United States Control Technology
Environmental Protection Center
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-89-001
September 1989
EPA Evaluation of Emission
Control Options at
Leeds Architectural Products
control * technology center
-------
EPA-450/3-89-001
EVALUATION OF EMISSION CONTROL OPTIONS
AT LEED ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Sponsored by:
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
SEPTEMBER 1989
-------
EPA-450/3-89-001
September, 1989
EVALUATION OF EMISSION CONTOOL OPTIONS
AT LEED ARCHTTECTURAL PRODUCTS
PREPARED BY:
JON N. BOLSTAD
ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC
TWO FLINT HILL
10521ROSEHAVEN STREET
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-02-4398
WORK ASSIGNMENT 22
PREPARED FOR:
DAVID SALMAN
CHEMICAL APPLICATION SECTION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-11-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared by staff in Engineering-Science's Air Engineering
Department located in Fairfax, Virginia. Participating on the project team for the EPA
were David Salman of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Charles
Darvin of the Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory. The data presented were
generated through literature review, surveys of equipment manufacturers, and information
gained during site inspection.
-ui-
-------
PREFACE
This emission control evaluation was funded as a project of EPA's Control
Technology Center (CTC).
The CTC was established by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance
to State and Local air pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance can be
accessed through the CTC First, a CTC HOTLINE has been established to provide
telephone assistance on matters relating to air pollution control technology. Second, more
in-depth engineering assistance can be provided when appropriate. Third, the CTC can
provide technical guidance through publication of technical guidance documents,
development of personal computer software, and presentation of workshops on control
technology matters.
The engineering assistance projects, such as this one, focus on specific topics that
are identified by State and Local agencies. This report discusses emission control options
for the architectural aluminum coating operation at Leed Architectural Products.
-IV-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2
3. EVALUATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 6
4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 13
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 17
6. REFERENCES 18
APPENDICES
A. Sigma PVDF Powder Coatings
B. Mobile Zone System Description
C Detailed Cost Calculations
-v-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
1 Characteristics of Systems Evaluated 12
2 Cost Summary 18
LIST OF FIGURES
1 General Layout 4
-VI-
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) requested
assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Control Technology
Center in evaluation of feasible alternatives to control emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from a specialty aluminum coating facility. Leed Architectural
Products (Leed) proposed to CTDEP to increase production and requested that their
permitted VOC emission level be raised from 40 Ibs VOC/booth/day to 150 Ibs
VOC/booth/day. Leed submitted a BACT evaluation stating that added emission control
was not economically feasible. The CTDEP questioned this conclusion and requested an
independent evaluation to be performed. Engineering Science (ES) was contracted to
assist CTC in performing this evaluation.
CTC identified several broad options for reducing emissions to be investigated,
including:
1) Control of existing exhaust streams with conventional VOC control devices;
2) Use of conventional methods to reduce exhaust flow and treatment with
conventional VOC control devices; and
3) Use of novel or developmental methods of achieving more cost-effective emission
control.
ES, CTC and CTDEP personnel visited the facility on October 29,1988 to observe
the operations and gather data for use in a technical and economic evaluation of control
options. Mark Peak represented CTDEP, CTC representatives were David Salman
(OAQPS) and Chuck Darvin, (AEERL) and ES was represented by Bill Piske and Jon
Bolstad. Howard Goldfarb was the Leed representative.
-l-
-------
SECTION 2
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Leed coats specialty aluminum products used for building construction, mostly
monumental (high-rise office) buildings, and low-rise commercial buildings. Typical
products include door and window frames, column covers, flat panels for eave and cornice
trim, air ventilator covers, light poles and other products. In addition to coating, Leed also
fabricates shapes from bar and rod stock. Leed produces anodized parts, powder-coated
parts, and KynarR-coated parts. Kynar* is used for monumental (high-rise office-type)
buildings The building designer specifies the use of Kynar^-coated metal. Powder-coating
is used, by Leed for storefront and other metal where KynarR is not specifically identified
or powder coating can be negotiated. Anodization is used when the limited color choices
and surface textures possible are acceptable. Neither the anodization nor powder-coating
generates VOCs and are not at issue. The basic issue is VOC emissions from the use of
Kynar*.
KynarR is a trade name for a solvent-based, high-performance, polyvinylidene
fluoride (PVF) resin developed by Pennwalt Corporation and licensed to several producers
for manufacture. PPG products, marketed as Duranar, are the coatings used by Leed.
KynarR thermoplastic resin is relatively impervious to solvent so a relatively large
amount of solvent is required to place the resin in solution. Partially because of the
resulting high VOC (volatile organic compound) content, there have been extensive efforts
over the last ten years to develop low-VOC alternatives for use on monumental buildings.
For example, the triglycidyl isocyanuarte (TGIC) polyester powder coating used almost
exclusively for monumental buildings in Europe (where, unlike in this country, there is a
specification for acid rain resistance but none for a 5-year Florida exposure test) has
recently made some inroads into the United States. The three-year-old 23-story World
Bank Building in Oakland, the new Trump Casino in Atlantic City and the proposed MGM
studios to be built at Disney World in Orlando are all reportedly TGIC polyester. Liquid
-------
KynarR has made little progress in the European market, reportedly because of
performance in the acid rain test.
