\
United States Office of Air Quality EPA-450/3-89-27b
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards August 1989
/C/~~) Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
/ - -£__ A .
Air _
v°/EPA Municipal Waste
Combustors-
Background
Information for
Proposed Standards:
111 (b) Model Plant
Description and
Cost Report
This document is printed on recycled paper.
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS --
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR
PROPOSED STANDARDS: lll(b) MODEL PLANT
DESCRIPTION AND COST REPORT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Michael G. Johnston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Studies Branch (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Post Office Box 13000
August 14, 1989
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available
through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC 27711, or from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield VA 22161.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR MODEL PLANT SELECTION 2-1
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE AND THREE CONTROL OPTIONS .... 2-2
2.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR COSTING BASELINE AND CONTROL OPTIONS. . 2-5
3.0 MASS BURN MODEL PLANTS 3-1
3.1 MASS BURN/WATERWALL AND MASS BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANTS 3-1
3.2 MASS BURN/ROTARY COMBUSTOR (WATER-COOLED) MODEL PLANT ... 3-5
4.0 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) MODEL PLANTS 4-1
4.1 DESCRIPTION 4-1
4.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 4-1
4.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN
5-YEAR PERIOD AFTER PROPOSAL 4-4
4.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS 4-4
5.0 MODULAR MODEL PLANTS 5-1
5.1 MODULAR/EXCESS AIR 5-1
5.2 MODULAR/STARVED AIR 5-4
6.0 FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION (FBC) MODEL PLANTS 6-1
6.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZES AND OPERATING
CHARACTERISTICS 6-1
6.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN
5-YEAR PERIOD AFTER PROPOSAL 6-1
6.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS 6-4
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section £iae
7.0 MODEL PLANT COSTS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .7-1
7.1 MASS BURN 7-1
7.2 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL ... ............ 7-21
7.3 MODULAR 7-26
7.4 FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION. .............. . . 7-41
7,5 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND ENERGY IMPACTS .......... .7-47
8.0 REFERENCES 8-1
APPENDIX A - COST EQUATIONS FOR CONTROL OF NEW MWC'S
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Tabl e Page
1-1 Model Plant Selection for lll(b) 1-2
1-2 Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas Composition
Data 1-3
1-3 Feed Waste Composition Data 1-5
2-1 Summary of Number of Facilities and Number of Combustors
Subject to the NSPS in 5-year Period after Proposal. . . 2-3
2-2 Summary of Control Options for New Facilities 2-6
2-3 Design parameters for New MWC Model Plant Control
Systems 2-9
3-1 Mass Burn (Waterwall and Refractory) Facility Information. 3-2
3-2 Mass Burn (Waterwall and Refractory) Model Plant
Specifications and Flue Gas Composition Data 3-6
3-3 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Facility Information 3-9
3-4 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Model Plant Specifications
and Flue Gas Composition Data 3-11
4-1 RDF Facility Information 4-3
4-2 RDF Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas Composition
Data 4-5
5-1 Modular/Excess Air Facility Information 5-3
5-2 Modular/Excess Air Model Plant Specifications and Flue
Gas Composition Data 5-5
5-3 Modular/Starved Air Facility Information 5-6
5-4 Modular/Starved Air Model Plant Specifications and Flue
Gas Composition Data 5-10
6-1 FBC Facility Information . 6-2
6-2 FBC Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas Composition
Data 6-5
7-1 Capital Costs for 200 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall Model
Plant (No. 1) 7-2
7-2 Capital Costs for 800 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall Model
Plant (No. 2) 7-3
7-3 Capital Costs for 2,250 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall Model
Plant (No. 3) 7-4
7-4 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 200 TPD Mass
Burn/Waterwall Model Plant (No. 1) 7-6
7-5 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 800 TPD Mass
Burn/Waterwall Model Plant (No. 2) 7-7
7-6 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 2,250 TPD
Mass Burn/Waterwall Model (Plant No. 3) 7-8
7-7 Environmental Impacts for 200 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall
Model Plant (No. 1) 7-9
7-8 Environmental Impacts for 800 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall
Model Plant (No. 2) 7-10
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Costs for 2,000 TPD RDF Model Plant (No. 6).
Costs for 2,000 TPD RDF Co-fired Model Plant
7-9 Environmental Impacts for 2,250 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall
Model Plant (No. 3)
7-10 Capital Costs for 500 TPD Mass Burn/Refractory Model
Plant (No. 4)
7-11 Annualized Costs for 500 TPD Mass Burn/Refractory Model
Plant (No. 4)
7-12 Environmental Impacts for 500 TPD Mass Burn/Refractory
Model Plant (No. 4)
7-13 Capital Costs for 1,050 TPD Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor
Model Plant (No. 5)
7-14 Annualized Costs for 1,050 TPD Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor
Model Plant (No. 5)
7-15 Environmental Impacts for 1,050 TPD Mass Burn/Rotary
Combustor Model Plant (No. 5)
7-16 Capital
7-17 Capital
(No. 7)
7-18 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 2,000
TPD RDF Model Plant (No. 6)
7-19 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 2,000
TPD RDF Co-fired Model Plant (No. 7)
7-20 Environmental Impacts for 2,000 TPD RDF Model Plant
(No. 6)
7-21 Environmental Impacts for 2,000 TPD RDF Co-fired Model
Plant (No. 7)
7-22 Capital Costs for 240 TPD Modular/Excess Air Model
Plant (No. 8)
7-23 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 240 TPD
Modular/Excess Air Model Plant (No. 8)
7-24 Environmental Impacts for 240 TPD Modular/Excess Air
Model Plant (No. 8)
7-25 Capital Costs for 50 TPD Modular/Starved Air Model
Plant (No. 9)
7-26 Capital Costs for 100 TPD Modular/Starved Air Model
Plant (No. 10)
7-27 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 50 TPD
Modular/Starved Air Model Plant (No. 9)
7-28 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 100 TPD
Modular/Starved Air Model Plant (No. 10)
7-29 Environmental Impacts for 50 TPD Modular/Starved Air
Model Plant (No. 9)
7-11
7-13
7-14
7-16
7-17
7-18
7-20
7-22
7-23
7-24
7-25
7-27
7-28
7-30
7-31
7-32
7-34
7-35
7-36
7-37
7-39
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Rage
7-30 Environmental Impacts for 100 TPD Modular/Starved Air
Model Plant (No. 10) 7-40
7-31 Capital Costs for 900 TPD FBC (Bubbling Bed) Model
Plant (No. 11) 7-42
7-32 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 900 TPD FBC
(Bubbling Bed) Model Plant (No. 11) 7-43
7-33 Environmental Impacts fpr 900 TPD FBC (Bubbling Bed)
Model Plant (No. 11) 7-44
7-34 Capital Costs for 900 TPD FBC (Circulating Fluidized-Bed)
Model Plant (No. 12) 7-46
7-35 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 900 TPD
FBC (Circulating Fluidized-Bed) Model Plant (No. 12) . . 7-48
7-36 Environmental Impacts for 900 TPD FBC (Circulating
Fluidized-Bed) Model Plant (No. 12) 7-49
7-37 Summary of Capital Costs for New MWC Model Plants 7-50
7-38 Summary of Annualized Costs for New MWC Model Plants . . . 7-51
7-39 Summary of Electrical and Auxiliary Fuel Requirements
for New MWC Model Plants 7-52
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3-1 Mass Burn Combustor (Waterwall and Refractory) Unit
Sizes 3-3
3-2 Mass Burn (Waterwall and Refractory) Facility Sizes. ... 3-3
3-3 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Unit Sizes 3-10
3-4 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Facility Sizes 3-10
4-1 RDF Facility Sizes 4-2
4-2 RDF Combustor Unit Sizes 4-2
5-1 Modular/Excess Air Combustor Unit Sizes 5-2
5-2 Modular/Excess Air Facility Sizes 5-2
5-3 Modular/Starved Air Combustor Unit Sizes 5-7
5-4 Modular/Starved Air Facility Sizes 5-7
6-1 FBC Combustor Unit Sizes 6-3
6-1 FBC Facility Sizes 6-3
viii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the operating and emission parameters, and costs
for new municipal waste combustor (MWC) model plants developed to support the
impacts analysis of new source performance standards (NSPS) for this source
category. Twelve different model plants were selected to represent the MWC
industry based on differences in unit size and design, waste feed
characteristics, heat recovery method, and flue gas emissions. The model
plants were selected to represent new MWC's expected to be constructed in the
United States between 1990 and 1994. These plants were developed to provide a
basis for estimating emission reductions, costs, and other impacts of the
various control alternatives under consideration.
The model plants include three mass burn/waterwall (MB/WW), one mass
burn/refractory (MB/REF), one mass burn/rotary combustor (MB/RC), one
modular/excess air (MI/EA), two modular/starved air (MI/SA), two
refuse-derived fuel (RDF), and two fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) facilities.
These model plants are summarized in Table 1-1. It is assumed that all of the
model plants except the 50 ton per day (TPD) MI/SA plant will generate
electricity. Most plants will fire 100 percent municipal waste or RDF, but
one of the RDF model plants will cofire a 50/50 mixture of RDF and wood.
Primary design parameters specified for each model plant are listed in
Table 1-2 and include: combustor type, plant size, number of combustors per
plant, excess air level, waste feed ash content, flue gas flowrate and
temperature, and particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO-), hydrochloric
acid (HC1), carbon monoxide (CO) and total dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF)
concentrations and annual emission rates exiting the combustor. All flue gas
concentrations are reported on a 7 percent Op, dry basis.
Acid gas (HC1 and SOp) emissions and flue gas flowrates were calculated
based on the feed waste composition specified in Table 1-3 and the excess air
rates given in Table 1-2 using a software package developed by Pacific
Environmental Services (PES). The acid gas emission estimates assume that
the entire sulfur and chlorine components of the incoming feed are converted
to SOp and HC1, respectively, upon combustion. Excess air levels, flue gas
temperatures, and PM, CO, and total CDD/CDF emissions were developed and
2
documented in a separate report.
1-1
-------
1
1
-Q
^
«
o
li_
z
o
t
u
UJ
,J
UJ
tf>
h-
2
_J
o_
LU
O
1
i j
«- |
UJ
-J
CO
^
h
_t
0)
3
u.
X
!_
CO >
CD O
3: u
01
t_
D>
c
CO
CU CA
Q. L.
0 3
Q
J=
CO
3
c
C
O
4-> a.
C H-
CO *-f
Q. -
X
CO
4-* U
O CD
1- Q.
CD
0
CA
H- C_
O 0
<- CA
01 3
JO JO
E E
3 0
z U
^
CU
N
'i ^\
CA O
a.
4-» 1
'* VX
C
Z3
01
a.
X
4-1
C_
4-*
CA
3
JO
O
CJ
^
> 4-> 01
CD C JO
TJ <0 E
O 3
Z O. C
3 3
V) CO
z z
X X
o o
o o
X
._
E U
CO
CO O
0)
UJ
0 O
0 0
0 0
in oo
0 0
0 0
(M CO
CM CM
o o
o o
« «^
CO CD
3 3
c_ c_
01 0>
CO CD
2 2
>» >.
C C
3 3
JO JO
CA CA
CA CA
CO CO
Z Z
«- (M
3 3
CO CO
z z
X X
o o
o o
X X
_ >_
u o
"- -
U CJ
01 0)
* 1
UJ UJ
o o
o o
o o
co co
o o
in o
CM in
(\i
ro (M
o o
in in
N- CM
X
c.
O
CD 4-1
3 U
I- CD
CU C.
CD 01
2 C_
^^ x^
C C
3 3
JO JO
a> CA
CA CA
CD CO
Z Z
ro *
3 u.
co o
z ce.
X X
o o
o o
X X
p- !-
u u
. .J-
u u
cu cu
UJ UJ
o o
o o
o o
CO CO
o o
in o
o o
«- CM
ro -*
JO
o o
in o
ro in
X"N
^j .
CD CU
2 3
XI- H-
1- CU
CO 4-> TJ
O Z >
*s, L.
c i- cu
3 4J I
JO CA CU
3 CA
CA JO 3
CA E t-
CD O 0)
Z O tt
in >o
u. o
o o
a: 2
X X
0 0
in in
X
._
O
u
0)
UJ
0
o
o
00*
o
o
o
CM
^3-
JO
o
o
in
-
0)
3
«*-
TJ
>
t._
1.
0)
TJ
01
CA
3
4-
01
ac
ls-
3
c/)
z
X
o
o
X
.^
o
L.
u
0)
UJ
o
o
o
CO
o
CM
CM
o
CM
*^-
c_
CO
CA
cu
u
X
cu
,_
<0
3
TJ
o
z
co
n 3
C/> VI
z z
X X
o o
o o
X
,^
u
cu
c <-
O 4-1
z u
cu
UJ
o o
o o
o o
in CO
o o
in o
CM CM
in o
CM in
(^ L.
CD CD
TJ TJ
0) 01
L- L.
CD CO
4-* 4->
CA CA
i- L.
CO CO
3 3
TJ TJ
0 0
z z
O 0
u_
o
X
o
o
X
.^
u
c_
u
0)
UJ
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CM
JO
o
in
^
c
o
t
4^
CA
3
JO
o
u
TJ
0)
JO
1
TJ
0)
N
p_
"DO
3 m
m
^
u_
f fc
/v*
X
o
o
X
.^
o
L.
u
01
UJ
o
o
o
CO*
o
o
o
CM
JO
o
in
^
c
0
JJJ
(A
3
i
o
o
TJ
01
JO
TJ
Q)
N
r^
CO
U u_
o
LL. V^
CO
,
ls-
L.
0)
JO
E
3
"CD
TJ
0
z
o
**"
TJ
o
o
2
TJ
c
CD
u.
a:
TJ
01
c
JO
E
o
o
CA
c
cu
CA
CD
a.
cu
'-
TJ
c
CO
CM
TJ
c
CO
T_
«-
^
-0
CA
i_
cu
JO
E
3
c_
X
^ 0)
CA TJ
t- I- 0
j: X z
0 <- C-
O JZ O
O H-
-o
CO O u~
O 0
II - CX.
in
C- 0
^X II C^
CA U
X X CA
CO ^ 4J
TJ -^ C
3 CD
ro CA
ro o cu
ro in c.
a.
XX CU
c_
CO 3 0)
TJ ^ N
^ CA
CA U CA
t- J=
JZ 4-»
o
* 0 C
CM «- 13
CD JO
TJ
CU
JO
TJ
cu
N
--
.^
3
_/
*
~O CD
1) C
4_f
I3> CO
c
3
o
J3 c_
J3
3 0
CO
II
II
CO
CO Ll-
ca o
0 TJ
1-2
-------
^
3
z
o
H
M
VJ
O
8
<
g
,_]
b
1
Z
o
3
M
M
a
OLI
CH
£
W
o
g
CM
1
rH
3
pq
<
H
rt
V
q
'Q
1
i?
0)
[K
W
M
s
U3 33 O
as5
w
a
hi
cc 4n
0
o
(K
o
Pi
a
2
*
s
V 3
00 3t
*J s
II
£
>-l 12
JpQ
s
^^
CM
rH
§
^
0
o
o
z
ON
o
z
00
o
z
f-
o
z
\O
s
Q
X
o
z
^^
eo
Z
cJ
o
~
o
z
u
M
N 0
§
O
CM 0
O
CM 0
CM O
CM
-» O
O
O
CM
-* 0
o
o
CM
CO O
m
o
rH
CM O
0
m
CO O
m
CM
CM
CM 0
O
CO
CM O
O
CM
-i S
a t-i
0
0
o M rt
"-< fl> M
3 « S,
^ S J3
0 WO
1 * Jf
& ° -3
rH O t-l
O ' 4->
rt O 0
o
o
o
00
o
o
00
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
in
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
00
o
0
0
oo
o
0
o
CO
o
o
o
00
0
o
o
CO
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
«
VI
u
-r4
IJ
jj
8.
0
a
1
m
r-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
-T
in
CM
N
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
N
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
V
M
§
»
«
0
y
g
c
o
J!
o
VO
O
o
o
0
o
o
o
rH
O
O
o
m
o
o
IN
o
00
o
00
o
00
o
"*
M
H
c
*J
V)
Si "n
§ >H
0 «
« o
0 Si
o
0
4->
IH
c
o
s
g
£
OOOO
O -»
rH -3- CM
I
flt fl»
4J4-)
tncn
5
0
1-3
-------
1
a
o
H
CO
o
1
to
5
w
,_]
p
g
CO
25
o
M
y
u
In
O
w
to
(H
53
Q
i
s
g
d
§
'**'
CM
rH
i
t-«
cO
in
S
i
,_,
01
TJ
2
S<^
CM
O rH
"
05 O
*"* 5.
PQ rH
M ^H
O
fo Z
0
a§
4-1 ^
w ffl d
*-. 4> O
S z * 5
2"
M 0
s 5
<^
0 ^
oi r-
2 *H O
55
>o
b
§0
^v
(il
Q .g
5-
w ,
o -
4J n
w d
3 0
1 *..
E
CM
vO
nl
3
1
a
S
o
4-1
3
a
5
0
P^
(0
O
d
^
in
in
i
U
&i
a
2 d
0
H
X 4J
rH V)
0 3
4J rQ
M 0
MH
01 T3
rH 0)
H 1
3 V
rQ N
rH
to -O
tfl -r-t
c - I
1
au
pq
g ^
cfl
rH
r-l
CO rH
S o>
C 3
4-1
i* 0>
M H
3 01
-D TJ
1
V) 11
to to
S 3
V
1 r-l
2 1
2
2 S
CO
rH
rH
(Tt
EH
5
H
nJ
(i]
"d
d
o
rH
W
O
a
o
V
to
(0
d
o>
4-t
0)
4-)
r^-J
S
0)
<4
4->
m
rH
-C
4-1
d
0
rH
nl
o
rH
r-J
O
1)
a
tn
4J
rH
rH
O
nJ
*«
to 0)
01 4-1
oo d
d o
0
U T3
0)
O «
4J ft
^0
M T)
O 0)
0) (0
pi ,-H
3
e o
O r-H
M tfl
t>Hj CJ
n o
a>
M
(D
X
ft.
O
to
d
0
r-l
n
w
S
O
(It
4J
«
.
ON
fO
P
r-H
AH
^
0>
o
o
op
tf
H
3
'o
"S
r-l
o
d
rH
01
VH
^j
to
0)
4-1
a
o
M
m
d
o
H
V)
H
e
0)
cO
<
X
0>
o
4-1
VI
O
4-1
CO
to
g
rH
in
V)
-H
T)
w
0
-M
3
§
O
Q
Ol
EH
O
iO
rS
4-1
rt
_£j
4-1
^
0)
_,
CO
B
w
10
'
ON
4J
d
(0
--i
01
0
w
rH
O
.0
Q
V)
M
(0
O,
'4
(xO
O
vO
Pi
a
o
,0
"C.
^
V
ft
Wl
rt
tn
4-1
i-l
6
O
in
M
00
CO
o
0
r-l
0
CJ
V)
00
in
o
o
111
4-1
H
r-l
§*
O
O
4J
V)
V)
CO
0)
rE
(It
D
fc}
H
W
a)
G
(0
01
rd
V
rQ
"d
3
0
d
0
w
(0
'e
0>
v;
O
(fl
to
-g
(0
d
V
4-J
to
11
4-1
4-1
3
rH
rH
0
a
vTJ
4-J
0
01
-d
4-J
O
10
o
H
0
rH
c
0
0
H
rH
0)
tn
(0
CQ
W
4J
CO
a
3
vVl
d
o
4-1
3
o
0>
N
tfl
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-3. FEED WASTE COMPOSITION DATA1
(Weight Percent)
Constituent
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Nitrogen
Water
Chlorine
Inerts
MB and MOD RDF
plants
26.7
3.6
19.7
0.1
0.2
27.1
0.3
22.2
and FBC
plants
33.8
4.5
27.9
0.2
0.5
25.2
0.4
7.5
RDF Cofired
plant
30.4
3.7
23.5
0.1
0.3
37.6
0.2
4.3
a50/50 mixture
(mass basis) RDF and wood;
constituent (mixture) = (constitutent
calculated using fol
(RDF) + constituent
lowing equation:
(wood))
where,
wood composition (weight percent) is as follows: 26.9 percent carbon,
2.9 percent hydrogen, 19.1 percent oxygen, 0.02 percent sulfur,
0.08 percent nitrogen, 50 percent water, 0 percent chlorine and 1 percent
inerts.
1-5
-------
The emission estimates are representative of typical combustors in each sub-
category of MWC's.
In addition, annual operating hours and heat recovery capabilities are
presented in Table 1-1. These parameters were selected to be representative
of new plants in each subcategory based on the available information.
Representative stack heights and diameters presented in Table 1-2 were derived
from information contained in a survey of all existing MWC's. These
parameters are discussed further in subsequent sections.
Information is provided in this report on capital and operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs of the model plants and control equipment included in
the baseline. For each model plant, an assessment of baseline and three
emission control options based on costs, emission reduction, cost
effectiveness, and energy and environmental impacts is provided. Baseline
capital and O&M costs for each combustor type include costs of good combustion
and PM control with electrostatic precipitators (ESP's), except for the
smallest modular plant (no. 9), which is assumed not to have an ESP at
baseline. The costs of three emission control options are also presented.
All costs are presented in December 1987 dollars.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Section 2.0
presents background information and methodology for model plant selection, a
description of baseline emissions control and the three other control options,
and an overview of costing procedures; Sections 3.0 through 6.0 present a
brief description of the model plant parameters and the projected number of
new MWC facilities subject to the NSPS in the 5-year period after proposal for
each model plant listed above; and Section 7.0 presents costs, emission
reduction, and cost effectiveness of the emission controls for each model
plant selected; Section 8.0 lists the references.
1-6
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR MODEL PLANT SELECTION
Model plants were developed for the purpose of calculating emission
reduction and control cost information for new MWC's expected to commence
construction within 5 years after the proposal date of the NSPS, scheduled for
November 1989. The number of combustors and total capacity of facilities
expected to be subject to the NSPS nationally were estimated from market
predictions of waste generation and disposal practices. Based on this
approach, it was estimated that total annual waste combusted in the fifth year
after proposal of the NSPS will be 16.5 million tons/yr, and total design
4
capacity will be 19.6 million tons/yr. This equates to a total design
capacity of 54,000 TPD subject to the NSPS in the 5-year period after
proposal. However, because these facilities will not commence construction
for several years, in many instances, the combustor type, size, or number is
not known. Therefore, in developing model plants, it was assumed that recent
trends in combustor type, size, and number of combustors per plant will
continue through 1994 (5 years after NSPS proposal). This is a reasonable
assumption since, for the NSPS facilities for which information is available,
the distribution of the number of facilities and total design capacity appears
similar to those facilities commencing construction prior to 1989.
