## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

1 1 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

2



## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# AGENDA

• Introductions • Background • Experience • Study Overview • Emissions Criteria • Functional Description • Site General Arrangements & 3D Model • Conceptual Design Overview • Constructability • Schedule • Cost Estimate • NPS Input • General Discussion & Q&A • Closure, EPA Input, &Action Item Review Barry Drost - SRP

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

2 3 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM SLIDE NO. • Background 4 • Experience Listing 5 • Study Overview 26 • Emissions Criteria 33 • Functional Description 38 • Site General Arrangements 43 • Conceptual Design Overview 57 • Constructability 63 • Schedule 79 • Cost Estimate 84 • NPS Input 99 • Supplemental Information - Conceptual Design Description – Mechanical Systems 106 - Conceptual Design Description – Electrical Systems 115 - Schedule Requirements 127 - Cost Estimate Details & Expected Cash Flows 131 - Expected Operating & Maintenance Costs 135 - 3D Model Views 137 Barry Drost - SRP

4 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## Cost Estimate Background
• 2008: Developed high level cost estimate for SCRs only • 2009: Developed supplemental cost estimates for Baghouses • 2009: ANPRM included cost information suggesting estimates were too high

- ANPR approximately one-third of SRP’s estimates 

### • 2010: SRP contracts S&L to develop a conceptual design & detailed cost estimate - Invited EPA and NPS to participate in the development of the cost study - Study based on best management practices for developing accurate pre-construction estimates


### • EPA agreed to consider results of the cost estimate study in developing the draft NGS BART determination

• Cost Estimate Presented to NPS on May 19, 2010 - NPS acknowledged the appropriateness of the methodology and thoroughness of the engineering / construction evaluations and cost estimates Barry Drost - SRP

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

3 5 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

## EXPERIENCE LISTING EXPERIENCE LISTING • • S&L SCR & BAGHOUSE EXPERIENCE S&L SCR & BAGHOUSE EXPERIENCE S&L SCR & BAGHOUSE EXPERIENCE • • FOSTER WHEELER CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE FOSTER WHEELER CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

6 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# Sargent & LundyLLC



# NOx SCR Control Experience and Qualifications

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

4 7 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# Recent 

# SCR Projects (Page 1) Utility Station/Unit MW (Total) Status Ameren (CIPS) Coffeen 1, 2 1,006 Operating Associated Electric New Madrid 1, 2 600 Operating Basin Electric Dry Fork 1 400 Design Cinergy Services 8 units 5,400 Operating CPS Energy Deely 2 450 Design Dynegy Baldwin 1, 2 1,200 Operating Havana 6 450 Operating Exelon Power Mountain Creek 8 550 Operating Handley 3 400 Operating Handley 4-5 916 Operating Gainesville Regional Utilities Deerhaven 2 200 Operating Lakeland Electric McIntosh 3 364 Operating MidAmerican Energy Walter Scott Jr. 4 870 Operating Includes Gibson S&L Design Gibson – FWC Construction

8 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010
Utility Station/Unit MW (Total) Status Mirant Morgantown 1,2 1,252 Operating Owensboro Municipal Elmer Smith 1 150 Operating Nebraska Public Power Dist. Gerald Gentleman 1,2 1400 Hold PSEG Mercer 1,2 640 Operating Reliant Energy Parish 5-8 2,500 Operating 8 Gas Units 5,150 Operating/Lay-up Santee Cooper Cross 1, 2 1,200 Operating Winyah 1-4 1,260 Operating Southern Illinois Power Marion 4 174 Operating Tampa Electric Big Bend 1-4 1,200 Operating TXU Lake Hubbard 2 528 Operating Northlake 2 175 Operating 

### TOTALS 56 units 29,150 

# Recent SCR Projects (Page 2)

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

5 9 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# SCR Project Summary
• 56 Utility SCR Units 9 42 coal-fired units 9 14 gas-fired units 

## • 40 Full S&L Design 9 32 coal-fired units 9 8 gas-fired units 

## • 16 Designed for PRB Coal 9 Most in industry 

## • 40 Used Multiple Lump Sum (MLS) Contracting Approach 9 ~15% lower capital cost 

# • 30% Market Share (56 S&L units of 189 industry units)

10 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

1

2 6 9 4
5 8

12 15 14 15 16

17 18

20 22
23 7 14 13

19 21

8 26 25

27 28 29 31 30

32 

# Recent S&L SCR Projects - 2002 to Date

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

6 11 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# S&L Experience with Every Qualified Catalyst Supplier/OEM

• Argillon • Ceram • Cormetech • Haldor Topsoe • Hitachi • IHI • KWH OEMs Catalyst Suppliers 

# • Alstom • Babcock Power • Babcock & Wilcox • Foster Wheeler • Sargent & Lundy LLC

12 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Santee Cooper Winyah - View from Unit 4 Chimney (Aug 2005) New SCRs

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

7 13 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

9 

# Santee Cooper - Winyah Unit 1 & 2 SCRs

Unit 2 Unit 1 

### New SCRs

14 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# Gibson Units 1-5

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

8 15 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# Gibson Units 4 & 5

16 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# Sargent & LundyLLC



# Particulate Control Fabric Filters Experience and Qualifications

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

9 17 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# Baghouse Design Projects (Page 1)

* Designed for mercury control Client Station Unit MW (total) Baghouse Type Status Basin Electric * Dry Fork 1 420 Pulse Jet 2011 Cinergy *Gallagher 1-4 600 Pulse jet 2008-2009 *Genoa 3 350 Pulse jet 2007 *Madgett 1 370 Pulse jet 2007 * Baldwin 1,2,3 1,905 Pulse jet 2010–2012 *Havana 6 450 Pulse jet 2009 *Vermilion 1,2 183 Pulse jet 2007 *Hennepin 1,2 306 Pulse jet 2008 MidAmerican *Walter Scott, Jr. 4 870 Pulse jet 2007 Mirant Dickerson 1-3 300 Pulse jet 2003 Nova Scotia Power Corp. Point Aconi 1 165 Reverse Air 1994 NPPD Gerald Gentleman 1-2 1,200 Reverse air 2001 Dairyland Dynegy

18 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

* Designed for mercury control 

# Baghouse Design Projects (Page 2) Client Station Unit MW (total) Baghouse Type Status Public Service New Mexico * San Juan 1-4 1,760 Pulse jet 2007 Reliant Energy *Shawville Unit 3-4 572 Pulse jet 2012 Reserve Mining Company Lakeside 1-2 125 Reverse Air 1993 Southern Illinois PowerCoop Marion 1-3 174 Pulse Jet 2002 Texas-Genco Parish 5-7 2,083 Reverse ai r 1989 TU Electric Big Brown 140 COHPAC – Demo 1993 Big Brown 2 593 COHPAC 1995 Big Brown 1 593 COHPAC 1995 Wisconsin Electric Valley 1-2 280 Pulse jet 1996 Wisconsin Public Service Weston 3 320 Pulse jet 2002 

