United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Air
and Radiation
Washington, DC 20460
Off ice of Research
and Development
Washington, DC 20460
                Municipal Waste
                Combustion Study

                Costs of Flue Gas
                Cleaning Technologies
                       ?J,S. Environmental Protection
                       Eegion 5, Library {5PL-16)
                       230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
                       Chicago, IL .60604

-------
                                                   June  1987
      MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION STUDY:

   COSTS OF FLUE GAS CLEANING TECHNOLOGIES
           For Information Contact

              Michael Johnston
    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
             OAQPS/ESEO (MO-13)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
               (919) 541-5601

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER

     This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
                                       ii

-------
                COSTS OF FLUE GAS CLEANING TECHNOLOGIES
                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    This report is an assessment of emission control costs for municipal
waste combustors (MWC's).  The details of the cost estimates, including
their development, components, and design and cost premises, are addressed
in the subsequent sections of this volume.
     A model plant approach was used in the sizing and costing of the
emission control systems.  Due to differences in the feed waste charac-
teristics, combustion parameters, and emissions, separate cost estimates
were required for mass burning (MB), modular (MOD), refuse-derived fuel
(RDF), and fluid bed combustion (FBC) type furnaces.  Table 1 presents the
MWC model plant specifications and the flue gas composition data used for
sizing and c  ting of the emission control systems.  Table 2 presents the
MWC emissions control equipment design premises as reported by a number of
air pollution control equipment manufacturers.
     Cost estimates were developed for control of particulate matter (PM)
emissions only and for control of both acid gas and PM emissions from the
MWC model plants.  Controlled PM emission levels of 0.03, 0.02, and 0.01
gr/dscf, corrected to 12 percent CO-, and 90 and 70 percent reductions of
HC1 and SO-, respectively, were used to develop the control cost estimates.
     Electrostatic precipitators (ESP's) were evaluated as PM controls for
all furnace types.  Spray dryer/ESP  (SD/ESP) and spray dryer/fabric filter
(SD/FF) systems were evaluated as acid gas/PM controls for MB, MOD, and RDF
model facilities.  Fabric filters (FF's) were evaluated as alternative PM
controls for FBC combustors.  The flue gas from FBC combustors was assumed
to contain a negligible  amount of acid gas due to the neutralization of the
acid gas in the flue gas by limestone which is introduced into the furnace
bed.

-------
     Capital and annualized operating costs were developed in August 1986
dollars using the cost information received from a number of air pollution
control equipment manufacturers for various flue gas flow rates and design
capacities. The capital cost estimates for PM and acid gas/PM control
systems for new MWC facilities are presented in Table 3.  They were devel-
oped for 25 percent excess combustor capacity and include a 20 percent
factor for contingencies.  The capital costs presented in Table 3 represent
the cost of the control system and auxiliary equipment (i.e., ductwork and
I.D. fan).  In addition, a cost credit was applied to facilities with acid
gas control to account for the reduction in capital cost required to
construct a stack which does not require acid-resistant lining.
     The increase in capital cost for requiring acid gas control in
addition to PM control for new facilities ranges from 50 to 500 percent.
The lower value of the range represents the MB and RDF model facilities
while the higher value represents MOD facilities.  SD/FF systems require
0.5 to 5.5 percent less capital than SD/ESP systems for 1,000 tpd and
larger MB and RDF model facilities at the 0.03 gr/dscf PM emission level,
increasing to 5 to 8 percent at the 0.01 gr/dscf specification.  For the
MOD modal facilities, SD/FF systems require an additional 30 percent
of capital for acid gas/PM control as compared to a comparably designed
SD/ESP systems.
     Table 4 presents the annualized operating cost estimates for new MWC
facilities for PM and acid gas/PM controls assuming 8,000 operating hours
per year and 20 and 15 years of equipment life for PM and acid gas/PM
control systems, respectively.  Maintenance costs were assumed to be
2 percent of the total capital cost, the waste disposal cost was $15/ton,
and taxes and insurance were considered to be 4 percent of the total
capital cost.  The interest rate for capital recovery charges was assumed
to  10 percent.
     Indirect operating costs  are more significant than direct operating
costs  in each of the annualized operating cost estimates for the new
facilities.  Indirect costs represent from 60 to 80 percent of the total
annualized cost of operating the emission control systems for MB and MOD
facilities.  The indirect operating costs are slightly lower (55 to

-------
70 percent of the total annualized operating cost) for the RDF and FBC
facilities, and are less than 50 percent of the total annualized operating
cost for FBC facilities equipped with fabric filters.
     The waste disposal cost  is the major direct operating cost.  The cost
contribution of waste disposal to the total direct operating cost is
proportional to the quantity disposed.  Waste disposal costs represent from
25 to 40 percent of the total direct operating cost of PM emission control
systems for MB facilities.  Waste disposal costs for RDF and FBC facilities
are 50 to 60 percent of the direct operating costs.  The waste disposal
costs for acid gas/PM controls are 15 to 30 percent for MB facilities and
approximately 40 and 60 percent for RDF and FBC facilities, respectively.
The waste disposal cost for MOD facilities is insignificant due to the
small quantities of particulate matter generated.
     Figures 1 through 4 present the annualized operating cost estimates
for the emission control systems for the new MWC model plants in terms of
dollars per ton of refuse burned.  All figures indicate that the relative
costs of operating the emission control systems decrease as the facility
size increases.  Also, as the PM emission levels become more stringent, the
annualized operating costs increase.  The additional cost of controlling
acid gas along with PM emissions is $4 to $9 per ton for MB facilities. For
the RDF model plants, acid gas control accounts for an additional $4 to
$5 per ton.  The corresponding cost for the model MOD facilities is $5 to
$12 per ton.
     The SD/ESP system is more costly to operate than the SD/FF system
based on the information presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3.  MB model plants
with a 0.03 gr/dscf outlet PM loading and the MOD model plants are the
execeptions.  In general, however, the SD/ESP systems for the new MWC model
plants require an additional $.20 to $.90 per ton of waste burned to
operate per year than do comparable SD/FF systems.  Fabric filters for FBC
facilities require $1 to $3 per ton of waste burned less in annualized
operating costs than do ESP systems.
     The presentation of control cost information in terms of dollars per
unit amount of PM removed is a convenient measure of the effectiveness of
a PM control system.  However, such information for acid gas/PM control
systems could be misleading due to the additional PM emission quantities
generated in the spray dryer.  A better measure of the operating cost of

-------
acid gas/PM controls is provided by presenting the cost information in
terms of dollars per unit of acid gas removed. Figures 5, 6, and 7 present
the annualized operating cost in terms of $/lb of acid gas removed for
SO/ESP and SD/FF systems for the new MB, MOD, and RDF model facilities.
     Similar to the trends observed for the annual ized operating costs in
terms of dollars per ton of waste burned, acid gas emission control
systems, in terms of dollars per pound of acid gas removed, become less
costly as the facility size increases.  An additional $.02 to $.20 per
pound of acid gas removed is required to achieve 90 and 70 percent removal
of HC1 and SCL, respectively, at an outlet grain loading of 0.01 gr/dscf
than at 0.03 gr/dscf corrected to 12% CO-.  On the average, the annualized
operating costs for an SD/FF, in dollars per pound of acid gas removed, is
$.03 less costly than SD/ESP systems for the MB and RDF model plants.
However, the cost to operate an SD/FF for a model MOD facility, in dollars
per pound of acid gas removed, is on the average $.25 greater than an
SD/ESP for the same facility.
     Retrofit costs for air pollution control equipment for existing
municipal waste combustors are also presented in this report.  The emission
control systems which were coated 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
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 CO-, and 90 and
70 percent reduction of HC1 and S02, 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.
                                     VI

-------
     Tables 5 and 6 present the capital and annualized operating retrofit
costs, respectively, for model existing refractory MB and MOD facilities.
Similar cost estimates for existing waterwall MB, MOD, and RDF model
facilities are presented in Tables 7 and 8.  Retrofit factors were
determined based on vendor contacts and previous retrofit studies within
EPA with flue gas desulfurization systems in the utility industry.  Several
considerations should be taken into account when developing retrofit costs
including the number and size of the air pollution control units, the
spatial limitations, and the effect the retrofit air pollution control
equipment will have on current process operation.  For the purposes of this
report, 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.
                                    VI 1