Powder PVF coatings are now becoming available. A Dutch coatings company,
Sigma, has marketed a KynarR powder coating in Europe for two years. Information on
this coating is presented in Appendix A In this country, Pennwalt has licensed several
major companies to formulate KynarR powder coatings. At this time, two years of Florida
exposure obtained on one company's product indicate it will equal or surpass the resistance
of liquid KynarR to ultraviolet At the 1989 annual meeting of the American Architectural
Manufacturer's Association, a representative of a major coating supplier to that market
announced development of a proprietary PVF resin powder coating which they anticipate
will compete directly with KynarR liquid and powder coatings. The formulator reports that,
unlike KynarR, their powder requires no prime coat thereby eliminating even more VOC
emissions. After 18 months of Florida exposure, that company reports superior unltraviolet
resistance from this thermosetting PVF powder coating.
The coatings used by Leed are applied manually using Graco electrostatic spray
guns in two adjoining, but opposite-facing DeVilbiss booths. An overhead conveyor moves
the racked parts through the spray booths. One side of each part is coated in each booth,
using spray guns supph'ed from a common paint tank. Each booth is approximately 7-2"H x
10*-4"W x 6'-0"D with dry filters across the backs of the booths. Ventilation air is drawn in
through the booths, through filters and out the stack by in-duct vane-axial fans. Each booth
currently exhausts about 12^00 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air at approximately 70°F.
The conveyor moves the parts from the loading rack area, through the booth and
through about 30 feet of unenclosed flash-off area into the oven. The curing oven operates
at 450°F (gas/oil heat) and circulates 12,500 cfm with about 1,500-2,000 cfm exhausted to
the atmosphere. A typical KynarR topcoat requires about 10 minutes at 450°F to cure;
residence time of 14-15 minutes in the oven is obtained by a looping conveyor inside the
oven and matching the length of the loop to the conveyor speed. The line speed is usually
4-6 feet per minute for color coats. Figure 1 shows the layout of the system. Between the
DeVilbiss booths and oven is an enclosed powder booth mounted on rails. When material
is being powder-coated, this booth is moved into the conveyor path; otherwise it remains
out of the path.
-3-
-------
FIGURE 1
GENERAL LAYOUT
OUTSIDE WALL-
SPRAY GUN POWER SUPPLY
AND PAINT MIXING
oo
\
ELECTRICAL/PAINT
LINE
POWDER
BOOTH
DRY FILTER
LOADING AREA
CONVEYOR
^
DRY FILTER
STACK
OVEN
BURNER / AIR REGISTERS
DeVILBISS BOOTH
-------
The coating operation is usually a two or three coat operation. The first coat is
primer applied to a dry film thickness of 1/4 mil. The second coat is the top (color) coat
and is applied to a dry film thickness of about 12 mils. The third coat is a clear coat if
required. Typically, the painters are able to coat a total of 325 - 375 ft2 of product per
hour. It may be as low as 300 ft2 per hour when complicated shapes and small pieces are
being painted, and as high as 450 ft2 on large (4'xl2') flat panels. Leed estimates that
coverage averages 200 ft2/gal. of topcoat, as applied, ranging from 175 (small piece) to 250
(flat panels). Primer coverage is about 400 ft2 /gal, as applied.
\
Leed currently operates the KynarR coating operation until they reach their daily
VOC limit The limit (40 Ibs per booth per day) is converted to operating practice by
assuming that the VOC content of coating as applied is 62 Ibs/gal, which is equivalent to
12.9 gallons of coating per day. Leed also estimates that this is equivalent to 1,700-1,800
ft2 coated per day.
Leed had requested that the VOC limit be increased to 300 Ibs/day (150
Ib/booth/day). According to Mr. Goldfarb, a 300-pound limit would reflect the highest
production rate they could achieve in 16 hours and would cover approximately 6,500 ft2 of
product
-5-
-------
SECTIONS
EVALUATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
GENERAL
As previously stated, CTC identified broad options and ES investigated several
specific possibilities for controlling emission from the booths and the oven. This section
discusses the technical feasibility of specific control technologies under each of the options
described in Section 1. The economics of technically feasible alternatives are discussed in
the next section.
BASIS FOR EVALUATION
Leed submitted an analysis to CTDEP (Ref. 1, "the Radian Report") which
addressed the addition of emission controls to the existing facility. An operating schedule
of 16 hours/day, 6 days/week was used in that evaluation and this extended schedule was
used in our analysis. An uncontrolled emission rate of 300 Ibs VOC/day (18.75 Ibs/hr) was
used, as presented in the Radian Report. No flow rate or VOC concentration
measurements have been performed at the facility, so the manufacturers specifications for
flow rates were used and spatial distribution of VOCs assumed as follows:
Source
Booth 1
Booth 2
Flash-Off
Oven
Air Flow
scfm
12^00
12^00
2,000
VOCs
% of Total
40
45
5
10
The VOC distributions were estimated from the literature (Refs. 2,3). The solvent mixture
is described in the Radian report as 45 wt.% toluene, 25 wt.% methyl isobutyl ketone
(MIBK), 15 wt% xylene and 15 wt.% butyl carbitol.
-------
The booth specifications (Ref. 4) call for a face velocity through openings of greater
than 125 feet/min. Each booth has about 85 ft2 of opening which requires 10,625 acfm to
maintain the face velocity and the fans are designed to exhaust 12,500 acfm. The face
velocity specifications address capturing the solvents and overspray as they are generated.
Another concern is the concentration of solvents in the gas stream. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established standards for
occupational exposure to solvent-laden air (SLA). Flammability issues are addressed by
OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The exposure standards are
8-hour time-weighted averages (TWAs) and 30-minute short term exposure limits (STELs).
For purposes of both technical and economic feasibility, the control technologies
evaluated were sized to treat the emissions from both spray booths and the oven. The
unenclosed flash-off area was not included. The following control technologies were
evaluated.
