-------
100
CO
8
O
O
To
5.
(0
O
50
10
24.500
Inlet Flowrate (acfm)
245,000
August 1986 Dollars
Logarithmic Scale
y(min) = 10; y(max) = 100
Outlet Loading:
0.01 gr/dscf
e
0.02 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
A
Figure 4 - 7. Capital Cost Estimates of an SD/FF for a Model MB
Facility, MOD Facility, and RDF Facility
-------
10 -.
5.
8
o
O
.
(0
O
28,000
August 1986 Dollars
Logarithmic Scale
y(min) = 1; y (max) =10
Inlet Flowrate (acf m)
60,000
Outlet Loading:
.03, .02, .01 gr/dscf
e
Figure 4 - 8. Capital Cost Estimates of an FF for a Model Fluid Bed
Combustion Facility
-------
The following mathematical expressions were used to estimate the capital
cost of auxiliary equipment for each control system.
C2 = 2.38 x (N) x (Q)0.96
C3 = 1.76 x (L) x (Q)0.5
C4 - (N) x [25,000 + 59.61 x (H) x (1 + 2.59 D)] for D > 5 ft
= (N) x [25,000 + 82.88 x (H) x (1 + 2.20 D)] for D < 5 ft
C5 - (N) x [25,000 + 84.79 x (H) x (1 + 4.14 D)] for D > 5 ft
- (N) x [25,000 + 76.73 x (H) x (1 + 4.33 D)] for D < 5 ft
where
C- = Capital cost of I.D. fans in the control system for each model
plant
C3 - Capital cost of total ductwork in the control system for each
model plant
C4 - Capital cost of stacks in an acid gas/PM control system for
each model plant
Cc » Capital cost of stacks in a PM control system for each model
plant
N = Number of control units
Q = Flue gas flow rate at the control unit outlet, acfm
4-12
-------
L = Total ductwork length in the control system, ft
H = Stack height, ft
D - Stack diameter, ft
The cost equation for an I.D. fan was developed based on cost in-
formation received from fan manufacturers. The cost equation for ductwork
was developed based on an average velocity of 3,000 ft/min through the
ductwork; material and installation charges specified as $1.50 per Ib of duct
material; and an additional 20 percent for insulation, fittings, and material
wastage. The assumed ductwork length for each new model plant are presented
in Tables 4-2 and 4-3.
Double wall stacks, one per unit in each emission control system, were
selected for evaluation. Information regarding the capital required for the
purchase and installation of the stack were obtained from stack
manufacturers. These cost data were incorporated into the mathematical
expressions listed above.
Separate stack equations were developed for PM and acid gas/PM control
systems because of the need for using acid-resistant lining in the stack with
PM control systems. Also, separate equations were developed for stacks
less than 5 ft in diameter because of the recommendation by manufacturers
that a stack of less than 5 ft in diameter and more than 100 ft in height
must be tapered. Stack dimensions for each new MWC model plant are listed
in Tables 4-2 and 4-3.
Stack capital cost estimates were developed in order to calculate a cost
credit which was applied to the capital costs of those model plants with acid
gas control to account for the reduction in capital costs required to build a
stack which does not require acid gas-resistant lining. This cost credit was
equal to the difference in price for a stack following a PM emission control
system and a stack following an acid gas/PM emission control system for each
model plant. It is important to note that the stack capital costs would be
significantly lower if the capital costs were based on one common stack with
multiple flues for the entire control system rather than assuming one stack
per control unit.
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-2. AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS FOR PM CONTROLS
Auxil iary
equipment
Ductwork
Stack
Model plants
No.
1
2
3
A
5
7
8
Q
10
Incinerator) Unit
Units
2
2
4
2
5
8
3
4
2
2
Model plant
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
size",
tpd
156.2
625
937.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
625
937.5
156.2
312.5
No. of
stacks
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
Units in
control
system
2
2
4
1
1
*
3
4
2
2
Velocity,
ft/mi n
3,210
3,210
2,910
2,985
2,690
2,990
2,890
3,010
2,840
2,870
Assumed
ductwork length, ft
Per
control
unit0
60
150
200r
130^
250^
370C
150
200
60
100
Stack
diameter,
ft
3.5
7.0
9.0
3.0
5.0
6.0
7.5
9.0
3.5
5.0
Total
120
300
800,.
130^
250^
370C
450
800
120
200
Assumed .
stack height, ft
200
200
200
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
Represents 125 percent of actual incinerator capacity.
Includes length of ductwork from boiler outlet to stack inlet.
""Includes 40 ft of duct length per combustor from boiler outlet to manifold
plus 50 feet from the control system exit to the stack.
Assumed stack heights are 100 ft for modular units and 200 ft for all other
units.
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-3. AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS FOR ACID GAS/PM CONTROLS
Auxil iary
equipment
Ductwork
Stack
Model j>lants
No.
1
3
4
5
Q
7
8
Incinerator
Units
2
2
4
2
5
8
3
4
Model plant
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Unit3
size,
tpd
156.2
625
937.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
625
937.5
No. of
stacks
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
Units in
control
system
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
4
Velocity,
L ft/mi n
2,885
2,885
3,310
2,985
2,690
2,990
2,980
3,030
3,470
3,090
Assumed
ductwork lenath. ft
Per
control
unit
120
300
400r
180^
300^
420C
300
400
Stack
diameter,
ft
3.5
7.0
8.0
3.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.5
3.0
4.5
Total
240
600
1,600
180^
300^
420C
900
1,600
Assumed H
stack height0, ft
200
200
200
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
Represents 125 percent of actual incinerator capacity.
Includes length of ductwork from boiler outlet to stack inlet.
clncludes 40 ft of duct length per incinerator from boiler outlet to manifold
plus 100 ft from the control system exit to the stack.
Assumed stack heights are 100 ft for modular units and 200 ft for all other
units.
4-15
-------
The material of construction for ductwork and stack in PM control
systems is assumed to be 1/4-inch cast refractory-lined carbon steel for all
model plants. For acid gas/PM control systems, the material of construction
for the stack is assumed to be 1/4-inch carbon steel for all model plants.
The following equation was used to calculate the total capital cost of
a control system:
CS - 1.20 x [Cl + C2 + C3 ]
where CS - Total capital cost of the control system.
Cl - Capital cost of main equipment.
C2 + C3 » Capital cost of auxiliary equipment (i.e., fan and
ductwork).
The above equation includes a 20 percent contingency factor. It does not
include the cost credit applied to those model plants with acid gas control
for stack capital costs as discussed above.
(b) Capital Cost Estimates - Tables 4-4 through 4-7 present capital
cost estimates for the PM and acid gas/PM control systems for new MB, MOD,
RDF, and FBC model plants, respectively. The capital cost estimates indicate
that the cost of ESP's designed for an emission level of 0.01 gr/dscf are
approximately 35 percent more expensive than ESP's designed for 0.03 gr/dscf
for new MWC model plants. The corresponding values for SD/ESP systems and
SD/FF systems are 13 percent and 6 percent, respectively. The capital cost
required for a SD/FF system to achieve PM emission levels of 0.03 and 0.02
gr/dscf are identical because the reduced emission level does not affect
baghouse sizing. However, to achieve an emission level of 0.01 gr/dscf with
a SD/FF, a more expensive bag material is required. Therefore, the capital
cost increases. The FF capital costs for the FBC model plants were reported
to be identical at all three PM emission levels by the manufacturers.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-4. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL
SYSTEMS FOR MODEL NEW MASS BURNING FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level ,
gr/dscf at 12% C02
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP System8
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF Systema
0.03
0.02
0.01
Model plant 1
(250 tpd)
1,549
1,951
2,252
4,108
4,589
4,868
4,242
4,242
4,421
Model plant 2
(1,000 tpd)
3,900
4,693
5,521
9,352
10,246
10,916
8,905
8,905
9,463
Model plant 3
(3,000 tpd)
10,230
11,830
14,105
23,197
24,488
26,641
21,691
21,691
23,197
*90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO-, respectively,
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-5. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL
SYSTEMS FOR MODEL NEW MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level ,
gr/dscf at 12% C02
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP Svstema
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF System3
0.03
0.02
0.01
Model Plant 4
341
447
487
1,426
1,516
1,564
1,960
1,960
2,020
Model Plant 5
--
695
845
929
2,420
2,526
2,648
3,176
3,176
3,296
Model Plant 6
1,020
1,194
1,314
3,149
3,489
3,609
4,179
4,179
4,779
a90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and S02, respectively.
