with the conversion from wet to dry fly ash handling at coal-fired power plants. The methodology will account for costs associated with the conveyance, intermediate storage, and transport/disposal portions of the fly as h handling system. This component-level approach to the ash handling system mirrors how EPA requested cost information in the questionnaire.

The four dry fly ash handling system s that EPA is evaluating include:

• Wet vacuum (pneumatic): System retr ofit that utilizes the existing wet vacuum exhauster to pull vacuum for the dry system; This means adding a Filter-Receiver and Silo ahead of the wet exhauster to collect 99.X% of the ash dry. There is still all the water used by the wet exhauster that is contaminated by some ash carryover and still flows to an air separator tank and on to the pond . Not Recommended by CBDD

.
• Dry Vacuum: System that uses a mech anical exhauster to move air to entrain and convey dry fly ash partic les (ideal for short distances); This is recommended by CBDD to avoid the use of all water. The wet exhauster system can be retained as back-up but the new vacuum system generally has le ss vertical lift and the Silo and mechanical pumps can be locate d a little further away from the boiler island.

• Pressure: Pressurized system that uses air produced by a positive displacement blower to convey ash to a certain destin ation (ideal for longer distances); and NOT recommended by CBDD since this involves retrofitting airlocks under every existing hopper, which may not be physically possible and is very costly.

• Combination vacuum/pressure: System that utilizes the vacuum equipment underneath the hoppers to transport fly ash by vacuum to a transfer station, where it is intr oduced to positive pressure and transported longer distances.

### Page 2 November 17, 2010 This is the preferred CBDD solution as long as an all dry vacuum system (#2 above) close to the plant is not feasible. All existing hopper valves and branch line piping are retained to gather ash by vacuum to one or two cen tral points for a long distance pressure system to take over.

The methodology will evaluate the existi ng ash handling system, as well as the conveyance distance and ash capacity associated with each plant to determine the most appropriate dry fly ash handli ng system to be installed.

Bottom Ash Conversion/Installation

EPA is developing a methodology that will estimate the costs for bottom ash handling system conversions and new installations. The bottom ash handling methodology will account for costs associated w ith the conveyance, intermediate storage, and transport/disposal portions of the bottom ash handling system. The three bottom ash handling systems that EPA is evaluating include:

• Complete Recycle System: Bottom ash system that utilizes dewatering bins and corresponding tanks to recy cle all sluice water back to the system (Note: this system is a closed complete recycle system and does not include the use of ponds); This system requires modifications to existing jet pumps and their water supply pumps at each boi ler to handle the increased lift (Total Dynamic Head, TDH) from grade up to the top of the new Dewatering Bins. Not recommended by CBDD

.
• Mechanical Drag System: Drag chai n system that works on an incline to pull bottom ash from the quench water underneath the boiler to an intermediate or final storage destination; CBDD offers three (3) sub choices: 1) Submerged Scraper Conveyors, SSC, as implied here, for underneath the boiler - still using water for quenching 2) DRYCONTM dry conveyor for underneath the boiler that does NOT use any water whatsoever 3) ASHCON TM Remote Submerged Scraper Conveyor for beyond the boiler island for recei ving wet slurry pipelines

• Pneumatic Handling Systems: Dry bottom ash handling system that grinds up bottom ash at the botto m of the hopper and transfers it pneumatically to an intermediate or final storage destination. This has been tried in only a few places and is Not Recommended by CBDD due to heat (ash temperature) concerns.

### Page 3 November 17, 2010 Questions Regarding Fly and Bottom Ash System Operations and Costs

In order to properly develop the met hodology to evaluate the installation and conversion costs for the industry, EPA would like to request system-level operating and cost information from you. Please respond to th e following questions below to ensure that the cost model reflects appropriate information/costs.

General Fly Ash System Design Characterization

1. Please provide your estimate for the maxi mum capacity (tons/hour) and maximum distance that should be assumed for we t vacuum (pneumatic), dry vacuum, pressure, and combination vacuum/pressure systems. Wet Vacuum 50 TPH 500 Feet Dry Vacuum 60 TPH 1,000 Feet Pressure 100 TPH 5,000 Feet Vacuum/Pressure 60 TPH 6,000 Feet

2. When evaluating the conversion of an as h handling system from wet to dry, are there any circumstances that specifically re quire the installation of a pressure fly ash handling system (e.g., capacity requirement exceeds maximum capacity of vacuum or combination vacuum/pressure systems)? There is rarely a need to use a pure pr essure system. If the ash collection rates are increasing dramatically it generally means a whole new baghouse or ESP, is being installed, which CA N have a new pressure system. But retrofits to existing hoppers almost always mean a vacuum system can be used although with newer valves and maybe an increase in line size. Then a vacuum-pressure system is an additional option.