1) Emission control of the existing facilities with conventional pollution control
devices,
2) Conventional methods of flow rate reduction and treatment with conventional
devices, and
3) Novel or developmental methods to reduce flow and/or treat emissions.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
Conventional Control of Existing Facilities
A pollution control system for the existing plant would consist of a treatment device
and the ductwork to connect it to the booth exhausts and oven exhaust. Conventional
devices considered were direct-fired and catalytic incinerators.
Both types of incinerators are technically feasible for use in Leed's situation. The
only consideration of potential significance is whether the existing dry filters on the booths
remove enough paint solids to avoid poisoning the catalyst in a catalytic system. This could
-7-
-------
be minimized by adding a second set of filters to the existing system and sizing the required
new exhaust fan appropriately. The basic consideration for this treatment option is the
relative cost between direct-fired and catalytic incineration, discussed in Section 4.
Conventional Method of Flow Rate Reduction and Treatment with Conventional Devices
Modification of Existing Booths. Reduction of the gas volume to be treated is a
common technique for reducing the overall cost of pollution control; many systems for air
flow management and pollutant capture can be modified to effect the same or similar
results with a more sophisticated (and usually more costly) approach to air management
ES evaluated the technical feasibility of modifying Leed's booths to reduce the exhaust
volume. Either reduction in total circulating flow or recirculation of exhaust air, alone or
in combination, are the options available. There are some regulatory and engineering
limitations which affect how much flow reduction can be effected by one or the other
approach.
First, NFPA sets limits with regard to the allowable concentration of potentially
flammable vapors in the gas. Second, OSHA has established standards for worker
exposure to solvent vapors. In Leed's case, the flammability issues addressed by NFPA
standards will not be an issue unless the exhaust flow rate is reduced by a factor of 100,
which is very unlikely. Practically, the OSHA standards will be limiting and these relate to
booth design and solvent vapor concentration.
Spray booths are designed so that sufficient air is drawn to prevent the vapors and
particles from escaping the area and/or exposing workers to SLA. Leed's booths were
designed to maintain a face velocity through openings of at least 125 ft/min. The existing
system flow rate maintains this velocity.
Leed's painting procedures require a significant amount of operator freedom. The
size and shape of the parts requires the painter to move back and forth across the booth
and to paint items or portions at elevation from 1* to 6' off the floor. One approach which
offers a significant reduction in flow rate is to reduce the face velocity to 60 ft/min.
Reflecting the higher transfer efficiency of electrostatic spray guns, OSHA permits a
minimum face velocity of 60 ft/min for manual electrostatic spray guns. In Leed's case, the
-------
exhaust flow rate could be reduced from the current 25,000 cfm (-135 ft/min) to 11,040
cfm (60 ft/min). In order to ensure that the booths were not used for conventional air- or
airless-atomized spray guns, an interlock should be added to the gun power supply to
ensure that only electrostatic guns are used. The exhaust fans would be slowed by
replacing drive sheaves with an appropriate size. We have assumed a booth flow rate
reduction of 50 percent to be conservative and have evaluated the economics of such a
system in Section 4. Except for the gas flows, all other elements of system (solvent loss,
production, oven exhaust, etc.) remain the same.
Replacement of Existing Booths with Air Recirculation Systems Followed by
Conventional Control Devices. ES contacted several manufacturers of paint spray booths
to determine the availability (and cost) of "off-the-shelf recirculating booths. None of the
suppliers contacted were willing to propose a recirculation booth for a manual operation
the size of Lead's.
These manufacturers (Ref. 5) gave several reasons for not recommending or
proposing recirculating booths for Leed's situation. Generally, the booths they design are
for automated assembly-line operations where there is little or no operator exposure and
solvent content of the air is limited by NFPA, or they are built for painting large pieces
(like tractors) and involve closed booths with supplied-air suits for the painters. Neither of
these is Leed's case and the manufacturers were not interested in the engineering costs for
such a small one-time system. Further they indicated that for such a small system the cost
of the necessary recirculation hardware and safety features would negate the saving in
control costs.
NOVEL OR DEVELOPMENTAL TECHNIQUES
EPS AutoRoll Booth. Initial information was that this system was an air
recirculation booth system for automated painting that might be adaptable to manual
operation. In fact, it is not normally supplied as a recirculating booth. The significant
characteristic of this system is an automatic advance of continuous filter mat for overspray
solids removal from the exhaust air stream. The filter media are said to provide better
particle removal than either typical dry filter pads (like those at Leed) or water wash
booths and to reduce maintenance compared to the conventional wet or dry filtration
-9-
-------
schemes. The physical layout of the booth is very similar to Leed's booth (back draw, open
front, side conveyor opening) and would be subject to the same constraint on breathing
zone exposure, painter mobility, and face velocity as the existing units. Thus, the system
offers little benefit in Leed's situation.
Nobel Chematur Polyad System. The Radian analysis documented that
conventional carbon adsorption was expensive and not cost effective compared to other
alternatives. However, one system, the Polyad System by Nobel Chematur, was
investigated as an alternative to conventional carbon adsorption.
This system uses a fluidized bed of polymeric beads as surface adsorbers. The bed is
stripped and solvent recovered in a manner akin to fixed-bed carbon adsorption.
