# Final Report



# BART Analysis for

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Prepared For: 

# PacifiCorp

1407 West North Temple

Salt Lake City, Utah 84116



# December 2007

Prepared By:

215 South State Street, Suite 1000

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

# Final Report



# BART Analysis for

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Submitted to



# PacifiCorp

December 2007

# Executive Summary

Background

In response to the Regional Haze Rule a nd Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

regulations and guidelines, CH 2M HILL was requested to perform a BART analysis for

PacifiCorp’s Jim Bridger Unit 4 (hereafter referr ed to as Jim Bridger 4) . A BART analysis has

been conducted for the following criteria pollutants: ni trogen oxides (NO

x 

# ), sulfur dioxide

(SO 2 

# ), and particulate matter less than 10 mi crometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM 10 

# ). The

Jim Bridger Station consists of four 530-me gawatt (MW) units with a total generating

capacity of 2,120 MW. Because the total genera ting capacity of the Jim Bridger Station

exceeds 750 MW, presumptive BART emission limits apply to Jim Bridger 4, based on the

United States Environmental Protection Agency ’s (EPA) guidelines. BART emissions limits

must be achieved within 5 years after the Stat e Implementation Plan (SIP) is approved by the

EPA. A compliance date of 2014 wa s assumed for this analysis.

In completing the BART analysis, technology a lternatives were inve stigated a nd potential

reductions in NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# emissions rates were identified. The following technology

alternatives were investigat ed, listed below by pollutant:

• NO

x 

# emission controls:

− Low-NO

x 

# burners (LNBs) with over-fire air (OFA)

− LNBs with rotating opposed fire air (ROFA)

− LNBs with selective non-catal ytic reduction (SNCR) system

− LNBs with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system

• SO 2 

# emission controls:

− Dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system with existing electrostatic precipitator

(ESP)

− Dry FGD system with new polishing fabric filter

− Wet FGD system and new stack with existing ESP

• PM 10 

# emission controls:

− Sulfur trioxide (SO 3 

# ) injection flue gas conditioning system on existing ESP

− Polishing fabric filter

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC ES-1

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# BART Engineering Analysis

The specific steps in a BART engineering anal ysis are identified in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y, Section IV. Th e evaluation must include:

• The identification of available, techni cally feasible, retr ofit control options

• Consideration of any pollution control equipment in use at the source (which affects the

availability of options and their impacts)

• The costs of compliance with the control options

• The remaining useful life of the facility

• The energy and non-air quality envi ronmental impacts of compliance

• The degree of visibility improvement that ma y reasonably be anticipated from the use of

BART

The following steps are incorporated into the BART analysis:

• Step 1 – Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies

• Step 2 – Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options

− The identification of available, techni cally feasible, retr ofit control options

− Consideration of any pollution control equipm ent in use at the source (which affects

the applicability of optio ns and their impacts)

• Step 3 – Evaluate Control Effectiven ess of Remaining Control Technologies

• Step 4 – Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results

− The costs of compliance with the control options

− The remaining useful life of the facility

− The energy and non-air quality envi ronmental impacts of compliance

• Step 5 – Evaluate Visibility Impacts

− The degree of visibility improvement that may reasonably be anticipated from the use

of BART

Separate analyses have been conducted for NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# emissions. All costs included

in the BART analyses are in 2006 dollars, and co sts have not been escalated to the assumed

2014 BART implementation date.



# Coal Characteristics

The main source of coal burned at Jim Bri dger 4 will be the Bridger Underground Mine.

Secondary sources are the Bridger Surface Mine , the Bridger Highwall Mine, the Black Butte

Mine, and the Leucite Hills Mine . These coals are ranked as sub- bituminous, but are closer in

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC ES-2

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# characteristics to bituminous coal in many of the parameters influencing NO

x 

# formation.

These coals have higher nitrogen content than coals from the Powder River Basin (PRB),

which represent the bulk of sub-bituminous coal use in the U.S. This BART analysis has

considered the higher nitrogen content and diffe rent combustion characteristics of PRB coals

as compared to those coals used at Jim Bri dger 4, and has evaluated the effect of these

qualities on NO

x 

# formation and achievable emission rates.



# Recommendations

CH2M HILL recommends instal ling the following control devices, which include LNBs with

OFA, upgrading the existing FGD system, and operating the existing electrostatic

precipitator with an SO 3 

# flue gas conditioning system. This combination of control devices is

identified as Scenario 1 throughout this report.



# NO

x 

# Emission Control

The BART presumptive NO

x 

# limit assigned by the EPA for tangentially fired boilers burning

sub-bituminous coal is 0.15 pound (lb) per millio n British thermal units (MMBtu). However,

as documented in this analysis, the characteristics of the Jim Bridger coals are more closely

aligned with bituminous coals, and have been assigned a presumptive BART NO

x 

# limit of

0.28 lb per MMBtu.

CH2M HILL recommends LNBs with OFA as BART for Jim Bridger 4, based on the

projected significant reduction in NO

x 

# emissions, reasonable control costs, and the

advantages of no additional power requirement s or non-air quality environmental impacts.

NO

x 

# reductions are expected to be similar to those realized at Ji m Bridger 2. CH2M HILL

recommends that the unit be permitte d at a rate of 0.26 lb per MMBtu.



# SO 2 

# Emission Control

CH2M HILL recommends upgrading the existin g wet sodium FGD system as BART for

Jim Bridger 4, based on the significant reduction in SO 2 

# emissions, reasonable control costs,

and the advantages of minimal additional power requirements and minimal non-air quality

environmental impacts. This upgrade appr oach will meet the BART presumptive SO 2 

# limit of

0.15 lb per MMBtu.



# PM 10



# Emission Control

CH2M HILL recommends finalizing the permitting of the flue gas conditioning (FGC)

system to enhance the performance of the exis ting ESP as BART for Jim Bridger 4, based on

the significant reduction in PM 10 

# emissions, reasonable control costs, and the advantages of

minimal additional power requirements and no non-air quality environmental impacts.



# BART Modeling Analysis

CH2M HILL used the CALPUFF modeling syst em to assess the visibility impacts of

emissions from Jim Bridger 4 at Class I areas. The Class I areas potentially affected are

located more than 50 kilometers, but less than 300 kilometers, from the Jim Bridger Plant.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC ES-3

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# The Class I areas include th e following wilderness areas:

• 

# Bridger Wilderness Area

• 

# Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area

• 

# Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area

Because Jim Bridger 4 will simultaneously control NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# emissions, four

post-control atmospheric dispersi on modeling scenarios were deve loped to cover the range of

effectiveness for combining the individual NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# control technologies under

evaluation. These modeling scenarios, and the controls assumed, are as follows:

• 

# Scenario 1 : New LNB with OFA modi fications, upgraded wet FGD system, and FGC for

enhanced ESP performance. As indicated previously, this scenario represents

CH2M HILL’s preliminary BART recommendation.

• 

# Scenario 2 : New LNB with OFA modifications, upgraded wet FGD system, and new

polishing fabric filter.

• 

# Scenario 3 : New LNB with OFA modifications a nd SCR, upgraded wet FGD system,

and FGC for enhanced ESP performance.

• 

# Scenario 4 : New LNB with OFA modifications a nd SCR, upgraded wet FGD system,

and new polishing fabric filter.

Visibility improvements for all emission contro l scenarios were analyzed, and the results

were compared using a least-cost envelope, as outlined in the New Source Review Workshop

Manual. 1



# Least-cost Envelope Analysis

The EPA has adopted the leas t-cost envelope analysis methodology as an accepted

methodology for selecting the most reasonabl e, cost-effective c ontrols. Incremental

cost-effectiveness comparisons focus on annuali zed cost and emission reduction differences

between dominant alternatives. The dominant se t of control alternatives is determined by

generating the envelope of least- cost alternatives. This is a gr aphical plot of total annualized

costs for a total emissions reductions for all control alternatives identified in the BART

analysis.

To evaluate the impacts of the modeled contro l scenarios on the three Class I areas, the total

annualized cost, cost per deciview (dV) reducti on, and cost per reduction in number of days

above 0.5 dV were analyzed. This report provid es a comparison of the average incremental

costs between relevant scenario s for the three Class I areas; the total annua lized cost versus

number of days above 0.5 dV, and the total annualized cost versus 98 th 

# percentile

delta-deciview ( Δ dV) reduction.

Results of the least-cost envel ope analysis validate the sele ction of Scenario 1, based on

incremental cost and visibility improvements. Scenario 2 (LNB with OFA, upgraded wet

FGD, and polishing fabric filter) is eliminated, b ecause it is to the left of the curve formed by

1 EPA, 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual . Draft. Environmental Protection Agency. October, 1990.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC ES-4

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC ES-5 

# the dominant control alternat ive scenario, which indicates a scenario with lower

improvement and/or higher costs. Scenario 3 (LNB with OFA and SCR, upgraded wet FGD,

and FGC for enhanced ESP performance) is not selected due to very high incremental costs,

on the basis of both a cost per day of im provement and cost per dV reduction. While

Scenario 4 (LNB with OFA and SCR, upgraded wet FGD, and polishing fabric filter)

provides some potential visibility advantage ove r Scenario 1, the projected improvement is

less than 0.5 dV, and the projected costs are excessive. Therefore, Scenario 1 represents

BART for Jim Bridger 4.



# Just-Noticeable Differences in Atmospheric Haze

Studies have been conducted that demonstrate only dV differences of approximately

1.5 to 2.0 dV or more are perceptible by the hu man eye. Deciview changes of less than 1.5

cannot be distinguished by the average person. Therefore, the modeling analysis results

indicate that only minimal, if any, observable visibility improvements at the Class I areas

studied would be expected under any of the control scenarios. Thus, the results indicate that

only minimal discernable visibility improvement s may result, even though PacifiCorp will be

spending many millions of dollars at this single unit, and over a billion dollars when

considering its entire fleet of coal-fired power plants.

# Contents

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 Present Unit Operation...................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 BART Engineering Analysis ............................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Applicability ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 BART Process......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 BART NO

x 

# Analysis.................................................................... 3-2

3.2.2 BART SO 2 

# Analysis .................................................................. 3-14

3.2.3 BART PM 10 

# Analysis ................................................................ 3-16

4.0 BART Modeling Analysis.................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Model Selection ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 CALMET Methodology......................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Dimensions of the Modeling Domain.......................................... 4-1

4.2.2 CALMET Input Data ................................................................... 4-3

4.2.3 Validation of CALMET Wind Field............................................ 4-6

4.3 CALPUFF Modeling Approach............................................................ 4-6

4.3.1 Background Ozone and Ammonia............................................... 4-6

4.3.2 Stack Parameters.......................................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 Emission Rates............................................................................. 4-7

4.3.4 Post-control Scenarios ................................................................. 4-7

4.3.5 Modeling Process......................................................................... 4-8

4.3.6 Receptor Grids ............................................................................. 4-8

4.4 CALPOST............................................................................................. 4-10

4.5 Presentation of Modeling Results....................................................... 4-11

4.5.1 Visibility Changes for Baseline vs. Preferred Scenario............. 4-11

5.0 Preliminary Assessment and Recommendations ............................................ 5-1

5.1 Least-cost Envelope Analysis................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Analysis Methodology................................................................. 5-1

5.1.2 Analysis Results........................................................................... 5-9

5.2 Recommendations.................................................................................. 5-9

5.2.1 NO

x 

# Emission Control ................................................................. 5-9

5.2.2 SO 2 

# Emission Control.................................................................. 5-9

5.2.3 PM 10 

# Emission Control................................................................ 5-9

5.3 Just-Noticeable Differences in Atmospheric Haze............................ 5-10

6.0 References........................................................................................................... 6-1

P:\PACIFICORP\348295BART\DAVEJOHNSTON3_FINALSUBMITTAL\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC iii

# CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC iv 

# Tables

2-1 Unit Operation and Study Assumptions

2-2 Coal Sources and Characteristics

3-1 Coal Characteristics Comparison

3-2 NO

x 

# Control Technology Projected Emission Rates

3-3 NO

x 

# Control Cost Comparison

3-4 SO 2 

# Control Technology Emission Rates

3-5 Sulfur Dioxide Control Cost Comparis on (Incremental to Existing Flue Gas

Desulfurization System)

3-6 PM 10 

# Control Technology Emission Rates

3-7 PM 10 

# Control Cost Comparison (Incremental to Existing ESP)

4-1 User-specified CALMET Options

4-2 BART Model Input Data

4-3 Average Natural Levels of Aerosol Components

4-4 Costs and Visibility Modeling Results for Baseline Vs. Post-Control Scenarios at

Class I Areas

5-1 Control Scenario Results for th e Bridger Class I Wilderness Area

5-2 Control Scenario Results for the Fitzpatrick Class I Wilderness Area

5-3 Control Scenario Results for the Mt. Zirkel Class I Wilderness Area

5-4 Bridger Class I Wilderness Area Incremental Analysis Data

5-5 Fitzpatrick Class I Wilderness Area Incremental Analysis Data

5-6 Mt. Zirkel Class I Wilderness Area Incremental Analysis Data

Figures

3-1 Illustration of the Effect of Agglomera tion on the Speed of Coal Combustion

3-2 Plot of Typical Nitrogen Content of Va rious Coals and Applicable Presumptive

BART NO

x 

# Limits

3-3 Plot of Typical Oxygen Content of Vari ous Coals and Applicable Presumptive

BART NO

x 

# Limits

3-4 First Year Control Cost for NO

x 

# Air Pollution Control Options

3-5 First Year Control Cost for PM Air Pollution Control Options

4-1 Jim Bridger Source–specific Cla ss I Areas to be Addressed

4-2 Surface and Upper Air Stations Used in the Jim Bridger BART Analysis

5-1 Least-cost Envelope Bridger Class I WA Days Reduction

5-2 Least-cost Envelope Bridger Class I WA 98 th 

# Percentile Reduction

5-3 Least-cost Envelope Fitzpatric k Class I WA Days Reduction

5-4 Least-cost Envelope Fitzpatrick Class I WA 98 th 

# Percentile Reduction

5-5 Least-cost Envelope Mt. Zirkel Class I WA Days Reduction

5-6 Least-cost Envelope Mt. Zirkel Class I WA 98 th 

# Percentile Reduction

Appendices

A Economic Analysis

B 2006 Wyoming BART Protocol

# Acronyms and Abbreviations

BACT Best Availa ble Control Technology

BART Best Availabl e Retrofit Technology

CALDESK Program to Display Data and Results

CALMET Meteorological Data Pr eprocessing Program for CALPUFF

CALPOST Post-Processing Program fo r Calculating Visibility Impacts

CALPUFF Gaussian Puff Dispersion Model

COHPAC Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector

oC Degrees Celsius

oF Degrees Fahrenheit

dV Deciview

Δ dV Delta Deciview, Change in Deciview

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

ESP Electrostatic Precipitator

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Fuel NO

x 

# Oxidation of Fuel Bound Oxides of Nitrogen

FGC Flue Gas Conditioning

FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization

f (RH) Relative Humidity Factors

ID Internal Diameter or Induced Draft

kW Kilowatts

kW-Hr Kilowatt-Hour

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

lb Pound(s)

LNB Low-NO

x 

# Burner

LOI Loss on Ignition

MMBtu Million British Thermal Units

MM5 Mesoscale Meteorologi cal Model, Version 5

MW Megawatts

N 2 

# Nitrogen

NO Nitric Oxide

NO

x 

# Nitrogen Oxides

NWS National Weather Service

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC v

# ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC vi 

# OFA Over-fire Air

PM 10 

# Particulate Matter Less than 10 Mi crometers in Aerodynamic Diameter

PRB Powder River Basin

ROFA Rotating Opposed Fire Air

S&L Sargent & Lundy

SCR Selective catalytic Reduction System

SIP State Implementation Plan

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction System

SO 2 

# Sulfur Dioxide

SO 3 

# Sulfur Trioxide

Thermal NO

x 

# High Temperature Fixation of Atmos pheric Nitrogen in Combustion Air

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WA Wilderness Area

WDEQ-AQD Wyoming Department of Envi ronmental Quality—Air Quality Division

# 1.0 Introduction

Best Available Retrofit Technol ogy (BART) guidelines were esta blished as a result of United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations intended to reduce the

occurrence of regional haze in na tional parks and other Class I pr otected air quality areas in

the United States (40 CFR Part 51). These gui delines provide guidance for states when

determining which facilities must install additi onal controls, and the t ype of controls that

must be used. Facilities eligible for BA RT installation were built between 1962 and 1977,

and have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibili ty-impairing pollutants.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Qu ality (WDEQ) BART re gulations state that

each source subject to BART must submit a BA RT application for a construction permit by

December 15, 2006. PacifiCorp received an exte nsion from the WDEQ to submit the BART

report for Jim Bridger Unit 4 (hereafter referre d to as Jim Bridger 4) by January 12, 2007.

The BART Report that was submitted to WDEQ in January 2007 included a BART analysis,

and a proposal and justification for BART at the source. This revised report—submitted in

October 2007—incorporates editorial re visions since the January 2007 version.

The State of Wyoming has identified those eligible in-state facilities that are required to

reduce emissions under BART, and will set BART emissions limits for those facilities. This

information will be included in the State of Wyoming State Implementation Plan (SIP),

which the State has estimated will be forma lly submitted to the EPA by early 2008. The EPA

BART guidelines also state that the BART emission limits must be fully implemented within

5 years of EPA’s approval of the SIP.

Five elements related to BART address the i ssue of emissions for the identified facilities:

• Any existing pollution control tech nology in use at the source

• The cost of the controls

• The remaining useful life of the source

• The energy and non-air quality envi ronmental impacts of compliance

• The degree of improvement in visibility that may reasonably be anticipated from the use

of such technology

This report documents the BART analysis that was performed on Jim Bridger 4 by

CH2M HILL for PacifiCorp. The analysis was performed for the pollutants nitrogen oxides,

(NO x) 

# , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

# ), and particulate matter less th an 10 micrometers in aerodynamic

diameter (PM 10 

# ), because they are the primary criteria pollutants that affect visibility.

Section 2 of this report provi des a description of the pres ent unit operation, including a

discussion of coal sources and characteristics. The BART Engineering Analysis is provided

in Section 3. Section 4 provides the me thodology and results of the BART Modeling

Analysis, followed by recommendations in Secti on 5 and references in Section 6. Appendices

provide more detail on the economic analys is and the 2006 Wyoming BART Protocol.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 1-1

# 2.0 Present Unit Operation

The Jim Bridger Station consists of four units with a total generating capacity of

2,120 megawatts (MW). Jim Bridger 4 is a nominal 530 net-MW unit located approximately

35 miles northeast of Rock Spri ngs, Wyoming. Unit 4 is equippe d with a tangentially-fired

pulverized coal boiler with low NO

x 

# burners (LNBs) manu factured by Combustion

Engineering. The unit was constructed with a Flakt wire frame electrostatic precipitator

(ESP). The unit contains a Babcock & Wilcox we t sodium flue gas desulfurization (FGD)

system with three absorber towers installed in 1982. An Emerson Ovation distributed control

system was installed in 2004.

Jim Bridger 4 was placed in service in 1979. It s current economic depr eciation life is through

2040; however, this analysis is based on a 20- year life for BART control technologies.

Assuming a BART implementation date of 2014, this will result in an approximate remaining

useful life for Jim Bridger 4 of 20 years from the installation date of any new or modified

BART-related equipment. This report does not attempt to quantify any additional life

extension costs needed to allow the unit and thes e control devices at Ji m Bridger 4 to operate

until 2040.

Table 2-1 lists additional unit information and study assumptions for this analysis.