### Totals 41 Units 9,283

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

10 19 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12
13 19 14 15 16
17 18 20

22 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12
13 19 14 15 16
17 18 20

22 21



## Recent S&L Baghouse Projects

- 2001 to Date -

20 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc. NOx SCR Control Experience and Qualifications -- 2000 to Present --

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

11 21 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# FWCI Recent SCR Construction Projects Client Plant Unit # Unit Capacity MWe Start-Up Date AES Deepwater 1 210 2007 Cinergy Gibson 1 660 2005

AEP Muskingum River 5 600 2005 Cinergy Gibson 5 660 2004

IPL Petersburg 2 460 2004 IPL Petersburg 3 560 2004 Cinergy Gibson 4 660 2003 Cinergy Miami Fort 7 530 2003 Cinergy Gibson 3 660 2002 Cinergy East Bend 2 670 2002 Cinergy Miami Fort 8 530 2002 Cinergy Gibson 2 668 2001 S&L Design

S&L Design S&L Design S&L Design S&L Design S&L Design S&L Design

22 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# \



# Muskingum River Unit 5

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

12 23 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# \ 

# Muskingum River Unit 5

24 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# IPL Petersburg Unit 2

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

13 25 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# IPL Petersburg Unit 2

26 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## STUDY OVERVIEW STUDY OVERVIEW

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

14 27 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

Obtain Equipment, Material, & Labor Costs Develop Commodities & Summary Specifications Establish Design Criteria & Plant

Performance Parameters Develop Plant General Arrangements & System Designs 

### 6 Main Phases of Cost Estimate Development

Develop Schedule & Cash Flow Issue Conceptual Design & Cost

Estimate Report 

### Study Overview Barry Drost - SRP

28 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Scope 9 Develop Capital Cost Estimates • Unit 1, 2, and 3 & Common for Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) Option • Unit 1, 2, and 3 & Common for SCR Plus Pulse Jet Fabric Filter (Baghouse) Option

(Final EPA, BART, and PSD requirements will determine need for baghouse implementation)


### • Established Design Basis and Performance Parameters 9 Defined emission control requirements 9 Defined key parameters for major equipment


### • Developed Plant General Arrangements 9 Performed Initial Site Walkdown (FWC, S&L, & SRP) 9 Identified Site Constraints 9 Constructability Issues 9 Developed Preliminary General Arrangement Study Overview Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

15 29 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Developed conceptual system designs 9 Reviewed existing electrical aux power system 9 Performed equipment sizing 9 Performed constructability site walkdown (S&L / FWC) 9 Developed conceptual General Arrangement


### • Major Equipment 9 Letter specifications solicited to obtain budgetary pricing & sizing • Ammonia Storage and Transfer System • Low Oxidation Catalyst • Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) • ID Booster Fans / ID Fan Rotor Replacement • Baghouse • Air Compressors • Unit Auxiliary Transformers (UAT) 

### Study Overview Arvind Patel – S&L

30 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

• Developed material/commodity quantities based on GAs 9 Piping 9 Cable 9 Cable Tray 9 Ductwork 9 Structural steel 9 Foundation work 9 Relocation work • B.O.P. Equipment and Material/ Commodity Cost 9 S&L in-house database 9 Recent awards on related projects 9 Industry publications and vendor catalogs • Owners Cost 9 Construction Management 9 Operations and Maintenance Support During Commissioning 9 Legal Support & Owner’s Insurance 9 Lost Generation During Relocation Outages (7 days / unit) 9 Ammonia unloading facility at rail head 9 Spare Parts • Operation & Maintenance Costs 

### Study Overview Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

16 31 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Labor and Erection Costs (by Foster Wheeler) 9 Manhours per unit quantity 9 Labor Wage Rates 9 Productivity factors • Regional productivity • Difficulty for item of work 

### 9 Construction equipment 9 Heavy lift equipment


### • Order of Magnitude Comparison of FWC Estimate by S&L Study Overview Arvind Patel – S&L

32 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Prepared Project Schedule 9 Engineering & procurement developed by S&L 9 Construction schedule developed by FWC 9 Ordinal schedule reflecting overall durations as shown below: (Authorization of Detailed Engineering to Systems In Service / Testing) - SCR Only: 42 Months - SCR Plus Baghouse: 48 Months 

### Study Overview Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

17 33 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## EMISSIONS CRITERIA EMISSIONS CRITERIA

34 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Emissions Criteria – Basis William DePriest – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

18 35 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Emissions Criteria – Basis William DePriest – S&L Constituent Weight % (1) Carbon 59.16 Hydrogen 4.38 Nitrogen 1.03 Sulfur 0.63 Oxygen 11.11 Ash 10.36 Moisture 13.33 (1) As-Received Ash Analysis Silicon Dioxide 56.67 Aluminum Dioxide 21.53 Titanium Dioxide 1.02 Iron Oxide 5.17 Calcium Oxide 5.47 Magnesium Oxide 1.33 Potassium Oxide 1.23 Sodium Oxide 1.73 Sulfur Trioxide 5.83 Phosphorus Pentoxide 0.22 Strontium Oxide 0.18 Barium Oxide 0.38 Manganese Oxide 0.01 

### Coal Composition

36 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Emissions Criteria – Basis William DePriest – S&L

Emission lb/mmBtu NOXCurrent Permit Current Operation 30-Day Rolling Average with SCR SCR Design 0.24 (1) 0.20 to 0.22 (1) 0.07 to 0.08 0.05 SO3/ H 2SO3Ultra-Low Oxidation Catalyst @ < 0.5% 

### SCR Option Design Emissions

Notes: (1) Based on LNB in operation

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

19 37 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Collateral sulfuric acid mist and PM10 emissions may trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permitting • PSD permitting requires BACT determination • Potential BACT outcomes for sulfuric acid mist: 9 Low oxidation SCR catalyst 9 Low oxidation SCR catalyst + sorbent injection with existing scrubber for particulate removal 9 Low oxidation SCR catalyst + sorbent injection with new polishing baghouse for particulate removal 

### • A sulfuric acid mist BACT determination of Low Oxidation SCR catalyst could still result in significant increase in PM10 • PM10 BACT could be a polishing baghouse 

# Regulatory Basis For Baghouse Option

38 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

20 39 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 SCR Option

40 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 SCR & Baghouse Option

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

21 41 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### 9 Pulse-jet baghouse downstream of SCR with filter bags and pulse-jet cleaning system to remove particulates. 9 Material removed by the pulse-jet cleaning system is collected in hoppers located below the bags. Clean Gas Outlet

Dirty Gas Inlet

42 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Functional Description 

## Questions?

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

22 43 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## SITE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS SITE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS & & 3D MODEL REVIEW 3D MODEL REVIEW

