P. 1


# OAR Box 1865 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 71 ) IV-J-1 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20089:15:30AM

Sheet 71 of 105P. 2

* % 

# db o

COUNCI LO FINDUSTRIA LBOILE R OWNER S 

# A-83-2 7 IV-J-1 4

PRESIDEN

TNovembe r 25 , 198 6 Willia mB mm
Mrs . Wend yLe e Gram m Administrato r Info . & Regulator yAffair s Offic e o f Managemen t & Budge t Ol d Executiv e Offic e Bldg. , Rm . 24 6 17t h& Pennsylvani a Ave. , NW Washington , D C 2050 3 Dea r Mrs . Gramm : W e rea d wit hgrea t interes t you r comment s t o th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yo n th e propose d NSP S fo r SO 2 emission s fro m industria l boilers . You r questionin g o f th e applicabilit yo f th e percen t reductio n t o industria l unit s i s th e centra l issu e o f thi s entir e proceeding . I n addition , CIB O ha s endorse d severa l othe r point s raise d i n you r letter , includin g th e nee d fo r a performanc e typ e stan dard ; th e excessiv e incrementa l cost s o f th e proposal , and th e grossl yunderstate d annualize d cost s o f th e proposa l du e t o us e o f a n incorrec t baseline . W e urg e yo u t o conside r on e othe r ver ycrucia l and basi c fact , namel yth e replacemen t natur e o f th e curren t ne wboile r market . Severa l surveys , includin g ou r own , confir mtha t approximatel y 80 % o f ne wunit s ar e installe d no t becaus e additiona l stea m capacit yi s neede d bu t becaus e i t i s economi c t o replac e a n ol d boile r wit ha ne wunit . I t follows , therefore , tha t a standar d whic hi s overl ystringent , and to o costly , wil l dampe n thi s proces s wit hsever e consequence s no t onl yfo r boile r manu facturers , bu t mor e importantl yfo r th e public ; becaus e reten tio n o f thes e olde r boiler s ha s a n unfortunat e environmenta l resul t a s well . Sinc e man yo f thes e unit s bur n hig hsulfu r residua l oils , thei r replacement , eve n b yne wcoal-burnin g boilers , wil l actuall yresul t i n reduce d SO 2 emissions ; therefore , thei r prolonge d servic e mean s a continuanc e o f thes e emissions . Thi s fac t wa s documente d b ya 198 4 CIB O surve yand severa l cas e historie s i n th e docket . Pleas e not e Appendi xC o f th e enclose d Nationa l Coa l Counci l repor t o n thi s subject , and th e

581 7Burk eCentr eParkway . Burke . Virgini a 2201 5 •(703 ) 250-904 2P. 3

Mrs . Wend yLe e Gram m- 2 - Novembe r 25 , 198 6
comment s o f ES I o f Tennessee , attached . Takin g thi s critica l facto r int o accoun t give s a startlin g contras t i n th e environmenta l outcome : 30,39 0 ton s SO 2 removed , i n th e EP Acase , v s 87,25 0 ton s removed , usin g th e CIB O recommendatio n an d scenario . I n othe r words , w e believ e ou r recommendatio n wil l actuall yresul t i n thre e time s th e SO 2 removed , a t a fractio n o f th e cost , and wil l resul t i n a modernizatio n o f ou r agin g industria l steamplant . Thi s i s furthe r confirme d b yth e attache d tabl e fro mou r comments , "Tota l SO 2 Emission s i n 1991. " W e woul d appreciat e you r revie wand consideratio n o f thes e fact s and thei r impac t o n th e NSP S developmen t process . Sincerely , /Willia mB . Mar x ' WBM:a g Enclosure s cc : Randal l E . Davi sP. 4



### TABL E I TOTA L S0 2 

### EMISSION S I

N 199 1

NUMBE RBOILER S ANALYZE D NUMBE RNE W BOILER S (TONS/YEAR )

PROJECTEDBASELIN

E EMISSION S NUMBE RREPLACEMENT BOILER S NUMBE REXPANSIO

N BOILERS 1 4 

## 11 /

REPLACEMEN

T BOILE REMISSION S 11 / EXPANSIO

N BOILE REMISSIONS 1 5 

### TOTA L EMISSION S TON S REMOVED PERCEN T REMOVED 

### EP A 25 0 11 / 5 0 159,80 0 

### -0 - 5 0 127,84 0 1,57 0 129,41 0 30,39 0 

### 19 % CJB Q

25 0 25 0 159,80 0 

### 20 0 5 0 58,04 0 14,51 0 72,55 0 87,25 0 

### 55 % DIFFERENC E



### 20 0
20 0 -0 - 69,80 0 12,94 0 56,86 0 58,45 0 36PTS . EMISSION S REDUCTIO N RATIO , CIBO/EP

A —

—

2.9x

11 / Th e EP A 51 0 boile r estimat e ha s beendisregarde da s wholl y unrealistic . However , a s explainedabove , eveni f on e accept s th e unrealisti c 51 0 boile r estimate , a similar resul t occurs . 11 / Base

do n80 % ne

w boiler s fo

r replacement ; 20 % for expansion . 11 / Base

don : EPA-90 % removal ; CIBO-55 % removal .

- 2 3 -P. 5



# Repor t o n Industria l Boile r Ne wSource Performance Standard s

GERAL D BLACKMORE , Chairman Coa l Polic

yCommitte e WILLIA M B
. MARX , Leader NSP S Wor k

Grou p 

# JUN E 198 6
TH E NATIONA

L COA L COUNCI

L

# Tabl e o fContents P. 6

ExecutiveSummar

y1 Introduction3 Chapter1 : Background 5 Importanc eo

f Industria l Steam5 Energ y Efficiency 5 Industria l Energ y Conservatio nan dIt s Impac t o nth eIndustria l Boile r Market 5 Differenc e BetweenIndustria l an dUtilit y Boiler s 6 Chapte r2 : EPA' s Industrial BoilerNSPS Proposa l 7 Synopsi s o

f Draf t EP ANSPS fo

r Coal-Fire dIndustria l Boiler s 7 Backgroun d7 Economi c Analysi s o

f EPA' s Draf

t NSP S fo r SO : Emission s Contro l fo r Coal-Fire dIndustria l Boiler s 8 Deficiencie s i ncos t

estimates ; Disproportionat eCost s Impose d by Draf t NSPS 8 Fuel Switchin g 8 Chapte r3 : Need t

o Encourag

eInnovativeFuels and Technologies : e.g . Fluidize d Bed Boilers 13 Chapter4 : OtherConsiderations 1 5 Importanc eo

f Coal t o National Security 1 5 Th eNee dt o Protec t

U.S . Industry' s Competitiv ePositio ni n Internationa l Market s 1 5 Industria l Projects : Dela

y o r Abandonmen t

1 5 Chapter5 : Comparisono f Variou s Contro l Strategie s 17 Chapter6 : Conclusion s 19 Chapter7 : Recommendations 21 Bibliograph

y2 3 Appendice s 2 5 Appendi x A : Othe r

Legal Provision s 27 

### VI I

### VII I Appendi x B : Scrubber Technologie s an dCost s 2 9B1 Advent

o f Commercial Scrubbin g Technolog y . . 2 9B2 Summary o

f Scrubbin g Cos t

Surve y 3 0B3 Fluega s desulfurizatio ndata , Cas eHistorie s "A " throug h"H " 3 1 Appendi x C : Letter

t o Fre dL . Porter

fromWillia

mB . Marx date dJuly 30 , 1985 regardin g CIB O (Boiler) "Expansio nReplacement

Survey, " an d Attachment s 5 3 Appendi x D : Letter

t o Willia mB . Mar x fromR.N . Mosher

date d Apri l 11 , 1986 6 3 Appendi x E : Letter

t o Willia mB . Mar x fromJosep hB . Landweh r

date dFebruary 6 , 198 6 an d Attachmen t

6 5 Appendi x F : Letter

t o Willia mB . Mar x fromKar

l F . Hel ddate d Septembe r

19 , 198 3 an dAttachmen t 6 9 Appendi x G : Comment s o f th eCoal Polic

y Committe eo n Industria l Boile

r NSP S Draf

t Report , Apri l 22 , 1986 7 3 Appendi x H : Comment s o f th eCoal Polic

y Committe eo n Industria l Boile

r NSP S Draf

t Report , Ma

y 198 6 7 5 Appendi x 1 : Letter

fromB.R . Brownt o th eSecretary o f Energy , date dDecembe r

19 , 1985 ; th eSecretary o f Energy' s respons eto Mr . Brown' s letter , date d Januarvl3 , 1986 77 Appendi x J : Descriptio no f Th eNational Coal Counci l an dTh e National Coal Counci l Membershi p Roster 7 9 Appendi x K : Th eNational Coal Counci l Coal Polic y Committe e Membershi p Roster

an dth eIndustria l Boile

r NSPS Wor k Grou p 8 3P. 8



### PUBLI C HEARIN

G SEPTEMBE R 4 , 198 6 ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIONAGENC Y

4 0 CF R PART 6 0 AI R POLLUTION ; STANDARD S O F PERFORMANC E FOR NE W SOURC E INDUSTRIAL , COMMERCIAL , INSTITUTIONAL STEA M GENERATING UNIT S

STATEMEN T BY : WilliamL . Reeve s Presiden t ESI , Inc . o f Tennesse eP. 9 

### TABL E O F CONTENT S
PAG E COMMENT S ANDEXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y 1 CAS E STUDIE S 6 Ligget t & Myer s Cas e Stud y6 America n Fructos e Cas e Stud y9 OPERATING & MAINTENANC E COS T 1 3 Calculatio n Data ; Operating an d Maintenanc e Cos t Whe n Usin g We t o r Dr yScrubbin g System s 1 3 Ligget t & Myers ; Operating an d Maintenanc e Cos t Calculation s 1 4 America n Fructose ; Operating an d Maintenanc e Cos t Calculation s 1 8 EXHIBIT S 2 2 Exhibi t 1 : Ligget t & Myer s Economi c Summary... . 2 2

Ne w90,00 0 PP H Coa l Fire d System Withou t Scrubbe r 2 2 Exhibi t 2 : Ligget t & Myer s Economi c Summary... . 2 5

Ne w90,00 0 PP H Coa l Fire d System Wit hDr yScrubbe r 2 5 Exhibi t 3 : Ligget t & Myer s Economi c Summary... . 2 8

Ne w90,00 0 PP H Coa l Fire d System Wit hWe t Scrubbe r 2 8 Exhibi t 4 : America n Fructos e Economi c Summary.. . 3 1

Ne w150,00 0 PP H Coa l Fire d Syste m Withou t Scrubbe r 3 1 Exhibi t 5 : America n Fructos e Economi c Summary.. . 3 4

Ne w150,00 0 PP H Coa l Fire d System Wit hDr yScrubbe r 3 4 Exhibi t 6 : America n Fructos e Economi c Summary.. . 3 7

