# P:\PACIFICORP\370414BART2\TECHNICAL_MEMORANDUM_DELI VERABLES\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTO NUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 1 

# TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM



# Addendum to Dave Johnston Unit 3 BART Report

PREPARED FOR: 

# Wyoming Division of Air Quality

PREPARED BY: 

# CH2M HILL

COPIES: 

# Bill Lawson/PacifiCorp

DATE: 

# March 26, 2008



# Introduction

In compliance with the Regional Haze Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51), the Wyoming Division of Air Quality (WDAQ) required PacifiCorp Energy to conduct a detailed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) review to analyze the effects to visibility in nearby Class I areas from plant emissions, both for ba seline and for reasonable control technology scenarios. PacifiCorp submitte d these evaluations to WDAQ in January 2007. A revised report

was submitted in October 2007.

On January 3, 2008, PacifiCorp Energy personnel met with WDAQ staff to discuss the status of
the BART reviews. At that time, the state re quested that additional modeling scenarios for several of the PacifiCorp facilities be performed to aid in their BART review. This memorandum presents the economics analysis for two scenarios, referred to as Scenario A and Scenario B and

described as follows:

• 

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

x 

# )
burners (LNBs) with over-fire air (OFA), dry flue gas desu lfurization (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 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 2



# TABLE 1 

# Control Scenario Summary

Dave Johnson Unit 3

Equipment Type Capital Cost

NO
x 

# SO 2 

# PM 10 

# Million dollars

Baseline No control No control ESP —

Scenario A LNB with OFA Dry FGD Fabric Filter $187.0

Scenario B LNB with OFA and SCR Dry FGD Fabric Filter $299.2



# Emissions were modeled for the following pollutants:

• 

# Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

# )

• 

# NO

x



# • 

# Coarse particulate (PM 2.5 

# <diameter<PM 10 

# )

• 

# Fine particulate (diameter<PM 2.5 

# )

• 

# Sulfates

Table 2 shows stack parameters and emission rate s that were used for the Dave Johnston Unit 3 BART modeling and analysis.

TABLE 2 

# Calpuff Model Inputs

Dave Johnston Unit 3

BART Comparison (d)



# Model Input Data Baseline Scenario

A (e) 

# Scenario

B (f)



# Hourly Heat Input (mmBtu/hour) 2,500 2,800 2,800

Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 3,000 420 420

Nitrogen Oxide (NO

x 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 1,750 784 196

PM 10 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 75 42.0 42.0

Coarse Particulate (PM 2.5 

# <diameter< PM 10 

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

# 32.3 23.9 23.9

Fine Particulate (diameter<PM 2.5 

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

# 42.8 18.1 18.1

Sulfuric Acid (H 2 

# SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 46 2.6 3.7

Ammonium Sulfate [(NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# ] Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 0.7

(NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 1.2

H 2 

# SO 4 

# as Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 45.1 2.5 3.6

(NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 0.5

(NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 1.0

# ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 3



# TABLE 2 

# Calpuff Model Inputs

Dave Johnston Unit 3

BART Comparison (d)



# Model Input Data Baseline Scenario

A (e) 

# Scenario

B (f)



# Total Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) (lb/hr) (c) 

# 45.1 2.5 5.1

Stack Conditions

Stack Height (meters) 152 152.4 152.4

Stack Exit Diameter (meters) 4.6 4.57 4.57

Stack Exit Temperature (Kelvin) 445 348 348

Stack Exit Velocity (meters per second) 32 25.5 25.5

NOTES:
(a) 

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

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

# and PM 2.5 

# refer to particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers, respectively, in aerodynamic diameter.
(b) 

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

# . This equates to 57% ESP and 43% Baghouse.
(c) 

# Total Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) (lb/hr) = H 2 

# SO 4 

# as Sulfate (SO 4 

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

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# as SO 4 

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

# )HSO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr)
(d) 

# SO 2 

# , NO

x 

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

# PacifiCorp Committed Cont rols @ permitted rates : LNB with OFA, 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 NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# emissions rates

were identified.