To estimate the distribution of new MWC's by combustor type, information
on facilities in advanced planning or early construction stages was used.
These distributions indicate that of the projected total design capacity of
54,000 TPD subject to the NSPS: 64 percent of capacity will be mass burn,
27 percent RDF, 3 percent modular, and 7 percent FBC or gasification
facilities.
To determine combustor and plant size, a list was prepared containing all
recently built facilities (start-up dates of 1985 or later) and those
facilities in the advanced planning or construction stages for which data on
combustor type, size, and number of combustors are available. Existing
combustors were added to provide a larger data base. These data were sorted
by combustor type, and combustor and plant size distribution lists and graphs
were prepared. Typical plant and combustor size for each combustor type as
2-1
-------
well as number of combustors per plant were then determined from reviewing
these lists and the unit and plant size distribution graphs. The number of
plants subject to the NSPS was then calculated by dividing the total national
capacity for each plant type by the size of the model plant. The number of
combustors was calculated by multiplying the number of plants by the number of
combustors in the model plant. A summary of the numbers of plants and
combustors is given in Table 2-1.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE AND THREE CONTROL OPTIONS
Four different control technologies were combined into three control
alternatives. The various control technologies address CDD/CDF, PM, S02, and
HC1 emissions and include both combustion control methods which promote the
destruction and inhibit the formation of some pollutants (e.g., CDD/CDF), and
post-combustion exhaust gas control methods. The four control technologies
are:
(1) good combustion practices including exhaust gas cooling;
(2) electrostatic precipitator (ESP);
(3) dry sorbent injection with fabric filter (FF) (or ESP); and
(4) spray dryer with FF.
Good combustion practices (GCP) include the proper design, construction,
and operation of an MWC. The use of GCP can minimize CDD/CDF and HC
emissions, including CDD/CDF precursors, by complete combustion of these
pollutants. Current theory suggests that, following discharge from the
combustor, CDD/CDF and volatile metal emissions can be further reduced by
exhaust gas cooling, possibly by promoting condensation and adsorption of
these pollutants onto particulates and subsequent removal by the PM control
device. Furthermore, the data suggest that if MWC exhaust gases remain in the
480 to 600°F temperature region following discharge from the MWC, CDD/CDF can
form downstream of the combustor. Therefore, exhaust gas cooling to 450°F or
less is considered a part of GCP. Exhaust gas cooling can be achieved by
water sprays, dilution air, or by the addition of heat exchanger surface area.
All but one of the model plants have combustor exit temperatures of 450°F or
less at baseline.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND NUMBER OF COMBUSTORS
SUBJECT TO THE NSPS IN 5-YEAR PERIOD AFTER PROPOSAL
Model Model
Plant Number of
Combustor Type No. Combustors
Small MB/WW 1 2
Medium MB/WW 2 2
Large MB/WW 3 3
MB/REF 4 2
MB/RC 5 3
RDF 6 4
RDF (cofired) 7 4
MI/EA 8 2
MI/SA (no heat 9 2
recovery)
MI/SA 10 2
FBC (BB) 11 2
FBC (CFB) 12 2
Plant
Total Plant
Size, (tpd)
200
800
2,250
500
1,050
2,000
2,000
240
50
100
900
900
Total
Sub.iect
Number of
Combustors
34
14
24
6
9
20
12
6
4
12
6
6
153
to NSPS
Number of
Facilities
17
7
8
3
3
5
3
3
2
6
3
_3
63
aMB/WW = Mass burn/waterwall
MB/REF = Mass burn/refractory
MB/RC = Mass burn/rotary combustor
RDF = Refuse-derived fuel
MI/EA = Modular incinerator/excess air
MI/SA = Modular incinerator/starved
FBC = Fluidized-bed combustor
BB = Bubbling bed
CFB = Circulating fluidized-bed
air
2-3
-------
Particulate matter control through the use of ESP's is a common practice
for existing MWC's. Available data suggest ESP's are effective for the
control of PM and most metals, but achieve little or no control of CDD/CDF and
acid gases. Exhaust gas cooling upstream of an ESP to 450°F or less will
prevent formation of CDD/CDF across the ESP.
Dry sorbent injection (DSI) has been applied at several MWC's in the
United States as well as in Japan and Europe. With DSI, powdered dry sorbent
is injected into either the combustor furnace (generally limestone or lime) or
into the combustor outlet duct (generally hydrated lime). A downstream ESP or
FF is used to collect flyash as well as reacted and unreacted sorbent. Dry
sorbent injection can reduce HC1 and S02 emissions; at equal sorbent feed
rates, acid gas emissions are lower for DSI systems followed by a FF than if
an ESP is used due to additional removal that occurs across the filter cake.
When DSI is applied in conjunction with exhaust gas cooling to 300 F or less,
CDD/CDF reductions as well as increased acid gas removal are also achieved.
Because of the additional acid gas removal, it is expected that most new MWC's
using DSI will employ a FF. For this reason, the cost estimates for DSI
systems applied to the model MWC's in this report assume a FF. For estimating
model plant emissions, however, the design performance levels are achievable
with a simple DSI system, flue gas cooling to 350°F, and either an ESP or a
FF. A properly designed DSI system equipped with a FF and flue gas cooling to
300 F or less can achieve higher performance levels.
Spray dryer emission data from several MWC's show high CDD/CDF, HC1, and
S02 removal efficiencies. A FF is most commonly used downstream for PM
control and enhanced acid gas and metals control. A spray dryer/FF
combination is used in the report to estimate the performance and cost for the
most stringent control option. As noted above, recent information indicates
that advanced sorbent injection systems (which include a reaction vessel)
followed by FF may achieve similar control to spray dryer/FF systems and may
have slightly lower costs; however, data on such systems are limited.
The baseline represents the level of control that would exist in the
absence of additional Federal regulation of MWC's. For new MWC units, it is
assumed that GCP and good PM control are already in place and represent
baseline conditions. This assumes a PM emission level of 0.08 gr/dscf for
2-4
-------
units larger than 50 TPD capacity but smaller than 100 million Btu/hr heat
input (about 270 TPD, assuming a refuse heating value of 4,500 Btu/lb) as
required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart E and 0.05 gr/dscf for units larger than
100 million Btu/hr heat input as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. It is
assumed new units smaller than the 50 TPD cutoff in Subpart E will not use
add-on controls and will emit about 0.1 gr/dscf.
The four control technologies were combined to produce the three control
options. They are presented below from the least to most stringent option
with respect to pollutant emissions.
Option 1:
- good combustion practices
- no acid gas control
- best PM control (by ESP) (0.01 gr/dscf)
Option 2:
- good combustion control
- good acid gas control (dry sorbent injection)
- best PM control (by FF or ESP) (0.01 gr/dscf)
Option 3:
- good combustion control
- best acid gas control (spray dryer)
- best PM control (by FF) (0.01 gr/dscf)
2.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR COSTING BASELINE AND CONTROL OPTIONS
This section presents the methodology for costing the baseline and the
three control options discussed in Section 2.2. Table 2-2 summarizes the
control options to be costed for the 12 model plants. Capital and annual
costs of both the combustor and air pollution control device (APCD) are
presented in December 1987 dollars. A 10 percent interest rate and a 15-year
economic life are assumed for both the combustors and APCD equipment. The
procedures, cost bases, and equipment specifications used to estimate capital
and annual operating costs associated with each control option in Table 2-2
are summarized in A pendix A nd explained in more detail in a separate report
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR NEW FACILITIES
Control Control Control
Control Options Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Good combustion XX X X
practices
Good PM control X
Best PM control XXX
Good acid gas X
control
Best acid gas
control
Temperature Xa X X
control
X
X
aOnly for 50 TPD modular/starved air plant (Model Plant No. 9).
2-6
-------
concerning MWC cost procedures. Emissions control efficiencies associated
with each control option are based upon information contained in a separate
report regarding post-combustion control technologies.
Baseline costs include GCP, ESP's sized to achieve good PM control, and
opacity and CO monitors installed at the ESP outlet for continuous monitoring.
In addition, costs will also be provided for Model Plant No. 9 for reducing PM
emissions from 0.1 to 0.08 gr/dscf. These costs are based on a sidestream ESP
designed to remove 90 percent of the particulates from 22 percent of the total
plant flue gas. Costs for Control Option 1 are identical to that for
baseline, except that ESP costs are estimated for each model plant based on
the application of best PM control (0.01 gr/dscf). Temperature control costs
are estimated only for combustors without heat recovery (Model Plant No. 9 in
Table 1-2) based on cooling the flue gas to 450°F using humidification.
Costs for Control Option 2 are estimated for dry lime injection,
fabric filtration, and temperature control to 300 F. The dry hydrated lime
injection system is designed to remove 40 and 80 percent of the inlet S0? and
HC1 emissions, respectively, based on a calcium-to-acid gas molar ratio of
2:1. A pulse-jet fabric filter is installed downstream of the dry sorbent
injection system to remove flyash and sorbent to 0.01 gr/dscf based on a net
air-to-cloth ratio of 4:1. A fabric filter is selected because of their more
widespread use with acid gas control systems applied to MWC's. A
humidification water spray chamber is added upstream of the lime injection
system and fabric filter to provide flue gas cooling to 300°F. To ensure that
both the acid gas reduction levels and the PM emission levels are achieved,
the following continuous emission monitors (CEM's) are installed:
o HC1, SOp, and 02 CEM's at both the inlet and outlet of the acid gas
control device fi.e., the inlet CEM's are installed before the dry
lime injection nozzles and the outlet CEM's are installed at the
outlet of the fabric filter).
o An opacity monitor at the outlet of the fabric filter; and
o A data reduction system.
For Control Option 3, a lime spray dryer followed by a fabric filter
is used. The lime spray dryer is designed to remove 90 and 97 percent of S02
and HC1, respectively, from the flue gas leaving the combustor. Lime slurry
2-7
-------
is fed at a calcium-to-acid gas molar ratio of 2.5:1. The fabric filter is
designed with a net air-to-cloth ratio of 4:1 to decrease the flyash and spent
sorbent to 0.01 gr/dscf. The CEM's discussed for Control Option 2 also apply
to this option.
Table 2-3 presents the design parameters for each of the control systems
to be applied at each of the model plants. With the exception of the three
modular combustor model plants (Model Plant Nos. 8, 9, and 10), APCD's are
installed on each combustor. For the modular model plants, a single APCD
system is installed downstream of a waste heat boiler. With the exception of
Model Plant Nos. 9 and 10 at baseline, the APCD is sized to treat the total
flue gas flow from the waste heat boiler. No APCD was applied to Model Plant
No. 9 at baseline. In the case of Model Plant No. 10 at baseline, a
sidestream ESP is installed to remove 90 percent of the particulates from
22 percent of the total plant flue gas to reduce PM emissions from 0.1 to
0.08 gr/dscf.
The pressure drops across the APCD's are estimated to be 0.5 inches of
water for ESP's, 7 inches of water for dry lime injection and FF systems, and
12.5 inches of water for spray dryer and FF systems. It is assumed that the
pressure drop across humidification chambers used for flue gas cooling is
negligible. Ducting lengths for PM control and spray dryers for each model
plant in Table 2-3 are based on information contained in a separate document
g
regarding the costs of flue gas cleaning technologies. For dry sorbent
injection, duct length for flue gas humidification was added assuming the duct
length for flue gas humidification is the same as that used for PM control.
The APCD Capital costs for the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant (Model Plant No 7)
are based on burning 100 percent of RDF. This provides the flexibility for
the plant to burn 100 percent RDF and still meet the emission control levels
of the various control options, because the APCD equipment is designed for
this fuel.
2-8
-------
s
H
CO
CO
o
8
sjj
P.
w
Q
i
u
1
1
o
ryt
H
H
5
n.
M
W
Q
CO
W
9
3
PQ CM
ffi rH
PQ O
rH
« ""*
o o
£ 5
o
w *~*
M O
E Z
*J
sa-r»
-. 0
n O 01 O
2£ Z pd Z
< 00
M
S !§
I*. S ^
§ 4H 0
0 Z
^
G?
Q
Z
^
p2 "*
Sfi
w ?
"B^, .
sg
w .
rt pq o
J IS Z
3 3 C\T
11 M O
£ 2 Z
,H 3 In
,-1 3
<£ S Z
V
*J
V
§
V*
cu
^ X! J3
OOCMCM rHO rHO
o o ..in --in
ON CO CO r-t CO rH
OOCMCM rHO rHO
o o --in .-in
ON CO CO iH CO tH
00
OOCMrH COO -* O
O CM ON CO 00 CO
rH ^ m rH rH rH
- « -H
(U 0) 00
OOCNjrH OO -JO
»n rH 00-4"
OOCMrH r-O COO
^oo in 10 CM 10
CM N CM CM
00 CM CM rH in NO CM NO
CM rH CM -V
o
WO) « «H
6 P 4J M
V a) rt ,0
4J rH rH 0)
« P. O. fa
w X --
riw C e -Q C 6 £
O O 4H 4-1 O iH O
4Jr-t ^)OMH T4 O -rl
«1 O iJrtf iJctfrD 4-*
PM O - O 4J O
_Q 4-1 VOX! VOMHrHO))
6C rHO4J rHO O1^
Q O O rHObO rHO^MC
P4UO OrHC OrHXJPrH
H^> O--<1> O -- -P C
>^mm at CM 1-1 "OCM ooo*J
-C^OO 6 O 4-1 rH S 0 4-1 C U C
>> H 0)>rlMHtiOOw>rllHttl MH C M 4J «4H rHvlXt
riooiot n^H-.^ 4J cn^H^ rt M
rt o s 6 co«it>u ocovvo co
(XtHpP fX M rJ CJ O*MP TJ
Cl) ^-- SS B; 0) fL* LO (1) Q pL4(ACtfQ -rl >
y ^ w S w o vj
It . ' W I 1 (X W 1 1 < Q
C! ' i 4-1 T)
'rt to 01 o
* (4 4) O
<'> PQ PQ O
o o o o o
rJ o in
0 -T rH
r-i
O 0 O 0 0
rH O in
O -3- rH
iO
O 00
CO O -T CO O
m
^ O 4-t 0) rH
W Vj t-i
M 0) Q) a) D, 4-1
a> 6 6 4J B^ o
4J *rl -r< tl) O P
rH J J 3 0 Q
xH
fa 1 < 1 1 1
TJ
0)
p
C
4-1
c
0
0
2-9
-------
ssr
U -1 00
U r* o
MO -
fa Z rH 00
M -H
M -H 00
O r~ o
MO -
fa Z rH CO
O
S vo O
~- lO
"° N
33 Z
p
< V ,~. Ov
W S3 00
-- o co
££ j£
S ~
to <; co
>-i W vO O
W -» ' H
rJ SZ
S
8T3 ^
0) r*
fe M o o
H O -rl VO
§ c> 55 co
gj 0-
1-1
Q *
35 fc O O
0 §0 S
S r*-
3
§ ^
of S "° oo
fa go
Ul > CM
(£
W
H
§ W >
in
d
Ul O
rt ~
S S B
rH O 0
^ *j!
..3 § i
3 JS iS
w n) a o
*-» fa IT u
0 M V) u
° "1 o o
rt a 'H »
u fa J! S
M ^ 5q 1 1
01 --I L| Q| r-J r-J
P Q O tOI
3 P
rl 01
(4 0)
^
H
^
rH
rH
O
-*
r-»
1-1
5
O
pv
vO
CM
^
O
rH
CO
r*»
(H
«
r»-
CO
r-»
1
B"
o
4J
3
S
o
o
u
W
*J
5
t
0 O
CO O
co n
0 O
00 O
CO CO
00
CO O
*t CO
rH
CJ* O
CM VD
rH
in o
0 O
rH CO
m o
CO co
CO O
CM O
co co
r- o
in o
CO CO
h* o
rH CM
CO rH
r* o
co o>
a)
P P
U (4
3 -<
(5 3
0
rl
p
\4 rl
O rt
P CX
m
! £
8 S
o
J3 (4
rt o
V P
rH T)
0 01
0)
rt
P
CM U
rH 3
T>
§01
P
d
rH 0)
Q)
1 a
rt
U
ON
tH
Q
O
tH
P
B
8
iv(
rH
T)
*
O> r-H
vo nt
>< P
in o
CM 0>
p,
- (0
rH 0>
rS M
S Q
rH CJ
O.
Q
rH Q
0) CJ
T)
11
rt
u
o -
.. OB
X
HI IN
.58
4J
O >«
01 o
a
W rH
v o
4J
- B
Q U
o
a co
u
a!
(4
rH ^
O CT>
DC
W
m
H
- 4J
0 O
rH 0)
a
o w
u g
rH
P Q
S ^
rH Q
a Q
0> *O
"o (4
e
O CJ
^
*p
-->
o
o
i-H
WH
C"-
>n
r*3
T3
rH
3
5
W
0)
P
m
o
o
M
00
CO
O
0
o
p
rH
0)
V
,-H
c
O
TH
rl
S
0)
P
(4
1 1
3
U
rl
M
(4
(X
p
S
r-H
a
01
i~H
O
rl
O
u
o
H
S .
-HCM
r-H P
01 1H
V)
55
i-i
P
(4 0)
r-H rH
r-l 3
2 i
B-d
O 1)
O M
tr
v v
M U
rt
«-3
g :*
in r-t
in
g I
u
01 o
P 3
rt T>
rH
3J3
«H 4J
M 13
rt a
0)
>>
<-H
'ni
O
rH
4H
o
01
fX
in
r0
01
5
00
rH
01
-d
to
rH
u
1
(t)
oO
p
r-4
MH
W
P
S
4J
!§
O V
p
P O
d 3
0> rH
O P
M V)
W d
o
CM I
CM 13
B 0)
0 "H
m
o>
in M
o> rt
P
n) »
r4 W
P
M rl
8-§
P 4)
m in
o
P
01 "O
o a
0)
ex o
in
o
5 ^
O w
§a»
rH
rl ^
cu u)
M
U O
TJ
P
rt
M
p
rt
m
rt
00
rH
m
0)
T)
0)
P
0
0)
rH
ft
rH
rH
0>
P
rt
*
fe
0
o
m
o
P
in
rt
oo
S
rH
P
rH
O
O
u
o
H
00
&
p
M
O
m
o
rl
P
(4
O
O
O
rH
(4
W
0
M
01
H
^
O
IH
4J
d
o
u
g
p
I
rH
o
rl
p
<§
o
o
o
T)
S
0)
a
H
rH
01
(0
rt
J3
V
1
3
0
U
4J
d
o
u
£
M
O
fa
Q)
VI
3
n
S
1 1
a
r- 1 rH
T3 CO
g V)
rl
U
SG
ft)
o) n
rd
r-t
K
^
CM
S
0
^
o
d
o
0
r-
o\
rt
*e
CO
CO
in t-s
o>
rH -r-4
r-t P
0
P 0)
d tx
(4 W
r~l 0)
CX rH
r-H -
0) [£4
T> Q
O CJ
K Q
O CJ
g
r- 1 -
41 rH
> U
^ 03
P
O ^
0) C>
w en
0)
o
Q 0
O M
^ p
Q d
Q 0
CJ 0
T3 *^
d (^
rt a*
--I
U (4
CM30
O CO
O O^
o
M CM
0 P
o d
rt
^ 01
SI
^ G
*< M
o o
o* m
0 (4
r-
O r~l
rH 01
p p
u
rH V
CX
W tf]
P 01
S M
1 1
(X h
-nS
01 .
T) Q
go
U
O S
fa S
.H
2-10
-------
3.0 MASS BURN MODEL PLANTS
Mass burn facilities account for approximately 32,000 TPD (about
60 percent) of the projected MWC capacity expected to be subject to the NSPS
(54,000 TPD). This equates to an annual waste flow of 10 million tons/year.
There are three main types of mass burn plants: waterwall, refractory, and
rotary combustor. All three types combust waste without any preprocessing
other than the removal of items too large to go through the feed system.
The majority (85 percent) of the mass burn units are expected to have
waterwall furnaces. This equals a capacity of 27,000 TPD, or annual waste
flow of 8.4 million tons/year. Approximately 10 percent (3,200 TPD capacity,
1 million tons/year waste flow) are expected to have rotary combustors, and
about 5 percent (1,500 TPD capacity, 0.5 million tons/year waste flow) are
projected to have refractory-walled furnaces.
3.1 MASS BURN/WATERWALL AND MASS BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANTS
3.1.1 Description
As stated above, MB/WW and MB/REF combustors burn unprocessed waste.
Typical units use hydraulic rams or pusher grate sections to push the refuse
from the fuel chute onto the grate. The grates are designed to move the waste
through the combustor and to promote complete combustion by agitation of the
fuel bed. In the waterwall units, tubes are located in the walls of the
furnaces for heat recovery. Refractory units have downstream waste heat
boilers for heat recovery.
3.1.2 Selection of Model Plant Sizes and Operating Characteristics
Table 3-1 lists waterwall and refractory mass burn plants that were
either recently built (startup after 1984) or are currently in the advanced
planning or construction stage for which information on combustor type, size,
and number is available. The facilities are listed in order of increasing
combustor size. Although information is not available to classify these
facilities as waterwall or refractory combustors, the majority of MB
facilities are expected to be waterwall units. Figure 3-1 shows the
distribution of combustor sizes for the waterwall and refractory mass burn
units contained in Table 3-1. Figure 3-2 shows the facility distribution for
all waterwall and refractory mass burn facilities either recently built or
3-1
-------
ii
i
«
8
ill
§;*
i- « **
U > UJ
uj _* m
s i I
888
IV
S§
IS
i *
2 2 5
., 8
m ^ l
* M 0
< < ~
> 3 oj
*. ^ f*. U IW ^
*> « « S a -
o o
(A (A
S "
U >- O
* 5 S . = . U
23 SSbgfeb!
U* >* < UJ '» X. t*.
O **. » » O £
8" « 8 S S « ? « -
S G
liil
^
i
i i i § 2 s ii i \i i ii i
& ^ 2l a I i sit 11 ft «,
UIM^UIM WV>MUJ O
0 8 ° ^ ° °
s 3
111
S
ji ^g
8 g ^ « > x
§
£
a
s
2 1
- 2
i E *
55 S
| | ?
i » s
Jit
3-2
-------
300
400
450
506
750
825
900
COM8USTOR SIZE (TPD) -
Figure 3-1. Mass bum combustor
(waterwaU and refactory) unit sizes.
0-300 501--900 1201-1500 2200-2400
301-600 901-'200 1501-1800
rOTAL CAPACITY (TPD)
Figure 3-2. Mass burn
(waterwall and refactory) faciBty sizes.
3000
3-3
-------
currently in the advanced planning or construction stage, even if
facility-specific information on combustor size and number is not available.
