Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

__________________________________________________________________________

 Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc October 19, 2006

Capacity Expansion Study 

For The

Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations 

Prepared For 

Astoria Generating Company, L.P. 

400 Madison Avenue 

New York, New York 10017 

Prepared by 

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. 

800 Kinderkamack Road 

Oradell, NJ 07649 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

__________________________________________________________________________

 Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc October 19, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction and Methodology 

2.0 Conceptual Layouts 

2.1 Narrows Conceptual Layouts 

2.2 Gowanus Conceptual Layouts 

3.0 Preferred Layout Options 

3.1 Narrows Barge Option 

3.2 Gowanus South Pier Options 

4.0 Indicative Cost Estimates 

4.1 Gowanus Land based Options 

4.1.1 Basis and Assumptions 

4.1.2 Order of Magnitude Installed Costs 

4.1.3 Comparative Plant Installed Costs 

4.1.4 Supplemental Pricing Information 

4.2 Narrows Power Barge Option 

5.0 Thermal Performance Estimates 

6.0 Emissions Performance Estimates 

7.0 Electrical Interconnection and System Impacts 

8.0 Other Information and Data 

Appendix 1: Conceptual Layout Sketches 

Appendix 2: The Power Barge Corporation Budgetary Quote 

Appendix 3: Coflex “Technip” Flexible Pipe Information 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

1

1.0 Introduction and Methodology 

In accordance with Task Order No. 001 between Astoria Generating Company, L.P. (Astoria) 

and Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. (BREI) dated July 27, 2007, BREI has completed a 

Conceptual Capacity Expansion Study to assist Astoria in developing an overall capacity 

expansion strategy for the Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations; and to identify any 

critical hurdles that must be overcome to facilitate adding capacity at these sites. The scope 

of this study included the following individual tasks: 

a) BREI conducted an evaluation of both sites considering survey data and existing 

equipment layouts to identify available onshore and pier locations that would be 

suitable for new barge and/or land based capacity additions. 

b) Based on this evaluation, six layout concepts were developed for each site 

considering both land and barge options. The objective of this evaluation was to 

determine the maximum reasonable level of capacity that could be installed at each 

site while considering construction, operation, and maintenance requirements, 

maintaining the existing barge generation capacity in service, and independent of 

possible electrical export or gas delivery constraints. These concepts considered the 

use of either GE LM6000 “Sprint”, GE LMS100, or Pratt & Whitney’s FT8 

“SwiftPac” combustion turbine generator sets. 

c) Following a joint Astoria/BREI review of these layout concepts, three options were 

selected by Astoria for further evaluation (land based at Gowanus and barge mounted 

at Narrows). These options include: a.) three LM6000’s at Gowanus, b.) one 

LM6000 and one LMS100 at Gowanus, c) double LM6000 barge mounted units at 

Narrows.

d) BREI then developed Order of Magnitude comparative cost estimates, performance 

estimates, and stack emissions estimates for each of these selected options. 

e) A recommended approach was developed for Astoria to evaluate the ability of the 

ConEd electrical grid to accept additional capacity from Gowanus and/or Narrows 

without congestion; and to identify what system upgrades may be required, and at 

what cost, to evacuate the full additional electrical capacity identified in this study. 

f) Report to Astoria any other pertinent information and data identified during the 

course of this study. 

2.0 Conceptual Layouts 

Following a site inspection visit and initial kickoff meeting, BREI prepared conceptual 

layout drawings for adding generation capacity considering the following basic requirements: 

First, all existing Frame 5 barge based capacity is to be kept in operation both during 

construction of the new facility and once the new capacity goes into operation. The new 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

2

combustion turbines would be of simple cycle configuration with dual firing capability 

utilizing natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil. Water injection, high temperature SCR and CO 

catalysts will be required for control of NOx and CO emissions. No new No. 2 Oil storage 

capacity will be provided; the existing barge and land based storage facilities (Gowanus and 

Narrows respectively) will provide adequate fuel oil storage capacity for both the existing 

and new capacity. Demin water (for NOx control and LM6000 “Sprint” intercooling 

injection) will be produced in trailer mounted rental DI plants with offsite resin regeneration. 

The Electrical interconnections are assumed to be located at the plant existing ConEd tie 

points at an export voltage of 138kV. Gas is assumed to be available at 300 psig at the site 

battery limits. The following Combustion Turbines were considered in this evaluation: GE 

LM6000 “Sprint” (nominal 48 MW), Pratt & Whitney’s 52 MW “Swiftpac”, and the GE 

LMS100 intercooled combustion turbine (nominal 100 MW capacity). Due to balance of 

plant plot space requirements, the LMS 100 was only considered for land based applications. 

The following provides a summary of the layout concepts developed during this phase of the 

study. Copies of BREI’s layout sketches are included as Appendix 1 of this Report. 

2.1 Narrows Conceptual Layouts 

1. Option 1 (BREI Sketch No. SKM-200): Pratt & Whitney Swiftpac (2xFT8’s 

with a common generator) located in the area of abandoned mounded fuel oil 

tanks, gas compressor located adjacent to the existing gas metering house 

(nominal 52 MW capacity). 

2. Option 2 (BREI Sketch No. SKM-201): Two GE LM6000 Sprint units located 

in area of abandoned mounded fuel oil tanks, miscellaneous support 

equipment in abandoned fuel oil unloading area. (nominal 96 MW capacity). 

3. Option 3 (BREI Sketch No. SKM-202): One GE LM6000 Sprint located in 

the area of the abandoned fuel oil unloading area with miscellaneous support 

equipment near area of abandoned mounded fuel oil storage tanks. (nominal 

48 MW capacity). 

4. Option 4 (BREI Sketch No. SKM-203): One GE LM6000 Sprint barge 

mounted with barge moored to a new “T” shaped pier extension at the west 

end of the existing pier. The ammonia tank, gas compressor and demin trailers 

would be located onshore in the abandoned fuel oil unloading area. Demin 

water storage would be on the barge or as an alternate, land based. (nominal 

48 MW capacity). 

5. Option 5 (BREI Sketch No. SKM-204): Two barge mounted LM6000 Sprint 

units moored to a new “T” shaped pier extension. The two CTG’s would be 

mounted on either a single barge or two barges transported separately and then 

mechanically joined. The ammonia tank, gas compressors and demin trailers 

would be located onshore in the abandoned fuel oil unloading area. Demin 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

3

water storage would be on the barge (or as an alternate, land based) (nominal 

96 MW capacity). 

6. Option 6 (BREI Sketch SKM-205): Two LM6000 Sprint units mounted on 

separate barges and moored to the north and south sides of a new east - west 

pier extension. The ammonia tank, gas compressors and demin trailers would 

be located onshore in the abandoned fuel oil unloading area. Demin water 

storage would be on the barge (or as an alternate, land based) (nominal 96 

MW capacity). 

2.2 Gowanus Conceptual Layouts 

1. Option 1A and 1B (BREI Sketches SKM 210, Sheets 1 and 2): Two alternate 

configurations for locating three LM6000 Sprint units located in the South 

Pier area with adjacent balance of plant (nominal 144 MW capacity). 

2. Option 2 (BREI Sketch SKM 211): Combination of one LMS100 unit and one 

LM6000 Sprint (with common stack) located in the South Pier area with 

adjacent balance of plant (nominal 148 MW capacity). 

3. Option 3 (BREI Sketch SKM 212): Two barge mounted LM6000 Sprint units 

on single or double joined barges with land based facilities located on the 

South Pier (nominal 96 MW capacity). This barge location would require 

demolition and removal of submerged spoils reported to be located west of the 

south pier. 

4. Option 4 (BREI Sketch SKM 213): Four barge mounted LM6000 Sprint units 

on multiple joined barges with land based facilities located on the South Pier 

(nominal 192 MW capacity). This barge location would require demolition 

and removal of submerged spoils reported to be located west of the south pier. 

Further evaluation of the feasibility of the fabrication and transport of this 

barge configuration would also be required. 

5. Option 5 (BREI Sketch SKM 214): Two barge mounted P&W Swiftpac units 

on multiple joined barges with land based facilities located on the South Pier 

(nominal 102 MW capacity). This barge location would require demolition 

and removal of submerged spoils reported to be located west of the south pier. 

Further evaluation of the feasibility of the design and transport of this barge 

configuration would also be required. 