The BART-presumptive NO

x 

# limit for tangential-fired boilers burning sub-bituminous coal is

0.15 lb per MMBtu and the BART-presumptive NO

x 

# limit for burning bituminous coal is

0.28 lb per MMBtu. The main sources of coal bu rned at Jim Bridger 4 are the Bridger Mine

and secondarily the Black Butte Mine and Le ucite Hills Mine. These coals are ranked as

sub-bituminous, but are closer in characteristics to bituminous coal in many of the parameters

influencing NO

x 

# formation. These coals have higher nitrogen content than coals from the

Powder River Basin (PRB), which represent the bulk of sub-bituminous coal use in the U.S.

This BART analysis has considered the higher nitrogen content and different combustion

characteristics of PRB coals as compared to those coals used at Jim Bridger 4, and has

evaluated the effect of these qualities on NO

x 

# formation and achievable emission rates. Coal

sources and characteristics are summarized in Table 2-2. The primary source of coal will be

the Bridger Underground Mine, a nd data on coal from this source were used in the modeling

analysis. For the coal analysis that is presented in Section 3.2. 1, the data from all the coal

sources were used.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 2-1

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 2-2 

# TABLE 2-1



# Unit Operation and Study Assumptions

Jim Bridger 4

General Plant Data

Site Elevation (feet above mean sea level) 6669

Stack Height (feet) 500

Stack Exit Inside Diameter (feet) and Exit Area (square feet) 31 /755

Stack Exit Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) 120

Stack Exit Velocity (feet per second) 42.4

Stack Flow (actual cubic feet per minute) 1,920,610

Latitude deg: min : sec 41:44:20.82 north

Longitude deg: min : sec 108:47:15.17 west

Annual Unit Capacity Fa ctor (percentage) 90

Net Unit Output (megawatts) 530

Net Unit Heat Rate (British thermal units [Btu] per kilowatthour)(100% load) 10,400 (as measured by fuel

throughout)

Boiler Heat Input (million Btu [MMbtu] per hour)(100% load) 6,000 (as measured by CEM)

Type of Boiler Tangentially fired

Boiler Fuel Coal

Coal Sources Bridger Mine, Black Butte Mine,

Leucite Hills Mine

Coal Heating Value (Btu per pound)* 9,660

Coal Sulfur Content (wt. %) (a) 

# 0.58

Coal Ash Content (wt. %) (a) 

# 10.3

Coal Moisture Content (wt. %) (a) 

# 19.3

Coal Nitrogen Content (wt. %) (a) 

# 0.98

Current NO

x 

# Controls Low-NO

x

# burners

NO

x

# Emission Rate (pound per MMBtu) 0.45

Current Sulfur Dioxide Controls Sodium based wet scrubber

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Rate (pound per MMBtu) 0.167

Current PM 10 

# Controls (b) 

# Electrostatic Precipitator

PM 10 

# Emission Rate (pound per MMBtu) (c) 

# 0.030

NOTES:

(a) 

# Coal characteristics based on Bridger Underground Mine (primary coal source)

(b) 

# PM 10 

# refers to particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

(c) 

# Based on maximum historic emission rate from 1999 – 2001, prior to installation of the SO 3 

# injection

system.BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4TABLE 2-2Coal Sources and CharacteristicsJim Bridger 4Ultimate Analysis (% dry basis)MinesMoisture(%)Ash (%)VolatileMatter(%)FixedCarbon(%)Britishthermalunits perpound(Btu/lb)Sulfur(%)Moistureand AshFree(Btu/lb)HydrogenCarbonSulfurNitrogenOxygenAshBridger MineUnderground19.310.332.238.396600.58137124.6669.20.721.2211.812.4MaximumNot enough data yet to run statistical analysis for variabilityMinimumNot enough data yet to run statistical analysis for variabilityBridger MineSurface19.110.632.338.093900.57133404.3837.40.711.2613.213.0Maximum20.512.535.541.998000.72135004.694.00.901.4314.815.8Minimum17.59.031.036.090000.49131004.0064.30.601.1411.711.2Bridger MineHighwall18.09.533.039.597000.5813500No samples of separate highwall coalMaximumNot enough data yet to run statistical analysis for variabilityMinimumNot enough data yet to run statistical analysis for variabilityBlack ButteMine20.09.233.335.694500.45133304.4368.70.561.4713.411.5Maximum21.110.835.441.9102750.62135004.6670.50.781.6914.813.6Minimum18.07.629.936.891800.33131404.2166.10.411.2511.69.7Leucite HillsMine (through2009)19.411.530.738.390800.64131404.2066.00.811.4813.214.4Maximum23.015.033.043.0102500.90138004.7070.01.201.6417.119.0Minimum17.08.028.333.680000.40123003.7061.00.501.3210.510.0JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC2-3

# 3.0 BART Engineering Analysis

This section presents the requi red BART engineering analysis.



# 3.1 Applicability

In compliance with regional haze requirements, the State of Wyoming must prepare and submit

visibility SIPs to the EPA for Class I areas. The State has estimated that the formal submittal of

the SIPs will occur by early 2008. The first phase of the regional haze program is the

implementation of BART emission controls on al l BART eligible units, within 5 years after

EPA approval of the SIP.



# 3.2 BART Process

The specific steps in a BART engineering anal ysis are identified in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y, Section IV. Th e evaluation must include:

• The identification of available, techni cally feasible, retr ofit control options

• Consideration of any pollution control equipment in use at the source (which affects the

availability of options and their impacts)

• The costs of compliance with the control options

• The remaining useful life of the facility

• The energy and non-air quality envi ronmental impacts of compliance

• The degree of visibility improvement that ma y reasonably be anticipated from the use of

BART

The following steps are incorporated into the BART analysis:

• Step 1 – Identify All Availabl e Retrofit Control Technologies

• Step 2 – Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options

− The identification of available, techni cally feasible, retr ofit control options

− Consideration of any pollution control equipment in use at the source (which affects the

applicability of options and their impacts)

• Step 3 – Evaluate Control Effectiven ess of Remaining Control Technologies

• Step 4 – Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results

− The costs of compliance with the control options

− The remaining useful life of the facility

− The energy and non-air quality envi ronmental impacts of compliance

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-1

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# • Step 5 – Evaluate Visibility Impacts

− The degree of visibility improvement that may reasonably be anticipated from the use

of BART

To minimize costs in the BART analysis, co nsideration was made of any pollution control

equipment in use at the source, the costs of co mpliance associated with the control options, and

the energy and non-air quality environmental im pacts of compliance using these existing

control devices. In some cases, enhancing the pe rformance of the existing control equipment

was considered. Other scenarios with new control equipment were also developed.

Separate analyses have been conducted for NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# emissions. All costs included

in the BART analysis are in 2006 dollars, and co sts have not been escalated to the assumed

2014 BART implementation date.



# 3.2.1 BART NO

x 

# Analysis

Nitrogen oxide formation in coal -fired boilers is a complex pr ocess that is dependent on a

number of variables, including operating conditions, equipment desi gn, and coal characteristics.

Formation of NO

x



# During coal combustion, NO

x 

# is formed in three different ways. The dominant source of NO

x 

# formation is the oxidation of fuel-bound nitrog en. During combustion, pa rt of the fuel-bound

nitrogen is released from the coal with the vola tile matter, and part is retained in the solid

portion (char). The nitrogen chemically bound in the coal is partially oxidized to nitrogen

oxides (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) and partially reduced to molecular nitrogen. A

smaller part of NO

x 

# formation is due to high temperature fixation of atmospheric nitrogen in

the combustion air. A very small amount of NO

x 

# is called prompt NO

x 

# . Prompt NO

x 

# results

from an interaction of hydrocar bon radicals, nitrogen, and oxygen.

In a conventional pulverized co al burner, air is introduced wi th turbulence to promote good

mixing of fuel and air, which pr ovides stable combustion. However, not all of the oxygen in the

air is used for combustion. Some of the oxygen combines with the fuel nitrogen to form NO

x 

# .

Coal characteristics directly and significantly affect NO

x 

# emissions from coal combustion. Coal

ranking is a means of classifying coals accordi ng to their degree of metamorphism in the

natural series, from lignite to sub-bituminous to bituminous and on to anthracite. Lower rank

coals, such as the sub-bituminous coals from the PRB, produce lower NO

x 

# emissions than

higher rank bituminous coals, due to their highe r reactivity and lower nitrogen content. The

fixed carbon to volatile matter ra tio (fuel ratio), coal oxygen cont ent, and rank are good relative

indices of the reactivity of a coal. Lower rank coals rele ase more organically bound nitrogen

earlier in the combustion process than do higher rank bituminous coals. When used with LNBs,

sub-bituminous coals create a longer time for the kinetics to promote more stable molecular

nitrogen, and therefore result in lower NO

x 

# emissions.

Coals from the PRB are classified as sub-bitu minous C and demonstrate the high reactivity and

low NO

x 

# production characteristics described ab ove. Based on data from the Energy

Information Administration, PRB coals currentl y represent 88 percent of total U.S. subbituminous production and 73 percent of west ern coal production (Energy Information

Administration, 2006). Most references to west ern coal and sub-bituminous coal infer PRB

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-2

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# origin and characteristics. Em issions standards differentiating between bituminous and subbituminous coals are presumed to use PRB coal as the basis for the sub-bituminous standards,

due to its dominant market pres ence and unique characteristics.

There are a number of western co als that are classified as su b-bituminous, however, they border

on being ranked as bituminous and do not displa y many of the qualities of PRB coals, including

most of the low NO

x 

# forming characteristics. Coals from the Bridger, Black Butte, and Leucite

Hills mines fall into this category.

As defined by the American Society for Tes ting and Materials, the only distinguishing

characteristic that classifies the coals used at Jim Bridger 4 as sub-bituminous rather than

bituminous—that is, they are “agglomerating” as compared to “non-agglomerating”.

Agglomerating as applied to coal is “the property of softening wh en it is heated to above about

400 degrees Celsius (°C) in a non-oxidizing atmos phere, and then appearing as a coherent mass

after cooling to room temperatur e.” Because the agglomerating prope rty of coals is the result of

particles transforming into a plastic or semi-liq uid state when heated, it reflects a change in

surface area of the particle. Thus, with the appl ication of heat, agglomerating coals would tend

to develop a non-porous surface, while the surf ace of non-agglomerating coals would become

even more porous with combustion. As shown by Figure 3-1, the increased porosity provides

more particle surface area, resulting in more favorable combustion conditions. This nonagglomerating property assists in making sub-b ituminous coals more amenable to controlling

NO

x 

# , by allowing less air to be introduced during the initial ignition portion of the combustion

process. The coals from the Bridger, Black Butte , and Leucite Hills mines just barely fall into

the category of non-agglomerating coals. While each of these coals is considered nonagglomerating, they either do not exhibit the properties of non- agglomerating coals or exhibit

them to only a minor degree. The conditions du ring combustion of t ypical non-agglomerating

coals that make it easier to control NO

x 

# emissions do not exist for the Bridger blends of coals.

FIGURE 3-1



# Illustration of the Effect of Agglomeration on the Speed of Coal Combustion

Jim Bridger 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-3

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# Table 3-1 shows key characteristics of a typical PRB coal compared to coals from the Bridger

Mine, Black Butte, and Leucite Hills, as well as Twentymile, which is a representative western

bituminous coal.

TABLE 3-1



# Coal Characteristics Comparison

Jim Bridger 4

Parameter Typical

PRB Bridger

Mine Black

Butte Leucite

Hills Twentymile

Nitrogen (% dry) 1. 10 1.26 1.47 1.48 1.85

Oxygen (% dry) 16. 2 13.2 13.4 13.2 7.19

Coal rank Sub C Sub B Sub B Sub B Bitum. high volatility B



# As shown in Table 3-1, although Bridger, Black Butte, and Leucite Hills are classified as

sub-bituminous, they all exhibi t higher nitrogen content and lower oxygen content than the

PRB coal. The higher nitrogen content is an indica tion that more nitrogen is available to the

combustion process and higher NO

x 

# emissions are likely. Oxygen c ontent can be correlated to

the reactivity of the coal, with more reactive coals generally containing higher levels of oxygen.

More reactive coals tend to produce lower NO

x 

# emissions, and they are also more conducive to

reduction of NO

x 

# emissions through the use of combustion control measures, such as LNBs and

over-fire air (OFA). Th ese characteristics indicate that higher NO

x 

# formation is likely with coal

from the Bridger, Black Butte, and Leucite H ills mines, rather than with PRB coal. The

Bridger, Black Butte, and Leucite Hills coals all contain quality ch aracteristics that fall between

a typical PRB coal and Twentymile. Twentymile is a clearly bituminous coal that produces

higher NO

x 

# , as has been demonstrated at power plants burning this fuel.

Figures 3-2 and 3-3 graphically i llustrate the relationship of ni trogen and oxygen content to the

BART-presumptive NO

x 

# limits for the coals listed in Table 3-1. Each chart identifies the

presumptive BART limit associated with a ty pical bituminous and sub-bituminous coal, and

demonstrates how the Jim Bridger coal falls be tween these two general coal classifications.

The Bridger blend data point represents a comb ination of coals from the Bridger Mine, Black

Butte, and Leucite Hills that has been used at Jim Bridger 4, and i ndicates the average NO

x 

# emission rate achieved during the years 2003 through 2005. The Jim Bridger 2 data point

consists of the same blend of coals as Jim Bridger 4, and represents the NO

x 

# emission rate

achieved after installation of Alstom’s current state of the art TFS2000 LNB and OFA system.

The long-term sustainable emission rate for this system is expected to be 0.24 lb per MMBtu.

All four units at Jim Bridger consist of id entical boilers; and while there may be some

differences in performance among them, inst allation of the TFS2000 firing system at

Jim Bridger 4 would likely result in performance and NO

x 

# emission rates comparable to those

at Jim Bridger 2.

Figures 3-2 and 3-3 both demonstrate that for the Jim Bridger units with the TFS2000 low-NO

x 

# emission system installed and burning a combina tion of the Bridger, Black Butte, and Leucite

Hill coals, the likely NO

x 

# emission rate will be closer to the bituminous end (0.28) of the

BART-presumptive NO

x 

# limit range, rather than the BART-presumptive NO

x 

# limit of 0.15 lb

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-4

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# per MMBtu for sub-bituminous co al. All these factors are consistent with the observed

sustainable rate of 0.24 lb per MMBtu.

FIGURE 3-2



# Plot of Typical Nitrogen Content of Various Coals and Applicable Presumptive BART NO

x 

# Limits

Jim Bridger 4

PRB Subbituminous Bridger Blend

Jim Bridger 2 Twentymile Bituminous

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00

Typical Nitrogen Content (%-Dry Basis)NOx Limit (lb/MMBtu)



# Bituminous Presumptive Limit - 0.28 lb/MMBtu

Subbituminous Presumptive Limit - 0.15 lb/MMBtu



# FIGURE 3-3



# Plot of Typical Oxygen Content of Various Coals and Applicable Presumptive BART NO

x 

# Limits

Jim Bridger 4

PRB Subbituminous Twentymile Bituminous Bridger Blend

Jim Bridger 2

0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00

Typical Oxygen Content (%-Dry Basis)NOx Limit (lb/MMBtu)



# Subbituminous Presum p tive Limit - 0.15lb/MMBtu Bituminous Presum p tive Limit - 0.28 lb/MMBtu



# JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-5

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# Coal quality characteristics also impact the de sign and operation of th e boiler and associated

auxiliary equipment. Minor changes in qua lity can sometimes be accommodated through

operational adjustments or changes to equipmen t. It is important to note, however, that

consistent variations in quality or assumptions of “average” quali ty for performance projections

can be problematic. This is particularly troubleso me when dealing with performance issues that

are very sensitive to both coal quality and combustion conditions, such as NO

x 

# formation.

There is significant variability in the quality of coals burned at Jim Bridger 4. In addition to

burning coal from Black Butte and Leucite Hills, Jim Bridger 4 burns coal supplied from the

Bridger Mine consisting of three sources: unde rground, surface, and highwall operations. Each

of these coal sources has differe nt quality characteristics, as we ll as inherent variability in

composition of the coal within the mine.

Several of the coal quality char acteristics and their effect on NO

x 

# formation have been

previously discussed. There are some additional cons iderations that illustrate the complexity of

achieving and maintaining consistent low NO

x 

# emissions with pulverized coal on a shorter

term, such as a 30-day rolling average basis.

Good combustion is based on the “three Ts”: time, temperature, and turbulence. These

parameters, along with a “design” coal, are ta ken into consideration when designing a boiler

and associated firing equipment such as fans , burners, and pulverizers. If a performance

requirement such as NO

x 

# emission limits is subsequently changed, conflicts with and between

other performance i ssues can result.

Jim Bridger 4 is located at an altitude of 6,669 feet above sea level. At this elevation,

atmospheric pressure is lower ( 11.5 lbs per square inch) as compar ed with sea level pressure of

14.7 lbs per square inch. This lower pressu re means that less oxygen is available for

combustion for each volume of air. In order to provide adequate oxygen to meet the

requirements for efficient combustion, larger volum es of air are required. When adjusting air

flows and distribution to reduce NO

x 

# emissions, using LNBs and OFA, original boiler design

restrictions again limit the m odifications that can be made and still achieve satisfactory

combustion performance.

Another significant factor in controlling NO

x 

# emissions is the fineness of the coal entering the

burners. Fineness is influenced by the grindability index (Hardgr ove) of the coal. Finer coal

particles promote release of vola tiles and assist char burnout as a result of more surface area

exposed to air. NO

x 

# reduction with high volatile coals is improved with greater fineness and

with proper air staging. The lower rank sub-b ituminous coals such as PRB coals are quite

friable and easy to grind. Coals with lower Har dgrove Grindability Index values, such as those

used at Jim Bridger 4, are more difficult to grind and can contribute to higher NO

x 

# levels. In

addition, coal fineness can dete riorate over time periods between pulverizer maintenance and

service as pulverizer grinding surfaces wear.

In summary, when all the factors of agglom eration versus non-agglomeration, nitrogen and

oxygen content of the coals, and the grindability inde x are taken into acc ount, this analysis

demonstrates that, for the coal used at Jim Br idger 4, the more applicable presumptive BART

limit for NO

x 

# emissions is 0.28 lb per MMBtu. The BART analysis for NO

x 

# emissions from

Jim Bridger 4 is further described below.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-6

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# Step 1: Identify All Availabl e Retrofit Control Technologies

The first step of the BART process is to evaluate NO

x 

# control technologies with practical

potential for application to Jim Bridger 4, incl uding those control techno logies identified as

Best Available Control Technol ogy (BACT) or lowest achieva ble emission rate (LAER) by

permitting agencies across the United States. Broa d-ranging information sources were reviewed

in an effort to identify potentially ap plicable emission cont rol technologies. NO

x 

# emissions at

Jim Bridger 4 are currently controlled through good combus tion practices and OFA.

The following potential NO

x 

# control technology options were considered:

• New/modified LNBs with advanced OFA

• Rotating opposed fire air (ROFA)

• LNB with OFA and conventiona l selective non-cata lytic reduction (SNCR) system

• LNB with OFA and selective catal ytic reduction (SCR) system

Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options

For Jim Bridger 4, a tangential-fired configur ation burning sub-bituminous coal, technical

feasibility will primarily be de termined by physical constraints, boiler configuration, and the

ability to achieve the regulator y presumptive limit of 0.28 lb per MMBtu. Jim Bridger 4 has an

uncontrolled NO

x 

# emission rate of 0.45 lb per MMBtu.

For this BART analysis, information pertaini ng to LNBs, OFA, SNCR, and SCR were based on

the Multi-Pollutant Control Report (Sargent and Lundy, 2002, hereaf ter referred to as the S&L

Study). Updated cost estimates for SCR a nd SNCR were used (Sargent & Lundy, 2006).

PacifiCorp provided additional emissions data and costs developed by boiler vendors for LNBs

and OFA. Also, CH2M HILL solicited a proposal from Mobotec for their ROFA technology.