3. Is there a type of dry ash handling system typically used to retrofit existing power plants? If yes, what about that particular system makes it preferable (e.g., ease of installation, cap ital, O&M)? Yes, Vacuum-Pressure systems are mo st logical and common. They allow most of the existing vacuum system to remain and only add dry collection equipment for a pure vacuum or a vacuum-pressure system in an available space beyond the ESP or Baghouse structure.

4. For each dry fly ash system, what is the typical length of outage required for the installation (or convers ion to) the system? If known, what is the typical outage per year associated with scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of each type of dry fly ash system conversion? Can the conversion be implemented within normal scheduled maintenance outages, or must the maintenance outage be extended (and if so, for how long)? If the hoppers under the ESP or baghouse have to be changed out – an outage of 6-8 weeks for vacuum and 8-12 weeks for pressure systems has

### Page 4 November 17, 2010 to be planned. If the existing vacuum hopper equipment and branch lines are being retained, the entire Silo an d Dry System can be installed nearby while the Unit is on line. Then only a few days are needed to tie-into the existing pipe headers and install dive rter valves. Many outages are being shortened in length and have crowde d schedules for required maintenance so only the quick tie-in vacuum-pressu re system is possible in most cases.

5. Please describe how the design of the fl y ash handling system would differ for a plant using petroleum coke instead of coal. The systems are the same. We use di fferent pick-up velocities and maybe alternate materials of constr uction for any waste being handled.

6. Please describe the type of fly ash handling equipment used for oil-fired boilers. Please describe how the design and oper ation differ from coal-fired fly ash handling equipment. Oil ash is very hydroscopic so we on ly use very warm and dry systems like continuous pressure systems w ith air eductors. We do not recommend vacuum systems, especially using ambient (wet,cold) air.

Wet Vacuum (Pneumatic) Fly Ash Ha ndling System Characterization

7. Please describe the prevalence of wet vacuum (pneumatic) fly ash handling systems in industry. What percent of new installations utilize wet vacuum systems? What percent of wet-to-dry c onversions installed wet vacuum systems? The SouthEast part of the USA still has many wet vacuum systems and even these are being phased out (e.g. TVA). Most new systems since 1970 have been dry, especially those out West where water was always a rarer resource. We are not aware of a Wet-to-Dry Conversion that stayed completely wet for the vacuum producer. Several retained the wet option while adding dry vacuum pumps as the primary vacuum source.

8. What equipment can typically be retain ed when converting from a wet fly ash handling (sluicing) to a wet vacuum ( pneumatic) system? In addition to a wet vacuum exhauster (vs. a mechanical exha uster), what major equipment is required for conversion? Almost all wet systems are dry initially with the water being added at the end. Then, an air separator tank di scharges the conveying air and only the ash-water slurry is “s luiced” to the pond, mainly by gravity. A wet-to-dry conversion merely installs a ba g filter with r eceiving tank, a “ Filter- Receiver” , ahead of the wet exhauster a nd drops the collected dry ash down into a new Silo. The base of the Silo needs aeration systems and unloaders, which can be “dry” or “conditioning” with water being added. All hopper valves and branch lines are retained. When adding a liquid ring vacuum pump, it has a contaminated waste water stream that needs to be dealt with using clarifiers (e.g. TVA).

### Page 5 November 17, 2010 9. What equipment is required for conversi on from wet vacuum (pneumatic) fly ash handling systems to dry vacuum fly ash handling systems? Same answer as #8. Here, the dr y vacuum pumps do NOT have a contaminated waste water stream, which is why they are more common than liquid ring vacuum pumps. 10. Do wet vacuum (pneumatic) fly ash handling systems generate a waste stream? If yes, how much wastewater is typically ge nerated? What is the wastewaters usual destination? What percent of fly ash become s entrained in the water used to create the vacuum? Yes, there is still an ash contaminated waste stream of water with any wet vacuum producer, including water ri ng vacuum pumps. No bag filter is 100% effective in removing all dust, especially in low micron sizes. There will still be a few pounds per hour of ash reaching the wet vacuum exhauster or pump which then drains to a pond unless water clarifiers are installed. TVA has liquid ring vacuum pumps but is installing clarifiers for gypsum, bottom ash and fly ash water streams.