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-6. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level,
gr/dscf at 12% C02
Model plant 7
(1,500 tpd)
Model plant 8
(3,000 tpd)
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP System*
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF System3
0.03
0.02
0.01
6,919
8,293
9,193
14,413
15,972
16,539
13,170
13,170
13,989
12,006
14,245
15,881
25,917
27,423
28,069
22,042
22,042
23,119
'90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO-, respectively.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-7. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF PM CONTROLS
FOR MODEL NEW FLUID BED COMBUSTION FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level,
10 gr/dscf at 12% C02
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
FF System
0.03
0.02
0.01
Model plant 9
(250 tpd)
1,756
2,204
2,270
996
996
996
Model plant
(500 tpd)
2,762
3,410
3,589
1,690
1,690
1,690
4-20
-------
A comparison of capital costs for acid gas/PM control systems and PM
control systems indicates that 40 to 170 percent additional capital is
required for controlling both PM and acid gas emissions as compared to
controlling PM emissions alone for new MB and RDF model facilities. For the
MOD model facilities, the additional capital cost required to control acid
gas emissions as well as PM emissions with a SD/ESP or SD/FF is 200 to 500
percent than for an ESP alone. PM emissions at the outlet of a MOD
combustor are generally very low. With the addition of a SO, PM emissions
at the inlet of the PM emission control device increase to twelve times
their normal level. Thus a large amount of additional capital is necessary
for the PM control device. In general, as the model facility size increases
the percentage of additional capital required to control both PM and acid
gas emissions decreases.
A comparison of capital cost estimates for SD/ESP and SD/FF systems
indicates that SD/FF systems are generally less expensive than SD/ESP
systems at all PM emission levels for new MB and RDF facilities except for
the 250 tpd MB model plant at the 0.03 gr/dscf outlet grain loading. The
opposite is true for the MOD model facilities. Assuming SD capital costs
are similar, the capital cost of an ESP is approximately 30 percent less
than a FF for a MOD model plant equipped with a spray dryer for acid gas
control. As discussed in Section 3, an increase in PM loading at the inlet
of an ESP would require an increase in the SCA of that ESP to achieve the
same outlet loading. This directly affects the capital cost of the unit.
However, FF size, and therefore capital cost, is based on the air-to-cloth
ratio. For MOD model facilities equipped with a SD, the increase in the PM
loading at the inlet of the PM control device, which initially is very low,
is not great enough to require an increase in the SCA of the ESP to cause
the capital cost of that unit to exceed the capital cost of a FF in an acid
gas/PM control system.
According to the capital cost estimates for FBC facilities (Table 4-7),
FF's are 40 to 55 percent less expensive than ESP's at all outlet grain
loadings. As discussed above, the capital cost of an ESP is directly
affected by the inlet grain loading while the capital cost of a FF is based
on air flow. Therefore, one would expect the capital cost of an ESP for an
FBC model facility, which has a high outlet grain loading from the combustor,
to be greater than the capital cost of a FF.
4-21
-------
4.3 ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS
The annualized operating cost of an emission control system is the
annual cost to own and operate that control system. The annualized operating
cost includes direct operating costs, such as the cost of utilities,
maintenance, and operating labor, and indirect operating costs or capital -
related charges, such as the cost of depreciation, interest, administrative
overhead, property taxes, and insurance.
Table 4-8 presents the cost bases used in calculating each control
system's annualized operating costs. While actual costs experienced by
individual plants can vary, the values listed are those selected as typical
and they provide a reasonable estimate of the annualized operating costs of
each control system. Tables 4-9 through 4-12 present the annualized operating
cost estimates based on 8,000 hours of annual operation for the new MB, MOO,
RDF, and FBC model plants. Tables 4-13 through 4-23 present detailed
breakdowns of these estimates.
As one might expect, the cost estimates indicate that the increases in
control system annualized operating costs coincide with a decrease in the PM
emission level requirement from 0.03 to 0.01 gr/dscf at 12% CO,. For ESP's,
this cost increase is generally 25 percent. For SD/ESP's and SD/FF's, the
cost increase is 10 and 4 percent, respectively.
The SD/FF control system annualized operating costs are 2 to 10 percent
lower than the corresponding SO/ESP systems for the new MB and RDF model
facilities. However, for new MB model plants with a PM emission level of
0.03 gr/dscf, SD/FF's are slightly more expensive to operate than a SD/ESP.
Annualized operating cost estimates for FBC models indicate that FF's are
approximately 30 percent less costly to operate than ESP's for the same
facility. The annualized costs of operating a SD/FF for acid gas/PM control
for a MOD model facility are generally 25 percent greater than for a SD/ESP
for that facility.
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-8. ANNUALIZED OPERATING COST BASES
Item
Cost base
Direct costs
Operating labor:
Labor hours
Supervision
Cost
Utilities:
System pressure drop,
For ESP system
For SD/ESP
For SD/FF
For FF
Power requirements of spray
dryer atomizer
ESP
Electricity cost
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Annual maintenance
Waste disposal
Indirect costs
Overhead
Taxes, insurance, and
administrative overhead
Capital recovery
1-man hr/shift for PM control
systems and 2-man hr/shift for
acid gas/PM control systems
15% of total operating labor
$12.02/hr for operating labor and
$14.42/hr for supervision
2.5 in. w.c.
7.5 in. w.c.
13 in. w.c.
8 in. w.c.
6 kw/1,000 Ibs/hr feed + 15 kw
1.5 watts/ft plate area
$0.064/kwh
$0.85/1,000 gallons
S55/ton
2% of total capital cost
$15.00/ton of waste disposed
60% of operating and
maintenance labor
4% of total capital cost
20 years life for ESPs and
FFs and 15 years life for
SD/ESP and SO/FF systems; and
10% interest rate on money.
aBased on 8,000 hours per year of operation.
One-half of the total is assumed to be for labor.
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-9. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF EMISSION
CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL NEW MASS BURNING FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level ,
gr/dscf at 12% C02
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP__Systeina
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF System3
0.03
0.02
0.01
Model plant 1
(250 tpd)
370
443
499
1,061
1,156
1,212
1,115
1,115
1,150
Model plant 2
(1,000 tpd)
L
921
1,067
1,220
2,529
2,706
2,839
2,549
2,549
2,661
Model plant 3
(3,000 tpd)
2,449
2,744
3,163
6,515
6,771
7,198
6,538
6,540
6,838
*90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO,,, respectively.
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-10.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF EMISSION
CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL NEW MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level ,
gr/dscf at 12% C02
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP System3
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF System3
0.03
0.02
0.01
Model Plant 4
90
110
117
380
398
408
498
498
510
Model Plant 5
162
190
206
645
666
691
825
825
849
Model Plant 6
229
261
283
858
925
949
1110
1110
1229
J90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO., respectively.
4-25
-------
TABLE 4-11. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING
COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL
NEW REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES
($1,000s in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level,
gr/dscf at 12% C02
Model plant 7
(1,500 tpd)
Model plant 8
(3,000 tpd)
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP System3
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF System3
0.03
0.02
0.01
1,865
2,118
2,284
4,278
4,632
4,700
4,198
4,199
4,362
3,348
3,761
4,063
7,876
8,176
8,305
7,442
7,444
7,637
90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and S02, respectively.
4-26
-------
TABLE 4-12.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF PM CONTROLS
FOR MODEL NEW FLUID BED COMBUSTION FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Controlled PM
emission level ,
gr/dscf at 12% C02
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
FF System
0.03
0.02
0.01
Model plant 9
(250 tpd)
489
571
584
375
375
375
rfodel plant 10
(500 tpd)
795
915
948
649
649
650
4-27
-------
TABLE 4-13. ESTIMATED ANNUAL1ZED OPERATING COSTS FOR ESP SYSTEMS FOR MODEL NEW MASS
BURNING FACILITIES (August 1966 dollars based on 6.000 hrs/yr operation)
ro
00
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Superv Ibton
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect Cost
Overhead (6QR of opera-
ting labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes. li,_.., ance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total Indirect
Total Annual tzed Cost
Model plant 1 (250 tpd)
fpr outlet PM level* of
0.03
24.000
4.300
12,800
0
0
31.000
27.200
99.300
26.300
62,000
181,900
270.200
369.500
0.02
24.000
4,300
12.800
0
0
39,000
27.400
1P7.5PO
28,700
78.000
229.200
335-900
443.400
0-01
24,000
4,300
12,800
0
0
4S.OOO
27.500
113.6QO
30.500
90,100
264.500
- -
385. 1QO
498.700
Model plant 2 (1,000 tpd)
for outlet PM level" of
Q.03.