With SNCR, an amine-based reagent such as a mmonia, or more commonly urea, is injected

into the furnace within a temperature range of 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 2,100°F, where

it reduces NO

x 

# to nitrogen and water. NO

x 

# reductions of up to 40 to 60 percent have been

achieved, although 15 to 30 percent is more realistic for most a pplications. SNCR is typically

applied on smaller units. Adequate reagent distri bution in the furnaces of large units can be

problematic.

Table 3-2 summarizes the control technology options evaluated in this BART analysis, along

with projected NO

x 

# emission rates. All technologies can meet the applicable presumptive

BART limit of 0.28 lb per MMBTU.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-7

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# TABLE 3-2



# NO

x 

# Control Technology Projected Emission Rates

Jim Bridger 4

Technology Projected Emission Rate (pounds per

million British thermal units)

Presumptive Best Available

Retrofit Technology Limit 0.28

Low NO

x 

# Blower (LNB) with

Over-Fire Air (OFA) 0.24

Rotating Opposed Fire Air 0.22

LNB with OFA and Selective

Non-Catalytic Reduction System 0.20

LNB with OFA and Selective

Catalytic Reduction System 0.07



# Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiven ess of Remaining Control Technologies

Preliminary vendor proposals, such as those used to support portions of this BART analysis,

may be technically feasible and provide expect ed or guaranteed emission rates; however, the

proposals include inherent uncer tainties. These proposals are us ually prepared in a limited

timeframe, may be based on incomplete information, may contain over-optimistic conclusions,

and are non-binding. Therefore, emission rate va lues obtained in such preliminary proposals

must be qualified, and it must be recognized that contract ual guarantees are established only

after more detailed analysis has been complete d. The following subsections describe the control

technologies and the control effectivene ss evaluated in this BART analysis.

New LNBs with OFA System. The mechanism used to lower NO

x 

# with LNBs is to stage the

combustion process and provide a fuel-rich condi tion initially; this is so oxygen needed for

combustion is not diverted to combine with nitrogen and form NO

x 

# . Fuel-rich conditions favor

the conversion of fuel nitrogen to N 2 

# instead of NO

x 

# . Additional air (or OFA) is then introduced

downstream in a lower temperatur e zone to burn out the char.

Both LNBs and OFA are considered to be cap ital cost, combustion tech nology retrofits. For

LNB retrofits to units configured with tangentia l-firing such as Jim Bridger 4, it is generally

necessary to increase the burner spacing; this prevents interacti on of the flames from adjacent

burners and reduces burner zone heat flux. These modifications us ually require boiler

waterwall tube replacement.

Information provided to CH2M HILL by PacifiCorp—based on the S&L Study and data from

boiler vendors—indicates that new LNB and OFA re trofit at Jim Bridger 4 would result in an

expected NO

x 

# emission rate of 0.24 lb per MMBtu. Paci fiCorp has indicated that this rate

corresponds to a vendor guarantee, not a vendor pr ediction, and they believe that this emission

rate can be sustained as an average between overhauls. This emissi on rate represents a

significant reduction from the current NO

x 

# emission rate, and is be low the more applicable

presumptive NO

x 

# emission rate of 0.28 lb per MMBtu.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-8

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# ROFA. Mobotec markets ROFA as an improved sec ond generation OFA syst em. Mobotec states

that “the flue gas volume of the furnace is set in rotation by asymmetrically placed air nozzles.

Rotation is reported to prevent laminar flow, so that the entire volume of the furnace can be

used more effectively for the combustion proces s. In addition, the swir ling action reduces the

maximum temperature of the flames and increases heat absorption. The combustion air is also

mixed more effectively.” A typical ROFA instal lation would have a booste r fan(s) to supply the

high velocity air to the ROFA boxes, and Mobotec would propose two 4,000 to

4,300 horsepower fans for Jim Bridger 4.

Mobotec proposes to achieve a NO

x 

# emission rate of 0.18 lb per MMBtu using ROFA

technology. An operating margin of 0.04 lb per MMBtu was added to the expected rate due to

Mobotec’s limited ROFA experience with west ern sub-bituminous coals. Under the Mobotec

proposal, which is primarily based on ROFA equipment, the operation of existing LNB and

OFA ports would be analyzed. While a typical in stallation does not require modification to the

existing LNB system and the existing OFA ports are not used, results of computational fluid

dynamics modeling would determine the quant ity and location of new ROFA ports. The

Mobotec proposal includes bent tube a ssemblies for OFA port installation.

Mobotec would not provide installation services, b ecause they believe that the Owner can more

cost-effectively contract for these services . However, they would provide one onsite

construction supervisor duri ng installation and startup.

SNCR. Selective non-catalytic re duction is generally used to achieve modest NO

x 

# reductions on

smaller units. With SNCR, an amine-based r eagent such as ammonia—or more commonly

urea—is injected into the fu rnace within a temperature rang e of 1,600°F to 2,100°F, where it

reduces NO

x 

# to nitrogen and water. NO

x 

# reductions of up to 60 percent have been achieved,

although 20 to 40 percent is more re alistic for most applications.

Reagent utilization, which is a measure of the efficiency with which the reagent reduces NO

x 

# , can range from 20 to 60 percent, depending on the amount of reduction, unit size, operating

conditions, and allowable ammonia slip. With low reagent utilization, low temperatures, or

inadequate mixing, ammonia slip occurs, allowing unreacted a mmonia to create problems

downstream. The ammonia may render fly ash unsa leable, react with su lfur to foul heat

exchange surfaces, and/or create a visible stack plume. Reagent utilization can have a

significant impact on economics, with higher levels of NO

x 

# reduction generally resulting in

lower reagent utilization and higher operating cost.

Reductions from higher baseline concentrations (inlet NO

x 

# ) are lower in cost per ton, but result

in higher operating costs, due to greater reag ent consumption. To redu ce reagent costs, S&L

has assumed that combustion modifications incl uding LNBs and advanced OFA, capable of

achieving a projected NO

x 

# emission rate of 0.24 lb per MMBtu

. At a further reduction of

15 percent in NO

x 

# emission rates for SNCR would result in a projected emission rate of 0.20 lb

per MMBtu.

SCR. SCR works on the same chemical principle as SNCR, but SCR uses a catalyst to promote

the chemical reaction. Ammonia is injected in to the flue-gas stream , where it reduces NO

x 

# to

nitrogen and water. Unlike the high temperatur es required for SNCR, in SCR the reaction takes

place on the surface of a vanadi um/titanium-based catalyst at a temperature range between

580°F to 750°F. As a result of the catalyst, the SCR process is more efficient than SNCR and

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-9

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# results in lower NO

x 

# emissions. The most common type of SCR is the high-dust configuration,

where the catalyst is located downstream from the boiler economizer and upstream of the air

heater and any particulate contro l equipment. In this location, the SCR is exposed to the full

concentration of fly ash in the flue gas that l eaves the boiler. The high- dust configuration is

assumed for Jim Bridger 4. In a full-scale SCR, th e flue ducts are routed to a separate large

reactor containing the catalyst. With in-duct SCR, the catalyst is located in the existing gas

duct, which may be expanded in the area of the ca talyst to reduce flue gas flow velocity and

increase flue gas residence time. Due to the hi gher removal rate, a full-scale SCR was used as

the basis for analysis at Jim Bridger 4.

S&L prepared the design conditions and cost estimates for SCR at Jim Bridger 4. As with

SNCR, it is generally more cost effective to reduce NO

x 

# emission levels as much as possible

through combustion modifications, in order to mi nimize the catalyst surface area and ammonia

requirements of the SCR. The S&L design basi s for LNB with OFA and SCR results in a

projected NO

x 

# emission rate of 0.07 lb per MMBtu. Add itional catalyst surface was included in

the SCR design to accommodate the characteris tics of the coal used at Jim Bridger 4.

Level of Confidence for Vendor Post-Control Emissions Estimates. To determine the level of NO

x 

# emissions needed to consistently achieve comp liance with an establis hed goal, a review of

typical NO

x 

# emissions from coal-fired generating units was completed. As a result of this

review, it was noted that NO

x 

# emissions can vary significan tly around an average emissions

level. Variations may result for many reasons, including coal characteristics, unit load, boiler

operation including excess air, boiler slagging, burner equipment condition, coal mill fineness,

and so forth.

The steps used for determining a level of confidence for the vendor expected values are as

follows:

1. Establish expected NO

x 

# emissions value from vendor.

2. Evaluate vendor experience and historical basis for meeting expected values.

3. Review and evaluate unit physical and operati onal characteristics a nd restrictions. The

fewer variations there are in operations, coal supply, etc., the more predictable and less

variant the NO

x 

# emissions are.

4. For each technology expected value, there is a corresponding potential for actual NO

x 

# emissions to vary from this expected valu e. From the vendor information presented, along

with anticipated unit operational data, an adju stment to the expected value can be made.

Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results

This step involves the cons ideration of energy, environmental, and economic impacts

associated with each control technology. The remaining useful life of the plant is also

considered during the evaluation.

Energy Impacts. Installation of LNBs and modification to the existing OFA systems are not

expected to significantly impact the boiler e fficiency or forced-draft fan power usage.

Therefore, these technologies will not have energy impacts.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-10

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# The Mobotec ROFA system would require installation and operation of two 4,000 to

4,300 horsepower ROFA fans (6,410 kilowatts [kW] total). The SNCR system would require

approximately 530 kW of additional power.

SCR retrofit impacts the existing flue gas fan systems, due to the additional pressure drop

associated with the catalyst, which is typically a 6- to 8-inch water gage increase. Total

additional power requirements for SCR instal lation at Jim Bridger 4 are estimated at

approximately 3,360 kW, based on the S&L Study.

Environmental Impacts. Mobotec has predicted that car bon monoxide (CO) emissions, and

unburned carbon in the ash, commonly referred to as loss on ignition (LOI), would be the same

or lower than previous levels for the ROFA system.

SNCR and SCR installation could impact the saleab ility and disposal of fly ash due to ammonia

levels, and could potentially crea te a visible stack plume, whic h may negate other visibility

improvements. Other environmental impacts invol ve the storage of amm onia, especially if

anhydrous ammonia is used, and the transportatio n of the ammonia to the power plant site.

Economic Impacts. Costs and schedules for the LNBs, OFA, SNCR, and SCR were furnished to

CH2M HILL by PacifiCorp, developed using S&L’s internal proprie tary database, and

supplemented (as needed) by vendor-obtained price quotes. The relative accuracy of these cost

estimates is stated by S&L to be in the range of plus or minus 20 percent. Cost for the ROFA

system was obtained from Mobotec.

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

NO

x 

# removed is summarized in Table 3-3, and th e first year control co sts are presented in

Figure 3-4. The complete economic anal ysis is contained in Appendix A.

Preliminary BART Selection. CH2M HILL recommends selection of LNBs with OFA as BART

for Jim Bridger 4 based on its significant reduction in NO

x 

# emissions, reasonable control cost,

and no additional power requireme nts or environmental impacts. LNB with OFA does not meet

the EPA-presumptive limit of 0.15 lb per MMBtu for sub-bituminous coal, but it does meet an

emission rate that falls between the presumptive limit of 0.28 lb per MMBtu for bituminous

coal and the limit of 0.15 lb per MMBtu for sub- bituminous coal. As discussed in the section

on coal quality, the recommended technology an d the achieved emission rate are deemed

appropriate as BART for NO

x 

# emissions from the coals co mbusted at Jim Bridger 4.

Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts

Please see Section 4, BART Modeling Analysis.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-11

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-12 

# TABLE 3-3



# NO

x 

# Control Cost Comparison

Jim Bridger 4

Factor Low NO

x 

# Blower (LNB)

with OverFire Air

(OFA) Rotating

Opposed Fire

Air LNB with

OFA &

Selective

NonCatalytic

Reduction

System LNB with OFA

Selective

Catalytic

Reduction

System

Total Installed Capital Costs $8.7 million $20.5 million 22.1 million $147.6 million

Total First Year Fixed & Variable Operation

and Maintenance Costs $0.1 million $2.6 million $1.5 million $3.4 million

Total First Year Annualized Cost $0.9 million $4.6 million $3.6 million $17.4 million

Power Consumption (megawatts) 0 6.4 0.5 3.4

Annual Power Usage (1000 megawatt-hours

per year) 0 50.6 4.2 26.5

Nitrogen Oxides Design Control E fficiency 46.7% 51.1% 55.6% 84.4%

Nitrogen Oxides Removed per Year (Tons) 4,967 5,440 5,913 8,987

First Year Average Control Cost

($ per Ton of Nitrogen Oxides Removed) $181/ton $843/ton $613/ton $1,936/ton

Incremental Control Cost

($ per Ton of Nitrogen Oxides Removed) $181/ton $7,797/ton $2, 885/ton $4,479/tonBART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4FIGURE 3-4First Year Control Cost for NOxAir Pollution Control OptionsJim Bridger 401,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000LNB w/OFAROFALNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA & SCRAir Pollution Control Option

Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed)First Year Average Control CostFirst Year Incremental Control CostJMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC3-13

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# 3.2.2 BART SO 2 

# Analysis

Sulfur dioxide forms in the boiler during the combustion process, and is primarily dependent on

coal sulfur content. The BART analysis for SO 2 

# emissions on Jim Bridger 4 is described below.

Step 1: Identify All Availabl e Retrofit Control Technologies

A broad range of information sources were revi ewed, in an effort to identify potentially

applicable emission control technologies for SO 2 

# at Jim Bridger 4. This included control

technologies identified as BACT or LAER by permitting agencies across the United States.

The following potential SO 2 

# control technology options were considered:

• Optimize current operation of ex isting wet sodium FGD system

• Upgrade wet sodium FGD system to meet SO 2 

# emission rate of 0.10 lb per MMBtu

• New dry FGD system

Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options

Technical feasibility will primarily be base d on the regulatory presumptive limit (used as a

guideline) of 95 percent reduction in SO 2 

# emissions, or 0.15 lb per MMBtu. Based on the coal

that Jim Bridger 4 currently burns, the unit w ould be required to achieve an 87.5 percent SO 2 

# removal efficiency to meet the pres umptive limit of 0.15 lb per MMBtu.

Table 3-4 summarizes the control technology options evaluated in this BART analysis, along

with projected SO 2 

# emission rates. Only one technology option can meet the applicable

presumptive BART limit of 0.15 lb per MMBtu.

TABLE 3-4



# SO 2 

# Control Technology Emission Rates

Jim Bridger 4

Technology Projected Emission Rate (pounds

per million British thermal units)

Presumptive Best Available Retrofit

Technology Limit 0.15

Upgrade Existing Wet Sodium System 0.10

Optimize Existing Wet Sodium System 0.17

New Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization

System 0.21



# Wet Sodium FGD System Wet sodium FGD systems operate by treating the flue gas in large

scrubber vessels with a soda ash solution. The sc rubber mixes the flue ga s and alkaline reagent

using a series of spray nozzles to distribute th e reagent across the scr ubber vessel. The sodium

in the reagent reacts with the SO 2 

# in the flue gas to form sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite,

which are removed from the scrubber and disposed.

The wet sodium FGD system at Jim Bridger 4 currently achie ves approximately 86 percent SO 2



# removal to achieve an SO 2 

# outlet emission rate of 0.17 lb per MMBtu. Upgrading the wet FGD

system would achieve an SO 2 

# outlet emission rate of 0.10 lb per MMBtu (91.7 percent SO 2

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-14

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# removal) by closing the bypass damper to eliminat e routine bypass flue gas flow used to reheat

the treated flue gas from the scrubber, reloca ting the opacity monitor, adding new fans, adding

a stack liner and drains for wet operation, and using a refined soda ash reagent. It is considered

to be technically infeasible for the present wet FGD system to achieve 95 percent SO 2 

# removal

(0.06 lb per MMBtu) on a continuous basis sin ce this high level of removal must be

incorporated into the origin al design of the scrubber.

The wet FGD system is achieving an outlet SO 2 

# emission rate of 0.17 lb per MMBtu. It is not

expected that any significant additional SO 2 

# reduction would occur w ith optimization of the

wet sodium scrubbing FGD system. This option would not meet the presumptive limit of

0.15 lb per MMBtu. Therefore, this option is eliminated as tec hnically infeasible for this

analysis. An upgraded wet sodium scrubbing FGD system is projected to achieve an outlet

emission rate of 0.10 lb per MMBtu (91.7 percent SO 2 

# removal), which would meet the

presumptive limit of 0.15 lb per MMBtu for Jim Bridger 4.

New Dry FGD System. The lime spray dryer typically injects lime slurry in the top of the

absorber vessel with a rapidly rotating atomi zer wheel. The rapid speed of the atomizer wheel

causes the lime slurry to separate into very fine droplets that in termix with the flue gas. The

SO 2 

# in the flue gas reacts with the calcium in the lime slurry to form dry calcium sulfate

particles. At Jim Bridger 4 this dry particul ate matter would be captu red downstream in the

existing ESP, along with the fly ash. A lime spra y dryer system typically produces a dry waste

product suitable for landfill disposal.

The dry FGD system with the existing E SP is projected to achieve 82.5 percent SO 2 

# removal at

Jim Bridger 4. This would result in a controlled SO 2 

# emission rate of 0.21 lb per MMBtu, based

on an uncontrolled SO 2 

# emission rate of 1.20 lb per MMBtu. Therefore, this option cannot meet

the presumptive limit of 0.15 lb per MMBtu, and is eliminated from further analysis as

technically infeasible.

Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiven ess of Remaining Control Technologies

When evaluating the control effectiveness of SO 2 

# reduction technologies, each option can be

compared against benchmarks of performance. One such benchmark is the presumptive BART

emission limit because Jim Bridger 4 is required to meet this limit. As indicated previously, the

presumptive limit for SO 2 

# on a BART-eligible coal burning unit is 95 percent removal, or

0.15 lb per MMBtu.

The projected emission rate for an upgraded we t sodium FGD system fo r Jim Bridger 4 would

be 0.10 lb per MMBtu. This option would meet the presumptive SO 2 

# limit of 0.15 lb per

MMBtu.

Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results

This step involves the cons ideration of energy, environmental, and economic impacts

associated with each control technology. The remaining useful life of the plant is also

considered during the evaluation.

Energy Impacts. Upgrading the existing wet sodium FGD system would require an additional

520 kW of power.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-15

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# Environmental Impacts. There will be incremental additions to scrubber waste disposal and

makeup water requirements.

Economic Impacts. A summary of the costs and amount of SO 2 

# removed for the upgraded wet

sodium FGD system is provided in Table 3-5. The complete econom ic analysis is contained in

Appendix A.

TABLE 3-5



# Sulfur Dioxide Control Cost Comparison (Increment al to Existing Flue Gas Desulfurization System)

Jim Bridger 4

Factor Upgraded Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization

Total Installed Capital Costs $5.8 Million

Total First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs $0.7 Million

Total First Year Annualized Cost $1.2 Million

Additional Power Consumption (megawatts) 0.5

Additional Annual Power Usage (1000 megawatthours per year) 4.2

Incremental Sulfur Dioxide Design Contro l Efficiency 40.1% (91.7% based on

Uncontrolled Sulfur Dioxide)

Incremental Tons Sulfur Dioxide Removed per Year 1,585

First Year Average Control Cost ($ per Ton of Sulfur

Dioxide Removed) 761

Incremental Control Cost

($ per Ton of Sulfur Dioxide Removed) 761



# Preliminary BART Selection. CH2M HILL recommends upgrading the existing wet sodium FGD

system as BART for Jim Bridger 4 based on its significant reduction in SO 2 

# emissions (meeting

presumptive limit of 0.15 lb per MMBtu), reasonab le control costs, a nd the advantages of

minimal additional power requirements, and environmental impacts.

Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts

Please see Section 4, BART Modeling Analysis.



# 3.2.3 BART PM 10



# Analysis

Jim Bridger 4 is currently equipped with an ESP. ESPs remove particulate matter from the flue

gas stream by charging fly ash particles with a very high direct current voltage, and attracting

these charged particles to grounde d collection plates. A layer of collected particulate matter

forms on the collecting plates and is removed by periodically rapping the plates. The collected

ash particles drop into hoppers below the precipitator and are removed periodically by the fly

ash-handling system. Historically, the E SP at Jim Bridger 4 has controlled PM 10 

# emissions to

levels below 0.030 lb per MMBtu.

The BART analysis for PM 10 

# emissions at Jim Bridger 4 is described below. For the modeling

analysis in Section 4, PM 10 

# was used as an indicator for particulate matter, and PM 10 

# includes

PM 2.5 

# as a subset.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-16

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# Step 1: Identify All Availabl e Retrofit Control Technologies

Two retrofit control tech nologies have been identified for additional particul ate matter control:

• 

# Flue gas conditioning (FGC)

• 

# Polishing fabric filter (baghouse) downstream of existing ESP

Another available control technology is replacing the existing ESP with a new fabric filter.

However, because the environmental benefits th at would be achieved by a replacement fabric

filter are also achieved by installing a polishing fabric filter downstream of the existing ESP at

lower costs, installation of a full fabric f ilter was not consider ed in the analysis.

Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options

Flue Gas Conditioning. If the fly ash from coal has high resistivity, such as fly ash from

sub-bituminous coal, the ash is not collected eff ectively in an ESP. This is because the high

resistivity makes the particles less willing to accept an electrical charge. Adding FGC, which is

typically accomplished by injec tion of sulfur trioxide (SO 3 

# ), will lower the resistivity of the

particles so that they will accept more charge and allow the ESP to collect the ash more

effectively. FGC systems can account for large imp rovements in collection efficiency for small

ESPs.

Polishing Fabric Filter. A polishing fabric filter could be added downstream of the existing ESP

at Jim Bridger 4. One such technology is licensed by the Electric Power Research Institute, and

referred to as a Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector (COHPAC). The COHPAC collects the

ash that is not collected by the ESP, thus acting as a polishing device. The ESP needs to be kept

in service for the COHPAC fabric filter to operate effectively.

The COHPAC fabric filter is about one-half to two-thirds the si ze of a full size fabric filter,

because the COHPAC has a higher ai r-to-cloth ratio (7 to 9:1), compared to a full size pulse jet

fabric filter (3.5 to 4.1).

Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiven ess of Remaining Control Technologies

The existing ESP at Jim Bridger 4 is achieving a controlled partic ulate matter emission rate of

0.030 lb per MMBtu. Using FGC upstream of the existing ESP is projected to not reduce

particulate matter emissions, but it would help maintain long term operation at an emission

level of 0.030 lb per MMBtu. Adding a COHPAC fa bric filter downstream of the existing ESP

is projected to reduce particulate matter em issions to approximately 0.015 lb per MMBtu.

The PM 10 

# control technology emission rates are summarized in Table 3-6.

TABLE 3-6



# PM 10



# Control Technology Emission Rates

Jim Bridger 4

Control Technology Short-Term Expected PM 10 

# Emission Rate (pounds per

million British thermal units)

Flue Gas Conditioning 0.030

Polishing Fabric Filter 0.015

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-17

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 3-18 

# Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results

This step involves the cons ideration of energy, environmental, and economic impacts

associated with each control technology. The remaining useful life of the plant is also

considered during the evaluation.

Energy Impacts. Energy is required to overcome the additional pressure drop from the

COHPAC fabric filter and asso ciated ductwork. Therefore, a C OHPAC retrofit will require an

induced draft (ID) fan upgrade and upgrade of the auxiliary power supply system. A COHPAC

fabric filter at Jim Bridger 4 would require approximately 3.4 MW of power, equating to an

annual power usage of approximately 26.7 milli on kilowatt-hours (kW-Hr). There is only a

small power requirement of approxima tely 50 kW associated with FGC.

Environmental Impacts. There are no negative environmental impacts from the addition of a

COHPAC polishing fabric filter or flue gas conditioning system.

Economic Impacts. A summary of the costs and particul ate matter removed for COHPAC and

FGCs are recorded in Table 3-7, and the first-year control costs for FGC and fabric filters are

shown in Figure 3-5. The complete economic analysis is contained in Appendix A.

TABLE 3-7



# PM 10



# Control Cost Comparison (Incremental to Existing ESP)

Jim Bridger 4

Factor Flue Gas

Conditioning Polishing Fabric Filter

Total Installed Capital Costs $0 $48.4 million

Total First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs $0.2 million $1.8 million

Total First Year Annualized Cost $0.2 million $ 6.4 million

Additional Power Consumption (megawatts) 0.05 3.39

Additional Annual Power Usage (Million kilowatt-hours per

year) 0.4 26.7

Incremental Particulate Matter Desi gn Control Efficiency 0.0% 50.0%

Incremental Tons Particulate Matter Removed per Year 0 355

First Year Average Control Cost

($ per Ton of Particulate Matter Removed) N/A 17,946

Incremental Control Cost

($ per Ton of Particulate Matter Removed) N/A 17,452



# Preliminary BART Selection. CH2M HILL recommends selec tion of FGC upstream of the

existing ESP as BART for Jim Br idger 4 based on the significant reduction in particulate matter

emissions, reasonable control costs, and advantages of minimal additional power requirements

and no environmental impacts.

Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts

Please see Section 4, BART Modeling Analysis.BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4FIGURE 3-5First Year Control Cost for PM Air Pollution Control OptionsJim Bridger 402,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000Flue Gas ConditioningFabric FilterAir Pollution Control Option

Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed)First Year Average Control CostFirst Year Incremental Control CostJMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC3-19

# 4.0 BART Modeling Analysis

4.1 Model Selection

CH2M HILL used the CALPUFF modeling system to assess the visibility impacts of emissions

from Jim Bridger 4 at nearby Class I areas. The Class I areas potentially affected are located

more than 50 kilometers but less than 300 kilo meters from the Jim Bridger 4 facility. The

Class I areas include the following wilderness areas:

• Bridger Wilderness Area

• Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area

• Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area

The CALPUFF modeling system includes the CALMET meteorological model, a Gaussian

puff dispersion model (CALPUFF) with algor ithms for chemical transformation and

deposition, and a post processor ca pable of calculating co ncentrations, visib ility impacts, and

deposition (CALPOST). The CALPUFF modeling sy stem was applied in a full, refined mode.

The following version numbers of the various programs in the CALPUFF system were used by

CH2M HILL:

• CALMET Version 5.53a, Level 040716

• CALPUFF Version 5.711a, Level 040716

• CALPOST Version 5.51, Level 030709



# 4.2 CALMET Methodology

4.2.1 Dimensions of the Modeling Domain

CH2M HILL used the CALMET model to genera te a three-dimensional wind field and other

meteorological parameters suitable for use by the CALPUFF model. A modeling domain was

established to encompass the Jim Bridger 4 f acility and allow for a 50-km buffer around the

Class I areas that were within 300 km of the facility. Grid resolution was 4 km. Figure 4-1

shows the extent of the modeli ng domain. Except when specifically instructed otherwise by the

Wyoming Department of Environmental Qu ality-Air Quality Di vision (WDEQ-AQD),

CH2M HILL followed the methodology spelle d out in the WDEQ-A QD BART Modeling

Protocol, a copy of which is included in this report as Appendix B.

CH2M HILL used the Lambert Conformal Conic map projection for the analysis due to the

large extent of the domain. The la titude of the projection origin and the longitude of the central

meridian were chosen at the approximate cente r of the domain. Standard parallels were drawn

to represent one-sixth and five-sixths of the north-south ex tent of the domain to minimize

distortion in the north-south direction.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-1BridgerWilderness AreaFitzpatrickWilderness AreaMount ZirkelWilderness AreaIdahoUtahWyomingMontanaKansasColoradoNebraskaIowaNevadaSouth DakotaMinnesotaNorth DakotaMissouriOregonWashingtonWisconsinLEGEND300 KilometersClass I AreasCALMET DomainStandard Parallels0 100 200 300KilometersFigure 4-1Jim Bridger Source-SpecificClass I Areas to be AddressedStandard Parallel 1: 40 12' 2.30"Standard Parallel 2: 45 14' 28.09"Domain Dimensions 1060 x 780 KM114° 5' 20.40" Longitude39° 3' 53.37" Latitude100° 56' 34.08" Longitude45° 51' 57.22" Latitude101° 54' 25.88" Longitude38° 54' 0.04" Latitude114° 28' 37.96" Longitude46° 6' 26.20" LatitudeJim BridgerSLC \\SLCDB\GIS\PROJECTS\HUNTER\MAPFILES\JIM_BRIDGER_CLASSI.MXD 11/9/2006 MSLAYDEN

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# The default technical options listed in TRC Companies, In c.’s (TRC) current example

CALMET.inp file were used for CALMET. Verti cal resolution of the wind field included ten

layers, with vertical face hei ghts as follows (in meters):

• 0, 20, 40, 100, 140, 320, 580, 1020, 1480, 2220, 3500

Other user-specified model options were se t to values established by WDEQ-AQD, which

appear in Table 3 of Appendix B. Table 4-1 lists the key user-sp ecified options used for this

analysis.

TABLE 4-1



# User-specified CALMET Options

Jim Bridger 4

CALMET Input Parameter Value

CALMET Input Group 2

Map projection (PMAP) Lambert Conformal

Grid spacing (DGRIDKM) 4

Number vertical layers (NZ) 10

Top of lowest layer (m) 20

Top of highest layer (m) 3500

CALMET Input Group 4

Observation mode (NOOBS) 0

CALMET Input Group 5

Prog. Wind data (IPROG) 14

(RMAX1) 30

(RMAX2) 50

Terrain influence (TERRAD) 15

(R1) 5

(R2) 25

CALMET Input Group 6

Max mixing ht (ZIMAX) 3500



# 4.2.2 CALMET Input Data

CH2M HILL ran the CALMET model to pr oduce 3 years of analysis: 2001, 2002, and 2003.

WDEQ-AQD provided 12-km reso lution Mesoscale Meteorologica l Model, Version 5 (MM5)

meteorological data fields that covered th e entire modeling domain for each study year.

These three data sets were chosen because they are current and have been evaluated for quality.

The MM5 data were used as input to CALMET as the “initial guess” wind field. The initial

guess wind field was adjusted by CALMET for local terrain and land use effects to generate a

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-3

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-4 

# Step 1 wind field, and further re fined using local surface observati ons to create a final Step 2

wind field.

Surface data for 2001 through 2003 were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center.

CH2M HILL processed the data from the National Weather Service’s Automated Surface

Observing System (ASOS) network for all sta tions that are in the domain. The surface data

were obtained in abbreviated DATSAV3 format . A conversion routine available from the

TRC Web site was used to convert the DATSAV3 files to CD-144 format for input into the

SMERGE preprocessor and CALMET.

Land use and terrain data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Land use

data were obtained in Composite Theme Grid format from the USGS, and the Level I USGS

land use categories were mapped into the 14 primary CALMET land use categories. Surface

properties such as albedo, Bowen ratio, roughne ss length, and leaf area index were computed

from the land use values. Terrain data were taken from USGS 1-degr ee Digital Elevation

Model data, which primarily derive from USGS 1:250,000 scale topographic maps. Missing

land use data were filled with values that were assumed appropriate for the missing area.

Precipitation data were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center. All available data in

fixed-length, TD-3240 format were obtained fo r the modeling domain. The list of available

stations that have collected complete data varies by year, but CH2M HILL processed all

available stations/data within the domain for each year. Precipitation data were prepared with

the PXTRACT/PMERGE processors in preparation for use within CALMET.

Upper-air data were prepared for the CALM ET model with the READ62 preprocessor for the

following stations:

• Denver, Colorado

• Salt Lake City, Utah

• Riverton, Wyoming

• Rapid City, South Dakota

Figure 4-2 shows the locations of surface and upper air stations within the MM5 modeling

domain.RAP (UA)P60WRLTORSHRRKSRIW (UA)RWLLARLNDGEYGCCEVWDGWCYSCPRBYGBPIVELSLC (UA)PUCOGDLGUDLNRXEPIHIDALLJBYIRILEEOLICLXVGJTDEN (UA)APACAGITRASEAKOBridgerWilderness AreaFitzpatrickWilderness AreaMount ZirkelWilderness AreaIdahoUtahWyomingMontanaKansasColoradoNebraskaIowaNevadaSouth DakotaMinnesotaNorth DakotaMissouriOregonWashingtonWisconsinRAPIENPHPD07CUT2WXSNYBFFCDRAIALVMDLNBTMBZNBILLEGENDClass I AreasCALMET DomainASOS Surface StationsUpper Air Station0 100 200 300KilometersFigure 4-2Surface and Upper Air Stations Used in theJim Bridger BART AnalysisStandard Parallel 1: 40 12' 2.30"Standard Parallel 2: 45 14' 28.09"Domain Dimensions 1060 x 780 KM114° 5' 20.40" Longitude39° 3' 53.37" Latitude100° 56' 34.08" Longitude45° 51' 57.22" Latitude101° 54' 25.88" Longitude38° 54' 0.04" Latitude114° 28' 37.96" Longitude46° 6' 26.20" LatitudeJim BridgerSLC \\SLCDB\GIS\PROJECTS\HUNTER\MAPFILES\JIM_BRIDGER_ASOS.MXD 11/9/2006 MSLAYDEN

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# 4.2.3 Validation of CALMET Wind Field

CH2M HILL used the CALDESK data display and analysis system (v2.97, Enviromodeling

Ltd.) to view plots of wind vectors and other meteorological parameters to evaluate the

CALMET wind fields. The CALDESK displays were compared to observed weather

conditions, as depicted in surface and upper-a ir weather maps (National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 2006).



# 4.3 CALPUFF Modeling Approach

For the BART control technology visibility improvement modeling, CH2M HILL followed

WDEQ-AQD guidance provide d in the document titled BART Air Modeling

Protocol-Individual Source Visibility Assessments for BART Control Analyses (September,

2006).

CH2M HILL drove the CALPUFF model with the meteorological output from CALMET

over the modeling domain described earlier. The CALPUFF model wa s used to predict

visibility impacts for the pre- control (baseline) scenario fo r comparison to the predicted

impacts for post-control scenarios for Jim Bridger 4.



# 4.3.1 Background Ozone and Ammonia

Hourly values of background ozone concen trations were used by CALPUFF for the

calculation of SO 2 

# and NO

x 

# transformation with the MESOPUFF II chemical transformation

scheme. CH2M HILL obtained hourly ozone data from the following stations located within

the modeling domain for 2001, 2002, and 2003:

• Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

• Craters of the Moon National Park, Idaho

• Highland, Utah

• Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Wyoming

• Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

• Centennial, Wyoming

• Pinedale, Wyoming

For periods of missing hourly ozone data, the chemical transformation relied on a monthly

default value of 44 parts per billion. Background a mmonia was set to 2 parts per billion. Both

of these background values were taken from the guidance document (WDEQ-AQD, 2006).



# 4.3.2 Stack Parameters

The stack parameters used for the baseline mode ling reflect those that are in place under the

current permit for Jim Bridger 4. Post-control stack parameters re flect the anticipated

changes associated with insta llation of the control technology alternativ es that are being

evaluated. The maximum heat input rate of 6,000 MMBtu per hour was used to calculate a

maximum emission rate. Measured velocities and stack flow rates were used in the modeling

to represent a wors t-case situation.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-6

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# 4.3.3 Emission Rates

Pre-control emission rates for Dave Johnston 3 reflect peak 24-hour average emissions that

may occur under the source’s current permit. Th e emission rates reflect actual emissions

under normal operating conditions, as described by the EPA in the Regional Haze

Regulations and Guidelines for Best Availabl e Retrofit Technology De terminations; Final

Rule (40 CFR Part 51).

CH2M HILL used available continuous emissi on monitoring data to determine peak 24-hour

emission rates. Data reflected operations from the most recent 3- to 5-year period, unless a

more recent period was more representative. Allowable short-term (24-hour or shorter

period) emissions or short-term emission limits were used if continuous emission monitoring

data were not available.

Emissions were modeled for the following pollutants:

• 

# SO 2



# • 

# NO

x



# • 

# Coarse particulate (PM 2.5 

# <diameter<PM 10 

# )

• 

# Fine particulate (diameter<PM 2.5 

# )

• 

# Sulfates

Post-control emission rates reflect the effect s of the emissions control scenario under

consideration. Modeled pollutants were the same as those listed for the pre-control scenario.



# 4.3.4 Post-control Scenarios

Four post-control modeling scenarios were develo ped to cover the range of effectiveness for

the combination of the individual NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM control technol ogies being evaluated.

The selection of each control device was made based on the engineering analyses performed

in Section 3 for reasonable technologies that would meet or exceed the presumptive BART

levels for each pollutant.

• 

# Scenario 1 : New LNB with OFA Modi fications, upgraded wet FGD system and FGC for

enhanced ESP performance. As indicated previously, this scenario represents

CH2M HILL’s preliminary BART recommendation.

• 

# Scenario 2 : New LNB with OFA modifications, upgraded wet FGD system and new

polishing fabric filter

• 

# Scenario 3 : New LNB with OFA modifications and SCR, upgraded wet FGD system and

FGC for enhanced ESP performance.

• 

# Scenario 4 : New LNB with OFA modifications and SCR, upgraded wet FGD system and

new polishing fabric filter.

The ROFA option and LNB with OFA and SCR option for NO

x 

# control were not included in

the modeling scenarios because their control effectiveness is between the LNB with OFA

option and the SCR option. Modeling of NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and particulate matter controls alone was

not performed because any final BART solu tion will include a combination of control

technologies for NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and particulate matter.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-7

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-8 

# Table 4-2 presents the stack parameters a nd emission rates used for the Jim Bridger 4

analysis for baseline and post-control m odeling. In accordance with the WDEQ BART

modeling protocol, elemental car bon stack emissions and organic aerosol emissions were not

modeled.



