### IPM Model – Revisions to Cost a nd 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 • Ch icago, IL 60603 USA • 312-269-2000LEGAL 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 circ umstances. 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.Project No. 12301-009 IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies March, 2011 

### Particulate Control Cost Deve lopment Methodology – Final

Page 3 

### Technology Description There are two main particulat e capture unit operations employe d 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 worl d. The ESP collects PM in a three step process: charging, collecting, and cl eaning 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 a nd opacity below 10% depending on the ash characteristics and particulate loading. Howe ver, it is difficult to collect fly ash when burning low sulfur coal because of high fly ash resistivity requiring la rge ESP. ESPs are not well suited for processes that are highly va riable because the collection efficiency is sensitive to fluctuations in gas stream conditions.
Recently fabric filters (specifically pulse-je t type or PJFF) have become the preferred choice for new and retrofit utility particul ate capture. PJFFs have been utilized commercially for over 25 years and are consid ered 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 sorb ent injection, the SO 2 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.Project No. 12301-009 IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies March, 2011 

### Particulate Control Cost Deve lopment Methodology – Final

Page 4 

### Establishment of Cost Basis The major cost driver for a baghouse is the re quired gross air-to-cloth (A/C) ratio. When the baghouse is installed in a retrofit situation fo llowing another collection device, such as an ESP, then an A/C of 6.0 would be appropriate if activat ed carbon injection is applied for mercury removal.
If the baghouse will be used as the sole pa rticulate 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 basi s. 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 requ ired 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 ba ghouse 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 pr emium, per diem, etc., at 5% of the BM cost; and

• Contractor profit and fees at 5% of the BM cost.Project No. 12301-009 IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies March, 2011 

### Particulate Control Cost Deve lopment Methodology – Final

Page 5 A capital, engineering, and construction cost subt otal (CECC) is established as the sum of the BM and the additional engi neering 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 C onstruction (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 ba sed on a multiple lump sum co ntract approach. Should a turnkey engineering procurement constructi on (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 operat ors 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 f unction of the FOMO and FOMM.

Variable O&M (VOM) Variable O&M is a function of:

• Bag and cage replacement.Project No. 12301-009 IPM Model – Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies March, 2011 

### Particulate Control Cost Deve lopment 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 y ears respectively for unit operations with 6.0 A/C.

• Bag and cage replacement every 5 a nd 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 ba se estimate. The variable O&M costs per unit options are:

• Bag and cage costs in $/item.

The variables that contribut e 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 requir ement is reported as a percentage of the total gross power of the unit.
Table 1 contains an example of the comple te capital and O&M cost estimate worksheet for a baghouse installation.Project No. 12301-009IPM Model – Revisions toCost and Performance forAPC TechnologiesMarch, 2011Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – FinalPage 7Table 1. Example Complete Cost Estimate for a 4.0 A/C Baghouse Installation (Costs are all based on 2009 dollars)Project No. 12301-009IPM Model – Revisions toCost and Performance forAPC TechnologiesMarch, 2011Particulate Control Cost Development Methodology – FinalPage 8Table 2. Example Complete Cost Estimate for a 6.0 A/C Baghouse Installation (Costs are all based on 2009 dollars)