Because of the large number and size distribution of projected mass burn
waterwall combustors, three combustor size categories (small, medium, and
large) were chosen to characterize the MB/WW facility population. Using the
data in Table 3-1, these categories were defined as small (60-250 TPD), medium
(267-606 TPD), and large (750-900 TPD). The small and medium size categories
have 1 to 3 units per plant with 2 units being the median. The large
combustor size category has 2 to 4 units per plant with a median value of 3
units.
From these data, representative model plants based on the typical number
of combustors and combustor sizes were selected for each combustor size
category. These model plants are as follows:
2 combustors at 100 TPD
2 combustors at 400 TPD
t 3 combustors at 750 TPD
Based solely on the distribution of combustor unit sizes presented in
Figure 3-1, a combustor size of 200 TPD might have been selected to represent
small facilities. However, the 100 TPD MB/WW model combustor size was
selected to represent the smallest combustors, since there is particular
interest in assessing the economic impacts of controls on small units. The
800 and 2,250 TPD model plants are representative of medium and large MB/WW
facilities, respectively.
Since there are substantially fewer MB/REF plants than MB/WW projected
and the size range is much narrower, one model plant is considered adequate to
represent the MB/REF subcategory. Several manufacturers are building MB/REF
units in the 150 to 500 TPD size range. Based on these data, the model plant
selected to represent MB/REF plants is:
2 combustors at 250 TPD
3.1.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Sub.iect to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
Considering the recently built and planned combustors in Table 3-1, on a
total capacity basis, about 8 percent of total MB/WW capacity is represented
3-4
-------
by small combustors, 22 percent is represented by medium combustors, and
70 percent is represented by large combustors. Applying these percentages to
total annual waste flow at MB/WW combustors (8.4 million tons/year) and
dividing by the waste flow per model plant yielded the following estimates of
number of combustors subject to the NSPS :
17 plants (34 combustors) in the small size category (annual waste
flow = 0.66 million tons/year)
7 plants (14 combustos) in the medium size category (annual waste
flow = 1.8 million tons/year)
t 8 plants (24 combustors) in the large size category (annual waste
flow = 5.9 million tons/year)
The projected MB/REF capacity of 1,500 TPD (waste flow of 0.5 million
tons/year), equates to 3 plants with a total of 6 combutors that are expected
to be subject to the NSPS.
3.1.4 Model Plant Parameters
Table 3-2 lists the parameters for the MB/WW and MB/REF model plants.
The table lists specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for
PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate
basis. The estimated uncontrolled PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF
emission rates are 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 50 ppmv, and 200 ng/dscm,
respectively, for MB/WW units and 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, and 100 ppmv,
and 300 ng/dscm, respectively for MB/REF units. All flue gas concentrations
are reported on a 7 percent Op, dry basis. All of the MB/WW (except the
200 TPD plant) and MB/REF model plants are expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr
and generate electricity. The 200 TPD MB/WW plant is expected to operate
5,000 hours/yr and have steam production only.
3.2 MASS BURN/ROTARY COMBUSTOR (WATER-COOLED) MODEL PLANT
3.2.1 Description
A mass burn/rotary combustor (MB/RC) consists of a rotary cylinder with
alternating watertubes and perforated steel plates. Municipal solid waste
(MSW) is metered into the combustor through a feed chute and ram feeder.
Preheated combustion air enters the combustor through the perforated plates
forming the walls of the cylinder. The combustor turns slowly and is oriented
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2. MASS BURN (WATERWALL AND REFRACTORY) MODEL
PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants3
Item
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model
Total daily charge rate, TPD
Annual operating hours
Ash content of feed waste, %
Excess combustion air, % of
theoretical
PM emission factor, % of
feed waste ash
Baseline PM emission rate,
gr/dscf:
Stack height, ft
Stack diameter, ft
Flue Gas Data Per Combustorc
Volume flowrate:
dscfm
scfm
acfm
Outlet temperature°F
Emission Concentrations peg
combustor at 7% 02 (dry) :
Particulate Matter:
gr/dscf
CO, ppmv
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
Small
MB/WW
(No. 1)
2
200
5,000
22.2
80
10
0.08
140
4.0
11,500
13,300
22,800
450
2
50
200
Medium
MB/WW
(No. 2)
2
800
8,000
22.2
80
10
0.05
200
6.0
46,000
53,100
91,100
450
2
50
200
Large
MB/WW
(No. 3)
3
2,250
8,000
22.2
80
10
0.05
230
7.0
86,200
99,500
171,000
450
2
50
200
MB/REF
(No. 4)
2
500
8,000
22.2
200
10
0.08
150
9.0
48,100
52,500
90,200
450
2
100
300
(continued)
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-2. MASS BURN (WATERWALL AND REFRACTORY) MODEL
PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Item
Acid gas:
HC1 , ppmv
S02> ppmv
Annual Emissions per
combustor:
PM, tons/yr
CO, tons/yr
CDD/CDF (xlO~2), Ibs/yr
HC1 , tons/yr
SO-, tons/yr
Small
MB/WW
(No. 1)
500
200
408
5
3.56
69
50
Model
Medium
MB/WW
(No. 2)
500
200
2,610
33
22.8
439
320
Plants3
Large
MB/WW
(No. 3)
500
200
4,890
62
42.8
823
601
MB/REF
(No. 4)
500
200
1,630
41
21.4
274
200
MB/WW - mass burn/waterwall; MB/REF - mass burn/refractory.
From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.05 gr/dscf or 0.08 gr/dscf limits as required by 40 CFR 60, Subparts Db
or E. Baseline controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants
listed, and stack emissions would be the same as listed above.
3-7
-------
with a slight downward tilt. The rotary section ends within a waterwall
boiler allowing the residue to fall into an ash removal system.
3.2.2 Selection of Model Plant Sizes and Operating Charactsristics
Table 3-3 lists the existing population of MB/RC plants built since 1985
and those in the advanced stages of planning for which information on
combustor type, size, and number is available. Figure 3-3 presents the MB/RC
size distribution from the information given in Table 3-3. Figure 3-4 shows
the facility size distribution for all recently built (after 1984) facilities
and those in the advanced planning or construction stages, even if
facility-specific information on combustor size and number is not available.
Since only about 10 percent of the total mass burn capacity is represented by
rotary combustors, only one model plant is selected.
Although Table 3-3 shows a median combustor size of 300 TPD, the trend of
recent sales of these units indicates that combustor sizes at newer plants are
expected to be larger than at existing plants. The MB/RC unit sizes at the
two facilities listed in Table 3-3 that are expected to startup in 1990 are
about 350 TPD and 450 TPD; each facility has three combustors. Assuming these
sizes and number of combustors per facility are indicative of newer plants, a
1,050 TPD plant consisting of three 350 TPD combustors was selected as the
MB/RC model plant.
3.2.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Sub.iect to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
As stated previously, approximately 10 percent (or 3,200 TPD) of the mass
burn population is expected to be MB/RC. Dividing this capacity by the model
plant size (1,050 TPD) and multiplying by the number of combustors per plant
(3), yields a projection of 3 MB/RC plants with a total of 29 combustors
subject to the NSPS.
3.2.4 Model Plant Parameters
Table 3-4 lists the parameters for the MB/RC model plant selected. The
table lists specifications for the model plant and emission estimates for PM,
HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate basis.
The estimated uncontrolled PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission rates
for MB/RC units are 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and 300 ng/dscm,
3-8
-------
«
i
I
m
H
~
i
8
ig
I
3
£
i
m
u
(A
2
s
LU
£
i 1
>"
5 g
*§
til
I
c
S
= a i
3 M E
8
* §
6
Hi!
8
i-
Uf
2
^
t
U
22
I
i
sT
«I
S u
OJ 4
!g UJ
i i
y r^ K f^ N.
N." 2 2 ^
- * m rn M m
^55*55
'33J33
S t _ U M
U U X U U
iislsl
19,0,1.1
S " S * S
^ ^ ^ X ^ ^
& S ** K 8 3
w* *
~ * ~ w - m
^ o ift o 3 Jn
« « « 2 «
i i i i i
a i i £ S 2
g |»
X > j* x
5 s ? *
> *^ wt
5 i *g
1 ;. §1
S M u S
S ill8
o -» -» IM m
j
1
a
'o
{
j
|
C
r
<^.
^
s
1
"5
= !5
H
*rf U
= t
>l
i ^
K «
;»
* M
S -
Ji
3-9
-------
:r'< 347 * co
' A1BUSTCR SIZE (TPD)
Figure 3-3. Mass/burn rotary combustor unit sizes.
448
CD
15C-250
300-1500
^TA>_ CAPACiiY (TPD)
Figure 3-4 Mass/burn rotary facity sizes.
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-4. MASS BURN/ROTARY COMBUSTOR MODEL PLANT
SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plant3
Item MB/RC (No. 5)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model 3
Total daily charge rate, TPD 1,050
Annual operating hours . 8,000
Ash content of feed waste, % 22.2
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical. 50
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash 10
Baseline PM emission rate:
gr/dscf 0.05
Stack height, ft 125
Stack diameter, ft 5.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustorc
Volume flowrate:
dscfm 33,400
scfm 39,600
acfm 68,100
Outlet temperature F 450
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% 0? (dry) :
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf 2
CO, ppmv 100
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm 300
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv 500
S09, ppmv 200
rl
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr 2,280
CO, tons/yr , 58
CDD/CDF (xlO~^), Ibs/yr 29.8
HC1, tons/yr 383
S02, tons/yr 280
MB/RC - mass burn/rotary combustor.
From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.05 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack
emissions would be the same as listed above.
3-11
-------
respectively, reported on a 7 percent Op, dry basis. The excess air level is
50 percent and the waste feed composition similar to that for MB/WW or
refractory units. The MB/RC model plant is expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr
and generate electricity.
3-12
-------
4.0 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) MODEL PLANTS
4.1 DESCRIPTION
Processed municipal waste, regardless of the degree of processing
performed, is broadly referred to as RDF. The degree of processing can vary
from simple removal of bulky items accompanied by shredding, to extensive
processing to produce a finely divided fuel suitable for cofiring in
pulverized coal-fired boilers. The general types of boilers used to combust
RDF can include suspension, stoker, and fluidized-bed designs.
4.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Figure 4-1 shows information on facility sizes for all RDF plants
(20 facilities) that were either recently built (startup after 1984) or are
currently in the advanced planning or construction stage. As is shown in
Figure 4-1, the majority of the RDF plants are between 1,000 and 2,000 TPD.
Table 4-1 presents information for the four existing plants for which data on
combustor type, size, and number are available. Figure 4-2 shows the
combustor size distribution for these plants. From the information in
Table 4-1, individual combustors at these plants form a relatively narrow size
range of 250 to 500 TPD RDF, and the plants generally have two to four
combustors.
Therefore, due to the narrow range in combustor and plant size, only one
model plant was selected to represent this subset of the MWC industry. As
shown in Figure 4-1 compared to Table 4-1, the newer facilities are generally
larger than existing facilities. Therefore, the combustor size and number of
combustors for the model plant were selected at the high end of the range for
the available data (i.e., 500 TPD capacity and four combustors). Therefore,
the following model plant was selected:
o 4 combustors at 500 TPD each
In addition, since some RDF plants cofire multiple fuels, another model
plant was selected to represent a cofired facility. This model plant is
identical to the model above except that it fires a 50/50 mixture (on a mass
basis) of RDF and wood. Wood was selected because it is the most common fuel
cofired in existing RDF units.
4-1
-------
2
Z
300-400 401-500 SOO-'OOO iOGi-2000 2001-3000 300-1-4000 4-001-5000
'O^AL CAPACITY ;TPD)
Figure 4-1. RDF facility sizes.
o
/>
2
J
3 ^
250 400 470
CGMBUSTOR SIZE (TPD)
Figure 4-2. RDF combustor unit sizes.
500
4-2
-------
"§
1
*
i
i
9
C/l
UJ
U
UJ
U.
3 uj
i *
p
il
UJ
OK
8
ill
1
% 8
IS J!
s*
UJ
(A
U
< O
S; S
i
~ s
8 «
« 2
N."
3 8
£ " 1
3 ^ >-
_J »
F-. (J
I 2 2
« S 5
U U
E 2 2
U O O
iiii
1 1 & a
Ul UJ
(A VI tfl M
UJ UJ UJ UJ
>. >- ^ >.
1 ^
3 § 8
Z9SS
rg oj ru >«
i 1 1 i
lisa
1 * i S
Ford/Saco
1 (PERC) (ORRINGTON)
to
nuth (Norfolk Navy Tard)
iifi
ts are existing.
Fuse-derived fuel
f S
4-3
-------
4.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN 5-YEAR PERIOD
AFTER PROPOSAL
Refuse-derived fuel plants account for 27 percent (33,300 TPD) of the
total design capacity for NSPS plants (16,000 TPD capacity, 4.2 million
tons/year total MSW flow). Based on the percentage of existing and projected
RDF facilities that cofire fuels, it is assumed 35 percent of the new plants
will cofire and 65 percent will fire RDF only. Dividing this by the model
plant and combustor sizes of 2,000 TPD and 500 TPD, respectively, yields
3 cofired RDF plants with a total of 12 combustors and 5 non-cofired RDF
plants with a total of 20 combustors subject to the NSPS in the 5-year period
after proposal.
4.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
The parameters for the two RDF model plants are listed in Table 4-2. The
table lists specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for PM,
HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate basis.
The estimated uncontrolled PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission
rates for the RDF model plant are 4 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 300 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and
1000 ng/dscm, respectively. Uncontrolled estimates of PM, HC1, S0?, CO, and
total CDD/CDF emission rates for the RDF cofired model plant are 4 gr/dscf,
250 ppmv, 150 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and 1000 ng/dscm, respectively. All flue gas
concentrations are reported on a 7 percent Op, dry basis. The higher
particulate rates from RDF facilities are due to the more concentrated fuel.
The excess air level for the RDF and RDF cofired model plant is 50 percent.
The waste feed composition for the RDF/wood mixture was calculated by
averaging the ultimate analysis compositions of RDF and wood. Both RDF model
plants are expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate electricity.
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-2. RDF MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants3
RDF
RDF Cofired
Item (No.6) (No. 7)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model 4 4
Total daily charge rate, TPD 2,000 2,000
Annual operating hours . 8,000 8,000
Ash content of feed waste, % 7.5 4.3
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical. 50 50
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash 80 80
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf 0.05 0.05
Stack height, ft 200 200
Stack diameter, ft 8.0 8.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustorc
Volume flowrate:
dscfm
scfm
acfm
Outlet temperature F
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% Q~ (dry) :
Participate Matter, gr/dscf
CO, ppmv
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
Acid gas:
HC1 , ppmv
SO,, ppmv
f\
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr
CO, tons/yr 7
CDD/CDF (xlO~^), Ibs/yr
HC1 , tons/yr
S02, tons/yr
58,700
68,500
118,000
450
4
100
1000
500
300
8,030
102
176
669
666
52,000
62,600
107,000
450
4
100
1000
250
150
7,130
90
156
326
368
aRDF - refuse-derived fuel.
From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included
in Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply
with the 0.05 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and
stack emissions would be the same as listed above.
tmg.019 4-5
section.4
-------
5.0 MODULAR MODEL PLANTS
5.1 MODULAR/EXCESS AIR
5.1.1 Description
Similar to mass burn units, modular combustors also burn waste without
preprocessing, but are usually smaller and have two combustion chambers. In
the excess air design, primary combustion air is supplied in excess of the
stoichiometric amount required for complete combustion. No additional air is
added to the secondary chamber, it simply provides additional residence time
for the completion of combustion. This is functionally similar to larger mass
burn units.
5.1.2 Selection of Model Plant Size and Operating Characteristics
Table 5-1 lists existing MI/EA plants built since 1985 and those in
advanced planning or construction stages for which information on combustor
type, size, and number is available. Figure 5-1 shows the combustor size
distribution for the information given in Table 5-1. Figure 5-2 shows the
facility size distribution for all MI/EA facilities either recently built
(startup after 1984) or in the advanced planning or construction stages,
even if facility-specific information on combustor size and number is not
available. As indicated in Table 5-1, most of the plants have two or three
combustors and most of the combustor sizes are between 100 and 140 TPD. Based
on this information, a model plant was selected to be representative of MI/EA
facilities. The selected model plant consists of:
o 2 combustors at 120 TPD
5.1.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Sub.iect to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
The total projected capacity of modular incinerators is 1,400 TPD, or a
waste flow of 1 million tons/year. Of this capacity, approximately half
(700 TPD) is expected to be of the excess air design based on current
projections. Dividing the estimated MI/EA capacity of 700 TPD by the MI/EA
model plant capacity (240 TPD) and multiplying by the number of combustors per
model plant, yields a projection of 3 plants with a total of 6 combustors that
are subject to the NSPS.
5-1
-------
38 iGO '20 i40
COMBUSTOR SIZE (TPD)
Figure 5-1. Modular/excess air combustor unit sizes.
60
180
0-100 101-2CO 201-300 301-400 401-500
TOTAL CAPACITY (TPQ)
Rgure 5-2. Modular/excess air facility sizes.
5-2
501-600
-------
'8
I
a =
^ S S . § 3 =
u uj at ^ OJ «j z
- - - E .,38
0 ° £ 5 = 2 *
5 = = 2 I I *
i3S§i = ilH
S.
is
% x 8t a I ft a a
§^ UJ til Q
*
ii {
a
s
8 I
is! »--"^is-**i5 i
» «
c
t
s
i i
*g
u
5 S
s i
Ii
5-3
-------
5.1.4 Model Plant Parameters
The plant parameters for the MI/EA model plant are listed in Table 5-2.
The table lists specifications for the model plant and emission estimates for
PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate
basis.
The uncontrolled PM, HC1, SCL, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission rates for
MI/EA combustors are 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 100 ppmv, 200 ng/dscm,
respectively, reported on a 7 percent 0?, dry basis. The excess air level is
100 percent and the waste feed composition is similar to the mass burn units.
The MI/EA model plant is expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate
electricity.
5.2 MODULAR/STARVED AIR
5.2.1 Description
The MI/SA combustors are similar to the excess air units except that
excess air is introduced at substoichiometric levels in the primary chamber.
The lower air velocity in the primary combustion chamber minimizes entrainment
of fuel particles and ash in the flue gas. The incomplete combustion products
then pass into a secondary combustion chamber where excess air is added and
combustion is completed.
5.2.2 Selection of Model Plant Sizes and Operating Characteristics
Table 5-3 lists the existing MI/SA plants built since 1985 and those in
the advanced planning or construction stages for which information on
combustor type, size, and number is available. Although MI/SA plants
represent only a small subset of the MWC industry by capacity, they represent
approximately six percent of all planned MWC facilities. Figure 5-3 presents
the combustor unit size distribution for the information in Table 5-3.
Figure 5-4 shows all facilities either recently built or in the advanced
planning or construction stages, even if facility-specific information on
combustor size and number is not available. As can be seen from comparing
Figures 5-1 and 5-3, MI/SA combustors tend to be smaller in size than the
MI/EA combustors, with the most common MI/SA combustor size being 50 TPD.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-2. MODULAR/EXCESS AIR MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS
AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Item
Model Plant*
MI/EA (No. 8)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model
Total daily charge rate, TPD
Annual operating hours ,
Ash content of feed waste, %
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical.
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf
Stack height, ft
Stack diameter, ft
Flue Gas Data Per Combustor0
Volume flowrate:
dscfm
scfm
acfm
Outlet temperature F
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% 02 (dry)'
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf
CO, ppmv
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv
S05, ppmv
j
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr
CO, tons/yr 9
CDD/CDF (xlO~^), Ibs/yr
HC1, tons/yr
S0~, tons/yr
2
240
8,000
22.2
100
0.50
0.08
70
6.0
15,300
17,500
30,000
450
2
100
200
500
200
783
22
6.84
132
96
MI/EA - modular/excess air.
From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.08 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart E. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack
emissions would be the same as listed above.
5-5
-------
5
a
§
n
s.
5
I I
8 i i
O «l ^ U
t- M »- UJ <
- * 3 r-
fe
2
I
8
A
«i" «" So S 6
2 2 i: i £
»- ^ 3 U UJ W UJ V
wiwutKocES * S
Sis2isS!2sssS23
»^^^^*»»"^^»-»"W»
11:
f £ 81 *»& 8 & s s s s
8
i- S
55 V)WVlVl
tfP WiUIUlEtilUJUIUJUIIUtUUJ
I
8 '
55-
8
* e
S
^
SSC8888S8SeS 8
g|gg -SS-~S
?
XXiCKKXZXkZ f
I
*
I? 3 I U
08- -o 5 £
> " n ?
S ° "tl I ?S
> * ?? * « ~ -
fe||g|l||«l|] 8
UU&Mlk«Ot3O(L*2 C (S
SO O -x
U *O*O^^^*Of^K^l'XJi***IO O
IM * - "~
5-6
-------
::'.i3LSTCR SIZE
-------
MI/SA plant capacities are also smaller than MI/EA plants with a median MI/SA
plant size near 100 TPD. The number of combustors per plant ranges from one
to four, with two combustors oeing the most common.
As is shown in Table 5-3, almost all of the recently built facilities
have heat recovery. However, information from a major MI/SA manufacturer
indicates that approximately half of the smaller MI/SA plants to oe built in
Q
the next several years will not have heat recovery. Therefore, two MI/SA
model plants were selected, one of which does not employ heat recovery and one
which does. This will allow differentiation between small plants that do not
realize the economic benefit of producing steam or electricity and simply burn
the waste to reduce landfill costs.
Based on the finding that 50 TPD is the most common combustor size and
that two combustors per plant is common, the model plant selected to represent
the MI/SA facility that employs heat recovery consists of two combustors at
50 TPD each for a total plant capacity of 100 TPD. Since the facilities that
do not employ heat recovery are expected to be smaller in size than the
facilities that employ heat recovery, two combustors at 25 TPD each were
selected as the model plant that does not employ heat recovery. This is at
the low end of the combustor and plant size ranges but will allow estimation
of impacts for the smallest plants expected to be built for this category of
MWC's.
The model plants selected are:
2 combustors at 25 TPD, no heat recovery, and
2 combustors at 50 TPD, with heat recovery.
5.2.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Sub.iect to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
As is shown in Table 5-3, three of the twelve facilities (25 percent) are
small (< 75 TPD) and the remainder of the facilities (75 percent) are large.
On the basis of total capacity, small plants represent only 9 percent of the
total capacity (150 TPD out of 1,650 TPD total capacity for plants in
Table 5-3). Dividing the projected MI/SA capacity of 700 TPD by the combustor
size and multiplying by the number of combustors per model plant yields 2
small plants (with a total of 4 combustors) without heat recovery and 6 large
plants (with a total of 12 combustors) with heat recovery which are subject to
the NSPS.
