P:\PACIFICORP\370414BART2\TECHNICAL_MEMORANDUM_DELIVERABLES\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 1 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

Addendum to Jim Bridger Unit 3 BART Report 

PREPARED FOR: Wyoming Division of Air Quality 

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL 

COPIES: Bill Lawson/PacifiCorp 

DATE: March 26, 2008 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

was submitted in October 2007. 

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

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

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

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

Scenario B and described as follows: 

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

burners (LNBs) with over-fire air (OFA), sodium based flue gas desulfurization (FGD), 

SO3 injection 

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

permitted rates 

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

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

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

Stack Parameters, Emissions Information, and Capital Cost 

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

equipment installed at the plant. The overall capital cost of installing these options is also shown. 
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 2 

TABLE 1 

Control Scenario Summary 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

 Equipment Type Capital Cost 

 NOx SO2 PM10 Million dollars 

Baseline LNB Wet sodium FGD ESP — 

Scenario A LNB with OFA Wet sodium FGD ESP with SO3 injection $40.5 

Scenario B LNB with OFA and SCR Wet sodium FGD ESP with SO3 injection $207.0 

Emissions were modeled for the following pollutants: 

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

• NOx

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

• Fine particulate (diameter<PM2.5) 

• Sulfates 

Table 2 shows stack parameters and emission rates that were used for the Jim Bridger Unit 3 

BART modeling and analysis. 

TABLE 2 

Calpuff Model Inputs 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

 BART Comparison(d)

Model Input Data Baseline 

Scenario 

A (e)

Scenario 

B (f)

Hourly Heat Input (mmBtu/hour) 6,000 6,000 6,000 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 1,602 900 900 

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 2,700 1,560 420 

PM10 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 342 180.0 180.0 

Coarse Particulate (PM2.5 <diameter< PM10) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(a) 147 77.4 77.4 

Fine Particulate (diameter<PM2.5) Stack Emissions (lb/hr)(b) 195 102.6 102.6 

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 55.2 55.2 94.7 

Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 7.0 

(NH4)HSO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 12.2 

H2SO4 as Sulfate (SO4) Stack Emissions (lb/hr) 54.1 54.1 92.8 

(NH4)2SO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 5.1 

(NH4)HSO4 as SO4 Stack Emissions (lb/hr) — — 10.2 
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 3 

TABLE 2 

Calpuff Model Inputs 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

 BART Comparison(d)

Model Input Data Baseline 

Scenario 

A (e)

Scenario 

B (f)

Total Sulfate (SO4) (lb/hr)(c) 54.1 54.1 108.1 

Stack Conditions 

Stack Height (meters) 152 152 152 

Stack Exit Diameter (meters) 7.32 7.32 7.32 

Stack Exit Temperature (Kelvin) 333 328 328 

Stack Exit Velocity (meters per second) 25.6 24.7 24.7 

NOTES:

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

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

in aerodynamic diameter. 

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

ESP and 43% Baghouse. 

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

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

the permitted rates. 

(e) PacifiCorp Committed Controls @ permitted rates: LNB with OFA, Wet FGD, ESP with SO3 (f) PacifiCorp Committed Controls and SCR @ permitted rates

Economic Analysis 

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

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

were identified. 

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

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

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

Attachment 1.
ADDENDUM T

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 3 Scenario A Control Cost Jim Bridger Unit 3 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

LNB with OFA Wet FGD 

ESP with Gas 

Conditioning 

Total Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $11.3 $25.3 $3.90 

Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $1.07 $2.41 $0.37 

First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $0.07 $0.98 $0.18 

Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $1.15 $3.39 $0.55 

Power Consumption (MW) — 0.52 0.05 

Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) — 4.10 0.39 Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.26 0.15 0.03 

Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed per Year over Baseline 4,494 2,838 639 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 255 1,193 856 

NOTE:

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

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 4 Scenario B Control Cost Jim Bridger Unit 3 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

LNB with OFA & 

SCR Wet FGD 

ESP with Gas 

Conditioning 

Total Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $177.8 $25.3 $3.90 

Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $16.91 $2.41 $0.37 First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $3.36 $0.98 $0.18 

Total First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $20.28 $3.39 $0.55 