Ne w150,00 0 PP H Coa l Fire d Syste m Wit hWe t Scrubbe r 3 7P.1 0

COMMENT

S AN D EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y 

### I a mWilliamL . Reeves , Presiden t o f ESI , Inc . o f Tennesse e locate d i n Atlanta , Georgia . I appreciat e thi s opportunit yt o presen t ESI' s view s o n the propose d Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Industria l SteamGeneratin g Units . ESI , Inc . o f Tennesse e i s a desig n engineerin g an d constructio n fir mwhic hspecialize s i n th e turnkeydesign an d constructio n o f energ yrelate d projects . Ove r our eigh t yea r history , the primarythrus t o f ou r busines s ha s bee n the soli d fue l fire d con versio n o f industria l steamgeneratin g system s firing natura l ga s an d No . 6 oi l t o primaril ycoa l firing . Thes e project s have al l bee n i n th e 10-25 0 MMBTU/hou r inpu t range . W e hav e worke d pri

maril yi n th e industria l secto r an d hav e in operatio n ove r 3 0 majo r installation s fo r man yFortun e 50 0 companies . Al l o f the system s whic hw e hav e installe d t o dat e hav e complie d in ever y respec t wit hal l local , Stat e an d Federa l regulation s regarding emissio n compliance . ES I recognize s it s obligatio n t o work jointl ywit hthe industria l marketplac e t o instal l clean , effi

cien t steamgeneratin g system s whic hprovid e economi c benefi t t o th e industria l clien t withou t compromisin g our join t obligatio n t o b e responsibl e corporat e citizen s b ymaintainin g a clean an d health yenvironment . I n th e eigh t year s tha t ES I ha s bee n i n business , w e hav e see n significan t evolutio n o f th e requirement s fo r ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t fo r ne wsoli d fue l fire d installations . U p unti l thi s time , w e believ e tha t al l previou s regulation s hav e bee n a reasonabl e compromis e betwee n it s effec t o n th e industria l consume r relativ e t o capita l an d operating cost s fo r emissio n complianc e equipmen t an d th e anticipate d improvement s i n the ai r quality . However , w e fee l tha t the newpropose d NSP S regulatio n fo r sulfu r dioxid e emissio n complianc e i s totall yunreasonable .
- 1
-P.1 1



### Requirin g ever yinstallatio n t o achiev e a 90 % reductio n in sulfur dioxid e emissions , regardles s o f the sulfu r conten t o f th e fue l t o b e used , i s a knock-ou t blo wt o industry' s endeavo r t o pu t ou r nationa l energypolic yo n mor e soli d ground throughth e utiliza

tio n o f ou r nation' s mos t plentifu l fossi l fue l resource . Shoul d thes e regulation s b e passe d int o la win thei r presen t form , i t wil l hav e a devastatin g effec t upo n futur e industria l conversio n t o coa l fire d steamgeneratin g systems . Thes e effect s wil l b e fel t no t onl yeconomically , bu t wil l ultimatel yresul t in poore r ai r quality , thu s defeatin g th e origina l inten t o f the regula
tions . I n recen t years , ES I ha s converte d severa l industria l client s t o coa l fire d stea

mgeneratin g systems , replacing existin g No . 6 oi l fire d systems . I n eac han d everycase , afte r discussio n wit hthe client , w e ar e quit e certai n tha t al l o f thes e project s woul d hav e bee n defeate d becaus e o f economi c nonfeasibilit yha d the y bee n require d t o compl ywit hthi s mandatorySO 2 reductio n legislation . W e hav e cite d tw o specifi c example s i n thi s docu
ment . Th e firs t exampl e i s a 90,00 0 pphcoa l fire d system installe d fo r Ligget t & Myer s Tobacc o Compan yi n Durham , Nort h Carolina , whic hcommence d operatio n in Marc h1984 . Th e secon d exampl e i s a 150,00 0 pp hcoa l fire d systemfo r America n Fructos e i n Decatur , Alabama , whic hha s jus t commence d operatio n in Jul y 1986 . I n thes e tw o example s w e hav e demonstrate d th e resultan t economi c impac t ha d eithe r we t o r dr yscrubbing system s bee n require d fo r eithe r o f thes e tw o installations . Asummaryo f the result s o f thes e tw o cas e studie s i s show n o n th e following page .

-2
-P.1 2



### LIGGET T & MYER S A s Dr

yWe t Installe d Scrubbe r Scrubbe r Capita l Cos t ($000 ) 2,90 0 3,75 0 3,55 0 Annua l O& M Cos t (S000) 1 

### 16 4 24 4 31 9 Investmen t Paybac k (Yr ) 3. 5 4. 2 4. 3 Retur n o n Investmen t (% ) 2 5 1 9 1 7 S0 2 

### Emission s (T/Yr ) 28 1 7 4 2 8 S0 2 

### Remova l Cos t ($/T) 3 

### 350 4 

### 79 2 84 0 AMERICA NFRUCTOS E A s Dr

yWe t Installe d Scrubbe r Scrubbe r Capita l Cos t ($000 ) 5,35 0 6,65 0 6,32 0 Annua l O& M Cos t ($000) 1 

### 25 5 50 0 89 1 Investmen t Paybac k (Yr ) 2. 5 3. 1 3. 3 Retur n on Investmen t (% ) 3 8 2 9 2 6 S0 2 

### Emission s (T/Yr ) 1,41 0 423 2 

### 14 1 S0 2 

### Remova l Cos t ($/T) 3 

### - 4 

### 36 5 56 9 1 ) Thes e figure s ar e additiona l cost s abov e th e previou s bas e cost s fo r the gas/oi l fire d systems . 2 ) Thi s systemi s onl ycapabl e o f 70 % reductio n whic hdoe s no t compl ywit hpropose d standards . 3 ) Thi s cos t include s th e annuit yrequiremen t fo r capita l recoverya t 8 % ove r a 3 0 yea r life . 4 ) Thi s figur e wa s calculate d b ycomparin g the availabilit yo f highe r sulfu r coal s an d thei r respectiv e cos t differentia l t o th e coa l being burned . I n th e cas e o f America n Fructose , highe r sulfu r coal s ar e availabl e fo r the sam e price .

-3
- 

# LP.1 3



### W e hav e include d specifi c clien t contact s whic hhav e verifie d tha t neithe r o f thes e project s woul d hav e gon e forward had complianc e wit hth e curren t NSP S regulation s fo r 90 % sulfu r reductio n bee n required . W e have als o documente d the fac t tha t i n bot hcases , ha d thes e project s bee n defeate d an d the clien t continue d t o bur n oil , ther e woul d hav e bee n a significan t deterioratio n o f th e ai r qualit ythroughincrease d sulfu r dioxid e emissions . Thes e figure s ar e consisten t wit hth e finding s o f two separat e Federa l Governmen t sponsore d studies , bot ho f whic h independentl yconclude d tha t S0 2 

### emission s fromindustria l source s hav e bee n decrease d b ya s muc ha s 46 % betwee n 1973-198 3 unde r curren t environmenta l contro l regulations . Th e obviou s reluctanc e b yindustria l steamgenerator s t o instal l eithe r we t o r dr

yflu e ga s S0 2 

### scrubbing system s goe s muc hdeepe r tha n a superficia l economi c evaluation . I n the 100-25 0 MMBTU/hou r inpu t siz e range , U.S . industr yha s demonstrate d tha t i t i s no t read

yt o instal l arguabl yprove n an d unreliabl e flu e ga s S0 2 

### scrubbin g systems . Thes e system s hav e an absolutel y horrifying trac k recor d wit hregard t o availabilit yan d reliabil

ity . Thei r performanc e t o dat e ha s certainl ybee n wel l belo wthe 98 % plu s leve l whic hindustryha s come t o expec t an d deman d from utilit yequipment . N o coa l fired boile r system tha t ES I ha s installe d woul d hav e stil l gon e ahead i f a we t o r dr yscrubbing systemwa s the onl yalternativ e t o S0 2 

### emissio n compliance . Furthermore , industr ya s a whol e ha s littl e mor e fait hin fluidize d be d combustio n unit s than we t an d dryscrubbers . Her e again , th e trac k recor d o f availabilit yan d reliabilit yha s no t ye t come up t o industria l expectatio n standards . I t i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t mandator yimplementatio n o f thes e technologie s b yal l prospectiv e coa l conversio n candidate s woul d hav e a devastating negativ e effec t upo n th e sorel yneede d upgradin g o f the industria l producers ' steamgeneratin g units .

-4
-

### In summary , ESI , Inc . o f Tennesse e i s oppose d t o the portio n o f

the NSP S regulation s regarding the requiremen t fo r 90 % sulfu r dioxid e reductio n regardles s o f the sulfu r conten t o f th e fuel . W e fee l that , a s wa s the inten t o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t an d PS D review , th e economi c impac t o f propose d environmenta l contro l regulation s shoul d b e considere d whe n setting fort hrequire d sulfu r dioxid e emissio n controls . W e believ e i t i s muc hmor e pruden t t o se t a specifi c maximu msulfu r dioxid e emissio n leve l an d le t industryus e whateve r resource s an d technolog

yar e availabl e t o i t t o achiev e thi s emissio n level . In lie u o f the insignifican t contributio n t o the "aci d rain " problemb yth e industria l steamproducer , we believ e thi s t o be an extremel y reasonabl e request . Numerou s dat a ha s bee n generate d t o prov e tha t les s tha n 1.5 % o f the tota l sulfu r dioxid e emission s con e fromindustria l sources . Furthermore , w e believ e tha t i f thi s legislatio n i s enacte d in it s presen t form , i t wil l dea l an eve n mor e sever e blo wt o com panie s suc ha s ESI . Fo r th e pas t thre e year s w e hav e maintaine d an annua l sale s volum e o f roughl y$1 2 millio n in design an d constructio n projects . Ha d thes e project s bee n require d t o con for mwit hthes e propose d NSP S S0 2 

### reductio n regulations , ES I woul d hav e verylikel yperforme d les s than 10 % o f tha t busines s volume . I f thi s legislatio n i s passed , w e can immediatel yexpec t thi s magnitud e o f sale s volume erosion . ES I wil l b e require d t o performa majo r restructurin g o f it s busines s o r becom e insolvent . W e believ e tha t ES I serve s a usefu l purpos e in ou r econom ybecaus e w e ar e helpin g th e industria l produce r becom e mor e independen t froman energ ystandpoint , fulfilling the goal s o f ou r Nationa l EnergyPolicy . MISC.BR/NSP S