According to the manufacturer, its advantages over carbon accrue with high solvent
loadings and humid gas streams, neither of which are present at Leeds. The limited
information available suggests that performance (removal efficiency) declines rapidly as
inlet concentrations go below about 30 ppm. Like carbon systems, the economic
advantages over thermal treatment derive from solvent recovery. This Swedish process
may have application to systems such as Leed's, even without solvent recovery, but
significant additional investigation would be necessary to determine feasibility and
performance, as well as cost
Mobile Zone System. The Mobile Zone System is a method of recirculating a
portion of the solvent-laden air, but supplying only fresh air to the work area by enclosing
the painter in a mobile cab. Fresh air is admitted to the cab and recirculated air is
delivered to the interior of the booth. Therefore, only the quantity of fresh air admitted
through the cab opening is exhausted from the system. The designer's description of this
system is included as Appendix B. The designer of this system estimated that the total
exhaust flow from the two booths and the oven could be reduced from 27,000 cfrn to
between 5,800 and 9,300 cfm (Ref. 6). They also stated, however, that application to a
system as small as Leed's was marginal. The estimated flow reductions are dependent on
work practices, piece sizes, and painting rates. As yet, no commercial Mobile Zone System
has been installed, so the technology is still unproven in commercial applications.
-10-
-------
SUMMARY OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE OPTIONS
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of feasible systems for Leed. The feasible
options for emission control at this facility appear to be:
1) Addition of conventional devices to the existing system and treat -27,000 cfm.
2) Reduction of the flow rate to achieve an exhaust rate equivalent to 60 ft/min face
velocity and using conventional devices to treat -14,000 scfm.
3) Addition of some form of recirculation air system, like the Mobile Zone, and
treating 5800 to 9300 scfm with conventional devices.
Option one is provided for comparison with data presented in the Radian report Option
two is a minimum-cost scheme to achieve some flow reduction. Option three has not been
commercially demonstrated but has sufficient promise to warrant consideration. It also
provides a basis to compare capital and operating costs if other means of flow
reduction/recirculation could be developed. A fourth option, which treats only the
reduced-flow emissions from one booth and the oven using the flow reduction offered by
the Mobile Zone System use also considered. This option would have lower capital costs
and achieve less emission reduction than option three.
-11-
-------
TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF SYSTEMS EVALUATED
Ventilation System Incinerator
Type Flow Rate, scfm Temp, °F Type
1-Current* 27,000
2-Reduce Fan* 14,000
Speed
3-Mobile Zone* 8,000
4-Mobile Zone for 5,000
Reduced Flow,
Treatment of One
Booth & Oven
Emissions
85°F Direct Fire
Catalytic
100°F Direct Fire .
Catalytic
130°F Direct Fire
Catalytic
175°F Direct Fire
Catalytic
Comb. Temp,
oF
1500
650
1500
650
1500
650
1500
650
Burner Size
MM Btu/hr
12.5
5.0
6.4
2J
3.6
1.4
2.2
0.8
Capture %
95
95
95
95
95
95
55
55
Removal %
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
Table 1 - Characteristics of System
Overall ffl
Control % <
90.3 j?
90.3 0.
90.3
90.3
90.3
90.3
52J
52J
Both spray booth and the oven ducted to control device
-------
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Two types of control devices for removing VOCs have been considered - catalytic
and direct-fired incinerators. For comparison purposes, costs were developed for four
systems. Both direct-fired and catalytic incinerators were evaluated for each of these
systems. Option one represents adding an incinerator to the existing system with no
physical or operating modifications except the necessary electrical and pneumatic
connections. Option two reflects the same physical plant as option one but sized to treat
the lower gas volume achievable by reducing face velocity to 60 ft/min. Option three
reflects a "middle-of-the road" estimate of the flow rate resulting from use of a Mobile
Zone System, and Option four includes the same hardware for flow reduction but treating
only 5000 cfm of exhaust (oven-2000 cfm, 1 booth-3000 cfm).
BASIS OF EVALUATION
The capital costs for the incinerators were developed as follows. Purchased
equipment costs for the incinerator, including the fans, instrumentation and controls were
estimated from the EAB manual (Ref. 7). These costs were then converted from 1986 to
1988 dollars using Chemical Engineering's Plant Cost Index (ratio = 1.059). The EAB
manual states that the cost estimates are accurate to ± 50%. We compared the 1988 EAB
estimates to 15 quotes (1986 to 1988 quotes, adjusted to 1988 dollars) for thermal and
catalytic units of capacities from 5,000 scfm to 25,000 scfrn. These quotes were obtained
from ES records from other recent study and design projects (11) as well as quotes
obtained specifically for this evaluation (4). The quoted prices were higher than predicted
by approximately 13% for catalytic systems and were approximately equal for thermal
systems, so the EAB values were adjusted by a factor of 1.13 for catalytic systems.
Auxiliary ductwork was sized and costs calculated as described hi the EAB manual.
Total installed equipment costs are comprised of the purchased hardware plus
added cost elements described in the EAB manual in terms of a fraction of purchased
-13-
-------
equipment Adjustment factors were established based on size and complexity of the
system using engineering judgement The list below identifies where an adjustment factor
other than 1.0 was used and why. Operating costs were determined similarly, using the
values of labor, utilities, and cost of capital as presented in the Radian analysis.
ADJUSTMENT
ITEM FACTOR USED REASON
Instruments 0.0 Included with system
Erection and Handling 0.5 Packaged, skid-mounted
Insulation 2.0 Exposed ductwork, cold
climate
Painting 0.0 Outside items, already
painted
Construction/Field
Expenses 0.5 Modular system
Construction Fee 0.5 Pre-engineered
Performance Test 4.0 - 5.0 Back calculated to yield
approximately $12,000
fixed price test
Contingencies 2.0 Limited data on
structure, power
supplies, etc.
