p. 1


# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 312 ) IV-B-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:59AM Sheet 312 of 325P. 2

' % f 

# * RADIA N

CORPORATIO N 

# A-83-2 7

IV-B-1 6 MEMORANDUM

DATE : Apri l 15 , 198 7 TO : Fre dPorte r an d Wal t Stevenson , EPA/SD B FROM : Edwar dAu l an d JohnMartinez , Radia nCorporatio n SUBJECT : Impac t o f New Fue l Price s onth e Cost s an d Cos t Effectivenes s o f S 0 2 Emissio nContro l o f Mixe dFuel-Fire dSteam Generatin g Unit s

1. 0 INTRODUCTIO N
InAugus t 1986 , fue l price projection s fo r coal , oil , an d natura l ga s 1- 3 supplie dt o industria l market s wer e revised . Thi s memo assesse s th e impact s o f thes e ne w fue l price s onth e previou s analyse s o f th e cos t an d cos t effectivenes s o f reducin g S0 2 emission s fro m mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s (i.e. , boilers) . Th e previou s analyse s wer e presente din th e repor t A

nAnalvsi s o f th e Cost s an d Cos t Effectivenes s o f SO, . Contro l

4 c fo r Mixe dFuel-Fire dSteam Generatin g Unit s (Jun e 1986) . Th e previou s analysi s wa s base donfue l price s projecte di n198 4 (a s discusse di nReferenc e 4) . Th e revise dfue l price projection s (se e Reference s 1 , 2 , an

d 3 ) contai ntwo oi l price scenarios : a highoi l price scenari o an

d a lo w oi l price scenario . T o maintai nconsistenc y wit hth e cos t analysi s describe di nReferenc e 8 , th e highoi l price scenari o wa s utilize dinthi s assessmen t o f new fue l pric e impact s togethe r wit h non-carriag e natura l ga s price s an d a zer o cos t fo r nonfossi l fuel . Inadditio nt o thes e fue l price changes , mino r modification s wer e mad e t o th e methodolog y

fo r calculatin g capita l an d non-fue l operatin g an d maintenanc e cost s fo r mixe dfuel-fire dsystems . Thes e modification s ar e discusse dinful l i nAppendi xA . Thes e modification s hav e a negligibl e effect , however , onth e assessmen t o f cos t effectivenes s change s cause db y th e new fue l prices . Th e modification s hav e bee nincorporate dint o th e revise dcos t algorithm s use dfo r thi s analysi s an d presente di nAppendi xB .

Progres s Center/320 0 E

. Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso n Hwy./P.O

. Bo x13000/Researc h Triangl e Park

. N.C

. 27709/(919)541-9100P. 3

j f

2. 0 RESULT S O F ANALYSE S

Th e result s o f th e analyse s o f new fue l pric e impact s ar e summarize di n Tabl e 1 thr u4 . Thes e result s ca nb e compare ddirectl y wit hth e correspondin g table s i nth e previou s analysis . A noveral l compariso no f th e annualize dcos t result s fro m th e previou s an drevise danalyse s show s tha t almos t al l cost s hav e increase dsomewhat . Th e reason s fo r thi s increas e ar e th e change s mad e t o th e capita l an d non-fue l operating an dmaintenanc e cost s discusse dinAppendi xA an dth e updatin g o f th e time basi s o f th e cos t estimates . Th e effec t o f thes e factor s ha s bee nsufficien t t o overcome th e decreas e inlevelize dfue l price s (fo r th e fue l type s specified ) betwee nth e 198 4 an d198 6 projections . Th e exceptio nt o thi s rul e occur s wit hth e boiler s inRegio nI whic hfir e 8 0 percen t oil/2 0 percen t nonfossi l fuel . Becaus e o f th e hig hfractio no f fossi l fue l combuste dinthes e boiler s an dth e sizeabl e decreas e inoi l price s betwee nth e two projectio nsets , th e tota l annualize dcost s fo r thes e boiler s ar e slightl y

lowe r inth e revise danalysi s tha ninth e previou s analysis . Two mode l boiler s hav e bee nselecte da s example s t o illustrat e th e impact s o f new

fue l price s o

nth e cos t an

dcos t effectivenes s o f S0 2 emissio ncontro l fo r mixe dfuel-fire dboilers . Th e firs t i s a nonfossil / coal-fire duni t operating inRegio nX ; th e secondi s a nonfossil/oil-fire d uni t operating inRegio nI . Bot hmode l boiler s ar e 4 4 M W (15 0 million Btu/hr ) unit s an

dfir e a

n8 0 percen t nonfossil/2 0 percen t fossi l fue l mixture . Th e costs , emissions , an dcos t effectivenes s o f a low sulfu r fue l standar dan

da percen t reductio nstandar dar e discusse dbelow fo r eac ho f thes e units . Th e impact s o f revise dfue l pric e projection s o nthes e value s ar e highlighted . 2. 1 LO W SULFURFUE L STANDARD S Th e incrementa l cost s o f standard s base do nlo w sulfu r fuel s relativ e t o th e regulator y

baselin e hav e decline dslightl y fo r nonfossil/oil-fire d boiler s bu t remaine dnearl y constan t fo r nonfossil/coal-fire dunits . Th eTABL E 1 . COS

TAN D COS TEFFECTIVENES

S O F S0 2 CONTRO

L FO R COAL/NONFOSSI L MIXE D FUEL-FIRE D STEA M GENERATIN

G UNITS I N REGION I a , b
Fossil/Nonfossi l Fue l Mixtur e 20 X COAL/BO

X NONFOSSI L 50 * COAL/SO S NONFOSSI L SO X COAL/20

X NONFOSSI L Cos t Effectivenes s ($/ton ) Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Coa l Annua l

Cost s Annua l

Eaission s . Incre - Coa l Annua l Cost s Annua l

Emission s Incre - Coa l Annua l Cost s Annua l

Emission s Cos t

Effectivenes s (J/ton ) Incre Typ e (Sl,000/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental 6 Typ e (Jl,000/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental 6 Type ($1.000/yr > (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental 6 Q . IS O Millio n Btu/h r Regulator y Base l 1ne c '° - F-BI t (2. S lb/mil l Io n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Coa l B-BI t (1. 2 lb/al l 1-to n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n F-BI t (FGD-90 S Reduction) 1 tt' 4Q Q Mi l Ha n Btu/h r Regulator y Basel1ne c * - F-BI t (1. 2 lb/mi l lio n Btu ) 4,06 0 4.13 0 4.40 0 22 5