24,000
4.300
51.300
0
0
78.000
109,100
266. 7QO
40.400
156.000
458. 100
654.5QO
921.200
0-02
24.000
4.300
51.300
0
0
93.900
109.700
283.200
45.200
187.700
551.200
784.100
0-Q1
24,000
4,300
51.300
0
0
110.400
110.100
300,100
50.100
220.800
Model plant 3 (3,000 tpd)
for outlet PM level" sif
0.03
46.000
8,700
154.000
0
0
204.600
327,300
742.600
95,400
409,200
648.50011.201.600
1
1
919. 400 11, 706, 200
0.02
46.000
8,700
154.000
0
0
236.600
326,900
776.200
105,000
473.200
1,389.500
1,967.700
0.01
46,000
8.700
154,000
0
0
282.100
330,300
823.100
118.700
564.200
I,u56.800
12*339^700
1 1 1 1
1.067.30011,219,50012.448,80012.743,90013,162,800
1 I 1 1
*ln units of gr/dscf at 12 percent CO
QAssumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
-------
TABLE 4-14. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SD/ESP SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW MASS BURNING FACILITIES*
(August 1986 dollars based on 8.000 hrs/yr operation)
ro
VO
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Mater
Chemicals (line)
Maintenance0
Waste disposal
Total Indirect
Indirect Cost
Overhead (60 percent of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, Insurance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total Indirect
Model plant 1 (250
for outlet PM level
1
0.03 1
1
1
1
48,1001
1
8,7001
1
1
1
60,7001
2,4001
1
48,8001
1
82,2001
1
47.3001
1
1
298.2001
1
1
1
1
1
58.7001
1
1
1
164,3001
1
540.1001
1
1
763.1001
1
1
0.02 1
1
1
1
48.1001
1
8.7001
1
1
1
60.7001
2.4001
1
48,8001
1
91,8001
1
47.4001
1
1
307.9001
1
1
1
1
1
61.6001
1
1
1
183.6001
1
603.3001
1
1
848.5001
1
tpd) I
B of I
1
0,01 |
1
1
1
48.1001
1
8.7001
1
1
1
60.7001
2.4001
1
48.8001
1
97,4001
1
47,500!
1
1
313.6001
1
1
1
1
1
63,3001
1
1
1
194.7001
1
640.00011
I
1
898,00011
1
Model plant 2 (1.000 tpd) I Model plant 3 (3.000 tpd)
for outlet PM level of 1 for out lot PM level of
1 1 1 t 1
0.03 1 0.02 I 0.01 1 0.03 1 0.02 1 0.01
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
48,1001 48.1001 48.1001 96.2001 96.2001 96.200
1 1 1 1 1
8,7001 8,7001 8.7001 17,3001 17,3001 17,300
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
199,0001 199.0001 199.0001 575,2001 575,2001 575,300
9.0001 9.0001 9,0001 26,1001 26,1001 26.100
1 1 1 1 1
194,5001 194,5001 194.5001 584,3001 584.3001 584,300
1 1 1 1 1
187,0001 204,9001 216.3001 463,9001 489.8001 532,800
1 1 1 1 1
188,9001 189,5001 169,9001 566,6001 568,2001 569,500
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
835,2001 853,7001 867.50012,329.60012.351.10012.401.500
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
90,2001 95,6001 99,6001 207,3001 215,0001 227,900
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
374,1001 409,8001 436,6001 927.9001 979,50011.065.600
1 1 1 1 1
.229.50011,347.10011,435,20013.049,80013.219,50013.502.600
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
.693.80011.852.50011.971.40014.185.00014.414.00014.796.100
1 1 1 1 1
Total Annual Ued Cost
11.061.30011.156,40011.211.60012.529.00012,706.20012,838,90016,514.60016,771.10017,197,600
I I I I I I I I I
aFor 90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and S0_, respectively.
bln units of gr/dscf at 12 percent CO^.
cAbbunieb 50 percent of maintenance cobt for labor.
-------
TABLE 4-1S. ESTIMATED ANNUAL IZEO OH HATING COSTS FOR SO/FF SYSTtHS
FOR MODEL NEW MASS BURNING FACILITIES*
(August 1986 dollars based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
to
O
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Superv Islon
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (line)
Maintenance0
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect Cost
Overhead (60 percent of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, Insurance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total Indirect
Model plant 1 (250
for outlet F-M level
1
0.03 |
1
1
1
48,1001
1
8.7001
|
1
1
87,5001
2.4001
1
48,8001
1
84.8001
1
47.3001
|
1
327.6001
1
1
1
1
1
59.SOOI
1
1
1
169.7001
1
557.7001
1
1
786.9001
1
Total Annual Ized Cost 11,114.50011
1 1
1
0.02 |
1
1
1
48.1001
1
8,7001
1
1
1
87.5001
2,4001
1
48,8001
1
84,8001
1
47.4001
1
1
327.7001
1
1
1
1
1
59,5001
1
1
1
169,7001
1
557.7001
1
1
786.9001
1
.114.60011.
1
±pd> 1
B of 1
1
Q.Q1 1
1
1
1
48.1001
1
8,7001
1
1
1
87,5001
2,4001
1
46,8001
1
88.4001
1
47.5001
1
1
331.4001
1
1
1
1
1
60,6001
1
1
1
176,8001
1
581,20011
1
1
Model plant 2 (1,000 tpd) I Model plant 3 (3,000 tpd)
for outlet PM level of for outlet PH level of
II II
Q.03 | 0.02 1 0.0]. 0.03 1 0.02 1 Q.01
II II
II II
II II
48,1001 48,1001 48.100 96.2001 96,2001 96.200
II II
8.7001 8,7001 8,700 17,3001 17,3001 17.300
II II
II II
II II
307,5001 307.5001 307.5001 896,1001 896.1001 896,100
9,0001 9.0001 9.0001 26,1001 26.1001 26.100
1 1 1 1 1
194,5001 194,5001 194,5001 584.3001 584,3001 584,300
1 1 1 1 1
178.1001 178.1001 189.3001 433,8001 433,8001 463,900
1 1 1 1 1
188,9001 189.5001 189.9001 566.6001 568,2001 569,500
II II
II II
934.8001 935.4001 947.000 2. 620. 40012.622. 00012. 653,^00
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
8',500I 87.5001 90,900 198,2001 198,2001 207,300
II II
II II
II II
356.2001 356.2001 378,5001 867,6001 867.6001 927.900
1 1 1 1 1
.170.80011,170.80011.244.10012.851,80012,851.80013,049,800
1 II 1 |
1 1 1 1 1
818.60011.614,50011.614,50011.713.50013,917.60013.917.60014.185.000
1
150.00012
1
1 1 1 ' 1 1
.549,30012,549,90012.660.50016.538,00016,539.60016,838,400
1 1 1 1 1
aFor 90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and SO,,, respectively.
bln units of gr/dscf at 12 percent CO,..
BO porxerit of maintenance cost for Idboi.
-------
TABLE 4-16. ESTIMATED ANNUAL IZED OPERATING COSTS FOR ESP SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW MODULAR COMEDSTOR FACILITIES
(August 1986 dollars based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect Cost
Overhead (60% of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, Insurance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total Indirect
Total Annual (zed Cost
Model plant 4 (100 tpd)
for outlet PM lever of
O.Q3
12.000
2,200
4.400
0
o
6.600
400
25.800
10.600
13.600
40.100
64.300
90.100
0.02
12.000
2.200
4,400
0
0
6,900
500
28,000
11.200
17.900
52.500
81.600
109,600
0.01
12,000
2.200
4.400
0
0
9.700
500
28.800
11.400
19.500
57.200
.
88.100
116.900
Model plant 5 (250 tpd)
for oytlet PM level* of
Q.D3
12.000
2,200
11.000
0
0
13.900
1.000
40.100
12.700
27.800
61.600
122.10Q
162.200
0,02
12.000
2.200
11.000
0
0
16,900
1,100
43 .200
13.600
33.800
99,300
146, ;OQ
109,900
o.ox
12.000
2.200
11.000
0
0
18,600
1.300
45.100
14.100
37.200
109,100
160,^00
205.500
Model plant 6 (400 tpd)
for outlet PM level' of
0.03
12.000
2.200
17,500
0
0
20,400
1.600
53.700
14,600
40.800
119.800
175,200
228.900
0-02
12,000
2,200
17,500
0
0
23,900
1,800
57,400
15,700
47.800
140,200
203,700
261,100
0.01
12,000
2.200
17,500
0
0
26,300
2.000
60.0QO
16,400
52.600
154,300
223, 30Q
283.300
In unit-., of gr/dscf at 12 percent C0_.
A^'jumuhj 'jO pt-icunt of maintenance cost for labor.
-------
TABLE 4-17. ESTIMATED ANNUAL UED OPERATING COSTS FOR SO/ESP SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES4
(August 1966 dollars based on 6.000 hrs/yr operation)
U>
ro
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Superv Islon
Utilities:
Electricity
Mater
Chemicals (Hue)
Maintenance0
Waste disposal
Model plant 4 (100 jtpd)
for outlet PM level0 of
0.03
24,000
4.300
27.400
800
17,600
28.500
7,600
0.02
24.000
4.300
27,400
800
17,600
30.300
7,700
0.01
24*000
4.300
27,400
800
17.600
31,300
7,700
Model plant 5 (250 tpd)
for outlet PM level" of
0.03
24.000
4,300
56.900
2.000
44.200
48.400
18.900
0.02
24,000
4.300
56.900
2.000
44.200
50,500
19,100
0.01
24.000
4,300
56,900
2,000
44.200
53.000
19.200
Model plant 6 (400 tpd)
for outlet PM level of
0.03
24.000
4,300
86,500
2.900
70,600
63.000
30.400
0.02
24,000
4,300
66.500
2.900
70,600
69.800
30,600
0.01
24.000
4,300
86,500
2,900
70.600
72.200
30.800
Total direct
Indirect cost
Overhead (60X of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, Insurance, and
general administration
Capital recoverv
Total Indirect
Total Annual (zed Cost
I1KL2QOI
25,500
57.000
187.500
270.000
380.200
112.100
26.100
60,600
199.300
286.000
398.100
113.100
26.400
62.600
205,600
294.600
407.700
198.700
31.500
96,800
318,200
446,500
645.200
201.000
32.100
101.000
332,100
465.200
666.200
203.600
32.900
105,900
348.100
486.900
690.500
281.700
35,900
126,000
414.000
575.900
857.600
208.700
37.900
139.600
458.700
636.200
924.900
291.300
38.600
144.400
474,500
657.500
948.800
*For 90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and S02, respectively.
bln units of gr/dscf at 12 percent C02.
