From: Stevens, William

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:15:18 PM

Joe -

I agree that the formulas don't yield the NSR values given in the paper.

Will get back to you.

Bill S

From: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:27 PM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Hi Bill,

I’ve made a spreadsheet for the IPM 5.13 DSI algorithms and duplicated the example in the S&L

documentation. However, on page 3, S&L presents additional example NSR calculations, depending

on milled/unmilled trona and whether the facility has an ESP or a baghouse. I can get close at 1.43

for the ESP + milled trona case vs. what S&L shows – 1.40, but I’m way off for the other three NSR

scenarios. I’ve had someone else check my spreadsheet. Do you know if S&L made a mistake?

Thanks.

From: Stevens, William 

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:21 PM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Joe –

In the SDA paper at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/docs/v513/attachment5_3.pdf

BM = BMR+BMF+BMW+BMB

Good catch! BMW does not have a formula in the SDA paper and should not be included in the

sum. It looks like a typo carryover from the Wet FGD sheet, where BMW does have a formula. None

of the other papers have this typo. It makes sense that SDA does not have a base materials cost for a

waste handling system like Wet FGD does.

Also in the SDA paper, in the VMOP=M*R*10 formula ...

Converting R $/kWh to $/MWh requires multiplying by 1000, but we’re only applying M%/100 of

that to each MWh, so the net multiplier is 10. So that formula is correct.

Please let me know of any more errata you find. I’ll plan on publishing an online errata sheet in a

month or so.

Thanks –
Bill

From: Kordzi, Joe 

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:34 PM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: FW: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

One more: The formla for BM is BMR + BMF + BMW = BMB. However, there is no formula provided

for BMW.

From: Kordzi, Joe 

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:16 PM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Hi Bill,

Another question: The VOMP variable is listed as having units of $/MWh. It’s formula is listed as

M*R*10. M is a percentage and R is $/kWh. So if I multiply $/KWh by 10, I don’t see how I end up

with $/MWh. Can you explain? Thanks.

From: Stevens, William 

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:00 PM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Joe –

Yes, but the addition of a check-box to include the cost of Aux Power in the VOM cost was just a

convenience for those who might be doing manual desktop calcs. 

IPM actually uses the %Aux Power value as a derate on the unit output, with the loss being optimally

made up by other units according to their relative long term economics.

Bill S

From: Kordzi, Joe 

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:28 AM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: RE: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Hi Bill,

For the new SDA cost model, page 7, it looks like there is now a check box that enables the user to

include or not include auxiliary power (M) in the VOM calculation. Is this correct – if you check the

box, then M gets included as VOMP?

It looks like the previous version (enclosed) just included an advisory that M should be used for

model input.

From: Stevens, William 
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:46 AM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: Updated Sargent & Lundy retrofit countrols - Cost Models

Joe –

I was out of the office Friday. Sorry to have missed your call.

Here’s the link to our new IPMv5.13 documentation.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev513.html

Retrofit controls are covered in Chapter 5.

Updated versions of the Sargent & Lundy cost models are listed as Attachments 5-1 thru 5-7.

Note that IPM does not always include all of the features that S&L includes. One example: ACI as

modeled in IPM uses only brominated carbon, whereas S&L allows user to select from three types of

sorbent.

Call anytime with questions/comments.

Bill

William Stevens

Senior Advisor - Power Technologies

Office of Atmospheric Programs

Clean Air Markets Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

stevens.william@epa.gov

202-343-9642