7 5 1 8 -

46 7 1,64 3

Lo wSulfu r Coa l (1. 2 lb/al l lio n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n (FGD-90 S Reduction) ' Q - 80 0 Millio n Btu/h r (1. 2 lb/mi l Ho n Btu ) Lo a Sulfu r Coa l (1. 2 lb/til l lio n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n (FGD-9 M Reduction) ' B-BI t 8.84 0 9.01 0 F-BI t 9,44 0 59 9 20 0 4 8 44 4 1,08 8 F-BI t 4.91 0

B-BI t 5.08 0 4,73 7 F-BI t 5,36 0

E-BI t 11.19 0 B-BI t 11.46 0 2.80 3 F-BI t 11,88 0 562 18 7 4 5 -

45 4 87 1 F-BI t

B-BI t 2,74 1 F-BI t 5,75 0

6.01 0 6.27 0 89 9

30 0 72 -

43 4 62 9 1.88 9

1.10 4 49 9 12 0 -

48 0 70 1 B-BI t

B-BI t 1,05 4 F-BI t 13.91 0

13,91 0 14.25 0 79 9

79 9 19 2 - 0

56 0 56 0

F-BI t B-BI t F-BI t 14,96 0

15.31 0 16.12 0 1.19 8

39 9 9 6 -

44 3 1.05 3 E-BI t

B-BI t 2.67 3 F-BI t 19,54 0

20.12 0 20,93 0 2.20 8

99 9 24 0 -

48 0 70 6 B-BI t

B-BI t 1,06 7 F-BI t 24.88 0

24,88 0 25.59 0 1.59 8

1.59 8 38 3 - 0

58 4 58 4

•Metri c unit s ca n b e attaine d b y th e followin g converslons x $/M g - $/to n •1.1023 ; Mg/y r » tons/y r •0.9075 ; M W - millio n Btu/h r -

0.293 ; ng/ J •lb/millio n Bt u •430.278 . b Base d o n a capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.6 . c A t th e regulator y baseline , eeissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r th e hea t inpu t o f th e nonfossi l fuel . N o emissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r nonfossi l hea t Inpu t fo r othe r regulator y alternatives . °Coapare d t o regulator y baseline . 6 Coopare d t o nex t les s stringen t alternative . f Th e annua l mission s ar e base d o n a 9 2 percen t remova l efficiency ; th e additiona l 2 percen t account s fo r fue l an d FG O variability . SLoaest-cos t coa l availabl e whic h satisfie s th e baselin e emissio n requirement .TABL E 2 . COS

TAN D COS TEFFECTIVENES

S O F S0 2 CONTRO

L FO R COAL/NONFOSSI L MIXED FUEL-FIRE O STEA M GENERATIN

G UNIT S I N REGIO

N IV a ' b
Fossil/Nonfossi l Fue l Mixtur e 20 * COAL/80 X NONFOSSI L 50 X COAL/5O

S NONFOSSI L SO X C0AL/20

X NONFOSSI L Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Annua l Annua l Coa l Costs Emissions 0 Annua l Annua l Incre - Coa l Cost s Eaissions 0 Annua l Costs Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Annua l Emissions 0
. - . Incre - Coa l Costs Emissions' " Incre Typ e (Sl.OOO/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental * Typ e (Sl.OOO/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental 6 Typ e (Sl.OOO/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental 6 fl •IS O Millio n Btu/h r Regulator y Baselin e H-BI t 3.99 0 (2. 5 lb/millio n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Coa l (1. 2 lb/mi l lio n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n . (FGD-90X Reduction) ' n •ao n Millio n Btu/h r (1. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Coa l (1. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n . (FGO-90 X Reduction) ' n •BO O Millio n Btu/h r (1. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Coa l (1. 2 lb/mi l Ho n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n (FGD-90 X Reduction) ' B-BI t 4.04 0

H-BI t 4,44 0

H-BI t B-BI t H-BI t 8,63 0

8.76 0 9.30 0 1,16 5

20 0 9 3 -

135 62 5 43 7 - - G-BI t 4,75 0 7 5 13 8 - B-BI t 4.84 0 3 5 1.11 9 10,00 0 H-BI t 5.31 0

D-BI t 10.75 0 B-BI t 10,84 0 5,04 7 H-BI t 11,64 0 81 8 187 8 7 -

14 3 76 6 F-Bi t

B-BI t 4,70 5 H-BI t 5.57 0

5.63 0 6.17 0 89 9

30 0 14 0 -

IC O 79 1

76 2 49 9 23 3 -

34 2 1.68 2 B-BI t

B-BI t 3.00 3 H-BI t 12,86 0

12,86 0 13,96 0 79 9

79 9 373 - 0

2.58 2

H-BI t B-BI t H-BI t 14.53 0

14.81 0 15.83 0 2.32 9

39 9 18 6 -

14 5 60 7 D-Bi t

B-BI t 4.76 9 H-BI t 18.66 0

18,85 0 20,40 0 1,52 4

99 9 46 6 -

36 1 1.64 4 B-BI t

B-BI t 2,90 9 H-BI t 22,84 0

22.84 0 24.95 0 1.59 6

1.59 8 1*- - 0

2.47 5

•Metri c unit s ca n b e attaine d b y th e followin g converslons i S/M g - S/to n •1.1023 ; Mg/y r - tons/y r •0.9075 ; M X - millio n Btu/h r •0.293 ; ng/ J - lb/millio n Bt u •430.278 . b Base d o n a capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.6 . °A t th e regulator y baseline , emissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r th e hea t Inpu t o f th e nonfossi l fuel . N o emissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r nonfossi l hea t inpu t fo r othe r regulator y alternatives . •^Compare

d t o regulator y baseline . "Compared t o nex t les s stringen t alternative . f Th e annua l emission s ar e base d o n a 9 2 percen t remova l efficiency ; th e additiona l 2 percen t account s fo r fue l an d FG D variability . 3.37 9

