# P:\PACIFICORP\370414BART2\TECHNICAL_MEMORANDUM_DEL IVERABLES\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 ba seline and for reasonable control technology

scenarios. PacifiCorp submitte d 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 re quested 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 scenar ios modeled, referred to as Scenario A and

Scenario B and described as follows:

• 

# Scenario A: PacifiCorp committed controls at permitted rates—low nitrogen oxide (NO

x 

# )

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

(electrostatic precipitato r) 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

NO

x 

# SO 2 

# PM 10 

# 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 (SO 2 

# )

• 

# NO

x



# • 

# Coarse particulate (PM 2.5 

# <diameter<PM 10 

# )

• 

# Fine particulate (diameter<PM 2.5 

# )

• 

# 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 (SO 2 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 2,868 360 360

Nitrogen Oxide (NO

x 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 1,291 624 168

PM 10 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 154 129.6 129.6

Coarse Particulate (PM 2.5 

# <diameter< PM 10 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) (a) 

# 65.8 55.7 55.7

Fine Particulate (diameter<PM 2.5 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) (b) 

# 87.2 73.9 73.9

Sulfuric Acid (H 2 

# SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 44.2 22.1 38.0

Ammonium Sulfate [(NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# ] Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 2.8

(NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 4.8

H 2 

# SO 4 

# as Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 43.3 21.6 37.2

(NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 2.0

(NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# as SO 4 

# 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 (SO 4 

# ) (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 PM 10 

# . This equates to 43% ESP and 57% Baghouse. PM 10 

# and PM 2.5 

# 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 parti culates are counted as a percentage of PM 10 

# . This equates to 57%
ESP and 43% Baghouse.

(c) 

# Total Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) (lb/hr) = H 2 

# SO 4 

# as Sulfate (SO 4 

# ) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) + (NH 4 

# ) 2 

# SO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions
(lb/hr) + (NH 4 

# )HSO 4 

# as SO 4 

# Stack Emissions (lb/hr)

(d) 

# SO 2 

# , NO

x 

# , and PM rates are expressed in terms of permitted emission rates. Actual emissions will be less than

the permitted rates.

(e) 

# PacifiCorp Committed Cont rols @ 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 NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM 10 

# 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 TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC4TABLE 3Scenario A Control CostNaughton Unit 2NOxControl SO2Control PM10Control Scenario ALNB with OFAWet FGDESP with GasConditioningControl CostTotal Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $9.1 $117.4 $1.80 $128.3Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $0.87 $11.17 $0.17 $12.20First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars)$0.08 $5.72 $0.09 $5.89Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$0.95 $16.89 $0.26 $18.10Power Consumption (MW)—2.250.053.35Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr)—26.020.3926.41Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.260.150.05—Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed perYear over Baseline2,6499,9349512,677First Year Average Control Cost ($/Tonof Pollutant Removed) 357 1,700 2,787 1,428NOTE:(a)First year annualized costs include power consumption costs.ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC5TABLE 4Scenario B Control CostNaughton Unit 2NOxControl SO2Control PM10Control Scenario BLNB with OFA &SCRWet FGDESP with GasConditioningControl CostTotal Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $115.9 $117.4 $1.80 $235.1Annualized First-Year CapitalCosts $11.03 $11.17 $0.17 $22.36First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars)$1.64 $5.72 $0.09 $7.45Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$12.66 $16.89 $0.26 $29.82Power Consumption (MW)1.343.300.054.69Annual Power Usage (MillionkWh/Yr) 10.5726.02 0.39 36.98Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.070.150.05—Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed perYear over Baseline4,4479,9349514,475First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton ofPollutant Removed)2,848 1,700 2,787 2,060NOTE:(a)First year annualized costs include power consumption costs.ADDENDUM TO NAUGHTON UNIT 2 BART REPORTJMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_NAUGHTONUNIT2_FINAL.DOC6TABLE 5Incremental Control Costs, Scenario B compared to Scenario ANaughton Unit 2NOxControl SO2Control PM10ControlTotalControl CostIncremental Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $106.80 0 0 $106.80Incremental Annualized First-YearCapital Costs$10.1600$10.16Incremental First Year Fixed & VariableO&M Costs (million dollars)$1.5600$1.56Incremental First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars)(a)$11.72 0 0 $11.72Incremental Power Consumption (MW)1.34001.34Incremental Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr)10.560010.56Incremental Improvement in Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu)0.1900—Incremental Tons of PollutantRemoved1,798 0 0 1,798Incremental First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of PollutantRemoved)6,519 0 0 6,519NOTE:(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 Br idger Wilderness and Fitzpatrick Wilderness for

this unit.