# 4.3.5 Modeling Process

The CALPUFF modeling for the control technology options for Jim Bridger 4 followed this

sequence:

• 

# Model pre-control (baseline) emissions

• 

# Model preferred post-control scenario (if applicable)

• 

# Determine degree of visibility improvement

• 

# Model other control scenarios

• 

# Determine degree of visibility improvement

• 

# Factor visibility results into the BART “five-step” evaluation



# 4.3.6 Receptor Grids

Discrete receptors for the CALPUFF modeling were placed at uniform receptor spacing

along the boundary and in the interior of each ar ea of concern. Class I area receptors were

taken from the National Park Service database for Class I area modeling receptors. The TRC

COORDS program was used to convert all latitude/longitude coordinates to Lambert

Conformal Conic coordinates, including rece ptors, meteorological stations, and source

locations.TABLE 4-2BART Model Input DataJim Bridger 4BaselinePost-control Scenario 1 Post-control Scenario2 Post-control Scenario 3 Post-control Scenario 4Model Input DataCurrent Operations with wet FlueGas Desulfurization (FGD) andElectrostatic Precipitator (ESP)Low-NOxBurner (LNB) withOver-Fire Air (OFA), UpgradeWet FGD and Flue GasConditioning (FGC) forEnhanced ESP PerformanceLNB with OFA, Upgrade WetFGD, New Fabric FilterLNB with OFA and SelectiveCatalytic Reduction(SCR)System, Upgrade WetFGD, and FGC for EnhancedESP PerformanceLNB with OFA and SCR,Upgrade Wet FGD, New FabricFilterSulfur Dioxide (SO2) StackEmissions(pounds per hour [lb/hr])1,002 600 600 600 600Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 2,7001,4401,440420420PM10Stack Emissions (lb/hr)180 180 90.0 180 90.0Coarse Particulate (PM2.5<diameter< PM10) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(a)77.4 77.4 51.3 77.4 51.3Fine Particulate (diameter<PM2.5) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(b)103 103 38.7 103 38.7Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 55.2 55.2 55.2 94.8 94.8H2SO4as Sulfate (SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 54.1 54.1 54.1 92.9 92.9Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] Stack Emissions (lb/hr)7.027.02(NH4)2SO4as SO4Stack Emissions (lb/hr)5.105.10(NH4)HSO4Stack Emissions (lb/hr)12.212.2(NH4)HSO4as SO4Stack Emissions (lb/hr)10.210.2Total Sulfate (SO4) (lb/hr)54.1 54.1 54.1 108 108Stack ConditionsStack Height (meters)152 152 152 152 152Stack Exit Diameter (meters)9.45 9.45 9.45 9.45 9.45Stack Exit Temperature (Kelvin) 322 322 322 322 322Stack Exit Velocity (meters persecond) 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9NOTES:Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 were not remodeled at the lower, correct velocity of 42.4 feet per second due to lack of time and the fact that the conclusions to select Scenario 1 would not have changed.(a)Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the coarse particulates are countedas a percentage of PM10. This equates to 43 percent ESP and 57 percent baghouse.(b)Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the fine particulates are counted as a percentage of PM10. This equates to 57 percent ESP and 43 percent baghouse.Total Sulfate (SO4) (lb/hr) = H2SO4as Sulfate (SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) + (NH4)2SO4as SO4Stack Emissions (lb/hr) + (NH4)HSO4as SO4Stack Emissions (lb/hr)

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# 4.4 CALPOST

The CALPOST processor was used to determin e 24-hour average visibility results with

output specified in deciview (dV) units. Calcula tions of light extinction were made for each

pollutant modeled. The sum of all extinction values were used to calculate the

delta-dV ( Δ dV) change relative to natural background. Default light extinction coefficients

for each pollutant, as follows, were used.

• 

# Ammonium sulfate 3.0

• 

# Ammonium nitrate 3.0

• 

# Particulate matter coarse (PM 10 

# ) 0.6

• 

# Particulate matter fine (PM 2.5 

# ) 1.0

• 

# Organic carbon 4.0

• 

# Elemental carbon 10.0

CALPOST Visibility Me thod 6 was used to determine th e visibility impacts. Monthly

relative humidity factors [ f (RH)] were used in the light ex tinction calculations to account for

the hygroscopic characteristics of nitrate and sulfate particles. Table 5 of the Wyoming

BART Air Modeling Protocol (Appendix B) lists the monthly f (RH) factors for the Class I

areas. These values were used for the particular Class I area being modeled.

The natural background conditions as a refe rence for determining the delta-dV ( Δ dV) change

represented the 20 percent best natural visi bility days. The EPA BART guidance document

provided dV values for the 10 percent best da ys for each Class I area, but did not provide

individual species concentration data for th e 20 percent best background conditions. Species

concentrations corresponding to the 20 percent best days were calculated for each Class I

area by scaling back the annual average species concentrations given in Table 2-1 of

Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA,

2003). A separate scaling factor was derived fo r each Class I area such that, when multiplied

by the guidance table annual concen trations, the 20 percent best da ys dV value for that area

would be calculated. This procedure was taken from Protocol for BART-Related Visibility

Improvement Modeling Analysis in North Dakota (North Dakota Department of Health,

2005). However, the Wyoming BART Air Mode ling Protocol (see Appendix B) provided

natural background concentrations of aerosol components to use in the BART analysis.

Table 4-3 lists the annual average species concentrations from the BART protocol.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-10

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 4-11 

# TABLE 4-3



# Average Natural Levels of Aerosol Components

Jim Bridger 4

Aerosol Component Average Natural Concentration

(micrograms per cubic meter)

for Mt. Zirkel Class I

Wilderness Area Average Natural Concentration

(micrograms per cubic meter)

for Fitzpatrick and Bridger Class I

Wilderness Areas

Ammonium Sulfate 0.046 0.045

Ammonium Nitrate 0.038 0.038

Organic Carbon 0.179 0.178

Elemental Carbon 0.008 0.008

Soil 0.190 0.189

Coarse Mass 1.141 1.136

NOTE:

Source: Table 6 of the Wyoming BART Air Modeling Protocol



# 4.5 Presentation of Modeling Results

This section presents the resu lts of the CALPUFF visibility improvement modeling analysis

for Jim Bridger 4.



# 4.5.1 Visibility Changes for Baseline vs. Preferred Scenario

CH2M HILL modeled Jim Bridger 4 for the baseline conditions a nd four post-control

scenarios. The post-control scenarios included emission rates for NO

x, 

# SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# that

would be achieved if BART t echnology were installed on Unit 4.

Baseline (and post-control) 98 th 

# percentile results were greater than 0.5 Δ dV for the Bridger,

Fitzpatrick, and Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Areas. The 98 th 

# percentile results for each Class I area

are presented in Table 4-4.BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4TABLE 4-4Costs and Visibility Modeling Results for Baseline Vs. Post-Control Scenarios at Class I AreasJim Bridger Unit 4ModelingResultsScenarioTotal First YearAnnualized CostClass I AreaHighest Delta-(deciview [dV])98thPercentileDelta- (dV)No. of Days Above0.5 dVCost per dVReductionCost per Reduction inNo. of Days Above0.5 dVIncremental Costper dV ReductionIncremental Cost per Reductionin No. of Days Above 0.5 dV2001Bridger WA2.2750.69512----Fitzpatrick WA2.2340.4065----Baseline: current operation with wet Flue GasDesulfurization (FGD), Electrostatic Precipitator(ESP)Mt. Zirkel WA1.8091.12924----$2,104,213Bridger WA1.3560.3867$6,809,752$420,843$2,104,213Fitzpatrick WA1.3380.2233$11,498,434$1,052,107Scenario 1: Low-NOxBurner (LNB) with Over-Fire Air(OFA), upgrade wet FGD, Flue Gas Conditioning(FGC) for enhanced ESP performance$2,104,213Mt. Zirkel WA1.1070.68816$4,771,459$263,027$8,470,832Bridger WA1.3400.3837$27,150,104$1,694,166$2,122,206,301NA$8,470,832Fitzpatrick WA1.3170.2323$48,682,944$4,235,416NANAScenario 2: LNB with OFA, upgrade wet FGD,polishing fabric filter$8,470,832Mt. Zirkel WA1.0840.67115$18,495,267$941,204$374,506,994$6,366,619$18,603,354Bridger WA0.9560.2853$45,374,034$2,067,039$103,393,079$2,533,130$18,603,354Fitzpatrick WA0.7560.1432$70,735,187$6,201,118$113,848,559$10,132,522Scenario 3: LNB with OFA and Selective CatalyticReduction (SCR) System, upgrade wet FGD, FGC forenhanced ESP performance$18,603,354Mt. Zirkel WA0.7220.4264$26,462,808$930,168$41,357,232$921,138$24,969,973Bridger WA0.9140.2733$59,170,552$2,774,441$530,551,575NA$24,969,973Fitzpatrick WA0.7320.1361$92,481,381$6,242,493$909,516,986$6,366,619Scenario 4: LNB with OFA and SCR system, upgradewet FGD, polishing fabric filter$24,969,973Mt. Zirkel WA0.6980.4103$34,728,752$1,189,046$397,913,681$6,366,6192002Bridger WA3.9751.33023----Fitzpatrick WA1.8690.61511----Baseline: current operation with wet FGD, ESPMt. Zirkel WA2.5301.38025----$2,104,213Bridger WA2.4350.82114$4,134,015$233,801$2,104,213Fitzpatrick WA1.0920.3793$8,916,158$263,027Scenario 1: LNB with OFA, upgrade wet FGD, FGCfor enhanced ESP performance$2,104,213Mt. Zirkel WA1.4940.80014$3,627,954$191,292$8,470,832Bridger WA2.4120.80214$16,043,243$941,204$335,085,205NA$8,470,832Fitzpatrick WA1.0820.3613$33,349,733$1,058,854$353,701,050NAScenario 2: LNB with OFA, upgrade wet FGD,polishing fabric filter$8,470,832Mt. Zirkel WA1.4770.79013$14,357,343$705,903$636,661,890$6,366,619$18,603,354Bridger WA1.3670.4727$21,682,231$1,162,710$30,704,611$1,447,503$18,603,354Fitzpatrick WA0.5910.2331$48,699,880$1,860,335$79,160,326$5,066,261Scenario 3: LNB with OFA and SCR, upgrade wetFGD, FGC for enhanced ESP performance$18,603,354Mt. Zirkel WA0.8770.4425$19,833,000$930,168$29,116,442$1,266,565$24,969,973Bridger WA1.3410.4667$28,900,432$1,560,623$1,061,103,150NA$24,969,973Fitzpatrick WA0.5810.2301$64,857,073$2,496,997$2,122,206,301NAScenario 4: LNB with OFA and SCR, upgrade wetFGD, polishing fabric filter$24,969,973Mt. Zirkel WA0.8570.4345$26,395,320$1,248,499$795,827,363NAJMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC4-12BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC4-13TABLE 4-4Costs and Visibility Modeling Results for Baseline Vs. Post-Control Scenarios at Class I AreasJim Bridger Unit 4ModelingResultsScenarioTotal First YearAnnualized CostClass I AreaHighest Delta-(deciview [dV])98thPercentileDelta- (dV)No. of Days Above0.5 dVCost per dVReductionCost per Reduction inNo. of Days Above0.5 dVIncremental Costper dV ReductionIncremental Cost per Reductionin No. of Days Above 0.5 dV2003Bridger WA1.5830.73613----Fitzpatrick WA1.8250.3467----Baseline: current operation with wet FGD, ESPMt. Zirkel WA1.7861.20133----$2,104,213Bridger WA0.9810.4295$6,854,115$263,027$2,104,213Fitzpatrick WA1.0980.2072$15,138,226$420,843Scenario 1: LNB with OFA, upgrade wet FGD, FGCfor enhanced ESP performance$2,104,213Mt. Zirkel WA1.0360.68817$4,101,781$131,513$8,470,832Bridger WA0.9410.4255$27,237,403$1,058,854$1,591,654,726NA$8,470,832Fitzpatrick WA1.0810.2022$58,825,224$1,694,166$1,273,323,781NAScenario 2: LNB with OFA, upgrade wet FGD,polishing fabric filter$8,470,832Mt. Zirkel WA1.0250.67817$16,196,620$529,427$636,661,890NA$18,603,354Bridger WA0.7990.2752$40,354,347$1,691,214$67,550,145$3,377,507$18,603,354Fitzpatrick WA0.6620.1292$85,729,742$3,720,671$138,801,668NAScenario 3: LNB with OFA and SCR, upgrade wetFGD, FGC for enhanced ESP performance$18,603,354Mt. Zirkel WA0.7690.4095$23,489,083$664,406$37,667,367$844,377$24,969,973Bridger WA0.7590.2632$52,790,641$2,269,998$530,551,575NA$24,969,973Fitzpatrick WA0.6450.1241$112,477,356$4,161,662$1,273,323,781$6,366,619Scenario 4: LNB with OFA and SCR, upgrade wetFGD, polishing fabric filter$24,969,973Mt. Zirkel WA0.7310.3994$31,134,630$861,034$636,661,890$6,366,6193-year AveragesBridger WA0.92016.0Fitzpatrick WA0.4567.7Baseline: current operation with wet FGD, ESPMt. Zirkel WA1.23727.3$2,104,213Bridger WA0.5458.7$5,611,236$286,938$2,104,213Fitzpatrick WA0.2702.7$11,312,975$420,843Scenario 1: LNB with OFA, upgrade wet FGD, FGCfor enhanced ESP performance$2,104,213Mt. Zirkel WA0.72515.7$4,115,150$180,361$8,470,832Bridger WA0.5378.7$22,078,625$1,155,113$734,609,873NA$8,470,832Fitzpatrick WA0.2652.7$44,427,442$1,694,166$1,364,275,479NAScenario 2: LNB with OFA, upgrade wet FGD,polishing fabric filter$8,470,832Mt. Zirkel WA0.71315.0$16,176,001$686,824$516,212,343$9,549,928$18,603,354Bridger WA0.3444.0$32,278,810$1,550,280$52,590,943$2,171,255$18,603,354Fitzpatrick WA0.1681.7$64,744,852$3,100,559$104,819,191$10,132,522Scenario 3: LNB with OFA and SCR, upgrade wetFGD, FGC for enhanced ESP performance$18,603,354Mt. Zirkel WA0.4264.7$22,938,784$820,736$35,263,997$980,567$24,969,973Bridger WA0.3344.0$42,586,651$2,080,831$636,661,890NA$24,969,973Fitzpatrick WA0.1631.0$85,416,099$3,745,496$1,273,323,781$9,549,928Scenario 4: LNB with OFA and SCR, upgrade wetFGD, polishing fabric filter$24,969,973Mt. Zirkel WA0.4144.0$30,364,783$1,070,142$561,760,491$9,549,928NOTES:Sample Calculations: Cost per dV Reduction for Scenario 1 for 2001: = $2,104,213 / (0.727 - 0.415) = $6,744,274Sample Calculations: Cost per Reduction in No. of DaysExceeding 0.5 dV for 2001: = $2,104,213 / (15 - 7) = $263,027

# 5.0 Preliminary Assessment and

Recommendations

As a result of the completed technical and ec onomic evaluations, and consideration of the

modeling analysis for Jim Bridger 4, the pr eliminary recommended BART controls for NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# are as follows:

• 

# New LNBs and modifications to the OFA system for NO

x 

# control

• 

# Upgrade wet sodium FGD for SO 2 

# control

• 

# Add flue gas conditioning upstream of existing ESPs for PM control

These recommendations were identified as Scenar io 1 for the modeling analysis described in

Section 4. Visibility improvements for all emi ssion control scenarios we re analyzed, and the

results are compared below, utilizing a least-cost envelope, as outlined in the New Source

Review Workshop Manual (EPA, 1990, hereafter referred to as NSR Manual).



# 5.1 Least-cost Envelope Analysis

For the control scenarios modeled in Sec tion 4, Tables 5-1 through 5-3 list the total

annualized cost, cost per dV reduction, and cost per reduction in number of days above

0.5 dV for each of the three Class I areas. A co mparison of the incremental results between

selected scenarios is provided in Tables 5-4 through 5-6. Figures 5-1 to 5-6 show the total

annualized cost versus number of days above 0.5 dV, and the total annualized cost versus

98 th 

# percentile Δ dV reduction, for the three Class I areas.



# 5.1.1 Analysis Methodology

On page B-41 of the New Source Review (NSR ) Manual, EPA states that “Incremental

cost-effectiveness comparisons should focu s on annualized cost and emission reduction

differences between dominant alternatives. Dominant set of control alternatives are

determined by generating what is called the envelope of least- cost alternatives. This is a

graphical plot of total annua lized costs for a total emissions reductions for all control

alternatives identified in the BACT analysis...”

An analysis of incremental cost effectiv eness has been conducted. This analysis was

performed in the following way. First, the cont rol option scenarios are ranked in ascending

order of annualized total costs, as shown in Tables 5-1 through 5- 3. The incremental cost

effectiveness data, expressed per day and per dV, represents a comparison of the different

scenarios, and is summarized in Tables 5- 4 through 5-6 for each of the three wilderness

areas. Then the most reasonable smooth curve of least-cost control opti on scenarios is plotted

for each analysis. Figures 5-1 through 5-6 pres ent the two analyses (cost per dV reduction

and cost per reduction in number of days above 0.5 dV) for each of the three Class I areas

impacted by the operation of Jim Bridger 4.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-1

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# In Figure 5-1, the four scenarios are compared as a graph of total annualized cost versus

number of days above 0.5 dV. The EPA states that “In calculating in cremental costs, the

analysis should only be conducted for contro l options that are dominant among all possible

options.” In Figure 5-1, the dominant set of cont rol options (Scenarios 1, 3, and 4) represent

the least-cost envelope depicted by the curvi linear line connecting them. Scenario 2 is an

inferior option and should not be considered in the derivation of incremental cost

effectiveness. Scenario 2 represents infe rior controls becaus e Scenario 1 provides

approximately the same amount of visibility im pact reduction for less cost than Scenario 2.

The incremental cost effectiv eness is determined by the di fference in total annual costs

between two contiguous scenarios divided by the difference in emissions reduction.

TABLE 5-1



# Control Scenario Results for the Br idger Class I Wilderness Area

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario Controls 98 th



# Percentile

deciview

(dV)

Reduction Reduction

in Average

Number of

Days

Above

0.5 dV

(days) Total

Annualized

Cost

(million$) Cost per

dV

Reduction

(million$

per

dV

reduced) Cost per

Reduction in

No. of Days

Above 0.5 dV

(million$ per

day reduced)

Base Current Operation with Wet

Flue Gas Desulfurization

(FGD), Electrostatic

Precipitator (ESP) 0.00 0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

1 Low-NO

x

# Burner (LNB) with

Over-Fire Air (OFA),

upgrade wet FGD and Flue

Gas Conditioning (FGC) for

enhanced ESP

performance 0.38 7.3 $2.1 $5.6 $0.3

2 LNB with OFA, Upgrade

Wet FGD, new polishing

fabric filter 0.38 7.3 $8.5 $22.1 $1.2

3 LNB with OFA and

Selective Catalytic

Reduction (SCR) System,

upgrade wet FGD and FGC

for enhanced ESP

performance 0.58 12.0 $18. 6 $32.3 $1.6

4 LNB with OFA and SCR,

upgrade wet FGD, new

polishing fabric filter 1.25 20 $25.0 $19.9 $1.2

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-2

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# TABLE 5-2



# Control Scenario Results for the Fitzpatrick Class I Wilderness Area

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario Controls 98 th



# Percentile

deciview

(dV)

Reduction Reduction

in Average

Number of

Days

Above

0.5 dV

(days) Total

Annualized

Cost

(million$) Cost per

dV

Reduction

(million$

per dV

reduced) Cost per

Reduction in

No. of Days

Above 0.5 dV

(million$ per

Day reduced)

Base Current Operation with Wet Flue

Gas Desulfurization (FGD),

Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) 0.00 0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

1 Low-NO

x

# Burner (LNB) with

Over-Fire Air (OFA), upgrade

wet FGD and Flue Gas

Conditioning (FGC) for

enhanced ESP performance 0.19 5.0 $2.1 $11.3 $0.4

2 LNB with OFA, Upgrade Wet

FGD, new polishing fabric filter 0.19 5.0 $8.5 $44.4 $1.7

3 LNB with OFA and Selective

Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

System, upgrade wet FGD and

FGC for enhanced ESP

performance 0.29 6.0 $18.6 $64.7 $3.1

4 LNB with OFA and SCR,

upgrade wet FGD, new

polishing fabric filter 0.29 6.7 $25.0 $85.4 $3.7

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-3

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# TABLE 5-3



# Control Scenario Results for the Mt. Zirkel Class I Wilderness Area

Jim Bridger 4

Scenario Controls 98 th



# Percentile

deciview

(dV)

Reduction Reduction

in Average

Number of

Days

Above

0.5 dV

(days) Total

Annualized

Cost

(million$) Cost per

dV

Reduction

(million$

per dV

reduced) Cost per

Reduction in

No. of Days

Above 0.5 dV

(million$ per

Day reduced)

Base Current Operation with Wet Flue

Gas Desulfurization (FGD),

Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) 0.00 0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