5-8
-------
5.2.4 Model Plant Parameters
Table 5-4 presents the parameters for both of the MI/SA model plants.
The table lists specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for
PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF on a concentration and mass rate basis.
Uncontrolled estimates of PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission rates
for both MI/SA model plants are 0.1 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 50 ppmv,
300 ng/dscm, respectively, reported on a 7 percent 02, dry basis. An excess
air level of 100 percent was used; the waste feed composition was similar to
that for mass burn units. The 50 TPD MI/SA model plant is expected to operate
5,000 hours/yr and have no heat recovery. The 100 TPD MI/SA model plant is
expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate electricity.
5-9
-------
TABLE 5-4. MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND
FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants3
Mt/SA
no heat rec. MI/SA
Item (No. 9) (No. 10)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model 2 2
Total daily charge rate, TPD 50 100
Annual operating hours , 5,000 8,000
Ash content of feed waste, % 22.2 22.2
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical. 100 100
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash 0.50 0.50
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf 0.1 0.08
Stack height, ft 60 60
Stack diameter, ft 5.0 5.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustorc
Volume flowrate:
dscfm 3,200 6,400
scfm 3,600 7,300
acfm 14,100 12,500
Outlet temperature F 1,600 450
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf
CO, ppmv
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
Acid gas:
HC1 , ppmv
S00, ppmv
j
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr
CO, tons/yr ,
CDD/CDF (xlO~^), Ibs/yr
HC1 , tons/yr
S02, tons/yr
0.1
50
300
500
200
5
2
1.34
17
13
0.1
50
300
500
200
16
4
4.28
55
40
aMI/SA - modular/starved air.
From Reference No. 8.
°Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM for Model Plant 10 are
assumed to comply with the 0.08 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60,
Subpart E. Model Plant 9 is below the size cutoff for Subpart E and is not
expected to have air pollution control at baseline. Baseline controls would
not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack emissions
would be the same as listed above.
5-10
-------
6.0 FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION (FBC) MODEL PLANTS
6.1 DESCRIPTION
With FBC, the waste burns in a turbulent bed of heated noncombustible
material, such as limestone, sand, silica, or alumina. Typical bed
temperatures are 1,450 to 1,700°F. As with conventional combustors, primary
combustion air is introduced underneath the bed, but at a flowrate high enough
to suspend or "fluidize" the solid particles in the bed. The ability to
achieve good fluidization depends on the uniformity of fuel particle size and
density produced during fuel preprocessing. Secondary combustion air is
introduced through ports in the upper part of the combustor to complete the
combustion process. If good mixing between air and combustible waste is
achieved, the amount of excess air required for complete combustion can be
reduced. In addition, by adding limestone to the bed, SO- and HC1 can be
removed from the flue gas to reduce acid gas emissions.
6.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZES AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Table 6-1 lists existing FBC plants built since 1985 and those in the
advanced planning or construction stage for which information on combustion
type, size, and number is available. Figure 6-1 shows the combustor size
distribution for these facilities. Figure 6-2 shows the facility size
distribution for all facilities either recently built or in the advanced
planning or construction stage. Two different design types of FBC's are
expected to predominate the FBC population, bubbling bed FBC's and circulating
fluidized-bed FBC's. Therefore, two model plants were selected; both combust
100 percent RDF. As is shown in Table 6-1, the newer and planned FBC's are
larger than the first two FBC's built, the median combustor size is about
450 TPD, and the majority of the plants have two combustors. Therefore, the
two model plants selected are:
2 bubbling bed combustors at 450 TPD firing 100 percent RDF
2 circulating fluidized-bed combustors at 450 TPD firing
100 percent RDF
6.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN 5-YEAR PERIOD
AFTER PROPOSAL
Approximately 5,400 TPD of the total projected capacity (on an annual
4
waste flow of 1.8 million tons/year) is represented by FBC's. Of the
6-1
-------
2
II
SK
S
oc
u.
8
iM £
» H-
3 v> ^
fi!§
s
i i s
? ° s
UJ U UJ >
WV IA
K* >- »
o o * o u u
O) O O
(A tA ~ V» S- £
ifhi33
o o o N- >-
iu u u
>->-»->- UJ UJ
= = S S 2 S
u u 3 u o a
,
BO
Wl V* M VI V> VI
|i|i|
si
8 8 8 K S
IM n in * m
§000
3 1 s
ISS-S
u u u u
eo 9 a u a u
U. U. Ik 0 U. 0>
I s 3 f a =:
u-> i^» o Ki o tn
- i
5 =
« u
S "8 *
55?
i u "
o co en
(Q u. BO
6-2
-------
200
360 426 500
COMBUSTOR SIZE (TPD)
Rgure 6-1. FBC combustor unit sizes.
300-400 800-1000
TOTAL CAPACITY (TPD)
Rgure 6-2. FBC facility sizes.
1200
6-3
-------
plants planned to start up in 1989 or later, half are bubbling bed and half
are circulating fluidized bed. Dividing the total FBC capacities by the model
plant size yields a projection of 3 bubbling bed FBC plants with a total of
6 combustors and 3 circulating fluidized-bed plants with a total of
6 combustors that are subject to the NSPS.
6.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
Table 6-2 lists the parameters for the FBC model plants. The table lists
the specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for PM, HC1,
SCL, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate basis.
Estimated emission rates of PM, HC1, S02, CO, and total CDD/CDF from the
bubbling bed FBC model plant are 0.01 gr/dscf, 350 ppmv, 240 ppmv, 50 ppmv,
and 20 ng/dscm, respectively. Emission rates of PM, HC1, SOg, CO, and total
CDD/CDF from the circulating fluidized-bed model plant are 0.01 gr/dscf,
350 ppmv, 240 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and 400 ng/dscm, respectively. All flue gas
concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 02> dry basis. The excess air
level for the bubbling bed and circulating fluidized-bed units is 60 percent.
Both FBC model plants are expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate
electricity.
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2. FBC MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Item
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model
Total daily charge rate, TPD
Annual operating hours .
Ash content of feed waste, %
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical^
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf
Stack height, ft
Stack diameter, ft
Flue Gas Data Per Combustor0
Volume flowrate:
dscfm
scfm
acfm
Outlet temperature F
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% Op (dry) :
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf
CO, ppmv
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
Acid gas:
HC1 , ppmv
SO-, ppmv .
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr
CO, tons/yr 9
CDD/CDF (xlO~^), Ibs/yr
HC1, tons/yr
SOp, tons/yr
Model
FBC (BB)
(No. 11)
2
900
8,000
7.5
60
80
0.01
200
6.0
56,400
65,200
99,700
350
4
50
20
350
240
7,220
22.8
3.16
503
417
Plants3
FBC (CFB)
(No. 12)
2
900
8,000
7.5
60
80
0.01
200
6.0
56,400
65,200
99,700
350
4
100
400
350
240
7,220
46.2
63.3
503
417
FBC - fluidized-bed combustion.
BB - bubbling bed
CFB - circulating fluidized-bed
From Reference No. 8.
GCalculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.05 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack
emissions would be the same as listed above.
6-5
-------
7.0 MODEL PLANT COSTS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section presents costs, energy, and environmental impacts associated
with the application of the emission control options for the 12 model plants.
The procedures used to estimate capital and operating costs for both the
combustors and the APCD's are summarized in Appendix A and discussed in detail
in a separate document concerning MWC cost procedures. Energy impacts are
presented for electricity consumed by the APCD's and for auxiliary fuel fired
in the combustor. Environmental impacts are presented for CDD/CDF, CO, PM,
S0?, and HC1. Also presented are impacts on total solid waste disposal.
7.1 MASS BURN
Based on design and operating parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
five mass burn model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and three
control options. Section 7.1.1 presents the costs, energy, and
environmental impacts for the mass burn waterwall model plants.
Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 present similar information for the mass burn
refractory and mass burn rotary combustor models, respectively.
7.1.1 Mass Burn Waterwall
7.1.1.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 present the
capital costs for the 200, 800, and 2,250 TPD mass burn waterwall model
plants, respectively. These tables show combustor capital costs as well as
the itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option.
For baseline, total APCD capital costs range from $1,860,000 for the 200 TPD
plant to $6,870,000 for the 2,250 TPD plant. The increase in APCD total
capital costs for Control Option 1 compared to the baseline ranges from
9 percent for the 200 TPD plant to 20 percent for the 2,250 TPD plant. The
increase in APCD capital cost for Control Option 2 compared to baseline
ranges from 59 percent for the 200 TPD plant to 114 percent for the 2,250 TPD
plant. The increase in APCD capital cost over baseline for Control
Option 3 ranges from 219 percent for the 200 TPD plant to 280 percent for
the 800 TPD plant. Total plant capital costs for Control Option 3, the
most expensive option, are 16 to 20 percent more than the baseline total
plant capital costs for the three model plants.
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 200 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 1)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Cost3 17,860 17,860 17,860 17,860
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control b
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
1,200
0
0
1,200
99
1,300
444
120
1,860
19,720
1,320
0
0
1,320
99
1,420
483
120
2,020
19,880
636
292
289
1,220
154
1,370
1,020
573
2,960
20,820
3,230d
0
3,230
127
3,360
2,000
573
5,940
23,800
Includes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, CO monitor
per combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
°For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-2. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 800 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 2)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Cost3 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control b
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
1,850
0
0
1,850
410
2,260
771
120
3,150
53,150
2,210
0
0
2,210
410
2,620
894
120
3,630
53,630
1,690
556
406
2,650
688
3,340
2,600
573
6,520
56,520
6,620d
0
6,620
549
7,170
4,290
573
12,020
62,020
Includes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet Op monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-3. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 2,250 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 3)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Cost3 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control b
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
3,860
0
0
3,860
1,130
4,990
1,700
180
6,870
116,900
4,870
0
0
4,870
1,130
6,000
2,050
180
8,220
118,200
3,950
1,100
814
5,860
1,890
7,750
6,060
859
14,700
124,700
13,700d
0
13,700
1,500
15,200
9,090
859
25,200
135,200
alncludes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOp, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-4
-------
Tables 7-4, 7-5, and 7-6 present the annualized costs for the 200, 800,
and 2,250 TPD mass burn waterwall model plants, respectively. These tables
show the total combustor annualized costs as well as the itemized APCD
annualized costs associated with each control option. Total APCD
annualized costs for baseline range from $425,000 for the 200 TPD plant to
$1,860,000 for the 2,250 TPD plant. The increase in APCD annualized costs for
Control Option 1 compared to baseline ranges from 8 percent for the
200 TPD plant to 16 percent for the 2,250 TPD plant. The APCD annualized cost
increase for Control Option 2 over baseline ranges from 161 percent for
the 200 TPD plant to 220 percent for the 2,250 TPD plant. For Control
Option 3, the APCD cost increase over baseline ranges from 280 percent for the
200 TPD plant to 330 percent for the 800 TPD plant. Total plant annualized
costs for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, are 18 to 23 percent
more than the total plant annualized costs for the three model plants at
baseline.
Tables 7-4, 7-5, and 7-6 also present estimates of electrical and
auxiliary fuel requirements for the APCD's and combustors at each model plant.
The APCD electrical requirements for baseline range from 110 MWh/yr for the
200 TPD plant to 2,210 MWh/yr for the 2,250 TPD plant. These electrical
requirements are based on 5,000 hours of operation for the 200 TPD plant and
8,000 hours of operation for both the 800 and 2,250 TPD plants. The APCD's
associated with Control Option 1 consume between 36 and 52 percent more
electricity than that for baseline. Similarly, APCD's associated with Control
Option 2 consume between 340 and 610 percent more electricity and the
APCD's for Control Option 3 consume between 460 and 640 percent more
electricity than baseline. Auxiliary fuel use for each control option is
the same as that for baseline. Auxiliary fuel consumption on a heat basis
ranges from 3.24 billion Btu/yr for the 200 TPD plant to 36.5 billion Btu/yr
for the 2,250 TPD plant.
7.1.1.2 Environmental Impacts. Tables 7-7, 7-8, and 7-9 present
estimates of environmental impacts for each control option for the
200, 800, and 2,250 TPD mass burn waterwall model plants, respectively. Shown
are emission reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, S0?, and HC1, and the increase in
solid waste disposal associated with each control option.
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-4. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 200 TPD
MASS BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 1)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Combustor Annual ized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual ized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10° Btu/yr)
Baseline
2,190
313
2.350
4,850
15
2
8
17
5
0
0
0
20
16
84
26
70
245
341
425
5,280
110
3,240
1
2,190
313
2.350
4,850
15
2
8
19
8
0
0
0
20
16
89
27
76
266
369
457
5,310
167
3,240
2
2,190
313
2.350
4,850
68
15
33.
70b
36
4
45
1
39
215
526
103
96
390
589
1,110
5,950
785
3,240
3
2,190
313
2.350
4,850
60
9
33,
80b
38
5
37
1
44
215
522
102
215
781
1,100
1,620
6,470
820
3,240
aFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
bCosts include annual cost of $13,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-6
-------
TABLE 7-5. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 800 TPD
MASS BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 2)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Combustor Annual ized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual ize_d Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
Baseline
5,790
2,000
6,570
14,370
24
4
13
30
37
0
0
0
127
16
251
43
121
414
578
829
15,200
787
12,960
1
5,790
2,000
6,570
14,370
24
4
13
35
49
0
0
0
130
16
271
46
140
478
664
935
15,310
1,070
12,960
2
5,790
2,000
6,570
14,370
108
24
52.
197b
168
26
290
7
246
215
1,330
198
237
857
1,290
2,630
17,000
3,640
12,960
3
6,570
2,000
6,570
14,370
96
14
53,
195b
208
29
240
7
284
215
1,340
184
458
1,580
2,220
3,560
17,930
4,530
12,960
aFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S0«, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include annual cost of $52,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-7
-------
TABLE 7-6. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2,250 TPD
MASS BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 3)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Combustor Annual ized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual ized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
Basel ine
10,910
5,630
14,470
31,000
36
5
20
67
101
0
0
0
358
25
612
77
267
903
1,250
1,860
32,860
2,210
36,450
1
10,910
5,630
14,470
31,000
36
5
20
80
138
0
0
0
365
25
669
85
322
1,080
1,490
2,160
33,160
3,000
36,450
2
10,910
5,630
14,470
31,000
162
46
80.
486b
443
72
815
19
693
322
3,140
376
553
1,930
2,860
6,000
37,000
9,640
36,450
3
10,910
5,630
14,470
31,000
144
22
79h
451b
571
83
675
19
798
322
3,160
330
974
3,310
4,610
7,780
38,780
12,430
36,450
aFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOp, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0,, monitors and
a data reduction system.
bCosts include annual cost of $146,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-8
-------
TABLE 7-7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 200 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 1}
a h
Pollutant3'0
COD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Control Options
Baseline
200
3.2E-5
-
1
200
3.2E-5
0
2
50
8.1E-6
75
3
5
8.
98
1E-7
CO Emissions:
PM
so2
HC1
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reductionc
50
9
0.08
30
-
200
91
-
500
124
-
50
9
0
0.01
4
88
200
91
0
500
124
0
50
9
0
0.01
4
88
120
54
40
100
25
80
50
9
0
0.01
4
88
20
9
90
15
4
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
64
12,100
~
64
12,100
0.2
67
12,700
6
67
12,700
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0,, dry basis.
u (
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
From baseline.
7-9
-------
TABLE 7-8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 800 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 2)
Pollutant3'0
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
SO- Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Baseline
200
2.1E-4
-
50
60
-
0.05
118
-
200
581
-
500
796
-
255
77,200
~
Control
1
200
2.1E-4
0
50
60
0
0.01
24
80
200
581
0
500
796
0
256
77,300
0.1
Options
2
50
5.2E-5
75
50
60
0
0.01
24
80
120
348
40
100
159
80
270
81,500
6
3
5
5.2E-6
98
50
60
0
0.01
24
80
20
58
90
15
24
97
268
81,000
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 02, dry basis.
3Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
"From baseline.
7-10
-------
TABLE 7-9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 2,250 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 3)
Pollutant3'5
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction^-
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
SQ« Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Control Ootions
Baseline
200
5.8E-4
-
50
169
-
0.05
333
-
200
1,630
-
500
2,240
-
718
217,100
1
200
5.8E-4
0
50
169
0
0.01
67
80
200
1,630
0
500
2,240
0
719
217,400
0.1
2
50
1.5E-4
75
50
169
0
0.01
67
80
120
980
40
100
448
80
758
229,300
6
3
5
1.5E-5
98
50
169
0
0.01
67
80
20
163
90
15
67
97
753
227,800
5
All flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0*, dry basis.
3Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
"From baseline.
7-11
-------
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options, because good
combustion is assumed to be practiced at baseline. Particulate matter
emissions are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control
option for the 200 TPD plant and 80 percent for each control option
for the 800 and 2,250 TPD plants. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same as
baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same
as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by 80 and 97 percent under
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, the increase in total solid
waste disposal over baseline for each model plant is less than 0.5 percent for
Control Option 1, 6 percent for Control Option 2, and 5 percent for Control
Option 3.
7.1.2 Mass Burn Refractory
7.1.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-10 presents combustor and
APCD capital costs for the 500 TPD mass burn refractory model plant for each
control option. Total APCD capital cost for baseline is $2,880,000. The
increases in APCD total capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3
over baseline are 20, 100, and 310 percent, respectively. Total plant capital
cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 20 percent
more than the total plant capital costs at baseline.
Table 7-11 presents the annualized costs for the 500 TPD mass burn
refractory model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized costs as
well as itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control
option. Total APCD annualized cost for baseline is $726,000. The
increases over baseline in the total APCD annual ized costs for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3 are 20, 210, and 350 percent, respectively. Total
annual ized cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 20 percent
more than the total plant annualized costs at baseline.
Table 7-11 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor, respectively, for each control
7-12
-------
TABLE 7-10. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 500 TPD MASS BURN/
REFRACTORY MODEL PLANT (NO. 4)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Costa 37,550 37,550 37,550 37,550
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control b
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
APCD Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
1,740
0
0
1,740
323
2,060
703
120
2,880
40,430
2,200
0
0
2,200
323
2,520
860
120
3,500
41,050
1,680
350
405
2,440
425
2,860
2,220
573
5,660
43,210
6,590d
0
6,590
378
6,970
4,150
573
11,700
49,250
alncludes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
GFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOp, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0^ monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-13
-------
TABLE 7-11. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 500 TPD
MASS BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANT (NO. 4)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Ootions
Combustor Annual ized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual ized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10° Btu/yr)
Baseline
5,680
1,250
4.940
11,870
24
4
13
28
32
0
0
0
78
16
196
41
111
379
531
726
12,600
698
8,100
1
5,680
1,250
4.940
11,870
24
4
13
34
48
0
0
0
81
16
221
45
135
460
640
861
12,730
1,060
8,100
2
5,680
1,250
4.940
11,870
108
23
52,
177b
166
26
181
7
154
215
1,110
186
204
744
1,130
2,240
14,110
3,600
8,100
3
5,680
1,250
4,940
11,870
96
14
53.
190b
207
29
150
7
177
215
1,140
182
445
1.540
2,170
3,300
15,170
4,51'0
8,100
aFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
bCosts include annual cost of $51,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-14
-------
option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is 698 MWh/yr. The
APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2, and 3 consume 50, 420, and
550 percent more electricity than baseline, respectively. Auxiliary fuel
consumed for baseline and all three control options is
8.1 billion Btu/year.
7.1.2.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-12 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to a
model 500 TPD mass burn refractory plant. Shown are emissions and emission
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, S02, and HC1, and increases in solid waste
disposal associated with each control option.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options because good
combustion is assumed to be practiced at baseline. Particulate matter
emissions are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control
option. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Finally, the increase in total solid waste disposal over
baseline is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1, 6 percent for Control
Option 2, and 5 percent for Control Option 3.
7.1.3 Mass Burn Rotary Combustor
7.1.3.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-13 presents combustor and
APCD capital costs for the 1,050 TPD mass burn rotary combustor model plant.
Total APCD capital cost for baseline is $4,130,000. The increases in the APCD
total capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3 over baseline are 13,
90, and 280 percent, respectively. Total plant capital cost for Control
Option 3, the most expensive control option, is 16 percent more than
the total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-14 presents the annualized costs for the 1,080 TPD mass burn
refractory model plant. Shown are total combustor annualized costs as well as
itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control option.
7-15
-------
TABLE 7-12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 500 TPD MASS
BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANT (NO. 4)
Pollutant3'6
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reductionc
SO- Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction^
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Control Options
Baseline
300
1.9E-4
-
100
75
-
0.08
119
-
200
364
-
500
497
-
154
48,200
~
1
300
1.9E-4
0
100
75
0
0.01
15
88
200
364
0
500
497
0
160
48,300
0.2
2
75
4.9E-5
75
100
75
0
0.01
15
88
120
218
40
100
99
80
168
51,000
6
3
5
3.2E-6
98
100
75
0
0.01
15
88
20
36
90
15
15
97
167
50,600
5
aA11 flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 07, dry basis.
u ^
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-16
-------
TABLE 7-13. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 1,050 TPD MASS BURN/
ROTARY COMBUSTOR MODEL PLANT (NO. 5)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Cost8 69,140 69,140 69,140 69,140
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control b
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
2,460
0
0
2,460
488
2,950
1,010
180
4,130
73,270
2,860
0
0
2,860
488
3,350
1,140
180
4,670
73,810
2,060
555
550
3,170
851
4,020
3,070
859
7,950
77,090
8,540d
0
8,540
668
9,210
5,490
859
15,600
84,740
alncludes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
°For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-17
-------
TABLE 7-14. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 1,050 TPD MASS BURN/
ROTARY WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO, 5)
($l,000's in December 1987}
Control Options
Combustor Annual i zed Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual i zed Costs
APCD Annual i zed Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring 'equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
Baseline
7,810
2,630
9.090
19,520
36
5
20
40
40
0
0
0
167
25
333
60
158
543
761
1,100
20,620
882
17,010
1
7,810
2,630
9.090
19,520
36
5
20
45
55
0
0
0
170
25
356
64
180
615
859
1,210
20,730
1,200
17,010
2
7,810
2,630
9.090
19,520
162
46
80.
221b
196
29
380
8
323
322
1,770
276
284
1,050
1,610
3,380
22,900
4,260
17,010
3
7,810
2,630
9.090
19,520
144
22
79u
242b
237
33
315
8
372
322
1,770
257
588
2.050
2,900
4,660
24,180
5,160
17,010
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
bCosts include annual cost of $58,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-18
-------
Total APCD annualized costs for baseline is $1,100,000. The increases in APCD
annualized costs over baseline are 10, 210, and 320 percent for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Total plant annualized cost for Control
Option 3, the most expensive option, is 17 percent more than the total plant
annualized costs at baseline.