-------
TABLE 1.  MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND
                    FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
                                             Facility type
Parameter
Facility specification
Waste composition (wt %):
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Nitrogen
Water
Chlorine
Inerts
Excess combustion air, %
PM emission factor,
% of waste inert converted to flyash
Amount of acid gas reaction
products released into flue gas, %
Temperature, F
Waterwall
Refractory
Flue gas parameters (calculated)
Flow rate, dscf/lb of feed waste
scf/lb of feed waste
Uncontrolled PM emissions,
gr/dscf at 12% CO,
gr/dscf z
Uncontrolled acid gas emissions,
HC1 , ppm dry
SOp, ppm dry
MB


26.73
3.6
19.74
0.12
0.17
27.14
0.38
22.12
80

10



350
450

83
95

2.16
1.87

500
175
MOD


26.73
3.6
19.74
0.12
0.17
27.14
0.32
22.18
50

0.5



350
450

69
82

0.11
0.11

500
211
RDF


33.8
4.5
27.9
0.2
0.5
25.2
0.39
7.51
50

80



350
450

85
99

4.63
4.98

500
286
FBC


33.8
4.5
27.9
0.2
0.5
25.2
0.32
7.58
25

80

80

350


70
84

6.84
8.83

50
104
                               vii i

-------
 TABLE 2.  CONTROL EQUIPMENT DESIGN PREMISES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Parameter
ESP system
Specific collection plate area
for 0.03 gr/dscf at 12% CO- outlet
for 0.02 gr/dscf at 12% CO- outlet
for 0.01 gr/dscf at 12% CO^ outlet
Pressure drop, in. HgO
Equipment life, years
FF system
Air-to-cloth ratio, net
gross
Pressure drop, in. H-O
Equipment life, years
Acid gas/PM system4
SD exit temperature, F
Alkali (lime) consumption,
% of equivalency ratio
Pressure drop, in. HJ)
for SD/ESP system c
for SD/FF system
Equipment life
Facility type
MB
332
397
500
2.5
20



280
15CL
7.5
13
15
MOD
138
172
208
2.5
20



280
150--
7.5
13
It
RDF
409
504
545
2.5
20



280
150
7.5
13
15
FBC
409
504
545
2.5
20
4:1
3:1
7.5
20




'Either  SD/ESP  system  or  SD/FF  system.

-------
                            TABLE J.
SUMMARY Of ESTIMATED CAPITAL  COSTS Of  EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MOOEL  NEK  MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES^ (II.OOOs In August 1986 (used on 8,000 hrs/yr operation)
PM mission
level after
control.
gr/dscf at
i2 co2
ESP Systea
0.03
0.02
0.01
SO/ESP SvstW>
0.03
0.02
0.01
SO/FF Svstab
0.03
0.02
0.01
Et_5xUM
0.03
0.02
0.01
Mass burning aodel facilities
2SO tpd
capacity
(Model No. 1)
1.549
1,951
2,2(2
4,108
2:11.
4.242
4.242
4.421
1,000 tod
capacity
(Model No. 2)
3.900
4.69)
S.S2I
9,352
10.246
10.916
8.905
8.905
9.463
3,000 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 3)
-1
10.230
11,830
14.105
23.197
24.488
26.641
21,691
21.691
JS.197
Modular node! facilities
100 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 4)
341
447
487
\:to
I.S64
!,960
.960
.020
250 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 5)
695
645
929
2.420
2.526
2.648
3,176
3.176
3.296
400 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 6)
1,020
1.194
1.314
3.149
3.489
3.609
4.179
4.179
4.779
(
Refuse- derK
odel fac
1.500 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 7)
6.919
8,293
9,193
14,413
15,972
16.S39
13.170
13.170
13.989
ed fuel
\ltli
3.000 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 8)
12.006
14,245
15,881
25,917
27,423
28,069
22.042
22.042
23.119
Fluid bed cowDustion
jastaL l*JUUu 	 -
250 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 9)
1,756
2,204
2.270
996
996
996
500 tud
< apa< Ity
(Model No. 10)
2,762
3.410
3.569
1,690
1.690
1.690
*The capital cost estlwte* nere developed for control systems at 125 percent of actual size and Include a 20 percent
 contingency factor.
bFor 90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and $0^, Respectively.

-------
                            TABLE  4.   SUMIWHY Of ESTIMATED  ANNUAL IZEO OPERATING  COSTS Of  EMISSION  CONTROL  SYSTEMS FOR MODEL  NEW
                                      MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR  FACILITIES  (11,000s  In August  1986 based on  8.000 hrs/yr operation)
PM emission
level after
control .
gr/dscf at
912C02
ESP System
0.03
0.02
0.01
SO/ESP System'
0.03
0.02
0.01
SO/FF System*
0.03
0.02
0.01
FF Svstem
0.03
0.02
0.01
Mass burning model facilities
250 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 1)
370
443
499
1,061
1.156
1.212
1.115
1.115
1,150
1
1.000 t*4)
capacity
(Mode) Mo. .2)
f.'
921 l(|.
1.067
1.220
2,529
2.706 ,.
2.839 ' '|
2.549
2.549
2,661 |
I
t
3,000 tod
capacity
(Model No. 3)
2.449
2,744
3.163
6, SIS
6,771
7,198
6.538
6,540
6,838
Modular model facilities
100 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 4)
90
110
117
380
398
408
498
498
Sid
250 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 5)
162
190
206
645
666
691
849
400 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 6)
261
283
858
925
949
1:118
1,229
Refuse-derived fuel
odel facilities
1000 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 7)
1,865
2.118
2,284
4,278
4.632
4,700
4,198
4,199
4.362
3.000 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 8)
3.348
3,761
4,063
7,876
8,176
8,305
7,442
7.444
7,637
f luld bed
250 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 9)
489
571
584
375
375
375
combust Ion
c,nm
500 tod
capac Ity
(Model No. 10
795
915
948
649
649
650
*90 and 70 percent control of HC1 and SO,,, respectively.

-------
$/Ton  of Waste  Burned

         15 r
         12
                                                             o^
0

2$o'                ^0oOf '       '        300'


        Design Capacity  (tpd)/  Outlet Loading (gr/dscf)
                                                                     ESP


                                                                     SD/bSP


                                                                     SD/FF
8000 hrs/yr operation
August  1966 dollars
               Figure 1. Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Model New Mass
                        Burning Facilities

-------
                     Y/////////////////////.
a
CU
c
c_
u
CD

QJ
-U
cn
                   Y////////////////7/7////
                           ///^             ^
         ////////////////////////
y//////////////////////////////////.
                                       ru
c
a
-> in
-u c_
T3 TJ
C ^-i
> CD
\ an
                                                              0)
                                                              o
                                                              o
                                                              en
                                                              aj
                                                              "S
                                                              E
                                                                CO
                                                             111
                                                        O)LL
                                                        c >_
                                                       ~ o
                                                        2 
                                                        CD 3
                                                        a. .a
                                                       O E
                                                       o o
                                                        oO
                                                        N ,_
                                                       o
                                                       CD

                                                       3
                                                       O)
c
a
                                                  en
                                                o 3
                                                O
                                                O
                                                CD <
                                                        CT

-------
     CL
     U1
Q_
CO
LU

a
en
a
en
                W//////////////////////////S
aj
c
c_
Z3
CD

QJ
4-1
in
03
                  y/////////////////////
                                             ru
                                                       c
                                                       a
                                                       *  in
                                                       -u  c.
                                                       (TJ  (O
                                                       C_  ^^
                                                       03  ^^
                                                       a. a
                                                       o  -a
                                                                     01
                                                                            0)
                                                                            o
                                                                            o

                                                                            OJ =

                                                                            E8
                                                                            ^.^
                                                                            (0 LL
                                                                            LLJ O3