Modeled Scenarios

Current operations (baseline) a nd two alternative control scenar ios were modeled to cover the

range of effectiveness for the combination of the individual NO

x 

# , SO 2 

# , and PM control

technologies being evaluated. The mode led scenarios incl ude 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 Δ dV 98 th



# Percentile

Δ dV 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

Δ dV 98 th



# Percentile

Δ dV 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 cost s 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 98 th



# 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 98 th



# 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 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0



# 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 BECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY - FIRST YEAR COSTSNaughton 2Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PCTYPE OF EMISSIONS CONTROLSNOxControl SO2ControlPM control Scenario A Scenario BTechnology Label BASE A B C D E F G H A+F D+FCurrent OperationLow NOxBurners withOverfire AirRotating Overfire AirLow NOxBurners withOverfire Air and NonSelective CatalyticReductionLow NOxBurners withOverfire Air andSelective CatalyticReductionDry FGDDry FGD & FabricFilterWet FGDESP w/gasconditioningLNB w/OFA, WetFGD, ESP w/GasconditioningLNB w/OFA and SCR,Wet FGD, ESP w/GasconditioningECONOMIC FACTORSInterest Rate (%)7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 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% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20CAPITAL INVESTMENTTotal Installed Capital Costs ($) $0 $9,100,000 $10,586,222 $19,878,765 $115,900,000 $88,896,713 $141,244,778 $117,400,000 $1,800,000 $128,300,000 $235,100,000FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE ($/Yr) $0 $865,663 $1,007,044 $1,891,024 $11,025,315 $8,456,551 $13,436,308 $11,168,006 $171,230 $12,204,900$22,364,551FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M Costs ($/Yr)Operating Labor ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $506,128 $506,128 $809,804 $0 $809,804 $809,804Maintenance Material ($/Yr)$0 $32,000 $48,000 $93,000 $160,000 $860,174 $905,190 $1,226,386 $0 $1,258,386 $1,386,386Maintenance Labor ($/Yr)$0 $48,000 $72,000 $139,500 $240,000 $573,044 $640,568 $817,591 $10,000 $875,591 $1,067,591Administrative Labor ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0TOTAL FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M COST $0 $80,000 $120,000 $232,500 $400,000 $1,939,346 $2,051,886 $2,853,781 $10,000 $2,943,781 $3,263,781FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr)Makeup Water Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,962 $94,962 $126,616 $0 $126,616 $126,616Reagent Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $50,666 $408,124 $928,672 $1,013,898 $833,160 $62,717 $895,877 $1,304,001SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $303,000 $0 $124,072 $0 $0 $0 $303,000Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $401,332 $543,411 $606,742 $0 $606,742 $606,742Electric Power Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $1,028,862 $86,724 $528,228 $886,950 $1,430,946 $1,300,860 $19,710 $1,320,570 $1,848,798TOTAL FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $1,028,862 $137,390 $1,239,352 $2,311,915 $3,207,289 $2,867,377 $82,427 $2,949,805 $4,189,157SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR COSTS ($/Yr)First Year Debt Service ($/Yr)$0 $865,663 $1,007,044 $1,891,024 $11,025,315 $8,456,551 $13,436,308 $11,168,006 $171,230 $12,204,900 $22,364,551First Year Fixed O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $80,000 $120,000 $232,500 $400,000 $1,939,346 $2,051,886 $2,853,781 $10,000 $2,943,781 $3,263,781First Year Variable O&M Costs($/Yr)$0 $0 $1,028,862 $137,390 $1,239,352 $2,311,915$3,207,289$2,867,377$82,427 $2,949,805$4,189,157Total First Year Costs ($/Yr)$0 $945,663 $2,155,906 $2,260,914 $12,664,667 $12,707,812 $18,695,483 $16,889,165 $263,657 $18,098,485 $29,817,489CONTROL COST COMPARISONSNOxTechnology ComparisonAdditional NOxRemoved From Base Case (Tons/Yr)0 2,649 2,649 3,122 4,447First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton NOxRemoved)$0 $357 $814 $724 $2,848Technology Case ComparisonA-BASE B-A C-A D-AIncremental NOxRemoved (Tons/Yr)0 2,649 0 473 1,798Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton NOxRemoved)$0 $357 #DIV/0! $2,780 $6,519SO2Technology Comparison-1.5%65.3% 87.3% 87.3%Additional SO2Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)07,474 9,934 9,934First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton SO2Removed)$0$1,700 $1,882 $1,700Technology Case ComparisonE-BASE F-E G-FIncremental SO2Removed (Tons/Yr)07,474 2,460 0Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton SO2Removed)$0$1,700 $2,434 #DIV/0!PM Technology Comparison0.0%Additional PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)095First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed)$0$2,787Technology Case ComparisonH-baseIncremental PM Removed (Tons/Yr)095Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed)$0$2,787SCENARIO A AND B COMPARISONSAdditional NOx, SO2, & PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr)012,677 14,475First Year Average Control Cost Compared to Base Case ($/Ton Removed)$0$1,428 $2,060Incremental Tons Removed - Scenario B vs Scenario A (Tons/Yr)01,798Incremental Control Costs - Scenario B vs Scenario A ($/Ton Removed)$0$6,519JMS ES032008003SLC\First Yr Summary\Naughton 2 appenxic.xlsPAGE 1 OF 1INPUT CALCULATIONSNaughton 2Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PCPARAMETERCurrentOperationNOxControl TechnologiesPM ControlTechnologiesScenario A Scenario BControl TechnologiesNOxEmission Control SystemGood CombustionPracticesLNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCRLNB w/OFA LNB w/OFA & SCRSO2Emission Control SystemNoneDry FGD Dry FGD Wet FGD N/A Wet FGD Wet FGDPM Emission Control System ESPESP Fabric Filter ESPESP W/ GasConditioningESP w/ GasConditioningESP w/ GasConditioningGeneral Plant Design and Operating DataType of Unit PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PCAnnual Power Plant Capacity Factor 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%Annual Operation (Hours/Year) 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884Net Power Output (kW) 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW-Hr)11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428 11,428Boiler Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Hr)2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400Annual 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 18,920,654 18,920,654 18,920,654 18,920,654 18,920,654Boiler Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Hr)2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400Annual Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Year)18,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,60018,921,600Plant Fuel SourceBoiler Fuel Source Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer Mine Kemmerer MineCoal Heating Value (Btu/Lb) 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800Coal Sulfur Content (wt.%) 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.580% 0.580% 0.58% 0.58%Coal Ash Content (wt.%) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%Coal Flow Rate (Lb/Hr) 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886 244,886Coal Consumed (Ton/Yr) 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339 965,339Nitrogen Oxide EmissionsNOxEmission Rate (Lb/MMBtu)0.54 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.070.26 0.07NOxEmission Rate (Lb/Hr)1,296 624 624 504 168624 168NOxEmission Rate (Lb Moles/Hr)43.19 20.79 20.79 16.79 5.6020.79 5.60NOxEmission Rate (Ton/Yr)5,109 2,460 2,460 1,987 6622,460 662Add'l NOxRemoved from Current Operations (Lb/Hr)0 672 672 792 1,128672 1,128Add'l NOxRemoved from Current Operations (Ton/Yr)0 2,649 2,649 3,122 4,4472,649 4,447Sulfur Dioxide EmissionsUncontrolled SO2(Lb/MMBtu)1.181.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18Uncontrolled SO2(Lb/Hr)2,8382,838 2,838 2,838 2,838 2,838Uncontrolled SO2(Lb Moles/Hr)44.3044.30 44.30 44.30 44.30 44.30Uncontrolled SO2(Tons/Yr)11,18711,187 11,187 11,187 11,187 11,187Controlled SO2Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu)1.200.41 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15SO2Removal Efficiency (%)-1.5%65.3% 87.3% 87.3% 87.3% 87.3%Controlled SO2Emissions (Lb/Hr)2,880984 360 360 360 360Controlled SO2Emissions (Ton/Yr)11,3533,879 1,419 1,419 1,419 1,419SO2Removed (Lb/Hr)-421,854 2,478 2,478 2,478 2,478SO2Removed (Ton/Yr)-1667,308 9,768 9,768 9,768 9,768Add'l SO2Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr)01,896 2,520 2,520 2,520 2,520Add'l SO2Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr)07,474 9,934 9,934 9,934 9,934Particulate Matter EmissionsUncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/Hr) 9,7959,795 9,795 9,795 9,795 9,795 9,795Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/MMBtu) 4.0814.081 4.081 4.081 4.081 4.081 4.081Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Tons/Yr) 38,61438,614 38,614 38,614 38,614 38,614 38,614Controlled Fly Ash Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.0640.064 0.015 0.064 0.054 0.054 0.054Controlled Fly Ash Removal Efficiency (%) 98.4%98.4% 99.6% 98.4% 98.7% 98.7% 98.7%Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Lb/Hr) 154154 36 154 130 130 130Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Ton/Yr) 605605 142 605 511 511 511Fly Ash Removed (Lb/Hr) 9,6429,642 9,759 9,642 9,666 9,666 9,666Fly Ash Removed (Ton/Yr) 38,00838,008 38,472 38,008 38,103 38,103 38,103Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Lb/Hr) 00 118 0 24 24 24Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Ton/Yr) 00 464 0 95 95 95Economic FactorsInterest Rate (%) 7.10% 7.10% 7.10% 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% 7.10% 7.10% 7.10%Plant Economic Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20SO2and PM Control TechnologiesJMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\Naughton 2 appenxic.xlsPAGE 1 OF 2INPUT CALCULATIONSNaughton 2Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PCPARAMETERCurrentOperationNOxControl TechnologiesPM ControlTechnologiesScenario A Scenario BControl TechnologiesNOxEmission Control SystemGood CombustionPracticesLNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCRLNB w/OFA LNB w/OFA & SCRSO2Emission Control SystemNoneDry FGD Dry FGD Wet FGD N/A Wet FGD Wet FGDPM Emission Control System ESPESP Fabric Filter ESPESP W/ GasConditioningESP w/ GasConditioningESP w/ GasConditioningSO2and PM Control TechnologiesInstalled Capital CostsNoxEmission Control System ($2006)$9,100,000 $10,586,222 $19,878,765 $115,900,000$9,100,000 $115,900,000SO2Emission Control System ($2006)$88,896,713 $141,244,778 $117,400,000 $0 $117,400,000 $117,400,000PM Emission Control System ($2006)$0 $0 $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000Total Emission Control System Capital Costs ($2006) $9,100,000 $10,586,222 $19,878,765 $115,900,000 $88,896,713 $141,244,778 $117,400,000 $1,800,000 $128,300,000 $235,100,000NOxEmission