General Bottom Ash System Characterization

11. Please describe the prevalence of pneu matic bottom ash conveyance systems in industry. What percent of new installa tions and wet-to-dry conversions are pneumatic systems? This is very rare. The ash temper ature under a Pulverized Coal fired boiler is approximately 1200 to 1500 Degrees F so only a few pneumatic systems have attempted to handle the size of the bottom ash particles (even after crushing with grinders) as well as this high temperature range. Dry Mechanical Conveyors are becoming more common which can continuously handle much la rger hot ash particles. CBDD would recommend our DRYCONTM unit in lieu of any pneumatic system.

12. Are there certain boilers that are unable to be retrofitted with a pneumatic bottom ash conveyance system (e.g., older boilers)? Since pneumatic systems are still “batch” systems requiring several hours of storage between cycles of the valv es, height is more of a limitation than age. Room/height for the necessary grinders has to be included.

13. For each dry bottom ash system, what is the typical length of outage required for the installation (or convers ion to) the system? If known, what is the typical outage per year associated with scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of each type of dry bottom ash system conversion? A Submerged Scraper Conveyor (which uses water) or a DRYCON TM conveyor, which is all dry, need a bout a 6-8 week outage to demolish existing equipment and install the ne w equipment. Typically, boiler tube work is scheduled for a boiler outag e which further restricts allowable

### Page 6 November 17, 2010 time. A pneumatic system would take this long or longer to install since it does not arrive as fully assembled as a conveyor. An ASHCON TM remote submerged scraper conv eyor can be installed in a field while the boiler is on-line and onl y a few days are needed to tie-into the pipeline leading to the pond. The sa me is true if dewatering bins are installed in a field but some change s may be needed with jet pumps and water supply pumps that are operating until the outage starts.

14. Please describe how the design of the bottom ash handling system would differ for a plant using petroleum coke instead of coal. The systems are all the same.

15. Please describe the type of bottom ash handling equipment used for oil-fired boilers. Please describe how the de sign and operation differ from coal-fired bottom ash handling equipment. Most existing oil soot systems have manual bottom ash removal systems. The collected waste is scraped out of hoppers during outages. Very few automatic “bottom ash” oil systems exist and like the oil soot, water based systems should be avoided.

Complete Recycle Systems

16. For a complete recycle bottom ash handling system, do you include any costs associated with water treatment to prevent or eliminate the build up of dissolved solids? Please describe the type of treatme nt that is used to eliminate the build up of dissolved solids. The new TVA designs are using thickene rs and clarifiers to treat the overflow water from bottom ash, fly ash, economizer/SCR ash and gypsum (FGD) systems to limit the Total Suspended Solids in the effluent to 30 mg/l or less. The suppliers of this hardware come from the water treatment industry – not directly from the ash handling system suppliers

. So “we” are not including these cost s – the Installation Contractor is. These are not “recycle” systems. In the past only pH control was a regular feature of “recycle” systems. Only a few installations started to add chemicals and polymers on their own to the recycle tanks to reduce the TSS. Water Treatment per se was not part of the ash handling specs.

17. What costs are included in the installation and operation of a complete recycle system? What water (make-up, cooling water, re-circ water) and power requirements are needed to operate the system? Besides all of the concrete foundations and civil work associated with adding large tanks, the integration of new Controls with a Plant Distributed Control System (DCS ) is a major activity By Others. Since 20% of the water (by weight) is still lost with the discharged bottom ash, this volume of water has to be added back into the system at the

### Page 7 November 17, 2010 Surge Tank. Additional water is need ed for make-up due to evaporation at the boiler and at the recirculati on tanks. At system start-up the Surge Tank needs enough water to fill the ash hopper, all operating pipelines and one or more dewatering bins. This is a significant volume of water that is then recirculated at thousands of gallons per minute except for the losses above. As for power requirements, there is a significant increase in horsepower (HP) needed to lift the as h slurry to the top of the dewatering bins. This HP is a direct drain on the plant electrical production (1 HP = 0.75 Kilowatts). In many cases, this increase in horsepower can be avoided by installing a low-to-the ground ASHCON TM remote submerged scraper conveyor, which does not increase the TDH requirements on existing pumps.