2.58 2

2.47 5TABL E 3 . COS

TAN D COS TEFFECTIVENES

S O F S0 2 CONTRO

L FO R COAL/NONFOSSI L MIXE D FUEL-FIRE D STEA M GENERATIN

G UNIT S I N REGION X a , t
Fossll/Nonfossl l Fue l Mixtur e 20 X COAL/80

X NONFOSSI L SO * COAL/50 * NONFOSSI L SO X COAL/20

X NONFOSSI L Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Coa l Annua l Annua l

Cost s Emissions 0 Incre - Coa l Annua l Annua l . - Cost s Emissions 0 Incre - Coa l Annua l Cost s Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Annua l Emissions 0 Incre Typ e (Sl.OOO/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental 6 Typ e (Sl.OOO/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 mental 6 Typ e (Sl.OOO/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average 0 menta l e

c n n . IS O Millio n Btu/h r

Regulator y Baseline " E-Su b 4.00 0 (2. 5 lb/millio n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Coa l (1. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n (FGD-90 S Reduction) ' Q - 40 0 Millio n Btu/h r Regulator y Baseline " (1. 2 lb/al l lio n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Coa l (1. 2 lb/ai l Ho n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n . B-Su b E-Su b

E-Su b B-Su b E-Su b 4.09 0

4.37 0

8,56 0 8,80 0 9.18 0 7

5 1 3

44 2 20 0 3 5 (FGD-90 X Reduction) ' O - 80 0 Minio n Btu/h r Regulator y Basel1ne 9 E-Su b 14.28 0 (1. 2 lb/ailllo n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Coa l B-Su b 14.78 0 (1. 2 lb/ailllo n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n (FSO-9Q X Reduction) 1 E-Sub15.46 0 16 6 - - E-Sub4.52 0 99 3 - B-Sub4,75 0 2.42 9 4.54 2 E-Su

b4.93 0

E-Sub10.19 0 99 2 - B-Su b 10,78 0 1,53 0 2.30 3 E-Su b 10,95 0

88 3 - - E-Su b 17,35 0 39 9 1,03 3 - B-Su b 18,54 0 7 1 1.45 3 2.07 3 E-Su b 18.83 0 41 4 18 7 3 3 - 1.01 5 1.07 7 E-Su b

B-Su b 1,16 8 E-Su b 5.12 0

5,48 0 5,58 0 66 2

30 0 53 -

99 3 75 5

,10 4 49 9 8 8 -

97 6 74 8 -

- 41 4 E-Sub " E-Sub h E-Su b 12,61 0

12.61 0 12,61 0 14 1

14 1 14 1 - 0

0

.20 8 99 9 177 -

98 4 72 9 E-Sub n

E-Sub h 35 3 E-Su b 22.03 0

22,03 0 22,03 0 28 3

28 3 283 - 0

0
•Metri c unit s ca n be attaine d b y th e followin g conversions * S/M g - S/to n •1.1023 ; Mg/y r - tons/y r * 0.9075 ; M W - millio n Btu/h r » 0.293 ; ng/J - lb/ailllo n Bt u •430.278 . b Base d o n a capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.6 . °A t th e regulator y baseline , emissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r th e hea t Inpu t o f th e nonfossi l fuel . N o emissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r nonfossi l hea t Inpu t fo r othe r regulator y alternatives . ''Compared t o regulator y baseline . 6 Compare d t o nex t les s stringen t alternative . f Th e annua l emission s ar e base d o n a 9 2 percen t remova l efficienty ; th e additiona l 2 percen t account s fo r fue l an d FG O variability . •^Lowest-cos t coa l availabl e whic h satisfie s th e baselin e emissio n requirement . "Th e lowes t cos t contro l optio n t o achiev e thi s emissio n limi t I s t o fir e Typ e E-Su b coa l an d Instal l a n FG D syste m t o achiev e a percen t reduction . 40 5TABL E 4 . COS

TAN D COS TEFFECTIVENESS O

F S0 2 CONTRO

L FO R OIL/NONFOSSI L MIXE D FUEL-FIRE D STEA M GENERATING UNIT

S I N REGIO N I a. b

Fue l Mixtur e 20 « OIL/BO * NONFOSSI L

O l Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) SO X OIL/SO I NONFOSSI L 80 * QIL/20 X NONFOSSI L

Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Annua l Annua l

_ Oi l Cost s Emissions 0 Annua l Annua l Cos t Effectivenes s (S/ton ) Annua l Annua l

. Incre - Oi l Cost s Emissions 0 Incre - Oi l Cost s Emissions 1 " Incre Type 9 (Sl.OOO/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average " mental 6 Type 9 (Sl.OOO/yr)(tons/yr ) Average " mental 6 Type 9 (Jl,000/yr ) (tons/yr ) Average " mental * Q - IS O Millio n Btu/h r Regulator y Baselin e (3. 0 lb/millio n Btu ) Le wSulfu r Oi l (0. 8 lb/millio n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n . (FGD-90 X Reduction) ' Q = 40 0 Hil l lo n Btu/h r Regulator y Baselin e (0. 8 lb/millio n Btu ) Le wSulfu r Oi l (0. 8 lb/rol l Ho n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n (FGD-90 X Reduction) ' Q • * BO O Millio n Btu/h r 3. 0 0. 8 3. 0

3. 0 0. 8 3. 0 4,03 5

4,12 0 4,42 1

8.94 2 9,16 7 9.63 4 23 7

6 3 1 9

63 1 16 8 S O 3. 0 5.17 6

49 0 - 0. 8 5,38 8 1,77 4 6,81 8 3. 0 5,64 7

1. 6 12.10 9 48 6 - 0. 8 12,46 1 SO 1.19 3 3.96 7 3. 0 12.81 0 59 1 1S 8 48 9 3. 0 6,29 6 0. 8 6,63 4 4 7 86 6 2,34 7 3. 0 6,84 8

84 1 42 0 83 7 94 6 25 2 48 7 7 6 63 4 1.21 2

0. 8 0. 8 3. 0 15,70 7 15,70 7 15.93 4 67 3

67 3 20 2 -

0 48 2

Regu1ator y Base l 1n e (0. 8 lb/millio n Btu ) Lo wSulfu r Oi l (0. 8 lb/millio n Btu ) Percen t Reductio n (FGD-90 S Reduction) ' 3. 0 15.37 0 1.26 1 0. 8 15,81 9 33 6 48 5 1. 6 21.59 9 1.68 2 O. B 22.28 0 84 1 81 0 0. 8 28.65 3 1,34 6 0. 8 28.65 3 1,34 6
3. 0 16.71 2 10 1 1.15 6 3.79 2 3. 0 22,93 7 25 2 93 6 1.11 6 3. 0 29.07 3 40 4 44 6 48 2