Control System ($/kW)$43 $50 $95 $552$43 $552SO2Emission Control System ($/kW)$423 $673 $559 $9 $559 $559PM Emission Control System ($/kW)$9 $9Total Emission Control Capital Costs ($/kW) $43 $50 $95 $552 $423 $673 $559 $9 $611 $1,120Fixed Operating & Maintenance CostsOperating Labor ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $506,128 $506,128 $809,804 $0 $809,804 $809,804Maintenance Material ($)$32,000 $48,000 $93,000 $160,000 $860,174 $905,190 $1,226,386 $0 $1,258,386 $1,386,386Maintenance Labor ($)$48,000 $72,000 $139,500 $240,000 $573,044 $640,568 $817,591 $10,000 $875,591 $1,067,591Administrative Labor ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total 1st Fixed Year O&M Cost ($) $80,000 $120,000 $232,500 $400,000 $1,939,346 $2,051,886 $2,853,781 $10,000 $2,943,781 $3,263,781Annual Fixed O&M Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Fixed O&M Cost ($/Yr) $94,840 $142,260 $275,629 $474,201 $2,299,100 $2,432,517 $3,383,166 $11,855 $3,489,861 $3,869,222Variable Operating & Maintenance CostsWater CostMakeup Water Usage (gpm)0 0 0 0 165 165 220 0 220 220Unit Price ($/1000 gallons)$1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22First Year Water Cost ($)$0 $0 $0 $0 $94,962 $94,962 $126,616 $0 $126,616 $126,616Annual Water Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Water Costs ($/Yr)$0 $0 $0 $0 $112,577 $112,577 $150,103 $0 $150,103 $150,103Reagent CostType of ReagentNone None UreaAnhydrous NH3Lime Lime Lime Elemental SulfurLime & ElementalSulfurLime & Anhydrous NH3& Elemental SulfurUnit Cost ($/Ton)$0.00 $370.00 $400.00 $91.25 $91.25 $91.25 $370.00Unit Cost ($/Lb)$0.000 $0.185 $0.200 $0.046 $0.046 $0.046 $0.185Molar Stoichiometry0.00 0.51 1.00 1.40 1.15 1.05 0.00Reagent Purity (Wt.%)100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 100% 100%Reagent Usage (Lb/Hr)35 259 2,582 2,819 2,316 43First Year Reagent Cost ($)$0 $50,666 $408,124 $928,672 $1,013,898 $833,160 $62,717 $895,877 $1,304,001Annual Reagent Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Reagent Costs ($/Yr)$60,065 $483,832 $1,100,943 $1,201,979 $987,714 $74,351 $1,062,065 $1,545,897SCR Catalyst / Fabric Filter Bag Replacement CostMaterial ReplacedSCR Catalyst Bags 0 & SCR CatalystAnnual SCR Catalyst (m3) / No. FF Bags101 1,193SCR Catalyst ($/m3) / Bag Cost ($/ea.)$3,000 $104First Year SCR Catalyst / Bag Replacement Cost ($)$303,000 $124,072 $0 $303,000Annual SCR Catalyst / Bag Cost Escalation Rate (%)2.00% 2.00% 0% 2.00%Levelized Catalyst/Fabric Fitler Bag Costs ($/Yr)$359,207 $147,088 $0 $359,207FGD Waste Disposal CostFGD Solid Waste Disposal Rate, Dry (Lb/Hr)4,185 5,666 6,326 6,326 6,326FGD Waste Disposal Unit Cost ($/Dry Ton)$24.33 $24.33 $24.33 $24.33 $24.33First Year FGD Waste Disposal Cost ($)$401,332 $543,411 $606,742 $606,742 $606,742Annual Waste Disposal Cost Esc. Rate (%)2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr)$475,780 $644,215 $719,294 $719,294 $719,294AuxiliaryPower CostAuxiliary Power Requirement (MW) 0.00 2.61 0.22 1.34 2.25 3.63 3.30 0.05 3.35 4.69Auxiliary Power Requirement (% of Plant Output) 0.00% 1.24% 0.10% 0.64% 1.07% 1.73% 1.57% 0.02% 1.60% 2.23%Auxilliary Power Useage (MWh)0 20,577 1,734 10,565 17,739 28,619 26,017 394 26,411 36,976Unit Cost ($2006/MW-Hr)$50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00First Year Auxiliary Power Cost ($)$0 $1,028,862 $86,724 $528,228 $886,950 $1,430,946 $1,300,860 $19,710 $1,320,570 $1,848,798Annual Power Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Levelized Auxilliary Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $1,219,719 $102,812 $626,216 $1,051,482 $1,696,391 $1,542,173 $23,366 $1,565,540 $2,191,755JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\Naughton 2 appenxic.xlsPAGE 2 OF 2