6. Option 6 (BREI Sketch SKM 215): Two LM6000 Sprint units located one the 

south and one to the north of the existing administration and control building 

(nominal 96 MW capacity). These units could be either barge mounted or 

placed in filled areas. This option would require further evaluation of water 

depth, dredging requirements, and the feasibility (permitability) of land filling 

these areas to support a land based installation. 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

4

3. Preferred Layout Options 

Based on a joint review of the layout concepts described in Section 2 above, Astoria selected 

two land based options at Gowanus and barge mounted options at Narrows for further 

evaluation, including the development of Order of Magnitude cost estimates. The selected 

concepts include: a) three LM6000’s at Gowanus, b) one LM6000 and one LMS100 at 

Gowanus, and c) two LM6000 barge mounted units at Narrows. The evaluation criteria 

considered for selecting these concepts included: 

x The Gowanus “South Pier” area provides an open area without existing 

encumbrances for the placement of approximately 140 - 150 MW of new capacity. It 

may be possible to expand this area to the west by landfill to provide room for an 

additional LM6000 bringing the additional capacity of this option up to 

approximately 192 MW. 

x Barge siting at Gowanus presents many challenges as compared to Narrows. Issues 

include the possible need to dredge and remove submerged spoils, the need to 

relocate existing fuel barges, interference concerns with existing barges, and the 

possibility of “land locking” existing power barges with the installation of new power 

barges.

x The onshore areas at Narrows would be of higher cost and riskier to develop for CTG 

installation as compared to the Gowanus South Pier. This is due to the need to 

remove the abandoned mounded fuel tanks and other structures. The close proximity 

of local businesses and residence, permitting and noise control requirements, and 

community relations, further complicates onshore siting options at Narrows. 

x New barge placement at Narrows is more attractive than at Gowanus considering the 

relative ease of new pier construction and open water access for new barge 

placement. Barge placement would require only limited onshore balance of plant 

equipment installation in the area of either the abandoned mounded fuel oil tank or 

fuel unloading area.

Conceptual layout and design details (developed to the extent necessary for the purpose of 

layout space allocation) for the preferred Narrows and Gowanus options include the 

following:

3.1 Narrows Barge Options 

The extent of Astoria’s water rights (south and west of the existing power barges), and the 

need to maintain barge access to the fuel unloading pier north the existing power barges, 

limits the amount of barge capacity that can be installed. BREI has determined that a 

maximum of two barge mounted LM6000’s can be accommodated given these constraints. 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

5

Two pier configurations were considered including a “T” shaped extension at the end the 

existing pier and extending the existing pier to the west. With the pier extension, two 

separate power barges would be moored, one on either side of the pier. With the “T” 

configuration, either a single dual LM6000 barge or two rafted barges (mechanically joined 

after shipment) would be moored in the north - south direction. While BREI believes that 

there may be some nominal cost savings associated with the “T” configuration, the east-west 

pier extension has been selected for this study. This is based on several factors including 

Astoria’s preference; and better on-pier accessibility for barge, turbine, and generator 

maintenance. The pier extension would be approximately 50’ wide by 200’ in length to 

accommodate two nominal 200’ X 80’ barges. Details of utility routing (gas, oil, water, 

ammonia) on both the new and existing piers will be determined in future detailed design 

studies.

Located on each barge would be an LM6000 Sprint with fuel oil and water injections skids 

and associated mechanical and electrical modules, exhaust breeching with high temperature 

SCR and CO catalysts, exhaust stack, ammonia dilution and vaporization skid, GSU 

transformer with secondary containment, electrical switchgear and MCC equipment, CEM’s 

system and enclosure, air compressor equipment, fin fan coolers and associated glycol/water 

based cooling water pumps (for generator and lube oil cooling), oil water separators and 

other required pollution control equipment. Dematerialized water storage would be provided 

either on the barge or on shore. Due to corrosion concerns, on-barge demin water storage 

would be provided in a separate tank located under deck. Refer to BREI Sketch Drawing 

SKM-205, Sheet 1, for this arrangement. 

Associated on shore supporting equipment including the aqueous ammonia storage tank, gas 

compressors (one for each LM6000) and demineralized water trailers would be located in the 

area near First Avenue where the retired truck fuel oil unloading area is located. The gas 

compressors would be installed in a building for noise control. Each gas compressor would 

be provided with a fin fan cooler. The LM6000 e requires gas in the range of 650-700 psig, 

with a flow of approximately 7500 scfm. Given dual fuel capability, redundant gas 

compression was not included. 

Ammonia storage for the SCR would consist of a horizontal ASME Section VIII pressure 

tank, approximately 12,000 gallons capacity which would be provided with secondary 

containment. A 19% solution of aqueous ammonia, considered acceptable to the NYFD 

would be used. Aqueous ammonia delivery would be adjacent to First Avenue. Demin 

trailer parking would also be accessible from First Avenue. 

It is envisioned that a new gas supply line may need to be routed to the site. The line will 

require a capacity of approximately 15,000 scfm in order to handle two (2) LM6000’s. For 

this study, and for gas compressor sizing estimates, it is assumed that natural gas would be 

available at a nominal 300 psig 

Each LM6000 would require approximately 45 gpm of demineralized water for water 

injection. A city water line to handle a capacity of approximately 100 gpm with a minimum 

interface pressure of 60 psig will be required. The 60 psig pressure requirement considers 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

6

pressure losses for the cation/anion/mixed bed vessels located on the demineralized water 

trailers. If this pressure cannot be provided raw water booster pumps would need to be 

provided.

Fuel oil consumption for each LM6000 is approximately 40 gpm. Therefore, an additional 

flow of 80 gpm from the existing tankage will be required for two (2) LM6000’s. Based on 

current fuel oil storage capability at Narrows, this should not be an issue. New fuel oil 

forwarding pumps and transfer piping are assumed to be required. Refer to BREI Sketch 

Drawing SKM-205, Sheet 2, for the suggested onshore equipment arrangement. 

3.2 Gowanus South Pier Options 

LM6000 Sprint Option 

The preferred option for the Gowanus “South Pier” site includes three (3) individual LM 

6000 Sprint’s as shown on BREI Sketch # SKM-210, Sheet 2.

Each LM 6000 unit would incorporate a high temperature SCR and CO catalyst system with 

individual 80’ (nominal) exhaust stacks. A CEMS system would be provided for each stack. 

Each SCR module would be provided with its own ammonia dilution skid. It should be 

noted that SCR dilution air injection for SCR cooling is not required with the LM6000 

exhaust gas temperature (nominally 800F - 850F). Two (2) storage tanks for 19% aqueous 

ammonia, each with a capacity of approximately 12,000 (each) gallons would be provided 

onsite. Four (4) ammonia forwarding pumps, one (1) for each LM 6000 and one (1) common 

spare would be provided. 

An air compressor building would be provided with two (2) 100% capacity oil free rotary 

screw air compressors, one (1) twin tower dryer and one (1) vertical air receiver. 

Space has been allocated for two (2) demineralized water trailers and one (1) field erected 

demineralized water storage tank. Four (4) demin water forwarding pumps would be 

provided, one (1) pump per machine plus one (1) common spare. 

Three (3) 100% capacity gas compressors, each with its own fin-fan cooler, would be 

provided and located adjacent to the existing gas metering station. It is envisioned that all 

three (3) gas compressors would be located in an enclosed building for noise control. Given 

dual fuel capability, redundant gas compressors were not included. The Gowanus plant was 

provided with natural gas capability during the 1990’s. Gas lines are run to barges #3 and #2 

and there is a stub up connection blanked off for future connection to barge #1. Therefore, it 

appears that there is sufficient remaining natural gas supply capacity for this option. 

However, gas compression will be required. 

Utility requirements for each LM 6000 unit are approximately as follows: 

x #2 fuel oil 40 gpm 

x demineralized water injection 45 gpm 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

7

x natural gas 7500 scfm at a pressure range of 650 to 700 psig 

A Control Building would be provided on site to serve as the Control Room facility for each 

LM 6000 as well as for the Balance of Plant (BOP) equipment. The Control Room would be 

provided with a Distributed Control System (DCS) for overall supervisory control. 

LMS100 / LM6000 Sprint Option 

The second land based option for Gowanus includes one (1) LMS100 and one (1) LM 6000. 

The LMS 100 machine is rated at a nominal 100 MW, total output for this option would be 

approximately 148 MW. This configuration is shown on BREI Sketch # SKM-210, Sheet 2. 

The site configuration considerers the LMS 100 and LM6000 sharing a common stack to 

conserve space and capital cost. Auxiliary support systems would be similar to those 

provided the 3 x LM6000 configuration except the LMS100 intercooler heat exchanger 

requires the addition of an evaporative type mechanical draft cooling tower in order to 

achieve the higher simple cycle efficiencies. 

