P:\PACIFICORP\370414BART2\TECHNICAL_MEMORANDUM_DELIVERABLES\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 1 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

Addendum to Naughton Unit 2 BART Report 

PREPARED FOR: Wyoming Division of Air Quality 

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL 

COPIES: Bill Lawson/PacifiCorp 

DATE: March 26, 2008 

Introduction 

In compliance with the Regional Haze Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51), the 

Wyoming Division of Air Quality (WDAQ) required PacifiCorp Energy to conduct a detailed 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) review to analyze the effects to visibility in nearby 

Class I areas from plant emissions, both for baseline and for reasonable control technology 

scenarios. PacifiCorp submitted these evaluations to WDAQ in January 2007. A revised report 

was submitted in October 2007. 

On January 3, 2008, PacifiCorp Energy personnel met with WDAQ staff to discuss the status of 

the BART reviews. At that time, the state requested that additional modeling scenarios for 

several of the PacifiCorp facilities be performed to aid in their BART review. This memorandum 

presents the economics analysis for two scenarios modeled, referred to as Scenario A and 

Scenario B and described as follows: 

• Scenario A: PacifiCorp committed controls at permitted rates—low nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

burners (LNBs) with over-fire air (OFA), wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD), ESP 

(electrostatic precipitator) with flue gas conditioning 

• Scenario B: PacifiCorp committed controls and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) at 

permitted rates 

The CALPUFF modeling system (v. 5.711a) was used for this analysis. All technical options and 

model triggers used in CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST are consistent with those used for 

the previous BART analyses and described in the BART report submitted in October 2007. 

Stack Parameters, Emissions Information, and Capital Cost 

Table 1 summarizes the control equipment for Scenarios A and B as well as the current 

equipment installed at the plant. The overall capital cost of installing these options is also shown. 
ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 2 

TABLE 1 

Control Scenario Summary 

Naughton Unit 2 

 Equipment Type Capital Cost 

 NOx SO2 PM10 Million dollars 

Baseline Good combustion practice Low sulfur coal ESP — 

Scenario A LNB with OFA Wet FGD ESP with gas conditioning $128.3 

Scenario B LNB with OFA and SCR Wet FGD ESP with gas conditioning $235.1 

Emissions were modeled for the following pollutants: 

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

• NOx

• Coarse particulate (PM2.5<diameter<PM10) 

• Fine particulate (diameter<PM2.5) 

• Sulfates 

Table 2 shows stack parameters and emission rates that were used for the Naughton Unit 2 

BART modeling and analysis. 

TABLE 2 

Calpuff Model Inputs 

Naughton Unit 2 

 BART Comparison(d)

Model Input Data Baseline 

Scenario 

A (e)

Scenario 

B (f)

Hourly Heat Input (mmBtu/hour) 2,400 2,400 2,400 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 2,868 360 360 

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 1,291 624 168 

PM10 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 154 129.6 129.6 

Coarse Particulate (PM2.5 <diameter< PM10) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(a) 65.8 55.7 55.7 

Fine Particulate (diameter<PM2.5) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(b) 87.2 73.9 73.9 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 44.2 22.1 38.0 

Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 2.8 

(NH4)HSO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 4.8 

H2SO4 as Sulfate (SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 43.3 21.6 37.2 

(NH4)2SO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 2.0 

(NH4)HSO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 4.0 
ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 3 

TABLE 2 

Calpuff Model Inputs 

Naughton Unit 2 

 BART Comparison(d)

Model Input Data Baseline 

Scenario 

A (e)

Scenario 

B (f)

Total Sulfate (SO4) (lb/hr)(c) 43.3 21.6 43.2 

Stack Conditions

Stack Height (meters) 68 145 145 

Stack Exit Diameter (meters) 4.88 5.49 5.49 

Stack Exit Temperature (Kelvin) 411 323 323 

Stack Exit Velocity (meters per second) 27.8 18.1 18.1 

NOTES:

(a) Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the coarse particulates are counted as a percentage of PM10. This equates to 43% 

ESP and 57% Baghouse. PM10 and PM2.5 refer to particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers, respectively, 

in aerodynamic diameter. 