                                                                            co -I
                                                                            o E
                                                                            O 3
                                                                               -
                                                                            m  0)
                                                                            NO
                                                                            CO
                                                                               (0
                                                                            C  0
                                                                            
c
a
                                                          en
                                                       o 3
                                                       O O)
                                                       O 3
                                                       03 <
                                      xw

-------
    $/Ton of  Waste Burned

           7.5 r
X
<
           4.5
           1.5
             0
                  2507.03      .02        .01     500/.03     .02       .01

                    Design Capacity  (tpd)/ Outlet  Loading  (gr/dscf)
    8000 hrs/yr operation
    August  1986 dollars
                                                                                 ESP



                                                                                 FF
                   Figure 4. Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Model New Fluid
                           Bed Combustion Facilities

-------
 $/Lb  of  Acid Gas  Removed
X
<
        1.25
        0.75
         0.5
        0.25
           0
                            ov  , o^    02     o^  , o^    o^     ^
                  Design Capacity  (tpd)/  Outlet Loading  (gr/dscf)
 8000 hrs/yr  operation
 August 1986  dollars
SD/ESP



SD/FF
                   Figure 5. Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Acid gas Removal
                           for Model New Mass Burning Facilities

-------
  $/Lb  of  Acid Gas Removed
X
<
         0.3  -
              100/.03  .02     .01  250/.03  .02    .01  400/.03   .02    .01

                   Design Capacity  (tpd)/ Outlet  Loading  (gr/dscf)
  8000 hrs/yr operation
  August 1986 dollars
                                                                               SD/ESP



                                                                               SD/FF
               Figure 6. Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Acid gas Removal
                       for Model New Modular Combustor Facilities

-------
  $/Lb of Acid Gas Removed

         0.6
X
<
         0.6
         0.4
         0.2
           0
                                                                               SD/ESP



                                                                               SD/R
               1500/.03     .02        .01     3000/.03     .02       .01

                  Design Capacity  (tpd)/ Outlet  Loading  (gr/dscf)
  BOOO hrs/yr operation

  August 1986 dollars
                    Figure 7. Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Acid gas removal
                             for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning Facilities

-------
                                  TABLE S.  SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAP1...L COSTS Of EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL EXISTING REfRACTORY
                                            MUNICIPAL MASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES (UOOOs In August 1966 based on 6.500 hrs/yr operation)
Control
Device
ESP System'
OS/ESP Systea'b
OS Systemb
DS/FF System"'6
Mass Burn 1 no Model Facilities
200 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 1)



6,335
450 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 2)



11,346
600 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 3)


6,005
11,062
750 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 4)


6,879
12,728
1200 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 5)


10.325
18,745
Modular Modol
FiCil Itles
100 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 6)
526
2.819


X

X
               0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO

               90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO , respectively.

-------
                                  TABLE 6.   SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUALIZEO OPERATING COSTS Of  EMISSION CONTROL  SYSTEMS  FOR MODEL EXISTING REFRACTORY
                                            MJNICIPAL WASTE  COMBUSTOR FACILITIES (UOOOs In August  1986 based  on 6,500 hrs/yr operation)
X
X
Control
Device
ESP System*
DS/ESP System* >b
DS Systeb
DS/FF Syste'*b
Mass Burnlna Model Facilities
200 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 1)



1.476
450 tpd
capacity
(Modal No. 2)



2.686
600 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 3)


1.669
2.692
750 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 4)


1.941
3.124
1200 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 5)


2.884
4.597
Modular Model
ffliillilfii.
100 tpd
capac Ity
(Model No. 6)
123
645


              *0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO
              "90
and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and SO., respectively.

-------
X
X
                                         TABLE 7.   SUMMARY Of ESTIMATED  CAPITAL COSTS Of  EMISSION CONTROL  SYSTEMS fOR MODEL  EXISTING WATEWALL
                                                    MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR fACILIIIES  (11000s In August  1986 based on 6,500  hrs/yr operation)
Control
ft* Ice
tSPSystai*
DS/ESP .
SysW'b
OS Systw"
DS/FF .
SyWb
HKS Bumlna Modal Facilities
200 tpd
capacity
(Made) No. 1)


3.063
5,997
400 tpd
capacity
(Mate) No. 2)


4.544
6.539
1000 tpd
capacity
(Mobil No. 3)


9.901
18.690
2200 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 4)


14.353
2.307
Mjdular total Facilities
100 tpd
capacity
(Model k>. 5)
487
2.5S1


200 tpd
capacity
Otodel No. 6)
783
3,863


300 tpd
capacity
(Hxtel No. 7)
999
4.866


(tefuiHter1vJ Fuel Hrtel Facllltl^
1000 tpd
capacity
(Uriel No. B)


10.202
19,109
2200 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 9)


12.926
22.090
3000 tpd
capacity
(Hxtel Ito. 10)


19,492
34,058
                   *0.02 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent 00,
                    90 and 70 percent reduction of tCl and 90^ respectively.

-------
X
X
                          TABLE 8.   SUMMARY Of ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED OPERATING COSTS OF  EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS  FOR MODEL  EXISTING WATEWALL
                                     MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR  FACILITIES ($1000s  In August 1986 based on 6,500 hrs/yr  operation)
Control
Device
ESPSystan"
DVESP .
Systaa>b
OS Systanb
DS/fT
Syste''b

200 tpd
capacity
(Made) No. 1)


810
1.399
fte ftaTilmf
400 tpd
capacity
Mxfel No. 2)


1.22?
2.030
tatel Fatllltla
1000 tpd
capacity
MxM No. 3)


2.724
4,503
2200 tpd
capacity
Mxtel No. 4)


4.278
6.S43
Modular ttxtel Fact lit las
100 tpd
capacity
(Model M>. S)
115
576


200 tpd
capacity
(Hxtel to. 6)
177
884


300 tpd
capacity
OfcdBl No. 7)
224
1.124


tefused-dwIvKl Fuel Hrtel fdcllllls
1000 tpd
capacity
(Model No. 6)


3.067
4.876
2200 tpd
capacity
Mxtel No. 9)


4.574
6,458
3000 tpd
capacity
Mxtel fto. 10)


6,350
9,558
               *0.02 f/dsct oofTBrtad to 12 percent 00
                90 and 70 percent redictton of HC1 and S0_, respectively.

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                               Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	   in
LIST OF TABLES 	  xxiv
LIST OF FIGURES 	  xxix
  1  INTRODUCTION 	  1-1
  2  NEW MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR MODEL PLANTS 	  2-1
     2.1  Model Plants 	  2-1
     2.2  Flue Gas Composition 	  2-3
  3  CONTROL StiTEM DESIGN EVALUATIONS 	  3-1
     3.1  Control  Systems Design Parameters 	  3-1
     3.2  Control  System Outlet Flue Gas Composition 	  3-5
  4  CONTROL SYSTEM COST EVALUATIONS 	  4-1
     4.1  Control  Systems 	  4-1
     4.2  Capital  Costs 	  4-1
     4.3  Annualized Operating Costs 	  4-22
  5  FURTHER COST ANALYSES 	  5-1
  6  RETROFIT COSTS 	  6-1
     6.1  Model Plants 	  6-1
     6.2  Control  Systems 	  6-1
     6.3  Control  System Cost Evaluations 	  6-4
                                    xxi n

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                 Page

  1  Municipal Waste Combustor Model Plant Specifications and
       Flue Gas Composition Data 	  vi i i

  2  Control Equipment Design Premises for Municipal Waste
       Combustors	    i x

  3  Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
       Systems for Model New Municipal Waste Combustor
       Facilities 	     x

  4  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of
       Emission Control Systems for Model New Municipal
       Waste Combustor Facilities 	    xi

  5  Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
       Systems for Model Existing Refractory Municipal Waste
       Combustor Facilities 	   xix

  6  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
       Control Systems for Model Existing Refractory Municipal
       Waste Combustor Facilities 	    xx

  7  Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
       Systems for Model Existing Waterwall Municipal Waste
       Combustor Facilities 	   xxi

  8  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
       Control Systems for Model Existing Water-wall Municipal
       Waste Combustor Facilities 	  xxii

2-1  Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas Composition Data  	  2-2