While the LM/LMS offers the benefit of higher efficiency and slightly higher site output 

when compared to the LM6000 only option, the following tradeoff’s need to be considered 

when comparing these benefits to the LM6000 based configuration: 

x Loss of commonality of combustion turbine and generator spare parts. 

x The LMS100 requires higher gas supply pressure and therefore a larger and different 

gas compressor (compared to the LM6000). Common sparing of gas compressors or 

parts is not feasible. 

x The LMS100 is a new generation machine with the first unit just entering commercial 

operation (Groton Generation Station, South Dakota). As such, insurance 

underwriters will most likely consider the first units to carry prototype or new 

technology risk premiums resulting in higher premiums, higher deductibles and the 

possibility of additional policy coverage exclusions for at least the first 8,000 hours of 

successful commercial operation. 

x The LMS100 HPC intercooler heat exchanger requires a mechanical draft evaporative 

cooling tower versus fin-fan coolers to maintain equipment efficiency. The 

approximate heat rejection duty for this cooling system is 125,000,000 Btu/hr. The 

estimated city water make-up water and blow down requirements for the cooling 

tower are on the order of 265 gpm and 50 gpm respectively. 

4.0 Indicative Cost Estimates 

4.1 Gowanus Land Based Options 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

8

4.1.1 Basis and Assumptions 

Based on the Gowanus land based layout concepts developed in this study, Burns and 

Roe has developed indicative order of magnitude installed cost estimates for the 

following combustion turbine configurations: 

1. A base line single GE LM6000 located in the Gowanus South Pier area. 

2. Three GE LM6000’s with common balance of plant facilities located in the 

Gowanus South Pier area. 

3. A single LM6000 and single GE LMS100 with common balance of plant 

facilities located in the Gowanus South Pier area.

The Thermoflow Inc. GT PRO "PEACE" cost estimating module was utilized as a screening 

tool to develop baseline indicative cost estimates for these configurations. The PEACE 

generated cost estimates were then validated for the Gowanus site specific requirements by: 

1. Adjusting the equipment lists and equipment costs based on expected balance 

equipment scope and recent procurement experience. 

2. Adjusting the labor rates and productivity factors to reflect current experience 

with NYC craft. 

3. Increasing engineering, procurement, commissioning and start-up budgets 

based on our recent involvement on the FPL Jamaica Bay (Queens, NY) Pratt 

& Whitney Swiftpac project. 

4. Developing discount factors to reflect multiple unit savings that may be 

realized by sharing common balance of plant equipment; and from 

engineering and construction economies. 

5. Comparison with other recent NYC peaker installations. 

Burns and Roe estimates that the level of accuracy of the estimates included in this report are 

on the order (-) 15% / +30%. The major basis and assumptions included in these estimates 

include the following: 

x Use of GE LM6000 “SPRINT” and LMS100 packaged CTG’s with dual fuel 

packages.

x High temperature SCR and CO catalyst package with nominal 80' stack. 

x No new oil tankage, but with new fuel oil forwarding pumps and new fuel oil transfer 

piping (from the barges). 

x Single 100% gas compressor for each CTG based on a minimum 300 psig suction 

pressure.
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

9

x Separate 138 kV step-up transformers for each CTG. 

x Balance of electrical switchyard adjacent to the CTG package. 

x Allowance provided for new buried power cables from the high side of the step-up 

transformers to the location of the existing ConEd switchyard. 

x Demin water produced in a trailer mounted rental demin plant. 

x Gas interconnect on the South Pier adjacent to the CTG location. 

x Mechanical draft cooling tower (LMS100 only). 

x No special foundation requirements with spread footings assumed. 

x Contractor’s costs, including fee and profit of 10% based on a turn-key fixed EPC 

price and fixed schedule contract. 

x Purchase of the CTG’s by USPG/Astoria and turn-over of this equipment to the 

contractor at NTP for erection and commissioning. 

x Separate guarantees provided by GE for CTG performance and delivery; and from the 

EPC contractor for BOP aux loads, and completion schedule. 

x Pricing based on a late 2006 EPC NTP without escalation (present day). 

Costs not included in Burns and Roe’s estimate include: 

x Budget cost for initial CTG spare parts stocking. 

x Initial cost (paid to GE) should Astoria elect to join either the GE lease engine 

program or engine rotable component program. 

x Other Owners costs including: 

o Interest During Construction 

o Legal and other financial costs 

o Gas/Electric utility interconnection and offsite utility system upgrade costs 

o Owners Engineering costs, administration costs, and development fee 

o Land or Right-of-Way purchase costs 

4.1.2 Order of Magnitude Installed Costs 

Single GE LM6000 “SPRINT” Installation 

For the Single LM6000 and associated BOP located on the Gowanus "South Pier", BREI 

estimates the order of magnitude installed cost to be on the order of $850/kW based on a 

nominal net plant output of 48 MW. 

Multiple LM6000 “SPRINT” Installation 

Using the single LM6000 estimate as a baseline, BREI developed discount factors to reflect 

multiple unit savings that may be realized by sharing common balance of plant equipment; 

and from engineering and construction economies. One factor not considered in this 

evaluation is the possibility that Astoria may be able to negotiate a multiple unit discount 

with GE for the purchase of multiple LM6000’s and/or LMS100’s. 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

10

To develop a baseline discount factor, BREI developed a list of balance of plant equipment 

that can be readily shared by multiple units (air compression, water treatment, tankage and 

piping systems) with dedicated CEMS, gas compression, and electrical systems for each 

individual CTG. The estimated savings that may be realized with this level of equipment 

sharing plus engineering and construction economies is on the order of 7% to 10%. The 

resulting order of magnitude installed cost estimate is from $765/kW to $790/kW for the 3 X 

LM6000 configuration. 

Further savings may be possible with further sharing of equipment that might include the gas 

compressors, CEM systems, step-up transformers and other hi-voltage equipment. However, 

to determine the feasibility of these additional savings, a more detailed preliminary design 

study would first need to be completed. 

LM6000 “SPRINT” Plus LMS100 Configuration 

For the Single LMS100 and associated BOP located on the Gowanus "South Pier", BREI 

estimates the order of magnitude installed cost to be on the order of $790/kW based on a 

nominal net plant output of 96MW. In combination with an LM6000, and without 

considering a multiple unit discount, the blended cost of the LM6000/LMS100 plant would 

be on the order of $810/kW based on a nominal output of 144MW with the same level of 

estimate accuracy as noted above. 

While a multiple unit balance of plant discount should also apply in this case, BREI does not 

recommend applying a discount factor for this configuration at the conceptual level of design 

development. This recommendation is based on a variety of factors including, most 

importantly, the higher level of construction and engineering cost uncertainty due to the very 

limited industry experience base with the LMS100; and the different BOP support 

requirements for both units. 

4.1.3 Comparative Plant Installed cost Estimates 

As part of our cost estimate development, BREI compared the estimates developed for 

Astoria to two NYC peaking plants that have been installed within the past 5 years, including 

the 11 NYPA LM6000 peakers and the FPL Jamaica Bay (Queens) Pratt & Whitney 52 MW 

Swiftpac which are further described below. Based on this comparison, and considering the 

general downward trend in pricing for this type of CTG peaker installation since 2000 - 2001, 

the cost estimates developed for this study appear to be within reason, and is possibly 

conservative.

FPL Jamaica (Queens) Bay Peaking Plant 

Burns and Roe provided both detailed design & engineering, and procurement services to 

FPL during their execution of the Jamaica bay peaking plant. FPL self performed this project 

acting as General Contractor. Burns and Roe is in the position to provide certain order of 

magnitude information on this project as follows: 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

11

x The project was completed in October, 2003. Given the fall completion timing, FPL 

was not facing a peak season in-service deadline, and the project was constructed 

without owner directed construction acceleration. This can force pricing up as a 

result of overtime costs and productivity losses, and was a significant issue that 

plagued the NYPA projects. 

x Major equipment was purchased in the 2001 time frame at the tail end of the peak of 

the power construction boom, but before there were significant reductions in major 

equipment pricing. Combustion turbines prices have come down by as much as 20% 

since that point in time. However, the construction contracts were negotiated and 

entered into during the industry down. 

x Jamaica Bay is very similar to the land based Gowanus option, but with the use of a 

Pratt & Whitney 52 MW Swiftpac instead of the LM6000. The project included dual 

fuel firing with both high temperature SCR, CO catalyst, gas compression, etc. 

However, there were some significant differences including oil new storage and the 

upgrading of an unloading pier for oil barge receipt. 

x The project, being within the NYC city limits, was constructed by the same union 

locals as the NYPA peakers and future additions at Gowanus or Narrows. 