1 Low-NO

x

# Burner (LNB) with

Over-Fire Air (OFA), upgrade

wet FGD and Flue Gas

Conditioning (FGC) for

enhanced ESP performance 0.51 11.7 $2.1 $4.1 $0.2

2 LNB with OFA, Upgrade Wet

FGD, new polishing fabric filter 0.52 12.3 $8.5 $16.2 $0.7

3 LNB with OFA and Selective

Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

System, upgrade wet FGD and

FGC for enhanced ESP

performance 0.81 22.7 $18. 6 $22.9 $0.8

4 LNB with OFA and SCR,

upgrade wet FGD, new

polishing fabric filter 0.82 23.3 $25. 0 $30.4 $1.1

TABLE 5-4



# Bridger Class I Wilderness Area Incremental Analysis Data

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Options Compared Incremental

Reduction in

Days Above

0.5 deciview

(dV) (days) Incremental dV

Reductions

(dV) Incremental

Cost-Effectiveness

(million$ per days) Incremental

Cost-Effectiveness

(million$ per dV)

Baseline and Scenario 1 7.3 0.38 $0.29 $5.61

Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 0.0 0.01 N/A $734.6

Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 4.7 0.20 $3.5 $81.9

Scenario 1 and Scenario 4 12.7 0.88 $1.8 $26.0

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-4

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# TABLE 5-5



# Fitzpatrick Class I Wilderness Area Incremental Analysis Data

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Options Compared Incremental

Reduction in

Days Above

0.5 deciview

(dV) (days) Incremental dV

Reductions

(dV) Incremental

Cost-Effectiveness

(million$ per days) Incremental

Cost-Effectiveness

(million$ per dV)

Baseline and Scenario 1 5.0 0.19 $0.42 $45.54

Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 0.0 0.00 NA $1,364.3

Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 1.0 0.10 $16.5 $162.8

Scenario 1 and Scenario 4 1.7 0.11 $13.7 $215.0

TABLE 5-6



# Mt. Zirkel Class I Wilderness Area Incremental Analysis Data

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Options Compared Incremental

Reduction in

Days Above

0.5 dV (days) Incremental dV

Reductions

(dV) Incremental

Cost-Effectiveness

(million$/days) Incremental

Cost-Effectiveness

(million$ per dV)

Baseline and Scenario 1 11.7 0.51 $0.18 $4.12

Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 0.7 0.01 $9.5 $516.2

Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 11.0 0.30 $1.5 $55.1

Scenario 1 and Scenario 4 11.7 0.31 $2.0 $73.5

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-5

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# FIGURE 5-1



# Least-cost Envelope Bridger Class I WA Days Reduction

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario 4

Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

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

0 2 4 6 81 0 1 2



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



# 1 4



# FIGURE 5-2



# Least-cost Envelope Bridger Class I WA 98 th



# Percentile Reduction

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 1 Baseline Scenario 4

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

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60



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



# JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-6

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# FIGURE 5-3



# Least-cost Envelope Fitzpatrick Class I WA Days Reduction

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 1 Baseline Scenario 4

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

01234567



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



# FIGURE 5-4



# Least-cost Envelope Fitzpatrick Class I WA 98 th



# Percentile Reduction

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario 4

Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

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

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35



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



# JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-7

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# FIGURE 5-5



# Least-cost Envelope Mt. Zirkel Class I WA Days Reduction

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario 4

Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

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

0 5 10 15 20 25



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



# FIGURE 5-6



# Least-cost Envelope Mt. Zirkel Class I WA 98 th



# Percentile Reduction

Jim Bridger Unit 4

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 1 Baseline Scenario 4

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

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90



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



# JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-8

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4



# 5.1.2 Analysis Results

Results of the least-co st analysis, shown in Tables 5-1 through 5-6 and Figures 5-1 through

5-6 on the preceding pages, confirm the selectio n of Scenario 1, based on incremental cost

and visibility improvements. Scenario 2 is elim inated because it is to the left of the curve

formed by the “dominant” control alternative scenarios, which indicates a scenario with

lower improvement and/or higher costs. Scen ario 3 is not select ed due to very high

incremental costs for both a cost per day of improvement and a cost per dV reduction. While

Scenario 4 provides some potential visibili ty advantage over Scenario 1, the projected

improvement is less than 0.5 dV, and the projected costs are excessive.

Analysis of the results for the Jim Bridger Cl ass I Wilderness Area in Tables 5-1 and 5-4 and

Figures 5-1 and 5-2 illustrate s the conclusions stated above. The greatest reduction in

98 th 

# percentile dV and number of days above 0.5 dV is between the Baseline and Scenario 1.

The incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1 compared to the Baseline for the Bridger

Wilderness Area, for example, is reasonable at $290,000 per day and $5.6 million per dV.

However, the incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 1, again for

the Bridger Wilderness Area, is excessive at $3.5 Million per day and $81.9 million per dV.

The same conclusions are reached for each of the three wilderness areas studied. Therefore,

Scenario 1 represents BART for Jim Bridger 4.



# 5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 NO

x 

# Emission Control

The BART presumptive NO

x 

# limit assigned by EPA for tange ntially-fired boilers burning

sub-bituminous coal is 0.15 lb per MMBtu. Ho wever, as documented in Section 3.2.1, the

characteristics of the Jim Bridger coals are mo re closely aligned with bituminous coals, and

have been assigned a presumptive BART NO

x 

# limit of 0.28 lb per MMBtu.

CH2M HILL recommends LNBs with OFA as BART for Jim Bridger 4, based on the

projected significant reduction in NO

x 

# emissions, reasonable control costs, and the

advantages of no additional power requirement s or non-air quality environmental impacts.

NO

x 

# reductions are expected to be similar to those realized at Ji m Bridger 2. CH2M HILL

recommends that the unit be permitte d at a rate of 0.26 lb per MMBtu.



# 5.2.2 SO 2 

# Emission Control

CH2M HILL recommends upgrading the existin g wet sodium FGD system as BART for

Jim Bridger 4, based on the significant reduction in SO 2 

# emissions, reasonable control costs,

and the advantages of minimal additional power requirements and minimal non-air quality

environmental impacts. This upgrade appr oach will meet the BART presumptive SO 2 

# limit of

0.15 lb per MMBtu.



# 5.2.3 PM 10



# Emission Control

CH2M HILL recommends finalizing the permitting of the FGC system to enhance the

performance of the existing ESP as BART for Jim Bridger 4, based on the significant

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-9

# BART ANALYSIS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 5-10 

# reduction in PM 10 

# emissions, reasonable control costs, and the advantages of minimal

additional power requirements and no non-air quality environmental impacts.



# 5.3 Just-Noticeable Differences in Atmospheric Haze

Conclusions reached in the reference document “Just-Noticeable Differences in Atmospheric

Haze” by Dr. Ronald Henry of the University of Southern California (H enry, 2002), state that

only dV differences of approximately 1.5 to 2.0 dV, or more are perceptible by the human

eye. Deciview changes of less than 1.5 ca nnot be distinguished by the average person.

Therefore, the modeling analysis results indi cate that only minima l, if any, observable

visibility improvements at the Class I areas studied would be expect ed under any of the

scenarios. Thus the results indicate that even though many millions of dollars will be spent,

only minimal if any visibili ty improvements may result.

Finally, it should be noted that none of the data were corrected for na tural obscuration. Water

in various forms (fog, clouds, snow, or rain) or other naturally caused aerosols may obscure

the atmosphere and reduce visibility. Duri ng the period of 2001 through 2003, there were

several mega-wildfires that lasted for many days, with a significant impact on background

visibility in these Class I ar eas. If natural obscuration lessens the achievable reduction in

visibility impacts modeled for BART controls at the Jim Bridger 4 facility, the overall effect

would be to increase the co sts per dV reduction that are presented in this report.

# 6.0 References

40 CFR Part 51. Regional Haze Regulations and Guide lines for Best Available Retrofit

Technology Determinations; Final Rule. July 6, 2005.

Energy Information Administration, 2006. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S.

Government: Coal. http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html. Accessed October 2006

.

EPA, 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual—Prevention of Significant Deterioration

and Nonattainment Area Permitting . Draft. October 1990.

EPA, 2003. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibil ity Conditions Under the Regional Haze

Rule . Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-454/8-03-005. September 2003.

Henry, Ronald, 2002. “Just-Noticeable Di fferences in Atmospheric Haze,” Journal of the Air

& Waste Management Association. Volume 52, p. 1238.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra tion, 2006. U.S. Daily Weather Maps Project.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/dwm/d ata_rescue_daily_weather_maps.html

. Accessed October 2006.

North Dakota Department of Health, 2005. Protocol for BART-Related Visibility

Improvement Modeling Analysis in North Dakota . North Dakota Department of

Health. October 26, 2005.

Sargent & Lundy, 2002. Multi-Pollutant Control Report. October 2002.

Sargent & Lundy, 2006. Multi-Pollutant Control Report. Revised. October 2006.

WDEQ-AQD, 2006. BART Air Modeling Protocol—Individu al Source Visibility Assessments

for BART Control Analyses . Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Air

Quality Division. September 2006.