Table 7-14 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustors, respectively, for each control
option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is 882 MWh/yr for
this plant. The APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2, and 3
consume about 40, 380, and 480 percent more electricity than baseline,
respectively. Auxiliary fuel consumed for baseline and each control
option is 17 billion Btu/year.
7.1.3.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-15 presents estimates of
environmental impacts of each control option for the 1,050 TPD mass burn
rotary combustor model plant. Shown are emissions and emission reductions for
CDD/CDF, CO, PM, S0« and HC1, and increases in solid waste disposal associated
with each control options.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced by 75 and
98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed
to be practiced at baseline. Particulate matter emissions are reduced by
80 percent over baseline for each control option. Sulfur dioxide
emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced
by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly,
HC1 emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by
80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, the
increase in total solid waste disposal over baseline is less than 0.5 percent
for Control Option 1, 6 percent for Control Option 2, and 5 percent for
Control Option 3.
7-19
-------
TABLE 7-15. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 1,050 TPD MASS
BURN/ROTARY WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 5)
Pollutanta'b
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
S02 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Control Options
Baseline
300
4.1E-4
-
100
157
-
0.05
155
-
200
763
-
500
1,040
335
101,300
~
1
300
4.1E-4
0
100
157
0
0.01
31
80
200
763
0
500
1,040
0
335
101,400
0.1
2
75
l.OE-4
75
100
157
0
0.01
31
80
120
457
40
100
209
80
354
107,000
6
3
5
6.8E-6
98
100
157
0
0.01
31
80
20
76
90
15
31
97
352
106,300
5
*A11 flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 02, dry basis.
5Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
»
"From baseline.
7-20
-------
7.2 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
Based on design and operating parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
two RDF model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and the three control
options using cost procedures specifically for MWC applications.
7.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts
Tables 7-16 and 7-17 present the capital costs for the 2,000 TPD RDF and
the 2,000 TPD cofired RDF/wood model plants, respectively. Combustor capital
costs and itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control
option are presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is
$7,740,000 for both the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired
plant. The increases in APCD total capital costs over baseline for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3 are about 16, 100, and 250 percent for each model
plant, respectively. Total plant capital costs for Control Option 3, the
most expensive option, are about 14 percent more than the total plant capital
costs for both model plants at baseline.
Tables 7-18 and 7-19 present the annualized costs for both RDF plants.
These tables show total combustor annualized costs as well as itemized APCD
annual ized costs associated with each control option. Total APCD
annualized costs for baseline are $2,500,000 for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and
$2,400,000 for the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant. The increase in APCD
annualized costs over baseline for Control Option 1 is about 10 percent
for both model plants. The increase in APCD annualized cost over baseline for
Control Option 2 is 180 percent for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and
160 percent for the RDF cofired plant. For Control Option 3, the
increase in APCD annualized costs over baseline is 260 percent for the
2,000 TPD RDF plant and 240 percent for the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant.
Total plant annualized costs for Control Option 3, the most expensive option,
are 16 and 18 percent more than the total plant annualized baseline costs for
the 2,000 TPD RDF and 2,000 TPD cofired RDF plants, respectively.
Tables 7-18 and 7-19 also present estimates of electrical and auxiliary
fuel requirements for the APCD's and combustors, respectively, for each
control option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is
2,340 MWh/yr for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and 2,140 MWh/yr for the 2,000 TPD
7-21
-------
TABLE 7-16. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF MODEL PLANT (NO. 6)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Cost3 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control13
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
4,580
0
0
4,580
1,010
5,590
1,910
240
7,740
142,740
5,510
0
0
5,510
1,010
6,520
2,220
240
8,980
143,980
4,040
1,390
903
6,340
1,640
7,980
6,280
1,150
15,400
150,400
15,100d
0
15,100
1,320
16,400
9,800
1,150
27,400
162,400
alncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
°For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet Oy monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-22
-------
TABLE 7-17. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF COFIRED MODEL PLANT (NO. 7)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control b
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
Baseline
143,800
4,580
0
0
4,580
1,010
5,590
1,910
240
7,740
151,540
1
143,800
5,510
0
0
5,510
1,010
6,520
2,220
240
8,980
152,780
2
143,800
4,040
1,390
903
6,340
1,640
7,980
6,280
1,150
15,400
159,200
3
143,800
15,100d
0
15,100
1,320
16,400
9,800
1,150
27,400
171,200
alncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-23
-------
TABLE 7-18. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2,000 TPD
RDF MODEL PLANT (NO. 6)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance 13,800 13,800 13,800 13,800
- Ash Disposal 1,670 1,670 1,670 1,670
- Capital Recovery 17.800 17.800 17.800 17.8.00
-Total Combustor Annualized Costs 33,200 33,200 33,200 33,200
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor 48 48 216 192
- Supervision 7 7 76 29
- Maintenance labor 26 26 105h 106,
- Maintenance materials 75 87 485° 463U
- Electricity 108 141 421 532
- Compressed air 0 0 66 76
- Lime 0 0 1,030 853
- Water 0 0 18 18
- Waste disposal 793 801 1,210 1,349
- Monitoring equipment3 33 33 429 429
Total Direct Costs 1,090 1,150 4,060 4,050
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead 94 101 450 393
- Taxes, insurance, and 300 350 570 1,050
administration
- Capital recovery 1.020 1.180 2.030
Total Indirect Costs 1,410 1,630 3,050
Total APCD Annualized Costs 2,500 2,780 7,100
Total Plant Annualized Costs 35,700 35,980 40,300
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr) 2,340 3,060 9,170 11,580
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10° Btu/yr) 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
bCosts include annual cost of $134,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-24
-------
TABLE 7-19. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2,000 TPO
RDF COFIRED MODEL PLANT (NO. 7}
'$l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Combustor Annual i zed Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual i zed Costs
APCD Annual i zed Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual i zed Costs
Total Plant Annual i zed Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10° Btu/yr)
Baseline
14,300
1,850
18.910
35,070
48
7
26
75
98
0
0
0
704
33
992
94
300
1.020
1,410
2,400
37,470
2,140
32,400
1
14,300
1,850
18,910
35,070
48
7
26
87
128
0
0
0
711
33
1,040
100
350
1,180
1,630
2,670
37,740
2,800
32,400
2
14,300
1,850
18.910
35,070
216
76
105,
473b
385
60
536
16
924
429
3,220
450
570
2,030
3,050
6,270
41,340
8,380
32,400
3
14,300
1,850
18.910
35,070
192
29
106.
451b
484
69
445
16
997
429
3,200
394
1,050
3.600
5,040
8,240
43,310
10,510
32,400
aFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet Og monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include annual cost of $122,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-25
-------
RDF cofired plant. The APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2,
and 3 for each plant consume about 30, 290, and 390 percent more electricity
than those for baseline. Auxiliary fuel use for each control option is
the same as that for baseline. Auxiliary fuel consumption on a heat basis is
32.4 billion Btu/yr for both plants.
7.2.2 Environmental Impacts
Tables 7-20 and 7-21 present estimates of environmental impacts for the
control options for the 2,000 TPD RDF and the RDF cofired model plants,
respectively. Shown are emissions and emission reductions for CDD/CDF, CO,
PM, S02, and HC1, and the increase in solid waste disposal associated with the
three control options.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced by 75 and
99 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed at
baseline. Particulate matter emissions are reduced by 80 percent over
baseline for each control option. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same
as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same
as baseline for Control Option 1 and are are reduced by 80 and 97 percent
under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, the increase in total
solid waste from baseline is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1 for
both model plants. Total solid waste disposal for Control Options 2 and 3
increase by 17 and 15 percent over baseline for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant,
respectively. For the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant, total solid waste disposal
increases by 9 and 8 percent for Control Options 2 and 3 over baseline,
respectively.
7.3 MODULAR
Based on design and operating parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
three modular model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and the three
control options using cost procedures specifically for MWC applications.
7-26
-------
TABLE 7-20. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF MODEL PLANT (NO. 6)
, - _
Pollutant3'6
CDD/CDF Emissions:
3
ng/Nm
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
SOp Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Control Options
Baseline
1000
3.2E-3
-
100
369
-
0.05
364
-
300
2,420
-
500
2,430
295
89,300
-
1
1000
3.2E-3
0
100
369
0
0.01
73
80
300
2,420
0
500
2,430
0
296
89,600
0.3
2
250
8.0E-4
75
100
369
0
0.01
73
80
180
1,450
40
100
485
80
345
104,000
17
3
10
3.2E-5
99
100
369
0
0.01
73
80
30
242
90
15
73
97
340
103,000
15
All flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 00, dry basis
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
From baseline.
7-27
-------
TABLE 7-21. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF
COFIRED MODEL PLANT (NO. 7)
Pollutant3'5
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
SOp Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction1"
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Control Options
Baseline
1000
2.8E-3
-
100
328
-
0.05
323
-
150
1,330
-
250
1,180
-
284
86,000
~
1
1000
2.8E-3
0
100
328
0
0.01
65
80
150
1,330
0
250
1,180
0
285
86,300
0.3
2
250
7.0E-4
75
100
328
0
0.01
65
80
90
798
40
50
236
80
311
94,000
9
3
10
2.8E-5
99
100
328
0
0.01
65
80
15
133
90
8
35
97
308
93,200
8
JA11 flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent Op, dry basis.
DMass emission rates are for entire model plant.
"From baseline.
7-28
-------
7.3.1 Modular/Excess Air
7.3.1.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-22 presents the capital costs
for the 240 TPD modular/excess air model plant. Combustor capital costs and
itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option are
presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is $1,310,000. The
increases in APCD total capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3
over baseline are 16, 100, and 270 percent, respectively. Total plant capital
cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 25 percent
more than the total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-23 presents the annualized costs for the 240 TPD modular/excess
air model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized costs as well
as itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control option.
Total APCD annualized cost for baseline is $332,000. The increases in APCD
annualized costs over baseline for Control Options 1, 2, and 3 are 14,
200, and 320 percent, respectively. Total plant annualized cost for Control
Option 3, the most expensive option, is 23 percent more than the total plant
annualized cost at baseline.
Table 7-23 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor, respectively, for each control
option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is 232 MWh/yr. The
APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2, and 3 consume 50, 450, and
560 percent more electricity than baseline, respectively. Auxiliary fuel
consumed for baseline and all three control options is
3.9 billion Btu/year.
7.3.1.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-24 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to a
model 240 TPD modular/excess air plant. Shown are emissions and emission
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, SOp, and HC1, and increases in solid waste
disposal associated with each control option.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options because good
combustion is assumed to be practiced at baseline. Particulate emissions
7-29
-------
TABLE 7-22. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 240 TPD MODULAR/EXCESS
AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 8)
($1000's in December 1987)
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
Control Options
Baseline 1 2 3
13,150 13,150 13,150 13,150
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control"
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
748
0
0
748
185
930
319
60
1,310
14,460
901
0
0
901
185
1,090
371
60
1,520
14,670
630
196
176
1,000
304
1,310
976
286
2,570
15,720
2,670d
0
2,670
204
2,870
1,710
286
4,870
18,020
alncludes costs for combustors, waste heat boiler, turbine, CO monitor per
combustor, and balance of plant.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S0?, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0^ monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-30
-------
TABLE 7-23. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 240 TPD
MODULAR/EXCESS AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 8)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Ootions
Combustor Annual ized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual ized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
Baseline
2,030
600
1,730
4,360
12
2
7
13
11
0
0
0
38
8
89
20
50
173
243
332
4,690
232
3,890
1
2,030
600
1,730
4,360
12
2
7
15
16
0
0
0
39
8
98
21
58
200
279
377
4,740
351
3,890
2
2,030
600
1,730
4,360
54
8
27,
71b
59
9
87
2
74
10Z
498
86
92
337
515
1,010
5,370
1,280
3,890
3
2,030
600
1,730
4,360
48
7
26
74b
71
10
72
2
85
107
503
83
183
640
906
1,410
5,770
1,530
3,890
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0« monitors and
a data reduction system.
'Costs include annual cost of $17,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-31
-------
TABLE 7-24. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 240 TPD
MODULAR/EXCESS AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 8)
Pollutant3'5
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
S02 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction^
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Control Ootions
Baseline
200
6.2E-5
-
100
40
-
0.08
57
-
200
174
-
500
239
-
77
23,100
~
1
200
6.2E-5
0
100
40
0
0.01
7
88
200
174
0
500
239
0
77
23,200
0.2
2
50
1.6E-5
75
100
40
0
0.01
7
88
120
105
40
100
48
80
81
24,500
6
3
5
1.6E-6
98
100
40
0
0.01
7
88
20
17
90
15
7
97
80
24,300
5
*An flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 02, dry basis.
3Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
"From baseline.
7-32
-------
emissions are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control
option. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Finally, the increase in total solid waste disposal over
baseline is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1, 6 percent for Control
Option 2, and 5 percent for Control Option 3.
7.3.2 Modular/Starved Air
7.3.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Tables 7-25 and 7-26 present the
capital costs for the 50 and 100 TPD modular/starved air model plants,
respectively. Combustor capital costs and itemized capital costs for the
APCD's associated with each control option are presented. For the
50 TPD plant, no capital cost for APCD's is incurred at baseline. Total APCD
capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3 are $819,000, $1,400,000,
and $2,790,000, respectively. Total APCD capital cost for PM control to
0.08 gr/dscf and temperature control to 450°F is $532,000. This is a level
less stringent than Option 1 which the other model plants meet at baseline.
Total plant capital cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is
220 percent more than the baseline total plant capital cost for the 50 TPD
plant at baseline. For the 100 TPD model plant, total APCD capital cost is
$372,000 at baseline. The increases in total APCD capital costs for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3 over baseline are 150, 340, and 740 percent,
respectively. Total plant capital cost for Control Option 3, the most
expensive option, is 50 percent more than the total plant capital cost
for the 100 TPD plant at baseline.
Tables 7-27 and 7-28 present the annualized costs for the 50 and 100 TPD
model plants, respectively. These tables show the total combustor annualized
costs as well as the itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each
control option. For the 50 TPD plant, no annualized cost for APCD's is
incurred at baseline. Total APCD annualized costs for Control Options 1,
2, and 3 are $197,000, $506,000, and $759,000, respectively. Total APCD
annualized cost for PM control to 0.08 gr/dscf and temperature control to
450°F is $142,000. Total plant annualized cost for Control Option 3, the
most expensive option, is 120 percent more than the total plant
7-33
-------
TABLE 7-25. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 50 TPD MODULAR/STARVED
AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 9)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Basel ine
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Cost3 1,270 (l,270)d 1,270 1,270 1,270
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control5
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,270
(232)d
(0)
(149)
(381)
(33)
(414)
(57)
(60)
(532)
(1,800)
482
0
149
631
61
692
67
60
819
2,090
258
158
149
565
77
642
469
286
1,400
2,670
l,400e
149
1,550
65
1,610
897
286
2,790
4,060
alncludes the costs of a CO monitor per combustor and combustors.
PM control equipment used for Control Option 1 is an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control Options 2
and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOp, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs in parenthesis correspond to PM control at 0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent
Op using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F using humidification. Other
model plants meet this control level at baseline.
eCosts include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-34
-------
TABLE 7-26. CAPITAL PLANT COSTS FOR 100 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 10)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
Total Combustor Capital Costa
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
5,510
5,510
5,510
5,510
PM control"
Acid gas control
Temperature control
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Caoital Cost
265
0
0
265
24
289
23
60
372
5,880
581
0
0
581
71
652
223
60
935
6,450
340
169
147
656
115
771
574
286
1,630
7,140
H
1,700°
0
1,700
83
1,780
1,060
286
3,130
8,640
Includes the costs of a CO monitor per combustor, combustors, waste heat
boiler, and turbine.
PM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOo, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-35
-------
TABLE 7-27. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 50 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 9)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control
Baseline
Combustor Annual i zed Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual i zed Costs
APCD Annual i zed Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
r «*
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
361
78
166
605
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
605
0
810
(361)b
(78)
(166)
(605)
U2)b
(2)
(8)
(5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(8)
(37)
(15)
(19)
(70)
(104)
(142)
(747)
(13)
(810)
Options
1
361
78
166
605
12
2
8
8
1
0
0
2
0
8
41
17
30
108
155
197
802
38
810
2
361
78
166
605
34
6
16.
31C
15
2
11
3
5
107
230
48
44
184
276
506
1,110
334
810
3
361
78
166
605
34
6
21r
36C
15
2
9
3
6
107
238
54
100
367
521
759
1,360
322
810
aFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
bCosts in parenthesis correspond to PM control at 0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent
0? using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F using humidification. Other
model plants meet this control level at baseline.
cCosts include annual cost of $5,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-36
-------
TABLE 7-28. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 100 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 10)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Combustor Annual i zed Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual i zed Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MVh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
Baseline
859
250
725
1,830
12
2
7
3
1
0
0
0
0
8
33
14
12
49
75
108
1,940
17
1,620
1
859
250
725
1,830
12
2
7
9
4
0
0
0
1
8
42
17
35
123
175
217
2,050
75
1,620
2
859
250
725
1,830
54
8
2l
38°
31
4
36
1
15
107
321
72
54
214
340
661
2,490
666
1,620
3
859
250
725
1,830
48
7
26b
43b
32
4
30
1
20
107
319
70
114
411
595
914
2,740
709
1,620
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0« monitors and
a data reduction system.
3Costs include annual cost of $7,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-37
-------
annualized cost for the 50 TPD plant at baseline. For the 100 TPD model
plant, total APCD annualized cost is $108,000 at baseline. The increases in
total APCD annualized costs over baseline for Control Options 1, 2, and 3
are 100, 510, and 750 percent, respectively. Total plant annualized cost for
Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 41 percent more than the total
plant capital cost for the 100 TPD plant at baseline.
Tables 7-27 and 7-28 also present estimates of electrical and auxiliary
fuel requirements for the APCD's and combustors, respectively, for baseline
and each control option. The APCD electrical requirements for baseline
for the 50 and 100 TPD plants are 0 and 17 MWh/yr, respectively. The APCD's
associated with Control Options 2 and 3 consume about the same amount of
electricity for both model plants. Auxiliary fuel use for each control
option is the same as that for baseline for each model plant. Auxiliary
fuel consumed for the 50 and 100 TPD plants is 0.8 and 1.6 billion Btu/yr,
respectively.
7.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts. Tables 7-29 and 7-30 present estimates
of environmental impacts for each control option for the 50 and 100 TPD
modular/starved air model plants, respectively. Shown are emissions and
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, S02, and HC1, and the increase in solid waste
disposal associated with the control options.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options since all are assumed
to operate with good combustion practices. Particulate emissions emissions
are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control option. Sulfur
dioxide emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are
reduced by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are
reduced by 80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
Finally, the increase in total solid waste disposal over baseline for each
model plant is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1, 6 percent for
Control Option 2, and 5 percent for Control Option 3.
7-38
-------
TABLE 7-29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 50 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 9)
Pollutanta'b
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Baseline
300
1.2E-5
Control
1
300
1.2E-5
0
Options
2
75
3.0E-6
75
3
5
2.0E
98
-7
CO Emissions:
PM
so2
HC1
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction^
Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction^-
Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
50
3
-
0.10 (0.08)d
9 (7)
-
200
23
-
500
31
-
50
3
0
0.01
1
88
200
23
0
500
31
0
50
3
0
0.01
1
88
120
14
40
100
6
80
50
3
0
0.01
1
88
20
2
90
15
1
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
15
2,840
-
15
2,840
0.3
16
3,010
6
16
2,990
5
'All
flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent Op, dry basis.
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
"From baseline.
Numbers in parantheses for the intermediate control option of PM control to
0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent 0« using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F
using humidification. Emissions for pollutants other than PM are the same
as baseline for this option.
7-39
-------
TABLE 7-30. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 100 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 10)
Pollutant
a,b
Baseline
Control Options
1
CDD/CDF Emissions;
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
300
3.9E-5
300
3.9E-5
0
75
9.7E-6
75
5
6.5E-7
98
PM
S0?
c
HC1
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
50
8
-
0.08
24
-
200
72
-
500
100
-
50
8
0
0.01
3
88
200
72
0
500
100
0
50
8
0
0.01
3
88
120
44
40
100
20
80
50
8
0
0.01
3
88
20
7
90
15
3
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
30
9,080
~
30
9,100
0.2
32
9,630
6
32
9,560
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0^, dry basis.
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
°From baseline.
7-40
-------
7.4 FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION
Based on design and operation parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
two FBC model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and the three control
options using cost procedures specifically for MWC applications.
7.4.1 Bubbling Bed Fluidized-Bed Combustor
7.4.1.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-31 presents the capital costs
for the 900 TPD bubbling bed FBC model plant. Combustor capital costs and
itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option are
presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is $3,780,000. The APCD
total capital cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases
12 and 230 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Total plant
capital cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 12 percent
more than the total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-32 presents the annualized costs for the 900 TPD bubbling bed FBC
model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized costs as well as
itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control option. Total
APCD annualized cost for baseline is 1,260,000. The total APCD annualized
cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases by 85 and
210 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Total plant annualized
cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 14 percent more than
the total plant annualized cost at baseline.
Table 7-32 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor for each control option. The APCD
electrical requirement for baseline is 3,900 MWh/year. The electrical
requirement for the APCD's associated with Control Options 1 and 2 are the
same as for baseline, and the APCD's for Control Option 3 use 14 percent more
electricity than baseline. Auxiliary fuel consumed for baseline and all three
control options is 14.6 billion Btu/year.
7.4.1.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-33 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to the
900 TPD bubbling bed FBC model plant. Shown are emissions and emission
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, S02 and HC1, and solid waste disposal amounts
associated with each control option.
7-41
-------
TABLE 7-31. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 900 TPD FBC (BUBBLING BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 11)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Cost3 70,090 70,090 70,090 70,090
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control
Acid gas control (spray dryer)
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies .
Monitoring Equipment
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
1,980
1,980
470
2,450
1,210
120
3,780
73,870
1,980
1,980
470
2,450
1,210
120
3,780
73,870
1,980
Q
1,980
470
2,450
1,210
573
4,230
74,320
6,940C
6,940
439
7,380
4,400
573
12,340
82,430
alncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, and balance of plant.
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet Q? monitors and
a data reduction system.
GCosts include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-42
-------
TABLE 7-32. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 900 TPO FBC
(BUBBLING BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 11}
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Combustor Annual ized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance3
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual ized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Limestone
- Water
- Waste disposal b
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10° Btu/yr)
Basel ine
8,260
568
9.220
18,050
48
7
26,.