44 6

-'Metri c unit s ca n b a attaine d b

y th e followin g conversions : J/M g - $/to n * 1.1023 ; Mg/y r = tons/y r » 0.9075 ; M W = millio n Btu/h r * 0.293 ; ng/ J = * lb/nllllo n Bt u » 430.278 . Base d o n a capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.6 . °A t th e regulator y baseline , emissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r th e hea t Inpu t o f th e nonfossi l fuel . No emissio n credit s ar e provide d fo r nonfossi l hea t inpu t fo r othe r regulator y alternatives . Compared t o regulator y baseline . "Compare d t o nex t les s stringen t alternative . f Th e annual emission s ar e base d o n a 9 2 percen t remova l efficiency ; th e additiona l 2 percen t account s fo r fue l an d FG O variability . 9 01 1 sulfu r conten t i n l b SO-/m1111o n Btu .P. 8

reaso nfo r thi s chang e fo r nonfossil/oil-fire dboiler s i s tha t th e sulfu r premium s fo r lo

w sulfu r oil s inRegio nI hav e decline dbetwee nth e 198 4 an d 198 6 projections . Th e differenc e i nannualize dcost s betwee nth e baselin e an da lo w sulfu r oi l standar di s merel y th e sulfu r premiu

m (i.e. , th e differenc e inpric e betwee nlo w sulfu r an

dhighsulfu r oils) . Sinc e th e oi l sulfu r premium s hav e declined , th e incrementa l cost s o f lo w sulfu r oi l standard s hav e als o declined . Conversely , coa l sulfu r premium s i nRegio nX hav e remaine dessentiall y unchange dbetwee nth e tw o projections . A s a result , th e incrementa l cost s o f lo w sulfu r coa l standard s hav e remaine d constant . Thes e incrementa l cos t effect s directl y influenc e th e cos t effectivenes s o f emissio ncontro l fo r standard s base do nlo w sulfu r fuels . Th e cos t effectivenes s o f standard s base do nfirin g lo

w sulfu r oi l fo r mixe d fuel-fire dboiler s relativ e t o th e baselin e i s nea r $600/Mg ($500/ton ) using th e ne w fue l pric e projections ; inth e previou s analysis , th e cos t effective nes s wa s nea r $700/Mg ($600/ton) . Th e cos t effectivenes s o f standard s base d onfirin g low

sulfu r coa l fo r mixe dfuel-fire dboiler s relativ e t o th e baselin e remaine dunchange da t nea r $1,100/Mg ($l,000/ton) . 2. 2 PERCEN T REDUCTIO N STANDARD S
A s wit hlo

w sulfu r fue l standards , th e incrementa l cost s associate d wit hstandard s requirin g a percen t reductio nhav e change dinproportio nt o change s i nfue l sulfu r premiums . A s discusse dabove , oi l sulfu r premium s fo r lo w sulfu r oil s i nRegio nI hav e decline dbetwee nth e 198 4 an d198 6 projections . Thu s th e fue l cos t saving s resultin g fro m firin g highe r sulfu r oil s an dscrubbin g hav e decreased . Thes e fue l saving s now offse t les s o f th e cost s associate dwit hth e scrubbe r system . I nadditio nth e non-fue l annualize dcost s o f scrubbin g hav e als o increase dbetwee nth e presen t an d prio r analysi s du e t o th e factor s discusse dinAppendi xA . Th e overal l resul t o f thes e factor s i s tha t th e cos t effectivenes s o f standard s requirin g percen t reductio nfo r nonfossil/oil-fire dboiler s ha s increased . Usin g th e new fue l prices , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o f standard s requirin g a percen t reductio ninemission s ove r th e baselin e fo r nonfossil/oil-fire dboiler s i s nea r $2,000/M g ($l,800/ton) ; th e cos tP. 9

effectivenes s wa s nea r $1,70 0 M g ($l,500/ton ) i nth e previou s analysis . Th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f percen t reductio nemissio ncontro l ove r us e o f lo

w sulfu r fue l fo r nonfossil/oil-fire dboiler s i s nea r $7,500/Mg ($6,800/ton ) unde r new fue l prices ; inth e previou s analysi s thi s valu e wa s nea r $5,600/M g ($5,000/ton) . Sinc e Regio nXcoa l sulfu r premium s hav e no t change dbetwee nth e 198 4 an d198 6 projections , th e cos t effectiveness o f standard s requirin g percen t reductio nfo r nonfossil/coal-fire dboiler s ha s increase donl y slightl y

du e t o th e factor s discusse dinAppendi xA . Fo r thes e units , th e new fue l price s increas e th e averag e cos t effectiveness ove r th e baselin e t o approximatel y

$2,600/Mg ($2,400/ton ) compare dt o a valu e nea r $2,600/M g ($2,300/ton ) inth e previou s analysis . Th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f standard s requirin g a percen t reductio ninS0 2 emission s fo r nonfossil / coal-fire dboiler s ove r standard s base donlow sulfu r coa l i s nea r $5,000/M g ($4,500/ton ) wit hth e new fue l prices ; i t wa s nea r $4,700/M g ($4,300/ton ) i n th e previou s analysis . A s shown , th e increas e i nth e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f S0 2 emissio ncontro l associate dwit hstandard s requirin g a percen t reductio n ove r standard s base do nlo w sulfu r fuel s fo r nonfossil/oil-fire dboiler s i s th e mos t significan t impac t o f th e new fue l prices . Thi s increas e i s th e resul t o f th e lowe r fue l sulfu r premium s whic hcharacteriz e th e 198 6 projection s compare dt o th e 198 4 projections . A s discusse dabove , thi s chang e result s i nlowe r fue l saving s whe nfirin g a highsulfu r oi l an dthu s offset s les s o f th e cost s o f scrubbing .