-5
-P.1 5



### CAS E STUDIE S LIGGET T t. MYER S I n Februaryo f 1983 , ESI , Inc . o f Tennesse e bega n a projec t fo r Ligget t & Myer s Tobacc o Compan ya t thei r downtown Durham , Nort h Carolin a facility . Thi s projec t wa s the desig n an d constructio n o f a newcoa l fire d stea mplan t additio n whic hwoul d be capabl e o f producin g lowpressur e steamfo r presen t an d futur e satisfac

tio n o f al l proces s stea man d spac e hea t requirements . In addi

tion , thi s syste m

had th

e futur e capabilit yo f being retrofitte d fo r electrica l cogeneration . Ligget t & Myer s a t tha t time wa s utilizin g thre e existin g No . 6 oi l fire d boiler s fo r thes e requirements . Th e sol e motivatio n fo r thi s conversio n t o coa l fire d stea - wa s the retur n o n investmen t generate d b ythe dif

ferentia l fuelin g cost s betwee n stoke r coa l an d No . 6 oil . Thi s facilit yha s neve r had the abilit yt o bur n natura l gas . Thi s newcoa l fire d systemwa s a complet e stand-alon e plan t con sistin g o f a highpressur e design , 90,00 0 pphboile r utilizin g a rea r as hdischarg e chai n grat e stoke r fo r the firing equipment . Becaus e o f th e relativel ylowemission s fro m thi s typ e o f stoker , th e systemwa s permitte d usin g onl ya mechanica l multicyclon e sidestream

baghous e systema s th e metho d o f particulat e emissio n control . Nitrou s oxid e emission s wer e controlle d b ythe firin g equipmen t and th e sulfu r dioxid e emission s wer e controlle d b y burnin g les s than 1 % sulfu r coal . Th e existing boiler s a t tha t time wer e burnin g No . 6 oil . wit ha sulfu r conten t o f 2.1% . A t th e tim e o f th e conversion , th e annua l energyconsumptio n o f thi s facilit ywa s 351,00 0 MMBTUwit ha projecte d annua l growt ho f 1% . Thi s ne wfacilit ywa s pu t int o operatio n i n Marc ho f 198 4 an d ha s bee n operatin g continuousl ysinc e that time . The projec t cos t fo r thi s facility

a t that tim

e wa s $2,900,00 0 and , a s canb

e see ni nExhibi t 1 , yieldeda nestimated3. 5 yea r

-6 -P.1 6



### paybac k o n th e capita l investmen t wit ha projecte d 25 % rat e o f return . A t the tim e thi s investmen t decisio n wa s made , thi s projec t wa s marginall yin exces s o f Ligget t & Myers ' paren t company' s require d hurdl e rat e fo r capita l projects . Thi s boile r ha s a maximu

mrate d inpu t o f 108. 5 MMBTU/hou r an d a s such , i f i t wer e being considere d today , thi s installatio n woul d fal l unde r th e restriction s o f the newpropose d NSP S regulation s fo r boiler s betwee n 100-25 0 MMBTU/hour . I t i s absolutel ycertai n tha t i f Ligget t & Myer s a t the time o f constructio n woul d hav e had t o compl ywit hthe propose d NSP S regulation s relativ e t o sulfu r dioxid e removal , thi s entir e projec t woul d no t hav e bee n constructe d becaus e o f the additiona l capita l an d operatin g cos t effec t o n the retur n on investment . Exhibit s 2 an d 3 indicat e th e effect s o f thes e cost s o n th e projec t economics . Th e addi

tiona l capita l cost s require d fo r the dr yan d we t scrubbing system s hav e bee n estimate d a t $850,00 0 an d $650,000 , respec tively . I n eithe r case , ha d eithe r the dr yscrubbin g system whic hi s no t capabl e o f 90 % reduction , o r the we t scrubbing syste mbee n required , the projec t woul d no t hav e gon e forward . Th e resultan t nonfeasibilit yo f thi s project , ha d i t bee n subjec t t o thes e rigi d NSP S regulation s fo r sulfu r dioxid e removal , can b e verifie d b

ytalking wit hMr . Ke n Dabe r o f Ligget t & Myer s a t 919-683-8948 . Th e effec t o f thes e regulation s o n thi s projec t woul d hav e had a significan t overal l negativ e effec t o n th e loca l ai r qualit ya s wel l a s th e economy . A s previousl ystated , a t th e time o f Ligget t & Myers ' installatio n o f thi s newsystem , thei r curren t annua l fue l usag e wa s 351,00 0 MMBTUwit han annua l projecte d growt ho f 1% . Assumin g tha t n o growt hwa s experienced , the maxi

mu mannua l actua l sulfu r dioxid e emission s using th e permitte d maximu m 1 % sulfu r coa l ha s bee n a s follows :

- 7
-P.1 7



### 351,00 0 MMBT UI t Coa l 0.0 1 » S 2 

### * so 

### 2 To n Yr 12,50 0 BTUI I Coa l X

### I I S X

### 2,00 0 I

= 28 1 Ton s o f Sulfu r Dioxid e pe r Yea r Previously , th e existin g No . 6 oi l fire d boiler s wer e burnin g a 2.1 % sulfu r oil , eve n thoughtheywer e actuall ypermitte d t o bur n a highe r sulfu r conten t oil . Therefore , thei r actua l annua l sulfu r dioxid e emissions , i f theyhad continue d thi s operatio n a s oppose d t o switchin g t o coal , woul d hav e bee n a s follows : 351,00 0 MMBT U1 # Oi l 0.02 1 # S 2 

### * S0 

### 2 To n Yr 18,00 0 BT U X

### 1 # Oi l X

### 1 I S 2,00 0 #

= 41 0 Ton s o f Sulfu r Dioxid e pe r Yea r Therefore , the actua l sulfu r dioxid e emission s in th e downtown Durhamare a hav e bee n decrease d b ya minimu

mo f 12 9 ton s pe r yea r fo r th e las t 2-1/ 2 years , o r a tota l o f 32 3 tons . I n addition , ove r thi s same time period , ove r 35,10 0 ton s o f regionall ymine d coa l hav e bee n consume d instead o f ove r 5,850,00 0 gallon s o f primaril yforeign produce d oil . Ove r $3,000,00 0 o f equipmen t an d service s hav e bee n inserte d int o the econom ywhich , afte r yo u appl yth e cascad e effect , hav e resulte d i n severa l millio n dollar s o f contributio n t o th e Gros s Nationa l Product . Also , the foreig n trad e defici t migh t wel l hav e bee n decreased . Ha d Ligget t & Myer s bee n require d t o limi t sulfu r dioxid e emission s t o a specifi c level , suc ha s fo r exampl e 1. 6 t/MMBTU , rathe r tha n t o achiev e a specifi c percentag e reductio n regardles s o f th e fue l sulfu r content , a slightl ylowe r sulfu r coa l woul d ver ylikel yhav e bee n foun d a s a possibl e suppl yfo r thi s new facilit ywit honl ya verysligh t impac t o n fue l cost . I n thi s case , th e projec t woul d stil l hav e gon e forward an d the state d benefit s woul d stil l hav e bee n realized .
- 8
-P.1 8



### AMERICA NFRUCTOS E I n Apri l o f 1985 , ESI , Inc . o f Tennesse e bega n a projec t for Th e America n Fructos e Compan ya t thei r Decatur , Alabama facility . Thi s projec t wa s th e desig n an d constructio n o f a ne wcoa l fired steamplan t additio n whic hwoul d be capabl e o f producing lo w pressur e steamfo r satisfactio n o f al l proces s steaman d spac e hea t requirements . I n addition , thi s syste mha d th e futur e capa bilit yo f being retrofitte d fo r electrica l cogeneration . America n Fructos e a t tha t time wa s utilizing tw o existin g natura l ga s an d No . 6 oi l fire d boiler s fo r thes e requirements . The sol e motivatio n fo r thi s conversio n t o coa l fire d steamwa s th e return o n investmen t generate d b yth e differentia l fueling cost s betwee n stoke r coa l an

d natura l ga s o r No . 6 oil . Thi s ne

wcoa l fire d systemwa s a complet e stand-alon e plan t con sistin g o f a highpressur e design , 150,00 0 pp hboile r utilizing a fron t as hdischarg e traveling grat e spreade r stoke r for the firing equipment . Th e systemwa s permitte d using a ful l siz e puls e je t fabri c filte r collecto r fo r the particulat e clean-u p equipment . Th e require d particulat e emissio n complianc e rat e wa s 0.0 5 #/MMBTU . Nitrou s oxid e emission s wer e t o b e controlle d b y th e firin

g equipmen t an

d the sulfu r dioxid e emission s wer e t o be controlle d b

yburnin g les s than 1.5 % sulfu r coal . Th e existing boiler s a t tha t time wer e burnin g No . 6 oi l wit ha sulfu r conten t o f 3.0 % maximum . Thi s projec t wa s rathe r uniqu e becaus e al l o f th e residua l hea t i n th e oi l fire d flu e ga s wa s bein g use d in the anima l feed byproduc t dryer . Th e ne wsyste mrequire d maintaining th e baghous e exi t flu e ga s temperatur e a t 400° F s o tha t th e new coa l fired flu e ga s coul d als o be use d in thi s dryin g system . Th e feed drye r exhaus t ga s goe s t o a lowenerg ywe t scrubbe r an

d the n u p a 140-foo t fiberglas s stack . Ther e i s n o reagen t adde d t o th e existin g we t scrubbe r in an effor t t o eliminat e sulfu r dioxid e emissions . A t th e time o f th e conversion , the annua l

-9
-P.1 9

/ t 

### energ yconsumptio n o f thi s facilit ywa s approximatel y1,260,00 0 MMBTU . Thi s newfacilit ywa s pu t int o operatio n in July , 198 6 an d ha s bee n operatin g continuousl ysinc e tha t time . Th e projec t cos t fo r thi s facilit ya t th e time i t wa s sol d wa s $5,350,00 0 and , a s ca n be see n in Exhibi t 4 , yielde d an estimate d 2. 5 yea r paybac k o n th e capita l investmen t wit ha projecte d 38 % rat e o f return . Again , a t th e tim e thi s investmen t decisio n wa s made , thi s projec t wa s marginall yi n exces s o f American Fructose' s paren t company' s require d hurdl e rat e fo r capita l projects . Thi s boile r ha s a maximu mrate d inpu t o f 18 0 MMBTU/hou r an

d a s such , i f i t wer e being considere d today , thi s installatio n woul d fal l unde r the restriction s o f the ne wpro pose d NSP S regulation s fo r boiler s betwee n 100-25 0 MMBTU/hour . I t i s absolutel ycertai n tha t i f America n Fructos e a t the time o f constructio n woul d hav e had t o compl ywit hthe propose d NSP S regulation s relativ e t o sulfu r dioxid e removal , thi s entir e projec t woul d no t hav e bee n constructe d becaus e o f the additiona l capita l an

d operatin g cos t effec t on the retur n o n investment . Exhibit s 5 an

d 6 indicat e the effect s o f thes e cost s on the projec t economics . Th e additiona l capita l cost s require d fo r the dryan d we t scrubbin g system s have bee n estimate d a t $1,300,00 0 an d $970,000 , respectively . I n eithe r case , had eithe r th e dr y scrubbing systemwhic hi s no t capabl e o f 90 % reduction , o r the we t scrubbin g syste mbee n required , th e projec t woul d no t hav e gon e forward . Th e resultan t nonfeasibilit yo f thi s project , had i t bee n subjec t t o thes e rigi d NSP S regulation s fo r sulfu r dioxid e removal , ca n b e verifie d b ytalkin g wit hMr . Jac k Meho k o f America n Fructos e a t 219-659-2000 . Again , a s wa s demonstrate d i n th e cas e wit hLigget t & Myers , the effec t o f thes e regulation s o n thi s projec t woul d have ha d a significan t overal l negativ e effec t o n th e loca l ai r qualit ya s wel l a s the economy . Thi s installatio n i s currentl yburning coa l

-10
-wit ha sulfu r leve l o f 1.4% . The annua l actua l sulfu r dioxid e

emission s usin g 1.4 % sulfu r coa l wil l be a s follows : 1,260,00 0 MMBT UI I Coa l 0.01 4 I S 2 fso 2 To n Yr 12,50 0 BTU1# Coa l 1# S 2,00 0 *