2-2  Feed Waste Composition Data 	  2-4

2-3  Calculated Flue Gas Compositions  	  2-5

3-1  Model Plant Controlled and Uncontrolled Emission Data  	  3-2

3-2  ESP Specific Collection Plate Area for MWC Applications  	  3-4

3-3  Lime Spray Dryer Material  Balance for New MB, MOD,
       and RDF Models  	  3-6

3-4  Flue Gas Compositions at the Outlet of PM Control Systems  	  3-7
                                    xxiv

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table                                                                   Page

3-5   Flue Gas Compositions at the Outlet of Acid Gas/PM
        Control Systems 	  3-8

3-6   Alkali Material Balance for FBC Models 	  3-9

4-1   Specifications Submitted to Equipment Manufacturers for
        Control Equipment 	  4-3

4-2   Auxiliary Equipment Parameters for PM Controls 	  4-14

4-3   Auxiliary Equipment Parameters for Acid Gas/PM Controls 	  4-15

4-4   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model New Mass Burning Facilities 	  4-17

4-5   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model New Modular Combustor Facilities  	  4-18

4-6   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning
        Facilities 	  4-19

4-7   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of PM Controls for
        Model New Fluid Bed Combustion Facilities 	  4-20

4-8   Annualized Operating Cost Bases 	  4-23

4-9   Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model New Mass Burning Facilities 	  4-24

4-10  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model New Modular Combustor Facilities ...  4-25

4-11  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning
        Facilities 	  4-26

4-12  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of PM
        Controls for Model New Fluid Bed Combustion Facilities 	  4-27

4-13  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for ESP Systems for
        Model New Mass Burning Facilities 	  4-28
                                     xxv

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table                                                                   Page.

4-14  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/ESP Systems
        for Model New Mass Burning Facilities 	  4-29

4-15  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/FF Systems
        For Model New Mass Burning Facilities 	  4-30

4-16  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for ESP Systems
        for Model New Modular Combustor Facilities 	  4-31

4-17  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/ESP Systems
        for Model New Modular Combustor Facilities 	  4-32

4-18  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/FF Systems
        for Model New Modular Combustor Facilities 	  4-33

4-19  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for ESP Systems
        for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning Facilities  	  4-34

4-20  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/ESP Systems
        for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning Facilities  	  4-35

4-21  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/FF Systems
        for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning Facilities  	  4-36

4-22  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for ESP Systems
        for Model New Fluid Bed Combustion Facilities 	  4-37

4-23  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for FF Systems
        for Model New Fluid Bed Combustion Facilities 	  4-38

5-1   Summary of Flyash Collected from the Emission Control
        Systems for the New MWC Model Plants  	  5-2

5-2   Summary of Emission Control Systems Annualized Operating
        Cost Estimates for Model New Mass Burning Facilities  	  5-3

5-3   Summary of Emission Control Systems Annualized Operating
        Cost Estimates for Model New Modular  Combustor  Facilities  	  5-4

5-4   Summary of Emission Control System Annualized Operating
        Cost Estimates for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel
        Burning Facilities 	  5-5

5-5   Summary of PM Control System Annualized Operating Estimates
        for Model New Fluid Bed Combustion Facilities 	  5-6
                                    xxvi

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table                                                                   Page

5-6   Summary of Acid Gas Removal Annualized Operating Cost
        Estimates for Model New Mass Burning, Modular Combustor,
        and Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning Facilities 	  5-7

6-1   Refractory Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas
        Composition Data 	  6-2

6-2   Water-wall Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas
        Composition Data 	  6-3

6-3   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model Existing Refractory Mass Burning
        Facilities 	  6-6

6-4   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model Existing Refractory Modular Combustor
        Facilities 	  6-7

6-5   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model Existing Waterwall Mass  Burning
        Facilities 	  6-8

6-6   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model Existing Waterwall Modular Combustor
        Facilities 	  6-10

6-7   Summary of Estimated Capital Costs of Emission Control
        Systems for Model Existing Refuse-Derived  Fuel Burning
        Facilities 	  6-11

6-8   Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model Existing Refractory Mass Burning
        Facilities 	  6-12

6-9   Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model Existing Refractory Modular
        Combustor Facilities 	  6-13

6-10  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model Existing Waterwall Mass Burning
        Facilities 	  6-14

6-11  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model Existing Waterwall Modular
        Combustor Facilities 	  6-15
                                     xxvn

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table                                                                   Page

6-12  Summary of Estimated Annualized Operating Costs of Emission
        Control Systems for Model Existing Refuse-Derived Fuel
        Burning Facilities 	  6-16

6-13  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SO Systems for
        Model Existing Refractory Mass Burning Facilities 	  6-17

6-14  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/FF Systems for
        Model Existing Refractory Mass Burning Facilities 	  6-18

6-15  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for ESP Systems for
        Model Existing Refractory Modular Combustor Facilities 	  6-19

6-16  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SO/ESP Systems
        for Model Existing Refractory Modular Combustor
        Facilities 	  6-20

6-17  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD Systems for
        Model Existing Waterwall Mass Burning Facilities 	  6-21

6-18  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/FF Systems
        for Model Existing Waterwall Mass Burning Facilities 	  6-22

6-19  Estimated Annual1zed Operating Costs for ESP Systems for
        Model Existing Waterwall Modular Combustor Facilities 	  6-23

6-20  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/ESP Systems
        for Model Existing Waterwall Modular Combustor
        Facilities 	  6-24

6-21  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD Systems for
        Model Existing Waterwall Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning
        Facilities 	  6-25

6-22  Estimated Annualized Operating Costs for SD/FF Systems
        for Model Existing Waterwall Refuse-Derived Fuel
        Burning Facilities 	  6-26
                                   xxvi i1

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                                                                Page

 1   Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Model New Mass
       Burning Facilities 	   xii

 2   Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Model New Modular
       Combustor Facilities 	  xiii

 3   Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Model New
       Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning Facilities 	   xiv

 4   Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Model New Fluid Bed
       Combustion Facilities 	    xv

 5   Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Acid Gas Removal
       for Model New Mass Burning Facilities 	   xvi

 6   Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Acid Gas Removal
       for Model New Modular Combustor Facilities 	  xvii

 7   Annualized Operating Cost Estimates for Acid Gas Removal
       for Model New Refuse-Derived Fuel Burning Facilities  	 xviii

4-1  Capital  Cost Estimates of an ESP for a Model Mass Burning
        Facility 	  4-4

4-2  Capital  Cost Estimates of an ESP for a Model Modular
        Combustor Facility 	  4-5

4-3  Capital  Cost Estimates of an ESP for a Model RDF Facility
        and FBC Facility  	  4-6

4-4  Capital  Cost Estimates of an SO/ESP for a Model Mass
        Burning Facility  	  4-7

4-5  Capital  Cost Estimates of an SD/ESP for a Model Modular
        Combustor Facility 	  4-8

4-6  Capital  Cost Estimates of an SD/ESP for a Model
        Refuse-Derived Fuel  Burning Facility 	  4-9

4-7  Capital  Cost Estimates of an SD/FF for a Model  MB Facility,
        MOD Facility, and RDF Facility 	  4-10

4-8  Capital  Cost Estimates of an FF for a Model Fluid Bed
        Combustion Facility 	  4-11
                                    xxix

-------
                              1.  INTRODUCTION

     This report is an assessment of emission control costs for municipal
waste combustc<-s.  The information presented in this report was developed
during a comprehensive, integrated study of municipal waste combustion.   An
overview of the findings of this study may be found in the Report to
Congress on Municipal Waste Combustion (EPA/530-SW-87-021a).   Other
technical volumes issued as part of the Municipal Waste Combustion Study
include:

         Emission Data Base for Municipal Waste Combustors
          (EPA/530-SW-87-021b)
         Combustion Control of Organic Emissions (EPA/530-SW-87-021c)
         Flue Gas Cleaning Technology (EPA/530-SW-87-021d)
         Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustors
          (EPA/530-SW-87-021f)
         Assessment of Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Municipal
          Waste Combustion Emissions (EPA/530-SW-87-021g)
         Characterization of the Municipal Waste r-mbustor Industry
          (EPA/530-SW-87-021h)
         Recycling of Solid Waste (EPA/530-SW-87-021i)

The approach taken for this report was to determine the capital and
annualized costs of installing and operating add-on air pollution control
devices for new and existing municipal waste combustion facilities.
     MWC model plants were developed for the purpose of developing emission
control cost information.  The model plants are  representative of the MWC's
which are currently planned, under construction, or  in existence in the
United States with regard to design capacity and technology.  They provide a
basis for calculating the flue gas quantity and  composition.  The model
facilities are comprised of mass burning  (MB)  units, modular combustor  (MOD)
facilities, refuse-derived fuel burning (RDF)  plants, and  fluid bed
combustion (FBC) facilities.
     The air pollution control devices which were costed for these
facilities were electrostatic precipitators (ESP's) and fabric filters
(FF's) for  particulate matter  (PM) control, and spray dryer/ESP's

-------
(SD/ESP's) and SD/FF's for acid gas/PM control.  They were designed to
achieve emission levels of 0.03, 0.02, and 0.01 gr/dscf at 12% C02 for PM,
and 90 and 70 percent reduction of HC1 and S0?, respectively, for acid gas.
     Capital and annualized operating costs were determined for the air
pollution control equipment based on cost information received from air
pollution control equipment manufacturers.  The cost estimates, presented
in the following sections of this document, are in August 1986 dollars and
assume 8,000 hrs/yr of operation for new MWC's and 6,500 hrs/yr of operation
for existing facilities and 25 percent excess design capacity. Annualized
operating cost estimates for new MWC facilities are calculated in terms of
$/ton of waste burned, $/ton of flyash removed, and $/lb of acid gas
removed.
     The remainder of the report is divided into five sections.  Section 2
describes the model plants and flue gas compositions for new MWC facilities.
Section 3 is a discussion of the control system design evaluations.  Capi-
tal and annualized operating cost estimates for emission control systems for
new MWC's are presented in Section 4.  C.st analyses for new facilities are
presented in Section 5, including costs per ton of waste burned and per unit
of pollutant removed.  Section 6 is a discussion of retrofit costs for the
existing population of municipal waste combustors.
                                     1-2

-------
               2.  NEW MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR MODEL PLANTS

     For the purpose of developing emission control cost information for new
and proposed municipal waste combustors (MWC's), ten model plants were
developed. They are representative of the MWC's which are currently planned
or under construction in the United States and they are intended to
approximate these units with regard to design capacity and technology.  The
intent of the  jdel plants was to provide a basis for calculating flue gas
quantities and compositions for the sizing and costing of the associated
emission control systems.  The model plant specifications and flue gas
composition data are listed in Table 2-1 and are described in the following
sections.

2.1  MODEL PLANTS
     The ten model plants developed to represent new and proposed MWC's
include three mass burning (MB) facilities, three modular combustor (MOD)
facilities, two refuse-derived fuel (RDF) burning facilities, and two fluid
bed combustion (FBC) facilities.  The design and operation of these
facilities is described more fully in "Municipal Waste Combustion Study:
Combustion Control of Organic Emissions" (EPA/530-SW-87-021c).   The primary
design parameters specified for each model plant are listed in Table 2-1 and
include:  design capacity, excess air rate, feed waste inert composition,
and the emission factors for uncontrolled particulate matter (PM) and acid
gas (HC1 and S02).
     The excess air rate and feed waste composition are the main parameters
which determine the flue gas quantities and compositions generated per unit
of waste burned.  The excess air rates specified for combustion were 80, 50,
50, and 25 percent of the stoichiometric air requirements for the MB, MOD,
RDF,  and FBC model plants, respectively.  The respective uncontrolled PM
emission factors for the models plants were 10, 0.5, 80, and 80 percent of
the feed waste inert composition.
     Acid gas emission factors were based on the assumption that the entire
sulfur and chlorine composition of the incoming feed was converted to S02
and HC1 upon combustion.  For FBC model plants, a negligible amount of acid
gas is assumed to be released in the flue gas due to the introduction of
                                     2-1

-------
                                                           TABU 2-1.  MOOtL PIANT SI'FCIF ICA1 IONS  AND HUE  GAS COMPOSITION OATA
J
J

Item


facility Specification

No. of combustors per nodal

Total dally charge rate, tpd

Hourly charge rate at
10U utilization, Ib/hr
Abh content of feed waste, X
Excess combustion air, X of
theoretical
PM emission factor, X of feed
tiaste ash
Acid gas mission factor:
HC1, ppm dry
S02> ppn dry
Flue gas data oar combust or
Volume flow rate:
dscfm
scfn
acfm
Outlet Temperature. FC
PH emissions'1:
gr/dscf
gr/scf
gr/acf
gr/dscf at 121 C02
gr/dscf at 7X 02
Ib/hr
tons/yr t 8,000 hrs/yr
Acid gas emissions :
HC1, Ib/hr
tons/yr at 6,000 hrs/yr
SO?. Ib/hr
tons/yr at 6,000 hrs/yr

No. 1
I 	 (HP) 1



2

250


20,833
22.12

80
10


500
175


14,362
16.579
25,337
350

1.87
1.62
1.06
2.16
2.26
230
920

41
164
25
100

No. 2
(MB)



2

1.000


83.333
22.12

80
10


500
175


57.447
66,315
101.350
350

1.87
1.62
1.06
2.16
2.26
922
3.688

163
652
100
400

No. 3
(MB)



4

3.000


250,000
22.12

80
10


500
175


86.170
99.473
152.025
350

1.87
1.62
1.06
2.16
2.26
1,383
5.532

244
976
ISO
600

No. 4
(MOO)



2

100


8,333
22.18

50
0.50


500
211


4.776
5.663
8.654
350

0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.11
4.6
18

14
56
10
40
Model
No. S
(MOD)



S

250


20.833
22.18

50
0.50


500
211


4,776
5.663
8.654
350

0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.11
4.6
18

14
56
10
40
plants*
No. 6
(MOO)



6

400


33.333
22.18

50
0.50


500
211


4.776
5.663
8.654
350

0.11
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.11
4.6
18

14
56
10
40

1
No. 7
(RDF)



3

1.500


125.000
7.51

50
80


500
286


58.703
68.490
104.674
350

4.98
4.26
2.79
4.63
4.99
2,503
10.012

167
668
167
668

No. 8
ABBIL



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
15.020

250
1000
250
1,000

1
No. 9 1
(FBC1 	 L
t
1
1
2 t
1
250 1
1

20,833
7.58

25
80


50
103


12,205
14,653
22,394
350

8.83
7.35
4.81
6.84
7.36
923
3.692

3.4
13.6
12.5
50

No. 10
(fBC)



?

500


41.667
7.58

25
80


50
103


24.411
29,306
44. /88
350

8.83
7.35
4.81
6.84
7.36
1.847
7.388

6.9
27.6
25
100
                    *MB - Mass  burning.  MOD - Modular. RDF - Refuse-derived  fuel,  and  FBC - Fluid bed combustion.
                    ^Calculated (except  "here Indicated) based on the  facility  specifications In this table and the  feed naste composition data
                     from table 2-2.
                    cAssumed.
                     'l ui mi: model  plants (I.e., Model plants 9  and  10). PM  umlsslons  consist of tt.K ai til jas/) Ime-.tonu itd'tlon  pioduits anil
                     liiijMit 11 Ifs (n  addition to the flyash  formed  frum  feed vaste  Ineits.   A< 10 gas tnilsslons luptesoiil the  umea<-lud  HC1  and
                     Mi, i|u
-------
limestone into the FBC bed.  The SO- and HC1 formed during combustion react
with the limestone thus reducing the acid gas content of the flue gas
exiting the combustor.  The products of the reaction are released as PM in
the flyash.