### 8P.1 0

3. 0 REFERENCE S

1 . Lette r fro

m Hogan , T. , Energy

an dEnvironmenta l Analysis , Inc. , t o Pahel-Short , R. , EPA/EAB . Annualize dIndustria l Coa l Prices . Augus t 29 , 1986 . 2 . Lette r fro

m Hogan , T. , Energy

an dEnvironmenta l Analysis , Inc. , t o Pahel-Short , R. , EPA/EAB . Annualize dIndustria l Oi l Prices . Augus t 26 , 1986 . 3 . Lette r fro

m Hogan , T. , Energy

an dEnvironmenta l Analysis , Inc. , t o Pahel-Short , R. , EPA/EAB . Annualize dIndustria l Natura l Ga s Prices . Augus t 26 , 1986 . 4 . Radia nCorporation . A nAnalysi s o f th e Cost s an dCos t Effectivenes s o f S0 2 Contro l fo r Mixe dFuel-Fire dSteam Generatin g Units . Prepare dfo r U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Publicatio nNo . EPA-450/3-86-001 . Jun e 1986 . p . 1-29 . 5 . Radia nCorporation . Industria l Boile r S0 2 Cos t Report . Prepare dfo r U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Publicatio nNo . EPA-450/3-85-011 . Novembe r 1984 . p . 1- 1 t o 4-7 . 6 . Economi c Indicators . Chemica l Engineering . 9 3 (16) : Augus t 18 , 1986 , p . 7 . 7 . U . S . Burea uo f Labo r Statistic s Produce r Pric e Index : Al l Industria l Commodities . Fil e 176 , Dialo g Informatio nServices , Inc . Augus t 17 , 198 5 Update . 8 . Memorandum

fro m Stackhouse , C . an

dEdwar dAul , Radia nCorporation , t o Stevenson , Wal t an

dFre dPorter , EPA/SDB . Impact s o f Ne w Fue l Price s o nth e Nationa l Impac t Analysi s fo r Mixe dFuel-Fire dSteam Generating Units . Apri l 15 , 1987 .p.1 1

APPENDI XA
METHODOLOG YFORREVISINGMODE L MIXE D FUEL-FIRE D BOILE R COS T ESTIMATE S T O INCORPORAT E NE W FUE L PRICE S 1. 0 INTRODUCTIO N
I nadditio nt o examinin g new fue l pric e impacts , th e approac han d assumption s use dinReferenc e 4 i ncalculatin g cost s o f mixe dfuel-fire d stea m generatin g unit s wer e reviewe dand , wher e appropriate , modifie dfo r thi s analysis . Thes e modification s wer e necessar y t o ensur e tha t th e costin g methodologie s use dinthi s analysi s wer e consisten t wit hth e methodologie s use dinothe r industria l stea m generatin g uni t cos t studies . Th e followin g discussio naddresse s th e difference s i napproac han d assumption s use dinthi s cos t analysi s a s compare dwit hth e previou s analysis . Th e revise dcos t algorithm s use dt o calculat e th e mixe d fuel-fire dsteam

generatin g uni t cost s ar e give ninAppendi xB . 2. 0 STEA

M GENERATINGUNI T COST S 2. 1 CAPITA L COST S Th e approac han

dassumption s use dt o calculat e th e capita l cost s fo r th e steam

generatin g unit s inReferenc e 4 wer e no t modifie dfo r thi s cos t analysis . 2. 2 OPERATINGAN D MAINTENANC E COST S Th e cos t equatio nuse dfo r estimatin g soli dwast e cost s inReferenc e 4 wa s change dfo r consistenc y purposes . Instea do f usin g th e fossil/nonfossi l mixtur e propertie s i nth e fossi l cos t algorith m a s wa s don e previously , th e fossi l fue l cos t algorith m wa s use donl y

fo r estimatin g soli dwast e disposa l cost s fo r th e fossi l fue l bein g fired . Nonfossi l soli dwast e disposa l cost s



### A- 1P.1 2

wer e calculate db

y multiplyin g th e soli dwast e generatio nrat e (base do n mode l stea

m generatin g uni t informatio ninReferenc e 5 ) b y th e soli dwast e uni t cos t rat e an

dth e nonfossi l fue l fractio no f th e mixtur e bein g fired . Th e fossi l an

dnonfossi l wast e disposa l cost s wer e summe dt o calculat e th e tota l soli dwast e disposa l costs . Two calculationa l omission s wer e discovere dinth e cos t result s presente di nReferenc e 4 wer e als o corrected . Th e firs t omissio nwa s tha t th e cost s fo r spar e parts , electricity , chemicals , an dwate r calculate dfro m cos t algorithm s base don197 8 dollar s wer e no t update dt o 198 3 dollars . Th e secondomissio nwa s tha t th e cost s fo r monitor s (opacity , 0 2 /C0 2 outlet , an d S0 2 outle t monitors ) wer e no t include dfo r th e baselin e an dlo w sulfu r fue l regulator y

alternatives . 2. 3 STEA

M GENERATINGUNI T COS T IMPACT S Th e annualize dcost s fo r mode l stea m generatin g unit s calculate dfo r thi s analysis , befor e incorporatin g th e new fue l price s an

dupdatin g t o 198 5 dollars , ar e highe r tha nthos e reporte dinReferenc e 4 du e t o th e abov e changes . However , thes e change s wil l no t affec t th e cos t effectivenes s o f S0 2 contro l sinc e stea m generatin g uni t cost s ar e th e sam e fo r th e baselin e an dtw o regulator y

alternatives . 3. 0 PARTICULAT E MATTE RCONTRO L COST S 3. 1 CAPITA L COST S Th e approac huse di nReferenc e 4 t o calculat e th e capita l cost s fo r fabri c filter s applie dt o coal/nonfossil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s an d ventur i scrubber s applie dt o oil/nonfossil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wa s t o bas e th e cost s onth e flu e ga s flow rat e o f th e boile r firin g a specifie d fossil/nonfossi l mixture . Thi s approac hi s no t consisten t wit hth e approac h use dinothe r cos t studie s inwhic hth e particulat e matte r (PM )