= 1,41 0 Ton s o f Sulfu r Dioxid e pe r Yea r Previously , th e existin g boiler s ha dbee nburnin g maximu m 3.0 % sulfu r No . 6 oil . The y wer e actuall y

permitte dt o ru nbot h 100,00 0 pphboiler s a t ful l capacit y using 3.0 % sulfu r No . 6 oil . Th e actua l annua l sulfu r dioxid e emissions , i f they hadcontinue d thi s operatio na s oppose dt o switchin g t o coal , woul dhave been a s follows : 1,260,00 0 MMBT U„ 1 # Oi l „ 0.03 0 # S 2 * s 0 2 „ To n X— : z-z-z— X Y r 18,00 0 BTU* 1# Oi l 1 # S 2,00 0 #

= 2,10 0 Ton s o f Sulfu r Dioxid e pe r Yea r Therefore , throug hthi s coa l fire dconversion , th e actua l annua l sulfu r dioxid e emission s i nth e Decatur , Alabama are a have bee n decrease db

y a minimum

o f 69 0 ton s pe r year . Her e again , fo r ever y yea r thi s ne

w stea m plan t operates , ove r 50,40 0 ton s o f regionall y mine dcoa l wil l be consume dinstea do f 8,400,00 0 gallon s o f primaril y foreig nproduce doil . Ove r $5,500,00 0 o f equipmen t an dservice s hav e bee ninserte dint o th e econom y whic hagain , afte r yo uappl y the cascad e effect , wil l resul t i

nth e additio no f severa l millio ndollar s o f contributio n t o the Gros s Nationa l Product . Her e again , th e foreig ntrad e defici t ha s bee ndecreased . Ha dAmerica nFructos e bee nrequire dt o limi t sulfu r dioxid e emission s t o a specifi c level , sucha s for exampl e 1. 6 #/MMBTU , rathe r tha nt o achiev e a specifi c percentag e reductio nregardles s o f the fue l sulfu r content , a slightl y lowe r sulfu r coa l woul d very likel y

hav e bee nfounda s a possibl e suppl y fo r thi s new

-11 -P.2 1

facilit y

wit honl y

a very

sligh t impac t o nfue l cost . I nthi s case , the projec t woul dstil l have gon e forwar dan dthe state d benefit s woul dstil l hav e bee nrealized . MISC.BR/NSP S

-12 -P.2 2



### OPERATING & MAINTENANC E COS T Calculatio n Dat a fo r Increase d Operatin g an d Maintenanc e Cos t Whe n Using We t o r Dr yScrubbing System s Assumptions : 1 . Dryflu e ga s scrubbin g system(lime ) data : A . Wate r consumptio n = 0.3 0 gpm/1,00 0 cf m B . Wate r cos t = $1.25/1,00 0 ga l C . Pumpin g H P = 1. 4 HP/1,00 0 cf m D . Lime consumptio n = 1. 4 tons/to n S0 2 

### remove d E . Lime cos t = $70/to n F . Byproduc t disposa l cos t = $20/to n S0 2 

### remove d G . Systempressur e dro p = 1 4 in . w.g . H . Annua l maintenanc e cos t = 3 % o f capita l cos t 2 . Ke t flu e ga s scrubbin g system(soda ash ) data : A . Wate r consumptio n = 0. 5 gpm/1,00 0 cf m B . Wate r cos t = $1.25/1,00 0 ga l C . Pumpin g H P = 1.2 5 HP/1,00 0 cf m D . Sod a as hconsumptio n = 1. 8 tons/to n S0 2 

### remove d E . Sod a as hcos t = $180/to n F . Byproduc t disposa l cos t = $80/to n S0 2 

### remove d G . Syste mpressur e dro p = 1 2 in . w.g . H . Annua l maintenanc e cos t = 3 % o f capita l cos t MISC.BR/NSP S

-13
-P.2 3



### LIGGET T «, MYER S Dr yan d We t Scrubbe r Operatin g an d Maintenanc e Cos t Calculation s Assumptions : 1 . Ful l load ga s flo w= 40,00 0 ACF M £ 350°F . 2 . Fa n powe r an d flowcalculation s wil l conside r 50 % o f thi s volum e (20,00 0 ACFM ) t o accoun t fo r additiona l exces s ai r a t approximat e 1/ 3 averag e load . 3 . Powe r cos t = $0.045/KWH . 4 . Operatin g hour s = 8,40 0 hours/year . 5 . I D fa n efficienc ya t averag e load = 65% . 6 . Curren t sidestream syste mpressur e dro p = 4.0 " w.g . 7 . Electrica l moto r efficienc y= 90 % an d powe r facto r = 85% . Cas e I = DryScrubbe r wit hLim e Reagent : 1 . Additiona l wate r cos t 20,00 0 ACF M x^^ Q g ^ = 6. 0 GPM 6. 0 GPM xi^g^H R x

### 60_MI Nx T 

### _ $ f e 

### 2 5

_= $3f730/y R 

### 2 . Reagen t cos t Fo r 70 % reduction , th e S0 2 

### remove d equal s 0.7 0 x28 1 tons/yea r = 19 7 ton s S0 2 

### /year . 19 7 Ton s S0 2 

### 1. 4 Ton s Lime $7 0 _$1 9 300/ v 

### Y R X

### To n S0 2 X

### To T $19,300/YR 3 . Byproduc t disposa l cos t 19 7 Ton s S0 2 

### <? 0 YR " X

### T#S ^ - 53,940/Y R

-14
-P.2 4



### 4 . Additiona l electrica l cos t a ) Pumping H P 20,00 0 ACF M x ^QOVCF M

### = 2 8 H P b . I D fan H P 20,00 0 CFM x (14. 0 - 4.0 ) In . W.G . A0u n



### 6,35 6 x 65 % " 4 8 H P 

### c ) Tota l additiona l cos t 7 6 Hj > 8,40 0 HR 0. 7 4 6 K W $0.04 5 H R Y

R H P x 0.9 0 EF F x 0.8 5 P F KW H

= $28,000/YR 5 . Additiona l maintenanc e cos t Th e additiona l maintenanc e cos t equal s 3 % o f the dif

ferentia l capita l cos t whic hi s estimate d t o b e $850,000 . Therefore , i t i s equa l to : $850,00 0 x 0.0 3 = $25,000/YR Therefore , in summary , th e additiona l electrical , main

tenance , an

d operatin g cost s associate d wit hthe dr y scrubbin g systemwoul d b e a s follows : Cos t Withou t Cos t Wit h Ite mScrubbe r Scrubbe r Electrica l $50,40 0 $78,40 0 Maintenanc e 43,50 0 69,00 0 Operatin g 70,00 0 97,00 0 Thes e figure s ar e al l considere d a s additiona l cost s abov e and beyond the bas e cos t fo r the oi l fire d system . Exhibi t 2 reflect s thes e change s i n the capital , electrical , maintenance , an

d operatin g cost s compare d t o th e origina l cost s a s show

n i n Exhibi t 1 .

-15
-P.2 5



### Cas e I I * Ke t Scrubbe r wit hSod a As hReagent : 

### 1 . Additiona l wate r cos t 20.00 0 ACF

Mx 1 

### %ji 0 G 

### ff! M

### - 1 0 GP M 1 0 G M 

# „ BMOOZH Rx

# eo ^ x

## _ | 

## K 2 |



## _ 

# . S6>300/y

R

# , 2 . Reagen t cos t Fo r 90 % reduction , th e S0 2 

### remove d equal s 0.9 0 x28 1 tons/yea r = 25 3 ton s S0 2 

### /year . 25 3 Ton s SQ 2 

### 1. 8 Ton s S A$18 0 _S8 2 u00/V R 

### Y R X

### ~ To n S0 2 X

### ToT T " >82,000/YR 3 . Byproduc t disposa l cos t 25 3 Ton s S0 2 

### co n Y R " X

### To T = 520,200/YR 4 . Additiona l electrica l cos t a ) Pumpin g H P 

### 20,00 0 CF M x x 

### ^o5 o CF M = 2 5 H P 

### b . FromCas e I , additiona l I D fan H P = 4 8 H P c ) Tota l additiona l electrica l cos t 7 3 HP

_8,40 0 HP

v0.7 4 6 K

W $0.04 5 HR X

### Y

R H P x0.9 0 EF F x0.8 5 P F KW H

= $26,900/Y R 5 . Additiona l maintenanc e cos t Th e additiona l maintenanc e cos t equal s 3 % o f the dif

ferentia l capita l cos t whic hi s estimate d t o be $650,000 . Therefore , i t i s equa l to : $650,00 0 x0.0 3 = $19,500/YR Therefore , i n summary , th e additiona l electrical , main

tenance , an

d operatin g cost s associate d wit hth e we t scrubbin g syste mwoul d b e a s follows :

-16
-P.2 6



### Cos t Withou t Cos t Wit h Ite mScrubbe r Scrubbe r Electrica l $50,40 0 $ 77,30 0 Maintenanc e 43,50 0 63,00 0 Operatin g 70,00 0 178,50 0 Exhibi t 3 reflect s thos e change s in the capital , electrical , maintenance , an

d operatin g cost s a s compare d t o the origina l cost s a s show

n i n Exhibi t 1 . MISC.BR/NSP S

-17
-P.2 7



### AMERICA NFRUCTOS E Dr yan d We t Scrubbe r Operatin g an d Maintenanc e Cos t Calculation s Assumptions : 1 . Ful l load ga s flow= 66,00 0 ACF M @ 350°F . 2 . Fa n powe r an d flo wcalculation s wil l conside r 56,00 0 ACF M t o accoun t fo r 10 % additiona l exces s ai r a t the averag e load o f 120,00 0 pph . 3 . Powe r cos t = $0.045/KWH . 4 . Operatin g hour s = 8,40 0 hours/year . 5 . I D fa n efficienc ya t averag e load = 68% . 6 . Curren t baghous e systempressur e dro p = 4.0 " w.g . 7 . Electrica l moto r efficienc y= 90 % an d powe r facto r = 85% . Cas e I = DryScrubbe r wit hLim e Reagent : 1 . Additiona l wate r cos t 56,00 0 ACF M x^QQ Q CF' M = 16, 8 GP M

16 

### . 0 CP M xlaiOO^H R x

### 60 ^ x T _|^5

_

### . $10



### _ 600/y R 

### 2 . Reagen t cos t Fo r 70 % reduction , the SO 2 remove d equal s 0.7 0 x1,41 0 tons/yea r = 98 7 ton s S02/year . 98 7 Ton s S0 2 

### 1. 4 Ton s Lime $7 0 _sg 

### , 700/V R 

### Y R X

### " To n S0 2 X

### To"n " ~ 596,700/YR 3 . Byproduc t disposa l cos t 98 7 Ton s SO 2 S2 0 Y R ' X

### T&TToi = 

### 519,700/YR

-18
-P.2 8



### 4 . Additiona l electrica l cos t a ) Pumping H P 56,00 0 ACF M x ^o^F M = 7 8 H P 

### b . I D fan H P 56,00 0 CFM x (14. 0 - 4.0 ) In . W.G . ,, , U D



### 6,35 6 x 65 % " 13 6 H P 

### c ) Tota l additiona l cos t 21 4 H P 8,40 0 HR 0.74 6 K W $0.04 5 HR Y

R H P x 0.9 0 EF F x 0.8 5 P F KW H

= $78,900/YR 5 . Additiona l maintenanc e cos t Th e additiona l maintenanc e cos t equal s 3 % o f th e dif

ferentia l capita l cos t whic hi s estimate d t o be $1,300,000 . Therefore , i t i s equa l to : $1,300,00 0 x 0.0 3 = $39,000/YR Therefore , in summary , the additiona l electrical , main

tenance , an

d operatin g cost s associate d wit hth e dr y scrubbin g system

woul d b e a s follows :

Cos t Withou t Cos t Wit h ItemScrubbe r Scrubbe r Electrica l $ 75,60 0 $154,50 0 Maintenanc e 79,50 0 118,50 0 Operatin g 100,00 0 227,00 0 Thes e figure s ar e al l considere d a s additiona l cost s abov e and beyon d th e bas e cos t fo r th e oi l fire d system . Exhibi t 5 reflect s thes e change s i n th e capital , electrical , maintenance , an

d operatin g cost s compare d t o the origina l cost s a s shown i n Exhibi t 4 .