"-Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
-------
-p.
I
CA>
TABLE 4-18. ESTIMATED ANNUAL IZEO OPERATING COSTS FOR SD/FF SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES*
(August 1966 dollars based on 8.000 hrs/yr operation)
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Superv Is Ion
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance0
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indl rect cost
Overhead (6GK of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes. Insurance, and
general administration
Caoltal recovery
Total Indirect
Model
for o>
0.03
24.000
4,300
39,600
800
17.600
39.200
7.600
133.100
28,700
78.400
257,700
364.800
4.9.7,900
plant 4 (
tlet PM 1
0.02
24,000
4,300
39.600
800
17.600
39.200
7,700
133.200
28.700
78.400
257.700
364.800
498.000
00 jtpd)
avel6 of
0.01
24,000
4.300
39,000
800
17.600
40,400
7.700
134.400
29.100
80.800
265.600
375.500
509.900
Model
for ou
0.03
24,000
4,300
87,400
2.000
44,200
63,500
18,900
244.300
36,000
127,000
417.600
580.600
824.900
)lant 5 (250 Jtpd)
let PM level ° of
0.02
24.000
4.300
87.400
2.000
44.200
63.500
19.100
244.500
36.000
127.000
41,7.600
580.600
825.100
0.01
24,000
4.300
87.400
2,000
44.200
65.900
19.200
247.000
36.800
131.800
433 .300
601.900
MB, 900
Model plant 6 (400 jtpd)
for outlet PM level" of
Q.03
24,000
4,300
135,200
2.900
70.600
83,600
30.400
351.000
42.100
167.200
549.400
758.700
0.02
24,000
4,300
135,200
2,900
70,600
83,600
30,600
351.200
42.100
167.200
549,400
758,700
1,109,900
0.01
24.000
4.300
135,200
2,900
70.600
95,600
30.800
363.400
45.700
191.200
628.300
865.200
1.228.600
aFor 90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and S02> respectively.
bln units of gr/dscf at 12 percent C02.
"-Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
-------
TABLE 4-19. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR ESP SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES
(August 1986 dollars based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Item
Direct Costs
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (limestone)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect Costs
Model plant 7
for
outlet PM
0.03
36,
6,
79,
138,
447,
708.
Overhead 67,
Taxes, insurance, and
general administra- 276,
tion
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total Annual ized Costs
812,
1.156.
1,864,
100
500
500
0
0
400
800
300
(l,500tpd) I
level3 of 1
0.02
36,
6,
79,
165,
448,
i 736.
1
000| 75,
1
1
800) 331,
1
700| 974,
50011.381.
100
500
500
0
0
900
700
70Q
0.01
36,
6,
79,
183,
449,
1 755.
1
1
300) 80,
1
1
700' 367,
100)1,079,
100 1.528.
1
1
1
)
1
1
100)
1
500)
1
1
1
500)
0)
1
0)
1
900)
1
600)
I
1
600|
1
1
700|
1
1
700)
1
1
800)
1
200)
1
800|2,117,800|2,283,800|
1
1
1
Model plant 8 (3,000 tpd)
for outlet PM level3 of
0.03
48,
8,
159,
240,
895,
1.351.
106,
480,
1,410,
1.996,
3,348,
1
1
1
1
1
100)
1
700)
1
1
1
000)
0)
1
0)
1
100)
1
800|
I
1
700)1
1
1
100)
1
1
200)
1
1
200)1
1
500)2
1
200)3
1
0.02
48,100
8,700
159,000
0
0
284,900
897,600
.398,300
0.01
48,
8,
159,
317,
899,
1,432.
1
119,600
129,
569,800) 635,
,673,200
1,865,
.362.600 2.630.
1
,760,900)4,062,
100
700
100
• o
0
600
400
900
400
200
400
000
900
*In units of gr/dscf at 12 percent CO,,.
DAssumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
4-34
-------
TABLE 4-20. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SD/ESP SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES4
(August 1986 dollars based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Model pi
ant 7 (l,500ktpd) |
for outlet PM level" of 1
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance0
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect Cost
Overhead (60 percent of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, insurance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total Annual ized Cost
0.03
72,000
13,000
305,900]
13,500|
376,900
288,300
0.02
72,000
13,000
305,900
13,500
1
0.01 1
1
1
1
72,000)
|
13,000)
i
1
305,900)
13,500)
1
376,900) 376,900)
319,400
330,800)
1
599,600) 600,500) 601,400)1
1
1
1,669,20011.701.200 1.713.50013
137,500
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
146,800) 150,200)
1 1
1 1
1 1
576,500) 683,900) 661,600)1
i i t
1,894,900
2.608.900
2,099,900)2,174,400)3
1 1
1 I
2.930.60012.986.20014
1 1
4,278,100)4,631,800)4,699,700(7
1 1
Model plant 8 (3,000. tpd)
for outlet PM level0 of
0.03
96,200
17,300
596,500
27,700
0.02
96,200
17,300
596,500
27,700
753,300) 753,300
518,300
,199,200
548,500
1,201,000
.208.50013.240,500
0.01
96,200
17,300
596,500
27,700
753,300
561,400
1,202,800
3,255,200
223,600 232,700) 236,500
,036,700
,407,400
1
11,096,900)1,122,800
13,605,400)3,690,300
1
1
.667.70014.935.00015.049,600
1
,876,200)8,175,500)8,304,800
aFor 90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and S02, respectively.
In units of gr/dscf at 12 percent CO-.
cAssumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
4-35
-------
TABLE 4-21. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SD/FF SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES3
(August 1986 dollars based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
p
Maintenance
Waste disposal
- — — — - -
Total direct
Indirect Cost
Overhead (60 percent of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, insurance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total Annual i zed Cost
Model plant 7 (l,500Ktpd)
for outlet PM level0 of
0.03 0.02
72,000
13,000
471,600
13,500
376,900
263,400
599,600
1.810.000
130,000
526,800
1,731,500
2.388.300
4,198,300
72,000
13,000
471,600
13,500
376,900
263,400
600,500
1.810,900
130,000
526,800
1,731,500
2.388.300
4,199,200
0.01
72,000
13,000
471,600
13,500
376,900
279,800
601,400
1.828.200
134,900
559,600
1,839,200
2.533.700
4,361,900
Model plant 8 (3,000,tpd)
for outlet PM level D of
0.03
96,200
17,300
927,900
27,700
753,300
440,800
1,199,200
3,462.400
200,300
881,700
2,897,900
3,979.900
7,442,300
0.02
96,200
17,300
927,900
27,700
753,300
440,800
1,201,000
3,464.200
200,300
881,700
2,897,900
3.979.900
7,444,100
0.01
96,200
17,300
927,000
27,700
753,300
462,400
1,202,800
3,466,000
206,800
924,800
3,039,500
4.171,100
| 7,637,100
aFor 90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and SO-, respectively.
In units of gr/dscf at 12 percent C02>
"Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
4-36
-------
TABLE "4-22. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZEO OPERATING COSTS FOR ESP SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW FLUID BED COMBUSTION FACILITIES
(August 1986 dollars based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (limestone)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect Cost
Overhead (60 percent of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, insurance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total Annual i zed Cost
Model plant 9 (250 tpd)
for outlet PM level3 of
0.03
24,000
4,300
11,300
0
0
35,100
110,300
185,000
27,500
70,200
206,300
304,000
489,000
0.02
24,000
4,300
11,300
0
0
44,100
110,400
194.100
30,200
88,200
258,900
377.300
571,400
0.01
24,000
4,300
11,300
o
o
45,400
110,700
195.700
Model plant 10 (500 tpd)
for outlet PM level3 of
0.03
24,000
4,300
22,700
0
0
55,200
220,800
327.000
30,600 33,500
90,800 110,500
266,600
388.000
324,400
I 468.400
583,700 | 795,400
1
0.02
24,000
4,300
22,700
0
0
68,200
221,000
340.200
37,400
136,400
400,500
574.300
I 914,500
1
0.01
24,000
4,300
22,700
0
0
71,800
221,400
344,200
38,500
143,600
421,600
603.700
947,900
aln units of gr/dscf at 12 percent C02-
Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
4-37
-------
TABLE 4-23.
