P:\PACIFICORP\370414BART2\TECHNICAL_MEMORANDUM_DELIVERABLES\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 1 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

Addendum to Dave Johnston Unit 4 BART Report 

PREPARED FOR: Wyoming Division of Air Quality 

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL 

COPIES: Bill Lawson/PacifiCorp 

DATE: March 26, 2008 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

was submitted in October 2007. 

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

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

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

presents the economics analysis for one scenario previously modeled, referred to as Scenario A, 

and new model results for Scenario B and described as follows: 

• Scenario A: PacifiCorp committed controls at permitted rates—low nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

burners (LNBs) with over-fire air (OFA), dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD), new fabric 

filter 

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

permitted rates 

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

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

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

Stack Parameters, Emissions Information, and Capital Cost 

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

equipment installed at the plant. The overall capital cost of installing these options is also shown. 
ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 2 

TABLE 1 

Control Scenario Summary 

Dave Johnson Unit 4 

 Equipment Type Capital Cost 

 NOx SO2 PM10 Million dollars 

Baseline LNB Lime—add 

Venturi scrubber 

Venturi scrubber — 

Scenario A LNB with OFA Dry FGD Fabric Filter $251.0 

Scenario B LNB with OFA and SCR Dry FGD Fabric Filter $395.0 

Emissions were modeled for the following pollutants: 

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

• NOx

• Coarse particulate (PM2.5<diameter<PM10) 

• Fine particulate (diameter<PM2.5) 

• Sulfates 

Table 2 shows stack parameters and emission rates that were used for the Dave Johnston Unit 4 

BART modeling and analysis. 

TABLE 2 

Calpuff Model Inputs 

Dave Johnston Unit 4 

 BART Comparison(d)

Model Input Data Baseline 

Scenario 

A (e)

Scenario 

B (f)

Hourly Heat Input (mmBtu/hour) 4,100 4,100 4,100 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 2,050 615 615 

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 1,640 615 287 

PM10 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 250 61.5 61.5 

Coarse Particulate (PM2.5 <diameter< PM10) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(a) 108 35.1 35.1 

Fine Particulate (diameter<PM2.5) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(b) 143 26.4 26.4 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 37.7 3.8 5.8 

Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 0.8 

(NH4)HSO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 1.4 

H2SO4 as Sulfate (SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 37 3.7 5.6 

(NH4)2SO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 0.6 

(NH4)HSO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 1.2 
ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 3 

TABLE 2 

Calpuff Model Inputs 

Dave Johnston Unit 4 

 BART Comparison(d)

Model Input Data Baseline 

Scenario 

A (e)

Scenario 

B (f)

Total Sulfate (SO4) (lb/hr)(c) 37 3.7 7.4 

Stack Conditions 

Stack Height (meters) 76 152 152 

Stack Exit Diameter (meters) 9.75 5.79 5.79 

Stack Exit Temperature (Kelvin) 322 350 350 

Stack Exit Velocity (meters per second) 8.53 25.7 25.7 

NOTES:

(a) Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the coarse particulates are counted as a percentage of PM10. This equates to 43% 

ESP and 57% Baghouse. PM10 and PM2.5 refer to particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers, respectively, 

in aerodynamic diameter. 

(b) Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the fine particulates are counted as a percentage of PM10. This equates to 57% 

ESP and 43% Baghouse. 

(c) Total Sulfate (SO4) (lb/hr) = H2SO4 as Sulfate (SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) + (NH4)2SO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions 

(lb/hr) + (NH4)HSO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) (d) SO2, NOx, and PM rates are expressed in terms of permitted emission rates. Actual emissions will be less than 

the permitted rates. 

(e) PacifiCorp Committed Controls @ permitted rates: LNB with OFA, Dry FGD, New Fabric Filter (f) PacifiCorp Committed Controls and SCR @ permitted rates

Economic Analysis 

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

alternatives were investigated and potential reductions in NOx, SO2, and PM10 emissions rates 

were identified. 