-19
-P.2 9



### Cas e I I = We t Scrubbe r withSoda AshReagent : 1 . Additiona l wate r cos t 56,00 0 ACF

M x 1 °ooO G CF M = 2 B GP M

2 8 GP M xJUiOO ^ x60 ^ x T _$K2S K r . sl7 , 600/y R 

### 2 . Reagen t cos t Fo r 90 % reduction , th e SO 2 remove

dequal s 0.9 0 x1,41 0 tons/yea r = 1,27 0 ton s S0 2 

### /year .

3 . Byproduc t

disposa l cos t 1,27 0 Ton s S0 2CP Q

~ Y

R" XT§ H = $102,000/Y R 4 . Additiona l electrica l cos t a ) Pumpin g H

P
56f 0 0 0 CF

M x ^ 0 U Ug P M= 7 0 H P b . Fro mCas eI , additiona l I D fa nH P= 13 6 H

P c ) Tota l additiona l electrica l cos t 20 6 HP

_ 8,40 0 H

R0.74 6 K W$0.04 5 H RXY

RH PX0.9 0 EFFx 0.8 5 P FKW H

= $75,900/Y R 5 . Additiona l maintenanc e cos t 

### Th e additiona l maintenanc e cos t equal s 3 % of th e dif ferentia l capita l cos t whichis estimatedto b e $970,000 . Therefore , it i s equa l to : $970,00 0 x0.0 3 = $29,100/Y R Therefore , i

nsummary , th

e additiona l electrical , main tenance , an

doperatin

g cost s associatedwithth e we t scrubbing syste

m woul db

e a s follows :
-20 -P.3 0



### Cos t Withou t Cos t Wit h Ite m Scrubbe r Scrubbe r Electrica l $ 75,60 0 $151,50 0 Maintenanc e 79,50 0 108,60 0 Operatin g 100,00 0 630,60 0 Exhibi t 6 reflect s thos e change s in the capital , electrical , maintenance , an

d operatin g cost s a s compare d t o the origina l cost s a s show

n i n Exhibi t 4 . MISC.BR/NSP S

-21
-P.3 1

EXECUTIVE . sUMMAK Y f- repe re/d

ro r EXHicI Tl LIGGET Tfc MYER S NEW90,OC " TF H :C<A L FIRE D SYSTE M WllHuO l ©CRUBBfc R 09-01-19o j

Fue l Eavin^ b Ne- tCas h Flo w •i>e. t;t : (» > 1 l,0:-i,66 3 640,so y 2 l,0r/,2i V 7o7,20 4 3 1,17*4,63 2 787,66 6

• i i,Z57,el O 82*4 , 1S 6 3 1,3*6,«40 2 663,27 V

Payfcarl < o-

f Initia l In.tBtxent : J. 5 Year s Aftt-la Xri*fO»«?r' yC t

7 c'.a l Ir.vestn.cr.t : 3. ' Year s retur nor . iiwoit.T.s.it : 25% l-.'c- t Prtttri t Vilu e (c;«_cunt* d a t10.0%) : «3,242,76 7 Tota l Capita l C=st : *2,900,00 0

b y ES IIMC . O

KTENf4t3SE E 811 C Livingsto nCour t Marietta , Ct-rgi * 3006 7 inO^ i 427-620 0

-22 -ECONOMI C ANALYSI S EXHIBI T1 LIGOEI Ik MYER S NE W90,OC' C FF H COA LFIRE D SYSTE M WITHOU TSCRUbBE R P.3 2

'hi s e>:-ial/«i a i s -fo r a c.ca l syste m tha t i s t o replac e a noi l system . 3 i 1 Coa l
L b s Stea mpe r

Ho-. ' I. " " V 6 aS. tr the n r'r.r.ua l C^trati i g i-our i

'Jrir t as e the n 3335 0 3336 0

:.0 % fa r3 0 yr & 1.0 % fo r3 0 yr i C O Xfc rO yr * 0.0 % -fo rO yr i

G40 u 0.0 % -fo rO y r 0 . 0 % -fa r0 y n 6*0 0 U.OV . fo rO yr s O . 0 % fo rO y rs Averag e Utilizatio n ro i 11 r Ef f iiisnc y 100 % 3u.0 % 100 2 100 % 80.0 % 100 2 Oi 1 Mo.<2,4,6 ) 'r i ce/ga l C ! / M C = st s Electric& l Ma i nteiianc e Operilor s *0.750 0
* 0 * 0 S O 1250 0 BTUs/l b

S52.0 0 Price/to n •5040 0 •43SO O S7OO0 O 0 kM Inflatio nral e 6.0 % 1 nata l 1 a Iio npe r io i 1 4 month s Fue l ir.flAtio-- - rat e da-i-1 9 installatio n0.0 % 0.0 %

the n6.0 % fo r 5 yr s 6.0 % fo r 5 yr s an d0.0 % fo r 2 5 yr s 0.0 % fo r 2 o yr s
Federa l ta> : rate* . 46 . C ^ Federa l ta xcredit : 10.0 % St£t e ta xrate : 6.0 % Stat e ta.- . credit : O.O' * Depr<ci±tlc nperiod : S yr s Ve-p-- e c i a t i o nmethod : ACR S 5-yea r Lea nperiod* . C >r & Loa ninte r ti t rate : 0 % Equit y i rte;-es t rate : 1 2 % Eqi.:*.> • capital : * 29OO00 0 Capita l cost : « 27OOO0 0 Cp»ratir. g life : 3 0 yr% rifeccjn t .ate : I C % Electrica l powe r rate : * 0 /kw h Turti'. : v.Ate r rate : 3 0 l bstm/kw h Electricit y

pric e inflatio nrat e the n 0.0 % fo r O yr i

0.0 % fo r 0 yr i 

### -23
-P.3 3

EXMII1 1 I L1KET

1 t ITER S HL. 90,000 PP

h COA L Ut£ J iWlM

llTMOU l fcCMltt
Ettlii'.t t Firs t TearCoamtplio i I Cott i

Aniii l Oi l ttrmiptio» : 2,J3»,9^ 0 g« l

t t K.73C-

9 p rj*i : 81,734,902.8 0 Anrii ) Fat ; Cc:tJ«pli»r : (>&ita:i ) IC O I tirrg ) Irc i coll i ;j,C: ? to n i t IC2.0C *» rU« : 8730,039.5 4 C:i t c l :j^!»3rftU : Fkti : 10.0 0 4730,039.3 4

.t-ln fLG * AWljI j CoifiKii s o i Ait»r-»'..v i F^ti i (thousands o l Jollirs ) Tl*.' * les'.illi':; ; 1 2 3 4 £6-1 C 11-20 21-3 0 Pro-i: » Cos

t « 290C.0C1 Lei- . *ro:»t< i C.0 J I»»t . P*r>: 4 :«t . (COC ! S»t C Ci ! Ccs'.

s 1T54.5 C U73.S 0 2011.4 4 215.3.4

5 2305.4 B 11877.8 9 25604.3

5 28233.1 3 ri-^:tf < S>=ti » fi.\

Ccst i 730.G - 7ol.5 i 834.7 4 895.84 939.08 4941.2 0 10631.4 1 11763.7 8 :-rrtt» ; <l*: , -::i'. ; CO C O.O C 0.0 0 CO C CO O 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

c . l l :».RJ S 10H.3 4 1077.2 2 il.--t.i 3 !257.b l 1346.4 0 4936.6 8 14952.9 4 16517.3 5 MliliiBi l 3 fc *

U!.? S 173.7 3 184.1 6 193.2 1 296.9 2 1236.4 1 38e8.8 3 4923.4 8 Sep ri-iatii r411.2 1 404.1 0 5.*9.5 5 5:8.3 5 378.3 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 U.ufAce o O.O C COO 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 9.0 0
FrtU : li'.Cmt

4<i7.7 ! 317.3 s 411.9 7 483.6 4 360.9 3 370C2 7 110S4.i l 9388.B 7 S'.tl t It.ii 19.0

4 24.72 29.0 3 33.64 342.0 2 463.05 373.33 r Mfi i 193.39 137.24 17E.1 4 209.2 2 242.3 3 2464.1 0 4792.7 7 4146.23 T» : Crali U ' 29C0 C
fat f»r^.; i («:•; . '.». | 227.2 6 161.1 0 2K.U 245. H 284.7 3 2(93.4 6 3624.3 0 4867.3 1 Ui sty-..A:o-

413.23 iCi.l i 3/8.3 3 373.3 3 378.3 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 9il.: l Loa i Pa>r « ' . CO : O.J ) O.O C CO O 9.0 0 O.OC 0.0 0 0.0 0 U1::\ E*ll > M I 2C7.•? :
fc* Cr. fF' wI 2919.19 1 640.3 1 757.29 787.4 7 124.1 6 143.2 8 2893.4 4 3426.30 4847.3 1 -24 -P.3 4

EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y F r epa r edFo r EXMITI T 2 LIGGET T t- MYER S ME 1 ; 90 , CC C '•"' H COA L FIRE DSYSTE M WIT HDR YSCRUBBE R 09-01-19£, 6

Fue l Saving s Ne t Cas hFlo w Yea r (« ) i*> 1 1,024,86 3 659,28 9 2 1,097,21 9 811,36 6 3 1,174,68 2 825,25 4 4 1,257,61 5 858,92 6 5 1,346,40 2 895,19 1

Paybac kc f Initia l Investment : 4. 2 Year s Avt*~-ta xRecover / o f

Tota l Investment : 4. 2 Year s Retv.rr . ot . Investment : IV * % Ne t P : c-sent . Valu e (discoante i a t 10.0%) : *2,029,29 3 "eta : Capita l Cost : 43,750,00 0

by ES I INC . O F TENNESSE E 311 C Livingsto nCour t Marietta , Georgi a 3006 7 (404 ) 427-620 0



### -25
-P.3 5

ECONOMI C ANALYSI S EXHIBI T 2 LIGGET T 4 . MYER S N E W 90 , CO O F'P

HCCA L FIRE DSYSTE M WIT HDR YSCRUBBE R

TV . i l l.-.sl i s ? c • a cca l %, ste m thi t i s t o replac e a noi l system , O i 1 Coa l
L*-' « £ttr.- » ptrrHou r

Inc r eei « tl.e n 3336 0 3336 0

1.0 % fo r 3 0 yr s 1.0 % fo r 3 0 yr s 0.0 % fo r 0 yr s 0.0 % fo r 0 yr s A-.iv.is. ' Cpe;-atin g Hour s 340 0 U40 0

Increas e O.C" . fo r 0 yr s 0.0 % fc: - 0 yr s tr.P h0.0 % fc r 0 yr s O.O Xfc r 0 yr s Averag e L ' ti l i r a t io n Boile r Efficienc y STUs/L t :t(: M

Oi l No . < 2,4,6 ! P r ice/ga l 0 tiM Cost s Elect r ica l M a iTt t «• r. a nc e Ope r atcc s 6 .O * 1 4 » 0

D C 100 % 80.C % 100 2 6 750 C
* 0 * 0 

### e o
-tr. s 100 % 80.0 % 100 2 1250 0 BTUs/l b S52.0 0 Price/to n •7840 0 *6900 0 *9700 0 0 t: M In - Istioi : rrft e Installatio nperio d Fue l inflatio nrat e durin g installatio n0.0 % 0.0 %

ther . 6.0 % fo r 5 yr s 6.0 % fo r 5 yr s ar. d0.0 % fo r 2 5 yr s 0.0 % fo r 2 byr s
Federa l ta xrate : 46.0 % Federa l ta xcredit : 10.0 % Stat e ta xrate : 6.0 % Stat e ta ~ credit : 0.0 % Depreciatio nperiod : 5 yr s Depreciatio nnethc-d : ACR 3 5-yea r Lour . p»rir»i : 0 yr s Loa ni'ite r es t »ate : 0 % E:;\>it y i r , tr-r*«= . t rate : 1 2 % ET^.'t / capita! : « 375000 0 Ciplia ! cost : « 375OO0 0 "•pf- atlr g life : 3 0 yr s Discoun t rate : I O % Electrica l powe r rate : » O /kw h Turbin e ttate r rate : 3 0 l bstm/kw h Electricit y

pric e inflatio nrat e 0.0 % fo r O yr i the n0.0 % fo r O yr i 

### -26
-P.3 6

EXrilir . 2 UWtT IkRrEt l If U 90,00 0 PF

h CU - Kiu. 1 iTSIE

N all Hit; SCtt'lt f
Sst'.-w'.t i Firs tTta* ConiuipU; * kCoi U

»r.-.:i l Oil C---.ik«c*ior. : 2,339,87 ti*.

at8-.73 X pi : ja. : 81,7:4,U2.S J Areca : Fat ! Coimip'.io. : (»ii.jii 3 1* ; * > t.-fj ) 4rc a coal ) •.•",:: " U; s a l i:i.C : ;t r Un ; 4730,039.3 4 ::,' . ; J:.;;:i:*:.'.i : r»r! : M.O O *730,C39.! s

CAS HFL RAKm-Ti! " Cupariio ns i Altt.'tativ t'atl s lU-itaat s o i f:lla:i l tar s o:tjl:.ii: n1 2 3 4 3 6-1 0 11-2 0 21-3 0 frz.ttiCos

t« 375CO0 ! Icir , °-c:t»2 i 0.0 0 I-i!* . Ptric i >'. . I0.30 1 fa s 3 : 0: 1 Csi'. s 1734.9 0 1875.8 9 2011.4 4 2133.4 5 23C5.48 11877.8 9 23604.3 5 2fa?83.i : Proces s *>it nF«t ! Celt s 730.0 4 781.3 8 834.7 6 39CB 4 939.0 s 4941.2 0 10651.4 1 11763.Tt tttt't.rt elect - irlt y 0.0 0 O.C O O.uO 0.0 0 J.C C O.OC 0.0 0 O.O C
Fot ) Sn-.^i1924.Hi 19*7.2 2 1174.4 3 1257.6 ! 1346.4 9 6~36.4 8 14952.9 4 14517.J5 ««:ti:-s ! 9 tf

144.4 0 235.0 6 I*-!.6 1 291.C 9 3C6.33 1643.4 8 3769.0 1 10331.42 •i;r;::iti; - 33«.:- 8 733.7 3 743.1 2 743.1 2 743.1 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.8 0 l(.ttr»; tCC C O.O

C 0.0 0 COO 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 O.O C
•rttt i :<.:M t 246.0 ? 54.4 0 131.9 3 218.4 1 289.73 3093.00 9183.93 4183.9 2 Ta.f i payabl t Stat t14.7 7 3.2 6 9.1 2 13.1 0 17.3 3 305.5 6 551.0 4 371.1 6 Ftatra l 196.4 1 23.5 2 45.7 0 94.4 4 123.2 8 2202.2 1 3971.1 3 2474.7 * Ta tCrrfit i 373.0 0
It tEarslaj * Uftt rtai l 124.9 1 27.3 2 77.1 3 110.8 6 147.0 7 2585.2 1 4441.7 4 3139.9 8 kU StaractaMs a334.36 783.7 5 743.1 2 748.1 2 748.1 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 •flic * toa- . »a;M* t0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 8.0 0 5t<u' tEquit

y It tI270.3! )
fetCat*. Flo

wI'445.31 1 439.2 9 811.3 7 125.2 5 858.9 9 893.1 9 2583.2 1 4441.7 4 3139.9 8 -27 -P.3 7

EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y Prepare dFo r EXHIBI T 3 LIGGET T 8 * MYER S NE W 90,OO O PP HCCA L PIRE DSYSTE M WIT HWE T SCRUBBE R 09-01-198 6

Fue l Saving s Ne t Cas hFlo w Yea r <* ) (* ) 1 1,024,86 3 607,49 1 2 1,097,21 9 750,75 2 3 1 , 174,69 2 763 , 17 4 4 1,257,61 5 794,36 2 5 1,346,40 2 827,66 6

Paybac k

o f Initia l I r vestment : 4. 3 Year s AUf r -ta xRecovc-- / o f

Toti" . Investment : 4. 3 Year s R^t.v'.- . o nInvestment : 1 7 % No t P'»jei t Valu e (discounte da t

10.0%) : $1,520,20 1 Tota l Capita l Cost : «3, 550,00 0

by ES IINC . O

F TENNESSE E 811 C Livingsto nCour t Marietta , Georgi a3006 7 (404 ) 427-620 0

-28 -P.3 8

ECONOMI C ANALYSI S EXHIBI T 3 LIGGET T kMYER S NE W 90,00 0 F= H COA L FIRE DSYSTE M WIT HWE T SCKUfaBt R Thi s ar*l>si s i s fo r a coa l syste m tha t i s t o replac e a noi l system . C i l Coa l
L b s Stea m

pe r Hou. " 3336 0 3336 0 Ir.cre-s e 1.0 % fo r 3 0 yr s 1.0 % fo. * 3 0 yr s the.- ; C.0 % fo r 0 yrs. 0.0 % fo r O yr s Ar.r.ua l Operatin g Hour s £<0 0 840 0

Ir.-rrease C.0 % for 0 yr s 0.0 % fo r 0 yr s tr* nO.G % -fo r 0 >r s O.O'J, -tor 0 ,r * Averag e Vt i 1 i :»• . lor , 100 % 100 % Telle r CH;:i*r,c > C0.C % 30.OV . *? T llD/'.. brteair . 100 2 100 2

Oi I Nc.(2,4,£ ) 6 1250 0 8TUs/i b Price/ga l *0.750 O *52.0 C Price/to n 0 f < M C c - . t s Sl.vct r ica l * 0 «7730 0 Me.ir . ter-anc e *"-> «6300 0 Ope i ator s * 0 *17dS0 0 C ^ K * Inflatio nr«t« ? 6.0 % Iii'sllitio nperio d1 4 month s ruc- 1 Inflatio nrat e iu'in g installatio n0.0 % 0.0 %

t l t n6.C % fo r 5 yr s 6.0 % fo r £ yr s in d0.0 % for 2 5 yr s O.O". ; fo r 2 S yr s Tc.lera l ta xrate : 4o.C % Stat e ta xrate" . 6.0 % Pcde'a l ta xcredit : 10.0 % Stat e ti. , credit : 0.0 % Dsp:*e c i a t i c nperiod* . tZ yr s Depreciatio nT>et'-.cd : ACR S 5-yea r Lr^ r p^ri-d ' O ; . - s Lean ir-'.i-rts* . :ate : 0 % rr-.lt, ' 1-trres t rate : 1 2 X Fr.uity capital : « 355000 0 Capita l cost : * 355000 0 Cptratir g life : 3 0 yr s Discoun t rate : 1 0 % Flectrica l potter rate : • 0 /kwr . Turbin e Mate r rate : 3 0 l bstir./kw h Electricit y

pric e inflatio nrat e 0.0 % fo r 0 yr s the n0.0 % fo r 0 yr s 

### -29
-P.3 9

EXHIBI T3 LIS8ET

TI ITEI S Hc V90,0-3 0 FP H COA i FIRE I STSIL

H VIT M NE TKtUIJ O
Ei'tutt C Firs t Tta - Csiinp'.ior . i Cai U

•.Mia * Oi l Cstfbtp'.ior. : I.339.E7 C ja !

t l K.73 Wpt ' j*i : 81,734,902.8 0 >"i» : FJI I C:r.t-jip'.iai. : lastuair. ) 13) \ t»t:j j fro a caal ) 14,239 Xt'%

i t «2.0 C pt rtoa : 87:0,035.3 4 Cci t : f:-o;Ui«:.li l 7a»: : 40.0 0 •730,039.3 6

CAS H FLO WMULT3IS Ccipariaor . o

rAlttrt.iliv * Fae'. i (taoasani i o f4:'.iar» ) Ytax i lestallati M 1 2 3 4 5 e-1 0 11-20 2i-. i Pr:j»c tC:»

t< 3350.00 : Ira- . Fr::tt< i O.C O lest . ?tri; l ;•* . I COO ! Sa s c rTi l Tcj'. i 1714.?C 137:.8 0 2011.4 4 2113.43 2305.48 11877.8 9 25404.3

5 232*3.1 3 Prep:?; * S;ilt i f.i\

frst i 733.0

4 781.53 836.7 6 3*3.8 4 939.03 4941.2 0 10631.4 1 H7o5.7 S 5*>va'» ! r!»:'-::l'. yS.J O O.C O 0.0 0 O.OC 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 CO O
F:t ! S.vitj i Miitiona ! "i H ItprK-itJo n I*t»r*= '
Prtti ' ',t.Ztmt Tai? t pa/at: * Stat f r tl>rt l Ta xCredit s
II*' . Carair p tiltt r Hi Jtp'tclilic a 8*4a: t lea * Pa;ii» t Ste-i:* . !qo'.*7 le t 1
It t Cas k Fl M ( 353.0 0

tai l
254.98)
343 1 .08 ) 1024.8 4

sie.e e 333.8 8 

### co o
200.1 9 12.0 1 84.5 4

101.4 2 SOS.8 ! 0.0 0 :o97.: i

337.5 3 741.9 3 CO v 17.3 4 1.C 4 7.5 0

•.t o 741.9 5 0.0 0 1174.6 8

3Se.2 J 703.2 2 0.0 0
108.2 3 4.5 0 44.3 1

34.9 5 708.2 2 O. M 1237.6 1

379.7 0 7-.-8.2 2 0.0 0
149.4 9 10.1 3 72.3 8

•4.1 4 708.2 2 1.0 0 1344.4 3

402.4 8 706.2 2 0.0 0
235.7 0 14.1 4 101.9 2

119.4 4 708.2 2 0.0 0 4934.4 8 2404.9 3 0.0 0 0.0 0
4331.7 5 271.9 1 1939.5 3

2300.3 2 1.0 0 0.8 0 14952.9 4 7323.2 1 0.0 0 0.0 0
7427.7 3 445.4 6 3211.7 5

3770.3 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 14317.3 3 13474.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
3C40.8 4 182.4 3 1314.6 4