### A- 2P.1 3

contro l devic e i s coste dfo r worst-cas e desig nconditions . Th e worst-cas e desig ncondition s fo r a P M contro l devic e ona mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g uni t correspon dt o firin g 10 0 percen t nonfossi l fue l du e t o it s highe r flu e ga s flow rate . Fo r thi s reason , th e P M contro l cost s inthi s analysi s wer e calculate dbase do na stea m generatin g uni t firin g 10 0 percen t nonfossi l fuel . Becaus e th e capita l cost s fo r bot hfabri c filter s an d ventur i scrubber s ar e directl y relate dt o flu e ga s flow rate , th e capita l cost s usin g thi s approac hwil l be highe r tha ni nReferenc e 4 . 3. 2 OPERATINGAN D MAINTENANC E COST S Th e approac huse dinReferenc e 4 t o calculat e th e operatin g an d maintenanc e (O&M ) cost s fo r wa s no t modifie dfo r thi s analysis . Th e controlle dP

M emissio nlimit s fo r mixe dfuel-fire dsteam generatin g unit s wer e modified , however , t o reflec t curren t regulation s a t 4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t Db . Th e followin g controlle dP M emissio nlevel s wer e use dinthi s analysis : t 4 3 ng/ J (0. 1 lb/millio nBtu ) limit s fo r mixe dfuel - an doil-fire d boilers ;
• 2 2 ng/ J (0.0 5 lb/millio nBtu ) limi t fo r coal-fire dboilers . 3. 3 P M CONTRO L COS T IMPACT S
A s a resul t o f th e capita l cos t change s discusse di nSection3.1 , th e P M contro l annualize dcost s wil l b e highe r fo r al l unit s compare dt o thos e reporte di nReferenc e 4 . Th e prio r analysi s assume dcontrolle dP M emissio n limit s o f 2 2 ng/ J (0.0 5 lb/millio nBtu ) fo r stea m generatin g unit s firin g al l fue l types . By increasin g th e P

M emissio nlimi t fro

m 2 2 ng/ J (0.0 5 lb/millio nBtu ) t o 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb/millio nBtu ) fo r mixe dfuel-fire d stea m generatin g units , th e annualize dcost s fo r soli dwast e disposa l wil l decreas e slightl y

fro m thos e reporte dinReferenc e 4 . However , cos t effectivenes s value s fo r S0 2 contro l associate dwit hth e regulator y alternative s examine dwil l no t chang e a s a resul t o f thes e modification s



### A- 3P.1 4

sinc e P M contro l cost s ar e th e sam e fo r th e baselin e an dtw o regulator y alternatives . 4. 0 S0 2 CONTRO L COST S 4. 1 CAPITA L COST S Th e approac huse dinReferenc e 4 t o calculat e capita l cost s fo r sodiu m scrubbin g system s applie dt o mixe dfuel-fire dboiler s wa s modifie dt o reflec t worst-cas e desig nconditions . Th e prio r approac hbase dth e cost s o f th e sodiu

m scrubbin g system

onth e flu e ga s flow rat e an

dS0 2 loadin g generate db

y firin g 10 0 percen t fossi l fuel . However , thi s doe s no t represen t worst-cas e desig ncondition s wit hrespec t t o flu e ga s flow rate . Th e highes t flow

rat e inmixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g uni t occur s whe n 10 0 percen t nonfossi l fue l i s fired ; th e highes t S0 2 loadin g occur s whe n10 0 percen t fossi l fue l i s fired . Thi s revisio nwil l resul t inhighe r capita l cost s tha nth e approac hdiscusse dinReferenc e 4 . 4. 2 OPERATINGAND MAINTENANC E COST S Th e same approac han dassumption s wer e use dincalculatin g operatin g an dmaintenanc e cost s fo r sodiu m scrubbin g systems . However , upo nreview o f th e calculation s use dfo r generatin g th e cost s presente dinReferenc e 4 , i t wa s note dtha t bot hth e maintenanc e an dS0 2 monito r cost s wer e no t update d t o Januar y

198 3 dollar s fro

m Jul y 197 8 dollars . Therefore , th e S0 2 cost s presente di n198 3 dollar s i nReferenc e 4 wer e underestimated . Inaddition , th e maintenanc e cost s fo r th e sodiu m scrubbin g system

wer e underestimate di nReferenc e 4 . Th e cost s fo r maintenanc e wer e calculate da s 8 percen t o f th e turnke y cost s o f a sodiu

m scrubbin g system

designe dfo r a flu e ga s flo

w rat e an

dS0 2 loadin g base do na specifi c fossil/nonfossi l fue l mixtur e instea do f th e actua l fue l characteristics . I nthi s analysis , th e maintenanc e cost s ar e base don8 percen t o f th e turnke y cost s o f a scrubbe r system usin g th e modifie dapproac hdiscusse dinSectio n4.1 .



### A- 4P.1 5

4. 3 S0 2 CONTRO L COS T IMPACT S
A s a resul t o f thes e changes , th e annualize dcost s fo r percen t reductio no f S0 2 i nthi s analysi s ar e highe r tha nthos e presente din Referenc e 4 . Therefore , th e averag e an dincrementa l cos t effectivenes s value s fo r a percen t reductio nregulator y alternativ e ar e als o highe r tha n thos e presente dinReferenc e 4 . 5. 0 UPDATE D ANNUALIZE D COS T ESTIMATE S
Fue l pric e projection s ove r th e fifteen-yea r perio dbeginnin g i n198 7 wer e revise di nAugus t 198 6 t o reflec t curren t an danticipate dcondition s i n worl dfue l markets . Comparison s o f previou s an drevise dfossi l fue l pric e projection s fo r coal , oil , an dnatura l ga s ar e presente dinTabl e A-1 . Th e fue l price s projecte di nAugus t 198 6 ar e expresse di nJun e 198 5 dollar s compare dt o Januar y

198 3 dollar s fo r th e Jul y 198 4 projections . Th e revise d cos t an dcos t effectivenes s estimate s ar e base donlo w oi l price s an

dlo w natura l ga s price s consisten t wit ha non-carriag e natura l ga s marke t an da rigi dregulator y

environment , a s discusse dinReference s 2 an d3 . Revise dcost s fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s an d associate demissio ncontro l equipmen t wer e calculate dusin g th e algorithm s presente di nAppendi xB t o thi s memorandum . Thes e algorithm s updat e th e cost s fro

m Januar y

198 3 dollar s t o Jun e 198 5 dollar s usin g a nescalatio n facto r o f 1.029 5 fo r capita l cost s base donth e Chemica l Engineerin g Plan t Inde xanda

nescalatio nfacto r o f 1.034 7 fo r non-fue l O& M cost s base donth e Produce r Pric e Inde xfo r al l industria l commodities . ' '