(b) Based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6, the fine particulates are counted as a percentage of PM10. This equates to 57% 

ESP and 43% Baghouse. 

(c) Total Sulfate (SO4) (lb/hr) = H2SO4 as Sulfate (SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) + (NH4)2SO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions 

(lb/hr) + (NH4)HSO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) (d) SO2, NOx, and PM rates are expressed in terms of permitted emission rates. Actual emissions will be less than 

the permitted rates. 

(e) PacifiCorp Committed Controls @ permitted rates: LNB with OFA, wet FGD, ESP with gas conditioning (f) PacifiCorp Committed Controls and SCR @ permitted rates

Economic Analysis 

In completing this additional analysis to supplement the previous BART study, technology 

alternatives were investigated and potential reductions in NOx, SO2, and PM10 emissions rates 

were identified. 

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

pollutant removed is summarized in Tables 3 through 5. Capital costs were provided by 

PacifiCorp. The complete economic analyses for these two scenarios are provided as 

Attachment 1.
ADDENDUM 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 3 Scenario A Control Cost Naughton Unit 2 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

LNB with OFA Wet FGD 

ESP with Gas 

Conditioning 

Total Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $9.1 $117.4 $1.80 

Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $0.87 $11.17 $0.17 First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $0.08 $5.72 $0.09 

Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $0.95 $16.89 $0.26 

Power Consumption (MW) — 2.25 0.05 

Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) — 26.02 0.39 

Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.26 0.15 0.05 

Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed per Year over Baseline 2,649 9,934 95 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 357 1,700 2,787 NOTE:

(a) First year annualized costs include power consumption costs. 
ADDENDUM 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 4 Scenario B Control Cost Naughton Unit 2 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

LNB with OFA & 

SCR Wet FGD 

ESP with Gas 

Conditioning 

Total Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $115.9 $117.4 $1.80 

Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $11.03 $11.17 $0.17 First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $1.64 $5.72 $0.09 

Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $12.66 $16.89 $0.26 

Power Consumption (MW) 1.34 3.30 0.05 

Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) 10.57 26.02 0.39 Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 0.15 0.05 

Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed per Year over Baseline 4,447 9,934 95 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 2,848 1,700 2,787 

NOTE:

(a) First year annualized costs include power consumption costs. 
ADDENDUM 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 5 Incremental Control Costs, Scenario B compared to Scenario A Naughton Unit 2 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

Incremental Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $106.80 0 0 

Incremental Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $10.16 0 0 

Incremental First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $1.56 0 0 Incremental First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $11.72 0 0 

Incremental Power Consumption (MW) 1.34 0 0 

Incremental Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) 10.56 0 0 

Incremental Improvement in Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.19 0 0 

Incremental Tons of Pollutant Removed 1,798 0 0 

Incremental First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 

6,519 0 0 

NOTE:

(a)Incremental first year annualized costs include power consumption costs. 
ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 7 

Modeling Results and Least-Cost Envelope Analysis 

CH2M HILL modeled Naughton Unit 2 for two post-control scenarios. The results determine 

the change in deciview based on each alternative at the Class I areas specific to the project. 

The Class I areas potentially affected are Bridger Wilderness and Fitzpatrick Wilderness for 

this unit. 

Modeled Scenarios 

Current operations (baseline) and two alternative control scenarios were modeled to cover the 

range of effectiveness for the combination of the individual NOx, SO2, and PM control 

technologies being evaluated. The modeled scenarios include the following: 

• Baseline: Current operations with good combustion practice, low sulfur coal, and ESP 

• Scenario A: LNB with OFA, Wet FGD, and ESP with gas conditioning 

• Scenario B: Scenario A with SCR 

Summary of Visibility Analysis 

Tables 6 and 7 present a summary of the modeling period (2001–2003) results for each 

scenario and Class I area. 