A comparison of Scenarios A and B on the basis of costs, design control efficiencies, and tons of pollutant removed is summarized in Tables 3 through 5. Capital costs were provided by PacifiCorp. The complete economic analyses for these two scenarios are provided as

Attachment 1.ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC4TABLE 3Scenario A Control CostDave Johnston Unit 3NOxControl SO2Control PM10Control Scenario ALNB with OFADry FGDFabric FilterControl CostTotal Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $17.5 $169.5 — $187.0Annualized First-Year Capital Costs$1.66$16.12—$17.79First Year Fixed & Variable O&MCosts (million dollars)$0.10$5.30—$5.40Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$1.76 $21.42 — $23.19Power Consumption (MW)—3.88—3.88Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr)—30.59—30.59Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.280.150.02—Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed perYear over Baseline4,63611,58916616,391First Year Average Control Cost ($/Tonof Pollutant Removed)3811,848—1,414NOTE:(a)First year annualized costs include power consumption costs.ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC5TABLE 4Scenario B Control CostDave Johnston Unit 3NOxControl SO2Control PM10Control Scenario BLNB with OFA &SCRDry FGDFabric FilterControl CostTotal Installed Capital Costs (million dollars)$129.7$169.5—$299.2Annualized First-Year Capital Costs$12.34$16.12—$28.46First Year Fixed & Variable O&MCosts (million dollars)$4.01$5.30—$9.30Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$16.35 $21.42 — $37.77Power Consumption (MW)0.233.88—5.45Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr)12.3430.59—42.97Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.070.150.02—Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed perYear over Baseline6,95411,58916618,709First Year Average Control Cost ($/Tonof Pollutant Removed) 2,351 1,848 — 2,019NOTE:(a)First year annualized costs include power consumption costs.ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC6TABLE 5Incremental Control Costs, Scenario B compared to Scenario ADave Johnston Unit 3NOxControl SO2Control PM10ControlTotalControl CostIncremental Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $112.2 0 0 $112.2Incremental Annualized First-YearCapital Costs$10.6700$10.67Incremental First Year Fixed & VariableO&M Costs (million dollars)$3.9100$3.91Incremental First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$14.58 0 0 $14.58Incremental Power Consumption (MW)1.57001.57Incremental Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr)12.380012.38Incremental Improvement in Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu)0.2100—Incremental Tons of PollutantRemoved2,318 0 0 2,318Incremental First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of PollutantRemoved)6,291 0 0 6,291NOTE:(a)Incremental first year annualized costs include power consumption costs.

# ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 7 

# Modeling Results and Least-Cost Envelope Analysis

CH2M HILL modeled Dave Johnston Unit 3 fo r two post-control scenarios. The results determine the change in deciview based on each a lternative at the Class I areas specific to the project. The Class I areas potentially affect ed are Badlands National Park and Windcave

National Park for this unit.

Modeled Scenarios

Current operations (baseline) a nd two alternative control scenar ios were modeled to cover the range of effectiveness for the combination of the individual NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM control technologies being evaluated. The mode led scenarios incl ude the following:

• 

# Baseline: Current operations with ESP

• 

# 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 3

Scenario Controls Total First Year

Annualized Cost Highest Δ dV 98 th



# Percentile

Δ dV Maximum

Annual

Number of Days Above

0.5 dV

Baseline Current Operati ons with ESP — 4.202 1.500 59

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls $23,184,500 1.297 0.432 7

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls and SCR $37,766,998 0.638 0.208 3

# ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 8 

# TABLE 7 

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

Dave Johnston Unit 3

Scenario Controls Total First Year

Annualized

Cost Highest Δ dV 98 th



# Percentile

Δ dV Maximum

Annual

Number of Days Above

0.5 dV

Baseline Current Operati ons with ESP — 5.191 1.971 57

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls $23,184,500 1.805 0.583 11

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls and SCR $37,766,998 0.904 0.262 2



# Results

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

Class I area.