JMS EY102007001SLC\BART_JB4_OCT2007_FINAL.DOC 6-1

# APPENDIX A 

# Economic AnalysisPacifiCorp BART Analysis Scenarios6Index No. Name of Unit1 Dave Johnston Unit 32 Dave Johnston Unit 43 Jim Bridger Unit 14 Jim Bridger Unit 25 Jim Bridger Unit 36 Jim Bridger Unit 47 Naughton Unit 18 Naughton Unit 29 Naughton Unit 310 Wyodak Unit 1Scenario First Year Cost ScenarioFirst YearCost Scenario First Year Cost Scenario First Year Cost Scenario First Year CostN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/AScenario First Year Cost Scenario First Year Scenario First Year Cost Scenario First Year Cost Scenario First Year CostN/AN/A N/A N/A $ 2,104,213N/AN/A N/A N/A $ 2,104,213N/A N/A N/A $ 2,104,213N/AN/AN/A N/A N/A $ 8,470,832N/A N/A N/A $ 8,470,832N/AN/A N/A N/A $ 8,470,832 N/AN/A N/A N/A $ 18,603,354 N/AN/A N/A N/A $ 18,603,354 N/AN/A N/A N/A $ 18,603,354N/A N/A N/A $ 24,969,973N/A N/A N/A $ 24,969,973N/A N/A N/A $ 24,969,973Scenario 4 - N/AJim Bridger Unit 4Scenario 3 - LNB with OFA and SCR, WetFGD, Fabric Filter, New StackScenario 2 - LNB with OFA and SCR, DryFGD, Fabric FilterScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, Dry FGD,Fabric FilterBaseline - Current Operation with DryFGD, Fabric FilterWDK Unit 1WyodakScenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, ESP, New StackScenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, ESP, New StackScenario 4 - LNB with OFA and SCR, WetFGD, Fabric FilterScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Dry FGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Dry FGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 3 - LNB with OFA and SCR, WetFGD, ESPScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, DryFGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, DryFGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, Wet FGD,New Fabric FilterScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, DryFGD, ESPScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, DryFGD, ESPScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, Wet FGD,ESPBaseline - Current Operation withESPBaseline - Current Operation withESPBaseline - Current Operation with WetFGD and ESPNTN Unit 1 NTN Unit 2 NTN Unit 3NaughtonScenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, Fabric FilterScenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, Fabric FilterScenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, Fabric FilterScenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, Fabric FilterScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, ESPScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, ESPScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, ESPScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, ESPScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, Fabric FilterScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, ESPScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, ESPScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, ESPScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, ESPBaseline - Current Operation withWet FGD and ESPBaseline - Current Operation withWet FGD and ESPBaseline - Current Operation withWet FGD and ESPBaseline - Current Operation withWet FGD and ESPJB Unit 1 JB Unit 2 JB Unit 3 JB Unit 4Jim BridgerSelect Unit:Scenario 2 - LNB with OFA, WetFGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Dry FGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, Fabric FilterDJ Unit 4Scenario 4 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Wet FGD, Existing ESP,New StackDave JohnstonDJ Unit 3Baseline - Current Operation withVenturi ScrubberScenario 3 - LNB with OFA andSCR, Dry FGD, New Fabric FilterScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, DryFGD, Fabric FilterBaseline - Current Operation withESPScenario 1 - LNB with OFA, DryFGD, Existing ESPScenario 2 - LNB with OFA, DryFGD, New Fabric FilterEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls1 of 1ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARYJim Bridger Unit 4Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PCLNB w/OFA ROFALNB w/OFA& SNCRLNB w/OFA& SCRUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioningFabric FilterCase1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10NOx Emission Control SystemLNCFS-1 &Windbox Mods. LNB w/OFA ROFALNB w/OFA &SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCRLNCFS-1 & WindboxMods.LNCFS-1 & WindboxMods.LNCFS-1 & WindboxMods.SO2 Emission Control SystemWet FGD Wet FGD Wet FGD Wet FGD Wet FGD Upgraded Wet FGD Wet FGD Wet FGDPM Emission Control SystemESP ESP ESP ESP ESP ESP Flue Gas Conditioning Fabric FilterTOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST ($)0 8,700,001 20,528,122 22,127,239 147,628,474 5,759,814 0 48,386,333FIRST YEAR O&M COST ($)Operating Labor ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Maintenance Material ($) 0 28,000 42,000 123,000 190,000 25,550 0 51,099Maintenance Labor ($) 0 42,000 63,000 184,500 285,000 17,033 10,000 76,649Administrative Labor ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL FIXED O&M COST0 70,000 105,000 307,500 475,000 42,583 10,000 127,749Makeup Water Cost 0 0 0 0 0 15,539 0 0Reagent Cost 0 0 0 1,005,811 912,848 213,921 145,854 0SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Cost 0 0 0 0 642,000 0 0 300,040Waste Disposal Cost 0 0 0 0 0 177,714 0 0Electric Power Cost 0 0 2,528,012 208,926 1,323,329 208,926 19,710 1,335,944TOTAL VARIABLE O&M COST0 0 2,528,012 1,214,7372,878,177616,100 165,5641,635,984TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COST 0 70,000 2,633,012 1,522,237 3,353,177 658,683 175,564 1,763,732FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE ($)0 827,612 1,952,796 2,104,916 14,043,575 547,919 0 4,602,887TOTAL FIRST YEAR COST ($)0 897,612 4,585,808 3,627,153 17,396,753 1,206,601 175,564 6,366,619Power Consumption (MW)0.0 0.0 6.4 0.5 3.4 0.5 0.1 3.4Annual Power Usage (Million kW-Hr/Yr)0.0 0.0 50.6 4.2 26.5 4.2 0.4 26.7CONTROL COST ($/Ton Removed)NOx Removal Rate (%)0.0%46.7%51.1%55.6%84.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%NOx Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 4,967 5,440 5,913 8,987 0 0 0First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Rem.)0 181 843 613 1,936 0 0 0Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed)0 181 7,797 2,885 4,479 0 0 02-1 3-2 4-2 5-4SO2 Removal Rate (%)86.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%40.1%0.0%0.0%SO2 Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 0 0 0 0 1,585 0 0First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton SO2 Rem.)0 0 0 0 0 761 0 0Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton SO2 Removed)Base 0 0 0 0 761 0 08-1PM Removal Rate (%)99.65%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%50.00%PM Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 355First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton PM Rem.)0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 17,946Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed) Base 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 17,4529-1 10-9PRESENT WORTH COST ($)0 9,555,250 52,697,883 40,725,706 188,597,104 13,807,503 2,145,015 69,935,356PM ControlNOx ControlParameterCurrentOperationSO2 ControlEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls1 of 1INPUT CALCULATIONSJim Bridger Unit 4Boiler Design:Tangential-Fired PCLNB w/OFA ROFALNB w/OFA& SNCRLNB w/OFA& SCRUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioningFabric FilterCase1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10NOx Emission Control SystemLNCFS-1 &Windbox Mods. LNB w/OFA ROFALNB w/OFA &SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCRLNCFS-1 & WindboxMods.LNCFS-1 &Windbox Mods.LNCFS-1 & WindboxMods.SO2 Emission Control SystemWet FGDWet FGD Wet FGD Wet FGD Wet FGDUpgraded Wet FGDWet FGD Wet FGDPM Emission Control SystemESPESP ESP ESP ESP ESPFlue GasConditioning Fabric FilterUnit Design and Coal CharacteristicsType of UnitPC PC PC PC PC PC PC PCNet Power Output (kW)530,000530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW-Hr)11,32011,320 11,320 11,320 11,320 11,320 11,320 11,320Boiler FuelBridger MineUndergroundBridger MineUndergroundBridger MineUndergroundBridger MineUndergroundBridger MineUndergroundBridger MineUndergroundBridger MineUndergroundBridger MineUndergroundCoal Heating Value (Btu/Lb)9,6609,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660Coal Sulfur Content (wt.%)0.58%0.58%0.58%0.58%0.58%0.581%0.58%0.58%Coal Ash Content (wt.%)10.30%10.30%10.30%10.30%10.30%10.30%10.30%10.30%Boiler Heat Input, each (MMBtu/Hr)6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000Coal Flow Rate (Lb/Hr)621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077(Ton/Yr)2,448,2842,448,2842,448,2842,448,2842,448,2842,448,2842,448,2842,448,284(MMBtu/Yr)47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846EmissionsUncontrolled SO2 (Lb/Hr)7,210 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002(Lb/MMBtu)1.20 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17(Lb Moles/Hr)112.54 15.64 15.64 15.64 15.64 15.64 15.64 15.64(Tons/Yr)28,421 3,950 3,950 3,950 3,950 3,950 3,950 3,950SO2 Removal Rate (%)86.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%40.1%0.0%0.0%(Lb/Hr)6,208 0 0 0 0 402 0 0(Ton/Yr)24,471 0 0 0 0 1,585 0 0SO2 Emission Rate (Lb/Hr)1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,002 600 1,002 1,002(Lb/MMBtu)0.170.17 0.17 0.17 0.170.100.17 0.17(Ton/Yr)3,950 3,950 3,950 3,950 3,950 2,365 3,950 3,950Uncontrolled NOx (Lb/Hr)2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700(Lb/MMBtu)0.450.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45(Lb Moles/Hr)89.96 89.96 89.96 89.96 89.96 89.96 89.96 89.96(Tons/Yr)10,643 10,643 10,643 10,643 10,643 10,643 10,643 10,643NOx Removal Rate (%)0.0%46.7%51.1%55.6%84.4%0%0.0%0%(Lb/Hr)0 1,260 1,380 1,500 2,280 0 0 0(Lb Moles/Hr)0.00 41.98 45.98 49.98 75.97 0.00 0.00 0.00(Ton/Yr)0 4,967 5,440 5,913 8,987 0 0 0NOx Emission Rate (Lb/Hr)2,700 1,440 1,320 1,200 420 2,700 2,700 2,700(Lb/MMBtu)0.450.24 0.22 0.20 0.070.45 0.45 0.45(Ton/Yr)10,643 5,676 5,203 4,730 1,656 10,643 10,643 10,643Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/Hr)51,177 180 180 180 180 180 180 180(Lb/MMBtu)8.530 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030(Lb Moles/Hr)1,705.3 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0(Tons/Yr)201,739 710 710 710 710 710 710 710Fly Ash Removal Rate (%)99.65%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%50.00%(Lb/Hr)50,997 0 0 0 0 0 0 90(Ton/Yr)201,029 0 0 0 0 0 0 355Fly Ash Emission Rate (Lb/Hr)180 180 180 180 180 180 180 90(Lb/MMBtu)0.0300.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.0300.030 0.015(Ton/Yr)710 710 710 710 710 710 710 355ParameterCommentsCurrentOperationSO2 ControlNOx Control PM ControlEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls1 of 2LNB w/OFA ROFALNB w/OFA& SNCRLNB w/OFA& SCRUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioningFabric FilterCase1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10ParameterCommentsCurrentOperationSO2 ControlNOx Control PM ControlGeneral Plant DataAnnual Operation (Hours/Year)7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884Annual On-Site Power Plant Capacity Factor0.900.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90Economic FactorsInterest Rate (%)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%Plant Economic Life (Years)2020 20 20 20 20 20 20Installed Capital CostsNOx Emission Control System ($2006)08,700,001 20,528,122 22,127,239 147,628,47400 0SO2 Emission Control System ($2006)00 0 0 0 5,759,8140 0PM Emission Control System ($2006)00 0 0 0 0 0 48,386,333Total Emission Control Systems ($2006)0 8,700,001 20,528,122 22,127,239 147,628,4745,759,8140 48,386,333NOx Emission Control System ($/kW)0 16 39 42 279 0 0 0SO2 Emission Control System ($/kW)0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0PM Emission Control System ($/kW)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91Total Emission Control Systems ($/kW)0 16 39 42 279 11 0 91Total Fixed Operating & Maintenance CostsOperating Labor ($)00000 0 0 0Maintenance Material ($)0 28,000 42,000 123,000 190,000 25,550 0 51,099Maintenance Labor ($)0 42,000 63,000 184,500 285,000 17,033 10,000 76,649Administrative Labor ($)00000 0 0 0Total Fixed O&M Cost ($)0 70,000 105,000 307,500 475,000 42,583 10,000 127,749Annual Fixed O&M Cost Escalation Rate (%)2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%Water CostMakeup Water Usage (Gpm)0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0Unit Price ($/1000 Gallons)1.221.22 1.22 0.00 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22First Year Water Cost ($)0 0 0 0 0 15,539 0 0Annual Water Cost Escalation Rate (%)2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%Reagent CostNone None None UreaAnhydrous NH3Soda Ash Elemental SulfurNoneUnit Cost ($/Ton)0.00 0.00 0.00 370 400 80.00 370 0.00($/Lb)0.000 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.200 0.040 0.185 0.000Molar Stoichiometry0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 1.00 1.02 0.00 0.00Reagent Purity (Wt.%)100%100%100%100%100%100%100%90%Reagent Usage (Lb/Hr)0 0 0 690 579 6781000First Year Reagent Cost ($)0 0 0 1,005,811 912,848 213,921 145,854 0Annual Reagent Cost Escalation Rate (%)2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Replacement CostSCR Catalyst Bags BagsAnnual SCR Catalyst (m3) / No. FF Bags0000214 0 0 2,885SCR Catalyst ($/m3) / Bag Cost ($/ea.)3,0003,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 104 3,000 104First Year SCR Catalyst / Bag Replace. Cost ($)0 0 0 0 642,000 0 0 300,040Annual SCR Catalyst / Bag Cost Esc. Rate (%)2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%FGD Waste Disposal CostFGD Solid Waste Disposal Rate, Dry (Lb/Hr)0 0 0 0 0 1,853 0 0FGD Waste Disposal Unit Cost ($/Dry Ton)24.3324.33 24.33 24.33 24.33 24.33 24.33 24.33First Year FGD Waste Disposal Cost ($)0 0 0 0 0 177,714 0 0Annual Waste Disposal Cost Esc. Rate (%)2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%Auxiliary Power CostAuxiliary Power Requirement (% of Plant Output)0.00%0.00%1.21%0.10%0.63%0.10%0.01%0.64%(MW)0.00 0.00 6.41 0.53 3.36 0.53 0.05 3.39Unit Cost ($2006/MW-Hr)50.0050.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00First Year Auxiliary Power Cost ($)0 0 2,528,012 208,926 1,323,329 208,926 19,710 1,335,944Annual Power Cost Escalation Rate (%)2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%EY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls2 of 2Input TablesTable 1 - CasesExisting1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 Dave Johnston Unit 3Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR Dry FGD w/ESPDry FGD w/FabricFilter Wet FGD w/ESP N/A Fabric Filter2 Dave Johnston Unit 4Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR N/ADry FGD w/FabricFilterWet FGD w/FabricFilter N/A Fabric Filter3 Jim Bridger Unit 1Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR N/A N/AUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioning Fabric Filter4 Jim Bridger Unit 2Current Operation Exist. LNB w/OFA ROFA SNCR SCR N/A N/AUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioning Fabric Filter5 Jim Bridger Unit 3Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR N/A N/AUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioning Fabric Filter6 Jim Bridger Unit 4Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR N/A N/AUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioning Fabric Filter7 Naughton Unit 1Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR Dry FGD w/ESPDry FGD w/FabricFilter Wet FGD w/ESPFlue GasConditioning Fabric Filter8 Naughton Unit 2Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR Dry FGD w/ESPDry FGD w/FabricFilter Wet FGD w/ESPFlue GasConditioning Fabric Filter9 Naughton Unit 3Current Operation Exist. LNB w/OFA ROFA SNCR SCR N/A N/AUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioning Fabric Filter10 Wyodak Unit 1Current Operation LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCR Upgraded Dry FGD N/A Wet FGDFlue GasConditioning Fabric FilterTable 2 - Unit Design and Coal CharacteristicsNOx SO2 PM Boiler DesignNet PowerOutput (kW)NetPlantHeatRate (Btu/kWHr) CoalHeating Value,HHV (Btu/Lb)Sulfur Content(Wt.%)AshContent(Wt.%)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3None None ESP3-Cell Burner, OpposedWall-Fired PC250,000 11,200Dry Fork PRB7,784 0.47% 5.01%2 Dave Johnston Unit 4Windbox Mods.Lime Added to VenturiScrubber Venturi Scrubber Tangential-Fired PC360,000 11,390Dry Fork PRB7,784 0.47% 5.01%3 Jim Bridger Unit 1LNCFS-1 &Windbox Mods. Wet FGD ESP Tangential-Fired PC530,000 11,320Bridger MineUnderground9,660 0.58% 10.30%4 Jim Bridger Unit 2LNB - TFS 2000 Wet FGD ESP Tangential-Fired PC530,000 11,320Bridger MineUnderground9,660 0.58% 10.30%5 Jim Bridger Unit 3LNCFS-1 &Windbox Mods. Wet FGD ESP Tangential-Fired PC530,000 11,320Bridger MineUnderground9,660 0.58% 10.30%6 Jim Bridger Unit 4LNCFS-1 &Windbox Mods. Wet FGD ESP Tangential-Fired PC530,000 11,320Bridger MineUnderground9,660 0.58% 10.30%7 Naughton Unit 1None None ESP Tangential-Fired PC173,000 10,694Kemmerer Mine9,970 0.60% 4.64%8 Naughton Unit 2None None ESP Tangential-Fired PC226,000 10,574Kemmerer Mine9,970 0.60% 4.64%9 Naughton Unit 3LNCFS II LNB Wet FGD ESP Tangential-Fired PC356,000 10,336Kemmerer Mine9,970 0.60% 4.64%10 Wyodak Unit 1LNB Dry FGD ESP Opposed Wall-Fired PC335,000 12,087Clovis Point Mine7,977 0.65% 7.46%Index No. Name of Unit | Case --->NOx Control SO2 Control PM ControlCoal QualityUnit DesignCurrent Emission Control SystemsIndex No. Name of UnitEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls1 of 5Table 3 - EmissionsControlledSO2 Controlled NOxControlledPM Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 101 Dave Johnston Unit 31.20 0.70 0.200 0.27 0.210.200.07 0.210.150.10N/A0.0152 Dave Johnston Unit 40.33 0.48 0.061 0.15 0.190.120.07 N/A0.150.10N/A0.0153 Jim Bridger Unit 10.27 0.45 0.045 0.24 0.220.200.07 N/AN/A0.100.030 0.0154 Jim Bridger Unit 20.27 0.24 0.074 0.24 0.220.200.07 N/AN/A0.100.030 0.0155 Jim Bridger Unit 30.27 0.45 0.057 0.24 0.220.200.07 N/AN/A0.100.030 0.0156 Jim Bridger Unit 40.17 0.45 0.030 0.24 0.220.200.07 N/AN/A0.100.030 0.0157 Naughton Unit 11.20 0.58 0.056 0.24 0.280.180.07 0.180.150.100.040 0.0158 Naughton Unit 21.20 0.54 0.064 0.24 0.280.180.07 0.180.150.100.040 0.0159 Naughton Unit 30.50 0.45 0.094 0.35 0.300.250.07 N/AN/A0.100.040 0.01510 Wyodak Unit 10.50 0.50 0.0300.230.220.180.070.25N/A0.100.025 0.015Table 4 - Case 1 O&M Costs (Current Operation)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3-$ -$ -$ -$ -None - -2 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -3 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -4 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -5 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -6 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -7 Naughton Unit 1-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -8 Naughton Unit 2-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -9 Naughton Unit 3-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -10 Wyodak Unit 1-$ -$ -$$ --None--Table 5 - Case 2 O&M Costs (LNB w/OFA)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3-$ 40,000$ 60,000$ -$ -None - -2 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ 36,000$ 54,000$ $ - -None - -3 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ 28,000$ 42,000$ $ - -None - -4 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -5 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ 28,000$ 42,000$ $ - -None - -6 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ 28,000$ 42,000$ $ - -None - -7 Naughton Unit 1-$ 32,000$ 48,000$ $ - -None - -8 Naughton Unit 2-$ 32,000$ 48,000$ $ - -None - -9 Naughton Unit 3-$ -$ -$ $ - -None - -10 Wyodak Unit 1-$ 24,000$ 36,000$$ --None--Index No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M Costs Variable Operating RequirementsPM Emission Rates (Lb/MMBtu)Index No. Name of UnitCurrent Emission Rates (Lb/MMBtu) NOx Control Emission Rates (Lb/MMBtu) SO2 Control Emission Rates (Lb/MMBtu)Index No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M Costs Variable Operating RequirementsEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls2 of 5Table 6 - Case 3 O&M Costs (Mobotec ROFA)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3-$ 60,000$ 90,000$ -$ -None - 2.762 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ 54,000$ 81,000$ $ - -None - 4.333 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ 42,000$ 63,000$ $ - -None - 6.414 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ 42,000$ 63,000$ $ - -None - 6.415 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ 42,000$ 63,000$ $ - -None - 6.416 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ 42,000$ 63,000$ $ - -None - 6.417 Naughton Unit 1-$ 48,000$ 72,000$ $ - -None - 1.428 Naughton Unit 2-$ 48,000$ 72,000$ $ - -None - 2.619 Naughton Unit 3-$ 48,000$ 72,000$ $ - -None - 4.4710 Wyodak Unit 1-$ 36,000$ 54,000$$ --None-5.22Table 7 - Case 4 O&M Costs (LNB w/OFA & SNCR))Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3-$ 98,000$ 147,000$ -$ -Urea 0.41 0.232 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ 105,000$ 157,500$ $ - -Urea 0.45 0.333 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ 123,000$ 184,500$ $ - -Urea 0.45 0.534 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ 95,000$ 142,500$ $ - -Urea 0.45 0.535 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ 122,000$ 183,000$ $ - -Urea 0.45 0.526 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ 123,000$ 184,500$ $ - -Urea 0.45 0.537 Naughton Unit 1-$ 83,000$ 124,500$ $ - -Urea 0.45 0.168 Naughton Unit 2-$ 93,000$ 139,500$ $ - -Urea 0.51 0.229 Naughton Unit 3-$ 75,000$ 112,500$ $ - -Urea 0.45 0.3310 Wyodak Unit 1-$ 93,000$ 139,500$--Urea0.450.34Table 8 - Case 5 O&M Costs (LNB w/OFA & SCR))Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.AnnualSCRCatalystReplace. (m3)Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3-$ 155,000$ 232,500$ -$ -Anhydrous NH31.00 1281.572 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ 166,000$ 249,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 1232.293 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ 190,000$ 285,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 1983.284 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ 162,000$ 243,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 1983.255 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ 190,000$ 285,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 2003.226 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ 190,000$ 285,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 2143.367 Naughton Unit 1-$ 132,000$ 198,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 670.988 Naughton Unit 2-$ 160,000$ 240,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 1011.349 Naughton Unit 3-$ 156,000$ 234,000$ $ - -Anhydrous NH31.00 1671.9910 Wyodak Unit 1-$ 181,000$ 271,500$$ --Anhydrous NH31.001602.42Index No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M Costs Variable Operating RequirementsAnnual Fixed O&M Costs Variable Operating RequirementsIndex No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M Costs Variable Operating RequirementsIndex No. Name of UnitEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls3 of 5Table 9 - Case 6 O&M Costs (Dry FGD)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Annual FF BagReplace.