Silo Configuration

18. Please describe the process for sizing a silo for intermediate ash storage. Specifically, is each silo individually de signed for a specific plant, or are there several standard silo designs selected from based on amount of ash generated? Each Silo is designed specifically fo r each plant using their maximum coal burn rates for all possible coals. T ypically three days storage (72 hours) is calculated using the maximum fly ash generation rate at a “volume” density of maybe 45 pounds per cubic foot. The silo is then designed for a structural density of maybe 90 to 120 pcf. There are no standards other than for smaller bolted steel tanks where 14 feet is a maximum often used. But larger silos in steel or concrete can be any diameter but steps of 5 feet in diameter are common (e.g. 25, 30, 35, 40 feet diameters). Consideration has to be given to the number and type of unloaders required. Four pugmills take up a la rge amount of unloader floor space and may force a larger diameter silo.

19. What factors drive the number of silos in stalled at a facility? Are silos typically sized to hold one unit’s ash, or is a silo typically shared among multiple units that generate ash with similar characteristics? Silos are typically shared by at least two Units but the resultant height becomes a penalty on the conveying sy stem for any Unit feeding the silo. Heights well over 100 feet from grad e, especially when large Filter- Receivers are needed for the roof, should be avoided.

20. What materials of construction are typi cally used for silos and how is the appropriate material of construction de termined? Provide range of costs for typical materials of constr uctions for a typical silo. Carbon Steel silos ar e common for design a nd supply proposals. These can be bolted or welded in the factory (smaller) or field welded (larger). Concrete Silos are more costly but often the price includes installation and these become cost effective for Turnkey bids.

### Page 8 November 17, 2010 There are no Typical silos but costs range from $500,000 to over $1 million.

Costs for Fly and Bottom Ash Handling Systems

EPA is seeking system-level cost information for wet to dry fly ash handling conversions and bottom ash handling conversio ns/installations. EPA would like to obtain these costs broken out for the conveyance por tion of the system (e.g., from the hopper to intermediate storage) and the intermediate storage portion of the system (e.g., silo). EPA is aware that cost varies greatly depending on boiler configuration, capacity, conveyance distance, and number of units . For the purposes of providi ng cost data, please assume average industry operating conditions and no special circumstances (e.g., headroom below the boiler). In order for us to properly evaluate the cost data , please provide the list of variables and assumptions us ed during the development.

Fly Ash

Please provide capital and O&M cost curves for fly ash conveyance (please do not include silo costs), based on tons pe r hour (tph) of fly ash, for the following conversion types:

• Conversion from wet sluicing to wet vacuum system; Same approximate cost as dry vacuum although liquid ring vacuum pumps are more expensive than dry blowers

• Conversion from wet sluicing to dry vacuum system; Later

• Conversion from wet sluicing to pressure system; Most expensive and very rare

• Conversion from wet sluicing to comb ination vacuum pressure system. Later

Bottom Ash

Please provide capital and O&M cost cu rves for bottom ash conveyance (please do not include silo costs), based on tph of bottom ash, for the following installations or conversion types:

• Conversion from wet sluicing to mechanical drag system; To Design and Supply a Submerged Scraper Conveyor, DRYCONTM or ASHCONTM costs between $1.5 and $2.5 million each plus the cost of Installation. SSCs and DRYCONTM require demolition of existing ash hopper equipment as well as installation of the new conveyors. Overall Turnkey Projects range from $7 to $9 million. An ASHCONTM system does not require demolition and a Turnkey installation can be $5 to $7 million.

### Page 9 November 17, 2010 These are costs PER BOILER UNIT but one ASHCONTM can serve multiple Units (e.g. TVA projects).

• Conversion from wet sluicing to pneumatic system; Not recommended by CBDD

• Conversion from wet sluicing to a dewatering bin system with complete recycle (including dewa tering bin, surge tank, and settling tanks costs); Later, but much more costly than mechanical drag systems

• Installation costs for mechanical drag systems; See above Installation costs for pneumatic systems. Not recommended by CBDD

Intermediate Storage

Please provide the following data for silos:

• Silo cost curves (capital and O&M) as a function of capacity (please provide separate silo capital cost curves for typical materials of constructions used). Please assume that the silo has both wet and dry loading capabilities. Later

Please include a detailed list of components included for each system level cost curve provided. Also, please provide an explanation of a ny underlying assumptions made while developing the cost curves (i.e., if outag e time or maintenance time was factored in the price).