187C
179
32
0
0
0
0
16
496
122
146
496
764
1,260
19,300
3,900
14,580
1
8,260
568
9,220
18,050
48
7
26r
187C
179
32
0
0
0
0
16
496
122
146
496
764
1,260
19,300
3,900
14,580
2
8,260
568
9,220
18,050
48
7
26,.
187C
179
32
0
480
0
337
215
1,510
122
146
555
823
2,330
20,380
3,900
14,580
3
8,260
568
9,220
18,050
96
14
53,
210d
204
32
122
320
3
311
215
1,580
186
471
1.620
2,280
3,860
21,910
4,440
14,580
Also includes the costs for electricity, water, overhead, and taxes,
insurance, and administrative charges.
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOp, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
°Costs include annual cost of $65,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
Costs include annual cost of $62,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
eFor baseline, and Control Option 1 cost of waste disposal attributed to the
APCD is included in the combustor ash disposal costs. Incremental waste
disposal costs beyond baseline are shown for Options 2 and 3.
7-43
-------
TABLE 7-33. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 900 TPO FBC
(BUBBLING BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 11)
Pollutant3'5
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reductionc
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
SO, Emissions:
c
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reductionc
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Control Options
Baseline
20
2.87E-05
-
50
41.5
-
0.01
32.8
-
240
914
-
350
759
-
68
20,600
1
20
2.87E-05
0
50
41.5
0
0.01
32.8
0
240
914
0
350
759
0
68
20,600
0
2
15
2.15E-05
25
50
41.5
0
0.01
32.8
0
75
286
69
100
217
71
109
32,850
59
3
5
7.17E-06
75
50
41.5
0
0.01
32.8
0
30
114
88
10
23
97
105
31,880
55
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 02, dry basis
bMass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-44
-------
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced only 25 and
3
75 percent, respectively; however the baseline level (20 ng/Nm ) is so low
relative to other model plants that only a 75 percent reduction is needed to
o
meet the 5 ng/Nm level associated with the most stringent option (Option 3)
for the other model plants. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed to
be practiced at baseline. Particulate emissions are the same for the three
control options as for baseline since for this plant, PM emissions are
controlled to 0.01 gr/dscf at baseline. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same
as baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced about 70 and 90 percent for
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. The percent SOp control for Option 2
is higher than for other model plants (70 versus 40 percent) because the
furnance limestone injection technology used for FBC's under Option 2 removes
a greater proportion of S0? than the duct sorbent injection technology used
for the other model plants under Option 2. Hydrogen chloride emissions are
the same as baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced by 70 and
97 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, solid waste
disposal for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases by 59 and
55 percent over baseline for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
7.4.2 Circulating Fluidized-Bed Combustor
7.4.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-34 presents the capital costs
for the 900 TPD circulating fluidized-bed FBC model plant. Combustor capital
costs and itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option
are presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is $3,780,000. The APCD
total capital cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases
by 12 and 230 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Total plant
capital cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 12 percent
more than total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-35 presents the annualized costs for the 900 TPD circulating
fluidized-bed FBC model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized
costs as well as itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control
option. Total APCD annualized cost for baseline is $1,260,000. The total
APCD annual ized cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and
7-45
-------
TABLE 7-34. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 900 TPD FBC (CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED-BED)
MODEL PLANT (NO. 12) ($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1
Total Combustor Capital Costa 70,090 70,090 70,090 70,090
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control
Acid gas control (spray dryer)
- Total APCD control
- Flue gas ducting and fan
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies b
Monitoring Equipment
Total APCD Capital Cost
Total Plant Capital Cost
1,980
1,980
470
2,450
1,210
120
3,780
73,870
1,980
Q
1,980
470
2,450
1,210
120
3,780
73,870
1,980
Q
1,980
470
2,450
1,210
573
4,230
74,320
6,940C
6,940
439
7,380
4,400
573
12,340
82,430
alncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, and balance of plant.
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
°Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-46
-------
increases by 140 and 210 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
Total plant annualized cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option,
is 14 percent more than the total plant annualized cost at baseline.
Table 7-35 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor for each control option. The APCD
electrical requirement for baseline is 3,900 MWh/year. The APCD electrical
requirement for Control Options 1 and 2 are the same as baseline, and increase
by 14 percent for Control Option 3. Auxiliary fuel consumed for baseline and
all three control options is 14.6 billion Btu/year.
7.4.2.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-36 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to the
900 TPD circulating fluidized-bed FBC model plant. Shown are emissions and
emission reductions for CDD/CDF, CO PM, S02, and HC1 and solid waste disposal
amounts associated with each control option.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced by 81 and
99 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed to
be practiced at baseline. As with the bubbling bed FBC, particulate emissions
are the same for the three control options as for baseline. Sulfur dioxide
emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced 94
and 88 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively, and are at or below
30 ppmv for both options. Hydrogen chloride emissions are the same as
baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced by 86 and 97 percent for
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. The high SOp and HC1 percent
reductions for Option 2 (relative to other model plants) are due to the high
stoichiometric ratio of sorbent (limestone) to acid gas needed to achieve a
CDD/CDF level of 75 ng/Nm3 at the circulating fluidized-bed model plant.
Finally, solid waste disposal for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline,
and increases by 105 and 55 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
7.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND ENERGY IMPACTS
Tables 7-37, 7-38, and 7-39 summarize the information on capital costs,
annualized costs, and electrical and auxiliary fuel requirements,
respectively, for the 12 model plants. Also shown are annual tonnages of
waste combusted by each model plant.
7-47
-------
TABLE 7-35. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 900 TPD FBC
(CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED-BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 12)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Combustor Annual ized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance3
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annual ized Costs
APCD Annual ized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Limestone
- Water
- Waste disposal b
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annual ized Costs
Total Plant Annual ized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
Basel ine
8,260
568
9,220
18,050
48
7
26
187C
179
32
0
0
0
0
16
496
122
146
496
764
1,260
19,300
3,900
14,580
1
8,260
568
9.220
18,050
48
7
26
187C
179
32
0
0
0
0
16
496
122
146
496
764
1,260
19,300
3,900
14,580
2
8,260
568
9,220
18,050
48
7
26r
187C
179
32
0
881
0
595
215
2,170
122
146
555
823
2,990
21,040
3,900
14,580
3
8,260
568
9.220
18,050
96
14
53,
210d
204
32
122
320
3
311
215
1,580
186
471
1,620
2,280
3,860
21,910
4,440
14,580
aAlso includes the costs for electricity, water, overhead, and taxes,
insurance, and administrative charges.
bFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
cCosts include annual cost of $65,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
dCosts include annual cost of $62,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
eFor baseline, and Control Option 1 cost of waste disposal attributed to the
APCD is included in the combustor ash disposal costs. Incremental waste
disposal costs beyond baseline are shown for Options 2 and 3.
7-48
-------
TABLE 7-36. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 900 TPD FBC
(CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED-BED) MODEL PLANT (NO, 12)
Pollutanta'b
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
SOp Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
Baseline
400
5.74E-4
-
100
83
-
0.01
33
-
240
914
-
350
759
-
68
20,600
~
Control
1
400
5.74E-4
0
100
83
0
0.01
33
0
240
914
0
350
759
0
68
20,600
0
Options
2
75
1.08E-4
81
100
83
0
0.01
33
0
15
57
94
50
108
86
140
42,210
105
3
5
7.17E-6
99
100
83
0
0.01
33
0
30
114
88
10
23
97
105
31,880
55
All flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 02, dry basis.
3Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
"From baseline.
7-49
-------
TABLE 7-37. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR NEW MWC MODEL PLANTS
Model Plant
No. Type3 TPYb
1 MB/WW 41,700
2 MB/WW 267,000
3 MB/WW 750,000
4 MB/REF 167,000
5 MB/RC 350,000
6 RDF 667,000
7 RDF (Cofired) 667,000
8 MI/EA 80,000
9 MI/SA 10,400
10 MI/SA 33,000
11 FBC (BB) 300,000
12 FBC (CFB) 300,000
Caoital Cost ($1000)
Baseline
19,720
53,150
116,900
40,430
73,270
142,740
151,540
14,460
1,270
(l,800)c
5,880
73,870
73,870
1
19,880
53,630
118,200
41,050
73,810
143,980
152,780
14,670
2,090
6,450
73,870
73,870
2
20,820
56,520
124,700
43,210
77,090
150,400
159,200
15,720
2,670
7,140
74,320
74,430
3
23,800
62,020
135,200
49,250
84,740
162,400
171,200
18,020
4,060
8,640
82,430
82,430
aMB/WW = mass burn/waterwal 1 .
MB/REF = mass burn/ refractory.
MB/RC = mass burn/rotary combustor
RDF » refuse-derived fuel.
MI/EA = modular incinerator/excess
.
air.
MI/SA * modular incinerator/starved air.
FBC = fluidized bed combustion.
BB = bubbling bed
CFB = circulating fluidized-bed
TPY = tons per year.
Cost in parentheses corresponds to PM control
02 using an ESP and temperature control to 450
at 0.08
F using
gr/dscf at 7
humidificati
percent
on.
7-50
-------
TABLE 7-38. SUMMARY OF ANNUALI2ED COSTS FOR NEW MWC MODEL PLANTS
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Model Plant
Typea
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/WW
MB/REF
MB/RC
RDF
RDF (Cofired)
MI/EA
MI/SA
MI/SA
FBC (BB)
FBC (CFB)
Annual ized Cost ($1.000)
TPYb
41,700
267,000
750,000
167,000
350,000
667,000
667,000
80,000
10,400
33,000
300,000
300,000
Baseline
5,280
15,200
32,860
12,600
20,620
35,700
37,470
4,690
605
(747)c
1,940
19,300
19,300
1
5,310
15,310
33,160
12,730
20,730
35,980
37,740
4,740
802
2,050
19,300
19,300
2
5,950
17,000
37,000
14,110
22,900
40,300
41,340
5,370
1,110
2,490
20,380
21,040
3
6,470
17,930
38,780
15,170
24,180
42,290
43,310
5,770
1,360
2,740
21,910
21,910
aMB/WW = mass burn/waterwal1.
MB/REF = mass burn/refractory.
MB/RC = mass burn/rotary combustor.
RDF = refuse-derived fuel.
MI/EA = modular incinerator/excess air.
MI/SA = modular incinerator/starved air.
FBC = fluidized bed combustion.
BB = bubbling bed
CFB = circulating fluidized-bed
TPY = tons per year.
"Cost in parentheses corresponds to PM control at 0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent
0- using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F using humidification.
7-51
-------
O
u.
u>
UJ
ac
f-
UJ
oa
<
ft ro
X
'5
4-*
oa
o
o
r~
fM
C
01
e
41
t.
3
a
41
ae
HI
u.
u
<0
.^ 01
c
X
3 41
^ V)
ID
oa
Kl
c.
X,
.e
I
r\i
c
E
41
3
O
at «-
_,
0)
u
u o>
41 C
UJ
01
Ul
<0
oa
£1
a.
H-
4-*
C
ID
.^
a.
-* a
41 01
o a
0 X
Z 1
o
X
0
fM
Kl
O
^
fM
Kl
0
(M
Kl
a
rj
ro
0
fM
CO
Ul
s
^
"O
«-
o
^
0
o
^
,_
s^
^
^
^^
CD
*
.-
0
o
(M
*~
O
o
o
fM
^
0
CM
"
0
-o
o>
(M
*"
0
o
^*"
0
o
to
o
r-
o
,_
CO
r»
o
o
o
1^
0
r\i
31
31
^^
CO
X
M
O
in
O
ro
o
»*
-o
Kl
O
in
-o
Kl
O
in
sf
o
ro
o
ro
CM
"~
o
2
f>
o
o
o
Kl
O
CM
fM
O
O
o
0
in
2j
^
N^
CD
X
Kl
O
O
CO
0
O
*-
CO
0
0
co
o
0
co
o
-
J-
o
o
-o
Kl
0
o
o
,_
CO
o
0
o
0
0
(^
o
u.
UJ
at
CD
*
*
o
o
r
^
0
o
p^
T~
o
0
K.
"
o
o
f^.
^
o
-o
in
o
-0
sr
0
0
CM
^_
CM
00
O
o
o
0
in
Kl
u
at
CO
Z
in
o
o
CM
Kl
O
O
J
O
o
o
1^
^3
>0
u.
^
at
-0
0
o
(M
Kl
O
0
-*
CM
Kl
O
O
-J-
CM
Kl
0
O
CM
Kl
O
O
*
O
CO
Kl
CO
O
o
00
CM
O
v-
CM
O
O
o
f^.
^
«
TJ
t-
.1-
**
o
CO
Kl
O
O
00
Kl
0
s
Kl
0
»
co
Kl
0
ro
^:
o
00
CM
.-
^fm
in
Kl
CM
Kl
CM
O
0
o
o
co
4J^
UJ
X.
^
Z
00
o
r-
co
o
co
0
oo
u
0 0
a oo
*"'
fM
^
10
Kl
00
ro
u
o ro
^^
o
o
0
4g
u>
i-4
Z
O
O
>o
^r
o
CM
O
^T
O
PJ
O
^r
o
CM
-O
^T
»
0
-o
o
o
in
0
o
o
ro
ro
^
»
o o
CO 00
in in
*" -»"
^v «_
o o
CO OO
in in
>»" *"
^ *~
o o
CO 00
in in
*~ *~
o o
* >»
*" -»"
0 0
o o
OX O-
Kl Kl
O O
o o
0 f>
Kl Kl
0 0
0 0
o. o
ro" ro"
0 0
o o
o o
o o
0 0
ro ro
** CO
00 U.
CD U
\>* *^
U U
00 CO
U. 14.
«- CM
o
01
xl
L. O
o u
a v
x u x
i. a >.
41 t- «j
4J «*» 4J
a o> o
c c c
t- I. L.
a
a
m oi
ui >
41 l_ C
O 41
o> c c TJ
> ..- ._ oi '
O O J3
I- C C
«--,?
I U I. W
oi ID a >-
ui TJ
t- TJ TJ 3 '.
01 O O
t- e e*-
TJ
3
01
*
01
a.
u>
UJ
c
(0
oi
c
Ul
3
CO
o
ID
"o
a.
o
TJ
c
o
a.
Ul
01
L.
1_
O
u
3
CT
01
2
»- C
o
X
I- 4->
u a a
CO ' u
41 _.
X
i- 3 TJ
u a
(A U) M
Ul Ul 01
Hi
II II II II II II II II II
u
3
TJ
C .
a
ui
o oi
** c
II
u ui
- 3
3 UJ U < <
3 c* ac uj ui
^-.>-u.^>.«j co
co CD m Q ca ffi u.
ZXZOCXZU.CDU
00
> 01 O
O. IA
7-52
-------
8. REFERENCES
1. Seeker, W.R., W. S. Lanier and M.P. Heap. (EERC). Municipal Waste
Combustion Study: Combustion Control of MSW Combustors to Minimize
Emission of Trace Organics. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1987. EPA/530-SW-87-021c.
2. Energy and Environmental Research Corporation. Municipal Waste
Combustion Assessment: Combustion Control at New Facilities. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
August, 1989. EPA-600/8-89-057.
3. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 114 Survey Responses Received
from Existing MWC Facilities. 1988.
4. Morris, Glenn E., et. al. (Research Triangle Institute). Economic
Impact of Air Pollutant Emission Regulations for New Municipal Waste
Combustors. (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). August, 1989.
5. Wertz, K. L. (Radian Corporation). Planned and Projected Municipal Waste
Combustors Profile Update. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Task 11/Subtask 02. May 18, 1988.
27 pp.
6. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information
for Proposed Standards: Cost Procedures. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
July, 1989. EPA-450/3-89-27a.
7. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information
for Proposed Standards: Post Combustion Technology Performance.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC. August, 1989. EPA-450/3-89-27c.
8. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Cost of Flue Gas Cleaning
Technologies. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA/530-SW-87-021o. June 1987.
9. Telecon. Stevenson, W., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with
William Wiley, Consumat. lll(b) Model Plants. May 23, 1988.
8-1
-------
APPENDIX A
COST EQUATIONS FOR
CONTROL OF NEW MWC's
-------
TABLE A-l. CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COST PROCEDURES FOR MODULAR MWC'sa>b
Capital Costs
1. Modular MWC without heat recovery:
Unit Capital Cost = $24,300 per ton/day of MSW processed
2. Modular MWC producing steam (without generating electricity):
Unit Capital Cost = $32,500 per ton/day of MSW processed
3. Modular MWC generating electricity:
Unit Capital Cost = $54,600 per ton/day of MSW processed
4. Total Capital Costs = Unit Capital Costs * TPD
Annualized Costs
1. Operating and Maintenance Costs excluding waste disposal:
For TPD < 150 and MRS < 6,000,
Costs = (10 - 0.23 TPD + 0.006 MRS) * Total Capital Costs/100
Otherwise,
Costs = (15.7 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
2. Capital Recovery:
Costs = CRF * Total Capital Costs
3. Waste Disposal of Bottom Ash:
Costs - _ - * TPD * HRS * WDC
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
bTPD = plant MSW feed rate, tons/day
HRS = hours of operation
CRF = capital recovery factor, 0.1315 based on 10 percent interest rate and
15-year economic life
WR = weight reduction of MSW in the combustor, percent
WDC = waste disposal cost rate, dollars per ton (typically $25/ton)
A-l
-------
TABLE A-2. CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS PROCEDURES FOR MASS BURN MWC's
Capital Costs (dollars per ton/day of MSW processed)
1. Mass burn MWC without electrical generation:
Unit Capital Costs = 50,420 (430/Size)0'39
2. Mass burn MWC with electrical generation:
Unit Capital Costs = 60,700 (430/Size)0'39
3. Total Capital Costs = Unit Capital Cost * TPD
Annual ized Costs
1. Operating and Maintenance Costs excluding waste disposal:
For mass burn refractory wall MWC,
Costs = (15.7 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
For mass burn waterwall MWC,
Costs = (12.5 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
2. Capital Recovery
Costs = CRF * Total Capital Costs
3. Waste Disposal of Bottom Ash:
Costs = 1_ * 100 - WR
'a'b
HRS
24 100 '
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
Size = combustor MSW feed rate, tons/day
TPD = plant MSW feed rate, tons/day
HRS = hours of operation
CRF = Capital recovery factor, 0.1315 based on 10 percent interest rate and
15-year economic life
WR = weight reduction MSW in the combustor percent
WDC = waste disposal cost rate, dollars per ton (typically $25/ton)
A-2
-------
a,b
TABLE A-3. CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COST PROCEDURES FOR RDF FACILITIES
Capital Costs (dollars per ton/day of RDF processed)
1. Coarse RD facility:
Unit Capital Costs = 73,600 (400/Size)0'39
2. Fluff RDF facility:
Unit Capital Costs = 161,880 (315/Size)0'39
3. Total Capital Costs = Unit Capital Costs * TPD
Annualized Costs
1. Operating and Maintenance Costs excluding waste disposal
Costs = (12.5 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
2. Capital Recovery:
Costs = CRF * Total Capital Costs
3. Waste Disposal of Bottom Ash:
Costs = 1_ * [100 - WR | * TpD * RRS * WDC
24 \ 100
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
Size = combustor RDF feed rate, tons/day
TPD = plant MSW feed rate, tons/day
CRF = capital recovery factor, 0.1315 based on 10 percent interest rate and
15-year economic life
WR = weight reduction of MSW in the combustor, percent
MRS = hours of operation
WDC = waste disposal cost rate, dollars per ton (typically $25/ton)
A-3
-------
TABLE A-4. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL COSTS FOR NEW FBC'S
(December 1987 dollars)
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:3
Costs, 103$ = 64,900 * TPD * (900/TPD)0'39
Process Contingency; 20% of total direct and indirect costs
Total Capital FBC Costs: Total direct and indirect costs + process
contingency
aTPD = plant municipal waste feed rate, tons/day.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-5. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR FBC'S
(December 1987 dollars)
Combustor and Balance of Plant (excludes coarse RDF processing area):
Operating labor (based on 10 man-years, 40 hours/week, $12/hr):
OL = 10 * 40 * 52 * 12 * (TPD/900) = 277.3 * TPD
Supervision (based on 3 man-years/year. 40 hours/week. 30% wage rate
premium over the operating labor wage):
SPRV = 3 * 40 * 52 * 12 * 1.3 * (TPD/900) = 108.2 * TPD
Maintenance labor (based on 3 man-years/vear, 40 hours/week, 10% wage
rate premium over the operating labor wage):
ML = 3 * 40 * 52 * 12 * 1.1 * (TPD/900) = 91.5 * TPD
Maintenance materials: 3% of the total capital costs
Electricity (based on 3 MVJ power consumption, and electricity rate of
$0.046/kwh):
ELEC = 0.153 * TPD * MRS
Limestone (based on $40/ton for limestone):
LIMESTONE = 0.02 * LFEED * MRS * N
Water (based on 3% blowdown rate and $0.05/1,000 gal):
WC = 1.86 x 10"6 * STM * HRS
Waste disposal (based on tipping fee of $25/hr):
AD = 1.25 x 10"2 * N * HRS * WDR
Overhead: 60% of the sum of all labor costs (operating, supervisory,
and maintenance) plus 60% of maintenance materials costs
Continued
A-5
-------
TABLE A-5. (CONCLUDED). PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
FOR FBC'S (December 1987 dollars)
Coarse RDF Processing Area:
Total Operating and Maintenance Costs (TOT O&H):
TOT O&M = 4.4 x 10"4 * (12.5 - 0.00115 * TPD) * TDI
Taxes, Insurance, and Administrative Charges:
4% of the total capital cost
Capital Recovery (based on 15 year life and 10% interest rate):
13.15% of the total capital cost
OL = operating labor costs, $/yr
SPRV = supervision costs, $/yr
ML = maintenance labor costs, $/yr
ELEC = electricity costs, $/yr
HRS = hours of operation per year
LIMESTONE = limestone costs, $/yr
LFEED = limestone feed rate per unit, Ib/hr
N = number of combustors
WC = water costs, $/yr
STM = plant steam production, Ib/hr
AD = waste disposal costs, $/yr
WDR = waste disposal rate per unit (bottom and fly ash collected), Ib/hr
TPD = plant municipal waste feed rate, tons/day
TDI = total direct and indirect capital costs for FBC plant, $
A-6
-------
TABLE A-6. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING CAPITALISTS
FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS (ESP'S)a'D
Design Equation for Massburn and RDF Facilities:
SCA = -189.29 li
In |(100 - PMEFF)]
L 101.89 J
Design Equation for Modular Units:
Use above design equation for large modular units whose flue gas
flowrate (Q) is greater than or equal to 30,000 acfm
For small modular units whose Q < 30,000
SCA = -285.7 In [(100 - PMEFF)]
L 79.6 J
Purchased Equipment Costs
ESP for Massbujjn and RDF plants and large modular plants0:
Costs, 10J $ = (305.2 + 0.00738 * TPA) * N
ESP for small
Costs
all modular plants (Q < 30,000)c:
, 10J $ = 1.08 * (96.3 + 0.015 * TPA) * N
Ductwork: ., n c
Costs, 10J $ = 0.7964 * N * Qu<:>
Fan: 3 0 96
Costs, 10-3 $ = 1.077 * N * Qu'yG
Installation Direct Costs
= 67% of purchased equipment costs for new ESP
(continued)
A-7
-------
TABLE A-6. (Continued)
Indirect Costs
= 54% of purchased equipment costs for massburn, RDF, and large modular
units with new ESP
= $14,000 for small modular units with new ESP
Contingency
= 3% of purchased equipment costs
Total Capital Costs
= Purchased equipment costs + installation direct costs +
indirect costs + contingency costs
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
PMEFF = particulate matter removal efficiency, percent
SCA = specific collection area, ft /I,000 acfm
Q = 125 percent of the actual flue gas flowrate per ESP unit, acfm
TPA = total plate area, ft
N = number of ESP units
L = duct length, feet
°Includes taxes and freight of eight percent of the ESP equipment costs.