Burner capacities were determined using simple linear heat transfer equations and
average values with the appropriate heat exchange efficiency (70% for catalytic, 70% for
direct-fired). These heat exchange efficiencies are those on which the EAB manual costs
were based. Cost effectiveness ($/ton pollutant removed) were determined by assuming
18.75 Ibs/hr VOC uncontrolled, 55 or 95% capture, 95% destruction and 4,992 hours/year
operation. Table 3 summarizes the total capital costs and the annual costs of the systems
evaluated. The designer of the Mobile Zone System estimated that a system could be
designed and installed (hardware included) at Leed for about $150,000. This value is
included in the capital costs for options three and four. The detailed costs are included in
Appendix C
-14-
-------
A thorough analysis of the significance of capital and operating costs on Leed's
profitability and ability to service the debt is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, a
limited evaluation can be developed from the production and cost data provided by Leed
during plant visit
At the 4,992 hour/year operating rate, Leed's coating operation could paint 1.4 to
1.9 million ft2 per year. The annual costs added to the painting operation by the emission
controls would range from as high as $389/ft2 to as low as $.097/ft2, calculated from lowest
production/highest cost to highest production/lowest cost using the annual costs presented
in Table 3. The actual cost of coating depends on many factors, but Leed estimates that
the average cost is $1.00-$1.50/ft2. If the product mix and coating specifications did not
change, the addition of controls could increase painting costs anywhere from 6.5 percent to
38.9 percent
-15-
-------
TABLE 2
COST SUMMARY
Annual Costs, $
System
(cfm)
1-27,000-
2-14,(KXr
3- 8,000*
4-5,000"
Type
Direct-Fired
Catalytic
Direct-Fired
Catalytic
Direct-Fired
Catalytic
Direct-Fired
Catalytic
Total Capital Costs, $
540,000
738,000
400,000
446,000
471,000
461,000
444,000
406,000
Direct
Operating
403,200
224,500
228,700
136,100
146,800
94,800
107,000
72,700
Indirect
Operating
140,800
183,800
110,500
120,400
125,900
123,600
112,000
111,700
Total
544,000
408,300
339,200
256,500
273,600
218,400
227,000
184,400
Cost Effect.
$/ton
12,880
9,670
8,030
6,070
6,480
5,170
9,280
7.540
Both spray booths and the oven ducted to the control device
One spray booth and the oven ducted to the control device
-------
SECTIONS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The technical and economic evaluations lead to several conclusions. The capital
and operating costs for addition of a control system to the facility as it currently stands are
lower than the estimates provided by Leed via the Radian analysis for conventional
thermal treatment Further, our estimates are about equal to the combination carbon
adsorption/catalytic incineration system discussed in that report, but derive from lower
capital costs (less debt service). Catalytic incineration appears more cost-effective than
direct-fired, regardless of size.
Reducing the flow rates to 14,000 scfm and thus reducing capital and operating costs
of the treatment system yields significant savings compared to treating 27,000 scfm.
The Mobile Zone System appears to provide the most cost-effective control. This
system has not been commercially demonstrated, so the cost data are questionable.
Controlling emissions would permit Leed to increase production and the revenues
from the production increase could offset, at least in part, the added cost of the emission
controls. The cost data provided here can also be used to estimate emission rates and costs
of alternatives involving partial emission control.
-17-
-------
SECTION 6
REFERENCES
1. Radian Corporation, "Best Available Control Technology Assessment for Leed
Architectural Products Paint Spray Booth Operation." Research Triangle Park, NC,
April 1,1988.
2. "Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary
Sources." Third Edition, Draft.
3. "Guide for Inspecting Capture Systems and Control Devices at Surface Coating
Operation." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC,
May 1982.
4. DeVilbiss Co., Specifications for Leed Spray Booths.
5. Telecons with various manufacturers:
Durr Industries; Bob Taylor
George Koch Co.; Bill Walker
Bilco Industries; Steve Cots
Binks Co.; Bob Wagner
DeVilbiss Co.; Terry York
JBI, Inc.; Paul Kenderiman
Protectaire, Inc.; Paul Farkas
6. Letter from Clyde Smith, Smith Engineering, November 29,1988.
7. "EAB Control Cost Manual, Third Edition". EPA 450/5-87-001A. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS-EAB. Research Triangle Park, NC,
February, 1987.
-18-
-------
APPENDIX A
SIGMA PVDF POWDER COATINGS
-------
SIGMA COATINGS, THE SPECIALIST IN EXTERIOR PAINT
SYSTEMS, INTRODUCES SIGMA PVDF,
A NEW GENERATION OF POWDER COATINGS
SIGMA
COATINGS
-------
Microphotograph: illustration
PVDF powder oo
A NEW GENERATION:
POWDER COATINGS
BASED ON PVDF
Architects and
designers are familiar with
polyester powder coatings.
And they are familiar with
long lasting PVDF based
wet spray and coil coatings.
Sigma Coatings offers a
wide range of high perform-
ance coating systems util-
izing both techniques. But,
Keeping abreast of the
needs of architects and ap-
plicators alike. Sigma has
now developed the ultimate ~"
exterior finish, SIGMA PVDF - powder coating based on
Pennwalt's KYNAR* PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride).
Design for endunng beauty and durability.
As with PVDF wet systems, aluminium profiles and clad-
ding coated with the new PVOF powder are assured of
unsurpassed outdoor protection. Whether a building is
baking m the heat of a blistering sun, awash with salt
spray from the sea or being attacked by industrial pollu-
tion, colour and gloss will remain virtually unchanged.
Once applied, the architect's design is protected by a
heavy fluoropolymer film that will last for years to come.
The SIGMA PVDF powder system was de-
veloped to meet the needs of architectural designers
who wanted a supenor alternative to today's powder
coatings. At the same time, it solved the applicators'
demand for a more efficient, emission free spray system.
The result has not only satisfied market demand, but in-
creased the durability and value of coated metal build-
ings - Sigma guaranteed.