TABLE 6 

Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Bridger Wilderness 

Naughton Unit 2 

Scenario Controls 

Total First Year 

Annualized 

Cost Highest ΔdV 

98th 

Percentile 

ΔdV 

Maximum 

Annual 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Baseline Current Operations with FGD 

and ESP 

— 5.420 2.125 61 

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$18,098,484 3.330 0.986 26 

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls and SCR 

$29,817,488 1.938 0.584 10 
ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 8 

TABLE 7 

Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Naughton Unit 2 

Scenario Controls 

Total First Year 

Annualized Cost 

Highest 

ΔdV 

98th 

Percentile 

ΔdV 

Maximum 

Annual 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Baseline Current Operations with FGD 

and ESP 

— 3.900 1.135 26 

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$18,098,484 1.723 0.396 5 

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls and SCR 

$29,817,488 0.981 0.233 2 

Results 

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

Class I area. 

TABLE 8 

Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Bridger Wilderness 

Naughton Unit 2 

Scenario 

Comparison Controls 

Incremental 

Annualized 

Cost 

(Million$) 

Reduction 

in 98th 

Percentile 

maximum 

dV 

Reduction in 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Cost per dV 

Reduction 

(Million$/dV 

Reduced) 

Cost per Day 

to Achieve a 

Reduction in 

the Days 

above 0.5 dV 

(Million$/Day) 

Scenario A 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario A: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls 

$18.10 1.139 35 $15.89 $0.52 

Scenario B 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario B: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls and SCR 

$29.82 1.541 51 $19.35 $0.58 

Scenario B 

Compared To 

Scenario A 

Addition of SCR $11.72 0.402 x16 $29.15 $0.73 
ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 9 

TABLE 9 

Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Naughton Unit 2 

Scenario 

Comparison Controls 

Incremental 

Annualized 

Cost 

(Million$) 

Reduction 

in 98th 

Percentile 

maximum 

dV 

Reduction in 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Cost per dV 

Reduction 

(Million$/dV 

Reduced) 

Cost per Day 

to Achieve a 

Reduction in 

the Days 

above 0.5 dV 

(Million$/Day) 

Scenario A 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario A: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls 

$18.10 0.739 21 $24.49 $0.86 

Scenario B 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario B: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed 

Controls and SCR 

$29.82 0.902 24 $33.06 $1.24 

Scenario B 

Compared To 

Scenario A 

Addition of SCR $11.72 0.163 3 $71.90 $3.91 

Least-Cost Envelope Analysis 

The least-cost envelope graphs for Bridger Wilderness are shown in Figures 1 and 2 and for 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness are shown in Figures 3 and 4. 
ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 10 

FIGURE 1 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 2 - Bridger Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

FIGURE 2 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 2 - Bridger Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80

98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)
ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC 11 

FIGURE 3 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 2 - Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

FIGURE 4 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 2 - Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)
ATTACHMENT 1 

Complete Economic Analyses 

for Scenarios A and B 
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY - FIRST YEAR COSTS

Naughton 2 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

TYPE OF EMISSIONS CONTROLS NOx Control 

Technology Label BASE A B C D E 

Current Operation Low NOx Burners with Overfire Air Rotating Overfire Air

Low NOx Burners with 

Overfire Air and NonSelective Catalytic 

Reduction

Low NOx Burners with 

Overfire Air and 

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Dry FGD 

ECONOMIC FACTORS

Interest Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.1Discount Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 7.1Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT 

Total Installed Capital Costs ($) $0 $9,100,000 $10,586,222 $19,878,765 $115,900,000 $88,896, FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE ($/Yr) $0 $865,663 $1,007,044 $1,891,024 $11,025,315 $8,456,

FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M Costs ($/Yr)

Operating Labor ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $506,Maintenance Material ($/Yr) $0 $32,000 $48,000 $93,000 $160,000 $860,Maintenance Labor ($/Yr) $0 $48,000 $72,000 $139,500 $240,000 $573,Administrative Labor ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0  TOTAL FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M COST $0 $80,000 $120,000 $232,500 $400,000 $1,939,

FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr)

Makeup Water Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,Reagent Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $50,666 $408,124 $928,SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $303,000 Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $401,Electric Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,028,862 $86,724 $528,228 $886, TOTAL FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,028,862 $137,390 $1,239,352 $2,311,

SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR COSTS ($/Yr)