A-8
-------
ee
3:
*
*
XD
O
X
o
<0
I
o
X)
CO
a.
CO
CO
o
CJ
a.
o
<
u
at
O
UJ
ae.
CJ
o
a:
a.
II
I
O
<\J
4A
O
JO
CO
c
o
-a
41
CA
CO
m
o
.a
CO
a
c
41
Q
O
a}
o
u
z
^
c
CD
2
!_
O
XI
CO
Ol
C
r-
co
41
Q
0
41
_4j
4V
L-
V
>
o
E
~
*
e
4>
Q
41
4v
CO
4>
o
CO
3
O
Y
jj
t4_
i^
VZ
IA
L_
O
f-
c
ID
£
in
o
c
o
T3
41
IA
CO
m
sv
[_
O
XI
CO
i
41
U
C
CO
c
41
C
^
ID
Z
II
CJ
UJ
UJ
z
"~
2
3
^,
-o
c
o
V)
H-
0
41
ID
t_
>.
,^
U
i^
t.
U
41
CU
TO
C
CO
(J
3*
a
o
CJ t-
CA T3
CA V
O L.
U D
CA
' IA
CO CU
Q
a
CO -C
0 0
c
4J -
CJ
4i in
i_ ,
o
TJ
C
41 O
v=
4V -D
41
4- CA
O CO
at
c
CO
u.
CA
^ 1
(0 o
I- 1 t
0)
M L.
03 O
Z *t-
4) >
U 4V
c *-
CO U
c
41 t.
C CJ
.^ CU
to
Z UJ
UJ
a.
i/>
LU
^>
3
^
5
O
o
vt
4-
o
CU
4V
CO
c_
>.
4V
CJ
1_
4V
0
41
t
41
TJ
C
CO
CO
CU
L.
ID
C
O
*
4V
u
41
^-i
«v
O
u
PJ
4-1
H-
>^
CA
*v
CO
3
in
c
0
TJ
4)
CA
CO
m
ex
CO
LU
^,
JQ
TJ
41
E
D
CA
C
O
CJ
>
4v
lr=
U
_
L.
4V
U
CU
J
LU
ac
o
3
4^
CO
ce
ac
V
1C
rvj
i
o
X
in
r\j
r~
II
o
"
c
o
4V
^
in
c\
4_
o
41
41
C
a
Q
4V
C
0
TJ
41
IA
CO
m
*
to
CA
O
Q
CA
f
O
v=
CA
<
41
CJ
C
CO
c
41
C
CO
E
o
&c
o
o
to
D
a
ff\
41
U
C
CD
C
41
4v
C
to
E
o
c
CO
>»
t-
o
IA
^
L.
41
a
IA
*
Ol
C
4V
CO
t_
41
a.
o
CA
CA
0
CJ
(_
O
XI
CO
^1
eg
H-
o
E
CA
4)
4V
»^-
O
34
O
O
tt
TJ
CO
41
c_
41
>
O
CA
IA
O
U
CO
._
Q.
CO
CJ
_,
CO
0
**
cu
-C
4-1
*4-
0
94
in
*
"
4
CO
CA
CU
CU
C
J^
o
TJ
C
CO
41
H-
f-
C_
CO
4>
in
c
0
41
CA
CO
m
\*i
>
l_
4>
O
U
41
ar
t
CO
4V
Q
CO
U
1
1
1
IA
L.
CO L.
' X
O
TJ
f C. >.
GO C_ CO ^
O >.»- »
*~ X W -
<- ^. O Q.
CD 4ft » CO
.O. IA LU
E 4v
CU CA IA L- t»
O 4V O O O
CP CA IA O H- *+-
O O 4V c
CJ - O L. IA CA
C C - O 4J 4V
- (- 3 4v XI IA CA
O CO CO O O
TJ XI Q. 1 O CJ
O CO CO 4J
4-i UJ Q. 4) > >
CO O O 4v 4v
E 0>H- C
C O >4- CO O CJ
4-1 O C
CA 4v t_ 4) l_ c_
CU CO 4) IA 4V 4V 4-*
t- -Q c- c o cj
4) 41 E 3 4> 41
L. Q. 3 O CO
CO O C JC £ 41 41
CA II II II II II II
4V
CA CJ U
O LU LU
U » -J
LU LU
CO Z O.
1 O£ J < CO
< O z n: z u- LU
CO XI
E
o
CO
4V
,^-
c
3
c_
41
Q.
4>
CO
3
O
*4-
CA
CO
Ol
41
3
*4-
ID
4V
U
10
II
3
u.
c_
»^^
k
CA
4V
CA
O
U
CO
CA
8.
(/)
o
e*
(A
(0
II
Q
<
L.
JZ
^3
__.
+j
^-
c
£.
41
a.
V
CO
l_
_v
CO
CA
O
a.
IA
5
4>
CA
CO
3
II
Of
o
IA
IA
0
U
U
OJ
.^
T3
C
O
"-
CO
.^
CO
IA
C
"~
T>
C.
CD
CA
CA
O
U
4V
C
41
i.
cr
41
41
CA
CO
.C
o
^
a.
*4-
o
E
IA
41
4V
41
L.
CO
CA
CA
O
CJ
CO
4-*
a.
CO
o
4V
CJ
CD
i^
a
u
A-9
-------
XI
CD
Z
O
LU
^
z
LU
CO
C£
O
CO
>_
ce
o
^
O
u.
c/)
t
(/)
o
0
-J
a:
HI
a.
^
CJ
o
z
£
z
t_
en
LU
tY
O
u_
LU
r*f
13
O
UJ
o
at:
ex
CO
^
LU
_J
CD
H-
"Q
Q
D
CO
(D
E
_Z
(0
^
i
un
,
c
0
"^
41
CO
CO
00
11
3
CD
>
rf
O
t_
4-*
C
o
u
3
O
u.
73
C
CO
11
to
3
O
O
CO
CO
c_
o
4-«
CO
V» c.
XI
ro -
o >
^
.c
to -
4-> 3
to
0 0
,f
4-* C/>
c
4) 01
E 0
Q CO
t-
3 O
O 4-
LU CO
"O U
CO
CO _l
u
3
Q, »-
«
4J
C
CO
"3.
«
c. *^
01 4-1
0. C
CO
o
a
CO t- 4-»
0) C
01 a. ca
o> _
co co a
L- 0
0 c-
4-> 0)
CO CO Q.
01 U to
C D) O
O CO '
^s C_ n
O CO
ro w
4-1 to 41
«4- C7>
O CO
0 3 c_
0 4-. O
CO s^ 4-1
* CO
CM ro
4-1 0
O >4- 3
O s-^
o
co vO ro
3 * 4->
4)
a o
C- C 0
O *"* to *** ^
> > -~
c -o o >o -* >
CO r- O «- CO
-co ro o c ro
V - CO O
O CM O .CO
CO + C + o
4) 4) l_
CM 11 CM 4J +
3 4J
^* ^ +* -^ co ro
> ro 0) ro 41 ^
O)
to * to * *
11 01 41
6 in E o E o
30 3 - 3 »-
O «- O CM O CM
II II II
01 01 41
D) to o) to o) to
CO 4-* CO 4-* CO 4-»
t. tO L- CO L- CO
O 0 O 0 O O
4-* O 4-» O +» CJ
c/> to co
I- C- C- C
0 O 0
u- u. u. CD
a
01
41
0 O 0 "-
.
CM
^
r^
t_
o
^ CO
i. 3
4-- E
CO O
3 U
XI
E <-
O 41
u a
L. CO
01 C
a -
XI
c
XI U
01
"D in *- in
01 «*J- vf
u « o *-
*4- -O 3 ^
4-1
01 O ^ O
O u- C u-
^ CO O CO
C 4-*
O * CJ *
. 01
4-> Z -> Z
0 C
01 * - *
C CM
0 C .-
O 01 CO
4J O Xt «-
C L.
0) 0 O O CO
XI to u
U II II CU
01) -O
CO CO U CO 41
4-> CO *- 4)
4-> CO C CO U-
u o <- o
3 (J 3 U U
o >-
c.
C. U 4J
O O 41
11 IL g
^
CO
L.
o o u>
,
ro
K
t\
o
^^
u
0
«. *-
^ CO
t_ 3
O XI
4-- E
tn o
3 O
X)
E z i- z
O 01
o * a.*
t *^ t/t *"N
cu ro <- ro
Q.O* 4) O ^
CM T3 CM -C
l_ . 1) . 4->
Ol O 41 O. O
T3 *- C
CU + + 4)
0) O _l
*4- U. 3 14-
CO 4-* CO 4-1
U N^ 41
CO O 41
o co c co 14.
^ CM O CM
o o o
CO 4-i O O
O O O O ^3-
. . 01 .
4J O '--O C
u *^ c ^ o
4) .^
>* * T3
C 4J 0)
-* C 00 co
CM 4) -* CO
4J O XI O CD
c t- *->
0) - O f\J
XI to c-
i- II II O
04) >
tO CO U U) 4)
4J CO 4J >
4-> CO C CO C
u o c. o o
3 CJ 3 CJ 0
o >-
o
00 £
U- l^ CQ
3
cu
c
o o a.
.
%<
«
t_
<-v O
r-i » +-
~* CO
c. 3
O XI
U- CO O
to 30
XI
>0 E i-
M O 0)
u a.
r
r t_ CO
0) 4J
+ Q. c-
o
a 4-> a.
M 0 C 1
r- Q. O
1-1 Z Z
C 4->
* 0*0*
. 4)
^ 4J ^^ » *-*
O 14- C U.
O 41 W - CO
f C ~t O ^1-
.- ,- 3 r-
U_ O 4J O
OT 01 O ^ O
c
O O O C 0
^ %^ o
D + - +
0 C -M
O CM 0 CM
0 - 41 .
4J CM 'CM
+ O CM C CM
41 \-f - *^
& '~*
C * 4^ *
0 C
M in 41 O
^ 4-1 O XI *-
C c_ .
ft 01 « O CM
XI Wl
in c- u ii
o o CD
CO CO CA U tO
f 4-* 4-* CD 4-»
C- *J c/) C (0
II O O O c- o
a. 3 u 3 cj
to 73 *-
4-1 C
CO O C_ C_
o o o
O 4-» U_ U-
o
u
c
0 0
in
A-10
-------
,-x
T3
11)
3
c
4^
c
0
ii
CO
4"
1 >O
i °-
1 0
1 irv
1 -o"
! ^
INI
1
1 *~
! «
I a
k
-*
Kl
||
Ul
4-<
«
o
u
^
4-r
u
to
4->
c
o
(J
4->
^
o
X}
t_
0
CO
"D
C
(0
(0
1 0)
J
t-
Q)
C/)
O CD O
I «4- o a
* *
a
C z z
o
« *
4-1
O f\J ^.
O CO NO
^ -T C .-
^ ra
u- «
O O vx
4) t- 4-*
tn 41 ii t- n
- « t- 0)
> 4-* O 4^
u- (A Wl -^
l- O T3 O L.
O U U 4) U O
4-1 "- O 2
O I- 3 4->
10 XI T3 o
at at c 3
ar u_ ^- o
Of- 00 O*
CO
Vi
o
u
4_»
C
41
E
Q.
3
D"
QJ
>«
t- +
(0
c
o
r- .»-
X 4-»
3 o
10 01 1
1-< 1
x> c
c -
10
4->
1- C 4J
41 4> C
4-> XI 4)
r s&
*4- 0)
3
o x cr
^- ^ Q)
t- "D
-O X
10 (_ L.
*- O 10 01
*4- '^- 4-*
-4- 0)
O *-N o
01 X U
»* 4-> 3
ru 01 to x
f>- O o
0 T3 C
+ C 4)
C ID O>
U) 0 C
l-> .-1- 01
01 4-* Q> 4-* 4-*
O 10 4-> 01 C
O O O O
o - o tj
O 4-* 10 *4-
~ C 4-1 4-» +
« 4) 01 O O
** e c 4i 01
1A XI «
3 +10 -O O
o o" -4- c (j
a 41 4-.
C 4) 4-<
* c 4; .c -a o
O E 4J c 41
i a. 10 L.
* O 3 O i-> "5
4> O">4- o C
Z '41 41
C %^ 4-1 C_
* ' 0) - +
01 O -O
r^ 01 4-* 4-» o 01
f\J 4J C Ol >4- 4-*
\O Ol 4) O 4J O 01
CO O XI 0 C O
<-> t- 4) E U
0 0 4- E 3
^4^01 OQ. O1O14-*
O 4> 4-< o
II 4>X 1.3 4)0141
1- L. CT .C 0 l-
0) TJ "04) 4J O
4-< O Ol Q
01 *4 4-f *4 *4 >4 ^
O CO 01OO O ID1
u o o >-j 4J (o
*~X CJd^X OX - 4-»
4->o ro(Nj Co QO
loro 4-*fo>* 4»in (OH-
O O (J
II 41 II CM II
(D U
4J . 4-» ID
01 TJ C 4-"
C C 00
- (J 1- 1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
I
E
4_
U
to
4_i
i 1
1
L.
CV
a.
4>
*4-
o
XI
10
41
4-1
1
1 0
O) 4*O
t_ 4-> 4-»
10 10 *4-
3 - U)
O O 4J c
a c o
4-10 -
f^ 4J
CO O> CL 10
Ov 10 O
«- O> 41 -
.C
1- t- 4) 4-» Q.
4) £ 3 a
XI ^ l~ 10
E X) *- 0
4» *4- 2
O 4)
0> - 10 4) C
Q 4-. 3 E
4J 3 L.
CCO 0
3 (0 O >4-
>
T3 I- 41 TJ
4> 4) -C O 4-» 0>
4-1 Q. 4-» 4) 0)
10 W 4> 3
E 4) "+- U) 4-» «4-
..- *j O 4>
4-* 10 4) C » L.
01 1- 4J O) 3 £ 10
4) C <0 4J
"D 41 t- H- O) 01
41 O> CJ O O C I.
L. o t- 4-» &> Q)
10 H- 4) 01 f ' 4-*
Q. 41
Vi 4> 41 XI 4-»
4-> E in E E u *-
01 OJ 3 3
0 «- - C TJ 0
0
II II II II II L.
XI
' u. 10
< in a > z i u.
ID XI U
A-ll
-------
_3
to
z
o
«-
u
UJ
-3
z
H~
z
UJ
co
a:
0
O
U
a
z
^
a:
LU
a.
0
^
3
Z
z
^
O
Z
1
^
X
1-4
t
t/>
UJ
o
u.
CO
UJ
Of
o
Ul
o
a:
a.
t>
^
UJ
CD
^
}_
CO
CO CO
a. o
3= u
« CO
Z "io
* l_
01
in 4-1
rvi u> 10
CO OC E
3:
O 01
en * o
u a: c
z z to
_J C
X * * 01
Z u- C
t/)
0>
a
to
3
1_
0
-O
10
0
c
0)
01
Q
o
OC Or
I r-
4-«
£
U
Z 01
* 0
o m
3
ro
E
II 01
t_
-1 Q
O
01
10
c_
.c
^
IM
i
4A
t^
O
0>
a
ID
3
4-*
4-
,^-
eft
^
c/)
c_
3
O
.c
c
10
E
INJ
C
0
o
0>
CO
to
CD
L.
C
to
_J
o
c
4-1
to
c.
01
Q
O
L.
0)
0
to
3
O
I
O
N~s 4J
t^
CO .C
O CO
O -v
u
t- 3
to c
to
E
a>
c m
4-1 O
CO
t- C
at o
a
0 "O
01
0) CO
-C 10
4-» CD
i^-
o
in o
a
,,
C 01
o u
c
en eg
C
> 01
0> c
a
3 CO
CO X
* to
« E
U. ^ *4
CO O O
* o «
o
-O II 0
in
UJ CO
U INJ X 3
4J in i
C _i Q.
a. o oi
3 00 <-
a
0) «- t\l
C OJ -4-
O ^ 0
4-1*0
o
OJ >O 4-1
I 10
COL.
u
4-> X
C t-
0> in 4-<
J3 t\l 01
<- E
o in o
CO
II -C
01 0
JZ U
4-f UJ O
_J 4^
^4- UJ CO
o
CO
CO CO
4-1 r^
10 -C
O 3
CJ ^^
-o
10 -J
4-1 O
a o
10 4/»
u
H-
4J 0
u
01 O)
Lm 4-*
.- to
73 t-
o> >
4J .-
u
O c-
4-1
»c o
in 0>
OJ
(l
CA C
-- o
CD
"D
L. 01
0> CO
V 10
10 CD
X v
o> >
o *
c
10 U
c.
01 L.
4-* 4-»
C u
. 01
to
X ui
a
^
.^
u
ID
TJ
c
to
01
E
'
T3
01
to
L.
"D
>
.c
t_
0
*4-
c
o
x»
o
oo
«A
c
0
TJ
01
CO
10
CD
,
0)
._
_t
u
c
to
c
01
4-*
c
to co
E *-
en
D 0
C 0
to
^
« to
X 4->
t_ >»*>
0 Q.
CO 10
CJ
^ «^
01 ID
a «-
3 0
CO 4-*
01
O) f
c *-*
1
4-* M~
CO O
01 «
Q. -J-
0
^^
co en
4J 0)
CO CJ
0 L,
U 10
1- O
o
-Q 0)
ID >
4-"
* to
' L.
CD 4->
en
*4> f^
o c
E i
3 TJ
CO <
01 TJ
f. C
4J CO
O 01
o
X C
o to
O L.
3
CO
c
T)
to
01
-C CO
C. 01
01 X
> ID
O H-
co
4-*
CO
o
u
_,
to
.^
a
to
u
to
4-*
o
01
-C
H-
o
in
.
FO
^_
, ,
r*t
01
to
t_
4-*
CO
01
OJ
c
d*£
o
TJ
c
to
o
,^
to
0>
in
c
0
a
01
CO
to
CD
^
L,
OJ
o
u
OJ
OC
-
1C
,^
Q
ID
LJ
1
1 CO
4-«
CO
o
u
4-*
u
cu
t-
TJ
c
o
^-1
CD
_«
ID
4-*
en
c
o
c
to
CO
CO
0
o
4>
c
L. 01
"^ Q-
' 4A "~
CO 3
e- * U"
10 CO 0)
' 4-*
~> CO 01
O O CO
T3 o io
iv x o
00 4-» t.
t> .^3
^ o t- a.
t- *- JC
L. X <- ^~ *-
0) t- V, 4-- & O
fx v> o
~, OJ E
0) *» - 3
o co 4) 4J en
0) > 4^ *^
o co en c c oj
4-> O O 3 f
C CO O <- 4J
O C 4^ L,
U O c- o OJ OJ
~O - O 0) Q. L, L.
oi L, eo 4J .a > xtg
4-1 o 4^ to to c oj ^^
to ^**-l '~4-*4A CO
S CD C tU ID 4-*
3 a. OJ 4-> L, . eo
4-> O U C CO O
co att- co>734-> u
o> coH-to-Ooicn
- O C <- 0) O
0) 4-* t- Of O ^^ CJ CD
L, CO CU CO 4-> CO 4-*
10 L-.Qt-C OIOI
oi E 3 x e E a
co a.3Otai-' to
4J O C £ 6 T3 CJ
en
O II II II II II II II 4^
CJ CJ
O UJ 0)
' en UJ X e-
' ' /V 1 i l^ l«l >^
^ O Z Z Z UJ C/l _J o
to -Q u
A-12
-------
X)
«
<0
(/>
Of.
UJ
_j
U.
C_)
a:
CO
u_
/y
o
u-
co
CO
o
u
C3
Z
r-
o:
LU
Q-
o
^
-^
Z
Z
z
I
^
z
r-
CO
o
u.
en
UJ
~>
o
UJ
CJ
o
a.
o
i
^
LU
m
i
CO
z or:
*
a
z
*
Kl CA
O CO 3 4-.
in of _j CA
ru z u. o
u
CO O * *
QC CA
z n z in *
i ID
* 0*0
< T- I-
Z CO 3 01
_J X 4J
« u- CO
«- E
in '-
O 01
4-*
«- ID
t_
II
U 4->
1 4-* CA
z c 01
01 c-
E 01
.. Q. 4->
*>
01
(J
CO
3
c_
0
XI
CD
~*
a
c
i_i
10
01
CO Q
a: o
01
* JZ
4-*
L.
« 01
0 0
f> E
D
II -
E
-1 HI
O c.
Q
01
*-
CM
^
M
**-
O
01
o
ID
3
4_t
CO
1^
o
5"? c_
in o
«- JO
ID
_J
C 01
o u
c
CO ID
c
> 01
L- 4-*
01 C
Q -
D to
CO Z
c
IT
01 M
o
>. .-
CO 73
c
ID
X
D 01
tO H-
73
C
ID a
CO
c- JO
4-* C_
ID
H- >
U r\j
,f-
c.
JO -
CD
01 *-
JZ O
4-*
O
j=
O ID
JO L.
4- JZ
O 4->
O
CA
4-» O
CA i
0 0
0 4->
' C-
ID
4-> CO
a. co
ID CO
U O
4-» O
o
01
c- IM
p- 4-1
73 >4-
0> in
JZ M
4-*
*4_ yi
O
C
>« 0
in
73
OI
CA
CO CD
CO
CO -.-
L.
