# 10/08/10

B&V E-21 1 Discussion of OAQPS Cost Manua l Method for AQCS Estimation

Appx. C

Details of Cost Calculation Using OAQPS Cost Manual

Question 1 :

What was the total capital cost (in 2007 dol lars and $/kW) for the SCR project(s) in

Appendix C used to scale costs for Sa n Juan in the 7/11/07 cost estimate?

Response :

The quotes in Appendix C are from the SJRPP SCR project. The original estimate for the

two units at SJRPP was $228 million in 2006 dollars. The two units are 670 MW each,

resulting in estimated cost of 170 $/kW. The final cost of the project was $232 million.

Question 2 :

What is the design basis for th e SCR project(s) in Appendix C used to scale costs for San

Juan in the 7/11/07 cost estimate? Please in clude the catalyst pitch, catalyst volume,

catalyst wall thickness, initial oxidation rate per layer, guaranteed NOx outlet, NOx

reduction percentage, design coal , and guaranteed catalyst life.

Response :

Attachment 1 has been provided to give the de sign basis for the SJRPP project. This is

from the catalyst contract. This is being pr ovided because it is a good summary design

basis. However, the catalyst for San Juan was not scaled from SJRPP because the SJRPP

catalyst was designed for petcoke firing and w ould not be applicable to San Juan. An

explanation of the catalyst sizi ng will be provided separately.

Note: the crossed out and included text within Attachment 1 are the conformed contract

changes between the specifica tion and the final contract

.



# Question 3 :

Are all of the vendor quotes in Appendix C for the same project?

Response :

All the quotations included in Appendix C are from SJRPP.

The air heater modifications and the balan ce draft conversion were taken from other

projects. Those quotes are not public reco rd and are not provided in the document.

Question 4 :

Some of the vendor quotes in Appendix C in clude installation and freight, which are

added on top of costs based on vendor quotes in the 7/11/07 cost estimate. Was any

adjustment made for this in the 7/11/07 cost estimates? If yes, please explain.

# 10/08/10

B&V E-21 2 Response :

Each line item was handled slightly differentl y. Given the complexity of this discussion,

it will be more easily addre ssed during the line by line di scussion scheduled on October

14.

Question 5 :

What ammonia flow rates were used to extr apolate the Peerless ammonia system quote to

each San Juan unit?

Response :

Refer to page 20 of the OAQPS discussion. The scaling was done off of NOx removal.

NOx removal for SJRPP was 0.34 lb/MBtu (0.40 lb/MBtu inlet NOx – 0.06 lb/MBtu

outlet NOx).

Question 6 :

Which base cost estimate from the Peer less ammonia system quote was used to

extrapolate the ammonia injection system and ammonia vaporization system costs to each

San Juan unit?

Response :

As discussed on page 20 of the OAQPS docum ent, the BART estimate was actually done

off of the budgetary pricing quotation for SJ RPP. However, when the OAQPS document

was put together in response to questions by NMED, we were not able to include the

budgetary quote because it was not a public document. So, the final quote was included

instead of the budgetary quotations. These fina l quotes were slightly different than the

budgetary quotes. We included the final quotes because the final quotes were already

public record (since they were bid as part of the City of Jacks onville public municipal

bidding process) and the budgetary quotations were not. The final price for two units was

$2,945,000 (not including freight) for ammonia injection and ammonia vaporization

equipment. While there were slight diffe rences between the tw o quotes, they numbers

were similar and the final quote demonstrat ed the validity of the budgetary quote.

Question 7 :

What flow rates were used to scale the cost data in Appendix C, Sec. 4.3 Ductwork and

Sec. 4.4 Expansion Joints, to each San Juan unit?

Response :

Refer to Page 21 of the OAQPS document for the scaling information. However, in

responding to this question, B&V did notice an error in the calculation. The $360,000

was for two units instead of one unit. So, th e costs for expansion jo ints should have been

scaled off of $180,000.

Question 8 :

What is the unit size of the vendor quote used to scale the elevator costs for each San

Juan unit?

# 10/08/10

B&V E-21 3 Response :

The unit was SJRPP. Refer to Attachment 1 re garding size. However, elevator pricing is

not a function of the unit size but of load capacity and heig ht. There would likely be no

differences is these parameters between SJ RPP and San Juan. No scaling was required

for the elevator quote.

Question 9:

What is the unit size of the vendor quote used to scale the SCR bypass costs for each San

Juan unit?

Response :

SJRPP was used. Refer to sizing in Attachment 1.

Question 10 :

Is the vendor quote for the SCR bypass in Sec. 4.8 for a full bypass, i.e., able to bypass

100% of the flow under MCR? If yes, pleas e provide an estimate for a startup bypass,

sized to pass just the flow during the portion of startup during which oil is burned. What

is the flowrate assumed in the SCR bypass vendo r quote? The flow rate required for each

San Juan unit?

Response :

The bypass on SJRPP is a full flow bypass. The flow rates are as shown in the sizing

information provided in Attachment 1. An estimate for a partial bypass has not been

developed at this time. It should be noted that for SJR PP, a partial bypass would have

still required the same size dampers. Becau se of their location in the ductwork, they

would have had to isolate the en tire flue gas path dur ing bypass. Theref ore, no change in

damper pricing would have o ccurred with a partial bypass.

Question 11:

Was the vendor quote in Sec. 4.9 Structural Steel used to estim ate structural steel capital

costs in the 7/11/07 cost analysis? If yes, please show the calculations used to scale the

Sec. 4.9 estimate to the 7/11/07 estimate.

Response :

As explained on page 25 of the OAQPS doc ument, originally the budgetary quote was

used, which was somewhat lower in cost than the final, contracted price for SJRPP.

However, as with the ammonia, the budgetary quote could not be shared because it is not

a public document. Since the final quote is a public document and could be shared, it

was included in the OAQPS document to demo nstrate the validity of the quotation that

was used. Refer to page 25 of the OAQPS doc ument regarding the sc aling methodology.

Because San Juan is a significantly more ch allenging site for the steel than SJRPP, a

complexity factor was added. The two inner units (Units 2 a nd 3) had a 1.5 factor in the

equation and Units 1 and 4 had a 1.2 co mplexity factor in the equation.

# 10/08/10

B&V E-21 4 Attachment 1

Design Basis Information on SJRPPSRJPP NOx Reduction Project Change Order 1144805.62.0208 SCR Catalyst 06Aug07Source: 11507, 2005, v.1.0 Catalyst for Selective Catalytic Reduction Page 4 of 31Table 11507-2Design Basis for Catalyst Inlet(Total Unit Flow, Not Per Reactor)UnitsDesignLoad withPet CokeDesignLoadwithoutPet CokeMaximumLoad withPet CokeMinimumLoad withPet CokeDesignLoad(100%ColombianDm Coal)MinimumLoad (100%ColombianDm Coal)DesignLoad(100%DomesticCoal)MinimumLoad (100%DomesticCoal)Petcoke Firing Percent 30 0 30 300000Domestic Coal Firing Percent 35 50 35 3500100100Colombian Coal Firing Percent 35 50 35 3510010000Unit Load (gross) MW 670 670 670 300670300670300Heat Input to Boiler MBtu/hr 6,300 6,194 6,414 3,1006,2213,1006,1943,100Flue Gas Mass FlowRate at EconomizerOutletlb/hr6,128,230 6,154,2506,514,5603,304,7006,272,6533,428,3796,079,3413,334,827Flue Gas Vol. FlowRate at EconomizerOutletacfm3,086,1803,113,6903,292,1901,501,5303,254,7501,514,0563,065,5961,517,055Flue Gas Temperatureat SCR Inlet°F750750750640775600750640Flue Gas Temperatureat SCR Inlet°F(Range)710-800710-800710-800620-690710-800580-690710-800620-690Average Flue GasTemperature forMaterial Design°F824824824824824824824824Flue Gas Pressure atSCR Inletinchesw.g.-6 -6 -6.8 -1.7-6-1.7-6-1.7Typical O2Content inFlue Gas at SCR Inlet% vol.wet3.25 3.25 4.0 4.83.254.83.254.8SRJPP NOx Reduction Project Change Order 1144805.62.0208 SCR Catalyst 06Aug07Source: 11507, 2005, v.1.0 Catalyst for Selective Catalytic Reduction Page 5 of 31Table 11507-2Design Basis for Catalyst Inlet(Total Unit Flow, Not Per Reactor)UnitsDesignLoad withPet CokeDesignLoadwithoutPet CokeMaximumLoad withPet CokeMinimumLoad withPet CokeDesignLoad(100%ColombianDm Coal)MinimumLoad (100%ColombianDm Coal)DesignLoad(100%DomesticCoal)MinimumLoad (100%DomesticCoal)Typical O2Content inFlue Gas at SCR Inlet% vol.wet(Range)2.5-4.0 2.5-4.0 2.5-4.0 4.0-10.02.5-4.04.0-10.02.5-4.04.0-10.0Typical CO2Contentin Flue Gas at SCRInlet% vol.wet14.04 13.90 13.43 12.7713.5812.3514.1012.82Typical H2O Contentin Flue Gas at SCRInlet% vol. 8.88 9.60 8.61 8.3210.489.788.978.41Typical NOx EmissionRatelb/MBtu 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40.40.40.40.4Maximum NOxEmission Ratelb/MBtu 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.50.660.50.660.5Typical NOxConcentrationppmvw 264 257 253 240252230262238Maximum NOxConcentrationppmvw 436 425 417 300417287431297Typical SO2Concentrationppmvw 1,749 614 1,672 1,591577525664604Maximum SO2Concentrationppmvw 2,050 1,058 1,960 1,8657176531,4091,281Average SO3Concentrationppmdv 51 14.5 51 52.417.115.519.417.6SRJPP NOx Reduction Project Change Order 1144805.62.0208 SCR Catalyst 06Aug07Source: 11507, 2005, v.1.0 Catalyst for Selective Catalytic Reduction Page 6 of 31Table 11507-2Design Basis for Catalyst Inlet(Total Unit Flow, Not Per Reactor)UnitsDesignLoad withPet CokeDesignLoadwithoutPet CokeMaximumLoad withPet CokeMinimumLoad withPet CokeDesignLoad(100%ColombianDm Coal)MinimumLoad (100%ColombianDm Coal)DesignLoad(100%DomesticCoal)MinimumLoad (100%DomesticCoal)Maximum Local SO3Concentrationppmdv 99.5 22.5 99.5 67.221.319.241.237.2Typical SO3Emissions lb/hr 772 220 824 431263131291146Maximum SO3Emissionslb/hr 1,505 341 1,607 553327163618309Typical ParticulateEmission Rategr/acf 0.99 1.42 0.95 1.001.741.861.661.75Maximum ParticulateEmission Rategr/acf 1.14 1.64 1.09 1.151.992.142.262.38Typical ParticulateEmissionslb/hr 26,230 37,855 ,26,705 12,90748,41124,12445,42322,733Maximum ParticulateEmissionslb/hr 30,146 43,810 30,692 14,83455,65027,73161,94031,000