Sigma Coatings is one of the oldest paint
manufacturers in the world. It is from their continuing
research that they now bnng on the market an extenor
finish that is as tough as it is beautiful. Sigma knows that
architects will want to consider the prestigious new
SIGMA PVDF because it allows them both durability and
design versatility. Building owners will also recognize the
opportunity to enhance and ensure their investment with
lasting beauty and long term economy.
ot edge covering by Sigma's
COLOUR AND
PROTECTION
Design with
colour and confidence. New
SIGMA PVDF based powder
coating has the same pro-
tective qualities as all fluoro-
polymer coatings, with even
better mechanical proper-
ties: one coat of SIGMA
PVDF is thicker than two or
three wet spray applica-
tions. Therefore, architects
can expect:
- extremely high outdoor
resistance to weathering,
industnal pollution, maritime climates
- excellent resistance to corrosion (in particular, filiform)
- supenor colour retention and light fastness
- unsurpassed gloss retention (non-chalking)
- optimal edge covering
- maximum durability with high abrasion and shock
resistance
- good flexibility and impact resistance.
And of course, SIGMA PVDF ensures the
economy of long life to first maintenance. With such low
dirt collection, buildings coated with SIGMA PVDF re-
main practically maintenance free.
Sigma's new PVDF based powder coating
is available in many beautiful, exciting RAL colours -
colours that will remain fresh and sparkling without the
need for repainting for many years. Special colours can
also be formulated.
The system has been fully tested by the
Dutch TNO Paint Research Institute following the VMR
Quality Requirements of Aluminium Windows. Doors and
Fronts, edition 1986.
-------
END-USES
SIGMA PVDF
based powder is -ideal for
aluminium cladding and
profiles. Components coat-
ed with this remarkable
powder coating can be
bent, shaped, bored and
cnmped after coating, or in
the case of extrusions and
preformed shapes, sprayed
after fabrication.
90
^ 80
! 7C
.1 6C
= 5C
5 4C
1 30
5 :c
10 -
ACCELERATED WEATHERING Q.U.V.
PVDF Powder coating compared with Polyester Powder coating
_ White (9C%)
Brown (8C%)
PVDF
POLYESTER
Brown (25%)
Wall panels,
roofs, windows or any alu-
minium profile can be de-
signed with imagination by
combining structural beauty with performance. The
colour uniformity of PVDF based powder coatings will
ensure realization of the onginal design and allow
building extensions or additions with perfect colour
match for many years.
Hours exposition time Q.U.V.
4CGC hrs
THE GUARANTEE
Incorporating ceramic pigments and PVDF
fluoropolymers means a durable coating. SIGMA PVDF
is guaranteed for durability of gloss and colour retention,
light fastness, resistance to chalking and protection
against corrosion (filiform), no loss of adhesion and no
cracking or blistering.
When SIGMA PVDF is applied by one of
Sigma's approved applicators and meets with Sigma's
high standard requirements for quality control, a written
guarantee is issued for durability for at least 10 years.
-------
SIGMA PVDF POWDER COATING
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Weather-O-Meter ASTM G 23 / G 26
2000 hours: Loss of gloss less than 10%.
No chalking.
No significant colour change.
Sattspray ASTM B 117
2000 hours: No blistering.
Undercutting from cross hatch less than
1 mm.
Acidic Saltspray ASTM B 287
2000 hours: No blistering.
Undercutting from cross hatch less than
1 mm.
Humidity DIN 50017
1000 hours: No blistering or loss of adhesion.
No loss of hardness 24 hrs. after test.
Flexibility ASTM D 2794 (Impact resistance)
3.0 Nm: No defects.
Adhesion DIN 53151 : Gt 0 -,
after 1000 hours humidity
(DIN 50017) : Gt 0
after 1000 hours immersion
(ASTM D 870) : Gt 0 -I
Hardness DIN 53153 (Buchholz) : 100
no pick-off
with
Scotch-
tape
ASTM D 3363 (Pencil hardness) : F
Resistance to concrete mortar according to ASTM C 207 : No defects.
The information above has been extracted from the
technical experiences with SIGMA PVDF Powder System
applied on chromated aluminium. It is for information
purposes only. Full performance data of SIGMA PVDF
Powder Coating will be given on request.
SIGMA
COATINGS
Industrial Coatings Division
Postoox 112
NL-3700 AC Zeist
Tel 31 (3439)2211
Telex 40834
Fax (34391 1731
-------
APPENDIX B
MOBILE ZONE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
-------
Mobile Zone: Final Solution to Spray Booth VOC Emission Control
presented by Clyde Smith
1988 Air Pollution Congress
Dallas, Texas
revisions 9119 / 88
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Mr. James Berry of the Environmental Protection Agency for
extending an invitation to me to address this meeting I wish to thank those
attending this meeting, for you represent the opinion makers and decision.makers
who will largely influence the course of events in the future. Hopefully, I will be
able to report significant progress from the field to you at the next Congress.
Introduction
My name is Clyde Smith and I reside in Nashville, Tennessee. I am a mechanical
engineer in private practice having graduated in 1974 from the Georgia Institute of
Technology. I have been heavily involved in industrial ventilation and pollution
I control the last fourteen years and waste reduction techniques the last three.
