IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies

Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology

FINAL

March 2011 

Project 12301-009 

Systems Research and Applications Corporation 

Prepared by

55 East Monroe Street • Chicago, IL 60603 USA • 312-269-2000 
 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This analysis (“Deliverable”) was prepared by Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C. ("S&L"), expressly for the sole 

use of Systems Research and Applications Corporation ("Client") in accordance with the agreement 

between S&L and Client. This Deliverable was prepared using the degree of skill and care ordinarily 

exercised by engineers practicing under similar circumstances. Client acknowledges: (1) S&L prepared 

this Deliverable subject to the particular scope limitations, budgetary and time constraints, and business 

objectives of the Client; (2) information and data provided by others may not have been independently 

verified by S&L; and (3) the information and data contained in this Deliverable are time sensitive and 

changes in the data, applicable codes, standards, and acceptable engineering practices may invalidate the 

findings of this Deliverable. Any use or reliance upon this Deliverable by third parties shall be at their sole 

risk. 

This work was funded and reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the supervision of 

William A. Stevens, Senior Advisor – Power Technologies. Additional input and review was provided by 

Dr. Jim Staudt, President of Andover Technology Partners. 
IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for Project No. 12301-009

APC Technologies March, 2011

Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – Final 

Page 3 

Technology Description 

There are two main particulate capture unit operations employed in the utility industry: 

• Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) 

• Fabric Filter (FF) 

ESPs have been implemented in the utility industry since the 1960’s; there have been a 

great number of installations in the U.S. and around the world. The ESP collects PM in a 

three step process: charging, collecting, and cleaning the collected ash off the electrodes. 

The ESP relies on fly as resistivity to charge and collect the particles. ESPs can reduce 

PM emissions to below 0.015 lb/MMBtu and opacity below 10% depending on the ash 

characteristics and particulate loading. However, it is difficult to collect fly ash when 

burning low sulfur coal because of high fly ash resistivity requiring large ESP. ESPs are 

not well suited for processes that are highly variable because the collection efficiency is 

sensitive to fluctuations in gas stream conditions. 

Recently fabric filters (specifically pulse-jet type or PJFF) have become the preferred 

choice for new and retrofit utility particulate capture. PJFFs have been utilized 

commercially for over 25 years and are considered a mature technology. Modern PJFFs 

are reliable, versatile and cost effective. In a PJFF, particulate matter is collected on a 

fabric bag; then the particles are cleaned off the bag surfaces with a pulse of air. During 

cleaning, the collected particulate falls into hoppers and is removed via an ash handling 

system to a silo. PJFF suppliers provide guarantees as low as 0.010 lb/MMBtu 

depending on the application. 

Co-Benefits 

Due to the filter cake inherent in PJFFs, PJFF units have additional benefits that are not 

available in ESPs: 

• Mercury removal is enhanced by a PJFF by contacting the flue gas with the 

unburned carbon in the fly ash; 

• Collection of injected activated carbon with a PJFF can dramatically increase 

the mercury removal from the flue gas versus an ESP particulate collector; 

• With in-duct dry sorbent injection, the SO2 removal can be greatly increased 

when an PJFF is used versus an ESP for the sorbent capture; and 

• Acid gases are removed when the flue gas is passed through the filter cake in 

a PJFF. 
IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for Project No. 12301-009

APC Technologies March, 2011

Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – Final 

Page 4 

Establishment of Cost Basis 

The major cost driver for a baghouse is the required gross air-to-cloth (A/C) ratio. When 

the baghouse is installed in a retrofit situation following another collection device, such 

as an ESP, then an A/C of 6.0 would be appropriate if activated carbon injection is 

applied for mercury removal. 

If the baghouse will be used as the sole particulate capture unit operation, an A/C of 4.0 

should be specified. The lower A/C ratio will provide better bag life with the high inlet 

particulate loading expected for the single particulate capture device in the process. 