First Year Debt Service ($/Yr) $0 $865,663 $1,007,044 $1,891,024 $11,025,315 $8,456,First Year Fixed O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $80,000 $120,000 $232,500 $400,000 $1,939,First Year Variable O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,028,862 $137,390 $1,239,352 $2,311,Total First Year Costs ($/Yr) $0 $945,663 $2,155,906 $2,260,914 $12,664,667 $12,707,

CONTROL COST COMPARISONS

NOx Technology Comparison

Additional NOx Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 2,649 2,649 3,122 4,447

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed) $0 $357 $814 $724 $2,848

Technology Case Comparison A-BASE B-A C-A D-A

Incremental NOx Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 2,649 0 473 1,798

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed) $0 $357 #DIV/0! $2,780 $6,519

SO2 Technology Comparison -1.5% 65

Additional SO2 Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 7,

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton SO2 Removed) $0 $1,

Technology Case Comparison E-BAIncremental SO2 Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 7,

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton SO2 Removed) $0 $1,

PM Technology Comparison 0.0%Additional PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed) $0 

Technology Case Comparison Incremental PM Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed) $0 

SCENARIO A AND B COMPARISONS

Additional NOx, SO2, & PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 

First Year Average Control Cost Compared to Base Case ($/Ton Removed) $0 

Incremental Tons Removed - Scenario B vs Scenario A (Tons/Yr) 0 

Incremental Control Costs - Scenario B vs Scenario A ($/Ton Removed) $0 

JMS ES032008003SLC\First Yr Summary\Naughton 2 appenxic.xls 
INPUT CALCULATIONS

Naughton 2 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

PARAMETER Current Operation NOx Control Technologies 

Control TechnologiesNOx Emission Control System Good Combustion Practices LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCR 

SO2 Emission Control System None Dry FGD Dry 

PM Emission Control System ESP ESP Fabric 

General Plant Design and Operating Data

Type of Unit PC PC PC PC PC PC PAnnual Power Plant Capacity Factor 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Annual Operation (Hours/Year) 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 Net Power Output (kW) 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW-Hr) 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 Boiler Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Hr) 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 Annual Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Year) 18,920,654 18,920,654 18,920,654 18,920,654 18,920,654 18,920,654 Boiler Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Hr) 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 Annual Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Year) 18,921,600 18,921,600 18,921,600 18,921,600 18,921,600 18,921,600 

Plant Fuel Source

Boiler Fuel Source Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine KemmeCoal Heating Value (Btu/Lb) 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 Coal Sulfur Content (wt.%) 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% Coal Ash Content (wt.%) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Coal Flow Rate (Lb/Hr) 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 Coal Consumed (Ton/Yr) 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

NOx Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.54 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.07 

NOx Emission Rate (Lb/Hr) 1,296 624 624 504 168 NOx Emission Rate (Lb Moles/Hr) 43.19 20.79 20.79 16.79 5.60 

NOx Emission Rate (Ton/Yr) 5,109 2,460 2,460 1,987 662 Add'l NOx Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr) 0 672 672 792 1,128 

Add'l NOx Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr) 0 2,649 2,649 3,122 4,447 

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb/MMBtu) 1.18 1.18 

Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb/Hr) 2,838 2,838 Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb Moles/Hr) 44.30 44.30 Uncontrolled SO2 (Tons/Yr) 11,187 11,187 

Controlled SO2 Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 1.20 0.41 

SO2 Removal Efficiency (%) -1.5% 65.3% 

Controlled SO2 Emissions (Lb/Hr) 2,880 984 

Controlled SO2 Emissions (Ton/Yr) 11,353 3,879 

SO2 Removed (Lb/Hr) -42 1,854 

SO2 Removed (Ton/Yr) -166 7,308 

Add'l SO2 Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr) 0 1,896 

Add'l SO2 Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr) 0 7,474 

Particulate Matter Emissions

Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/Hr) 9,795 9,795 Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/MMBtu) 4.081 4.081 Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Tons/Yr) 38,614 38,614 Controlled Fly Ash Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.064 0.064 Controlled Fly Ash Removal Efficiency (%) 98.4% 98.4% Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Lb/Hr) 154 154 Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Ton/Yr) 605 605 Fly Ash Removed (Lb/Hr) 9,642 9,642 Fly Ash Removed (Ton/Yr) 38,008 38,008 Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Lb/Hr) 0 0 Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Ton/Yr) 0 0 