1343.5 3 0.0 0 0.0 0

407.4 9 750.7 5 743.1 7 794.3 4 127.8 7 2300.3 2 3770.3 2 1543.5 3

-30 -P.4 0

EXHCoTiVE . SUJ'iMAFV r

~-repa rc-J Fur L : : -ii: : T4 Ar-!rr*:cA N FRUCTOS E N^' Wi5::/.o : cr-

_TIRE D SYSTE M WITHOU TSCRUBBE R 09-01-193 6

Tu*' . c.».ir>.g

s Ne t Cas hFlo w rev ; {$. ' (* ) 1 3,OC?,8S ? 1, 7 73,72 4 2 3.190.4G 3 2,032,80 3 3 3 , 3'-1,91 1 J , Orb , 71 6 4 3,t>b-J,£.: o 2,190,93 5 5 :,7r9,9i = 2,290,91 1

Pi/jis:: ; c- fI .-

t i I i a 1 Ir.vEstatut : 2. 5 Year s f.f.t- 1 -' . u.. . i\?ccv?f y C T

Tota l I:- . vestment : 2. 5 Year s

r .-=.'\-.--:-Tici . Ir . N/astr/.snt : 3 8 % Ms* . r*

r?i*r. tValu e (c:3:3j:i'.« d a t10.0%) : *ll,851,27 i Tntt l Capita l Coat : *5,350,00 0

b y ES I INC . OF TENNESSE E Sll C Livingsto nCour t Mi. - ietla , Georgi a 3006 7 (4C4 ) 427-620 0



### -31
-P.4 1

ECONOMI C ANALYSI S EXHIBI T 4 AMERICA N FRUCTOS E NE W 150,00 0 COA L FIRE DSYSTE M W1THGU T SCRUEBE K Tri s analysi s i s fo r a coa l syste m tha t i s t o replac e a noi l system . Oi l Coa l
Lb s Stea m

pe>- Hou r I nr r -? a s - the n Vu.Ur l Operatin g Hcu* .

Increas e the n Averag e L' t i 1 i r a t : or . Bo' . le rEfficienc y ? T U«s.".. b^tearr .

O i T Mo . (2,4,6 ) Priz e/ga1 O t- M Cost s E l metrica l Ma i r.tet.anc e Ope - ate - s 1 IcOO O 0.0 * fo r 0 >)*« 0.0 % for 0 yr*
0 0

6 . 0 %

. c %

. ot . 1 6 G40 C fc - 0 •/.- fo: - O y

r 1 cor . 3 0 . C- % 100 4 6 *0.650 0

* 0 

### s o * o
month s s

s 11500 0 0.0 % fo r 0 yr s C.0 % fo r O yr s

340 0 0.0 % fo r 0 yr s 0.0 & fo r 0 /r s

100 % 83.0 % 100 4 1250 0 BTJs/l b *48.0 0 Hrice/to n *7560 0 *7950 0 SIOOOO O O tx M Inflatio nr*t e Installatio np e led Fue l I:-.* ! a t ionrat e iurio g irstallatio n0.0 % 0.0 %

the n6.0 % fo r 5 yr s 6.0 % fo r 5 yr s en d0.0 % fo r 2 5 yr s 0.0 % fo r 2 5 yr s Federa l ta xrate : 46.0 % Federa l ta xcredit : 2C.C % Stat e ta.- . rate : Stat e ta xcredit : 6.0 % 0.0 % Depreciattc r period : Z /r e Depreciatio nmet'-rid : ACR S 5-yea r Loar . tmtr: i-?.'. 0 yr s l.r.r\r. ir.tr,re><i

t rate : 0 % Fault y Equit y errs t rate* . I C * X ca pi ta l : 000 0 Capita l cost : * 535000 0 Op e ratif y

life- : 3 0 yr s Discoun t *»».* : 1 0 % FTlect r i.-ct

l powe r rate : • 0 /kwh Turbin e wate r rate : 3 0 l bstm/kw h Electricit y

pric e inflatio nrat e the n 0.0 % fo r O yr s

0.0 % fo r O yr s 

### -32
-P.4 2

IXMI1 T4 MllICAJ i FRUCTOS E %l. ISO.Ov

O C3A L FIRE I STSTE

H «H4X TURUIZ O
Ettiiittt f>ira* . Tta rCo«tui;tlo n t Coit i

luti ) Oi ! Conutpttsa : i,0Ei,2* 3 3« i « •«C.i: Xpi - ja! 1
. »3,:53,430. K A'-ua l Fit l C?r.*iBp',ic-- . :muiit> 9 1*0 \ II-J ; lroo

> coal ) iS,74 fta - i' . »-'{.: : ;• : tea : tl, 243,WO.82 CoO. : f•»»;>'.,wita l F«i : *0.0 0 •2,243,540.3 2

Zr.iH RC WhNALYSIS Coaparitor . cfAlttr-.a'.iv t Full * (Itoutani s o fiollart l Tiar a '..i.n.ii. , i-I O 11-2 0 21-3 0 Preje:* . Css

t (S350.C-3 : ..it °ro:ttl » CC O last . ?tM: « !•'• •(:.-:•: » U. a rC: l tis'. i Frap;jt d S.-stt a Fw l Joit i ?#».»at« i tW:'.ricit y 5253.4 3 53i3.6 4 5702.7 5 6236.5 2 6432.3 3 33.eI.o 7 66323.3 4 46323.3' - •243.5 4 237- . I S 2S2C M 2672.0 5 2232.4 2 Hlal.0 * i»3:4.1 9 22324.I ? 0.3 ; CC O 3.3 0 ;. ACO O O.O C 0.0 0 O.C C Fjt : .-ivir.3 1 -*:'..\ : .:'*: : latita t ::•:•/.£ » 31?C.i J 3381.9 1 3584.8 3 3759.5 2 18995.S o 37999.1 6 37-95.1 6 2SM 0 270.4 1 2S£.£ 3 3C3.8 3 322.0 6 1924.4 0 4021.3 8 10763.7 4 762.3 8 !!ie.! 3 1067.3 2 1067.3 2 1067.3 2 O.C O 0.0 0 0.0 0 CO O O.-JO 0.0 0 CO O CO

O CO C 0.0 0 O.O C
•rf.i: - '.Kit Ta- K?•/**' * S'.it t Fi8i:» l Ta xCredit s 33I.0 0 1592.4 1 lcOi.9 3 2027.9 s 2213. i 2410.5 3 17075.1 8 31*77.5 727215.4 2 :\f.'m- 133.1 ? 121.6 3 132.c Z 144.6 3 1024.5 1 1918.6 3 1432.9 3 SJ1.3 2 779.1 5 376.3 9 957.1 9 1042.3 1 7383.3 1 1*427.1 0 11767.9 5

*4tt Eini-o * ii-tt rtai ' 1C11.3 S 914.6 6 1029.3 9 1123.4 4 1223.3 9 8447.3 4 14231.8 2 13814.3 3 Mt mt;-tz

: ..V.m~762.3 3 1118.1 5 1067.3 2 1047.3 2 1047.3 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 O.O C U.nzt I wtaywX

O.O C 0.0 0 CO i O.O C 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 UfmZ. tj.\\j

1s t I 367.23 )
St t Cat > H e I3132.73 ) 1773.7 2 2032.8 1 2094.7 2 2190.9 9 2250.9 1 8447.3 4 14231.8 2 13814.3 3 -33 -- ' 4

EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y Pr epa r edFo r EX:-!:B: T Z

AMIFICA NFRUCTCS E NE W 150,00 0 C3A L FIRE DSYSTE M WIT H DR YSCRUS5E R C?-01-19S £

".ic ! crvi.ig s Ne t Cas hFle w '. 3,009,82 9 1,740,63 0

2 3 , . ' ?C , ^2 3 2,034,£2 3 3 7,311,91 1 2,084,74 3 4 3,590,62 6 2,170,63 3
* 5 3,7r9,91 £ 2,261,67 5

Pf.;ba:i . C T tr.itia l Investment : 3. 1 Year s A F *.«• ' - t i">: : Recover > O T

Tota l I r.-. estxent : 3. 1 Year s F.otu r nc r Z

r . ve s tir.*?ri

t : 2 9 % Ne t P»ei«-ri t Valu e Cdit-oui.te da t 10.0%). ' Sb,963 , 14 0 Tota l Capita l Cost : *6,650,00 0

b y ES I IMC . O F TENNESSE E 8 1 I C Livingsto nCour t Marietta , Georg:* . 3O06 7

(404 ) 427-620 0



### -34
- P.4 3

/

. /P.4 4

ECONOMI C ANALYSI S EXHIBI T5 AMERICA N FRUCTOS E ME W150 , OT C COA L FIF.E D SYSTE M WI'» H DR YSCRUBBE R
T M c ari)l>f.l a I s foi - 4 coa l wy&tei n tha t i s t o replac e a n oi l system , O i l Coa l
l b s St**:. * pi. rHou r11500 0 1 1500 0

I;v;-Das e 0.0 % fo r0 yr s 0.07 . fo rO yr s the.' i 0.0 % fc r0 >r s 0.0 % ior 0 yr s Annua l 0pe-*tt,i g Hou- i £40 0 S40 0

Zr.cte-s.zc:

0 . OV . fc r0 yr s 0.0 % fo rO yr s the . 0.0 % -fo r0 yr s 0.O % fo r0 >r » A.trsj e 'J t i l :raticr . 100 % 100 % Eoila ' Efficienc y30 . Ct . b3.0 % J'UJ.'L^ - ?te*:r > 100 4 100 4

C i - No.(2,4,6 : 6 1250 0 BlUs/l b F r-re/ga l $0.650 0 «4d.O 0 Frict/to n 0 fc M 1-~*_-

«"U: 4 .r-:;8 l * 0 * 15450 0 Maintenanc e * 0 *1165O 0 Operator s S O *22700 0
n tc r: I . fictio- i ral e c.0 % Irsta l 1 a t i or . perio d 1 6 mcr.ti. s F.i.:- 1 '. .-

. f 1 a t i r. r

. rs , t « e ^u-i-. g i t tta l la t :cr . 0.0 % 0.0 %

tr;er . 6.0 % fc r5 y ra 6.0 % fo r5 yr s anC 0.0 % fo r2 5 yr s 0.0 % fo r2 5 yr s
Fsic-a l ta xrate : 46.0 % Stat e ta xrate : 6.0 % Fc??-a l ta xcredit : 10.0 % Stat e ta xcredit : 0.0 % Depreciatio n period : 5 yr s T3»r. rt rj a t i c n xetl-od : ACR 3 5-yea r L c -- . r . p e ri c i