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR FF SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL NEW FLUID BED COMBUSTION FACILITIES
(August 1986 dollars based on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
Item
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (limestone)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect Cost
Overhead (60 percent of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, insurance, and
general administra-
tion
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total Annual ized Cost
Model plant 9 (250 tpd)
for outlet PM lever of
0.03
24,000
4,300
36,200
0
0
19,900
110,300
194.700
23,000
39,800
117,000
0.02
24,000
4,300
36,200
0
0
19,900
110,400
194.800
23,000
39,800
117,000
179.800 179.800
374,500
374,600
0.01
24,000
4,300
36,200
0
0
19,900
110,700
195.100
23,000
39,800
117,000
179.800
374,900
Model plant 10 (500 tpd)
for outlet PM level3 of
0.03
24,000
4,300
72,500
0
o
33,800
220,800
355.400
27,500
67,600
198,500
293.600
649,000
0.02
24,000
4,300
72,500
0
0
33,800
221,000
355.600
27,500
67,600
| 198,500
293.600
I 649,200
0.01
24,000
4,300
72,500
0
0
33,800
221,400
356,000
27,500
67,600
198,500
293,600
649,600
3In units of gr/dscf at 12 percent CO-.
^Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
4-38
-------
The waste disposal cost is the ^ajor direct operating cost of the
emission control systems for the new MWC model plants. The contribution of
waste disposal costs to the total direct operating cost is proportional to
the quantity of waste disposed. For the purpose of this report, waste
disposal costs were conservatively estimated to be $15/ton. Nevertheless,
they represent from 15 to 45 percent of the total direct operating cost for
new MB facilities. Waste disposal costs for RDF and FBC facilities range
from 50 to 70 percent of the direct operating cost of the emission control
system. The waste disposal cost for MOD facilities is insignificant due to
the small quantity of solid waste generated. However, with the addition of
a SO, the waste disposal costs for MOD model facilities can be expected to
increase to as much as 10 percent of the total direct operating cost.
Due to the variability of waste disposal costs across the country, one
could reasonably assume the cost of waste disposal to range as high as $30
to $50 per ton. If this were the case, the waste disposal cost for MB
facilities would be 30 to 70 percent of the total direct operating cost of
the emission control system. For RDF and FBC facilities, the waste disposal
cost would represent 60 to 90 percent of the direct operating costs. If
disposal of flyash in a hazardous waste landfill becomes appropriate, owing
to the fact that flyash exhibits characteristics of hazardous waste as
indicated by the EP toxicity test, and assuming waste disposal would,
therefore, cost $150 per ton, the cost of waste disposal for emission
control systems for MWC's would be as high as 80 to 95 percent of the total
direct operating cost.
-------
5. FURTHER COST ANALYSES
Further cost analyses were performed by developing cost estimates based
on the new MWC model plant control system annualized operating cost data
from Tables 4-9 through 4-12, and the data on flyash (PM) collected from the
emission control systems which are presented in Table 5-1. Tables 5-2
through 5-5 present summaries of the annualized operating cost estimates in
terms of dollars per ton of waste burned and dollars per ton of flyash
collected from the emission control systems for new MB, MOD, RDF, and FBC
model plants.
The cost data presented in Tables 5-2 through 5-5 indicate that the
annualized operating cost for controlling MWC emissions to the specified
outlet levels is approximately $4 to $9 per ton of refuse burned,
respectively, for new MB and RDF model facilities. For MOD model plants,
the corresponding costs are $5 and $10 per ton of refuse burned. For FBC
models, the cost of controlling PM emissions is $5 per ton of refuse burned.
In general, the annualized operating cost per ton of refuse burned for the
emission control systems for new MWC model plants decreases as facility size
increases. The additional cost for controlling acid gas and PM emissions,
as compared to controlling PM emissions alone, also decreases with
increasing facility size.
The unit cost data in terms of $/ton of PM collected can be used to
analyze the annualized operating cost of PM controls, but are misleading
when comparing the costs of add gas/PM and PM controls due to the fact that
a major portion of partlculate matter collected by acid gas/PM control
systems is generated as a result of the introduction of alkali feed in the
spray dryer equipment. The additional solids in the flue gas of acid gas/PM
emission control systems were not considered when calculating the data
presented in Tables 5-2 through 5-5.
The cost data were also analyzed to obtain an indication of the
annualized operating costs of installing and operating an acid gas removal
control system in terms of dollars per unit of acid gas removed. Table 5-6
presents cost estimates in terms of $/lb of acid gas removed for the SD/FF
and SO/ESP control systems. The quantity of acid gas removed includes both
HC1 and SO,.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF FLYASH COLLECTED FROM THE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR THE NEW MWC MODEL PLANTS, tpy
Model plant
and capacity
PM controls
No. 1 ( 250 tpd MB)
No. 2 (1,000 tpd MB)
No. 3 (3,000 tpd MB)
No. 4 ( 100 tpd MOD)
No. 5 ( 250 tpd MOD)
No. 6 ( 400 tpd MOD)
No. 7 (1,500 tpd RDF)
No. 8 (3,000 tpd RDF)
No. 9 ( 250 tpd FBC)
No. 10 ( 500 tpd FBC)
PM collected
0.03 gr/dscf
1,814
7,273
21,818
26
67
108
29,856
59,720
7,354
14,717
tons/yr for outlet
0.02 gr/dscf
1,824
7,310
21,929
30
75
121
29,916
59,840
7,362
14,732
loading of
0.01 gr/dscf
1,831
7,339
22,017
33
84
135
29,976
59,960.
7,377
14,761
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM ANNUALIZED OPERATING
COST ESTIMATES FOR MODEL NEW MASS BURNING FACILITIES
Controlled PM
emission level
ESP
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF
0.03
0.02
0.01
No. 1 (2!
$/ton of
waste
burned
4.44
5.32
5.99
12.73
13.87
14.54
13.38
13.38
13.80
50 tpd MB)
$/ton of
PM
collected
204
242
272
584
632
660
613
610
627
Model
No. 2 (1,C
$/ton of
waste
burned
2.76
3.20
3.66
7.59
8.12
8.52
7.65
7.65
7.98
plants
)00 tpd MB)
$/ton of
PM
collected
127
146
166
348
370
387
351
349
363
No. 3 (3,(
$/ton of
waste
burned
2.45
2.74
3.16
6.52
6.77
7.20
6.54
6.54
6.84
)00 tpd MB)
$/ton of
PM
collected
112
125
144
299
309
327
300
298
311
*At 12 percent C02<
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-3. SUMMARY OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM ANNUALIZED OPERATING COST ESTIMATES
FOR MODEL NEW MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
Controlled PM
emission level
ESP
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF
0.03
0.02
0.01
No. 4 (100
$/ton of
waste
burned
2.70
3.30
3.51
11.40
11.94
12.24
14.94
14.94
15.30
tpd MOD)
$/ton of
PM
collected
3,462
3,667
3,545
14,615
13,267
12,364
19,154
16,600
15,455
Model
No. 5 (250
$/ton of
waste
burned
1.94
2.28
2.47
7.74
7.99
8.29
9.90
9.90
10.19
plants
tpd MOD)
$/ton of
PM
collected
2,418
2,533
2,452
9,627
8,880
8,226
12,313
11,000
10,107
No. 6 (40(
$/ton of
waste
burned
1.72
1.96
2.12
6.44
6.94
7.12
8.33
8.33
9.22
) tpd MOD)
$/ton of
PM
collecte
2,120
2,157
2,096
7,944
7,645
7,030
10,278
9,174
9,104
JAt 12 percent CO-.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-4. SUMMARY OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM ANNUALIZED OPERATING COST
' ESTIMATES FOR MODEL NEW REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES
a
PM emission level
after control
ESP
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/ESP
0.03
0.02
0.01
SD/FF
0.03
0.02
0.01
No. 7 (1,5(
$/ton of
waste
burned
3.73
4.24
4.57
8.56
9.26
9.40
8.40
8.40
8.72
Model f
)0 tpd RDF)
$/ton of
PM
collected
62
71
76
143
155
157
141
140
146
)lants
No. 8 (3,0(
$/ton of
waste
burned
3.35
3.76
4.06
7.88
8.18
8.31
7.44
7.44
7.64
)0 tpd RDF)
$/ton of
PM
collected
56
63
68
132
137
139
125
124
128
aAt 12 percent C02.
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-5. SUMMARY OF PM CONTROL SYSTEM ANNUALIZED OPERATING ESTIMATES
FOR MODEL NEW FLUID BED COMBUSTION FACILITIES
a
PM emission level
after control
ESP
0.03
0.02
0.01
FF
0.03
0.02
0.01
No. 9 (25C
$/ton
waste
burned
5.87
6.85
7.01
4.50
4.50
4.50
Model [
) tpd FBC)
$/ton
PM
collected
66
78
79
51
51
51
ilants
No. 10 (5C
$/ton
waste
burned
4.77
5.49
5.69
3.89
3.89
3.90
)0 tpd FBC)
$/ton
PM
collected
54
62
64.