TABLE 8 

# Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Imp rovements Relative to Badlands National Park

Dave Johnston Unit 3

Scenario Comparison Controls Incremental

Annualized

Cost (Million$) Reduction in

98 th



# Percentile

maximum

dV Reduction in

Number of Days Above

0.5 dV Cost per dV

Reduction (Million$/dV

Reduced) Cost per Day

to Achieve a

Reduction in

the Days

above 0.5 dV (Million$/Day)

Scenario A Compared to

Baseline Scenario A: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls $23.18 1.068 52 $21.71 $0.45

Scenario B Compared to

Baseline Scenario B: PacifiCorp

Committed Controls

and SCR $37.77 1.292 56 $29.23 $0.67

Scenario B Compared To

Scenario A Addition of SCR $14.58 0.224 4 $65.10 $3.65

# ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 9 

# TABLE 9 

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

Dave Johnston Unit 3

Scenario Comparison Controls Incremental

Annualized

Cost (Million$) Reduction

in 98 th



# Percentile

maximum

dV Reduction in

Number of Days Above

0.5 dV Cost per dV

Reduction (Million$/dV

Reduced) Cost per Day

to Achieve a

Reduction in

the Days

above 0.5 dV (Million$/Day)

Scenario A Compared to

Baseline Scenario A: PacifiCorp

Committed

Controls $23.18 1.388 46 $16.70 $0.50

Scenario B Compared to

Baseline Scenario B: PacifiCorp

Committed

Controls and SCR $37.77 1.709 55 $22.10 $0.69

Scenario B Compared To

Scenario A Addition of SCR $14.58 0.321 9 $45.43 $1.62



# 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 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 10 

# FIGURE 1

Least Cost Envelope
PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 3 - Badlands National Park

Baseline Scenario A Scenario B

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0



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



# FIGURE 2

Least Cost Envelope
PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 3 - Badlands National Park

Baseline Scenario A Scenario B

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40



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

# ADDENDUM TO DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 BART REPORT

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_DAVEJOHNSTONUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 11 

# FIGURE 3

Least Cost Envelope
PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 3 - Wind Cave National Park

Baseline Scenario A Scenario B

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0



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



# FIGURE 4

Least Cost Envelope
PacifiCorp Dave Johnson Unit 3 - 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