44 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR Option 9 Mechanical • Common Anhydrous Ammonia Storage & Transfer Facility • Anhydrous Ammonia Vaporization and Delivery System (per Unit) • Low Oxidation Catalyst • ID Fans: Rotating Element Replacement (rotor/bearings) 9 Electrical • 480V transformers located in FGD area; switchgear / MCCs in existing FGD building


### • SCR and Baghouse Option 9 Same as SCR Option, with following additional items: 9 Mechanical • Polishing Pulse Jet Fabric Filter (PJFF) with Blowers (gas inlet & outlet on same side) • Axial Flow ID Booster Fans • Dry Sorbent Injection System (per Unit) • Waste Collection System (Storage Silo & Blowers) • Compressed Air System 9 Electrical • New Unit Auxiliary Transformer (per Unit) • New Power Distribution Center (PDC) (per Unit) 

### Site GA – Major Equipment Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

23 45 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR Option msk-1001 Site Plan SCR and BH.pdf 9 Unit 3 & Common msk-1003 Unit 3.pdf • Requires demolition & relocation of existing maintenance/ fabrication shop 

### Site GA - Restrictions/Constraints Arvind Patel – S&L

46 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR Option msk-1001 Site Plan SCR and BH.pdf 9 Unit 2 msk-1003 Unit 2.pdf • Numerous space restrictions (existing coal conveyor, racks, U/G duct banks, etc.) • Flue gas ducts and SCR reactors separated due to space constraints (precip access) • New ducts on both sides of Unit 

### Site GA - Restrictions/Constraints Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

24 47 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR Option msk-1001 Site Plan SCR and BH.pdf 9 Unit 1 msk-1003 Unit 1.pdf • Need to relocate existing fly ash blowers 

### Site GA - Restrictions/Constraints Arvind Patel – S&L

48 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR and Baghouse Option msk-1000 Site Plan SCR.pdf 9 Unit 3 & Common msk-1002 Unit 3.pdf • Maintains site access roads • Baghouses/ID fans located in open areaadjacent to reagent preparation facility 

### Site GA - Restrictions/Constraints Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

25 49 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR and Baghouse Option msk-1000 Site Plan SCR.pdf 9 Unit 2 msk-1002 Unit 2.pdf • Numerous space restrictions (existing coal conveyor, racks, U/G duct banks, etc.) • Requires stacked baghouse arrangement (non-conventional) • ID booster fans installed in separate locations (limited maintenance access) • Requires warehouse/tool room demolition & relocation 

### Site GA - Restrictions/Constraints Arvind Patel – S&L

50 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR and Baghouse Option msk-1000 Site Plan SCR.pdf 9 Unit 1 msk-1002 Unit 1.pdf • Baghouses located in close proximity to operating water treatment facilities • One baghouse casing elevated 25 ft to allow road access • Relocate existing east – west pipe rack to allow equipment installation • Major underground utility corridor under booster fan foundations • Water treatment sump relocation 

### Site GA - Restrictions/Constraints Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

26 51 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR Option 9 A common ammonia truck unloading area located southeast of the units 9 SCR reactors arranged to minimize capital costs and maximize accessibility 9 Minimum clearance of 25 feet maintained above roads 9 New 480V transformers and electrical equipment located in space available in the FGD area 

### Site GA – Other Development Considerations Arvind Patel – S&L

52 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR and Baghouse Option 9 The SCR reactor locations remain as optimized for the SCR Option. 9 Within the remaining available space on eachunit after positioning of the SCRs, the baghouses and ID Booster Fans have been arranged to minimize capital costs while maximizing accessibility for maintenance activities. 9 Sorbent injection silo for each unit located adjacent existing plant roads 9 The waste silo for each unit’s baghouse has been located near both casings and an existing plant road for ease of truck loading. 9 As a cost-saving measure the abandoned chimney shells have been used for support of the ductwork associated with the baghouses. 9 The Unit 2 ID Booster Fans have been separated due to space restrictions. A side-byside arrangement is desirable for maintenance access; however, access is possible from an adjacent existing plant road for each of the fans. 9 The Unit 2 baghouse ductwork passes over boththe existing coal conveyor and the SCR inlet / outlet ductwork. 9 The Unit 2 Power Distribution Center has been located north of Unit 1 because of insufficient space closer to the new baghouses. 9 New UATs have been located adjacent to existing transformers outside the turbine building. 

### Site GA – Other Development Considerations Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

27 53 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Site GA – Other Development Considerations Arvind Patel – S&L

54 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • SCR Option 9 No major piping relocation anticipated 9 Cathodic protection to be modified as required 9 Precipitator transformers – relocate under precipitator due to platform demo between U1 and U2 precips 

### • SCR and Baghouse Option 9 Unit 1 ID fans location – U/G piping would be relocated onto new piperack 9 New pipe rack from U1 Baghouse to PDC building • U/G piping in corridor to be relocated onto rack • Cables on existing rack to be relocated to new rack • Distribution panels under existing rack to be relocated 

### Site GA – Utility Relocation Arvind Patel – S&L msk-1001 Site Plan SCR and BH_UG.pdf msk-1001_UGO_Markup.pdf

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

28 55 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Other General Items 9 Ash conveying piping near U2 baghouse to be relocated onto existing pipe rack 9 Fire protection piping near Unit 3 baghouse to be relocated 9 All piping relocated from U/G to A/G to be heat traced and insulated 9 NGS has implemented a phased underground to aboveground utility relocation plan 9 Precipitator transformers – relocate under precipitator due to platform demo between U1 and U2 precips 9 Cable tray in/along side tool room between U1 and U2 precips to be relocated 

### Site GA – Utility Relocation Arvind Patel – S&L

56 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Site GA / 3D Model 

## Questions?

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

29 57 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OVERVIEW CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OVERVIEW

58 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

• General 9 Based on previous experience with retrofit projects and site walkdowns, BOP systems (air, water, fire protection) have adequate pressure/flow margins to support new users 9 Installed equipment spares 9 Maximize turndown capability & operator flexibility
• SCR Option 9 2 x 50% Selective Catalytic Reduction Reactors w/4-layer design (2 + 2) 9 Existing ID Fans & Motors with replacement rotor assembly (impeller, rotor, bearings) 9 Anhydrous Ammonia utilized as reagent; 14-day storage and transfer facility • SCR and Baghouse Option 9 New Polishing Pulse Jet Fabric Filter (PJFF - Baghouse); air to cloth ratio 6:1 9 Existing ID Fans & Motors w/o modifications 9 New 2 x 50% Axial ID Booster Fans downstream of new PJFF 9 Utilize sodium-based sorbent; i.e. Trona 9 Waste Collection & Disposal System; 7-day storage silo w/blowers 9 New Compressed Air System (pulse jet); also feeds new ancillary air users 

### Conceptual Design Description – Mechanical Systems Arvind Patel – S&L 

## Summary (Refer to Slides 101 – 109 for additional details)

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

30 59 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

• General 9 Auxiliary power system sized sufficiently tosupport the new system load requirements under all plant operating modes. 9 Auxiliary power system designed to utilize existing sources where applicable. 9 Auxiliary power system designed such that failure of a single component (such as transformer) will not cause plant operation to be limited. • SCR Option 9 Utilization of existing ID fan motors. 9 New system additions at 480-V level. 9 Utilization of existing Pump Building and small PDCs to house new elect. equipment. 9 Relocation of two precipitator transformers • SCR and Baghouse Option 9 New ID Booster Fans requirements can not besupported from existing auxiliary power system 9 Elect. System Additions at 13.8-kV, 4.16-kV and 480-V levels 9 New UAT per each unit is required. 9 Utilization of existing Pump Building, small PDCs, and large PDCs to house new electrical equipment. 9 Significant Cable and Equipment Relocation. 

### Conceptual Design Description – Electrical Systems Arvind Patel – S&L 

## Summary (Refer to Slides 110 – 121 for additional details)

60 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Significant Assumption 9 Relocation of the electrical conduits / cables with the pipe rack on the north side of Unit 1, only affects Unit 1. 9 Relocation of cable tray / rack between Unit 2 & 3, only affects Unit 2. 9 Detailed study / evaluation must be performed to identify service of each cable 

### Conceptual Design Description – Electrical Systems Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

31 61 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Control Systems Design 9 DCS - New SCR/Baghouse equipment controls will be integrated into existing Plant’s Foxboro Distributed Control System (DCS) via new DCS equipment 9 Vendor PLC will be provided for the following, and will communicate with the Foxboro DCS via datalink:

• Baghouse cleaning systems 

### • Flue Gas SCR Duct Instruments 9 New in-situ NOx 

### and O2 

### instruments installed on inlet and outlet of each SCR Reactor 

### • BOP Instruments 9 Ammonia System 9 SCR / Baghouse 9 Flue Gas Duct / ID Fans Conceptual Design Description – Instrumentation & Controls

62 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Conceptual Design Description 

## Questions?

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

32 63 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

## CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW Steve Maryanski - FWC

64 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Foster Wheeler engaged to provide input into construction related aspects of the project, including

9 Input regarding constructability • Methods • Equipment 9 Input into Construction Schedule (as addressed in schedule discussion) • Sequence • Durations • Estimated craft labor histogram 9 Input into cost estimate (as discussed in cost estimate discussion) • Installation rates by commodity (e.g. MH/ton of steel erected) • Craft crew mixes and crew cost rates • Productivity factors Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

33 65 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

CLIENT PLANT UNIT CAPACITY YEAR COMPLETED CINERGY GIBSON - UNIT 2 660 2001 CINERGY GIBSON - UNIT 3 660 2002 CINERGY GIBSON - UNIT 4 660 2003 INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT (IPL) PETERSBURG - UNIT 2 460 2003 INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT (IPL) PETERSBURG - UNIT 3 560 2004 CINERGY GIBSON - UNIT 5 660 2004 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER (AEP) MUSKINGUM RIVER - UNIT 5 600 2005 CINERGY GIBSON - UNIT 1 660 2005 FW EXPERIENCE BASED ON SCR RETROFITS FOR:

66 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

CLIENT PLANT UNIT CAPACITY YEAR COMPLETED FORT HOWARD PAPER COMPANY RINCON - UNIT 5 50 1997 TOLEDO EDISON BAYSHORE - UNIT 1 175 2000 JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY (JEA) NORTHSIDE - UNIT 1 300 2003 JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY (JEA) NORTHSIDE - UNIT 2 300 2003 FW EXPERIENCE BASED ON BAGHOUSE RETROFITS FOR:

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

34 67 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# \ IPL Petersburg Unit 4 Unit 3 Unit 2 Unit 1


### SCRs ADDED

68 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### IPL Petersburg

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

35 69 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### IPL Petersburg

70 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



# • Construction Methods 9 General approach/methods • All material delivered by highway/truck • Material (ductwork, structural steel, SCR and baghouse

components) field assembled at grade into larger modules (roughly 35 to 55 ton sections) for erection by relatively large cranes • Immediate construction area (especially Unit 2) congested • Work done around operating equipment, including the coal

conveyor between Units 2 and 3 Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

36 71 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



# • Construction Equipment 9 Heavy lift crane plan and costs developed by Mammoet USA North Inc. 9 Units 1 and 3 utilize two 660 ton cranes • U1 crane plan • U3 crane plan 

### 9 Unit 2 utilizes one 1250 ton and one 660 ton crane • U2 crane plan 

### 9 Construction cranes (200 ton and under) are included under Construction Equipment Supplement 9 New transformers (UAT’s) to be set using multi-axeled transporter, and jack and slide system Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

72 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

37 73 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

74



## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

38 75 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

CLIENT PLANT COST BASIS HL&T COST CINERGY GIBSON - UNIT 3 2002 $8,474,000 INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT (IPL) PETERSBURG - UNIT 2 2003 $3,227,000 INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT (IPL) PETERSBURG - UNIT 3 2004 $2,678,000 SALT RIVER PROJECT NAVAJO - UNIT 1 2010 $2,878,000 SALT RIVER PROJECT NAVAJO - UNIT 2 2010 $6,547,000 SALT RIVER PROJECT NAVAJO - UNIT 3 2010 $2,878,000 HEAVY LIFT CRANE AND TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR SCR'S

76 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

WORK AREA PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR COMMENT NAVAJO UNIT 1 SCR 1.00 GOOD ACCESS FOR MAJORITY OF WORK NAVAJO UNIT 1 BAGHOUSE 1.15 ACCESS LIMITATIONSIN THE EXISTING WATER TREATMENT AREA NAVAJO UNIT 1 ELECTRICAL 1.08 AVERAGE OF THE FACTORS FOR SCR AND BAGHOUSE AREAS NAVAJO UNIT 2 ALL WORK 1.25 VERY LIMITED ACCESS AND CONGESTION FOR VIRTUALLY ALL WORK AREAS NAVAJO UNIT 3 ALL WORK 1.00 GOOD ACCESS FOR MAJORITY OF WORK UNIT PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS FOR DIFFICULTY OF WORK

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

39 77 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Construction Methods (continued) 9 SCR tie-ins • To be completed within an 8 week outage duration • Tie-in area inaccessible for overhead crane lifts • Pre-stage as much material in place as possible • Set up platforms/rollers for the SCR tie-ins to allow ductwork to be

rolled in and out of the area • Model cut of Units 1 or 3 tie-in • Model cut of Unit 2 tie-in 

### Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC

78 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Constructability Review Steve Maryanski - FWC 

## Questions?

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

40 79 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## SCHEDULE SCHEDULE

80 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Schedule Basis 9 Multiple lump sum contracts 9 Based on construction quality drawings for bid 9 Detailed design of ductwork & steel completed after final flow model results 9 Construction schedule developed with Foster Wheeler input 

### • Concurrent Design & Construction of SCR & Baghouse • Utility Relocation Tie-In Outage – 1 week forced outage per unit • Major Tie-In Outages – 8 week planned outage • Construction / Services Contracts 9 Survey Work 9 Substructure Installation Work* 9 Mechanical & Structural General Work* 9 Electrical & Instrumentation General Work* 9 Construction Testing & Inspection 9 Final Site Work 

### Schedule (Refer to Slides 122 – 125 for additional details) Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

41 81 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Major Equipment / Materials Contracts SCR Only

9 SCR Catalyst & Flow Modeling 9 Ammonia Storage & Transfer 9 ID Fan Upgrade* 9 Flue Gas Dampers* 9 Structural Steel Fabrication* 9 Ductwork Fabrication* 

### SCR and Baghouse (same as SCR Onlylist above w/following additional)

9 Baghouse 9 ID Booster Fans* 9 Sorbent Injection 9 Unit Auxiliary Transformers 9 Power Distribution Center (PDC)* *separate specifications for Units 1, 2, and 3 

### Schedule Arvind Patel – S&L

82 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

42 83 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Schedule 

## Questions?

84 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## COST ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATE

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

43 85 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Major Considerations 9 Cost Estimate is Specific to Navajo Generating Station 9 Significant Consideration Given to Site Restrictions & Constraints 9 Consideration Given to Construction Difficulty Reflected by multiplier in productivity factor

- Unit 3: 1.00 Base: All Work; SCR and/or Baghouse) 

### - Unit 1: 1.08 Electrical: 8% more than base 

### - Unit 1: 1.15 Baghouse: 15% more than base 

## - Unit 2: 1.25 All Work: 25% more than base 9 Based on 3,600 Man-hours of Engineering Completed (4 Month Duration) - Approximately 1% of detailed engineering required for project 

### Capital Cost Estimate (Refer to Slides 126 – 129 for additional details) Arvind Patel – S&L

86 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Overview of Included Items 9 SCR - Low Oxidation Catalyst* - Anhydrous Ammonia Storage & Transfer System* - Dry Sorbent Injection System* (for SCR and Baghouse Option Only) - Flue Gas Ductwork & Structural Steel - Relocation of Existing Utilities / Infrastructure (Ex.: U3 Maintenance Building) 

### 9 Baghouse - Baghouse & Waste Collection Systems * - Induced Draft Booster Fans* - Compressed Air System* - Flue Gas Ductwork & Structural Steel - Relocation of Existing Utilities / Infrastructure (Ex.: U1 Pipe Rack & U/G, U2 Precip Xformers, etc.) 

### 9 Electrical / I&C - Transformers* - Pre-Fabricated Power Distribution Centers - Switchgear / Motor Control Centers - Cables & Cable Tray 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L * Estimate is based on Q1 2010 budgetary prices provided by suppliers.

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

44 87 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Overview of Included Items 9 Construction Equipment & Scaffolding - General Construction Equipment: small cranes, trucks, dozers, excavators, etc. - Heavy Construction Equipment: major crane rental - Scaffolding 

### 9 Other Direct & Construction Indirect Costs - Indirect Craft Labor: safety, security, warehousing, & construction support activites - Overtime & Per Diem - Contractor General & Administrative and Profit - Freight 

### 9 Indirect Costs - Engineering & Procurement - Construction Management & Start-up / Commissioning - Owners Costs = Construction Management = Operations and Maintenance Support During Commissioning = Legal Support & Owner’s Insurance = Lost Generation During Relocation Outages (7 days / unit) = Ammonia unloading facility at rail head = Spare Parts = Taxes 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L

88 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Overview of Included Items 9 Contingency - Determined using a range analysis - Based on 95% confidence level of not exceeding the budget 

### 9 Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC)



### • Excluded Costs Items 9 Escalation Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

45 89 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Exposures / Risks 9 Ammonia System (anhydrous ammonia vs. urea system) - Urea systems have additional equipment / processes resulting in increased capital costs 

### 9 Underground Utilities & Infrastructure - Additional expenditures would be required to relocate unk nown U/G utilities or work around critical ones 

### 9 Equipment Size & Available Footprint for Installation - Conceptual general arrangements are based on representative data from previous projects; detail design must be based on project specific drawings for purchased equipment 

### 9 Implementation Schedule - May result in loss of generation if a planned minor outage has to be extended 

### 9 Risks to Operating Unit(s) - May result in unexpected unit trips or damage to existing equipment / infrastructure 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L

90 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L 

### Cost Estimate Risk Analysis - Ranges for Individual Cost Elements
Cost Element Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Equipment -5% +35% -5% +35% -5% +35% Catalyst -5% +15% -5% +15% -5% +15% Str. Steel & Ductwork -5% +20% -5% +25% -5% +20% Other Materials -10% +20% -10% +25% -10% +20% Labor -10% +30% -10% +30% -10% +30% C/M & S-U -10% +20% -10% +20% -10% +20% A/E Engineering -10% +20% -10% +25% -10% +15% SRP Costs -10% +20% -10% +25% -10% +15% Overall Contingency After Simulation
Cost Element Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Equipment -5% +45% -5% +45% -5% +45% Catalyst -5% +15% -5% +15% -5% +15% Str. Steel & Ductwork -5% +25% -5% +35% -5% +20% Other Materials -10% +20% -10% +30% -10% +20% Labor -10% +30% -10% +30% -10% +30% C/M & S-U -10% +20% -10% +20% -10% +20% A/E Engineering -10% +20% -10% +30% -10% +15% SRP Costs -10% +20% -10% +30% -10% +15% Overall Contingency After Simulation Ranges for SCR and Baghouse Option U1 U2 U3 & Common U1 U2 U3 & Common

Ranges for SCR Only Option

11.4% 12.9% 11.3%

13.2% 14.6% 12.6%

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

46 91 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L

92 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

47 93 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 & Common Total SCR $ 50,386,000 $ 63,860,000 $ 60,661,000 $ 174,907,000 Electrical and I&C $ 3,478,000 $ 3,888,000 $ 5,297,000 $ 12,663,000 Construction Equipment & Scaffolding $ 11,471,000 $ 18,934,000 $ 14,091,000 $ 44,496,000 Other Direct & Construction Indirect Costs $ 29,731,000 $ 41,879,000 $ 37,491,000 $ 109 ,101,000 Indirect Costs $ 38,481,000 $ 50,135,000 $ 46,699,000 $ 135,315,000 Contingency $ 15,224,000 $ 23,052,000 $ 18,559,000 $ 56,835,000 AFUDC $ 6,357,000 $ 8,450,000 $ 7,763,000 $ 22,570,000 Total Project Costs $ 155,128,000 $ 210,198,000 $ 190,561,000 $ 555,887,000 $/kW (812MW Gross) $ 191 $ 259 $ 235 $ 228 $/kW (750MW Net) $ 207 $ 280 $ 254 $ 247 Intermediate Level Summary of SCR Only Capital Cost Estimate

94 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 & Common Total SCR $ 49,653,000 $ 63,370,000 $ 60,514,000 $ 173,537,000 Baghouse $ 71,095,000 $ 67,771,000 $ 52,948,000 $ 191,814,000 Electrical and I&C $ 14,977,000 $ 14,831,000 $ 18,437,000 $ 48,245,000 Construction Equipment & Scaffolding $ 29,345,000 $ 33,270,000 $ 26,577,000 $ 89,192,000 Other Direct & Construction Indirect Costs $ 78,797,000 $ 85,736,000 $ 70,100,000 $ 234,633,000 Indirect Costs $ 77,981,000 $ 86,030,000 $ 73,737,000 $ 237,748,000 Contingency $ 42,484,000 $ 51,247,000 $ 38,092,000 $ 131,823,000 AFUDC $ 16,371,000 $ 18,064,000 $ 15,562,000 $ 49,997,000 Total Project Costs $ 380,703,000 $ 420,319,000 $ 355,967,000 $ 1,156,989,000 $/kW (812MW Gross) $ 469 $ 518 $ 438 $ 475 $/kW (750MW Net) $ 508 $ 560 $ 475 $ 514 Intermediate Level Summary of SCR and Baghouse Capital Cost Estimate

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

48 95 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L 

### High Level Capital Cost Estimate Summary

*For SCR Option, costs were obtained from 10/06/08 “SCR & SNCR Cost Study”. For SCR and Baghouse Option, costs were developed from 10/02/09 “Fabric Filter Cost Study”. These studies were developed by S&L. The “Previuos Cost Estimate values shown include loss of generation due to outage extension and $5M of Owner’s costs. AFUDC and escalation were not included. SCR Option 2010 Cost Estimate Previous Cost Estimate Unit 1 $155M $198M Unit 2 $210M $267M Unit 3 & Common $191M $198M Total $556M $663M SCR and Baghouse Option 2010 Cost Estimate Previous Cost Estimate Unit 1 $381M $318M Unit 2 $420M $402M Unit 3 & Common $356M $303M Total $1,157M $1,023M

96 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


### • Notable Differences Between 2010 & Previous Cost Estimates General

9 Current 2010 cost estimate is significantly more detailed 9 Previous estimates had distributed the costs of site common items (e.g. ammonia storage, etc) among all units. Current estimate has these common costs grouped with Unit 3 SCR Option

9 Previous Estimates: - were based on identical layouts for Unit 1 & 3 SCRs ..........different arrangements for U1 & U3

- included new ID booster fans...ID fan upgrade, new booster fans not required for SCR only option - included upgradesto electrical aux power system ...............not required for NGS SCR only option 9 Current Estimate:

- includes demolition and relocation of existing maintenance shop for Unit 3 SCR and Baghouse Option 9 Previous Estimates: - were based on identical layouts for Unit 1 & 3 SCRs ..........different arrangements for U1 & U3 - included upgradesto electrical aux power system ...............not required for NGS SCR only option 9 Current Estimate: - U1: Incl. relocation of existing utilities, elevated baghouse, and longer duct runs due to water treatment area - U2: Stacked baghouse, electrical ca ble relocation, and complex ductwork - U3 & Common: Longer duct runs compared to previous estimates and aux. power upgrades 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

49 97 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate Arvind Patel – S&L 

### Predicted Aux. Power Consumption (per Unit)

10.8 MW SCR + BAGHOUSE TOTAL 5.1 MW SCR TOTAL

0.5 MW Baghouse Loads 10.0 MW Existing Induced Draft Fan Modification (decrease BHP) and New ID Booster Fan 0.1 MW Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Transfer 0.2 MW SCR and Sorbent Injection System, SCR + Baghouse Appx. Cost / Year: $3.83M per Unit (90% capacity factor & $45 / MW-hr) 0.1 MW Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Transfer 5.0 MW Existing four (4) Induced Draft Fan Modification (increase BHP) SCR Only Appx. Cost / Year: $1.81M per Unit (90% capacity factor & $45 / MW-hr) Unit Basis Auxiliary Power User Option

98 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate 

## Questions?

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

50 99 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INPUT NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INPUT

100 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# National Park Service Meeting
• SRP, S&L, & FWC met with NPS on 5/19/2010 9 Attendees from NPS: John Vimont, John Bunyak, Pat Brewer, Don Shepherd 

### • NPS questioned the use of AFUDC 9 Clarification received from US EPA/OAQPS/HEID/ABCG indicates that AFUDC can be used for regulated utilities that include AFUDC in the rate base 

### • SRP questioned the use of the Pollution Control Cost Manual 9 Manual indicates it should only be used for units between 25MW and 600MW 9 NPS agreed that it could not be relied upon for accurate actual costs but it might be able to provide consistent comparisons to other projects 

### • NPS 

### acknowledged that the cost estimate was comprehensive and based on a sound methodology.

100

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

51 101 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

# National Park Service – BART Related Issues
• NPS recommended use of expected actual emission rates in determining cost effectiveness • NPS questioned SCR outlet NOx 

### values; why not < 0.08 lb/MMBTU? 9 Discussed differences between guar anteed, design, and permit values, 9 Conceptual design minimizes both SO3 

### generation and ammonia slip 9 Lower rates may be achieved w/increasein particulate; could trigger NSR/PSD 9 Increased operating costs (fan power, catalyst, ammonia, etc.) 

### • NPS and SRP agreed that PSD permitting requirements need resolution to ensure the BART rulemaking considers all capital costs for implementing BART • NPS questioned if baghouse required for mercury MACT 9 Current control strategy is use of calcium bromide fuel additive 9 Additional control may be required based on final MACT determination 101

102 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### NPS Input 

## Questions?

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

52 103 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 CLOSING Kevin Wanttaja - SRP



### • General discussion Q&A • Path forward and action items • Submit final cost estimate report to EPA August 06, 2010

104 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



# THANK YOU

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

53 105 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

## SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • • Conceptual Design Description Conceptual Design Description Conceptual Design Description – – BOP Systems BOP Systems • • Conceptual Design Description Conceptual Design Description Conceptual Design Description – – Electrical Systems Electrical Systems • • Schedule Requirements Schedule Requirements • • Cost Estimate Details & Expected Cash Flows Cost Estimate Details & Expected Cash Flows • • Expected Operating & Maintenance Costs Expected Operating & Maintenance Costs • • 3 3 -

- D Model Views

D Model Views

106 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## Conceptual Design Description Conceptual Design Description Mechanical Balance of Plant (BOP) Systems Mechanical Balance of Plant (BOP) Systems