44
44
44
aAt 12 percent C02,
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-6. SUMMARY OF ACID GAS REMOVAL ANNUALIZED OPERATING
COST ESTIMATES FOR MODEL NEW MASS BURNING, MODULAR
COMBUSTOR, AND REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES
Model facility
No. 1 (250 tdp MB) SD/ESP
SD/FF
No. 2 (1,000 tpd MB) SD/ESP
SD/FF
No. 3 (3,000 tpd MB) SD/ESP
SD/FF
No. 4 (100 tpd MOD) SD/ESP
SD/FF
No. 5 (250 tpd MOD) SD/ESP
SD/FF
No. 6 (400 tpd MOD) SD/ESP
SD/FF
No. 7 (1,500 tpd RDF) SD/ESP
SD/FF
No. 8 , ,000 tpd RDF) SD/ESP
SD/FF
Acid gas removed,3
tpy
435
1,734
5,194
157
392
627
3,208
6,400
Cost effectiveness3'5
$yib of acid gas removed
0.03
1.22
1.28
.73
.73
.63
.63
1.21
1.59
.82
1.05
.68
.89
.67
.65
.61
.58
0.02
1.33
1.28
.78
.72
.65
.63
1.27
1.59
.85
1.05
.74
.89
.72
.66
.64
.58
0.01
1.39
1.32
.8Z
.77
.69
.66
1.30
1.62
.88
1.08
.76
.98
.72
.68
.65
.60
*The values indicated apply to HC1 and SO. for Model plants 1 through 8.
3The values are listed according to the outlet PM emission level (gr/dscf
corrected to 12 percent C02).
5-7
-------
.-. RETROFIT COSTS
Retrofit costs for air pollution control equipment for existing
municipal waste combustors are presented in this section. The same method-
ology and design and cost premises were employed for estimating retrofit
costs for existing facilities as were used to determine costs for emission
control systems for new MWC facilities. Model plants were developed which
were intended to be representative of the existing population of MWC's with
regard to design capacity and technology. Retrofit factors were determined
based on vendor contacts and previous retrofit studies within EPA with flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) systems in the utility industry. The capital and
annualized operating retrofit cost estimates were intended to bound the
potential retrofit costs which would be expected for the existing MWC
population. More detailed retrofit cost studies than presented in this
section are currently underway.
6.1 MODEL PLANTS
Sixteen model plants were selected to represent the existing population
of MWC's with regard to design capacity and technology. Six of the model
plants were refractory, non-heat recovering facilities of which five were
mass burning (MB) units and one was a modular combustor (MOD) facility. The
remaining ten model plants were waterwall, heat-recovering units which
included four MB units, three MOD facilities, and three RDF facilities. The
primary design parameters and calculated flue gas quantities and composi-
tions for each refractory and waterwall model plant are listed in Tables 6-1
and 6-2, respectively.
6.2 CONTROL SYSTEMS
The emission control systems which were costed for the model existing
facilities were designed to provide PM control only, or both acid gas and PM
control. For the MB and RDF model existing facilities, the control systems
evaluated included a spray dryer (SO) system retrofit to those facilities
with a high-efficiency ESP currently in place, and a SD/FF system retrofit
to facilities which have a wet scrubber or low-efficiency ESP currently in
6-1
-------
TABU 6-1. REFRACTORY MOGCl Fl AN! SFICI FICAT IONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOS It ION DATA
Ot
i
r\>
| Model plants*
lt«« I No. 1 1 No. ? | No. 3 1 No. 4 1 No. 5 I No. 6
| (MB) | (MB) | (MB) | (MB) | (MB) | (MOO)
fitlllty SmtUlt.it lao
No. of coabustors per Model
Total dally charge rate, tpd
Hourly charge rat* at 1001
utll nation. Ib/hr
Ash content of feed waste, I
Excess contusion air. S of
theoretical
PM Mission factor, S of feed
•aste ash
Acid gas emission factor:
HCI. pp» dry
S02, p|« dry
Flue gas data pair t tatty tt Of
Volume flo» rate:
dscfa
scfei
act*
Outlet Temperature, °FC
PM Emissions:
gr/dtcf
gr/scf
gr/acf
gr/dscf at 121 CO.
gr/dscf at 71 0,
Ib/hr '
tons/yr at 6SOO hrs/yr
Acid Gas Cailsslons:
HCI. Ib/hr
tons/yr at 6SOO hrs/yr
SO,. Ib/hr
tons/yr at 6500 hrs/yr
2
200
16.667
22.12
80
10
500
17S
11.489
13.263
22.772
450
1.07
1.62
0.94
2.16
2.26
184
598
33
107
20
65 1
3
450
37.SOO
22.12
80
.0
500
175
17,234
19.895
34.159
450
1.87
1.62
0.94
2.16
2.26
277
970
49
159
30
98 ,
2
600
50,000
22.12
80
10
500
175
34,468
39,789
68.317
450
1.87
1.62
0.94
2.16
2.26
553
1.936
98
319
60
* I
2
750
62.500
22.12
80
10
500
175
43 .085
49,737
85,397
450
1.87
1.62
0.94
2.16
2.26
691
2,419
122
397
75
244 |
3
1.200
100.000
22.12
80
10
500
175
45,958
53 ,052
91.090
450
1.87
1.62
0.94
2.16
2.26
400
1,400
131
426
80
260 ,
1
100
8.333
22.18
50
0.5
500
211
4,776
5.663
9,723
450
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.11
4.6
16
14
49
10
35
*MB - Mass burning and MOD - Modular.
Calculated (except «h«r« Indicated) based on the facility specifications In this table and the feed «aste composition data fro* Table 2-2.
cAssuMd.
-------
TABLE 6-2. WATEWALL MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
0>
i
(*>
— - — , . _ — . ,
lt«m
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model
Total dally charge rate, tpd
Hourly charge rate at 100*
utilization. Ib/hr
Ash content of feed waste* %
Excess coMbuslon air, I of
theoretical
PM mission factor* % of feed
waste ash
Acid gas emission factor:
HC1. ppm dry
S0?. ppm dry
Flue gas data pep COMbUStor
Volume flow rate:
dscfm
scfm
acfm
Outlet Temperature. °FC
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
gr/scf
gr/«cf
gr/dscf at 12* CO
gr/dscf at 7* o
Ib/hr
tons/yr at 6500 hrs/yr
Acid Gas Emissions:
HCI. Ib/hr
tons/yr at 6500 hrs/yr
SO . Ib/hr
Tons/yr at 6500 hrs/yr
1
No. 1
(MB)
2
200
16.667
22.12
80
10
500
175
11.489
13.263
20.270
350
1.67
1.62
1.06
2.16
2.26
184
598
33
107
20
65
No. 2
(MB)
2
400
33.333
22.12
80
10
500
175
22.987
26.526
40.540
350
1.87
1.62
1.06
2.16
2.26
369
1,199
65
211
40
130
1 No. 3
| (MB,
4
1,000
83.333
22.12
80
10
500
175
28,723
33.158
50.675
350
1.87
1.62
1.06
2.16
2.26
461
1.498
82
267
50
163
>
No. 4
<*3>
3
2.200
183.333
22.12
80
10
500
175
84,217
97.218
148.579
350
1.87
1.62
1.06
2.16
2.26
1.351
4.391
239
777
147
478
»odel plants'
No. 5
(MOO)
2
100
8.333
22.18
50
0.5
500
211
4.776
5.663
8,654
350
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.11
5
16
14
46
10
33
No. 6
(MOD)
4
200
16.667
22.18
50
0.5
500
211
4,776
5,663
8,654
350
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.11
5
16
14
46
10
33
No. 7
(MOD)
4
300
25,000
22.18
50
0.5
500
211
7,164
8.494
12.982
350
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.11
7
23
21
68
15 1
49 ,
No. 8
(RFD)
4
1.000
83.333
7.51
50
80
500
286
29,352
34.245
52,337
350
4.98
4.26
2.79
4.63
4.99
1,252
4.069
83
270
83 1
270
No. 9
(RFD)
2
2.200
183,333
7.51
50
80
500
286
129,148
150.679
230.283
350
4.98
4.26
2.79
4.63
4.99
5,507
17.898
367
1.193
367
1.193
No. 10
IHFD)
4
3,000
250,000
7.51
50
80
500
286
88,055
102.736
157,011
350
4.98
4.26
2.79
4.63
4.99
3,755
12.204
250
an
?50
81)
*MB - Mass burning , MOD - Modular, and RDF -
Calculated (except where Indicated) based on
cAssumed.
refuse-derived fuel.
the facility specifications In this table and the feed waste composition data from Table
2-2.
-------
place. The majority of the existing MOD facilities are uncontrolled.
Therefore, ESP's and SD/ESP's were evaluated for PM and acid gas/PM control,
respectively, for the model MOD existing facilities.
The design parameters for the emission control systems for the model
existing MWC facilities are identical to those discussed for the new MWC
model facilities. The emission control systems were designed to achieve a
PM emission level of 0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent COg, and 90 and
70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO-, respectively. One control unit was
assumed for each model MOD existing facility and for each combustion unit in
each MB and RDF model existing facility.