2.2  FLUE GAS COMPOSITION
     The calculated flue gas compositions of PM and acid gas for each model
plant are presented following the model facility specifications in Table 2-1.
Flue gas composition is a function of combustor type, operating conditions,
and feed waste composition.  The combustor type establishes two parameters:
(a) excess air rate and (b) the uncontrolled PM and acid gas emission rates.
The operating conditions establish flue gas temperature and pressure.  The
feed waste composition determines the amount and composition of the flue gas
generated.
     Table 2-2 presents the feed waste compositions specified for the model
plants.  These waste compositions and the specified excess air rates were
used to calculate the flue gas quantities and PM and acid gas emission rates
presented in Table 2-1.  The calculated flue gas compositions for the model
plants are presented in Table 2-3.  These calculations were based on the
assumption that the feed waste utilization rate was 100 percent and
combustion was complete.
                                     2-3

-------
                TABLE 2-2.   FEED WASTE COMPOSITION DATA5
                                 (Weight Percent)
Constituent
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Nitrogen
Water
Chlorine
Inerts
MB
facilities
26.73
3.6
19.74
0.12
0.17
27.14
0.38
22.12
MOD
facilities
26.73
3.6
19.74
0.12
0.17
27.14
0.32
22.18
RDF
facilities
33.8
4.5
27.9
0.2
0.5
25.2
0.39
7.51
FBC
facil ities
33.8
4.5
27.9
0.2
0.5
25.2
0.32
7.58
aTable 2-3 presents dry and wet flue gas compositions for the feed waste
 characteristics given above.
                                       2-4

-------
                                                    TABLE 2-3.  CALCULATED FLUE GAS COMPOSITIONS

                                                                          (Volume X)

Constituent

2
SO
f-
HC1

2
N2
H20
Mol . vt

Mass burning units
. 	 _ 	 	 . 	  T-J_, 	

Vol X Dry
10.41
0.02
(175 ppm)
O.OS
(500 ppm)
9.39
80.13

30.05


Vol X Wet
.
9.02
0.02
(152 ppm)
0.04
(433 pp)
8.14
69.41
13.37
28.44

Modular facilities


Vol X Dry
12.53
0.02
(211 ppm)
0.05
(507 ppm)
7.06
80.34

30.30


Vol X Wet
10.56
0.02
(178 ppn)
0.04
(427 ppm)
5.96
67.75
15.66
28.37
RDF facilities I FBC facilities
1

Vol X Dry
12.88
0.03
(286 ppm)
0.05
(500 ppm)
7.03
80.01

30.36
1
1
Vol X Wet
11.04
0.02
(245 ppm)
0.04
(431 ppm)
6.02
68.57
14.29
28.59

Vol X Dry
IS. 49
0.03
(104 ppm)
0.05
(SO ppm)
4.23
B0.2(;

30.66

Vol X Wet
12.91
0.03
(66 ppm)
0.04
(41 ppm)
3.52
66.80
16.70
28.55

r\>
 i
en
             ^Results are based on feed waste composition data presented In Table 2-2.
              SO  and HC1 flue gas quantities from FBC facilities represent only those port,  ,> remaining following

              reaction with limestone which Is Introduced Into the combust or at 300 percent of the equivalency ratio.

-------
                   3.  CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN EVALUATIONS

     Tnis section presents design evaluations for the PM and acid gas/PM
emission control equipment for the MWC model plants.  The emission control
systems were evaluated for achieving PM emission levels of 0.03, 0.02, and
0.01 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO-, and 90 and 70 percent reduction of
HC1 and SO- emissions, respectively.  Table 3-1 presents the predicted
uncontrolled and controlled PM and acid gas emission quantities, and the
required control efficiencies for achieving the specified emission levels,
for each new MWC model facility.
     The emission control systems which were evaluated for the new MWC model
plants included electrostatic precipitators (ESP's) as PM controls for all
model plants.  Spray dryer/ESP (SD/ESP) and spray dryer/fabric filter
(SD/FF) systems were evaluated as acid gas/PM controls for the MB, MOD, and
RDF model plants (i.e., Model plants 1 through 8).  For FBC model plants
(i.e., Model plants 9 and 10), FF's were evaluated as an alternative to
ESP's for PM control.  Acid gas controls were not evaluated for FBC
facilities.  Limestone injection, inherent to the process, accounts for acid
gas control in these model plants.
     The control devices listed above and evaluated in this report are more
fully described in "Municipal Waste Combustion Study:  Flue Gas Cleaning
Technology" (EPA/530-SW-87-021e).   There is evidence to suggest that
controlling PM and acid gas emissions to the assumed levels with these
control devices is effective in reducing emissions of heavy metals and
dioxins (see "Municipal Waste Combustion Study:  Emission Data Base for
Municipal Waste Combustors," EPA/530-SW-87-021b).  The design parameters for
the emission control systems evaluated in this report and the outlet flue
gas composition data are discussed in the following sections.

3.1  CONTROL SYSTEMS DESIGN PARAMETERS
     The primary design factors evaluated for the MWC emission control
systems were specific collection plate area (SCA)  for ESP's, air-to-cloth
ratio (A:C) for FF's, and spray dryer outlet temperature and lime consump-
tion rate for spray dryers.
                                     3-1

-------
                             ~*BIE 3-1.   MODEL  ".ANT CONTROLLED  AND UNCONTROLLED EMISSION DAT*


No. 1 No. 2
Parjiwter 1 (MB) ,Mfl) ;
Total fac
':si
so
13.3
55
103
50
200
*For FBC facility  models  (i.e., Models 9 and  10), the PM emissions consist of flyasn nd da gs/l imestone
Orect'on products and  Impurities.
 HC1 ana S0j emissions  fro  FBC models represent the unreected acid gas only.
                                                          3-2

-------
     (a)  ESP's - Table 3-2 presents the suggested SCA values for ESP's as
applied to the different MWC model plants for achieving PM emission levels
of 0.03, 0.02, and 0.01 gr/dscf corrected to 12% C02. These SCA values are
the averages of values suggested by several ESP manufacturers.  As the inlet
loading is increased and/or outlet loading decreased, the SCA requirement of
an ESP is greater in order to enhance the collection efficiency of the ESP.
Since the SCA is directly related to the size and therefore the cost of an
ESP, changing the inlet or outlet loading of the ESP directly affects the
cost of that unit.
     (b)  Fabric Filters - Both reverse air and pulse jet type FF's are
applied in the MWC industry.  However, pulse jet type FF's, with a net
air-to-cloth ratio of 4-to-l, and gross air-to-cloth ratio of as low as
3-to-l, are more commonly used.
     (c)  Spray Dryers - A key factor to spray dryer operation is the outlet
temperature which is controlled by the amount of water in the absorbent
feed.   During spray dryer operation, the feed water is evaporated into the
flue gas thereby reducing its temperature.  The rate of water addition is
limited by the set temperature at the spray dryer outlet.  In addition, the
reactions of HC1 and S02 with the absorbent, hydrated lime, proceed rapidly
while surface liquid is present but proceed more slowly when the absorbent
is dry.  Calcium chloride, the product resulting from the reaction between
lime slurry and HC1, is hygroscopic if exposed to high humidity flue gas at
temperatures below 250F (121C).  Therefore, to obtain a dry waste product,
the spray dryer design must ensure that a temperature of at least 250F
(121 C)is maintained. Thus, the alkaline absorbent spray drying process to
neutralize HC1 and S02 is most effective at a spray dryer outlet temperature
between 260F (127C) and 300F (149C).  For the purposes of developing
cost estimates in this report, the spray dryer outlet temperature was
assumed to be 280F (138C).
     The rate of addition of hydrated lime  in the alkaline feed to the spray
dryer is controlled by the HC1 and S02 composition of the flue gas.  Available
data indicates that an HC1 removal efficiency of at least 90 percent and an
S02 removal efficiency of up to 70 percent can be achieved in the spray
dryer process if the hydrated lime is maintained at approximately 150
percent of the equivalency ratio.  The equivalency ratio is defined as the
                                     3-3

-------
TABLE 3-2.  ESP SPECIFIC COLLECTION PLATE AREA FOR MWC APPLICATIONS


Type of
incinerator


MB
MOD
RDF &
FBC

Inlet PM
loading,
gr/dscf
corrected to
12% C02
1.72
0.11

4.63 and 6.04
Average SCAa, ft2/!, 000 acfm
for outlet loading of


0.03
gr/dscf
332
138

409


0.02
gr/dscf
397
172

504


0.01
gr/dscf
500
208

545
SCA - Specific collection plate area.  The SCA value listed is the
average of values submitted by several ESP manufacturers.
                                3-4