Power Consumption (MW) 3.22 0.52 0.05 

Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) 25.39 4.10 0.39 

Permitted Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 0.15 0.03 

Additional Tons of Pollutant Removed per Year over Baseline 8,988 2,838 639 First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of Pollutant Removed) 2,256 1,193 856 NOTE:

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

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 

TABLE 5 Incremental Control Costs, Scenario B compared to Scenario A Jim Bridger Unit 3 

 NOx Control SO2 Control PM10 Control 

Incremental Installed Capital Costs (million dollars) $166.5 0 0 

Incremental Annualized First-Year Capital Costs $15.84 0 0 

Incremental First Year Fixed & Variable O&M Costs (million dollars) $3.30 0 0 Incremental First Year Annualized Costs (million dollars) (a) $19.13 0 0 

Incremental Power Consumption (MW) 3.22 0 0 

Incremental Annual Power Usage (Million kWh/Yr) 25.39 0 0 

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

Incremental Tons of Pollutant Removed 4,494 0 0 

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

4,258 0 0 

NOTE:

(a)Incremental first year annualized costs include power consumption costs. 
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 7 

Modeling Results and Least-Cost Envelope Analysis 

CH2M HILL modeled Jim Bridger Unit 3 for two post-control scenarios. The results 

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

project. The Class I areas potentially affected are Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness, 

and Mount Zirkel Wilderness for this unit. 

Modeled Scenarios 

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

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

technologies being evaluated. The modeled scenarios include the following: 

• Baseline: Current operations with LNB, Wet sodium FGD, and ESP 

• Scenario A: LNB with OFA, Wet sodium FGD, and ESP with SO3 injection 

• Scenario B: Scenario A with SCR 

Summary of Visibility Analysis 

Tables 6 through 8 present a summary of the modeling period (2001–2003) results for each 

scenario and Class I area. 

TABLE 6 

Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Bridger Wilderness 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

Scenario Controls 

Total First Year 

Annualized 

Cost Highest ΔdV 

98th 

Percentile 

ΔdV 

Maximum 

Annual 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Baseline Current Operations with FGD 

and ESP 

— 4.381 1.265 30 

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$5,077,127 2.919 0.829 17 

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls and SCR 

$24,210,545 1.647 0.481 10 
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 8 

TABLE 7 

Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

Scenario Controls 

Total First 

Year 

Annualized 

Cost Highest ΔdV 

98th 

Percentile 

ΔdV 

Maximum 

Annual 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Baseline Current Operations with FGD 

and ESP 

— 2.542 0.615 13 

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$5,077,127 1.747 0.379 7 

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls and SCR 

$24,210,545 0.959 0.232 4 

TABLE 8 

Costs and Visibility Modeling Results as Applicable to Mount Zirkel Wilderness 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

Scenario Controls 

Total First 

Year 

Annualized 

Cost Highest ΔdV 

98th 

Percentile 

ΔdV 

Maximum 

Annual 

Number of 

Days Above 

0.5 dV 

Baseline Current Operations with FGD 

and ESP 

— 3.460 1.642 47 

Scenario A Scenario A: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$5,077,127 2.168 1.046 22 

Scenario B Scenario B: PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls and SCR 

$24,210,545 1.298 0.607 12 

Results 

Tables 9 through 11 present a summary of the costs and modeling results for each scenario 

and Class I area. 
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 9 

TABLE 9 

Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Bridger Wilderness 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

Scenario 

Comparison Controls 

Incremental 

Annualized 

Cost 

(Million$) 

Reduction 

in 98th 

Percentile 

maximum 

dV 

Reduction 

in Number 

of Days 

Above 

0.5 dV 

Cost per dV 

Reduction 

(Million$/dV 

Reduced) 

Cost per Day 

to Achieve a 

Reduction in 

the Days 

above 0.5 dV 

(Million$/Day) 

Scenario A 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario A: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$5.08 0.436 13 $11.64 $0.39 

Scenario B 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario B: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

and SCR 

$24.21 0.784 20 $30.88 $1.21 

Scenario B 

Compared To 

Scenario A 

Addition of SCR $19.13 0.348 7 $54.98 $2.73 

TABLE 10 

Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

Scenario 

Comparison Controls 

Incremental 

Annualized 

Cost 

(Million$) 

Reduction 

in 98th 

Percentile 

maximum 

dV 

Reduction 

in Number 

of Days 

Above 

0.5 dV 

Cost per dV 

Reduction 

(Million$/dV 

Reduced) 