Petroleum Coke-Fired Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Costs

Please provide capital and O&M cost curves for fly ash and bottom ash handling systems associated with the ha ndling of ash from petroleum c oke-fired units, if different than coal-fired units. Please provide cost curv es with the same details that are included in the request above. Pet Coke bids do not vary signi ficantly from regular coal bids.

Oil-Fired Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Costs

Please provide capital and O&M cost curves for fly ash and bottom ash handling systems associated with the ha ndling of ash from oil-fired units. Please provide cost curves with the same details that are included in the request above. A recent bid for an oil soot system for two (2) 600 MW Units with 48 ESP Hoppers but without the co mmon silo (by Others) was $3 million

. There is not enough of a population of these designs to create any curves.

### From: <GaryM@deltaducon.com> To: <elizabeth.sabol@erg.com> CC: <RonG@deltaducon.com> Date: 11/18/2010 4:34 PM Subject: Fly Ash System Cost Estimates Attachments: EPA

- ERG System Bills of Material.pdf; EPA FLY ASH SYSTEM COST SUMMARY.pdf

Elizabeth: To give you a Cost Comparison for the Fly Ash Systems listed on Page 8 of my November 17 questionnaire, I worked up several systems based upon four line sizes (6", 8", 10" and 12") and their relative conveying capacities ranging from 10 to 50 TPH. I used representative numbers of hoppers and branch lines to correspond to the tonnage rates involved.

Then I ran 500 foot long vacuum systems at 15 inches of Mercury vacuum (15" Hg) and 2500 foot long pressure systems at 15 psig. Both starting from the ESP/Baghouse Hoppers but I broke out the Hopper and Branch Line equipment since this is rarely replaced for vacuum systems. Then I combined a 50 feet vacuum system (from the end of the branch lines) with a 2500 feet pressure system for the cost of Vacuum

- Pressure Systems.

Here are the results: So for smaller plants a straight vacuum system generally works out but as the plants and ash rates get larger and the silos have to be further away, A Vacuum - Pressure system is less expensive than an all Pressure system even with the two sets of pumps & blowers.

I attach my assumed Bill of Materials since there is a wide variety of plant layouts and numbers of hoppers even for similar MW and ash ratings.

Have a Good Day!

Best regards, Gary D. Mooney Sales Engineer Clyde Bergemann Delta Ducon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS <<

_______________________________________ Phone: 610 -560-4302 Fax: 610 -695-9724 Email garymooney@clydebergemann.com Internet: www.deltaducon.com

Clyde Bergemann Delta Ducon | 33 Sproul Road | Malvern | PA | 19355FLY ASH CONVERSION COSTS

Fly Ash Generation Rate TPH 5-6 10-11 15-17 25 Fly Ash Conveying Rat e TPH 10-12 20-22 30-35 50 Primary Line Size INCHES 6 8 10 12

From Wet System (Dry to Water Jet Exhausters) to Dry Vacuum with Dry Vacuum Pump s 500 Feet Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 83,125$ 103,425 $ 177,800 $ 219,450 $ May Often be Reused New Header, Filter-Receiver & Dry Pumps 359,750 $ 419,100 $ 540,000 $ 732,312 $ Total 442,875 $ 522,525 $ 717,800 $ 951,762 $

From Wet System (Dry to Water Jet Exhausters) to Pressure System with Blowers 2500 Feet Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 312,550 $ 441,560 $ 808,850 $ 1,103,620 $ Must Replace Existing New Header, Blowers, Bin Vent 358,200 $ 440,575 $ 559,650 $ 799,430 $ Total 670,750 $ 882,135 $ 1,368,500 $ 1,903,050 $

From Wet System (Dry to Water Jet Exhausters) to Vacuum-Pressure 2500 Feet Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 83,125$ 103,425 $ 177,800 $ 219,450 $ May Often be Reused New Header, Filter-Receiver & Dry Pumps 300,325 $ 341,871 $ 450,960 $ 626,900 $ Sub Total - Vacuum 383,450 $ 445,296 $ 628,760 $ 846,350 $ New Pressure System 413,558 $ 502,414 $ 598,378 $ 827,190 $ Total Including New Hopper Valves 797,008 $ 947,710 $ 1,227,138 $ 1,673,540 $ Total If able to reuse Branch Lines 713,883 $ 844,285 $ 1,049,338 $ 1,454,090 $