Economic Factors

Interest Rate (%) 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% Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 

SO2 and PM Cont

JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\Naughton 2 appenxic.xls 
INPUT CALCULATIONS

Naughton 2 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

PARAMETER Current Operation NOx Control Technologies 

Control TechnologiesNOx Emission Control System Good Combustion Practices LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCR 

SO2 Emission Control System None Dry FGD Dry 

PM Emission Control System ESP ESP Fabric 

SO2 and PM Cont

Installed Capital Costs

Nox Emission Control System ($2006) $9,100,000 $10,586,222 $19,878,765 $115,900,000 

SO2 Emission Control System ($2006) $88,896,713 $1

PM Emission Control System ($2006) $0 Total Emission Control System Capital Costs ($2006) $9,100,000 $10,586,222 $19,878,765 $115,900,000 $88,896,713 $1NOx Emission Control System ($/kW) $43 $50 $95 $552 

SO2 Emission Control System ($/kW) $423 

PM Emission Control System ($/kW) Total Emission Control Capital Costs ($/kW) $43 $50 $95 $552 $423 

Fixed Operating & Maintenance Costs

Operating Labor ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 $506,128 Maintenance Material ($) $32,000 $48,000 $93,000 $160,000 $860,174 Maintenance Labor ($) $48,000 $72,000 $139,500 $240,000 $573,044 Administrative Labor ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 1st Fixed Year O&M Cost ($) $80,000 $120,000 $232,500 $400,000 $1,939,346 Annual Fixed O&M Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Fixed O&M Cost ($/Yr) $94,840 $142,260 $275,629 $474,201 $2,299,100 

Variable Operating & Maintenance Costs

Water CostMakeup Water Usage (gpm) 0 0 0 0 165 Unit Price ($/1000 gallons) $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 First Year Water Cost ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,962 Annual Water Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Water Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,577 Reagent CostType of Reagent None None Urea Anhydrous NH3 Lime Lim

Unit Cost ($/Ton) $0.00 $370.00 $400.00 $91.25 Unit Cost ($/Lb) $0.000 $0.185 $0.200 $0.046 Molar Stoichiometry 0.00 0.51 1.00 1.40 Reagent Purity (Wt.%) 100% 100% 100% 90% Reagent Usage (Lb/Hr) 35 259 2,582 First Year Reagent Cost ($) $0 $50,666 $408,124 $928,672 Annual Reagent Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Reagent Costs ($/Yr) $60,065 $483,832 $1,100,943 SCR Catalyst / Fabric Filter Bag Replacement Cost

Material Replaced SCR Catalyst BaAnnual SCR Catalyst (m3) / No. FF Bags 101 SCR Catalyst ($/m3) / Bag Cost ($/ea.) $3,000 First Year SCR Catalyst / Bag Replacement Cost ($) $303,000 Annual SCR Catalyst / Bag Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% Levelized Catalyst/Fabric Fitler Bag Costs ($/Yr) $359,207 FGD Waste Disposal CostFGD Solid Waste Disposal Rate, Dry (Lb/Hr) 4,185 FGD Waste Disposal Unit Cost ($/Dry Ton) $24.33 First Year FGD Waste Disposal Cost ($) $401,332 Annual Waste Disposal Cost Esc. Rate (%) 2.00% Levelized Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr) $475,780 Auxiliary Power CostAuxiliary Power Requirement (MW) 0.00 2.61 0.22 1.34 2.25 Auxiliary Power Requirement (% of Plant Output) 0.00% 1.24% 0.10% 0.64% 1.07% Auxilliary Power Useage (MWh) 0 20,577 1,734 10,565 17,739 Unit Cost ($2006/MW-Hr) $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 First Year Auxiliary Power Cost ($) $0 $1,028,862 $86,724 $528,228 $886,950 Annual Power Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Auxilliary Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $1,219,719 $102,812 $626,216 $1,051,482 

JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\Naughton 2 appenxic.xls