Cost per Day 

to Achieve a 

Reduction in 

the Days 

above 0.5 dV 

(Million$/Day) 

Scenario A 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario A: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$5.08 0.236 6 $21.51 $0.85 

Scenario B 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario B: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

and SCR 

$24.21 0.383 9 $63.21 $2.69 

Scenario B 

Compared To 

Scenario A 

Addition of SCR $19.13 0.147 3 $130.16 $6.38 
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 10 

TABLE 11 

Incremental Costs and Incremental Visibility Improvements Relative to Mount Zirkel Wilderness 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 

Scenario 

Comparison Controls 

Incremental 

Annualized 

Cost 

(Million$) 

Reduction 

in 98th 

Percentile 

maximum 

dV 

Reduction 

in Number 

of Days 

Above 

0.5 dV 

Cost per dV 

Reduction 

(Million$/dV 

Reduced) 

Cost per Day 

to Achieve a 

Reduction in 

the Days 

above 0.5 dV 

(Million$/Day) 

Scenario A 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario A: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

$5.08 0.596 25 $8.52 $0.20 

Scenario B 

Compared to 

Baseline 

Scenario B: 

PacifiCorp 

Committed Controls 

and SCR 

$24.21 1.035 35 $23.39 $0.69 

Scenario B 

Compared To 

Scenario A 

Addition of SCR $19.13 0.439 10 $43.58 $1.91 

Least-Cost Envelope Analysis 

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

Fitzpatrick Wilderness in Figures 3 and 4, and for Mount Zirkel Wilderness in 

Figures 5 and 6. 
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 11 

FIGURE 1 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 - Bridger Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

FIGURE 2 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 - Bridger Wilderness

Baseline

Scenario A

Scenario B

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 12 

FIGURE 3 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 - Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

FIGURE 4 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 - Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)
ADDENDUM TO JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 BART REPORT 

JMS ES032008003SLC\BART_TMS_JIMBRIDGERUNIT3_FINAL.DOC 13 

FIGURE 5 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 - Mount Zirkel Wilderness

Baseline

Scenario A

Scenario B

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Reduction in Days of Exceeding 0.5 dV (days)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)

FIGURE 6 

Least Cost Envelope

 PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 - Mount Zirkel Wilderness

Scenario B

Scenario A

Baseline

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

98th Percentile Delta-Deciview Reduction (dV)

Total Annualized Cost (Mil $)
ATTACHMENT 1 

Complete Economic Analyses 

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

Jim Bridger 3 Boiler Design: Tangential fired PC

TYPE OF EMISSIONS CONTROLS NOx Control 

Technology Label BASE A B C D 

Current Operation Low NOx Burners with Overfire Air Rotating Overfire Air

Low NOx Burners with 

Overfire Air and NonSelective Catalytic 

Reduction

Low NOx Burners with 

Overfire Air and 

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

E

C

ECONOMIC FACTORS

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

CAPITAL INVESTMENT 

Total Installed Capital Costs ($) $0 $11,300,000 $20,528,122 $21,973,632 $177,800,000  FIRST YEAR DEBT SERVICE ($/Yr) $0 $1,074,944 $1,952,796 $2,090,304 $16,913,727 

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

Operating Labor ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Material ($/Yr) $0 $28,000 $42,000 $122,000 $190,000 Maintenance Labor ($/Yr) $0 $42,000 $63,000 $183,000 $285,000 Administrative Labor ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0  TOTAL FIRST YEAR FIXED O&M COST $0 $70,000 $105,000 $305,000 $475,000 

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

Makeup Water Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reagent Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $89,411 $1,020,310 SCR Catalyst / FF Bag Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Electric Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $2,526,822 $204,984 $1,269,324  TOTAL FIRST YEAR VARIABLE O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $2,526,822 $294,395 $2,889,634 

SUMMARY OF FIRST YEAR COSTS ($/Yr)

First Year Debt Service ($/Yr) $0 $1,074,944 $1,952,796 $2,090,304 $16,913,727 First Year Fixed O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $70,000 $105,000 $305,000 $475,000 First Year Variable O&M Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $2,526,822 $294,395 $2,889,634 