EPA STUDY 11/18/2010Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Vacuum System: 6" Lines; 5-6 TPH Generation Rate

2 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 2 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 6" 10 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 2 rows of 5 Hoppers 10 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 6" 100 LF 6" Pipe for Branch Lines: 2 Rows of 50 feet each 500 LF 6" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 90 Degree 1 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 45 Deg 1 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 45 Deg 40 Couplings: 6" Sleeve 50 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 385 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 1158 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 75 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 8 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 8 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-1Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Vacuum System: 8" Lines; 10-11 TPH Generation Rate

2 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 2 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 8" 12 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 2 rows of 6 Hoppers 12 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 8" 120 LF 8" Pipe for Branch Lines: 2 Rows of 60 feet each 500 LF 8" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 90 Degree 1 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 45 Deg 1 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 45 Deg 42 Couplings: 8" Sleeve 52 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 686 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 2059 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 125 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 10 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 10 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-2Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Vacuum System: 10" Lines; 15-17 TPH Generation Rate

4 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 4 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 10" 20 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 4 Rows of 5 Hoppers 20 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 10" 200 LF 10" Pipe for Branch Lines: 4 Rows of 50 feet each 500 LF 10" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 90 Degree 3 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 45 Deg 3 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 45 Deg 55 Couplings: 10" Sleeve 65 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 1072 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 3217 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 200 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 12 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 12 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-3Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Vacuum System: 12" Lines; 25 TPH Generation Rate

4 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 4 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 12" 24 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 4 Rows of 6 Hoppers 24 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 12" 240 LF 12" Pipe for Branch Lines: 4 Rows of 60 feet each 500 LF 12" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 90 Degree 3 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 45 Deg 3 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 45 Deg 60 Couplings: 12" Sleeve 65 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 1544 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 4633 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 250 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 14 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 14 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-4Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Pressure System: 6" Lines; 5-6 TPH Generation Rate

2 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 10 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 2 rows of 5 Hoppers 10 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 10 Airlock Chambers: 7 Cubic Feet 10 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 10 Equalizing Valves 10 Intake Tees: 8" x 6" 100 LF 6" Pipe for Branch Lines: 2 Rows of 50 feet each 2500 LF 6" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 90 Degree 1 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6 " x 45 Deg Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6 x 45 Deg 1 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 45 Deg 152 Couplings: 6" Sleeve 216 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 1235 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 150 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 6" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 1235 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-5Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Pressure System: 8" Lines; 10-11 TPH Generation Rate

2 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 12 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 2 rows of 6 Hoppers 12 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 12 Airlock Chambers: 10 Cubic Feet 12 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 12 Equalizing Valves 12 Intake Tees: 8" x 6" 120 LF 8" Pipe for Branch Lines: 2 Rows of 60 feet each 2500 LF 8" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 90 Degree 1 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8 " x 45 Deg Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8 x 45 Deg 1 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 45 Deg 154 Couplings: 8" Sleeve 218 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 2195 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 250 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 8" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 2195 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-6Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Pressure System: 10" Lines; 15-17 TPH Generation Rate

4 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 20 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 4 Rows of 5 Hoppers 20 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 20 Airlock Chambers: 20 Cubic Feet 20 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 20 Equalizing Valves 20 Intake Tees: 8" x 6" 200 LF 10" Pipe for Branch Lines: 4 Rows of 50 feet each 2500 LF 10" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 90 Degree 3 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10 " x 45 Deg Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10 x 45 Deg 3 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 45 Deg 167 Couplings: 10" Sleeve 231 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 3430 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 400 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 10" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 3430 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-7Qty. Item No. Description EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

Pressure System: 12" Lines; 25 TPH Generation Rate

4 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 24 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 4 Rows of 6 Hoppers 24 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 24 Airlock Chambers: 25 Cubic Feet 24 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 24 Equalizing Valves 24 Intake Tees: 8" x 6" 240 LF 12" Pipe for Branch Lines: 4 Rows of 60 feet each 2500 LF 12" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 90 Degree 3 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12 " x 45 Deg Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12 x 45 Deg 3 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 45 Deg 172 Couplings: 12" Sleeve 232 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 4633 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 600 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 12" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 4633 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-8Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Vacuum System: 6" Lines; 5-6 TPH Generation Rate