When adjusting the Jamaica Bay scope to make it consistent with a single LM6000 at 

Gowanus, the installed price was in the $840/kW to $880/kW range. However, as FPL self 

performed, contractors soft cost are not fully reflected in this price. Total project cost 

including the oil unloading pier, unloading facilities, oil tankage, and other costs was 

reported to be some 10% to 20% higher. 

Project construction and labor relations during construction were relatively uneventful. 

However, there were some issues with IBEW Local 3 which required that prefab electrical 

console terminations (part of the Swiftpac package that had been wired in Pratt & Whitney’s 

non-union fabrication shops) be un-terminated when the equipment arrived onsite, and reterminated in the field. This underscores the need to develop and maintain a good 

relationship with local craft before the project, and if at all possible to negotiate a Project 

Labor Agreement (PLA) before the project commences to address this type of issue before 

project execution. 

NYPA In-City Peaking Plants 

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) constructed 11 LM6000 peakers at 7 locations (6 

in-city and one on Long Island) that went into service in June, 2001. The projects were 

constructed with Slattery Skanska as General Contractor and DMJM Harris acting as Project 

and Construction Manager; the published cost was $1,080/kW. However, most intelligence 

indicates that actual price with field change orders may have been as high as $1,300 to 

$1,400/kW. These costs do not include NYPA’s soft costs or land costs. 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

12

When comparing the NYPA projects to a future project at Astoria, several factors must be 

considered. First, both equipment purchases and construction contracts were negotiated and 

entered into in the 2000 - 2001 time frame at the peak of the power construction boom when 

turbine prices alone were 20% to 25% above current pricing (a nominal $70/kW - $90/kW 

premium over today's prices for the CTG's alone based on LM6000 pricing). 

Further, NYPA did not receive its NYDEC Air Quality Permits to Construct until February 

of 2001. With a June, 2001 summer peak period in-service obligation, the project was faced 

with extremely short 5 month construction schedules at 7 independent locations from the 

time of initial earth work to Commercial Operation. This forced a very aggressive 7X24 hour 

around the clock construction effort in parallel at multiple sites. As a result, labor 

productivity was much lower than expected and significant construction cost overruns 

resulted. Therefore, it is difficult to directly compare the NYPA projects to Astoria, or to 

consider them indicative of future in-city project pricing trends. 

4.1.4 Supplemental Pricing Information 

Incremental Cost For Pile Foundations 

As an installed cost sensitivity, BREI developed an order of magnitude cost estimate for the 

incremental cost for pile foundations at the Gowanus site (in lieu of spread footings which 

forms the basis for the estimates presented above). This estimate is based on the Jamaica Bay 

Project which is located on fill with very poor soil bearing capability. With the Pratt & 

Whitney Swiftpac foundation loadings being similar to those for an LM6000, this provides a 

good basis for a comparative order of magnitude estimate; and probably represents a worst 

for Gowanus since all major equipment including tanks, gas compressor stack, SCR, and 

CTG at Jamacia Bay required pile foundations. The incremental cost is on the order $1.3MM 

over that for spread footings for a single LM6000 based project. For the LMS 100 BREI 

would recommend using $2MM as an order of magnitude incremental cost. For reference, 

and not necessarily representative of the Gowanus foundation design requirements, 250 X 70' 

auger cast piles were installed at Jamaica Bay at a cost of roughly $74/foot. 

Major Equipment Indicative Pricing 

The Following table provides a summary of the indicative major equipment costs for both the 

LM6000 and LMS100 100 based plant configurations. The data as presented has been 

extracted from the GTPRO PEACE cost estimates; and while representative, cannot be 

compared directly to the installed cost estimates included in this report. Prices are FOB, 

Jobsite, based on current pricing without escalation. 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

13

Table 4.0 

Indicative Equipment Pricing

Plant Configuration 1 X LM6000 1X LMS100 

1.0 Specialized Equipment 

 1.1 Combustion Turbine $15,120,000 $34,800,000

 1.2 SCR, CO Catalyst & Stack $ 2,760,000 $ 5,150,000 

 1.3 Fuel Gas Compressors $ 635,000 $ 1,375,000

 1.4 CEMS System $ 385,000 $ 385,000 

 1.5 Distributed Control System $ 325,000 $ 420,000 

 1.6 Step-Transformer $ 725,000 $ 1,250,000

 1.7 Other High Voltage Equipment $ 200,000 $ 950,000 

 1.8 Buried High Voltage Cable $ 2,300,000 $ 3,400,000 

 1.9 Cooling Tower (LMS100 only) $ 685,000

2.0 Other Equipment $ 950,000 $ 1,300,000 

Total Equipment $23,400,000 $49,715,000

4.2 Narrows Power Barge Cost Estimate 

In order to develop an order of magnitude cost estimate for new power barges at Narrow’s, 

BREI develop separate cost estimates for the power barge itself and for the onshore balance 

of plant components including the pier extension. 

For the power barge, budgetary pricing for new deck barge fabrication and outfitting with an 

LM6000 Sprint was obtained from The Power Barge Corporation who is a power barge 

outfitter with substantial LM6000 outfitting experience, located in Houston, Texas. A copy 

of their proposal and power barge outfitting qualifications and experience is included in As 

Appendix 2 of this Report. Their budgetary price of $650/kW ($31,200,000 per barge based 

on a nominal 48MW output) includes the following: 

1. New construction of a deck barge of approximately 200’ X 80’ at a non-union gulf 

coast yard. 

2. Full outfitting (installation) of equipment on the barge by union craft at the gulf coast 

yard. The installation would carry full union tags and stamps. The scope of 

equipment installed on the deck barge would include: 

a. LM6000PC Sprint Dual fuel package 

b. LM6000 inlet filter house 

c. LM6000 skid mounted equipment including fin fan coolers, water injection 

skid, oil skid, fire protection systems, etc. 

d. Air compressors and driers 

e. High temperature SCR/CO catalyst module and 80' stack 

f. SCR ammonia dilution and vaporization system 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

14

g. CEMS 

h. Step-up transformer (138 kV) with secondary oil containment 

i. High voltage take-off structure 

j. MCC’s, electrical switchgear and local controls 

k. Below deck demin water storage tank 

l. Pollution control equipment for the barge including oil water separator 

3. Wet towing from the gulf coast fabrication yard to Brooklyn, New York. 

The on shore balance of plant components and services include: 

1. Gas compressors, compressor building and coolers 

2. Ammonia offloading facilities and ammonia storage tank 

3. Balance of the high voltage equipment 

4. Demin trailer parking area and demin water storage tank 

5. Onshore ammonia, water and fuel oil forwarding systems 

6. Onshore high voltage power export, auxiliary power and controls cabling, ammonia, 

oil, and water piping and barge interface facilities 

7. Onshore facilities engineering and construction costs 

8. Commissioning and Start-up support services 

9. Nominal 50’ X 200’ pier extension 

The costs for this equipment and services, excluding the pier, were extracted from the 

onshore equipment estimates developed for Gowanus as described in Section 4.1. The 

estimated turnkey cost for the onshore equipment component including construction, 

engineering, commissioning/start-up support for a two barge project is estimated to be on the 

order of $18,000,000 which includes a $5,000,000 allowance for designing and constructing 

the pier extension. The resulting all-in order of magnitude cost for the two power barge 

project at Narrows is $80,400,000, or $837/kW based on a nominal output of 96 MW. 

5.0 Thermal Performance Estimates 

BREI developed thermal performance estimates for both the LM6000 Sprint and LMS100 at 

the Gowanus/Narrows site conditions at the ambient temperatures requested by Astoria 

(Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below). In developing these estimates, BREI obtained the most recent 

cycle deck data from GE Energy to develop gross performance estimates at the generator 

terminals. The GT PRO performance estimating software was then run to develop estimated 

plant auxiliary loads (including transformer losses, gas compression, fans, pumps and other 

balance of plant equipment), and net plant performance estimates. LMS100 auxiliary loads 

also include the intercooler heat rejection system’s relatively substantial cooling tower fan 

and circulating water pump loads.
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Table 5.1 

GE LM6000 Sprint Estimated Performance 

Fuel Type Natural Gas #2 Fuel Oil

Ambient Conditions 30F 

40%RH 

60F 

60%RH 

90F 

60%RH 

30F 

40%RH 

60F 

60%RH 

90F 

60%RH 

Gross Power (kW) 50,807 48,454 42,627 50,784 47,031 42,165 

Net Power (kW) 49,593 47,370 41,642 50,030 46,293 41,470 

Plant Aux. Loads (kW) 1,214 1,084 985 754 738 695 

LHV Gross Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) 8,374.8 8,538.0 8,712.8 8,469.2 8,634.7 8,841.5 