### A-5P.1 6



### APPENDI XB REVISE DCOS T ALGORITHM S FO RMIXE DFUEL-FIRE DSTEA M GENERATING UNIT S AN DASSOCIATE DEMISSION CONTRO L EQUIPMEN TP.1 7

TABL E 1 . NOMENCLATUR E USE D I N COS T ALGORITHM S

1 . Capita l Cost s (198 5 dollars ) EQU P = Equipmen t INS T = Installatio n IN D = Indirec t (Engineering , Field , Construction , Start-up ,

an dothe r miscellaneou s costs ) T K= Turnke y 2 . Operatio nan

dMaintenanc e Costs 3 (198 5 dollars/year ) D L = Direc t Labo r SPR V = Supervisio nLabo r MAN T = Maintenanc e Labo r S P = Spar e Part s ELE C = Electricit y UC = Utilitie s an dChemical s WT R= Wate r SW = Soli dWast e Disposa l L W = Liqui dWast e Disposa l S C = Sodiu

m Carbonat e Boile r Specification s Q FL W C F

F C H S A N F F Therma l Inpu t (IO 6 Btu/hr ) {MW) £

Flu e Ga s Flowrat e (acfm ) (m/s ) Capacit y Facto r (- ) Fue l Specification s

Fue l Cos t ($/10 6 Btu ) ($MJ) b. Heatin g Valu e (Btu/lb ) (KJ/kg) D Sulfu r Conten t (percen t b y weight ) As hConten t (percen t b y weight ) Fue l Nitroge nConten t (percen t b y weight ) Fossi l Fue l Fractio n 5 . SO^Contro l Specification s UNCS0 2 = Uncontrolle dSO , Emission s (lb/10 6 Btu ) (ng/J) b CTRS0 2 = Controlle dSO , Emission s (lb/10 ° Btu ) (ng/J) D EFFS0 2 = SO , Remova l Efficienc y (percent )



### B- 1P.1 8

TABL E 1 . NOMENCLATUR E USE D I N COS T ALGORITHM S (CONTINUED )

6 . P M Contro l Specification s UNCP M = Uncontrolle dP M Emission s (lb/10 6 Btu ) (ng/J) b CTRP M = Controlle dP

M Emission s (lb/10 ° Btu ) (ng/J) D EFFPM = P M Remova l Efficienc y

(percent ) 7 . Cos t Rate s (inJanuar y 198 3 dollars ) ELEC R= Electricit y Rate-($/kw-hr ) - . WTRR= Wate r Rat e ($/10 Jgal ) ($/ m ) ALIM E = Lim

e Rat e ($/ton ) ($/kg) t r h AL S = Limeston e Rat e ($/ton ) ($/kg) Db SAS H = Sodiu

m Carbonat e Rat e ($/ton ) ($/kg i SLDG= Sludg e Disposa l Rat e ($/ton ) ($/kg) D. SW R= Soli dWast e Disposa l Rat e ($/ton l ($/kg ) . , . LW D = Liqui dWast e Disposa l Rat e ($/10 3 gal ) ($/trr)° DL R= Direc t Labo r Rat e ($/man-hr ) SL R= Supervisio nLabo r Rat e ($/man-hr ) AML R= Maintenanc e Labo r Rat e ($/man-hr ) 8 . Miscellaneou s DLM SL M MLM S l S 2 LF Direc t Labo r Man-Hour s (man-hours/shift )

Supervisio nMan-Hour s (man-hours/shift ) Maintenanc e Man-Hour s (man-hours/shift ) Hea t Specifi c Sulfu r Remova l (k g S/100 0 MJ ) Time Specifi c Sulfu r Remova l (k g S/hr ) Labo r Facto r (- )
Cos t categorie s ar e no t mutuall y exclusive . Fo r example , som e costin g routine s includ e electricit y an dwast e cos t inth e utilitie s categor y whil e othe r calculat e thes e cos t separately . SO D algorith

m use s metri c units . "(- ) facto r presente da s fractio nno t a s percent .



### B-2P.1 9

TABL E 2 . COS T EQUATION S FO RFIELD-ERECTED , WATERTUB E SPREADER-STOKE R BOILE RFIRIN

GFOSSIL/NONFOSSI L MIXTURE S (I N JUN E 198 5 DOLLARS) 3

Capita l Cost s TK b= [11,78 5 (Q/358) 0,7 7 + 154.47*(1.2*FF*Q) 0,7 8 - 11,785 *

(1.2*FF*Q/358) 0,77 ]*1.44*1.029 5 TK C = [11,78 5 (Q/358) 0,7 7 + 192.02*(1.2*FF*Q) 0,7 5 - 11,785 *

(1.2*FF*Q/358) 0,77 ]*1.44*1.029 5
Annua l Cost s DL = DLM*(4)*(8)*(52)*(0.767)*(DLR)*(LF)*(1.0347) ; wher e

DLM = 3.2 5 fo r Q = 150 , DLM = 6.7 5 fo r Q = 400 , DLM = 10.0 0 fo r Q = 80 0 SPR V = SLM*(4)*(8)*(52)*(0.767)*(SLR)*(LF)*(1.0347) ; wher e

SL M =1.0 0 fo r Q = 150 , SL M = 1.5 0 fo r Q = 400 , SL M = 2.0 0 fo r Q = 800 . MANT = (MLM)*(4)*(8)*(52)*(0.767)*(AMLR)*(LF)*(1.0347) ; wher e

MLM - 1.0 0 fo r Q - 150 , MLM = 3.0 0 fo r Q = 400 , MLM = 4.5 0 fo r Q = 800 .