2 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 2 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 6" 10 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 2 rows of 5 Hoppers 10 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 6" 100 LF 6" Pipe for Branch Lines: 2 Rows of 50 feet each 50 LF 6" Pipe for Header to Silo 6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 90 Degree 1 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 45 Deg 1 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 45 Deg 20 Couplings: 6" Sleeve 15 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 385 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 1158 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 75 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 8 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 8 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-9Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Pressure System: 6" Lines; 5-6 TPH Generation Rate

1 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 2 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12" 2 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Airlock Chambers: 7 Cubic Feet 2 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Equalizing Valves 2 Intake Tees: 8" x 6"

500 LF 6" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 90 Degree

35 Couplings: 6" Sleeve 45 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 1235 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 150 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 6" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 1235 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-10Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Vacuum System: 8" Lines; 10-11 TPH Generation Rate

2 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 2 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 8" 12 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 2 rows of 6 Hoppers 12 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 8" 120 LF 8" Pipe for Branch Lines: 2 Rows of 60 feet each 50 LF 8" Pipe for Header to Silo 6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 90 Degree 1 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 45 Deg 1 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 45 Deg 21 Couplings: 8" Sleeve 16 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 686 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 2059 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 125 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 10 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 10 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-11Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Pressure System: 8" Lines; 10-11 TPH Generation Rate

1 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 2 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12" 2 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Airlock Chambers: 10 Cubic Feet 2 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Equalizing Valves 2 Intake Tees: 8" x 6"

2500 LF 8" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 90 Degree

35 Couplings: 8" Sleeve 45 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 2195 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 250 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 8" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 2195 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-12Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Vacuum System: 10" Lines; 15-17 TPH Generation Rate

4 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 4 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 10" 20 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 4 Rows of 5 Hoppers 20 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 10" 200 LF 10" Pipe for Branch Lines: 4 Rows of 50 feet each 50 LF 10" Pipe for Header to Silo 6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 90 Degree 3 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 45 Deg 3 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 45 Deg 30 Couplings: 10" Sleeve 21 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 1072 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 3217 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 200 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 12 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 12 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-13Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Pressure System: 10" Lines; 15-17 TPH Generation Rate

1 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 2 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12" 2 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Airlock Chambers: 20 Cubic Feet 2 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Equalizing Valves 2 Intake Tees: 8" x 6"

500 LF 10" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 90 Degree

35 Couplings: 10" Sleeve 45 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 3430 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 400 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 10" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 3430 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-14Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Vacuum System: 12" Lines; 25 TPH Generation Rate

4 Air Inlet Branch Line Valves 4 Segregating Branch Line Valves: 12" 24 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12": 4 Rows of 6 Hoppers 24 Ash Intake Valves: 12" x 12" 240 LF 12" Pipe for Branch Lines: 4 Rows of 60 feet each 50 LF 12" Pipe for Header to Silo 6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 90 Degree 3 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 45 Deg 3 Laterals: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 45 Deg 31 Couplings: 12" Sleeve 25 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Filter-Receiver * Bag Filter to have 1544 ft2 cloth area * Receiver Tank with Stone Box Inlet * Airlock with two PERMA/flo V valves * Equalizing Valve * Broken Bag Detector * Vacuum Breaker

2 Vacuum Pumps * Rated for 4633 ACFM @ 15" Hg system vacuum + surge * Motor: 250 HP TEFC 3/60/460

* Butterfly Valves for Selection: 14 "

Butterfly Valves for Selection: 14 * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C

BM Page-15Qty. Item No. Description For Vacuum

- Pressure Two Part System EPA ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS

For Vacuum Pressure Two Part System Pressure System: 12" Lines; 25 TPH Generation Rate

1 Butterfly Valves for Branch Inlets 2 Hopper Isolation Valves: 12" 2 Upper Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Airlock Chambers: 25 Cubic Feet 2 Lower Airlock Valves: PERMA/flo V 2 Equalizing Valves 2 Intake Tees: 8" x 6"

500 LF 12" Pipe for Header to Silo

6 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 90 Degree

35 Couplings: 12" Sleeve 45 Pipe Supports: 3 feet maximum to support steel

1 Target Box at End of Line for Top of Silo

2 Pressure Blowers * Rated for 4633 ICFM @ 15 PSIG system pressure + surge * Motor: 600 HP TEFC 3/60/460 * Butterfly Valves for Selection: 12" * Sound Enclosure

1 Lot Miscellaneous I&C Lot Miscellaneous I&C

1 Silo Bin Vent Filter * Conveying Air of 4633 ICFM * One Dry Dust Unloader at 1000 ACFM * Silo Aeration System

BM Page-16

### From: <GaryM@deltaducon.com> To: <elizabeth.sabol@erg.com> CC: <RonG@deltaducon.com> Date: 11/22/2010 8:12 AM Subject: Updated Silo Costs Attachments: EPA FLY ASH SYSTEM COST SUMMARY with Silos - Rev 1.pdf

Elizabeth: I was rethinking how I assembled my Silo costs last week and I neglected to bring some dated costs up to date and extend them into the future for budgeting purposes, like I had for the pn eumatic systems.