'. 0 yrs '..ca n i-teres t rate : 0 % Equit y1- . ter»s t rate : 1 0 % •Equit ycapital : * 6650O0 O Capita l cost : * 665COO O O p yr a t ir g life* . 3 0 yr s Discoun t rrt» : 1 0 % Electrica l ptz-mtr rate : « 0 /kw h Turbin e wate rrate : 3 0 l b stm/kvi h Electricit ypric e inflatio n rat e 0.0 % fo r0 yr s the n 0.0 % fo rO yr s -35 -P.4 5

'i * •

t a, l

' 4 E'(!«i*.* 4 r irt t Tft rCoAiuastio a

Actua l Oi l Cmuiptlo a

• t 1 dil l
•0.630 0 •.052 ,
AiMa l Ftt l Coasiipti;:.' . .an^sia j ;

« » *

Ccs p

I-.ta'.la'.iif . P-:jt: t C:s t (fSSCOO i i:i: . 0 -;:M4 I COO !r.»* . tttizi

Itt . ' 0.03 1 Sa s a r0:' . Cos' s P*:;:t? < Sritt i c .t\

Ccst ; Ct*r*i*.? * ?lsctTi*:l v
Fst l *t-.i« i A4(?i*.:3-i l Si r lt;r;;!ati: ' U'.i-ai t
Prtti * !*tct » T i m ja.-ai' t S'.it t Ftft't l Ta t CrH't i 44!.O C
•to*. r ani:j i fa-'ti rtu ' Mi 3t;rtcia*.i3 r Hi:: ! lar . F«,i*r t eti-:c t E^it ; Ir. t ! 454.48 :
fat tat * Fl a t £441.48 ! .m , . » 'J »i l . • -

- t • » •> •-r r

iriso a a t

1

a.-*'. I' 22*7.3 4 CO O
30:9.5 9 5CC.0- 3 ?-i:.o 3 CO O
1362.2 i 93.7 4 4* , !.S 2

793.0 1 94:.« : CO C

1740.4 3 I - —<.

•..:-\.a\ F 20 vaa i
3- 3 " . *.».» / *. - '.it : mt'.: IE V1SO.0C4:,:;;,<:c: i fro i coai l •2,243,543.S 2

•0.0 0 12,243,343.8 2

CAS H FLC WAhALY'I S Alltrsatif t Fjti S

2

3568.6 4 2373.I J 0.0 0
3190." 3 531.O S 1389.3 5 0.0 0
1270.6 3 76.2 4 349.4 2

£44.9 7 i:e9.ss 0.3 3

2914.1 2 (tkojiast' i a t

Yur i 3

3902.7 5 2I23.8 4 COO
32el.r l iii.6 3 1326.6 7 3.8- 3
1491.4 4 *T.6 J 14S.:6

rss.o * 1324.6 7 0.0 0

2084.7 4 36 - 4

5256.9 2 2672.0 5 0.0 0
3354.5 3 393.5 1 1326.67 O.O C
1442.6 4 ?9.: b "15.9 3

643.9 a 1326.47 CO O

2170.4 3 EXMlll i 3 AMIIIIM * itMmal

> 334 1 rlki l 6ua « 1

iolian )

3

4632.3 3 2312.4 2 O.irj
3799.9 2 431.2 4 1326.47 0.0 0
1842.0 0 110.3 2 796.4 8

935.0 0 1324.4 7 8.0 C

2261.4 1 4-1 0

33141.4 7 14162.C 9 0.0 0
18999.5 8 3771.8 5 0.0 0 0.0 0
15227.7 3 913.4 4 4584.4 7

7729.5 9 0.0 0 0.0 0

7729.3 ? ., h Ui

aLt

11-2 0

46323.3 4 28324.1 9 CO O
37999.1 6 11832.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
24194.7 4 1571.8 1 11327.4 8

13297.4 6 0.0 0 0.8 0

13297.4 8 •USaEf

l

21-3 0

66323.3 4 2Ki24.1 » 0.0 0
37999.1 6 21136.3 0 0.0 0 8.0 0
14842.8 6 1011.7 7 7291.3 4

8359.3 ? 0.0 0 0.0 0

8S59.S ?P.4 6

* »

EXECUTIV E SU'-tHAfc Y Prepare d Fo r r£:c*-::Bi

T 6 AMERICA N FRUCTOS E NE W 150,^0 0 FP HCIA L FIRE DSYSTE M WIT HWE T 6CRUBBE R 09-Ci-l?3 e

Fue l '"a\/ir:g

s '..*. Cas hFlo w •t=!-r i.f, <* ) 1 3,0C?,3S 9 1,519,15 6 2 3,190,-8 3 1,790,64 4 T 3,731,91 1 1,329,49 5 4 3,5EC4,£2 6 1,902,01 4 Z 3,7*9,91 6 l,978,e8 5

Pa>b«c Uo f Initia l Investment : 3. w Year s AfU.-ta xRecover y o t Tota l In.estme.-it : 3. 3 Year s Retv. r r . c nInvestn:e: . t : 2 6 % Ne t Presen t Valu e <discounte da t 10.0%J : »5,840,99 3 Tcta l Capita l Cost : $6,320,00 0

by ES I IMC . O F TENNESSE E eii C Livingsto nCour t Marietta , Georgi a 3006 7 <404 ) 427-620 0



### -37
-/ '• * » ECONOMI C ANALYSI S EXHIBI T 6 AMEF.ICA W FfxUCTOS E NE W 150,OC O rF H CLA L FIRE DSYSTE M WIT HWE T SCRUBBE R P.4 7

'I - i s € r : l >« . i • ''_

> fc r a oa i syste m tha t i s t o replac e a noi l system . Oi l Coa l
mmtz. Stea m

pe r Hou r I r.c r eas e the n 11500 0

0.0 % fo r O yr s 0.0 % for 0 yir* 11500 0 v.0 % fo r 0 yr s j . 0". i fo : 0 yr s Annua l Operatin g Hou .

Ir.. : r eas e t > a\. 040 0

0.C7 . to

r 0 yr < 0 . 07 . ?J I 0 yr ) 640 0 0.0 % fo r 0 yr s 0.0 % fo r O yr s "..erag eL' ti 3 i sa ti o r rsile - E'ficier.c / ?"'Jr./L b 5tta-, i 100 % SO . 0 % •00 4 100 % 83.0 % 100 4 Oi l Mo.(2,4,6 ) Pri ce/gal C L M Cost s Electrica l Ma i r.tenanc e 0\z e-a t or s 49.0.650 0

* 0 * 0 S O 1250 0 BfUs/l b

S48.0 0 Fries/tor . 4*15150 0 S10860 0 S63O6O 0
C . ml / • 1 6 Month s C tKIr. f

1 A tio n-at s Irsta l U ti cperio d F..rr l ir. f

Ia tio nrat e du-i-v g installatio n0.0 % the n6.0 % fo r 5 yr s an d0.0 % to r 2 5 /vs 0.0 % 6.0 % fo r 5 yr ! 0.0 % fo r 2 5 yr i
Federa l ta xrat e F?d?ra l ta xcre d 46.0 % Stat e ta xrate* . 6.0 % t : 10.0 % Stat e ta xcredit : O.0 % rept ecia t io nperiod : 5 yr i Depre c i a t i o n.v.etho d: ACR S 5 - Lc=v: i p*~icd : / ' Lc&r . .e

r es t "ate : 0 % Equit y interes t rate : 1 0 % Equit y capital : • 632000 0 Capita l cost : * 632000 0 Operatin g life : 3 0 yr s Discoun t *ate : 1 0 % Electrica l powe r rate : % 0 /kwh Turbin e wate r rate : 3 0 l bstm.'kw h Electricit y

pric e inflatio nrat e the n 0.0 % fo r O yr s

0.0 % fo r 0 yr s 

### -38
-fe. \

. , EXHIBI T4 AflEIItA N FIUCTOS

E \ • / . » » NCI . 150,000 PP

H COA L flK I aTSIEJ I VlTH K TSCIUIIE J
Ettiai'.t i Firs t Tia rContuftatleri I Caita

Aitm ) Oi l CaiiaiMi" : B,0S2,20 0 sa l a l tO.£300 er rjal : 43,253,4:0.0 0 A-.ni.a l fat l Car.tii;'.>o- : lanaiia j 10 3 5 titrjj rfro a coal ) 46,740 tc u a

t tif.0 0 pa

rtoa : •2 l 242,34Ca 2 Cu t mi Su^>u-nta l Fatl : SCO O •2,243,343.5 2

CAS H FIO Vr\Wtl

v .Zl. C:i;i-ii: ? : < Altt.-ratU t F.tl s (tkouiasi a a ft:liar» >

. 'Mt a Pr:jt: t Cu t ! '.cr . P. - ;:»#< » '.Mt
. Ptfli j If.*
. • Sa t at Ci ! Cos'. ! Prapc*t i Systta Fn ! 6*it*at? 4 «lt:iri:it 7
Fit ! Savioj s Aiditicra ' CI R Stprtc:atla s lattrii t .laticr . 6320.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 IcV s Ttar j 4 5 4-1 0 11-2 0 21-3 0

3253.4 3 5113.6 4 5702.7 5 6236.9 2 6432.3 3 33141.4 7 44323.3 4 46323.3 4 22'3.S 4 237S.I 5 2320.8 4 2472.0 9 2832.4 2 14162.0 9 2S324.1 9 283/4.1 9 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
3009.3 9 3190.4 8 3361.9 1 3384.8 3 3799.9 2 18999.5 8 37999.1 4 37999.1 4 890.7 0 944.1 4 1000.7 9 1040.6 4 1124.4 9 4719.1 8 21024.7 9 37452.2 0 900.4 0 I320.e s 1260.6 4 1260.8 4 1260.S 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 O.O

C 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 8.0 0
Prita x!atn « 1218.5 9 925.46 1120.2 8 1243.1 3 1414.3 9 12280.40 14974.37 344.94 Tar n payafclt Sr.i t t 73.1 2 55.5 3 67.2 2 75.79 84.8 2 734.8 2 1018.46 20.8 2 tcatrt l 326.92 400.1 7 434.4 1 S4s.i 9 411.47 5310.05 7339.72 150.0 2 Ta» Orrtit s 432.00
•f t Ea ri i 19 a laf. ftai l 618.S c 449.76 S4E.6 S 441.1 7 718.0 4 4233.5 3 8414.1 9 174.1 2 ttit Stprttla'.ia - 900.43 1320.1 8 1240.64 1260.8 4 1240.8

4 8.0 0 0.0 0 O. K UiizK l:a- . Pa y -t. t 8.0 3 0.03 0.0 0 0.0 0 8.0 0 0.8 0 0.0 0 8.0 0 D»*-.: t Evil ; lo t (413.83 )

Ut t Cai * F!o « t 4121.83 1 1319.1 6 1790.4 4 1829.4 9 1902.8 1 1978.8 8 4233.5 3 1414.1 9 174.1 2 

### -39
-