Cost data from the S&L current database of projects, for several different baghouse 

installations, was reviewed and a relationship was developed for the capital costs of the 

system on a flue gas rate basis. The capital costs include: 

• Duct work modifications, 

• Foundations, 

• Structural steel, 

• ID fan modifications or new booster fans, and 

• Electrical modifications. 

Methodology 

Inputs 

Several input variables are required in order to predict the total future retrofit costs: 

• Type of coal, 

• Unit size, 

• Unit heat rate, and 

• Baghouse required size. 

A retrofit factor that equates to difficulty in construction of the system must be defined. 

Outputs 

Total Project Costs (TPC) 

A base installed cost for the baghouse is calculated (BM). The base installed cost is then 

increased by: 

• Engineering and construction management costs at 10% of the BM cost; 

• Labor adjustment for 6 x 10 hour shift premium, per diem, etc., at 5% of the 

BM cost; and 

• Contractor profit and fees at 5% of the BM cost. 
IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for Project No. 12301-009

APC Technologies March, 2011

Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – Final 

Page 5 

A capital, engineering, and construction cost subtotal (CECC) is established as the sum of 

the BM and the additional engineering and construction fees. 

Additional costs and financing expenditures for the project are computed based on the 

CECC. Financing and additional project costs include: 

• Owner’s home office costs (owner’s engineering, management, and 

procurement) at 5% of the CECC; and 

• Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) at 6% of the 

CECC is added to account for AFUDC based on a complete project duration 

of 2 years. 

The total project cost is based on a multiple lump sum contract approach. Should a 

turnkey engineering procurement construction (EPC) contract be executed, the total 

project cost would be 10 to 15% higher than what is currently estimated. 

Escalation is not included in the estimate. The total project cost (TPC) is the sum of the 

CECC and the additional costs and financing expenditures. 

Fixed O&M (FOM) 

The fixed operating and maintenance (O&M) cost is a function of the additional 

operations staff (FOMO), maintenance labor and materials (FOMM), and administrative 

labor (FOMA) associated with the baghouse installation. The FOM is the sum of the 

FOMO, FOMM, and FOMA. 

The following factors and assumptions underlie calculations of the FOM: 

• All of the FOM costs were tabulated on a per kilowatt-year (kW-yr) basis. 

• In general, 0 additional operators are required for a baghouse. 

• The fixed maintenance materials and labor is a direct function of the process 

capital cost (BM). 

• The administrative labor is a function of the FOMO and FOMM. 

Variable O&M (VOM) 

Variable O&M is a function of: 

• Bag and cage replacement. 
IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for Project No. 12301-009

APC Technologies March, 2011

Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – Final 

Page 6 

The following factors and assumptions underlie calculations of the VOM: 

• All of the VOM costs were tabulated on a per megawatt-hour (MWh) basis. 

• Bag and cage replacement every 3 and 9 years respectively for unit operations 

with 6.0 A/C. 

• Bag and cage replacement every 5 and 10 years respectively for unit 

operations with 4.0 A/C. 

Input options are provided for the user to adjust the variable O&M costs per unit. 

Average default values are included in the base estimate. The variable O&M costs per 

unit options are: 

• Bag and cage costs in $/item. 

The variables that contribute to the overall VOM are: 

VOMB = Variable O&M costs for bags and cage replacement 

The total VOM is the VOMB. The additional auxiliary power requirement is reported as 

a percentage of the total gross power of the unit. 

Table 1 contains an example of the complete capital and O&M cost estimate worksheet 

for a baghouse installation.
IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for Project No. 12301-009

APC Technologies March, 2011

Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – Final 

Page 7 

Table 1. Example Complete Cost Estimate for a 4.0 A/C Baghouse Installation (Costs are all based on 20
IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for Project No. 12301-009

APC Technologies March, 2011

Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – Final 

Page 8 

Table 2. Example Complete Cost Estimate for a 6.0 A/C Baghouse Installation (Costs are all based on 20