Please discard last week's Silo Summary and use this updated chart instead.

Thank you,

GaryFLY ASH CONVERSION COSTS

Fly Ash Generation Rate TPH 5-6 10-11 15-17 25 Fly Ash Conveying Rat e TPH 10-12 20-22 30-35 50 Primary Line Size INCHES 6 8 10 12

From Wet System (Dry to Water Jet Exhausters) to Dry Vacuum with Dry Vacuum Pump s 500 Feet Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 83,125$ 103,425 $ 177,800 $ 219,450 $ May Often be Reused New Header, Filter-Receiver & Dry Pumps 359,750 $ 419,100 $ 540,000 $ 732,312 $ Total NO SILOS 442,875 $ 522,525 $ 717,800 $ 951,762 $

From Wet System (Dry to Water Jet Exhausters) to Pressure System with Blowers 2500 Feet Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 312,550 $ 441,560 $ 808,850 $ 1,103,620 $ Must Replace Existing New Header, Blowers, Bin Vent 358,200 $ 440,575 $ 559,650 $ 799,430 $ Total NO SILOS 670,750 $ 882,135 $ 1,368,500 $ 1,903,050 $

From Wet System (Dry to Water Jet Exhausters) to Vacuum-Pressure 2500 Feet Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 83,125$ 103,425 $ 177,800 $ 219,450 $ May Often be Reused New Header, Filter-Receiver & Dry Pumps 300,325 $ 341,871 $ 450,960 $ 626,900 $ Sub Total - Vacuum 383,450 $ 445,296 $ 628,760 $ 846,350 $ New Pressure System 413,558 $ 502,414 $ 598,378 $ 827,190 $ Total Including New Hopper Valves 797,008 $ 947,710 $ 1,227,138 $ 1,673,540 $ Total If able to reuse Branch Lines 713,883 $ 844,285 $ 1,049,338 $ 1,454,090 $ NO SILOS

Silos Storage for 3 days (72 Hours) TONS 432 792 1,224 1,800 Volume @ 45 pcf CU FT 19,200 35,200 54,400 80,000 Diameter FEET 25 30 35 40 Cost for Basic Steel Silo 265,000 $ 425,000 $ 640,000 $ 925,000 $ Level Indicators, Manway, Jib Crane 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ Aeration System 65,000$ 120,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ Pugmill Unloader: 150 TPH 245,000 $ 245,000 $ 245,000 $ 245,000 $ Dry Dust Unloader 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ Total 705,000 $ 920,000 $ 1,215,000 $ 1,600,000 $

EPA STUDY 11/22/2010From: <gary.mooney@us.cbpg.com> To: "Elizabeth Sabol" <Elizabeth.Sabol@erg.com> Date: 10/26/2011 2:01 PM Subject: Re: Silo Costs

Elizabeth: No, foundations are always BY OTHERS meaning they are excluded from any design and supply contract.

Only when an installation contractor is hired by the Customers does the installation of foundations come up.

Our scope stops at the anchor bolts required to bolt to foundations supplied BY OTHERS.

gary

From: "Elizabeth Sabol" <Elizabeth.Sabol@erg. com> To: < GaryM@deltaducon.com> Date: 10/ 26/2011 11:00 AM Subject: Silo Costs

Gary,

Thank you again for your time on the phone earlier this week. I was able to get in touch with Dennis Blauser from Marietta Silos and he provided some great information. However, he brought up an interesting point regarding silo costs, the foundation costs. Is it fair to say that the silo costs you provided earlier this year include the foundation costs, or do you have a feel for the capital and O&M costs for the foundations of silos? Is this something that you include in your cost estimates for basic steel silos?

Again, thank you for all of your time and information.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth A. Sabol Environmental Engineer Eastern Research G roup, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 elizabeth.sabol@erg.com Phone:703

- 633

- 1659