The Mobile Zone represents very advanced waste reduction technology rather than
1 control technology. Mobile Zone is a name which I have applied to a lanea of
1 designs for reducing the quantity of air required to safely and efficiently operate
spray booths by up to 95 percent. In turn, this will reduce the capital "*<*"*"«
1 cost of heating, cooling and VOC emission control equipment by the same
percentage. From the beginning, the goals of these designs were to maintain or
T - improve productivity, production quality, safety, and compliance with EPA NFPA
I 33 and OHSA. This has been achieved. As the inventor, I have patents pending on
these designs. The Mobile Zone legal counsel and patent attorney is Mr. John
T Behringer of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan of Washington, DC.. The Mobile Zone
J technical consultant is Mr. William H. White of Perrysburg, Ohio Mr. White is the
retired chief of engineered systems for the DeVilbiss Company, a leading builder of
1 spray booths. Mr. White is currently the secretary of Committee 33 of the National
" Fire Protection Association which writes the national standards for spray booth
design.
* Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
-> Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
1 11 pages with 4 Figures
0 Page 1 of 11
-------
This presentation will describe one of a number of designs which I have developed
for reducing the quantity of air required to safely operate spray booths. The other
designs are based on the same principle, although differently configured to
accommodate small parts (such as ball point pens), large products (such as
transport aircraft), side draft, down draft, continuous and batch operation As an
add on device, it is equally suitable for installation into new or existing facilites. I
believe these designs solve the spray booth VOC emission problem. In this
presentation, I hope to convince you as well that the Mobile Zone is the final
solution to the problem of spray booth VOC emissions. The spray booth VOC
emission problem has two major components: first, it requires effective VOC control
technology; secondly, it requires an affordable price tag. The first component of the
problem has been solved by the vendors of regenerative incinerators and carbon
adsorption units. The second component of the problem which is one of cost has
been solved by the Mobile Zone control system. For if control equipment is not
installed due to its high cost, then its real effectiveness against VOCs is not 90, 95
or 95* percent but rather zero percent.
VOC Emission Control Technology
The existing VOC emission control technology is quite good and is readily available
commercially. The REECO regenerative incinerator is a good example although
there are others. For instance, the REECO units are 95 percent plus effective in the
destruction of VOCs. The units work well throughout a wide range of ambient
temperature and humidity conditions. They are tolerant of high exhaust air
particulate loading. They work well regardless of VOC concentration. They work
well throughout a wide range of exhaust air flow rates. The units have a long
service life; they are mechanically simple and as a result highly reliable The units
work unattended with little routine or preventative maintenance required. In short,
the REECO units in their present form represent an effective, mature, and
desirable control technology. Therefore it can be safely said that effective VOC
emission control technology for spray booth exists and is readily available.
As effective as the existing control technology is, it only represents a partial
solution to the spray booth VOC problem. The other part of the problem is the high
price tag. In fact, it is the high price tag which has insured that spray booth VUC
emissions are presently controlled only at a handful of sites throughout the entire
United States. Installed VOC emission control equipment can cost of upwards of
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 2 of 11
1
-------
J
3
3
3
3
3
$40 per cubic foot of exhaust air treated. This translates into an installed cost per
VOC source of between $200,000 and 10 million dollars. The prospect of reducing
the capital and operating cost for treating a cubic foot of exhaust air is bleak. There
are no exotic alternative technologies on the horizon and even with a mass market
for VOC emission control equipment the cost per cubic foot of exhaust air treated is
likely to decline by only 20 to 30 percent which still leaves the price tag too high.
The only other logical approach left is to reduce the quantity of exhaust air which
must be treated. The John Deere recirculation method and the Mobile Zone are two
such approaches. Both of these approaches difier from normal spray booth design
and operation and as a result the issues addressed by NFPA 33 and OHSA must be
considered.
NFPA 33
NFPA 33 stands for the National Fire Protection Association Committee #33 which
writes standards for the design and operation of spray booths as they relate to
workplace safety, specifically the fire and explosion issue. The principal objective of
the NFPA 33 standards is that under no circumstances should there be a volatile
concentration of over 25 percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LED anywhere in
the workplace. To achieve this objective a number of design standards are
suggested. NFPA 33 has no enforcement powers; however a number of
organizations which do have coercive powers have adopted NFPA 33 standards.
These organizations include the local fire department which enforces the fire codes,
the factory insurance companies and OHSA.
OHSA
OHSA stands for Occupational Health and Safety Administration and is a
governmental organization which has regulations for the design and operation of
spray booths as they relate to workplace safety, specifically the worker toxic
chemical issue. The OHSA regulations include some of the NFPA 33 standards in
addition to its own. The principal objective of the OHSA regulations is that under
no circumstances will a worker be exposed to a solvent concentration of over 100
parts per million during an eight hour shift or solvent specific peak exposures. To
achieve this objective a number of design standards are suggested.
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 3 of 11
0
-------
NFPA 33 and OHSA Variances
Variances are granted to the spray booth owner upon petition to the appropriate
authority to achieve the objective by a different means than is described in the
standards or regulations. Variances are not granted for failure to meet the
objectives of the NFPA 33 standards or OHSA regulations. It is up to the booth
owner or his agent to convince the authorities to grant a variance; it is by no means
automatic. In fact, a variance once granted can be revoked at any time. Should
disaster strike, the booth owner is in a weaker position from the liability point of
view if he is operating under a variance.
Recirculation Method vs. Mobile Zone
The ventilating air used in a spray booth is an integral part of the spray operation;
it removes overspray which otherwise would damage the finish and blind the
painter from seeing his workpiece. It is not essential to the spraying operation that
the ventilating air be fresh. Recirculated exhaust air contaminated with VOCs but
free of particulate will work fine. This is the basis of the John Deere recirculation
method. The only exhaust air which must be treated by VOC emission control
equipment is the air corresponding to the quantity of fresh air purposely introduced
into the booth to maintain the explosive gases at a concentration under 25 percent
of the Lower Explosive Limit. Of course with the recirculation method, the painter
will have to work in an environmentally sealed suit supplied with fresh outside air
since he will be working in a sealed room filled with explosive and toxic gases.