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80



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

# ATTACHMENT 1 

# Complete Economic Analyses

for Scenarios A and BECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY - FIRST YEAR COSTSDJ3Boiler Design: 3-Cell BurnerOpposed Wall-Fired PCTYPE OF EMISSIONS CONTROLSNOxControl SO2and PM ControlScenario A Scenario BTechnology Label BASE A B C D E F G A+F D+FCurrent OperationLow NOxBurners withOverfire AirRotating Overfire AirLow NOxBurners withOverfire Air and NonSelective CatalyticReductionLow NOxBurners withOverfire Air andSelective CatalyticReductionDry FGD w/ESPUpgraded Dry FGD &Fabric FilterWet FGD w/ ESPLNB w/OFA, Dry FlueGas Desulfurizationand Fabric FilterBaghouseLNB w/OFA, SCR. DryFlue GasDesulfurization andFabric Filter BaghouseCAPITAL INVESTMENTTotal Installed Capital Costs ($) $0 $17,500,000 $12,054,022 $24,035,544 $129,700,000 $91,499,734 $169,500,000 $144,300,464 $187,000,000$299,200,000FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE ($/Yr) $0 $1,664,737 $1,146,673 $2,286,449 $12,338,079 $8,704,171 $16,124,166 $13,726,989 $17,788,903 $28,462,245FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M Costs ($/Yr)Operating Labor ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $506,128 $506,128 $809,804 $506,128 $506,128Maintenance Material ($/Yr) $0 $40,000 $60,000 $98,000 $155,000 $714,175 $714,175 $1,182,587 $754,175 $869,175Maintenance Labor ($/Yr) $0 $60,000 $90,000 $147,000 $2,325,000 $476,928 $476,928 $788,391 $536,928 $2,801,928Administrative Labor ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0TOTAL FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M COST $0 $100,000 $150,000 $245,000 $2,480,000 $1,697,231 $1,697,231 $2,780,782 $1,797,231 $4,177,231FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr)Makeup Water Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99,566 $99,566 $132,371 $99,566 $99,566Reagent Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $57,025 $526,265 $1,104,023 $1,182,881 $1,025,183 $1,182,881 $1,709,146SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $0 $151,528 $0 $151,528 $535,528Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $572,810 $634,896 $746,581 $634,896 $634,896Electric Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,087,992 $90,666 $618,894 $981,558 $1,529,496 $1,359,990 $1,529,496 $2,148,390TOTAL FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,087,992 $147,691 $1,529,159 $2,757,957 $3,598,367 $3,264,126 $3,598,367 $5,127,527SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR COSTS ($/Yr)First Year Debt Service ($/Yr) $0 $1,664,737 $1,146,673 $2,286,449 $12,338,079 $8,704,171 $16,124,166 $13,726,989 $17,788,903 $28,462,245First Year Fixed O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $100,000 $150,000 $245,000 $2,480,000 $1,697,231 $1,697,231 $2,780,782 $1,797,231 $4,177,231First Year Variable O&M Costs($/Yr)$0 $0 $1,087,992 $147,691 $1,529,159 $2,757,957 $3,598,367 $3,264,126 $3,598,367 $5,127,527Total First Year Costs ($/Yr) $0 $1,764,737 $2,384,665 $2,679,140 $16,347,238 $13,159,358 $21,419,765 $19,771,897 $23,184,501 $37,767,002CONTROL COST COMPARISONSNOxTechnology ComparisonAdditional NOxRemoved From Base Case (Tons/Yr)0 4,636 5,629 5,298 6,954First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton NOxRemoved)$0 $381 $424 $506 $2,351Technology Case ComparisonA-BASE B-A C-A D-AIncremental NOxRemoved (Tons/Yr)0 4,636 993 662 2,318Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton NOxRemoved)$0 $381 $624 $1,381 $6,291SO2Technology Comparison0.5%81.8% 87.6% 95.0%Additional SO2Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)010,817 11,589 12,583First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton SO2Removed)$0$1,217 $1,848 $1,571Technology Case ComparisonE-BASE F-E G-FIncremental SO2Removed (Tons/Yr)010,817 773 993Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton SO2Removed)$0$1,217 $10,691 -$1,659PM Technology Comparison0.0%Additional PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)00 166 0First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed)$0#DIV/0! $129,375 #DIV/0!Technology Case ComparisonE-BASE F-E G-FIncremental PM Removed (Tons/Yr)00 166 -166Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed)$0#DIV/0! $0 $0SCENARIO A AND B COMPARISONSAdditional NOx, SO2, & PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)016,391 18,709First Year Average Control Cost Compared to Base Case ($/Ton Removed)$0$1,414 $2,019Incremental Tons Removed - Scenario B vs Scenario A (Tons/Yr)02,318Incremental Control Costs - Scenario B vs Scenario A ($/Ton Removed)$0$6,291JMS