# SRJPP NOx Reduction Project Change Order 1

144805.62.0208 SCR Catalyst 06Aug07

Source: 11507, 2005, v.1.0 Catalyst for Se lective Catalytic Reduction Page 8 of 31 

# Table 11507-3

Performance Guarantees

Required Performance Demonstration Method Guarantee Value

Maximum NO

x 

# SCR exit

emissions, lb/MBtu Test A and Test B as

Specified in Article

11507.1.7.6. Test A and Test

B results will be adjusted

back to the “Design Point”

using the performance curves

provided by the Supplier. 0.06

Maximum conversion rate of SO 2 

# to SO 3 

# , percent Test A and Test B as

Specified in 11507.1.7.6.

Test A and Test B results will

be adjusted back to the

“Design Point” using the

performance curves provided

by the Supplier. ” Test A” oxidation rate in

accordance with 0 to 90 day

correction curve attached

.

“Test B”oxidation rate at

800 F and ammonia off

– 1.8%

2.0 percent with ammonia off

Maximum ammonia emissions at

SCR outlet, ppmvd @ 3% O 2 

# Test A and Test B as

Specified in Article

11507.1.7.6. Test A and Test

B results will be adjusted

back to the “Design Point”

using the performance curves

provided by the Supplier. 2

Minimum catalyst life of initial

catalyst charge, hours Test B as Specified

11507.1.7.6. Test B results

will be adjusted back to the

“Design Point” using the

performance curves provided

by the Supplier. 18,000 hours of flue gas

exposure or four years whichever

occurs first

Flue gas NO

x 

# distribution at the

SCR outlet, based on testing a

minimum of 40 points. Test A and Test B as

Specified in Article

11507.1.7.6. This Guarantee

shall be met at all operating

points tested during Test A

and Test B. 100% of points within 50% of

actual measured arithmetic mean

Maximum pressure drop across

catalyst Test will be performed within

seven (7) days of initial

startup of the SCR system

and immediately following

sootblowing. Test results will

be adjusted back to the

“Design Point” using the

performance curves provided

by the Supplier. 1.77 1.86 in.wg. (3 layers)