LHV Net Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) 8,579.9 8,733.4 8,918.9 8,596.9 8,772.5 8,989.7 

Fuel LHV Input (mmBTU/h) 425.5 413.7 371.4 430.1 406.1 372.8 

Table 5.2 

GE LMS100PA Estimated Performance

Fuel Type Natural Gas #2 Oil 

Ambient Conditions 30F 

40%RH 

60F 

60%RH 

90F 

60%RH 

30F 

40%RH 

60F 

60%RH 

90F 

60%RH 

Gross Power (kW) 101,154 102,567 96,569 101,508 99,660 89,007 

Net Power (kW) 96,072 97,443 91,588 97,255 95,417 84,831 

Aux.& Losses (kW) 5,082 5,124 4,981 4,253 4,243 4,176 

LHV Gross Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) 7,773.3 7,841.7 8,001.5 7,817.1 7,922.9 8,146.6 

LHV Net Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) 8,184.5 8,254.1 8,436.7 8,159.0 8,275.3 8,547.6 

Fuel LHV Input (mmBTU/h) 786.3 804.3 772.7 793.5 789.6 725.1 

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

15
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

16

6.0 Emissions Performance Estimates 

Turbine exhaust and post control stack emissions estimates for both the LMS100 and 

LM6000 Sprint are summarized in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 below. In developing these estimates, 

BREI obtained the most recent cycle deck data from GE Energy to develop the turbine 

exhaust emissions estimates. The post control stack emissions estimates are based on GE 

provided data considering the use of both high temperature SCR and CO catalysts. While 

GE does not guarantee stack emissions, data provided is representative of the level of control 

being required for these CTG’s in recent air permits. While GE has stated that SCR and CO 

catalyst vendors are willing to guarantee this level of control, further direct discussions with 

catalyst vendors are recommended. It should be noted that in the case of both the LMS100 

and LM6000, turbine exhaust temperature is low enough (in the 750F to 850F range), such 

that dilution (cooling) air injection is not required to temper the exhaust gas upstream of the 

high temperature SCR. 

Table 6.1 

GE LMS100 Estimated Emissions 

Fuel Natural Gas Fuel Oil 

Turbine Exhaust Condition Turbine Exhaust Condition 

Ambient Temperature 30F 60F 90F 30F 60F 90F

Operating Condition Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load

NOx (PPM / lb/hr) 25/79 25/81 25/78 42/137 42/137 42/126

CO (PPM / lb/hr) 183/354 155/308 139/264 169/336 148/293 129/236 

VOC (PPM / lb/hr) 10/10.5 8/8.4 6/6.7 53/52 44/43 37/33

Estimated Stack Conditions 

(Post Control) 

Estimated Stack Conditions 

(Post Control) 

Ambient Temperature 30F 60F 90F 30F 60F 90F

Operating Condition Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load

Stack Mass Flow (lb/sec) 474.9 468.9 443.4 475.1 461 424.1

Stack Temp. (degrees F) 741 771 799 764 792 815

NOx (PPM / lb/hr) 2.5/7.9 2.5/8.1 2.5/7.8 5/16.3 5/16.3 5/15.0

CO (PPM / lb/hr) 6/11.6 6/11.9 6/11.4 6/11.9 6/11.9 6/11.0

NH3 (PPM) 5 5 5 10 10 10

VOC (PPM / lb/hr) 7/7.4 7/7.4 6/6.7 10/9.8 10/9.9 10/8.9

PM10 (lb/hr) 10 10 10 80 80 80

Notes:

1. All emissions concentrations expressed in PPMVD@15% O2. 

2. Estimated emissions, not to be used for permitting purposes. 

3. PM10 emissions estimates include SCR particulate contribution. 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

17

Table 6.2 

LM 6000 SPRINT Estimated Emissions 

Fuel Natural Gas Oil

Turbine Exhaust Condition Turbine Exhaust Condition 

Ambient Temperature 30F 60F 90F 30F 60F 90F

Operating Condition Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load

NOx (PPM / lb/hr) 25/43 25/40 25/38 42/74 42/70 42/65

CO (PPM / lb/hr) 49/51.01 24/23.77 10/9.57 6/6.56 6/6.20 6/5.69

VOC (PPM / lb/hr) 7/3.88 3/1.45 2/1.77 3/1.4 3/1.32 3/1.22

Estimated Stack Conditions 

(Post Control) 

Estimated Stack Conditions 

(Post Control) 

Ambient Temperature 30F 60F 90F 30F 60F 90F

Operating Condition 

Base 

Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load Base Load

Stack Mass Flow (lb/sec) 308.1 284.5 269.9 308.9 290.9 269.3

Stack Temp. (degrees F) 800 834 840 810 827 848

NOx (PPM / lb/hr) 2.5/4.3 2.5/4.0 2.5/3.8 5/8.8 5/8.3 5/7.7

CO (PPM / lb/hr) 6/6.2 6/5.9 6/5.7 6/6.56 6/6.20 6/5.69

NH3 (PPM) 5 5 5 10 10 10

VOC (PPM / lb/hr) 7/3.88 3/1.45 2/1.77 3/1.4 3/1.32 3/1.22

PM10 (lb/hr) 4 4 4 50 50 50

Notes:

1. All emissions concentrations expressed in PPMVD@15% O2. 

2. Estimated emissions, not to be used for permitting purposes. 

3. PM10 emissions estimates include SCR particulate contribution. 

4. Credit not give for VOC reduction achieved in the CO catalyst. 

5. GE Cycle Deck estimated emissions data shows uncontrolled LM6000 CO emissions 

to be a constant 6ppmvd@15% O2 when firing number 2 oil. No credit has been 

taken in the post control stack CO emissions estimates in the table above for further 

CO reductions. BREI suggests further review of the GE Cycle Deck predicted CO 

emissions rates by Astoria’s environmental consultant since CO emissions would be 

expected to increase as ambient temperature decreases.

7.0 Electrical Interconnections and System Impacts 

NYISO has implemented several procedural changes recently which make it somewhat more 

difficult to freely access existing system and system impact data/studies; and to access data 

that would allow one to draw independent conclusions with regard to system congestion, load 

flows, and the ability to inject additional electrical energy into the grids controlled by NYISO 

without detailed computer modeling. 

The process now requires that an interested party submit a formal system data request, which 

BREI has done on the behalf of Astoria. The data CD provided by NYISO contains system 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

18

data that is filed annually with FERC in "Form 715" format. This data is updated annually 

and was last submitted to FERC on 4/15/06. BREI will provide Astoria with a copy of the 

NYISO data CD under separate cover. The data CD includes current NYISO "base case" 

load flow and short circuit data. However, the data is formatted for input into one of two 

modeling simulation programs (GE's PS-LF and PTI’s PSS software) and cannot be 

interpreted manually. BREI’s licensed ETAP software is not capable of modeling the 

NYISO provided data; BREI can provide continuing assistance to Astoria considering the 

following approaches: 

The first approach would be to independently model the ConEd grid using the NYISO data 

with either the PTI or GE software to estimate the additional export capabilities without 

ConEd system congestion. The second approach would be to make a formal request to 

NYISO for a System Impact and Reliability Study (SRIS). The SRIS would establish 

Astoria's position in the planned new capacity queue and Astoria’s cost allotment for any 

required system upgrades, but would take longer to complete than the independent model 

route.

While BREI does not have the capability to run either the PTI or GE software, we can 

support either approach. We have modeling consultants who we work with that are licensed 

and trained to run the PSS simulation, or alternatively if Astoria elects to request NYISO to 

perform an SRIS study, we can support Astoria in developing the required data for the a 

NYISO SRIS application. 

8.0 Other Information and Data 

During the course of this study, BREI has identified other information and data considered to 

be of value to Astoria in their development of capacity expansion projects at either Gowanus 

or Narrows. Following is a brief summary of this information along with BREI’s 

recommendations for further study. 

1. LMS100 Availability: GE Energy have advised that they now have 25 firm orders 

for the LMS100. Delivery slots for orders placed now will be no earlier than June, 

2008. Considering Astoria’s desired June, 2009 in-service date, LMS100 availability 

may become an issue unless reserve commitments are made with GE to support a 

delivery date no later than late summer 2008. 