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

54 107 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Flue Gas System – SCR Option 9 Ducts • SCR Reactors located downstream of existing HESP and upstream of existing Air Heater • Units 1 and 3 ducts routed to SCR Reactors on one side of the unit;

north for Unit 1 and south for Unit 3 • Unit 2 SCR Reactors separated, one duct on each side (north and south);

separate duct trains run to each SCR system. • Flue gas velocities generally maintained to 60 ft/sec • Economizer inlet flue gas side bypass 

### 9 Fans • Existing (4 x 25%) centrifugal ID Fan rotating assembly (impeller,

rotor, bearings) replaced to support SCR Reactor installation • Replacement impeller with tipped blades resulting in performance

increase: 7.5% flow, 15% pressure, 27.5% brake horsepower • Preliminary calculations show existing 8,000 HP fan motors suitable for

rotating assembly replacement • Air Heater evaluation 

### Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

108 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Flue Gas System – SCR and Baghouse Option 9 Ducts • Ducting to SCRs equivalent to SCR Option • Baghouse located downstream of existing HESP / new SCR and

upstream of existing Scrubber • Units 1 and 3 ducts routed to Baghousealong one side of unit, north for

Unit 1 and south for Unit 3 • Unit 2 ducting unique due to site constraints and new Axial ID Fan

location • Economizer inlet flue gas side bypass 

### 9 Fans • Existing centrifugal ID fans remain in operation without modifications • New 2 x 50% Axial ID Booster Fans & Motors; including lube and

hydraulic systems • New Axial ID Fans located downstream of Baghouse • New duct dampers (w/seal air) for fan isolation 

### Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

MSK-3004-01.pdf

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

55 109 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Sorbent Injection System 9 SCR and Baghouse Option • Sodium based product, such as trona, utilized as the dry sorbent • Sorbent delivered to one of three 7-day storage silos located near

each unit’s injection point. • Sorbent pneumatically conveyed from silo to duct via 2 x 100%

blowers located at each storage silo. • Injection point located upstream of air heaters. • Dry product will be collected in new baghouse Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

110 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • SCR Reactor 9 2 x 50% SCR reactors required per unit 9 Four catalyst layer design (2 operating and 2 spare) utilizing ultra-low SO2

### -to-SO3 

### conversion catalyst. 

## • Anhydrous Ammonia Delivery & Storage 9 Anhydrous ammonia chosen as the reagent for the SCR system. 9 Anhydrous ammonia delivered via truck to a common unloading area located south of Unit 3 9 Storage will be in one of three bullet-type storage tanks, sized for 14 days of continuous operation Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

MSK-3003-02.pdf MSK-3003-01.pdf

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

56 111 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Anhydrous Ammonia Transfer 9 4 x 33% pump arrangement at common unloading area 9 Transfer piping constructed of double walled pipe utilizing leak detection cable 

## • Anhydrous Ammonia Vaporization and Injection 9 Two vaporizer skids provided per unit. 9 1,500 lbs/hr of low pressure steam required per skid 9 2 x 100% dilution air blowers (with heaters) per skid to convey ammonia gas to injection point 9 Steam used for vaporization will be discharged to local condensate storage tank and admitted to the FGD Process for reuse Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

112 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Baghouse 9 Gross air-to-cloth ratio designed to be 6:1 9 Two casings required per unit; eight compartments per casing 9 2 x 100% pulse jet air compressor systems for bag cleaning. 9 Internal bypass and dampers provided to protect the bags from flue gas temperature excursions greater than 375oF 9 PPS fabric bags 

## • Waste Collection 9 Baghouse waste transported from each compartment to a 7- day storage silo (1 per unit) 9 Unit 1 will utilize 2 x 100% pneumatic blowers 9 Units 2 & 3 will utilize 3 x 50% pneumatic blowers 9 Wastes transported via truck to plant landfill Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

MSK-3006-01.pdf

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

57 113 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • General 9 Service Water System • Service water utilized for wash down hose stations • Service water utilized as the cooling medium for new pulse jet

compressors; cooling water collected and admitted to the FGD process 

### 9 Fire Protection System • Fire hydrants located within 50 feet of new structures • Fire water extended to ammonia storage/transfer area for leak

suppression • Deluge system for new Unit Auxiliary Transformers • Baghouse designed with polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) fabric bags;

fire water standpipe in penthouse for use during outages 

### 9 Potable Water System • Emergency eyewash/shower stations located at new structures;

ammonia storage, sorbent injection and waste collection areas Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

114 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### 9 Compressed Air • Compressed air demand for SCR Option minimal and supported

from existing plant compressed air system • High volume compressed air demand for Pulse Jet cleaning

– 2 x 100% compressor train » Oil free, centrifugal compressors » 2 x 100% regenerative dryer skid w/pre-filters and after filters » 2 x 100% Air receivers (wet/dry)

– Compressed air system would provide air to all new SCR/Baghouse

users (valves, instruments, tools, etc.) 

### Conceptual Design Description - BOP Systems

Back to Conceptual Design Description – BOP Systems Summary

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

58 115 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## Conceptual Design Description Conceptual Design Description Electrical Systems Electrical Systems

116 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Basic Electrical System – SCR Option 9 Utilization of existing ID fan motors • Existing motors have sufficient capacity to overcome the

additional pressure dropdue to SCR addition. 

### 9 System Loads • SCR System • Sorbent Injection System • Anhydrous Ammonia Transfer System 

### 9 Electrical System Additions • Refer to ESK-1000 Sht. 1. • Refer to general arrangement on MSK-1000 Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

59 117 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

118 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Basic Electrical System – SCR & Baghouse Option 9 New ID Booster Fans requirements can not be supported from existing auxiliary power system

• New UAT per each unit is required. • New 13.8-kV Station Service bus is required to distribute power

to all 3 units for startup and shutdown. • PDC buildings required to house electrical equipment. 

### 9 System Loads • SCR System • Sorbent Injection System • ID Booster Fans • Baghouse System • Anhydrous Ammonia Transfer System 

### 9 Elect. System Additions at 13.8-kV, 4.16-kV and 480-V levels • Refer to one-lines on ESK-1001 Sht. 1, 2, 3. • Refer to general arrangement on MSK-1001. Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

60 119 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

120 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

61 121 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

122 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Auxiliary Power System Equipment – SCR Option 9 Major Equipment • Two (2) new 4160/480V Unit Substation Transformers (USTs)

per unit, fed from existing FGD 4.16-kV Switchgear. • 480-V switchgears and motor control centers (MCCs) per unit. • 480-V MCCs for common loads • Refer to one-lines on ESK-1000 Sht. 1. 