Total First Year Costs ($/Yr) $0 $1,144,944 $4,584,618 $2,689,699 $20,278,361 

CONTROL COST COMPARISONS

NOx Technology Comparison

Additional NOx Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 4,494 5,440 5,440 8,988

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed) $0 $255 $843 $494 $2,256

Technology Case Comparison A-BASE B-A C-A D-AIncremental NOx Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 4,494 946 946 4,494

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton NOx Removed) $0 $255 $3,636 $1,633 $4,258

SO2 Technology Comparison 77.5% 

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

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

Technology Case Comparison Incremental SO2 Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 

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

PM Technology Comparison 0.0%Additional PM Removed From Base Case (Tons/Yr) 0 

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton PM Removed) $0 Technology Case Comparison Incremental PM Removed (Tons/Yr) 0 

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

SCENARIO A AND B COMPARISONS

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

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

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

JMS ES032008003SLC\First Yr Summary\JB3 appendix.xls 
INPUT CALCULATIONS

Jim Bridger 3 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

PARAMETER Current Operation NOx Control Technologies 

Control TechnologiesNOx Emission Control System LNCFS-1 & Windbox Mods. LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCR 

SO2 Emission Control System Wet FGD N/A 

PM Emission Control System ESP ESP w/ Gas Conditioning 

General Plant Design and Operating Data

Type of Unit PC PC PC PC PC PC Annual Power Plant Capacity Factor 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Annual Operation (Hours/Year) 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 7,884 Net Power Output (kW) 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 Net Plant Heat Rate (Btu/kW-Hr) 11,320 11,320 11,320 11,320 11,320 11,320 Boiler Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Hr) 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Annual Heat Input, Measured by Fuel Input (MMBtu/Year) 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 47,300,846 Boiler Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Hr) 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Annual Heat Input, Measured by CEM (MMBtu/Year) 47,304,000 47,304,000 47,304,000 47,304,000 47,304,000 47,304,000 

Plant Fuel Source

Boiler Fuel Source Bridger Mine Underground Bridger Mine Underground Bridger Mine Underground Bridger Mine Underground Bridger Mine Underground Bridger Mine Underground 

Coal Heating Value (Btu/Lb) 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 9,660 Coal Sulfur Content (wt.%) 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% Coal Ash Content (wt.%) 10.30% 10.30% 10.30% 10.30% 10.30% 10.30% Coal Flow Rate (Lb/Hr) 621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077 621,077 Coal Consumed (Ton/Yr) 2,448,284 2,448,284 2,448,284 2,448,284 2,448,284 2,448,284 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

NOx Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.45 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.07 

NOx Emission Rate (Lb/Hr) 2,700 1,560 1,320 1,320 420 

NOx Emission Rate (Lb Moles/Hr) 89.97 51.98 43.99 43.99 14.00 NOx Emission Rate (Ton/Yr) 10,643 6,150 5,203 5,203 1,656 

Add'l NOx Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr) 0 1,140 1,380 1,380 2,280 

Add'l NOx Removed from Current Operations (Ton/Yr) 0 4,494 5,440 5,440 8,988 

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb/MMBtu) 1.20 1.20 

Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb/Hr) 7,198 7,198 Uncontrolled SO2 (Lb Moles/Hr) 112.35 112.35 

Uncontrolled SO2 (Tons/Yr) 28,374 28,374 Controlled SO2 Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.27 0.27 

SO2 Removal Efficiency (%) 77.5% 77.5% 

Controlled SO2 Emissions (Lb/Hr) 1,620 1,620 

Controlled SO2 Emissions (Ton/Yr) 6,386 6,386 SO2 Removed (Lb/Hr) 5,578 5,578 

SO2 Removed (Ton/Yr) 21,988 21,988 Add'l SO2 Removed from Current Operations (Lb/Hr) 0 0 

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

Particulate Matter Emissions

Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/Hr) 51,177 51,177 Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Lb/MMBtu) 8.529 8.529 Uncontrolled Fly Ash (Tons/Yr) 201,739 201,739 Controlled Fly Ash Emission Rate (Lb/MMBtu) 0.057 0.030 Controlled Fly Ash Removal Efficiency (%) 99.3% 99.6% Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Lb/Hr) 342 180 Controlled Fly Ash Emissions (Ton/Yr) 1,348 710 Fly Ash Removed (Lb/Hr) 50,835 50,997 Fly Ash Removed (Ton/Yr) 200,390 201,029 Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Lb/Hr) 0 162 Add'l Ash Removed from Current Operation (Ton/Yr) 0 639 

Economic Factors

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

SO2 and 

JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\JB3 appendix.xls 
INPUT CALCULATIONS

Jim Bridger 3 Boiler Design: Tangential-Fired PC

PARAMETER Current Operation NOx Control Technologies 

Control TechnologiesNOx Emission Control System LNCFS-1 & Windbox Mods. LNB w/OFA ROFA LNB w/OFA & SNCR LNB w/OFA & SCR 

SO2 Emission Control System Wet FGD N/A 

PM Emission Control System ESP ESP w/ Gas Conditioning 

SO2 and 

Installed Capital Costs

NOx Emission Control System ($2012) $11,300,000 $20,528,122 $21,973,632 $177,800,000 

SO2 Emission Control System ($2012) $0 

PM Emission Control System ($2012) $3,900,000 Total Emission Control System Capital Costs ($2012) $11,300,000 $20,528,122 $21,973,632 $177,800,000 $3,900,000 NOx Emission Control System ($/kW) $21 $39 $41 $335 

SO2 Emission Control System ($/kW) 

PM Emission Control System ($/kW) $7 Total Emission Control Capital Costs ($/kW) $21 $39 $41 $335 $7 

Fixed Operating & Maintenance Costs

Operating Labor ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Material ($) $28,000 $42,000 $122,000 $190,000 $0 Maintenance Labor ($) $42,000 $63,000 $183,000 $285,000 $10,000 Administrative Labor ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 1st Fixed Year O&M Cost ($) $70,000 $105,000 $305,000 $475,000 $10,000 Annual Fixed O&M Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Fixed O&M Cost ($/Yr) $82,985 $124,478 $361,578 $563,114 $11,855 

Variable Operating & Maintenance Costs

Water CostMakeup Water Usage (gpm) 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Price ($/1000 gallons) $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 First Year Water Cost ($) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual Water Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Water Costs ($/Yr) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reagent CostType of Reagent None None Urea Anhydrous NH3 Elemental Sulfur Unit Cost ($/Ton) $0.00 $370.00 $400.00 $370.00 Unit Cost ($/Lb) $0.000 $0.185 $0.200 $0.185 Molar Stoichiometry 0.00 0.45 1.00 0.00 Reagent Purity (Wt.%) 100% 100% 100% 100% Reagent Usage (Lb/Hr) 61 647 100 First Year Reagent Cost ($) $0 $89,411 $1,020,310 $145,854 Annual Reagent Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Reagent Costs ($/Yr) $105,997 $1,209,580 $172,910 SCR Catalyst / Fabric Filter Bag Replacement CostMaterial Replaced SCR Catalyst Annual SCR Catalyst (m3) / No. FF Bags 200 SCR Catalyst ($/m3) / Bag Cost ($/ea.) $3,000 First Year SCR Catalyst / Bag Replacement Cost ($) $600,000 Annual SCR Catalyst / Bag Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% Levelized Catalyst/Fabric Fitler Bag Costs ($/Yr) $711,302 FGD Waste Disposal CostFGD Solid Waste Disposal Rate, Dry (Lb/Hr) 0 FGD Waste Disposal Unit Cost ($/Dry Ton) $24.33 First Year FGD Waste Disposal Cost ($) $0 Annual Waste Disposal Cost Esc. Rate (%) 2.00% Levelized Waste Disposal Costs ($/Yr) $0 Auxiliary Power CostAuxiliary Power Requirement (MW) 0.00 6.41 0.52 3.22 0.05 Auxiliary Power Requirement (% of Plant Output) 0.00% 1.21% 0.10% 0.61% 0.01% Auxilliary Power Useage (MWh) 0 50,536 4,100 25,386 394 Unit Cost ($2006/MW-Hr) $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 First Year Auxiliary Power Cost ($) $0 $2,526,822 $204,984 $1,269,324 $19,710 Annual Power Cost Escalation Rate (%) 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Levelized Auxilliary Power Costs ($/Yr) $0 $2,995,555 $243,009 $1,504,787 $23,366 

JMS ES032008003SLC\Tech Calcs\JB3 appendix.xls