2. High Temperature SCR Design Life: As noted in the body of this report, due to the 

relatively low temperature of the LM6000 and LMS100 combustion turbines (750F – 

850F), supplemental exhaust dilution cooling air injection is not required for the high 

temperature SCR. However, SCR catalyst life is directly proportional to operating 

temperature. Catalyst vendors have been predicting a 10 year catalyst life in LM6000 

applications based on 3,500 hr/year of operation; however with the lower LMS100 

exhaust temperature, preliminary indications are that the expected life may be as high 

as 15 years resulting in lower SCR life cycle costs for the LMS1000. Discussion with 

catalyst vendors regarding both catalyst life estimates and available guarantees should 

be initiated. 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

19

3. Existing Power Cable Capacity at Narrows: Astoria questioned whether the 

capacity of the existing "in-plant" high voltage buried oil filled power cables could be 

increased by adding a forced chilling system to support the new capacity (and 

potentially eliminate the need to trench between the pier and substation). This 

question can be studied further upon receipt of plant design data including, cable 

routing plans, rating of the exiting cables, and a one line diagram. However, based on 

the age of the facility, we believe that the existing cables are static oil filled where the 

oil acts as dielectric insulating fluid and enhances heat transfer between the cable to 

the outer casing and surrounding earth. If this is the case, forced cooling would 

require trenching for the addition of a parallel pipe to provide a return path for a 

closed loop oil circulating system, plus the addition of the chilling or heat rejection 

system. Recently, forced or circulating oil systems have become more common. 

While the level of possible incremental capacity is highly site and installation 

specific, BREI have studied chiller installations on existing forced circulation cable 

systems where capacity upgrades of as much as 40% have been realized. We are 

currently the Owners Engineer on one such project also located in the NYISO control 

area.

4. Gowanus Foundation Design: Given the lack of available geotechnical data, 

foundation design requirements for the Gowanus South Pier site cannot be 

definitively determined. It is recommended that a limited geotechnical study be 

conducted to determine soil bearing capabilities, foundation design requirements, and 

to determine the possible existence of any existing subsurface foundations or other 

structures that might negatively impact foundation design or installation costs. The 

estimated costs for completing a limited evaluation in sufficient detail to define the 

type of foundations required would be on the order of $30,000 including sub-contract 

costs for 8 to 10 exploratory soil borings. 

5. High Pressure Gas Connections – Narrows Power Barges: Hudson River tidal 

activity requires the use of flexible connections for water, ammonia, oil, and gas 

between the barge and pier. Of specific concern is the identification of a design for 

the high pressure natural gas (650 – 750 psig) connection that is both reliable, and 

acceptable to the New York Fire Department (NYFD). A system we believe will 

satisfy these requirements is the use of a high pressure armored hose rather than a ball 

or swivel joint. Once such system is the “Technip” flexible pipe manufactured by 

Coflex. The Technip flexible pipe systems have ratings as high as 7,500 psig, have a 

long and reliable service history; and are used widely in North Sea gas field 

applications. A copy of Technip’s brochure is included as Appendix 3 of this report. 

6. Labor Relations and GE equipment Warrantees: As noted in this report, there 

were some issues with IBEW Local 3 during the construction of the Jamaica Bay 

project wherein Local 3 required that prefab electrical console terminations (part of 

the Swiftpac package that had been wired in Pratt & Whitney’s non-union fabrication 

shops) be un-terminated when the equipment arrived onsite, and re-terminated in the 

field. GE have advised that Local 3 forced the same process during construction at 
Capacity Expansion Study Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations

___________________________________________________________________________

Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. October 19, 2006 

20

some, but not all of the NYPA LM6000 peaker locations. GE took a position during 

this debate allowing this work only on power cabling at 125 volts and above; and 

maintained that any re-termination of low voltage I&C cabling would result in GE 

voiding their equipment warrantees. The IBEW capitulated to this requirement. 

However, this underscores the need to develop and maintain a good relationship with 

local craft before the project, and if at all possible to negotiate a Project Labor 

Agreement (PLA), especially with the IBEW before the project commences to 

address this type of issue before project execution.

















APPENDIX 2 

The Power Barge Corporation Budgetary Quote 

For the 

Capacity Expansion Study at 

Gowanus and Narrows Generating Stations 
PROPOSAL 

Presented to: 

Burns and Roe 

For 

NYC Power Barge Project 

 The Power Barge 

 Corporation

September 22, 2006 

This document is privileged and contains confidential information intended for use only by 

Burns and Roe 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 2 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

Table of Contents 

1. Executive Summary...................................................................................... 3 

2. ProEnergy Services & The Power Barge Corp. Overview .......................... 4 

2.1 Power Barge Corporate Profile & History ................................................... 4 

2.2 ProEnergy Corporate Profile & History ...................................................... 5 

2.3 Quality .......................................................................................................... 6 

2.4 Experience – Corporate & Management...................................................... 6 

2.5 ProEnergy Services Support Organization................................................... 7 

3.0 Workscope Document .................................................................................. 8 

3.1 Two (2) General Electric LM6000PC Sprint 50 MW Simple Cycle Power Barge 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 3 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

Section I Executive Summary

The Power Barge Corporation (TPBC) and ProEnergy Services (“ProEnergy”) are pleased to offer this power 

barge proposal for Burns and Roe for a 96 MW New York City located Power Barge Project. The proposal 

provides an indicative price and scope of supply for two LM6000PC Sprint simple cycle power barge. 

Given the clients requirements for union trade labor for erection and outfitting, we have assembled a team that 

combines The Power Barge Corporation’s gas turbine power barge expertise with ProEnergy Services 

LM6000PC Sprint centerline and outfitting management, and JV Industries, a union outfitting shop in Texas. 

After reviewing East and Gulf Coast production capacities and pricing, we have selected to propose a Gulf 

Coast program. Engineering and long lead procurements will take the first month of the project schedule. The 

deck barge fabrication will take about 7 months assuming parallel construction utilizing a non-union fabrication 

yard. During this time period we assume that the, gas turbines, GSUs, SCR/COs would be delivered. 

Installation of the power islands, SCR/CO and all auxiliaries would be performed by union shop labor in Texas. 

Outfitting of an LM6000PC Sprint will take about 3 months. 

Given the mix of Gulf of Mexico union and non-union labor, and the relaxing of shipyard availability, our 

indicative pricing is $650 a kW of nominal rated installed capacity. This estimate does not include Site 

engineering, preparation, installation or interconnect. 

This proposal comprises a detailed description of: 

• The Power Barge Corporation’s Profile and History 

• ProEnergy’s Corporate Profile and History 

• Project Descriptions and Scope 

The core EPC management team of The Power Barge Corporation and ProEnergy Services will set out all 

procedures and controls required for coordinating and routing documentation, design and engineering 

information, technical interfaces and correspondence as required ensuring the following: 

♦ Planning and scheduling all project activities. 

 

♦ Coordinating project activities with vendors and client. 

♦ Coordinating project interfaces with client. 

♦ Monitoring and reporting all project activities. 

♦ Producing progress reports and schedules. 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 4 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

♦ Providing Project Management 

♦ Providing contract management. 

The Power Barge Corporation is the world’s leading gas turbine power barge EPC contractor. ProEnergy is a 

company comprised of some of the most experienced construction and commissioning service providers in the 

world. We believe our blend of prior experience, “hands-on” technical knowledge, solid processes, extensive, 

construction, installation, operations and maintenance experience, and broad corporate management experience 

makes us uniquely qualified to provide services to the client, focusing on safely maximizing plant and 

equipment reliability, availability, and performance while maintaining the highest safety standards and 

exceeding environmental requirements. 

In addition, our collective management team has worked previously for all of the major gas turbine 

manufacturers and has an in-depth understanding of both technical and commercial considerations associated 

with the New York City power project. 

In addition, ProEnergy is able to support the project in the post commissioning phase through its four business 

lines, including original equipment manufacture trained Operations and Maintenance Services, Technical 

Advisors, Controls Specialists, Training Specialists, and Maintenance support services. 

We look forward to reviewing this proposal with you and discussing with you the value ProEnergy Services and 

The Power Barge Corporation can bring to your organization and projects. 

Section II The Power Barge Corporation & ProEnergy Services Overview

2.1 The Power Barge Corporation Profile and History 

The Power Barge Corporation concept began in 1990 as a subsidiary of General Dynamics, Electric 

Boat Company (nuclear submarine program). In a joint venture with Westinghouse, a product line of 

gas turbine simple and combined cycle power barges was developed. Since then, The Power Barge 

Corporation has evolved into a privately held consultancy and niche EPC firm specializing in power 

barges. 