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3506,128$ 714,175$ 476,928$ -$ 173Lime1.15 -2.492 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --3 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --4 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --5 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --6 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --7 Naughton Unit 1506,128$ 587,643$ 391,762$ $ - 120Lime1.40 -1.648 Naughton Unit 2506,128$ 860,174$ 573,044$ $ - 165Lime1.40 -2.259 Naughton Unit 3-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --10 Wyodak Unit 1-$ 21,900$ 14,600$-25Lime1.10-0.11Table 10 - Case 7 O&M Costs (Dry FGD w/Fabric Filter)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Annual FF BagReplace.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3506,128$ 714,175$ 476,928$ -$ 173Lime1.15 1,4573.882 Dave Johnston Unit 4506,128$ 1,102,288$ 734,858$ $ - 248Lime1.10 1,7984.543 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --4 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --5 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --6 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --7 Naughton Unit 1506,128$ 632,660$ 459,286$ $ - 120Lime1.15 8652.668 Naughton Unit 2506,128$ 905,190$ 640,568$ $ - 165Lime1.15 1,1933.639 Naughton Unit 3-$ -$ -$ $ - -Lime- --10 Wyodak Unit 1-$ -$ -$--Lime---Table 11 - Case 8 O&M Costs (Wet FGD)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Annual FF BagReplace.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3809,804$ 1,182,587$ 788,391$ -$ 230Lime1.02 -3.452 Dave Johnston Unit 4809,804$ 1,430,784$ 953,856$ $ - 330Lime1.02 1,7986.293 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ 25,550$ 17,033$ $ - 53Soda Ash1.02 -0.534 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ 25,550$ 17,033$ $ - 53Soda Ash1.02 -0.535 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ 25,550$ 17,033$ $ - 52Soda Ash1.02 -0.526 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ 25,550$ 17,033$ $ - 27Soda Ash1.02 -0.537 Naughton Unit 1809,804$ 963,589$ 642,393$ $ - 160Lime1.05 -2.408 Naughton Unit 2809,804$ 1,226,386$ 817,591$ $ - 220Lime1.05 -3.309 Naughton Unit 3-$ 21,900$ 14,600$ $ - 66Soda Ash1.02 -0.3310 Wyodak Unit 1303,677$ 328,496$ 218,998$$ -82Lime1.02-1.75Index No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M CostsIndex No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M CostsIndex No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M CostsVariable Operating RequirementsVariable Operating RequirementsVariable Operating RequirementsEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls4 of 5Table 12 - Case 9 O&M Costs (Flue Gas Conditioning)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagentUsage (Lb/Hr)Annual FF BagReplace.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3-$ -$ -$ -$ -None- --2 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ -$ -$ $ - -None- --3 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ -$ 10,000$ $ - -Elemental Sulfur100 -0.054 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ -$ 10,000$ $ - -Elemental Sulfur100 -0.055 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ -$ 10,000$ $ - -Elemental Sulfur100 -0.056 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ -$ 10,000$ $ - -Elemental Sulfur100 -0.057 Naughton Unit 1-$ -$ 10,000$ $ - -Elemental Sulfur33 -0.058 Naughton Unit 2-$ -$ 10,000$ $ - -Elemental Sulfur43 -0.059 Naughton Unit 3-$ -$ 10,000$ $ - -Elemental Sulfur67 -0.0510 Wyodak Unit 1-$ -$ 10,000$--Elemental Sulfur63-0.05Table 13 - Case 10 O&M Costs (Fabric Filter)Oper. Labor Maint. Materials Maint. Labor Admin. LaborMakeup WaterUse (Gpm) ReagentReagent MolarStoich.Annual FF BagReplace.Aux. PowerUsage (MW)1 Dave Johnston Unit 3-$ 45,016$ 67,524$ -$ -None- 1,4571.382 Dave Johnston Unit 4-$ 68,133$ 102,199$ $ - -None- 1,7982.353 Jim Bridger Unit 1-$ 51,099$ 76,649$ $ - -None- 2,8853.394 Jim Bridger Unit 2-$ 51,099$ 76,649$ $ - -None- 2,8853.375 Jim Bridger Unit 3-$ 51,099$ 76,649$ $ - -None- 2,8273.336 Jim Bridger Unit 4-$ 51,099$ 76,649$ $ - -None- 2,8853.397 Naughton Unit 1-$ 45,016$ 67,524$ $ - -None- 8651.018 Naughton Unit 2-$ 45,016$ 67,524$ $ - -None- 1,1931.389 Naughton Unit 3-$ 48,666$ 72,999$ $ - -None- 1,7992.0610 Wyodak Unit 1-$ 48,666$ 72,999$$ --None-1,7982.06Table 14 - Major Materials Design and Supply Costs2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 Dave Johnston Unit 3$ 3,221,912 $ 3,556,617 $ 5,773,000 $ 49,355,000 $ 83,871,000 $ 142,077,000 $ 108,865,669$ - $ 18,359,0002 Dave Johnston Unit 4$ 2,673,501 $ 4,343,192 $ 7,171,085 $ 66,200,000 $ - $ 137,267,000 $ 178,174,384 $ - $ 30,853,5303 Jim Bridger Unit 1$ 2,981,982 $ 6,056,955 $ 9,528,000 $ 80,923,000 $ - $ -$ 8,010,093 $ - $ 29,814,0004 Jim Bridger Unit 2$ - $ 6,056,955 $ 9,528,000 $ 80,923,000 $ - $- $ 8,010,093 $ - $ 29,814,0005 Jim Bridger Unit 3$ 2,981,982 $ 6,056,955 $ 9,419,000 $ 80,923,000 $ - $ -$ 8,010,093 $ - $ 29,814,0006 Jim Bridger Unit 4$ 2,981,982 $ 6,056,955 $ 9,528,000 $ 93,009,000 $ - $ -$ 3,549,000 $ - $ 29,814,0007 Naughton Unit 1$ 2,502,123 $ 2,675,792 $ 7,257,000 $ 37,292,000 $ 26,819,000 $ 42,301,000 $ 44,000,000 $ 800,000 $ 15,482,0008 Naughton Unit 2$ 2,570,674 $ 3,123,533 $ 8,784,000 $ 47,934,000 $ 39,262,000 $ 57,621,000 $ 56,000,000 $ 800,000 $ 18,359,0009 Naughton Unit 3$ - $ 4,351,377 $ 11,203,578 $ 67,373,000 $ - $- $ 2,963,000 $ 800,000 $ 20,106,00010 Wyodak Unit 1$ 3,187,636 $ 4,500,245 $ 7,234,860 $ 72,479,000 $ 996,100 $ - $ 178,174,384 $ 1,247,061 $ 20,106,000NOx Control SO2 Control PM ControlIndex No. Name of Unit | Case --->Index No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M Costs Variable Operating RequirementsIndex No. Name of UnitAnnual Fixed O&M Costs Variable Operating RequirementsEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls5 of 5CAPITAL COSTJim Bridger Unit 4CaseNOx Emission Control SystemSO2 Emission Control SystemPM Emission Control SystemCAPITAL COST COMPONENTFactor/Source Cost Factor/Source Cost Factor/Source Cost Factor/Source Cost Factor/Source Cost Factor/Source Cost Factor/Source Cost Factor/Source Cost Factor/Source CostLNB w/OFA or ROFALNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA LNB w/OFAMajor Materials Design and SupplyVendor $2,981,982Vendor $6,056,955Vendor $2,981,982Vendor $2,981,982Vendor $0Vendor $0Vendor $0Vendor $0Vendor $0Construction85.3%$2,544,63885.3%$5,168,62885.3%$2,544,63885.3%$2,544,63885.3%$085.3%$085.3%$085.3%$085.3%$0Balance of Plant51.7%$1,541,45151.7%$3,130,97051.7%$1,541,45151.7%$1,541,45151.7%$051.7%$051.7%$051.7%$051.7%$0Electrical (Allowance)0.0%$030.0%$1,817,0870.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$0Owner's Costs13.2%$395,06313.2%$802,44613.2%$395,06313.2%$395,06313.2%$013.2%$013.2%$013.2%$013.2%$0Surcharge16.4%$489,80516.4%$994,88416.4%$489,80516.4%$489,80516.4%$016.4%$016.4%$016.4%$016.4%$0AFUDC12.2%$364,35212.2%$740,06712.2%$364,35212.2%$364,35212.2%$012.2%$012.2%$012.2%$012.2%$0Subtotal $8,317,291 $18,711,036$8,317,291 $8,317,291 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Contingency12.8%$382,70930.0%$1,817,08712.8%$382,70912.8%$382,70912.8%$012.8%$012.8%$012.8%$012.8%$0Total Capital Cost for LNB w/OFA or ROFA $8,700,001 $20,528,122 $8,700,001 $8,700,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0SNCR or SCRSNCR SCRMajor Materials Design and SupplyS&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $9,528,000 S&L Report $93,009,000 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0Contingency20.0%$020.0%$020.0%$1,905,60020.0%$18,601,80020.0%$020.0%$020.0%$020.0%$020.0%$0Labor Premium5.6%$05.6%$05.6%$532,9015.6%$5,201,9935.6%$05.6%$05.6%$05.6%$05.6%$0EPC Premium0.0%$00.0%$00.0%$08.4%$7,856,4708.4%$08.4%$08.4%$08.4%$08.4%$0Boiler Reinforcement (Allowance)0.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$0Sales Tax1.1%$01.1%$01.1%$104,9991.1%$1,024,9591.1%$01.1%$01.1%$01.1%$01.1%$0Escalation0.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$00.0%$0Contingency on Adders2.8%$02.8%$02.8%$267,4512.8%$2,610,7632.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$0Surcharge and AFUDC11.4%$011.4%$011.4%$1,088,28811.4%$10,623,48811.4%$011.4%$011.4%$011.4%$011.4%$0Total Capital Cost for SNCR or SCR $0 $0 $13,427,239 $138,928,473 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Dry or Wet FGD, FGC or Fabric FilterDry FGD Dry FGD w/FF Wet FGD FGC Fabric FilterMajor Materials Design and SupplyS&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $3,549,000 S&L Report $0 S&L Report $29,814,000Contingency20.0%$020.0%$020.0%$020.0%$020.0%$020.0%$020.0%$709,80020.0%$020.0%$5,962,800Labor Premium5.6%$05.6%$05.6%$05.6%$05.6%$05.6%$05.6%$198,4965.6%$05.6%$1,667,497EPC Premium8.4%$08.4%$08.4%$08.4%$08.4%$08.4%$08.4%$299,7848.4%$08.4%$2,518,389Boiler Reinforcement (Allowance)2.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$99,8692.8%$02.8%$838,966Sales Tax1.1%$01.1%$01.1%$01.1%$01.1%$01.1%$01.1%$39,1101.1%$01.1%$328,550Escalation10.1%$010.1%$010.1%$010.1%$010.1%$010.1%$010.1%$358,76810.1%$010.1%$3,013,897Contingency on Adders2.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$02.8%$99,6202.8%$02.8%$836,879Surcharge and AFUDC11.4%$011.4%$011.4%$011.4%$011.4%$011.4%$011.4%$405,36711.4%$011.4%$3,405,355Total Capital Cost for Dry/Wet FGD, FGC or FF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,759,814 $0 $48,386,333PM ControlFlue Gas ConditioningNOx Control45 76293LNB w/OFA & SNCRWet FGDESP ESPLNB w/OFA & SCRWet FGDESPLNCFS-1 & Windbox Mods.N/AESPParameterLNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SCRUpgraded Wet FGDESPLNB w/OFAWet FGDESP ESPROFAWet FGDLNCFS-1 & Windbox Mods.N/AN/AN/ALNB w/OFA & SNCRSO2 ControlUpgraded Wet FGDFabric Filter8LNCFS-1 & Windbox Mods.Fabric Filter10LNCFS-1 & Windbox Mods.Wet FGDLNCFS-1 & Windbox Mods.Wet FGDFlue Gas ConditioningEY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls1 of 1Jim Bridger Unit 4LNB w/OFAYear DateTOTAL FIXEDO&M COSTMakeupWater CostReagent CostSCR Catalyst / FFBagCostWasteDisposal CostElectricPower CostTOTAL VARIABLEO&M COSTDEBT SERVICETOTAL ANNUALCOSTControl Cost($/Ton NOx Removed)0 20131 2014 70,000------827,612897,6121812 2015 71,400------827,612899,0121813 2016 72,828------827,612900,4401814 2017 74,285------827,612901,8971825 2018 75,770------827,612903,3821826 2019 77,286------827,612904,8981827 2020 78,831------827,612906,4431838 2021 80,408------827,612908,0201839 2022 82,016------827,612909,62818310 2023 83,656------827,612911,26918311 2024 85,330------827,612912,94218412 2025 87,036------827,612914,64818413 2026 88,777------827,612916,38918514 2027 90,552------827,612918,16518515 2028 92,364------827,612919,97618516 2029 94,211------827,612921,82318617 2030 96,095------827,612923,70718618 2031 98,017------827,612925,62918619 2032 99,977------827,612927,58918720 2033 101,977------827,612929,589187Present Worth855,250------8,700,0019,555,25096(% of PW)9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.0% 100.0%Jim Bridger Unit 4ROFAYear DateTOTAL FIXEDO&M COSTMakeupWater CostReagent CostSCR Catalyst / FFBagCostWasteDisposal CostElectricPower CostTOTAL VARIABLEO&M COSTDEBT SERVICETOTAL ANNUALCOSTControl Cost($/Ton NOx Removed)0 20131 2014 105,000----2,528,0122,528,0121,952,7964,585,8088432 2015 107,100----2,578,5732,578,5731,952,7964,638,4688533 2016 109,242----2,630,1442,630,1441,952,7964,692,1828634 2017 111,427----2,682,7472,682,7471,952,7964,746,9708735 2018 113,655----2,736,4022,736,4021,952,7964,802,8538836 2019 115,928----2,791,1302,791,1301,952,7964,859,8548937 2020 118,247----2,846,9532,846,9531,952,7964,917,9959048 2021 120,612----2,903,8922,903,8921,952,7964,977,2999159 2022 123,024----2,961,9702,961,9701,952,7965,037,78992610 2023 125,485----3,021,2093,021,2091,952,7965,099,48993711 2024 127,994----3,081,6333,081,6331,952,7965,162,42394912 2025 130,554----3,143,2663,143,2661,952,7965,226,61696113 2026 133,165----3,206,1313,206,1311,952,7965,292,09297314 2027 135,829----3,270,2543,270,2541,952,7965,358,87898515 2028 138,545----3,335,6593,335,6591,952,7965,427,00099816 2029 141,316----3,402,3723,402,3721,952,7965,496,4841,01017 2030 144,142----3,470,4193,470,4191,952,7965,567,3581,02318 2031 147,025----3,539,8283,539,8281,952,7965,639,6491,03719 2032 149,966----3,610,6243,610,6241,952,7965,713,3861,05020 2033 152,965----3,682,8373,682,8371,952,7965,788,5981,064Present Worth1,282,875----30,886,88630,886,88620,528,12252,697,883484(% of PW)2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.6% 58.6% 39.0% 100.0%EY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls1 of 4Jim Bridger Unit 4LNB w/OFA & SNCRYear DateTOTAL FIXEDO&M COSTMakeupWater CostReagent CostSCR Catalyst / FFBagCostWasteDisposal CostElectricPower CostTOTAL VARIABLEO&M COSTDEBT SERVICETOTAL ANNUALCOSTControl Cost($/Ton NOx Removed)0 20131 2014 307,500-1,005,811--208,9261,214,7372,104,9163,627,1536132 2015 313,650-1,025,927--213,1051,239,0322,104,9163,657,5986193 2016 319,923-1,046,446--217,3671,263,8122,104,9163,688,6516244 2017 326,321-1,067,375--221,7141,289,0882,104,9163,720,3266295 2018 332,848-1,088,722--226,1481,314,8702,104,9163,752,6346356 2019 339,505-1,110,496--230,6711,341,1682,104,9163,785,5896407 2020 346,295-1,132,706--235,2851,367,9912,104,9163,819,2026468 2021 353,221-1,155,361--239,9901,395,3512,104,9163,853,4886529 2022 360,285-1,178,468--244,7901,423,2582,104,9163,888,45965810 2023 367,491-1,202,037--249,6861,451,7232,104,9163,924,13066411 2024 374,841-1,226,078--254,6801,480,7572,104,9163,960,51467012 2025 382,338-1,250,599--259,7731,510,3732,104,9163,997,62667613 2026 389,984-1,275,611--264,9691,540,5802,104,9164,035,48168314 2027 397,784-1,301,124--270,2681,571,3922,104,9164,074,09268915 2028 405,740-1,327,146--275,6731,602,8192,104,9164,113,47569616 2029 413,855-1,353,689--281,1871,634,8762,104,9164,153,64670317 2030 422,132-1,380,763--286,8111,667,5732,104,9164,194,62170918 2031 430,574-1,408,378--292,5471,700,9252,104,9164,236,41571719 2032 439,186-1,436,546--298,3981,734,9432,104,9164,279,04572420 2033 447,969-1,465,276--304,3661,769,6422,104,9164,322,528731Present Worth3,756,990-12,288,849--2,552,62714,841,47722,127,23940,725,706344(% of PW)9.2% 0.0% 30.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 36.4% 54.3% 100.0%Jim Bridger Unit 4LNB w/OFA & SCRYear DateTOTAL FIXEDO&M COSTMakeupWater CostReagent CostSCR Catalyst / FFBagCostWasteDisposal CostElectricPower CostTOTAL VARIABLEO&M COSTDEBT SERVICETOTAL ANNUALCOSTControl Cost($/Ton NOx Removed)0 20131 2014 475,000-912,848642,000-1,323,3292,878,17714,043,57517,396,7531,9362 2015 484,500-931,105654,840-1,349,7962,935,74114,043,57517,463,8161,9433 2016 494,190-949,727667,937-1,376,7922,994,45614,043,57517,532,2211,9514 2017 504,074-968,722681,296-1,404,3283,054,34514,043,57517,601,9941,9595 2018 514,155-988,096694,921-1,432,4143,115,43214,043,57517,673,1621,9666 2019 524,438-1,007,858708,820-1,461,0633,177,74014,043,57517,745,7541,9757 2020 534,927-1,028,015722,996-1,490,2843,241,29514,043,57517,819,7981,9838 2021 545,626-1,048,575737,456-1,520,0903,306,12114,043,57517,895,3221,9919 2022 556,538-1,069,547752,205-1,550,4913,372,24414,043,57517,972,3572,00010 2023 567,669-1,090,938767,249-1,581,5013,439,68814,043,57518,050,9332,00911 2024 579,022-1,112,757782,594-1,613,1313,508,48214,043,57518,131,0802,01712 2025 590,603-1,135,012798,246-1,645,3943,578,65214,043,57518,212,8302,02713 2026 602,415-1,157,712814,211-1,678,3023,650,22514,043,57518,296,2152,03614 2027 614,463-1,180,866830,495-1,711,8683,723,22914,043,57518,381,2682,04515 2028 626,752-1,204,484847,105-1,746,1053,797,69414,043,57518,468,0222,05516 2029 639,287-1,228,573864,047-1,781,0273,873,64814,043,57518,556,5112,06517 2030 652,073-1,253,145881,328-1,816,6483,951,12114,043,57518,646,7692,07518 2031 665,115-1,278,208898,955-1,852,9814,030,14314,043,57518,738,8332,08519 2032 678,417-1,303,772916,934-1,890,0404,110,74614,043,57518,832,7382,09620 2033 691,985-1,329,847935,273-1,927,8414,192,96114,043,57518,928,5222,106Present Worth5,803,480-11,153,0437,843,862-16,168,24435,165,149147,628,474188,597,1041,049(% of PW)3.1% 0.0% 5.9% 4.2% 0.0% 8.6% 18.6% 78.3% 100.0%EY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls2 of 4Jim Bridger Unit 4Upgraded Wet FGDYear DateTOTAL FIXEDO&M COSTMakeupWater CostReagent CostSCR Catalyst / FFBagCostWasteDisposal CostElectricPower CostTOTAL VARIABLEO&M COSTDEBT SERVICETOTAL ANNUALCOSTControl Cost($/Ton SO2 Removed)0 20131 2014 42,58315,539213,921-177,714208,926616,100547,9191,206,6017612 2015 43,43515,850218,199-181,268213,105628,422547,9191,219,7757703 2016 44,30316,167222,563-184,893217,367640,990547,9191,233,2127784 2017 45,18916,490227,014-188,591221,714653,810547,9191,246,9187875 2018 46,09316,820231,555-192,363226,148666,886547,9191,260,8987966 2019 47,01517,157236,186-196,210230,671680,224547,9191,275,1588057 2020 47,95517,500240,910-200,135235,285693,829547,9191,289,7028148 2021 48,91417,850245,728-204,137239,990707,705547,9191,304,5388239 2022 49,89318,207250,642-208,220244,790721,859547,9191,319,67083310 2023 50,89018,571255,655-212,384249,686736,296547,9191,335,10584311 2024 51,90818,942260,768-216,632254,680751,022547,9191,350,84985212 2025 52,94619,321265,984-220,965259,773766,043547,9191,366,90886313 2026 54,00519,707271,303-225,384264,969781,364547,9191,383,28887314 2027 55,08520,102276,729-229,892270,268796,991547,9191,399,99588415 2028 56,18720,504282,264-234,490275,673812,931547,9191,417,03689416 2029 57,31120,914287,909-239,179281,187829,189547,9191,434,41990517 2030 58,45721,332293,667-243,963286,811845,773547,9191,452,14991618 2031 59,62621,759299,541-248,842292,547862,689547,9191,470,23392819 2032 60,81922,194305,532-253,819298,398879,942547,9191,488,68093920 2033 62,03522,638311,642-258,896304,366897,541547,9191,507,495951Present Worth520,271189,8562,613,653-2,171,2822,552,6277,527,4185,759,81413,807,503436(% of PW)3.8% 1.4% 18.9% 0.0% 15.7% 18.5% 54.5% 41.7% 100.0%Jim Bridger Unit 4Flue Gas ConditioningYear DateTOTAL FIXEDO&M COSTMakeupWater CostReagent CostSCR Catalyst / FFBagCostWasteDisposal CostElectricPower CostTOTAL VARIABLEO&M COSTDEBT SERVICETOTAL ANNUALCOSTControl Cost($/Ton PM Removed)0 20131 2014 10,000-145,854--19,710165,564-175,564#DIV/0!2 2015 10,200-148,771--20,104168,875-179,075#DIV/0!3 2016 10,404-151,747--20,506172,253-182,657#DIV/0!4 2017 10,612-154,781--20,916175,698-186,310#DIV/0!5 2018 10,824-157,877--21,335179,212-190,036#DIV/0!6 2019 11,041-161,035--21,761182,796-193,837#DIV/0!7 2020 11,262-164,255--22,197186,452-197,714#DIV/0!8 2021 11,487-167,540--22,641190,181-201,668#DIV/0!9 2022 11,717-170,891--23,093193,985-205,701#DIV/0!10 2023 11,951-174,309--23,555197,864-209,815#DIV/0!11 2024 12,190-177,795--24,026201,822-214,012#DIV/0!12 2025 12,434-181,351--24,507205,858-218,292#DIV/0!13 2026 12,682-184,978--24,997209,975-222,658#DIV/0!14 2027 12,936-188,678--25,497214,175-227,111#DIV/0!15 2028 13,195-192,451--26,007218,458-231,653#DIV/0!16 2029 13,459-196,300--26,527222,827-236,286#DIV/0!17 2030 13,728-200,226--27,058227,284-241,012#DIV/0!18 2031 14,002-204,231--27,599231,830-245,832#DIV/0!19 2032 14,282-208,315--28,151236,466-250,749#DIV/0!20 2033 14,568-212,482--28,714241,195-255,764#DIV/0!Present Worth122,179-1,782,023--240,8142,022,837-2,145,015#DIV/0!(% of PW)5.7% 0.0% 83.1% 0.0% 0.0% 11.2% 94.3% 0.0% 100.0%EY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls3 of 4Jim Bridger Unit 4Fabric FilterYear DateTOTAL FIXEDO&M COSTMakeupWater CostReagent CostSCR Catalyst / FFBagCostWasteDisposal CostElectricPower CostTOTAL VARIABLEO&M COSTDEBT SERVICETOTAL ANNUALCOSTControl Cost($/Ton PM Removed)0 20131 2014 127,749--300,040-1,335,9441,635,9844,602,8876,366,61917,9462 2015 130,304--306,041-1,362,6631,668,7034,602,8876,401,89418,0463 2016 132,910--312,162-1,389,9161,702,0784,602,8876,437,87418,1474 2017 135,568--318,405-1,417,7141,736,1194,602,8876,474,57318,2515 2018 138,279--324,773-1,446,0691,770,8414,602,8876,512,00718,3566 2019 141,045--331,268-1,474,9901,806,2584,602,8876,550,19018,4647 2020 143,866--337,894-1,504,4901,842,3834,602,8876,589,13618,5748 2021 146,743--344,652-1,534,5791,879,2314,602,8876,628,86118,6869 2022 149,678--351,545-1,565,2711,916,8164,602,8876,669,38018,80010 2023 152,671--358,576-1,596,5771,955,1524,602,8876,710,71018,91611 2024 155,725--365,747-1,628,5081,994,2554,602,8876,752,86619,03512 2025 158,839--373,062-1,661,0782,034,1404,602,8876,795,86619,15613 2026 162,016--380,523-1,694,3002,074,8234,602,8876,839,72619,28014 2027 165,256--388,134-1,728,1862,116,3194,602,8876,884,46219,40615 2028 168,562--395,896-1,762,7492,158,6464,602,8876,930,09419,53516 2029 171,933--403,814-1,798,0042,201,8194,602,8876,976,63819,66617 2030 175,371--411,891-1,833,9652,245,8554,602,8877,024,11319,80018 2031 178,879--420,128-1,870,6442,290,7724,602,8877,072,53819,93619 2032 182,456--428,531-1,908,0572,336,5884,602,8877,121,93120,07620 2033 186,106--437,102-1,946,2182,383,3194,602,8877,172,31220,218Present Worth1,560,813--3,665,845-16,322,36519,988,21048,386,33369,935,3569,857(% of PW)2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 23.3% 28.6% 69.2% 100.0%EY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls4 of 4EY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls 1 of 1First Year Cost for Air Pollution Control Options02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,00014,000,00016,000,00018,000,00020,000,000LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA &SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCRUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioningFabric FilterAir Pollution Control Option

First Year Cost ($)EY102007001SLC\App A_PCorp JB4 BART Economic Analysis_01-11-07.xls 1 of 1Present Worth Cost for Air Pollution Control Options020,000,00040,000,00060,000,00080,000,000100,000,000120,000,000140,000,000160,000,000180,000,000200,000,000LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA &SNCRLNB w/OFA &SCRUpgraded WetFGDFlue GasConditioningFabric FilterAir Pollution Control Options

Present Worth Cost Over Year Plant Life ($)

# APPENDIX B 

# 2006 Wyoming BART Protocol