-------
combined stoichiometric molar requirement of hydrated lime per mole of HC1
and mole of SO- in the entering flue gas.  For a given acid gas removal
requirement, an SD/FF system would consume approximately 10 to 15 percent
less alkali than an SD/ESP system because of the additional acid gas removal
that occurs in the fabric filter.  However, for the purpose of this report,
the same alkali equivalency ratio was assumed for both the SD/FF and SD/ESP
systems.  Table 3-3 presents the assumed design premises and calculated
material balances for the spray dryer as applied to the new MB, MOD,  and
RDF model plants for acid gas remova"

3.2  CONTROL SYSTEM OUTLET FLUE GAS COMPOSITION
     Tables 3-4 and 3-5 present calculated flue gas compositions at the
outlet of the PM and acid gas/PM control systems, respectively, for each new
MWC model facility.  The PM content of the flue gas entering the PM control
device of an acid gas/PM system  is greater than the PM content of the  flue
gas entering a system designed for PM control only. The difference  in  the PM
content is due to the introduction of solids into the flue gas as a result
of the reaction between the acid gas and alkali in the spray dryer.
     For FBC models, the uncontrolled flue gas emission quantities were
calculated by estimating the rate of l^estone consumed in the combustor for
neutralizing 90 percent of the HC1 and 70 percent of the SO- in the flue
gas.  Table 3-6 presents the assumed design premises and calculated material
balance data for the acid gas/limestone  reaction products which enter  the
emission control system in the FBC model plants.
                                     3-5

-------
                                         TABlF 3-3.  LIME SPRAY DRYER MATERIAL BALANCE  FOR NEN MB,  MOO, AMD RDF MODELS*
OJ
 I
en
Item
Ma^te throughput rate per conbustor, tpd
Alkali equivalency ratio. Sb
Ltme purity. *b
Lima consumption. Ib/hr
tons/yr
SO outlet temperature. Fb
Mater consumed, gpm
Flyaih

Unreacted alkali and Impurities
Reaction products

Solids dropout In SD (10X)

Total solids In flue gas leaving SD
Model olanl
No. 1
(MB)
125
150
90
88
352
280
2
230
(920)
57
(228)
110
(440)
40
(160)
(1.426)
No. 2
(MB)
500
150
90
354
1.416
280
9
922
(3.688)
227
(908)
438
(1.752)
159
(636)
1,428
(5,712)
No. 3
(MB)
750
150
90
531
2.124
280
13
1,383
(5,532)
340
(1,360)
657
(2,628)
238
(952)
2,142
(6,568)
s
No. 4
(MOD)
100
ISO
90
64
256
280
1
9
(36)
41
(164)
79
(316)
13
(52)
116
(464)
No, 5
(MOD)
250
150
90
161
644
280
4
23
(92)
104
(416)
195
(780)
32
(128)
290
(1,160)
No. 6
(MOD)
400
150
90
257
1.028
280
6
37
(148)
167
(688)
313
(1,252)
52
(208)
465
(1.860)
N
(








(1
(

(

(
(1
                                                                                                                                No.  71     No.  8
                                                                                                                                (RDF)    I     (RDF)
                                                                                                                                   500

                                                                                                                                   150

                                                                                                                                    90

                                                                                                                                   457
                                                                                                                                 1.828

                                                                                                                                   280

                                                                                                                                     9
  2.S03
(10,012)
    302
 (1,208)
    541
    164)
    335
 (1,340)
  3,011
(12.044)
               750

               150

                90

               685
             2,740

               280

                13
  3.755
(15,020)
    453
 (1.812)
    811
 (3.244)
    502
 (2.008)
  4.517
(18.068)
            ^Calculations are based on 8.000 hrs of operation per year.

            bSpec1f1ed.

-------
                                                     TABLE 3-4.  FLUE GAS COMPOSITIONS AT THE OUTLET Of PM CONTROL  SYSTEMS
(*
Flue gas composition*1
Temperature. F
Volume flow rate per
combustor:
dicfm
scfm
acfm
PM emissions:1*
gr/acf at 0.03 gr/dscf
at 0.02 gr/dscf
* rt /\ 1 f*. ~. / ft *- r* 
Model plants
1 1 1
No. KMB) INo. 2(MB) (No. 3(MB) INo. 4(MOO)
2SO tpd 11.000 tod 13.000 tod 100 tod
340


14.362
16.579
25,025


340


57.447
66.315
100.099


340


86,170
99.473
150.146


340


4,776
5,663
6.548


1 1 1
No. 5(MOO)|No. 6(MOD)|No. 7(RDF)INo. 8
-------
                                              TABLE 3-S.   FLUE  GAS OOMTOS1 TIONS AT THE OUTLET Of ACID GAS/PM CONTROL  SYSTEMS
00


Flue gas composition

Sorav Drver Outlet
ToMDGrature. F
Volume flow rate:
dscfm
scfn
acfn
PM Missions:
gr/scf
gr/cf
gr/dscf at 12* CO
Ibs/hr ^
Acid gas emissions:
upl nrM
nu 1 9 PP*
lb/hr
SO , pp
f Ib/h.
PM Control Outlet
Temperature. F
Vo1ue flow rate:
dscfa
scf
CfM
PM Missions:1*
gr/acf at 0.03 gr/dscf
at 0.02 gr/dscf
at 0.01 gr/dscf
Acid gas emissions:
HC1. ppn
lb/hr
SO , ppm
' lb/hr
MB models 1 MOO models
1
No. 1
250 tpd



14.635
17.247
24.080

2.41
1.73
3.35
357

4
K____ 	 __
8


U _-___-..__.

14.635
17.247
23.775

0.016
0.01
0.006

< 	

4


8
No. 2
1000 tpd



58.540
68,987
96.321

2.41
1.73
3.35
1.428

16
	 	 _ _ C->

30




58.540
69,987
96.397

0.016
0.01
0.006

	 JQ 	

16


30
No. 3
joou' tod



87,810
103.480
144,482

2.41
1.73
3.35
2,142

24
	 _>

45




87.810
103.480
142,529

0.016
0.01
0.006



24


45
No. 4
100 tf)d

	 -JOf) 	

9.733
11,779
16.447

1.15
0.62
1.36
116

1
1^ 	 	 	

3




9.733
11.779
16,224

0.018
0.012
0.006



1


3
No. 5
250 tod



24.332
29.449
41,117

1.15
0.82
1.36
291

1
	 	 _A9.

3




24.332
29.449
40.562

0.018
0.012
0.006



1


3

No. 6
400 tpd



38,931
47,118
65,787

1.15
0.82
1.36
465

1
_____ _>

3




38.931
47,118
64,898

0.018
0.012
0.006



1


3
KOF models

No. 7
1.500 tod



59,816
71,253
99.485

4.93
3.53
5.57
3,011

17
84
SO




59.816
71,253
96,141

0.018
0.012
0.006



17
84
50
No. 8
J.OOO tDd



89.724
106,879
149,227

4.93
3.53
5.57
4.517

25
84
75




89.724
106.879
147.211

0.018
0.012
0.006



25
84
75
                           *Per combustor.
                           b
                            Corrected to 12 percent CO

-------
        TABLE 3-6.  ALKALI MATERIAL BALANCE FOR FBC MODELSa'b
                  Item
Model 9
Model 10
Waste throughput rate per combustor, tpd

Limestone equivalency ratio, %
Limestone purity, %
Carryover of  solids  into flue gas, %
Limestone consumption,  Ibs/hr
                        tons/yr
   125

   300
    90
    80
   374
(1,496)
    250

    300
     90
     80
    747
 (2,988)
 Solids  in  flue gas  at  the  FBC  exit,
 Ibs/hr  (tons/yr)

 Flyash

 Unreacted  limestone and  impurities
    at 80%  carryover

 Reaction products at 80% carryover

 Total solids  in  flue gas leaving  FBC
   632
(2,528)
   209
  (836)

    82
  (328)
   923
(3,692)
  1,263
 (5,052)
    418
 (1,672)

    165
   (660)
  1,846
 (7,384)
 Limestone  is  injected  into  the  FBC  bed.