The Power Barge Corporation staff has worked in the gas turbine power barge business since 1990 in 

project development support, engineering, design and construction of power barges. The Power Barge 

Corporation has enjoyed close working relationships with Siemens, General Electric, Wartsila, MAN 

B&W, and Kvaerner Masa Marine (now Aker Marine). 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 5 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

Past experience includes contract work on the following gas turbine power barges providing, consulting, 

engineering and design, or full EPC services: 

30 MW General Electric Frame 6B simple cycle power barge 

 EPC for 2 delivered power barges 

48 MW Westinghouse combined cycle power barge to work with 98 MW unit 

 Design with one unit under construction 

48 MW Westinghouse W251B11 simple cycle power barge 

 Design for one unit delivered 

70 MW Westinghouse W251 B11 combine cycle power barge 

 Design 

98 MW Westinghouse W251B11 x 2 simple cycle power barge 

 Design for two units delivered 

100 MW Pratt & Whitney FT4C-3F x 3 simple cycle power barge 

 Project Management/construction for one unit delivered 

100 MW General LM6000PC Sprint simple cycle power barge 

 Design contract – under review 

105 MW Westinghouse W501 D5/A simple cycle power barge 

 Design for two units delivered 

185 MW General Electric Frame 7EA combined cycle power barge 

 Consulting engineering services – operational unit 

220 MW General Electric LM6000PC x 4 simple cycle power barge 

 Consulting engineering services – operational unit 

Clients include El Paso, AES, Enron, Keppel Energy, Hyundai Engineering and Construction, 

Westinghouse, Sermetech/TTS, Alvarez & Marsal, Exxon Mobile and many project developers. 

2.2 ProEnergy Corporate Profile and History 

ProEnergy Services is an integrated service company with broad domestic and international experience. 

Established by a dedicated group of seasoned energy professionals in response to a growing need within 

the energy industry for a cost-effective, safe, reliable service group with high quality standards, 

ProEnergy provides a broad spectrum of services to the global energy industry. 

Through its four lines of business, 1) Construction and Installation, 2) Operations and Maintenance, 3) 

Professional Services, 4) Field Services, and 5) Technical Services, ProEnergy contributes to our client’s 

projects’ profitability by providing cost effective power plants and services, while maintaining the 

highest standards of quality. 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 6 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

Our team is committed to the energy industries, and is comprised of industry experts who posses the 

global experience, knowledge, financial depth, and a reputation for exceeding our clients expectations, 

anywhere in the world. Our backgrounds include a wide variety of skill sets and experience which 

allows us to quickly understand your needs and provide innovative solutions. The value we can bring 

begins in the development stage of a project, through construction and start-up, and continues through 

the long term operations and maintenance of a facility. 

Exceeding customer expectations is what sets apart the commercial successes of our era from the 

commercial failures. The business world today continues to evolve and the success or failure of 

organizations are often tied to their ability to remain focused on customer satisfaction, driving to reduce 

overhead so as to provide real value, and remaining dedicated to exceeding the expectations of their 

clientele. ProEnergy Services holds forth that same vision as the model for its success. At ProEnergy 

Services, we are dedicated to providing a level of service which eclipses our competitors... we do it 

better! We are passionate about client satisfaction, committed to lower costs, which we pass on to the 

consumer, and dedicated to exceeding our clients' expectations. It is this commitment that has allowed 

us to grow throughout the down turn in the energy market. 

2.3 Quality 

Everything we do at The Power Barge Corporation and ProEnergy to remain as world-class companies 

is based upon delivering a reliable plants and services, free of defects, in a timely manner. We 

understand that our Customer’s facilities must be available on schedule, and must be reliable to meet 

their anticipated business goals. Prior to mobilizing to a project, the team develops an initial plan and 

schedule based upon past project experience. During performance of the services, we execute to preestablished criteria and standards utilizing established check-lists and procedures. 

2.4 Experience – ProEnergy Corporate & Management 

To date, ProEnergy has secured projects both domestically and internationally in the following core 

areas: 

• Construction and Commissioning 

• Project Management 

• Centerline installation services 

• Comprehensive long-term Operations &Maintenance 

• Asset Management 

• Mobilization Services 

• Training 

• Technical Writing Services 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 7 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

• Turbine Maintenance and Diagnostic, Field Engineering Support 

• Controls and Operations Support 

• Field Service Inspections 

• Consulting Services 

• Outage Support 

The extensive experience ProEnergy’s management team possesses has been gained by working with, 

and directly for, the following: 

• Project Owners 

• Utilities 

• Third party service providers 

• Architect – Engineering – Construction firms 

• Original Equipment Manufacturers such as General Electric, Siemens-Westinghouse, Stewart and 

Stevenson, Pratt & Whitney, Alstom, and Mitsubishi. 

• Financial organizations and investment groups. 

2.5 ProEnergy Services Support Organization 

Located in the ProEnergy offices in Houston, Texas, Sedalia, Missouri and Atlanta, Georgia, specialists 

in engineering, construction operations, accounting, personnel, marketing, purchasing, and other 

disciplines assume responsibility for projects both domestic and international in an early stage. In this 

way, both technical and regulatory expertise is provided in addition to assistance with quality, safety, 

administration, training and environmental programs. The concept behind this support is to 1) allow the 

project personnel to focus on safely and efficiently performing their duties, and 2) to minimize the staff 

required under each contract and allow the client to share in economies of scale. 

Our corporate staff reflects professionals from the energy industry, with engineering, construction, 

maintenance, operations, and startup experience. The philosophy of the corporate staff is one of 

immediate and comprehensive support for the projects and plants we provide services to; we remain 

available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 8 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

Section III Work Scope 

3.3 2 x 48 MW power barges in a General Electric LM6000PC Sprint Simple Cycle 

Firm Fixed with Assumptions to be clarified

3.3.1 Technical Specification 

General Plant Description 

The LM6000PC Sprint Power Barge Project consists of two (2) 48 MW gas turbine simple cycle power 

barge to be located in New York City harbor within an existing power barge complex. Each gas turbine 

power barge will have (1) LM6000PC Sprint gas turbines, SCR/CO, related SCR auxiliaries, CEMS, 

fuel gas and water injection auxiliaries, 138 kV substation and a control room. 

The Plant's main power producing equipment will consist of one General Electric LM6000PC Sprint 

packaged gas turbine. The plant is designed to deliver a nominal plant output of approximately 50MW at 

a lagging power factor of 0.8 at ISO conditions. 

To meet the operating requirements, the two LM6000s will be erected, each on a single deck barge. The 

equipment will be mounted on or within the barge. 

The barge will be constructed by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) as a Deck Cargo Barge 

(Rivers Class). Concurrent with the construction activities to be performed at the aforementioned 

shipyard the preparation and installation of non-barge mounted equipment and the barge mooring 

system will take place at the Site as provided by others. Flag requirements are to be determined. 

LM6000 Gas Turbine Generator Set 

The LM6000PC Sprint is a simple-cycle, 2-shaft gas turbine derived from the core of GE's highest 

thrust, highest efficiency aircraft engine, the CF6-80C2. The Low Pressure Turbine, High Pressure 

Compressor, High Pressure Turbine and Combustor of the LM6000 are virtually identical with their 

aircraft CF6-80C2 counterparts. This use of flight-proven parts, produced in high volume, contributes to 

the low initial cost and high efficiency of the LM6000.Major Components of the LM6000 turbine are: 

• Variable inlet guide vane section (VIGV) 

• 5-stage low pressure compressor (LPC) 

• 14-stage variable geometry high pressure compressor (HPC) . 

• Annular combustor 

• 2-stage air cooled high pressure turbine (HPT) 

• 5-stage low pressure turbine (LPT) 

• Accessory Drive Gear Box 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 9 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

The LPC is driven through a concentric drive shaft by the 5-stage LPT, forming the low pressure rotor. 

The high pressure rotor is formed by the 14-stage HPC, driven by the 2-stage HPT. The high pressure 

"core" is formed by the HPC, combustor and HPT section. Instead of a separate power turbine, as used 

on previous engines, the LM6000 uses the Low pressure Turbine (LPT) to power the output shaft. 

Driving with the LPT simplifies the engine and improves fuel efficiency. The LM6000 gas turbine 

drives a generator through a flexible dry type coupling connected to the front, or "cold", end of the LPC 

shaft. 

The generator is an air cooled, self-ventilated, cylindrical rotor machine. It is a two pole synchronous 

generator with a brushless excitation system and a permanent magnet pilot exciter. The generator 

utilizes an open, drip-proof design and is enclosed in a housing which reduces average noise levels to 90 

dB(A) at one meter from unit and one and one-half meter above grade. The rotor is supported by two 

split sleeve bearings which are lubricated with a pressurized mineral oil system. The generator has a 

design life of 25-30 years, utilizes Class F insulation and is sized to operate with diode failure alarm, 

flux limiter, over-excitation limiter, volts per Hz control, under excitation limiter, auto follower & null 

balance, auto transfer to manual control Class B temperature rise. The generator is capable of absorbing 

the site rated power output of the gas turbine for base load operation throughout the entire ambient 

temperature range of the application. The generator is capable of a 110% power overload for 2 hours out 

of every 24 hours of operation with no loss of operating life. The generator is also capable of 

withstanding a 30% overload current for 1 minute. 