0|
4-» 4-<
CD C
Z OI
E
01 01
u u
C ID
ID
C Q
01 01
t-f C£
C
o
CD ID
Z 00
* 0
01
-* IM O
i C
OH ID
- C
ce 01
X 4J
< c
IM
*- CO
*" 'H
C-
II »-
ID
U
LU ~Q
-1 01
LU CA
CA
01
^1
JZ
3
1
4-*
,^
U
[_
4-*
U
01
LU
t»
Q
g
O
U
L.
O
H-
E
U
CA
O
O
O
«
J^
,
O
^J
c
CO
CA
CO
a
01
___.
^_
E
u
CO
o
o
o
^_
^
c_
,^
CO
tf_
o
g
u
CA
IM
C
o
^
01
CO
CO
CO
L.
^
^
Oi
CA
CA
01
C-
Q
E
O
o
o
o
-o
CO
D
"a
*^
01
u
c
0)
ex c
a 01
3 4J
c
*
CD C
CO E *
Q£
z 73 (
C 1
« ID
Z ~ 1
X 4
« C. ..
0 (
ru efl I
i "- C
o >
^ c_ -
01 c
x a 4
3 i
in CA 4
IM
»
«- O) J
C 4
II
4-* N
O CD
01 »
a. v
0
c ^
O CO C
4-* 4-* 1
V CO C
in o c
IM U 1
c- c.
H- O
o jo i
ID :
01
01 4
*4- C
* c
tJ ID 4
C C
r~ *4 <
Q O
Q
E
~ 3
CO <
C
O 01 7
JZ
73 4-» I
0>
CA *-
ID O 1
CO 1
~ X
O
CD
CA
O
Q 73
CA 10
._ 01
0 JZ C
C. C
JZ 01 )
CA >
< O 1-
CA
4-*
CA
O
U
^
CD
4-*
a.
CO
u
_,
CO
4-*
0
01
JZ
0 4-«
J
n «4-
3 0
J
- in
D »-
ro
0. »-
D
J
ii
4 ^>
a 01
* 4-1
3 CD
U 4->
Z CA
> 01
C-
01
3 4-*
C
r
o
A
U 73
J C
ID
D
Z 01
J >4-
II
>
_ t_
-* ID
D 01
_ >.
A in
_ ^
- c
E 0
3
I 73
01
3 CO
: ID
D CO
1) >
J C.
; 01
D >
O
3 CJ
n 01
I ce
^
CD
A f
U
< a
D CD
U
f
CA
4_j
CA
O
U
u
01
L.
T3
C
0
4J
.-!{_ -^ +-
* V) X**- Q. t- -Q
6 ^ ^ X 03 E
O « 4J *- l_
*-> O4-J- 3tf»(flt_^
CCO O a>
"O "-O *- 4-" 4i ^> to CO
4-» OOUC^^-Ocfl O
CA O)H- C (0 +- C_ (U 0) O ' t_ 0) (0
L. (0 D W) 4-1 U. O. to *^ l "U *^
tO ^ J^ ^ C Z3 O CX. '»~
OJE.3"-O>tr\4J
^ Vt U 3 LU Q£ Of ^
^ J O£ 1 ^ J -J "^ O *"*
^ O Z Z Z CD O ^« UJ ^ 3 O
CO -O U
A-13
-------
TABLE A-ll. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL COSTS OF STANDALONE
SPRAY DRYER AND SPRAY DRYER/FABRIC FILTERSa'D
Direct Costs
SD/FF Unit0: Costs, 103 $ = 8.053 * N * (Q)0>517
Stand-Alone SD Unit: Costs, 103 $ = 8.428 * N * (Q)0'450
Ductwork0: Costs, 103 $ = (1.3868 * N * L * Q°'5)/l,000
Fanc: Costs, 103 $ = (1.8754 * N * Q°'96)/l,000
Indirect Costs = 33% of direct costs
Contingency = 20% of sum of direct and indirect costs
Total Capital Investment = Direct Costs + Indirect Costs + Contingency Costs
aAll costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
Q = 125% of the actual flue gas flowrate, acfm
N = number of units
L = Duct length per unit, feet
°The total installed costs are assumed to be 133 percent of the direct capital
costs.
A-14
-------
CO
at
CO
oc
UJ
>-
QC
Q
^
^
Q£
Q_
CO
UJ
z
o
_J
^
1
o
4^_Q
h-
00 Q
CO
oc at
O uj
U- l-
j
00
t u_
00
0 U
-
o_ at
O a
i >-
4 4
^ OC
z a.
Z 00
^
a
u z
z <
h-
^
Z
H-
OO
UJ
0£
O
u_
UJ
oe.
o
LU
0
O
Q£
a.
(NJ
»
1
^
UJ
_J
09
h-
oo
oe
^
4t
2C
ft
O
o
II
J
o
I
/^
e.
-c
CM
*A
0
01
O
CO
3t
L.
O
Q
£
(A
V,
CO
L.
3
0
-C
c
ro
u
X
mm
0)
a
CD
3
L_
O
f
CD
^
O
C
CO
l_
CU
a
o
01
.c
4_»
t_
01
>
o
e
f
e
0)
l_
a
CD
4-*
CO
e_
01
0
CD
3
d4
O
^
4-*
<4.
_
J=
CO
*^
s^ CO
O 3
s^ O
JZ
4-- C
CO CO
0 B
CJ
CM
0 C
-O 0
CO
T3
CU
en co
c to
CO
4J x>
CD
L-
0)
Q. u-
0 u-
01 o
-c en
4-*
e-
4- 0
O H-
»< C.
in o
«- J3
CO
_j
i
C CU
o u
c
CO CO
~ c
> 0)
L. 4-*
CU C
Q .^-
D a
oo z
00
fV
^
*
z
*
|v_
*"
II
_J
..
^
01
o
CO
3
l_
O
CD
O
C
4-*
CD
0>
Q
0
01
.C
c_
01
0
g
^
,f-
E
01
l_
Q
01
CD
01
O
CD
3
^
O
4-*
t^.
.*-
CO
*^
t_
3
O
-C
c
CO
r
C
O
^
CD
CO
CD
m
o
CO
e.
O
L.
O
ca
CU
o
c
CO
c
01
4J
c
CD
*
0
*
in
CM
O
II
CJ
m
^.
CU
4-*
CD
t_
co
CU
l_
01
4->
c.
^4
C
-o
c
CD
CU
a
cc
e-
co
CD
>
CM
^v.
..
ro
14.
o
0
4_*
CD
l-
4_t
0
CJ
1
0
CO 4J
4-i i
CO L.
O
CJ CO
CO
CD CO
4J O
a. o
CD
U
CM
4-t 4-*
O >4-
eu ^
c- in
ro
a
' 4A
CD
4-1 c
O O
TD
CD 01
-C CO
4-» CD
m
o
94 ..
CM u-
u_
O
CO V)
-,
a t.
o
L. <4-
01
4-* 4-*
CO C
X. 01
E
01 01
CJ CJ
C CD
CO '
C Q
CU 01
4-> Of
c
- o
CO CO
Z CO
DC
-J
li.
*
"f
o
X.
f\J
,
<
it
o
UJ
1
UJ
^
<
**"
I
x*>
2
"^
^
«J
o
0
IA
*t-
0
0)
OJ
L_
>
4-*
,^
CJ
c.
4-1
o
0
1;
T3
c
CD
a
0
L.
T3
CD
^
CO
CO
CU
e_
Q
«
CJ
3
CO
01
o
c
in
CM
i
C
o
^
a>
. ^.
(J
(_
U
0)
UJ
z
*
OK
_)
U.
00 *
O£
X ITi
* O
Z
X
£
ro
o
>*
ti
u
UJ
UJ
z
41
u_
y^
f
3
NS,
O
o
o
M
0
01
CO
^
4-J
O
^
4-r
U
OJ
CD
T3
C
CO
a
o
L.
T3
CU
C-
3
CO
CO
01
Q
1
u
3
(A
a>
J=
(J
c
in
in
c
o
^
0)
(A
to
CO
o
00
(_
o
H-
c
0)
u_
,
o
1-4
L-
o
H-
>,
4J
r-
u
p*
L.
4-*
U
4>
UJ
00
oc
^
4t
z
k
*"^
m
^.
x-^
QC
^
+
U.
00
ft
-o
0
0
o
^t
>o
-3-
0
O
II
U
UJ
_J
UJ
^
*,
/>
J^
3
^ "X
-Q -r
-- o
o o
o «*
o
% *4
«- O
C- CU
01 4J
a. ca
<
3
-* >
4-1
^J
U
c
o t.
4-1
-o o
O 0)
4- CU
01
^ '4**
4-1
^ >.
CJ C_
-- c_
l- 3
4-* '
U CO
01
' H-
UJ O
en
eg
3=
Z
4:
r^
h-
3
4-
u-
CO
*
O
o
X
1
o
CM
,
II
CJ
UJ
LJJ
a.
z
O-
»
4_t s^
£ a
a> c
cu a
.JZ
Q
Ol
C C
Q- "
E >
3 4->
U
M- O
o
4-* >
01
CU CJ
M- CU
CO
o ~»
CM 4J
c
o o
-n
CU
CO CU
CO C_
03 3
s-* CO
CO
CL CD
E <-
3 Q
a.
01
c- o
O c.
4- CO
JI
X O
4-> CO
^- -^
0 -O
(. -
4-1 CO
U Q
CU
o
LJJ «
f
Z
*
-J
Li-
ft
in
o
*
X
0
CM
II
«
«£
^>
L_
r-
CO
T3
CU
CO
CO
CU
L.
Q
E
0
CJ
t_
0
*+-
H-
o
CO
o
o
o
t_
^
r^
^
!
O
c
CD
CO
CO
CT
01
3
1^_
E
0
(0
o
o
o
«
(_
.,_
n
SJp.
o
£
H-
u
CA
oa
c
o
"U
«
(A
(0
^
LL.
U.
s^,
a
00
^
0
L.
.^-
^
o
<1>
(A
«
_j
j S
«_
, ,
in
ru
^4_
o
o
4_(
OJ
(J
L.
4_(
(U
E
O
f-
o
1,
0
CO
CO
CO
CT
T3
U
CO
-Q
C
CD
O
E
_^
\^
CJ
3
O
o
c
o
4-1
^
O
v^
c
o
T3
OJ
CO
CO
CO
CU
E
_i
1
0
1 O
ct o
CJ
^(
^
r^
^
z
i i
i
u
"^
4.
^J
O
Z
CM
O
cn
*^
o
in
M
i
CO
OJ
c_
01
.c
3
1
A-15
-------
D
0)
D
C
4J
C
o
u
\^r
f\J
I
<
UJ
CQ
«f
^-
oc
§
*
(O
ae
ac
4,
z
*
CM
1
o
X
in
INJ
«
II
a
^
C
o
+-*
in
INJ
*«_
0
U
01
H-
tr
c
^
a
a
4-*
C
Q
TJ
cu
CA
a
to
u-
u_
x^
a
C-
o
H-
-
ID
en
0
Q
CO
a
.c
CO
4->
CA
0
u
CA
ID
1-
4-»
ID
E
01
U
c
ID
C
4-1
C
ID
E
,4-
0
X
O
CO
3
a
01
u
c
<0
c
0)
**
c
(D CO
£ -M
o
TJ 0
C U
(0
_f
*n
X *J
L. .,-
o a
CO (D
O
>
t_ _
»
O
^*
CO CO
4-»
^ *-
(0
(0 jyj
(A
0 C
1 1
CA <
0) TJ
J= C
4-» 10
O 0)
u
X C
O ID
-O L-
3
tA
C
TJ
ID
01
J= CA
I- 01
01 X
> a
O t-
co
CO
o
u
10
£
a
10
u
ID
0
4-t
01
4->
14
0
in
i
ro
1 1
01
4_*
ID
L.
v
CO
01
l-
4-*
C
34
O
TJ
C
ID
01
«^
^
C_
}JJ
in
C
o
TJ
01
CO
ID
m
^
>
cu
^
0
u
4)
i-y
^
(D
4-»
Q
(D
CJ
1
1
E
U
(0
4-1
C
3
^
Q>
a
t_
Q)
^j
..._.
E
*4- *4-
CJ
U 10
_Q ^J
to -
4- C
D
0)
JC C_
a
o
01
01 4-<
10 L.
3 *" X^
o o ^,«»
CA i' '^ 4A
C. «4- c. .
ID ft L. - CA
' CA ID X C- Q.
ID t- \ U E
O D) VI H 3
TJ o> a
0) .c t- - E
h- C. 3 »-> -C COO)
co X ^ n 4-1 j:
»-X X 4-> . t- c-
^> ~v fOIOIOlX
0) CO 3 4^ 4-* J2 4-* 4-* 4-* W
Q » 4_* « 4-« 10 -i- «
ECA CACAUC.C L.L-1.0
(UO C O 0> ' I- CA
O U OC.UJTH-CUCCACACAOI-
-i-O 4-* Q.34-*4-*4^UXl-
CL.COt-'.Q*-' CA COCOCO ^^X
^i-l >O>Ot7>4-*0»UUO"- M
TJiDCoi E too. ia>
4-* OUUC3 QI4-'4-'4-iTj4-'CA
ID O><4- CIDO)'-'TJ4-*>i->i-»-0>CA4-'
E CO *4~ ID * U *^ OltOOOOCAOCA
*- "- O C Q. L- 0) C. >->-- CA U O
4J 4J l_ 11 U CU H- I_l_l_0) O
01 C..O.I-C 30IOIOOUO.OIOI
0) O-3OIDIDIMO ID ' OtO"-
t- OC^EJ3<-ro >20IOI4IU2
a
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II
to
4-" CJ
CO U LU
O UJ O 1
U 1 UJ LU
LU _J O. LU
co u 3 aezujxa: L
1 CK_J< _lu-l-^ ^
J2 -O ^
in
- - o
**x ' "
-O O 4-<
CO 4-» E
4-» ID c_ t- O
CO L. 0) 01 -
O X X.C
to TJ TJ
CO O
CA Q. ID tD CO
O CO L. L.
tS >r. n_ D_ CO
CA TJ CO CO IO
TJ fl> 4J 4^
4J 01
-------
TABLE A-13. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL COSTS FOR HUMIDIFICATIONa'b
Purchased Equipment Costs, 10 $
1. Humidification Chamber and Pumps:
Costs = (0.438 * Q + 80,220) N/1,000
2. Ductwork:
Costs = (1.16 * L * Q°'5) * N/1,000
Installation Direct Costs = 56% of Purchase Equipment Costs
Indirect Costs = 32% of Purchase Equipment Costs
Contingency = 3% of the Purchase Equipment Costs
Total Capital Costs = Purchased Equipment Costs +
Installation Direct Costs + Indirect Costs
= 191% of Purchase Equipment Costs
aAll costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
Q = 125% of the actual flue gas flowrate, acfm
L = duct length per unit, feet
N = number of units
A-17
-------
XI
«
CO
z
o
fc*
h-
U
u.
fc^
O
» 1
X
3
a;
a:
O
u.
V)
h-
00
o
o
o
z
t-+
fr-
CC
UJ
CL
O
<
3
z
z
<
o
z
M
^
z
^-t
h-
co
UJ
tt
o
u_
UJ
QC
~J
a
UJ
o
o
Q£.
a.
N^
^
4«J
UJ
I
CD
<
(A
4-»
0
U
(A
00
O£ (0
* 0)
Z (0
E
C£ 11
in K- o
fM 3 C
CO <0
* c
O 01
00 4->
It CX C
1 CO
3: * E
z *-
o
^^
0)
o
ID
2
00 O
a: x>
3: CD
*
o
z c
..
* +»
<0
in u
r**- 4)
Q
0 O
II 01
JZ
.J 4-1
o
(_
01
^
* -1
^
JZ
v
f\J
M
v|_
o
a>
o
CD
2
L.
O
JD
CD
4-*
H-
-
JZ
C/)
*v
W
(_
2
0
f
c
CD
E
in
o
c
0
T3
O
VI
CD
CD
t_*
L.
0
XI
CD
O
c
1^
t-t
CD
L.
O1
Q
O
O
E
3
E
01
t_
a
01
CJ
CO
2
4s?
O
_j
o
N-* 4-1
H-
4-* >^
CA £
O VI
O »-.
c_
L. 3
0 0
XI £
CO C
CD
E
O)
c m
>. >
V O
CO
L. C
01 o
a
o -a
01
Ol (A
-C CO
v 2
H-
o
I
3" L.
in O
r- X)
CO
1
!
C CO
o o
- c
IA 10
C
> Oi
l_ 4-*
01 C
Q
3 CO
CO Z
*
o o
1 NO
o
»- CA
3
X
a
ro
N. cu
o
II C
CO
u c
UJ CD
1 4-*
UJ C
01 .
CD CO c
<- e *
CO ^
_C f
O 3
CA ^
^ v^
^ \O
^
0
w>
0.0
^
o
O >4-
- 0
- 0)
-C CO
O) t-
01
CA .c CO
4^ U
cy» w -
0 C L.
O 4-'
a u
E Oi
CO 3
<-> Q. U
,r-
a. -4- 73
CO 0 C
O (D
M
_, ft) .
(D Q> O
4-1 H- C
o
4-» 0 Q,
OJ,
Q> C
£ C
4-< O C
t- T3
0 01 >
CA 4-<
X CO
«- en o
** o
t
CA CA >
a
CO E U
3 0)
L. O. CA
01 V
4-1 L. 4-*
CO O **-
Z H-
o
0) X>-
CJ 4^
c .
co o 0>
C - L.
01 L. 3
C U IA
.- 41 0)
CO ' L.
x. ui a
c
1
t j
CA
CA
O
U
_,
CO
4-1
CL
CO
U
CO
4-t
o
4-1
4)
.C
A 4-1
j
A -4-
T3 0 0
c u
CO
« c
> *
(/} L. '
a. o 1
z IA e
c
* >
L. -
Z 01 C
a t
* 3 1
VI t
a.
i- > <
3 CO J
c «
*
4-1 *4
in co c
I L.
O V »
^ a. >
o
x ---
O CA C
4-> C
O CA
0 1
II U c
J
U L. C.
3 O
XI
CO
n *
U 4
x^ i
f ' C
CO CO 4
O C
H- '
O O I
O
0 E i
3 T
* CA «
O U t
in .c
4-1 C
o
o c
C c
0 H 1
O c
"O >O I
oi :
CA C
CD I
CO 73 .
^ CO
01
L. _C
01 L. I
4_l OJ
CO >
3 O h
34
in
0 «-
^
ro
a. ^
0
j
^ **H
0 11
3 CD
j (_
I) 4-«
Z CA
j 01
^
4)
C
<
»
O
A
U TJ
J C
CD
0
Z OJ
J <-
U
>
L.
ID
0 41
_ >
^
A in
_ ^«
: C
= 0
7
t TJ
01
3 CA
: co
D 00
*^t
.
D >
J L.
: oi
0 >
o
3 0
A 01
; ac
^
CO
A 4^
U
< Q
0 CO
o
1
1
( .
c
.J
L.
cu
D-
01
e
3
E .
*4- O
CA u. u >
t- u-O cA
CD O *
* » » CA
' « CU 4-1 CD
O OJ I- O)
T3 O 1- 3 C
-J- 3 -M 3 CU
f-~ O 4-> CO 3
CO V. CD L. 1
O ^ (_ 4J 01 »-
*- O U Q- O-
L. CD Q. e C
1 ' L. >. « £ 0> Ol
cyt- ^L. cU4->4-i
IIXIX t^f h" 4-* C04->
1
E >. ^ 00 « L. C
4> » x) '
Oi- wxi cnoc
OCA W)»^x i 01 ' O
4J O4IM «- CU3t-O
C CA O 4J %^ 3 .
.^O C CD* H- CA Ol
O OL.L.CAL.* *- (0 L.
"O O 4J >. 4JC03
4-- O«-*COCOOOM O CU D 01
co ja .^- i o * 4J 3 -
S ID C 11 4-i - * C 3 O
3Q.CUUXCA '^O>4-E
4^ O U Ol 4-» 4-> *-*
CA O)-*- C~< CA 4J II II II II
4) COH-COCUO 3
^ O C O O I
4J4_»(_4>£_ ^_ 4->c/}
L. e04IU14^I-4->l- I C3
CO t-XIC-CCUUCU C O CA O
O> E 3 4-1 tti 4-t -- t 1 O Z
CA Q.3OCOCO 'ID f- O/
«-> OC.IZE20I2 -^ L.
U> 01
O II II II II II II II II £.
U 3
' C/> O£ UJ CX
^ ' CX ' ^~ i r i ^
< OZZZ3UI3 3
CO XI CJ
A-18
-------
TABLE A-15. CONTINUOUS MONITORING COST SUMMARY1
Pollutant
compliance
options
PM only
Acid gas only
PM + acid gas
Method
Opacity
S0? (inlet and outlet)
HCt (inlet and outlet)
Q2/co2
Data Reduction System
Total
Opacity
S0? (inlet and outlet)
HCT (inlet and outlet)
0,/CO.
C i.
Total
Capital
costs
($1,000)
61
67
140
19
31
256
61
67
140
Ui
286
Operating
costs
($l,000/yr)c
8
10
74
15
4
103
8
10
74
15
107
Annual i zed
costs .
($l,000/yr)a
16
19
92
18
8
137
16
19
92
_18
145
All costs are reported in December 1987 dollars. For multiple control units,
multiply these costs by the number of units.
^Includes costs for automatic data reduction system.
"Based on 2 certifications/year and maintenance requirements of
0.5 manhour/day for both opacity and 0?/CO~ monitors and 1 manhour/day for
S00 and HC1 monitors.
j <
Annualized costs include annual operating costs and capital charges on
equipment and installation costs. Capital charges are based on a 15-year
equipment life at 10 percent interest rate.
A-19
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. R
-$b/3-89-27b
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information
for Proposed Standards: lll(b) Model Plant
Description and Cost Report
5. REPORT DAT
re
August 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1C. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-02-4378
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Twelve model plants are developed to represent the projected municipal waste
combustor (MWC) industry. The model plants selected represent new MWC's expected
to be constructed in the United States between 1990 and 1994. The model plants
differ with respect to unit size and design, waste feed characteristics, heat recovery
method, and flue gas emissions. The model plants provide a basis for estimating
emission reductions, costs, and other impacts for various control alternatives.
Information is provided on capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of
the model plants and control equipment. For each model plant, an assessment of
baseline and three emission control options based on costs, emission reduction, cost
effectiveness, and energy and environmental impacts is provided. Baseline capital
and O&M costs for each combustor type include costs of good combustion and PM control
with electrostatic precipitators (ESP's). The costs of three emission control options
are also presented. All costs are presented in December 1987 dollars.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Municipal Waste Combustors
Incineration
Pollution Control
Costs
Air Pollution Control
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tins Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS jThis page)
Unclassified
JL3A
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |