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 Responses.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 (remote 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 side. 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 explained that the 

handling of the water 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 

boilers 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 provided in the PDF attachment “Delta Ducon_Ash 

Handling Attachment_GDM Responses.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 Background – 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.

• Some 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 systems

Outage Requirement for Installation (Page 3)

• 90 percent of conversions keep the equipment under the boiler

Wet Vacuum Pneumatic Discharges (Page 5)

• Some plants send this waste stream to a clarifier and discharge. The stream can also be recycled.

General 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 additional 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 costs. 

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. Mooney 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, 2010 (Initial Response to Ash Information)

2. Delta Ducon Response to November 2010 Request for Ash Conversion Information (Delta Ducon_Ash 

Handling Attachment_GDM Responses.pdf)

3. Email from Gary Mooney to Elizabeth Sabol, November 18, 2010 (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, 2010 (Silo Costs – Revised)

7. Delta 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 relevant 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 installation/conversion of bottom ash handling 

systems with systems that do not discharge sluice water. Below please find a brief 

overview of this methodology and a list of questions/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 ash 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 systems that EPA is evaluating include: 

• Wet vacuum (pneumatic): System retrofit 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 mechanical exhauster to move air to 

entrain and convey dry fly ash particles (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 less vertical lift and the Silo and 

 mechanical pumps can be located 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 destination (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 introduced 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 central points for a long distance 

 pressure system to take over. 

The methodology will evaluate the existing ash handling system, as well as the 

conveyance distance and ash capacity associated with each plant to determine the most 

appropriate dry fly ash handling 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 with 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 recycle 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 boiler 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 chain 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) ASHCONTM Remote Submerged Scraper Conveyor for 

beyond the boiler island for receiving wet slurry pipelines 

• Pneumatic Handling Systems: Dry bottom ash handling system that 

grinds up bottom ash at the bottom 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 methodology 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 the 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 maximum capacity (tons/hour) and maximum 

distance that should be assumed for wet 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 ash handling system from wet to dry, are 

there any circumstances that specifically require 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 pressure system. If the ash collection 

 rates are increasing dramatically it generally means a whole new baghouse 

 or ESP, is being installed, which CAN 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, capital, O&M)? 

 Yes, Vacuum-Pressure systems are most 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 conversion 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 and 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 diverter valves. Many outages are being 

 shortened in length and have crowded schedules for required maintenance 

 so only the quick tie-in vacuum-pressure system is possible in most cases. 

5. Please describe how the design of the fly ash handling system would differ for a 

plant using petroleum coke instead of coal. 

 The systems are the same. We use different pick-up velocities and maybe 

 alternate materials of construction 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 operation differ from coal-fired fly ash 

handling equipment. 

 Oil ash is very hydroscopic so we only use very warm and dry systems 

 like continuous pressure systems with air eductors. We do not recommend 

 vacuum systems, especially using ambient (wet,cold) air. 

Wet Vacuum (Pneumatic) Fly Ash Handling 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 conversions 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 retained 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 exhauster), 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 discharges the conveying air and only the 

 ash-water slurry is “sluiced” to the pond, mainly by gravity. A wet-to-dry 

 conversion merely installs a bag filter with receiving tank, a “Filter- 

 Receiver”, ahead of the wet exhauster and 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 conversion from wet vacuum (pneumatic) fly ash 

handling systems to dry vacuum fly ash handling systems? 

 Same answer as #8. Here, the dry 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 generated? What is the wastewaters usual 

destination? What percent of fly ash becomes 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 ring 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 pneumatic bottom ash conveyance systems in 

industry. What percent of new installations and wet-to-dry conversions are 

pneumatic systems? 

 This is very rare. The ash temperature 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 larger 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 valves, 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 conversion 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 DRYCONTM 

 conveyor, which is all dry, need about a 6-8 week outage to demolish 

 existing equipment and install the new equipment. Typically, boiler tube 

 work is scheduled for a boiler outage 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 ASHCONTM remote submerged scraper conveyor can be installed in a 

 field while the boiler is on-line and only a few days are needed to tie-into 

 the pipeline leading to the pond. The same is true if dewatering bins are 

 installed in a field but some changes 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 design 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 treatment that is used to eliminate the build up 

of dissolved solids. 

 The new TVA designs are using thickeners 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 costs – 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 needed for make-up due to evaporation 

 at the boiler and at the recirculation 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 ash 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 ASHCONTM 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 designed for a specific plant, or are there 

several standard silo designs selected from based on amount of ash generated? 

 Each Silo is designed specifically for each plant using their maximum coal 

 burn rates for all possible coals. Typically 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 large amount of unloader floor space 

 and may force a larger diameter silo. 

19. What factors drive the number of silos installed 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 system for any Unit feeding the silo. 

 Heights well over 100 feet from grade, especially when large Filter- 

 Receivers are needed for the roof, should be avoided. 

20. What materials of construction are typically used for silos and how is the 

appropriate material of construction determined? Provide range of costs for 

typical materials of constructions for a typical silo.

 Carbon Steel silos are common for design and 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 conversions/installations. EPA would like to obtain 

these costs broken out for the conveyance portion 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 providing 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 used 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 per 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 combination vacuum pressure system. 

Later 

Bottom Ash 

Please provide capital and O&M cost curves 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 dewatering 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 any underlying assumptions made 

while developing the cost curves (i.e., if outage 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 handling of ash from petroleum coke-fired units, if different 

than coal-fired units. Please provide cost curves with the same details that are included in 

the request above. 

 Pet Coke bids do not vary significantly 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 handling 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 common 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 | 19355
FLY ASH CONVERSION COSTS

Fly Ash Generation Rate TPH 5-6 10-11 15-17 25

Fly Ash Conveying Rate 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 Pumps 500 Feet

Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 83,125$ 103,425 $ 177,800 $ 219,450 $ 

May Often be Reused

New Header, Filter-Receiver & Dry Pumps $ 419,100 359,750 $ 540,000 $ 732,312 $ 

Total $ 522,525 442,875 $ 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 $ 882,135 670,750 $ 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 $ 445,296 383,450 $ 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 $ 844,285 713,883 $ 1,049,338 $ 1,454,090 $ 

EPA STUDY 11/18/2010
Qty. 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-1
Qty. 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-2
Qty. 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-3
Qty. 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-4
Qty. 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 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 6" x 45 Deg 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-5
Qty. 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 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 8" x 45 Deg 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-6
Qty. 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 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 10" x 45 Deg 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-7
Qty. 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 Elbows: PERMA/flo IWB: 12" x 45 Deg 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-8
Qty. 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-9
Qty. 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-10
Qty. 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-11
Qty. 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-12
Qty. 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-13
Qty. 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-14
Qty. 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-15
Qty. 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 pneumatic systems.

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

instead.

Thank you,

Gary
FLY ASH CONVERSION COSTS

Fly Ash Generation Rate TPH 5-6 10-11 15-17 25

Fly Ash Conveying Rate 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 Pumps 500 Feet

Hopper & Branch Line Equipment 83,125$ 103,425 $ 177,800 $ 219,450 $ 

May Often be Reused

New Header, Filter-Receiver & Dry Pumps $ 419,100 359,750 $ 540,000 $ 732,312 $ 

Total NO SILOS $ 522,525 442,875 $ 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 $ 882,135 670,750 $ 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 $ 445,296 383,450 $ 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 $ 844,285 713,883 $ 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 $ 920,000 705,000 $ $ 1,215,000 $ 1,600,000

EPA STUDY 11/22/2010
From: <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 Group, Inc.

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

elizabeth.sabol@erg.com

Phone:703-633-1659