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

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

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

Attachment 1.
ADDENDUM TO D

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 3 Scenario A Control Cost Dave Johnston Unit 4 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

LNB with OFA Dry FGD Fabric Filter 

Total Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $7.90 $243.1 — 

Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $0.75 $23.13 — 

First Year Fixed and Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $0.09 $5.32 — Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $0.84 $28.77 — 

Power Consumption (MW) — 4.45 — Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) — 35.79 — 

Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.02 

Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed per Year over Baseline 4,041 5,657 743 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 208 5,028 — 

NOTE:

(a) First year annualized costs include power consumption costs. 
ADDENDUM TO D

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 4 Scenario B Control Cost Dave Johnston Unit 4 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

LNB with OFA & 

SCR Dry FGD Fabric Filter 

Total Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $151.9 $243.1 — 

Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $14.45 $23.13 — First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $1.98 $5.32 — Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $16.43 $28.44 — 

Power Consumption (MW) 2.29 4.54 — 

Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) 18.05 35.79 — 

Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 0.15 0.02 

Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed per Year over Baseline 5,334 5,657 743 First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 3,081 5,028 — NOTE:

(a) First year annualized costs include power consumption costs. 
ADDENDUM TO D

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 5 Incremental Control Costs, Scenario B compared to Scenario A Dave Johnston Unit 4 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Contro

Incremental Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $144.0 0 0 

Incremental Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $13.70 0 0 

Incremental First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $1.89 0 0 Incremental First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $15.59 0 0 

Incremental Power Consumption (MW) 2.29 0 0 Incremental Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) 18.05 0 0 

Incremental Improvement in Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.08 0 0 Incremental Tons of Pollutant Removed 1,293 0 0 

Incremental First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 

12,056 0 0 

NOTE:

(a)Incremental first year annualized costs include power consumption costs. 
ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 7 

Modeling Results and Least-Cost Envelope Analysis 

CH2M HILL modeled Dave Johnston Unit 4 for two post-control scenarios. The results 

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

project. The Class I areas potentially affected are Badlands National Park and Wind Cave 

National Park for this unit. 

Modeled Scenarios 

Current operations (baseline) and two alternative control scenarios were modeled to cover the 

range of effectiveness for the combination of the individual NOx, SO2, and PM control 

technologies being evaluated. The modeled scenarios include the following: 

• Baseline: Current operations with LNB and Venturi Scrubber 

• Scenario A: LNB with OFA, Dry FGD, new fabric filter 

• Scenario B: Scenario A with SCR 

Summary of Visibility Analysis 

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

scenario and Class I area. 

TABLE 6 

Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Badlands National Park 

Dave Johnston Unit 4 

Scenario Controls 

Total First Year 

Annualized 

Cost Highest ΔdV 

98th 

Percentile 

ΔdV 

Maximum 

Annual 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Baseline Current Operations with FGD 

and Venturi Scrubber 

— 3.610 1.291 49 

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$29,285,200 1.291 0.435 7 

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls and SCR 

$44,873,886 0.938 0.302 4 
ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 8 

TABLE 7 

Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Wind Cave National Park 

Dave Johnston Unit 4 

Scenario Controls 

Total First Year 

Annualized 

Cost Highest ΔdV 

98th 

Percentile 

ΔdV 

Maximum 

Annual 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Baseline Current Operations with FGD 

and Venturi Scrubber 

— 4.304 1.695 47 

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$29,285,200 1.727 0.543 9 

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls and SCR 

$44,873,886 1.260 0.374 7 

Results 

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

Class I area. 

TABLE 8 

Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Badlands National Park 

Dave Johnston Unit 4 

Scenario 

Comparis

on Controls 

Incremental 

Annualized 

Cost (Million$) 

Reduction in 

98th Percentile 

maximum dV 

Reduction in 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Cost per dV 

Reduction 

(Million$/dV 

Reduced) 

Cost per Day 

to Achieve a 

Reduction in 

the Days 

above 0.5 dV 

(Million$/Day) 

Scenario A 

Compared 

to Baseline 

Scenario A: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls 

$29.29 0.856 42 $34.21 $0.70 

Scenario B 

Compared 

to Baseline 

Scenario B: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls and 

SCR 

$44.87 0.989 45 $45.37 $1.00 

Scenario B 

Compared 

To 

Scenario A 

Addition of SCR $15.59 0.133 3 $117.21 $5.20 
ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 9 

TABLE 9 

Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Wind Cave National Park 

Dave Johnston Unit 4 

Scenario 

Comparis

on Controls 

Incremental 

Annualized 

Cost (Million$) 

Reduction 

in 98th 

Percentile 

maximum dV 

Reduction in 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Cost per dV 

Reduction 

(Million$/dV 

Reduced) 

Cost per Day 

to Achieve a 

Reduction in 

the Days 

above 0.5 dV 

(Million$/Day) 

Scenario A 

Compared 

to Baseline 

Scenario A: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls 

$29.29 1.152 38 $25.42 $0.77 

Scenario B 

Compared 

to Baseline 

Scenario B: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls and 

SCR 

$44.87 1.321 40 $33.97 $1.12 

Scenario B 

Compared 

To 

Scenario A 

Addition of SCR $15.59 0.169 2 $92.24 $7.79 

Least-Cost Envelope Analysis 

The least-cost envelope graphs for Badlands National Park are shown in Figures 1 and 2 and 

for Wind Cave National Park are shown in Figures 3 and 4. 
ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 10 