### B- 3P.2 0

TABL E 2 . COS T EQUATION S FO RFIELD-ERECTED , WATERTUB E SPREADER-STOKE R BOILE RFIRIN

GFOSSIL/NONFOSSI L MIXTURE S (IN JUN E 198 5 DOLLARS) 3 (CONTINUED )

S P = {(50,00 0 + 1,00 0 Q)*(0.767)*[TK/(11,785*(Q/358) 0,77 ]}(1.51)(1.0347 ) V C = C F [29,30 3 + 719.8(Q)](0.848)(1.51)(1.0347 ) SW d= [(0.38)(FF)(CF)(547,32 0 + 66,03 8 l nAF/HF)(FF*Q/150) 0,9754 * (0.848)(1.51 ) + 1.48(Q)(CF)(1-FF)(SWR)8760/2000]*1.034 7 SW e - 1.48(Q)(CF)*(1-FF)(SWR)(8760/2000 )

a Cos t equation s us e Englis hunits . Applie s onl y

t o easter ncoal s inEPA Region s 1 throug h7 . Turnke y cost s fo r oil/wood-fire dboiler s ar e assume dt o b e th e sam e a s coal/wood-fire d boiler s inthos e EP

A regions . c Applie s onl y

t o Wester ncoa l inEPA Regio n8 throug h10 . Turnke y cost s fo r oil/wood-fire dboiler s ar e assume dt o b e th e sam e a s coal/wood-fire d boiler s inthos e EP

A regions . Applie s onl y

t o coal/wood-fire dboilers . AF = As hconten t o f fossi l fuel ; H F = Heatin g Valu e o f Fossi l Fuel . e Applie s onl y

t o oil/wood-fire dboilers .



### B- 4P.2 1

TABL E 3 . COS T EQUATION S FO RFABRI C FILTER S APPLIE D T O MIXE D FUEL-FIRE D BOILER S (IN JUN E 198 5 DOLLARS) 3

Routin e Code : F

F Capita l Costs: a , b EQU P = [8.340(FLW) 0,966 ] (1.44)(1.0295 ) INS T = [-1,405,52 3 + 168,53 1 I n(FLW) ] (1.44)(1.0295 ) IN D •*- > [24.990(FLW) 0,821 ] (1.44)(1.0295 ) Annua l Costs : DL = LF (10,15 0 + 10 6 Q)(DLR/12.02)(1.0347 ) i f 3 0 < Q < 40 0

= LF (52,600)(DLR/2.02)(1.0347 ) i f 40 0 < Q < 70 0 SPR V = 0 i f 3 0 < Q < 40 0

= LF (17,000)(SLR/15.63)(1.0347 ) i f 40 0 < Q < 70 0 MANT = L

F (14,84 0 + 0.10 6 Q 2 )(AMLR/14.63)(1.0347 ) i f 3 0 < Q < 40 0

= LF (32,000)(AMLR/14.63)(1.0347 ) i f 40 0 < Q < 70 0 S P = [0.27 8 (FLW) 0,997 ](1.0347)(1.51 ) ELE C = [(CF/O.6)0.740(FLW) 0,953 ](ELECR/0.0258)(1.0347 ) SW = (CF/0.6)(39.42)(Q)(UNCP M - CTRPM ) (SWD/15)(1.0347 )

a Cos t equation s ar e i nEnglis hunits . Flo w rat e (FLW ) i s base do nboile r firin g 10 0 percen t nonfossi l fuel .



### B- 5P.2 2

TABL E 4 . COS T EQUATION S FO RVENTUR I SCRUBBER S APPLIE D T O MIXE D FUEL-FIRE D BOILER S (I N JUN E 198 5 DOLLARS) 3

Routin e Code : V S Capita l Costs : EQU P = [26,91 6 + 2.294(FLW)](1.44)(1.0295 ) INS T = [13,90 4 + 1.653(FLW)](1.44)(1.0295 ) IN D = [15,46 3 + 1.285(FLW)](1.44)(1.0295 ) Annua l Costs : D L = L

F (10,15 0 + 10 6 Q ) (DLR/12.02)(1.0347 ) i f 3 0 < Q < 40 0

= LF (52,600)(DLR/12.02)(1.0347 ) i f 40 0 < Q < 70 0 SPR V = 0 i f 3 0 < Q < 40 0

- LF (17,000)(SLR/15.63)(1.0347 ) i f 40 0 < Q < 70 0 MAN T = (4,52 5 + 104. 4 Q)(AMLR/14.63)(1.0347 ) ELE C = (CF/O.6)(0.95*304.3*Q 0,938 )(ELECR/0.0258)(1.0347 ) WT R= (CF/0.6)(0.05*304.3*Q 0,938 )(WTR/15)(1.0347 ) S W = (CF/0.6 ) 39.4 2 Q (UNCPM - CTRPM)(SWD/15)(1.0347 )

3 Cos t equation s ar e inEnglis hunits . ' Flo w rat e (FLW ) i s base do nboile r firing 10 0 percen t nonfossi l fuel .



### B- 6P.2 3

TABL E 5 . COS T EQUATION S FO RSODIU M SCRUBBIN

GFGD SYSTEM S I N JUNE 198 5 DOLLARS) 3

Routin e Code : SO D Capita l Costs: b , c TK $ = [39,900(FLW) 0,58 5 + 1,37 0 (S2) 0727 ](1.0295 ) T K= 26,50 0 S2 0,39 ](1.0295 ) W T K= T K+ T K

s w Annua l Costs : D L = 1,100*DLR SPR V = 165*SL R MANT 3 = 0.08*T K ELEC S = 8,760*CF*ELECR[3.61(FLW ) - 2.15](1.0347 ) ELE C = 8760*CF*ELECR[0.23(S2 ) + 1.32](1.0347 ) ELE C = ELEC C + ELEC, ,

s w WT R= 8760*CF*WTRR[0.600(FLW ) - 2.08][0.527(S1 ) + 0.364](1.0347 ) S C = 8760*CF*SASH[3.33(S2 ) + 0.082](1.0347 ) L W = 8760*CF*LWD[0.0616(S2 ) + 0.298](1.0347 )

3 Cos t equation s ar e inmetri c units . Flo w rat e (FLW ) i s base do na boile r firin g 10 0 percen t nonfossi l fuel . Time specifi c sulfu r remova l (S2 ) i s base dona boile r firin g 10 0 percen t fossi l fuel . c Th e subscrip t "s " denote s scrubbe r cost s an dth e subscrip t "w " denote s wastewate r costs . Thi s equatio nassume s tha t th e wastewate r strea m ha s a tota l dissolve d solid s concentratio n(TDS ) o f 5.7 . e S l = S*EFFS0 2 *100/H ; S 2 = S1*Q*3.6 .



### B- 7