### 9 Equipment Location • PDC • Existing Pump Building. • Refer to general arrangement on MSK-1000 Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

62 123 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Auxiliary Power System Equipment - SCR & Baghouse Option 9 Major Equipment • One (1) three-winding unit auxiliary transformer (UAT) per unit. • Two (2) 13.8-kV switchgears per unit. • Two (2) 13.8-kV common switchgears for startup and shutdown. • Two (2) 4.16-kV FGD switchgear extensions per unit • Two (2) new 4.16/0.48-kV Unit Substation Transformers (USTs) per

unit, fed from new 4.16-kV FGD switchgear extensions. • 480-V switchgears and motor control centers (MCCs) per unit. • 480-V MCCs for common loads • Refer to one-lines on ESK-1001 Sht. 1, 2, 3. 

### 9 Equipment Location • PDC • Existing Pump Building. • Refer to general arrangement on MSK-1001 . 

### Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

124 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • DC Power Supply System 9 Power for uninterruptible power supply 9 Control power for switchgear 9 ID booster fan DC pumps. 

### • Uninterruptible AC Power Supply 9 Uninterruptible power to DCS and other critical loads 

### • Electrical Control and Protection 9 Protective relaying systems will be designed to protect all electrical equipment in the auxiliary power system 9 Protective relay system will be coordinated and will remove and alarm abnormal operating conditionsas well as limit damage to faulted or overloaded equipment 

### • Communication System 9 Extend existing plant communication systems (paging system, fire alarm system, telephone system, etc.), to the new facilities. Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

63 125 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## • Other Systems Considered 9 Lighting and Maintenance Power System 9 Grounding System 9 Lightning Protection System 9 Cathodic Protection System 9 Freeze Protection System Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

126 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



### • Electrical Relocation – SCR Option 9 U/G construction work will affect the cathodic protection system. 9 Two precipitator transformers will be relocated from existing platform between Unit 1 and Unit 2 to area under precipitator, to allow for the demolishing of the platform. 

### • Electrical Relocation – SCR & Baghouse Option 9 U/G construction work will affect the cathodic protection system. 9 Pipes relocated from U/G to A/G will require heat tracing. 9 Cables along the pipe rack north of Unit 1 will be relocated to allow for the relocation of the pipe rack to the north side of the road. 9 Two precipitator transformers will be relocated from existing platform between Unit 1 and Unit 2 to area under precipitator, to allow for the demolishing of the platform. 9 The cable tray and cables running along side the existing tool room between Unit 1 and Unit 2 precipitators will berelocated to allow for the demolition of the tool room and installation of the new baghouses. These cables would be relocated around the new baghouse by installing termination panels at the points where the cable need to be rerouted. 

### Conceptual Design Description - Electrical

Back to Conceptual Design Description – Electrical Summary

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

64 127 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## Schedule Schedule Requirements Requirements

128 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

65 129 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### SCR Option - Critical Path

39 Complete Pre-Outage Construction 42 Complete Major Tie In Outage 30 Award E-GWC 26 Release E-GWC Design Package for Bid 26 Initial Ductwork Delivered Onsite 24 Award M-GWC 21 Release M-GWC Design Package for Bid 22 Award Foundations Contract 19 Release Foundation Design Package for Bid 20 Award Structural Steel Package 17 Bid Issue Structural Steel 16 Receive Final Flow Model Report 10 Award Catalyst Contract 7 Bid Issue Catalyst Specification Months After Notice to Proceed Activity SCR Option Level 1 Schedule

130 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### SCR and Baghouse Option - Critical Path

44 Complete Pre-Outage Construction 48 Complete Major Tie In Outage 33 Award E-GWC 30 Release E-GWC Design Package for Bid 31 Initial Ductwork Delivered Onsite 30 Award M-GWC 26 Release M-GWC Design Package for Bid 28 Award Foundations Contract 24 Release Foundation Design Package for Bid 27 Award Structural Steel Package 24 Bid Issue Structural Steel 16 Receive Final Flow Model Report 10 Award Catalyst Contract 7 Bid Issue Catalyst Specification Months After Notice to Proceed Activity SCR and Baghouse Level 1 Schedule

Back to Conceptual Design Description – Schedule Summary

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

66 131 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## Cost Estimate Details Cost Estimate Details Cost Estimate Details & & Expected Cash Flows Expected Cash Flows

132 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

• Cost Estimate Details 9 Cost estimate based on budgetary quotes for major equipment (see table below).

9 Balance of plant equipment and materials have been estimated based on S&L in-house cost data. 9 Construction costs developed by Foster Wheeler, including installation manhour rates of equipment and commodities, craft crew mixes & rates, and productivity factors. 9 Craft wage rates are based on open shop labor, tobe recruited primarily from the existing local labor pool and supplemented by travelers as required. 9 Contracting strategy is based on multiple lump sum contracts, administered by the owner. 

### Capital Cost Estimate Description Bids Solicited Quotes Received Pricing Used in Estimate Unit of Measure Ammonia System 2 1 $2.94M per site Catalyst 5 2 $6,250 per m 3 Dry Sorbent Injection 3 2 $1.20M per unit ID Fan Rotor Replacement 1 1 $535K per fan ID Booster Fans 1 1 $2.25M per fan Baghouse 3 3 $8.30M per baghouse Unit Auxiliary Transformers 3 3 $870K per transformer Air Compressor 1 1 $320K per A/C pkg

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

67 133 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate

134 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Cost Estimate

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

68 135 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010


## Expected Operating Expected Operating & & Maintenance Costs Maintenance Costs

136 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

### Operational & Maintenance Costs – For Reference

Back to Conceptual Design Description – Cost Estimate Summary

Variable O&M Unit Cost SCR Only SCR and Baghouse Ammonia $475/ton 1,035,000 $ 1,035,000 $ Catalyst Replacement $8,000/m3 672,000 $ 672,000 $ Auxiliary Power $45/MW-hr 1,880,000 $ 3,832,000 $ Steam $5/mmBtu 71,000 $ 71,000 $ Sorbent (Hydrated Lime) $200/ton - $ - $ Sorbent (Trona) $125/ton - $ 71,000 $ Waste Disposal $50/ton 104,000 $ 146,000 $ Bag Replacement $100/ton - $ 450,000 $ Cage Replacement $30/ton - $ 45,000 $ Total Variable O&M* $/year 3,762,000 $ 6,322,000 $ Fixed O&M SCR Only SCR and Baghouse Maintenance Material $/year 237,000 $ 402,000 $ Maintenance Labor $/year 158,000 $ 268,000 $ Total Fixed O&M $/year 395,000 $ 670,000 $ Total O&M Cost* $/year 4,157,000 $ 6,992,000 $ * Based on 90% Capacity Factor

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

69 137 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010 

## 3D Model Views 3D Model Views

138 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## - - SCR Only Option

SCR Only Option SCR Only Option - -

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

70 139 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

140



## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

71 141 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

142



## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010



## - - SCR and Baghouse Option

SCR and Baghouse Option SCR and Baghouse Option - -

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

72 143 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

144



## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

73 145 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

146



## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010

## Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate for

Environmental Protection Agency July 20, 2010

74 147 

## Navajo Generating Station Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Environmental Protection Agency – July 20, 2010