'Calculations  are  based on 8,000 hrs/yr of  operation.
                                     3-9

-------
                    4.  CONTROL SYSTEM COST EVALUATIONS

     This section presents estimates for the capital and annualized
operating costs to control PM and acid gas/PM emissions from new MWC model
plants to the specified levels.  The cost methodology is presented, and the
assumptions are discussed, for calculating the capital and annualized
operating costs of the control and auxiliary equipment (i.e., I.D. fan and
ductwork).

4.1  CONTROL SYSTEMS
     As described earlier, the control systems evaluated for the new MWC
model plants include ESP's for all of the models plants, SO/ESP and SD/FF
systems for the MB, MOD, and RDF model plants, and FF's for the FBC model
plants.  The number and size of the control units included in each control
system were determined based on common practice at actual MWC installations
currently planned or under construction in the United States.
     The control systems evaluated for MOD model plants were based on one
control unit per model.  For all other model facilities, the control systems
evaluated were assumed to include one control unit per combustor.  Each unit
in a control system was designed to handle 125 percent of the actual flue
gas flow rate in order to accommodate changes in flue gas flow rates as a
result of variations in feed waste composition and operating conditions.

4.2  CAPITAL COSTS
     The capital costs of the air pollution control systems  in this report
include all of the cost items necessary to design, purchase, and  install
that system.  The purchase cost includes the cost of  the control device and
auxiliaries (I.e., I.D. fan and ductwork).  Installation charges  include
foundation and erection costs, electrical costs, and  instrumentation and
control costs.  Engineering services, taxes, contractor's fee, and
contingencies are considered indirect installation costs.
     (a)  Methodology for Estimating Capital Costs -  Capital costs were
developed for the PM and acid gas/PM control systems  by separately esti-
mating capital costs for the main equipment and the auxiliary equipment. The
capital costs for the main equipment (i.e., ESP's, FF's, SD/ESP's, and
                                     4-1

-------
SD/FF's) were calculated as follows.  Design parameters for one unit of each
control system in each model plant were developed assuming 125 percent of
actual combustor design capacity.  These design parameters were submitted to
a number of air pollution control equipment manufacturers with a request for
the capital cost information of a control unit for controlling MWC emissions
to the specified levels.  Table 4-1 presents the control unit design
parameters submitted to the equipment manufacturers for each new MWC model
plant.
     The cost data received were normalized to represent a common set of
design and cost premises.  The estimated capital cost of one unit of each
control system for each model  plant are presented in Figures 4-1 to 4-8 in
terms of flowrate into the unit for the specified outlet grain loadings of
0.03, 0.02, and 0.01 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent CO..
     The normalized cost of each air pollution control unit (CU) was
incorporated into the expression below to estimate the total capital cost of
main equipment in a multi-unit control system for a model plant.

           Cj - Cu x (0.1375 + 0.8625 N)

     where Cj - Capital cost of main equipment in the control system

           Cu - Normalized cost of one unit of the control system

            N - Number of units in a control system.

The above expression was developed based on the assumption that 20 and 80
percent of the purchase cost of a control unit was for engineering and
fabrication, respectively.  Installation charges were considered to be 60
percent of the purchase cost.   Engineering and equipment installation costs
were assumed to be 50 and 20 percent lower, respectively, for additional
units in a multi-unit control  system.
                                     4-2

-------
                           TABLE 4-1.  SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS FOR CONTROL  EQUIPMENT

Specification*
Incinerator capacity, tpd
Flue gas data
Volume flow rate:
scfm
acfm
Outlet Temperature. F
Moisture content. X
PM emissions:
gr/dscf at 12* 00
gr/scf
Acid gas emissions:
HC1, ppm dry
S02. ppm dry

No. 1
(MB)
1S6.2S
20,724
31.672
350
13.37
2.16
1.62
500
175

No. 2
(MB)
625
82,894
126.687
350
13.37
2.16
1.62
500
175

No. 3
(MB)
937.5
124.341
190.031
350
13.37
2.16
1.62
500
175

No. 4
(MQO)
125
14,157
21,636
350
15.67
0.11
0.1
500
211
Modal |
No. 5
(HOD)
312.5
35,392
54,090
350
15.67
0.11
0.1
500
211
>lnts*
No. 6
(MOD)
500
56,628
86.544
350
15.67
0.11
0.1
500
211

No. 7
(RDF)
625
85.613
130.843
350
14.29
4.63
4.26
500
286

No. 8
1 (Rpf)
937.5
128,420
196.264
350
14.29
4.63
4.26
500
286
                                                                                                                          No.  9
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                  I   No.  10
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                            1S6.2SI
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                         18,316
                                                                                                                         27,992

                                                                                                                            3SO
                                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                             16.701
                                                                                                                                  I

                                                                                                                             6.M i
                                                                                                                             7.351
                                                                                                                            SO
                                                                                                                            104
                                                                                                                                       312. b
36,632
SS.98S

   3SO

    16. 10
     6.84
     7. IS
    SO
   104
'Represents 125 percent of actual combustor capacity  and  flue gas  generated  for each  model  plant.

-------
 50
 to
010,
8  :
CO
o
O
  .
(0
O
     24,500
    August 1986 Dollars
     Logarithmic Scale
 y(mln) = 1;  y(max) = 50
                             Inlet Flowrate (acfm)
245,000
                                                                                Outlet Loading
                                                                                  0.01 gr/dscf
                                                                                 	0	
          0.02 gr/dscf
            n _ _
                                                                                 O.GJ gr/dscf
          Figure 4 -1. Capital Cost Estimates of an ESP for a Model Mass
                      Burning Facility

-------
   15
   10-
8
 OT
 o
 O
 "co
 *-
 "a.
 co
 O
Outlet Loading:
  0.01 gr/dscf
  	G	
      24,500
  August 1986 Dollars
   Logarithmic Scale
y(min) =  1;  y(max) = 15
                              Inlet Flowrate (acfm)
                                                                       245,000
        Figure 4 - 2. Capital Cost Estimates of an ESP for a Model Modular
                     Combustor Facility
                                                                                 0.02 gr/dscf
                                                                                  -- -B	
  0.03 gr/dscf

-------
 100^
o
10-
co
O
O
a.
3
      24,500
   August 1986 Dollars
    Logarithmic Scale
 y(mln) = 1;  y(max) = 100
245,000
                             Inlet Flowrate (acfm)
                                                                                Outlet Loading:
                                                                                  0.01 gr/dscf
                                                                                  	e	
                                                                                  0.02 gr/dscf
          0.03 gr/dscf
           Figure 4 - 3. Capital Cost Estimates of an ESP for a Model RDF Facility
                       and FBC Facility

-------
  100
50
8
CO
o
O
a.
co
O
   10
      24,500
     August 1986 Dollars
     Logarithmic Scale
 y(min) = 10;  y(max) = 100
                                 Inlet Flowrate (acfm)
                                                                      245,000
                                                                                 Outlet Loading:
                                                                                  0.01 gr/dscf
                                                                                  	e	
                                                                                  0.02 gr/dscf
                                                                                  	Q-	
                                                                                0.03 gr/dscf

                                                                                __ yX 
                Figure 4 - 4. Capital Cost Estimates of an SD/ESP for a Model Mass
                            Burning Facility

-------
                                     Capital Cost ($100,000's)
  CD
   c

   (D
   CJt
   

so
o  a>
Q.-O


H

o?
O  CO

o" rn
c  


If
-i  05
T| 5T
ft)  CO
   O)
   D

   rn
   O)
   "0

   o"
   -^

   O)
   o
   Q.
   CD
*<

?
= ,->
        O s:
         "
        "3 w
           .
         ll  3
                                                           01
                                                           o
                                                           8
2-

T]

o
o
  ro
                                        VI
                                         O

                                         O
                                         W
                                         
-------
 100
  50

-------
   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 hr 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
(*>
 -  	 	 , 	 . 	 _  . 	 , 	
ltm

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.

-------
                       TAIIE  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 t4)

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 lzd 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
Chm1ca1s (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
Che1cals (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
Co1tl 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

-------