ES032008003SLC\First Yr Summary\DJ3 appendix.xlsPAGE 1 OF 1INPUT CALCULATIONSDJ3Boiler Design: 3-Cell BurnerOpposed Wall-Fired PCPARAMETERCurrentOperationNOxControl TechnologiesScenario A Scenario BControl TechnologiesNOxEmission Control SystemGood Practices LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCRLNB w/OFA LNB w/OFA & SCRSO2Emission Control SystemDry FGD w/ESP Upgraded Dry FGD Wet FGD w/ ESP Upgraded Dry FGD Upgraded Dry FGDPM Emission Control System ESPFabric Filter Fabric Filter Fabric FilterGeneral Plant Design and Operating DataType of Unit PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PCAnnual Power Plant Capacity Factor 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%Annual Operation (Hours/Year) 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884Net Power Output (kW) 223,214 223,214 223,214 223,214 223,214 223,214 223,214 223,214 223,214 223,214Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW-Hr)12,175 12,175 12,175 12,175 12,175 12,175 12,175 12,175 12,175 12,175Boiler Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Hr)2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718Annual Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Year)21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798 21,425,798Boiler Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Hr)2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800Annual Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Year)22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200 22,075,200Plant Fuel SourceBoiler Fuel Source Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRB Dry Fork PRBCoal Heating Value (Btu/Lb) 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784 7,784Coal Sulfur Content (wt.%) 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.470% 0.47% 0.47%Coal Ash Content (wt.%) 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01% 5.01%Coal Flow Rate (Lb/Hr) 349,130 349,130 349,130 349,130 349,130 349,130 349,130 349,130 349,130 349,130Coal Consumed (Ton/Yr) 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272 1,376,272Nitrogen Oxide EmissionsNOxEmission Rate (Lb/MMBtu)0.70 0.28 0.19 0.22 0.070.28 0.07NOxEmission Rate (Lb/Hr)1,960 784 532 616 196784 196NOxEmission Rate (Lb Moles/Hr)65.31 26.12 17.73 20.53 6.5326.12 6.53NOxEmission Rate (Ton/Yr)7,726 3,091 2,097 2,428 7733,091 773Add'l NOxRemoved from Current Operations (Lb/Hr)0 1,176 1,428 1,344 1,7641,176 1,764Add'l NOxRemoved from Current Operations (Ton/Yr)0 4,636 5,629 5,298 6,9544,636 6,954Sulfur Dioxide EmissionsUncontrolled SO2(Lb/MMBtu)1.211.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21Uncontrolled SO2(Lb/Hr)3,3783,378 3,378 3,378 3,378 3,378Uncontrolled SO2(Lb Moles/Hr)52.7352.73 52.73 52.73 52.73 52.73Uncontrolled SO2(Tons/Yr)13,31613,316 13,316 13,316 13,316 13,316Controlled SO2Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu)1.200.22 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.15SO2Removal Efficiency (%)0.5%81.8% 87.6% 95.0% 87.6% 87.6%Controlled SO2Emissions (Lb/Hr)3,360616 420 168 420 420Controlled SO2Emissions (Ton/Yr)13,2452,428 1,656 662 1,656 1,656SO2Removed (Lb/Hr)182,762 2,958 3,210 2,958 2,958SO2Removed (Ton/Yr)7110,887 11,660 12,654 11,660 11,660Add'l SO2Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr)02,744 2,940 3,192 2,940 2,940Add'l SO2Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr)010,817 11,589 12,583 11,589 11,589Particulate Matter EmissionsUncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/Hr) 13,99313,993 13,993 13,993 13,993 13,993Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/MMBtu) 4.9984.998 4.998 4.998 4.998 4.998Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Tons/Yr) 55,16155,161 55,161 55,161 55,161 55,161Controlled Fly Ash Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.0300.030 0.015 0.030 0.015 0.015Controlled Fly Ash Removal Efficiency (%) 99.4%99.4% 99.7% 99.4% 99.7% 99.7%Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Lb/Hr) 8484 42 84 42 42Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Ton/Yr) 331331 166 331 166 166Fly Ash Removed (Lb/Hr) 13,90913,909 13,951 13,909 13,951 13,951Fly Ash Removed (Ton/Yr) 54,83054,830 54,995 54,830 54,995 54,995Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Lb/Hr) 00 42 0 42 42Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Ton/Yr) 00 166 0 166 166Economic FactorsInterest Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Discount Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20SO2and PM Control TechnologiesJMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\DJ3 appendix.xlsPAGE 1 OF 2INPUT CALCULATIONSDJ3Boiler