Air Inlet System 

The air inlet system protects the gas turbine, generator and equipment compartments from the effects of 

airborne dirt and foreign object damage. 

• Minimizes maintenance requirements and frequency of filter replacement 

Noise Control 

The standard equipment enclosure and air inlet silencer reduce near field noise to 90 dB(A) at one meter 

from the enclosure and one and one-half meters above grade. Noise emanating from the gas turbine 

generator set will comply with ANSI B133.8 at 120 meters (59 dB(A)). 

Auxiliary Equipment Skid 

For convenience of installation, General Electric has assembled the turbine auxiliary subsystems into a 

single baseplate module which mounts next to the gas turbine baseplate. The auxiliary equipment 

module includes: 

• Hydraulic Start pump, reservoir and controls 

• Water Wash reservoir and connections 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 10 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

• Gas Turbine stainless steel lube oil reservoir and filters 

Control, Monitoring and Electrical System 

The control and monitoring system for the General Electric LM6000 generator set provides a highly 

reliable, operator friendly package. The System components include: 

• Turbine Generator Unit Control Panel 

• Control Batteries and Charger Assembly 

• Gas turbine wet gauge panel and water wash panel (local) 

• Generator wet gauge panel (local) 

The Woodward NetCon 5000 unit control panel is the primary control point for the system. The 

Woodward NetCon 5000 provides the following primary functions: 

• Fuel Management System 

• Light-Off Fuel Gas Control 

• Acceleration Control 

• Deceleration Control 

• Temperature Control 

• Speed Governing 

The gas turbine wet gauge panel is mounted on the turbine enclosure and provides process readouts and 

safety devices necessary for maintenance. The panel uses solid state electronics and is suitable for 

installation in a non-hazardous control room. The control panel includes analog meters for key 

parameters, control switches and push buttons for operator commands, a programmable, microprocessor 

based sequencer. a CRT display, and RS232, LAN and Mod bus ports. 

Additional Auxiliary Equipment Supplied 

• SCR/CO Pollution Control/Stack 

• Ammonia Dilution and Vaporization Skid 

• CEMS 

• Closed Cooling Water System (Fin Fan) 

• Station and Instrument Air System 

• Fire Protection and Detection System 

• Demineralized Water Injection System 

• Oily Water Treatment Systems 

• Sewage Treatment System 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 11 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

• Building Systems Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems 

• Plumbing and Drainage Systems 

Electrical Systems 

The Electrical System consists of the following: 

• 138 kV System 

• Main Generation System 

• Medium Voltage System 

• Low Voltage System 

• DC and UPS System 

• Grounding and Cathodic Protection 

• Lighting and Receptacles . 

• Power Barge Communications Systems 

• Cable System 

• Raceway System 

General Control System Design Basis 

The Plant instrumentation and control systems shall be designed to aid the Plant operator in achieving 

safe. reliable and economic operation of all equipment in the Plant and to minimize the number of 

operators required. The various control systems, including the LM6000 Turbine Digital Control 

Systems. SCR/CO Controls Systems and a Balance-of-Plant Control System shall be operated locally.. 

Local controls furnished with the equipment packages will be interfaced with these control systems for 

alarm and monitoring purposes, as required by the system design. Plant start-up, shutdown, and 

operation will be conducted by the Plant operators locally or remotely in the shore control room, as 

required, with the aid of manually and automatically controlled local control equipment. Areas of local 

and! or remote control involved in startup, shutdown, and operational annunciation and monitoring of 

the Plant include: 

• LM6000 Gas Turbine-Generator(including Water NOx Injection and Water Wash) 

• SCR/CO 

• CEMS 

• Auxiliary Cooling and Cooling Water Systems 

• Service and Instrument Air 

• Uninterruptible Power and DC Systems. 

• Fuel Gas Forwarding 

• Fire Protection Systems 

• 138 kV Switchyard 

• 480 V Switchgear 

• 480 V Motor Control Centers 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 12 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

Control Room 

The switchgear/local control building is a structure containing the electrical equipment room and the 

control room. 

The air conditioned control room will house the LM6000 Turbine Digital Control Systems and a 

Balance-of-Plant PLC based Control System. 

The LM6000 Turbine Digital Control System is described under the Gas Turbine-Generator section. The 

SCR/CO/CEMS PLC based control system consists of a control termination cabinet and an operator 

man-machine interface. The Balance-of-Plant PLC based control system consists of a control 

termination cabinet, an operator man-machine interface, and two (2) printers. 

In addition, other panels and cabinets such as the Fire Protection Panel and Transformer Protection 

Panel may also be located in the control room as required. 

Naval Architectural Description 

The naval architectural features of the Plant include providing the required equipment support structure, 

barge, foundations, storm water drainage, and fencing as required supporting the Plant's objectives. 

The power generating units will be mounted on a single barge. The barge is a standard cargo barge with 

some local structural modifications to suit the equipment requirements. A shielding deck will be 

installed in the area of the gas turbines, approximately one (1) meter above the barge deck to serve as a 

walkway as well as a sun shield to minimize temperature distortions of the barge deck. At the Site the 

barges will be moored and commissioned by others. 

3.3.2 New Construction 

The Power Barge Corporation and ProEnergy Services will provide overall project management; 

engineering and design expertise; issue all tenders for equipment procurement; provide expediting and 

inspection services; arrange for freight forwarding and delivery to the power barge; install and erect all 

equipment and materials on the power barge. 

For this project the scope of work is broken out as follows during the construction phase: 

The Power Barge Corporation Scope:

• Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

• Project Management 

• Deck Barge Fabrication and Structural Modifications 

• Under deck modifications (structural/storm tank/oily water separator) 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 13 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

• Gas Turbine Foundation(1 LM6000PC Sprint) 

• SCR/CO Structural Foundation 

• GSU Foundation 

• Elevated operating deck/guard rails and misc. structure and containment 

ProEnergy Scope:

• Project Engineering and Project Management 

• LM6000PC Sprint GTG 60 Hz gas fuel 

• Fuel Gas piping 

• SCR/CO, auxiliaries and CEMS 

• I&C, LV, MV HV systems 

• Central Control Room/Work Shop 

• 138 kV substation 

• Demineralized Water Booster Skid 

• Inlet air filter system 

• Warranty engineer 

• Warranty/Guarantee 

To ensure complete coordination of the overall project throughout the various stages of implementation 

from design through to completion, the project organization will include a core management team. The 

Project Executive heads the core team and has complete responsibility for the project's execution from 

contract signing to final acceptance and will ensure the appropriate company resources are applied to the 

project. Reporting directly to the Project Executive is the Project Manager who will be responsible for 

the day-to-day management of the project team and ensuring that the contract is fulfilled within the 

completion dates and to the satisfaction of the Customer. The ProEnergy project manager will be the 

primary point of contact on the project. Reporting directly to the Project Manager will be the Design 

Engineering Subcontractor, Project Engineer, Site Manager, GT Technical Advisor, Start-up Manager, 

and the Mobilization Manager. Additional personnel assigned to the project as well as subcontractors 

will report through these individuals. 

The core management team will set out all procedures and controls required for coordinating and routing 

documentation, design and engineering information, technical interfaces and correspondence as required 

to ensure the following: 

♦ Planning and scheduling all project activities. 

 

♦ Coordinating project activities. 
` 

 The Power Barge Corporation 

Page 14 of 14 

Burns and Roe Narrows Power Barge Complex Proprietary and Confidential 

♦ Coordinating project interfaces. 

♦ Monitoring and reporting all project activities. 

♦ Producing progress reports and schedules. 

♦ Providing site Management and Coordination. 

♦ Providing contract management. 

The Power Barge Corporation and ProEnergy are committed to accomplishing the engineering, 

procurement, fabrication, construction, and commissioning of this project within the targeted schedule, 

at the targeted cost with high quality and reliability in full compliance with laws, industry codes and 

standards, and Customer requirements. 

The ProEnergy corporate Quality Program will be utilized including our standard procedures and 

instructions adapted specifically for this project. These procedures have been developed and enhanced 

through use on past and present successful projects. 

This Quality Program provides effective integration, planning, monitoring, and control of the activities 

performed in all facets of the project. It will provide the framework for effective communication and 

coordination of the interfaces between the Project Team, Project Suppliers, and the Customer.