6.3 CONTROL SYSTEM COST EVALUATIONS
This section presents estimates for the capital and annualized
operating retrofit costs to control PM and acid gas/PM emissions from the
existing MWC model plants to the specified levels. Each unit in a control
system was designed to accommodate 125 percent of the actual flue gas flow
rate to account for fluctuations in gas flow due to variations in feed waste
composition or operating conditions.
(a) Methodology for Estimating Capital Costs - Capital costs for the
emission control systems were calculated by estimating retrofit factors
which would provide an upper and lower bound to the costs for retrofitting
an existing MWC facility. The retrofit factor for a dry scrubber, applied
to existing MB or RDF model facilities, and an ESP, applied to existing MOD
facilities, was assumed to be 1.4 based on vendor contacts. The retrofit
factor for SD/ESP and SD/FF systems was assumed to be 1.8 based on the upper
limit for retrofit factors observed for flue gas desulfurization systems in
the utility industry.
The capital cost for one unit in each control system was estimated
based on the vendor data presented in Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-7.
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 present capital cost estimates for an ESP for the
control of PM emissions from MB and MOD facilities, respectively. Capital
cost estimates of SD/ESP's for the control of acid gas/PM emissions from MB
and MOD facilities are presented in Figures 4-4 and 4-5, respectively.
SD/FF capital cost estimates are presented in Figure 4-7. The capital cost
for SD units for the model existing MB and RDF facilities were estimated to
6-4
-------
be the difference between the capital costs of a SD/ESP for MB facilities,
obtained from Figure 4-4, and the cost of an ESP for the same MB facility,
obtained from Figure 4-1.
As previously stated, one control unit was assumed for each model MOD
existing facility and for each combustion unit in each MB and RDF model
existing facility. Where multi-unit control systems were required, the
capital cost for one unit of each system (CD) was incorporated into the
expression presented in Section 4 for calculating the total cost of the main
equipment for the entire system:
Cj - Cu x (0.1375 + 0.8625 N)
where C, « Capital cost of main equipment in the control system.
C - Cost of one unit of the control system.
N - Number of units in a control system.
In addition to the costs for the main equipment, the capital cost
estimates also included the ductwork cost. The length of ductwork required
for each emission control system, from boiler outlet to stack inlet, was
assumed to be double the length that was discussed in Section 4. Fan and
stack costs were not considered. The total capital cost for each control
system for the model existing MWC facilities was calculated by adding the
cost for each control system and the ductwork cost as follows:
CS - [Rf x Cj] + C2
where CS - Total capital cost of the control system.
C, - Capital cost of main equipment.
C2 - Capital cost of ductwork.
Rf - Retrofit factor (i.e., 1.4 for SO and ESP control systems;
1.8 for SD/ESP and SD/FF control systems).
(b) Capital Cost Estimates - Tables 6-1 through 6-5 present the
capital cost estimates for the PM and acid gas/PM control systems for the
MB, MOD, and RDF model existing facilities, respectively. Based on these
estimates, one can expect the capital cost of a retrofit acid gas/PM control
to be nearly twice the cost of a SO alone for MB and RDF model existing
facilities. For the MOD model existing facilities, a SD/ESP system applied
to an uncontrolled facility will be as much as five times more costly than
for an ESP for PM control only.
6-5
-------
(c) Annualized Operating Cost Estimates - The annualized operating
costs of emission control systems for model existing MWC facilities were
calculated using the cost bases listed in Table 4-8 and are presented in
Tables 6-6 through 6-10 based on 6,500 hours of annual operation.
Tables 6-11 through 6-22 present detailed breakdowns of these estimates.
6-9
-------
TABU 6-3. SUMMARY Of ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING REFRACTORY MASS BURNING FACILITIES
(SI.OOOs In August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
SD Systen
SO/FF System
Model plant 1
(200 tod)
6.335
Model plant 2
(450 tpd)
HA»
11.346
Model plant 3
(600 tod)
6,005
11.062
Model plant 4
(750 tod)
6.879
12.728
.-- - 1
Model plant 5
(1.200 tod)
10.325
18.745
'Current controls consist of only a vet scrubber or loo-efficiency ESP.
-------
TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL
EXISTING REFRACTORY MODULAR COMBUSTOR
FACILITIES ($l,OOOs In August 1986
based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control | Model plant 6
Device I (100 tpd)
I
ESP System | 526
I
SD/ESP System I 2.819
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-5. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS Of EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING HATERXAUL MASS BIHNING FACILITIES
(Sl.OOOs in August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Dev Ice
SO System
SD/FF System
1 Model plant 1 !
1 (200 tod) 1
I 1
I 3,063 1
1 1
1 1
1 5.997 1
1 !
Model plant 2
(400 tod)
4,544
8.539
Model plant 3
(1.000 tod)
9.901
18.690
Model plant 4
(2.200 tod)
14.353
25.307
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-6. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING WATERWALL MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
ESP System
SD/ESP System
Model plant 5 |
Q 00 tpd) |
i
487 |
I
2,551 |
1
Model plant 6
(200 tpd)
783
3,853
Model plant 7
HOO tpd)
999
4,865
-------
TABLE 6-7. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
SD System
SD/FF Systen
| Model plant 8 |
| (1.000 tpd) 1
1 1
| 10,202 |
1 1
| 19,189 |
Model plant 9
(2.200 tod)
12,926
22,090
| Model plant 10
| (3.000 tod)
1
| 19,492
1
| 34,058
|
cr>
-------
TABLE 6-8. SUMMARY * ESTIMATED ANNUAL UED OPERATING COSTS Of EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING REFRACTORY MASS BURNING FACILITIES
(i1,000s In August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
SO Syste*
SO/FF System
Model plant 1
(2OO tpd)
MA*
1.478
Model plant 2
(450 tpd)
NAa
2.686
,
Model plant 3
(600 tpd)
1.669
2.692
Model plant 4
(750 tod)
1.941
3.124
1
Model plant S
(1.200 tpd)
2,884
4.597
'Current controls consist of only • *et scrubber or low-efficiency ESP.
-------
TABLE 6-9. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING REFRACTORY MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
($1,000s in August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control Device
o>
i
*—•
I**
ESP System
SD/ESP System
Model Plant 6
(100 tpd)
123
645
-------
TABLE 6-10. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING UATERUALL MASS BURNING FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
SD System
SD/FF System
Model plant 1
(200 tod)
810
1,399
Model plant 2
(400 tpd)
1,222
2,030
Model plant 3
(1. 000 tpd)
2,724
4,506
| Model plant 4
| (2.200 tod)
1
I 4.278
1
1
I 6.543
1
-------
TABLE 6-11. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING WATERWALL MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
($l,OOOs in August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
ESP System
SD/ESP System
Model plant 5
QOO tpd)
115
587
Model plant 6
(200 tpd)
177
884
Model plant 7
OOO tod)
224
1,124
-------
TABLE 6-12. SUKMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR MODEL EXISTING REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES
($1,000s in August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
SD System
SD/FF System
Model plant 8
a. 000 tpdi
3.067
4,876
Model plant 9
(2.200 tpd)
4,574
6,458
| Model plant 10
| n.OOO tpd)
1
1 6.350
I
1
1
1 9,558
|
en
-------
TABLE 6-13. ESTIMATED ANNUAUZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SO SYSTEMS FOR MODEL EXISTING REFRACTORY MASS BURNING FACILITIES*
(August 1966 dollars based on 6.500 hrs/yr operation)
cn
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance**
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect cost
Overhead (60K of
operating labor and
Maintenance labor)
Taxes. Insurance, and
general administration
Caoital recovery
Total Indirect
let a] Annual ued Cost
Model plant 1
(200 tpd)
b
Model plant 2
(450 tfd)
b
'
•
..
Model plant 3
(6.0Q tpd)
39.100
7,000
188.300
10.600
94,700
120,100
115.400
.
575.200
63,700
240.200
789.500
1.093.400
1,6601600
Model plant 4
(750 tpd)
39,100
7,000
232,300
13,300
118,700
165,100
144.200
719.700
77.200
330.200
1.085.300
1..248.50Q
2.212.400
Model plant 5
(1.200 ted)
1.200
10,500
3/0,359
20,900
189.800
206,500
153,900
1.010.500
103.400
413.000
1.357.500
1.873.900
2, 684., 4.00
*0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent «)„ and 90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and S02, respectively.
bCurrent controls consist of only a wet scrubber or low-efficiency ESP.
cAssunies 50 percent of Maintenance cost for labor.
-------
TAI«IE 6-H. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SD/FF SYSTEMS FOR MOOEl EXISTING REFRACTORY MASS BURNING FALIUIUS*
(August 1986 dollars based on 6,SOO hrs/yr operation)
O>
Direct Cost
Operating tabor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Ha tntenance
Maste disposal
Total direct
Indl rect cost
Overhead (60* of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes t Insurance, and
general administration
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total tonuiiiied Cost
Model plant 1
(200 tpd)
39.100
7.000
79.500
3.300
31,500
126.700
36,500
325.600
65.700
253.400
832.900
1.152.000
1.477.600
Model plant 2
(450 tpdl
58,600
10.500
169,400
8.000
71,300
226,900
86.600
631.300
109,500
453.800
1.491.700
L 2.055.000
2.606.300
Model plant 3
($00 t(>d>
39.100
7,000
213.400
10.600
94.700
221.200
115,400
701,400
94,000
442,500
1,454.400
1.990.900
2,692,300
Model plant 4
(750 tod)
39. 100
7.000
263.600
13.300
118.700
254,600
144.200
837.500
104,000
509,100
1,673,400
2.2fl6.500
3.124.000
Model plant 5
(1.200 tod)
58.600
10,500
420.600
20.900
189.800
374.900
153.900
_ _ . _ _ . — ._ . —
1.229.200
153.900
749.800
2.464,500
3,368,200
4., 597, 4.00
a0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO- and 90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO,,, respectively.