Design: 3-Cell BurnerOpposed Wall-Fired PCPARAMETERCurrentOperationNOxControl TechnologiesScenario A Scenario BControl TechnologiesNOxEmission Control SystemGood Practices LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCRLNB w/OFA LNB w/OFA & SCRSO2Emission Control SystemDry FGD w/ESP Upgraded Dry FGD Wet FGD w/ ESP Upgraded Dry FGD Upgraded Dry FGDPM Emission Control System ESPFabric Filter Fabric Filter Fabric FilterSO2and PM Control TechnologiesInstalled Capital CostsNOxEmission Control System ($2006)$17,500,000 $12,054,022 $24,035,544 $129,700,000$17,500,000 $129,700,000SO2Emission Control System ($2006)$91,499,734 $169,500,000 $144,300,464 $169,500,000 $169,500,000PM Emission Control System ($2006)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Emission Control System Capital Costs ($2006) $17,500,000 $12,054,022 $24,035,544 $129,700,000 $91,499,734 $169,500,000 $144,300,464 $187,000,000 $299,200,000NOxEmission Control System ($/kW)$78 $54 $108 $581$78 $581SO2Emission Control System ($/kW)$410 $759 $646 $759 $759PM Emission Control System ($/kW)Total Emission Control Capital Costs ($/kW) $78 $54 $108 $581 $410 $759 $646 $838 $1,340Fixed Operating & Maintenance CostsOperating Labor ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $506,128 $506,128 $809,804 $506,128 $506,128Maintenance Material ($)$40,000 $60,000 $98,000 $155,000 $714,175 $714,175 $1,182,587 $754,175 $869,175Maintenance Labor ($)$60,000 $90,000 $147,000 $2,325,000 $476,928 $476,928 $788,391 $536,928 $2,801,928Administrative Labor ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total 1st Fixed Year O&M Cost ($) $100,000 $150,000 $245,000 $2,480,000 $1,697,231 $1,697,231 $2,780,782 $1,797,231 $4,177,231Annual Fixed O&M Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Fixed O&M Cost ($/Yr) $118,550 $177,825 $290,448 $2,940,047 $2,012,072 $2,012,072 $3,296,625 $2,130,623 $4,952,120Variable Operating & Maintenance CostsWater CostMakeup Water Usage (gpm)0 0 0 0 173 173 230 173 173Unit Price ($/1000 gallons)$1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22First Year Water Cost ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $99,566 $99,566 $132,371 $99,566 $99,566Annual Water Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Water Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $118,036 $118,036 $156,926 $118,036 $118,036Reagent CostType of ReagentNone None UreaAnhydrous NH3Lime Lime Lime LimeLime & Anhydrous NH3Unit Cost ($/Ton)$0.00 $370.00 $400.00 $91.25 $91.25 $91.25Unit Cost ($/Lb)$0.000 $0.185 $0.200 $0.046 $0.046 $0.046Molar Stoichiometry0.00 0.41 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.02Reagent Purity (Wt.%)100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 100%Reagent Usage (Lb/Hr)39 334 3,069 3,288 2,850First Year Reagent Cost ($)$0 $57,025 $526,265 $1,104,023 $1,182,881 $1,025,183 $1,182,881 $1,709,146Annual Reagent Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Reagent Costs ($/Yr)$67,603 $623,889 $1,308,822 $1,402,309 $1,215,358 $1,402,309 $2,026,198SCR Catalyst / Fabric Filter Bag Replacement CostMaterial ReplacedSCR Catalyst Bags Bags Bags & SCR CatalystAnnual SCR Catalyst (m3) / No. FF Bags128 1,457SCR Catalyst ($/m3) / Bag Cost ($/ea.)$3,000 $104First Year SCR Catalyst / Bag Replacement Cost ($)$384,000 $151,528 $151,528 $535,528Annual SCR Catalyst / Bag Cost Escalation Rate (%)2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Catalyst/Fabric Fitler Bag Costs ($/Yr)$455,233 $179,637 $179,637 $634,870FGD Waste Disposal CostFGD Solid Waste Disposal Rate, Dry (Lb/Hr)5,972 6,620 7,784 6,620 6,620FGD Waste Disposal Unit Cost ($/Dry Ton)$24.33 $24.33 $24.33 $24.33 $24.33First Year FGD Waste Disposal Cost ($)$572,810 $634,896 $746,581 $634,896 $634,896Annual Waste Disposal Cost Esc. Rate (%)2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr)$679,068 $752,671 $885,074 $752,671 $752,671AuxiliaryPower CostAuxiliary Power Requirement (MW)0.00 2.76 0.23 1.57 2.49 3.88 3.45 3.88 5.45Auxiliary Power Requirement (% of Plant Output) 0.00% 1.24% 0.10% 0.70% 1.12% 1.74% 1.55% 1.74% 2.44%Auxilliary Power Useage (MWh)0 21,760 1,813 12,378 19,631 30,590 27,200 30,590 42,968Unit Cost ($2006/MW-Hr)$50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00First Year Auxiliary Power Cost ($)$0 $1,087,992 $90,666 $618,894 $981,558 $1,529,496 $1,359,990 $1,529,496 $2,148,390Annual Power Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Auxilliary Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $1,289,818 $107,485 $733,701 $1,163,640 $1,813,222 $1,612,272 $1,813,222 $2,546,923JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\DJ3 appendix.xlsPAGE 2 OF 2