FIGURE 1 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 4 - Badlands National Park

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

$50.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

FIGURE 2 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 4 - Badlands National Park

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

$50.0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)
ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT4_FINAL.DOC 11 

FIGURE 3 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 4 - Wind Cave National Park

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

$50.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

FIGURE 4 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 4 - Wind Cave National Park

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

$45.0

$50.0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)
ATTACHMENT 1 

Complete Economic Analyses 

for Scenarios A and B 
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY - FIRST YEAR COSTS

DJ4 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

TYPE OF EMISSIONS CONTROLS NOx Control 

Technology Label BASE A B C D 

Current Operation Low NOx Burners with Overfire Air Rotating Overfire Air

Low NOx Burners with 

Overfire Air and NonSelective Catalytic 

Reduction

Low NOx Burn

Overfire Air 

Selective Ca

Reductio

CAPITAL INVESTMENT 

Total Installed Capital Costs ($) $0 $7,900,000 $14,719,868 $17,905,780 $151,9 FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE ($/Yr) $0 $751,510 $1,400,269 $1,703,338 $14,4

FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M Costs ($/Yr)

Operating Labor ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Material ($/Yr) $0 $36,000 $54,000 $105,000 $1Maintenance Labor ($/Yr) $0 $54,000 $81,000 $157,500 $2Administrative Labor ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0  TOTAL FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M COST $0 $90,000 $135,000 $262,500 $4

FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr)

Makeup Water Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 Reagent Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $45,823 $2SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $3Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 Electric Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,706,886 $130,086 $9 TOTAL FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,706,886 $175,909 $1,5

SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR COSTS ($/Yr)

First Year Debt Service ($/Yr) $0 $751,510 $1,400,269 $1,703,338 $14,4First Year Fixed O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $90,000 $135,000 $262,500 $4First Year Variable O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,706,886 $175,909 $1,5

Total First Year Costs ($/Yr) $0 $841,510 $3,242,155 $2,141,747 $16,4

CONTROL COST COMPARISONS

NOx Technology Comparison

Additional NOx Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 4,041 4,041 4,525 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed) $0 $208 $802 $473 

Technology Case Comparison A-BASE B-A C-A Incremental NOx Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 4,041 0 485 

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed) $0 $208 #DIV/0! $2,682 $SO2 Technology Comparison 58.6% 

Additional SO2 Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton SO2 Removed) $0 

Technology Case Comparison Incremental SO2 Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton SO2 Removed) $0 PM Technology Comparison 0.0%Additional PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed) $0 

Technology Case Comparison Incremental PM Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed) $0 

SCENARIO A AND B COMPARISONS

Additional NOx, SO2, & PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 

First Year Average Control Cost Compared to Base Case ($/Ton Removed) $0 

Incremental Tons Removed - Scenario B vs Scenario A (Tons/Yr) 0 Incremental Control Costs - Scenario B vs Scenario A ($/Ton Removed) $0 

JMS ES032008003SLC\First Yr Summary\DJ4 appendix.xls 
INPUT CALCULATIONS

DJ4 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

PARAMETER Current Operation NOx Control Technologies 

Control TechnologiesNOx Emission Control System Good Practices LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCR 

SO2 Emission Control System Lime addition D

PM Emission Control System Venturi Scrubber Fa

General Plant Design and Operating Data

Type of Unit PC PC PC PC PC Annual Power Plant Capacity Factor 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Annual Operation (Hours/Year) 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 Net Power Output (kW) 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW-Hr) 12,425 12,425 12,425 12,425 12,425 Boiler Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Hr) 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 Annual Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Year) 32,326,371 32,326,371 32,326,371 32,326,371 32,326,371 Boiler Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Hr) 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 Annual Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Year) 32,324,400 32,324,400 32,324,400 32,324,400 32,324,400 

Plant Fuel Source

Boiler Fuel Source Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Coal Heating Value (Btu/Lb) 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 Coal Sulfur Content (wt.%) 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% Coal Ash Content (wt.%) 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% Coal Flow Rate (Lb/Hr) 526,754 526,754 526,754 526,754 526,754 Coal Consumed (Ton/Yr) 2,076,463 2,076,463 2,076,463 2,076,463 2,076,463 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

NOx Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.07 

NOx Emission Rate (Lb/Hr) 1,640 615 615 492 287 

NOx Emission Rate (Lb Moles/Hr) 54.65 20.49 20.49 16.39 9.56 NOx Emission Rate (Ton/Yr) 6,465 2,424 2,424 1,939 1,131 Add'l NOx Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr) 0 1,025 1,025 1,148 1,353 

