From: Stevens, William

To: Kordzi, Joe

Cc: Feldman, Michael ; Donaldson, Guy

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models - DSI text errata

Date: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:07:26 AM

Correct.

From: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:49 AM

To: Stevens, William

Cc: Feldman, Michael; Donaldson, Guy

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models - DSI text errata

Thanks Bill,

So to summarize, the NSR formulae in the example spreadsheet in the documentation is correct, but

the text snippet (in green below) from the documentation that summarizes the results of those

formulae should be updated?

From: Stevens, William

Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 9:43 AM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models - DSI text errata

Joe

–

Following is the relevant text copied from Page 3 of the updated white paper on DSI at

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/v513/attachment5_5.pdf

For an ESP at the target 50% removal:

Unmilled Trona NSR = 2.85

Milled Trona NSR = 1.40

For a baghouse at the target 70% removal:

Unmilled Trona NSR = 2.00

Milled Trona NSR = 1.55

I went over these values with Sargent & Lundy this morning.

The only value that is seriously out of line with values produced by the actual formulas is the first

one: 2.85.

The formula value for that case is NSR = 1.98, which S&L says they should have rounded to 2.00 in

the text as a correct approximate value. This “typo” error is a carryover from the original pre-update

version of the white paper for the DSI model.

I also think the last text value, 1.55, should have been rounded to 1.50 to be a bit closer to the

formula value of 1.49, and will include that text correction as well when I publish an errata sheet.

Good catch. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Bill SFrom: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:28 PM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Hi Bill,

I’ve made a spreadsheet for the IPM 5.13 DSI algorithms and duplicated the example in the S&L

documentation. However, on page 3, S&L presents additional example NSR calculations, depending

on milled/unmilled trona and whether the facility has an ESP or a baghouse. I can get close at 1.43

for the ESP + milled trona case vs. what S&L shows

– 1.40, but I’m way off for the other three NSR

scenarios. I’ve had someone else check my spreadsheet. Do you know if S&L made a mistake?

Thanks.

From: Stevens, William

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:21 PM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Joe

–

In the SDA paper at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/docs/v513/attachment5_3.pdf

BM = BMR+BMF+BMW+BMB

Good catch! BMW does not have a formula in the SDA paper and should not be included in the

sum. It looks like a typo carryover from the Wet FGD sheet, where BMW does have a formula. None

of the other papers have this typo. It makes sense that SDA does not have a base materials cost for a

waste handling system like Wet FGD does.

Also in the SDA paper, in the VMOP=M*R*10 formula

... Converting R $/kWh to $/MWh requires multiplying by 1000, but we’re only applying M%/100 of

that to each MWh, so the net multiplier is 10. So that formula is correct.

Please let me know of any more errata you find. I’ll plan on publishing an online errata sheet in a

month or so.

Thanks

–

Bill

From: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:34 PM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: FW: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

One more: The formla for BM is BMR + BMF + BMW = BMB. However, there is no formula provided

for BMW.From: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:16 PM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Hi Bill,

Another question: The VOMP variable is listed as having units of $/MWh. It’s formula is listed as

M*R*10. M is a percentage and R is $/kWh. So if I multiply $/KWh by 10, I don’t see how I end up

with $/MWh. Can you explain? Thanks.

From: Stevens, William

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:00 PM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Joe

–

Yes, but the addition of a check-box to include the cost of Aux Power in the VOM cost was just a

convenience for those who might be doing manual desktop calcs.

IPM actually uses the %Aux Power value as a derate on the unit output, with the loss being optimally

made up by other units according to their relative long term economics.

Bill S

From: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:28 AM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Hi Bill,

For the new SDA cost model, page 7, it looks like there is now a check box that enables the user to

include or not include auxiliary power (M) in the VOM calculation. Is this correct

– if you check the

box, then M gets included as VOMP?

It looks like the previous version (enclosed) just included an advisory that M should be used for

model input.

From: Stevens, William

Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:46 AM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Joe

–

I was out of the office Friday. Sorry to have missed your call.

Here’s the link to our new IPMv5.13 documentation.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev513.htmlRetrofit controls are covered in Chapter 5.

Updated versions of the Sargent & Lundy cost models are listed as Attachments 5-1 thru 5-7.

Note that IPM does not always include all of the features that S&L includes. One example: ACI as

modeled in IPM uses only brominated carbon, whereas S&L allows user to select from three types of

sorbent.

Call anytime with questions/comments.

Bill

William Stevens

Senior Advisor

- Power Technologies

Office of Atmospheric Programs

Clean Air Markets Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

stevens.william@epa.gov

202-343-9642