Assumes SO percent of maintenance cost for labor.
-------
TABLE 6-15. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS
FOR ESP SYSTEMS FOR MODEL EXISTING
REFRACTORY MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES3
(August 1986 dollars based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect cost
Overhead (60% of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, insurance, and
general administration
Caoltal recovery
Total indirect
Total Annual i zed Cost
Model plant 6
(100 tod)
9,800
1,800
7,600
0
0
10,500
500
30.200
10,100
21,000
61.800
92.900
123.100
a0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent C02
Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost
for labor.
6-19
-------
TABLE 6-16. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS
FOR SD/ESP SYSTEMS FOR MODEL EXISTING,
REFRACTORY MODULAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES*
(August 1986 dollars based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance
4aste disposal
Total direct
Model plant 6
(100 tod)
19,500
3,500
27,600
1,700
14,300
56,400
7,700
130.700
Indirect cost
Overhead (60% of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, insurance, and
general administration
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total Annualized Cost
30,700
112,900
370.600
514.100
644.800
0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO-
and 90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1
and SO-, respectively.
Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost
for labor.
6-20
-------
TABLE 6-17. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZEO OPERATING COSTS FOR SO SYSTEMS FOR MODEL EXISTING WATERFALL
MASS BURNING FACILITIES (August 1986 dollars based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
CTi
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utl) (ties:
Electricity
Mater
Chemicals (lime)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Tptal direct
lnd)rect cost
Overhead (60S of
operating labor and
Maintenance labor)
Taxes, insurance, and
general administration
Capital recovery
Tota.1 indirect
Total Annual Ized Cost
Model plant 1
(200 tpd)
39.100
7.000
60,400
1.300
31.500
61.300
38.500
239.100
46,100
122,500
402.700
571.300
810.400
Model plant 2
(400 tpd)
39,100
7,000
108.400
2,700
63 .300
90.900
76,900
386,300
54,900
1 01.600
597.400
834400
1.222.400
Model plant 3
(1,00.0 t£4)
76.100
14.100
264,600
6.600
156.000
198.000
192,400
912,000
114,720
396.000
1.3QJ.70Q
1.612.400
2,7.2.4 ,4.00.
Model plant 4
(2.200 tpd)
58,600
10.500
546.300
15.900
348.000
287.100
423.200
1.689.600
127,600
574.100
1,007,000
2.588.700
4.278,300
a0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent 00? and 90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and S02> respectively.
Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost (or labor.
-------
TABLE 6-16. ESTIMATED ANNUAL I ZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SD/FF SYSTEMS FOR MODEL EXISTING HATEFHALL
MASS BURNING FACILITIES* (August 1986 dollars based on 6.500 hrs/yr operation)
cn
ro
IV)
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Superv tslon
Utilities.:
Electricity
Mater
Chenicals (1 l*e)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Indirect cost
Overhead (60* of
operating labor and
Maintenance labor)
Taxes, Insurance, and
general administration
Capital recovery
Total indirect
Total Annual lz«d Cost
Model plant 1
(200 tpd)
39,100
7,000
69.600
1.300
31,500
119.900
38,500
306.900
63.600
239,900
788.500
1.092.000
1.398.900
Model plant 2
(400 tpd)
39,100
7,000
126,600
2,700
63 ,300
170.600
76,900
486.600
76,900
341,600
L, 122. 600
1.^43.100
2.029.700
Model plant 3
(1,000 tpd)
76,100
14,100
310.700
6.600
158,000
373.800
192,400
1,133.70Q
167 ,500
747,600
2.457,200
3.372,300
4.506.000
Model plant 4
(2.200 tpd)
56,600
10.500
647,400
15.900
346.000
506,100
423,200
- -
2.009.70P
193,300
1.012,300
3.327.200
4.532,600
6.542,500
*0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO- and 90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO-, respectively.
Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
-------
TABLE 6-19. ESTIMATED ANNUAL IZEO OPERATING COSTS FOR ESP SYSTEMS FOR
MODEL EXISTING WATER* AU MODULAR COMBJSTOR FACILITIES
(August 1986 dollars based on 6.500 hrs/yr operation)
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Chenlcals (lime)
Ma Intenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Ind1 rect cost
Overhead (601 of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, Insurance! and
general administration
Caoltal recovery
Total Indirect
Total Annual 1 zed Cost
Model plant 5
UQO tod)
9,800
1.800
6,800
0
0
9,700
500
28.600
10,000
19.500
57.200
86.700
115.300
Model plant 6
(200 tnd) J
9,800
1,800
13.500
0
0
15.700
900
41.700
11,700
31.300
92.000
135 .000
176.700
Model plant 7
(300 tod)
9,800
1,800
20,300
0
0
20.000
1.400
53.300
13.000
40.000
117.300
170.300
223.600
*0.02 gr/dicf corrected to 12 percent CO-.
bAssunes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
6-23
-------
TABLE 6-20. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SO/ESP SYSTEMS FOR
MODEL EXISTING WATERWAU MOOILAR COMBUSTOR FACILITIES'
(August 1986 dollars based on 6.500 hrs/yr operation)
Plrecfc Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Mater
Ch«m1ca1s (lime)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total direct
Ind1 rert SBSt
Overhead (60S of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes. Insurance, and
general administration
Caoltal recovery
Total Indirect
Total Annual! zed Cost
Model plant S
(100 tod)
19.500
3,500
23.600
700
14.300
51,000
7,700
120.300
29,100
102.000
335.400
446.500
586.800
Model plant 4
(200 tod)
19.500
3.500
40,900
1.300
28.800
77.100
15,500
186.600
36.900
154.100
506.600
697.600
084.200
Model plant 7
(300 tDd)
19,500
3.500
58.300
2.000
43,100
97,300
23,300
247.000
43.000
194.600
1
1 639.600
1
1 877.200
1
! 1.124.200
*0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent C0_ and 90 and 70 percent reduction of
HC1 and SO,, respectively.
Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
6-24
-------
TAPLE 6-21. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SO SYSTEMS FOR MODEL
EXISTING WATERWAU REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL BURNING FACILITIES*
(August 1986 dollars based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
01 pact Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Che»1cals (line)
Maintenance
Waste disposal
Total d1 rect
Ind1 reel cost
Overhead (601 of
operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxesi Insurance, and
general administration
Caoltal recovery
Total Indirect
Model plant 8
! 1,000 tod)
78.100
14,100
287,000
8,000
203.800
204.000
406,100
1.201.100
116.500
406,100
1,34;.300
1 . 865 . 900
3.067.000
Model plant 9
[7.200 tDd)
39,100
7,000
588.900
15.900
449,000
258.500
893.500
2.251.900
105,200
517.000
1.699.400
2.321.600
4.573.500
Model pi art 10
(3.000 tnd)
78.100
14.100
596,500
27,700
753.300
398.800
975,800
2.835.300
172,300
779.700
2.562.700
3.514.700
6.350.000
*0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO- and 90 and 70 percent reduction of
HC1 and SO,, respectively.
Assumes 50 percent of maintenance cost for labor.
6-25
-------
TABLE 6-22. ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS FOR SO/FF SYSTEMS FOR MODEL
EXISTING KATE WALL REFUSE-DERIVED Fua BURNING FACILITIES*
(August 1986 dollars based on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
Direct Cost
Operating labor
Supervision
Utilities:
Electricity
Water
Cne*1cals (line)
Maintenance
Mast* disposal
Total direct
Indt rect cost
Overhead (601 of
- operating labor and
maintenance labor)
Taxes, Insurance, and
general administration
C»o1t»l recovery
Total Indirect
Total Annual Ized Colt
Model plant 6
(1,000 tod)
78,100
14,100
321,000
8.000
203.800
383.800
406.100
1.414,900
170,500
767,600
2.522. flop
3.460.900
4.875.800
Model plant 9
(2.200 tod)
39.100
7.000
663,800
15.900
449.000
441.800
893.500
2.510.100
160,200
883.600
2.904.200
3.948.000
6. 45 ft. 100
Model plant 10
(3.000 tnd>
78.100
14.100
927,900
27.700
753 .300
681.200
975.800
1.458.100
259.700
1.362,300
4.477.700
6.099.700
9.557.800
*0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent 00. and 90 and 70 percent
HC1 and S02, respectively.
As suites SO percent of maintenance cost for labor.
reduction of
6-26
-------