Add'l NOx Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr) 0 4,041 4,041 4,525 5,334 

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb/MMBtu) 1.21 

Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb/Hr) 4,946 Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb Moles/Hr) 77.21 Uncontrolled SO2 (Tons/Yr) 19,498 Controlled SO2 Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.50 SO2 Removal Efficiency (%) 58.6% 

Controlled SO2 Emissions (Lb/Hr) 2,050 

Controlled SO2 Emissions (Ton/Yr) 8,081 

SO2 Removed (Lb/Hr) 2,896 

SO2 Removed (Ton/Yr) 11,417 

Add'l SO2 Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr) 0 

Add'l SO2 Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr) 0 

Particulate Matter Emissions

Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/Hr) 21,112 Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/MMBtu) 5.149 Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Tons/Yr) 83,225 Controlled Fly Ash Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.061 Controlled Fly Ash Removal Efficiency (%) 98.8% Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Lb/Hr) 250 Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Ton/Yr) 986 Fly Ash Removed (Lb/Hr) 20,862 Fly Ash Removed (Ton/Yr) 82,239 Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Lb/Hr) 0 Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Ton/Yr) 0 

Economic Factors

Interest Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% Discount Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 

JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\DJ4 appendix.xls 
INPUT CALCULATIONS

DJ4 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

PARAMETER Current Operation NOx Control Technologies 

Control TechnologiesNOx Emission Control System Good Practices LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCR 

SO2 Emission Control System Lime addition D

PM Emission Control System Venturi Scrubber Fa

Installed Capital Costs

NOx Emission Control System ($2006) $7,900,000 $14,719,868 $17,905,780 $151,900,000 

SO2 Emission Control System ($2006) 

PM Emission Control System ($2006) Total Emission Control System Capital Costs ($2006) $7,900,000 $14,719,868 $17,905,780 $151,900,000 NOx Emission Control System ($/kW) $24 $45 $54 $460 

SO2 Emission Control System ($/kW) 

PM Emission Control System ($/kW)Total Emission Control Capital Costs ($/kW) $24 $45 $54 $460 

Fixed Operating & Maintenance Costs

Operating Labor ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Material ($) $36,000 $54,000 $105,000 $166,000 Maintenance Labor ($) $54,000 $81,000 $157,500 $249,000 Administrative Labor ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 1st Fixed Year O&M Cost ($) $90,000 $135,000 $262,500 $415,000 Annual Fixed O&M Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Fixed O&M Cost ($/Yr) $106,695 $160,043 $311,195 $491,984 

Variable Operating & Maintenance Costs

Water CostMakeup Water Usage (gpm) 0 0 0 0 Unit Price ($/1000 gallons) $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 First Year Water Cost ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Water Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Water Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 Reagent CostType of Reagent None None Urea Anhydrous NH3 Unit Cost ($/Ton) $0.00 $370.00 $400.00 Unit Cost ($/Lb) $0.000 $0.185 $0.200 Molar Stoichiometry 0.00 0.45 1.00 Reagent Purity (Wt.%) 100% 100% 100% Reagent Usage (Lb/Hr) 31 186 First Year Reagent Cost ($) $0 $45,823 $293,563 Annual Reagent Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Reagent Costs ($/Yr) $54,324 $348,020 SCR Catalyst / Fabric Filter Bag Replacement CostMaterial Replaced SCR Catalyst Annual SCR Catalyst (m3) / No. FF Bags 123 SCR Catalyst ($/m3) / Bag Cost ($/ea.) $3,000 First Year SCR Catalyst / Bag Replacement Cost ($) $369,000 Annual SCR Catalyst / Bag Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% Levelized Catalyst/Fabric Fitler Bag Costs ($/Yr) $437,451 FGD Waste Disposal CostFGD Solid Waste Disposal Rate, Dry (Lb/Hr) FGD Waste Disposal Unit Cost ($/Dry Ton) First Year FGD Waste Disposal Cost ($) Annual Waste Disposal Cost Esc. Rate (%) Levelized Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr) Auxiliary Power CostAuxiliary Power Requirement (MW) 0.00 4.33 0.33 2.29 Auxiliary Power Requirement (% of Plant Output) 0.00% 1.31% 0.10% 0.69% Auxilliary Power Useage (MWh) 0 34,138 2,602 18,054 Unit Cost ($2006/MW-Hr) $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 First Year Auxiliary Power Cost ($) $0 $1,706,886 $130,086 $902,718 Annual Power Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Auxilliary Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $2,023,518 $154,217 $1,070,175 

JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\DJ4 appendix.xls