Needless to say, the recirculation method requires extensive spray booth
modification, variances, special training and special insurance. On the other hand,
the Mobile Zone provides fresh ventilating air to the painter and the spraying
operation. To reduce the quantity of exhaust air the cross section of the ventilated
zone must be considerably less than the entire cross section of the booth. Since the
painter and spraying operation will invariable shift in location within the booth this
zone must be made mobile as well. Thus the name Mobile Zone is an accurate
description of how these designs function. It is also clear that to substantially
reduce the spray booth exhaust air will require either the recirculation method or
the Mobile Zone; anything else defies the physical laws of nature. The particular
Mobile Zone design which I will shortly disclose to you is superior to the
recirculation method. The Mobile Zone design requires no spray booth modification,
no variances, no special training and no special insurance. The
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville. Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 4 of 11
-------
recirculation method is forbidden in government facilities. It has been rejected by
several labor unions and it has received unfavorable rulings from the Surgeon
General and OHSA.
Mobile Zone
For work activity which requires ventilation, the Mobile Zone provides zone of fresh
air within a work chamber for the benefit of a worker and his work activity. The
work activity contemplated includes surface coating, surface stripping, surface
cleaning as well as manufacturing and fabrication operations which require
ventilation such as the spray and lay-up of fiberglass products. This zone of fresh
air shifts in response to shifting locational needs of the work activity. The Mobile
Zone provides a movable opening through which fresh air flows over the spray
operator. Additionally, the opening may be in a structure which serves as a conduit
for the fresh air, a conduit for the ingress and egress of the spray operator and
mobile work platform for the spray operator. In this way, the linkage between booth
size and quantity of air exhausted to the atmosphere is broken. This is directly
analogous to having a smaller mobile spray booth within a larger stationary spray
booth. The smaller booth would be occupied by the spray operator while the larger
booth containing the product remains unoccupied. This differs substantially from
present practice, since the introduction of fresh air into the booth is limited to the
area immediate to the spraying activity and the openings for the entrance and exit
of product. This is accomplished by means of either a Mobile Zone Damper Panel,
Mobile Zone Curtain Panel, Mobile Zone Cab or combination. A circulation scheme
can be incorporated with the Mobile Zone to promote laminar flow and provide
additional overspray control. In this way, the cross section of the booth (work
chamber) will be uniformly ventilated.
Curtain Pane!
The Mobile Zone Curtain Panel contains two or more sets of opposing curtains. The
curtains are moveable. The opposing curtains will be rigidly linked by a member of
fixed or variable length. This linkage will provide a standoff between the curtains
to define an opening. The location of the opening can be varied at will by advancing
one curtain while retracting the other by a like amount. Were both the opposing
curtains to be completely retracted at the same time, the ventilating air flow would
be uniform throughout the cross section of the panel. Were both the opposing
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 5 of 11
-------
curtains to be completely advanced at the same time, the ventilating air would be
substantially blocked from flowing through the panel. With the Mobile Zone
Curtain Panel, a zone of ventilating air can be created whose location can be shifted
by coordinated movement of the curtains. In addition, since the opening is not ever
encumbered or blocked while in use, the Curtain Panel can be located in the work
chamber and used as a shield. The operator can stand on the upstream side and
spray his material through the opening onto the work piece located on the
downstream side. The combination of the curtain as a physical barrier and the flow
of ventilating air through the opening will prevent the sprayed material from
contaminating the operator side of the Curtain Panel. A variation of this
arrangement would include a cab attached to the opening in which the operator
could ride as he shifted location and spray his material.
There will be a difference in air pressure from one side of the Curtain Panel to the
other during operation. The difference in air pressure caused by the fan will cause a
draft through the opening. The dimensions of the draft will be defined by the
dimensions of the opening. The velocity of the draft will be established by the
magnitude of the pressure differential from one side of the opening to the other.
Mobile Zone featuring Curtain Panel with Laminar Flow Option
In the Mobile Zone control system using Curtain Panels with laminar flow the
entire cross section of the booth is uniformly ventilated as is a conventional booth.
However, a small portion of the cross section is fresh Mobile Zone air with the
balance being laminar flow air. The net effect of this arrangement is that the spray
operator is supplied with fresh ventilating air; the air exhausted to VOC equipment
or atmosphere is greatly reduced and yet the entire work chamber is uniformly
ventilated with non-turbulent, laminar airflow just as in a conventional booth.
VOC enforcement action when it occurs involves high production facilities; this
tends by nature to be conveyorized spray booths. This Mobile Zone is particularly
well suited to a conveyorized booth. It needs only to be attached to the booth
through the laminar flow duct and it requires very little floor space. However it will
work with any booth in which the product occupies a well defined area, the painter
occupies a well defined area and the spraying takes place predominantly in one
direction. These are easy constraints to meet; there are few spraying operations
which would not benefit from this orderliness and organization alone.
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 6 of 11
-------
As an example, for a side draft booth with a cross section of 10 feet high by 15 feet
wide, the total air flow would be 22,500 cubic feet per minute based on 150 square
feet of cross section at 150 feet per minute ventilating velocity. Assuming only one
painter at a time used this booth, then only one cab would be required. If the cab
dimensions were 4 feet wide and 7 feet tall, then the fresh Mobile Zone air flow
would be 4,200 cubic feet per minute based on 28 square feet of cab cross section at
150 feet per minute ventilating velocity. Thus for the total air flow of 22,500 cubic
feet per minute, the laminar flow component will be 18,300 cubic feet per minute
with a fresh component of 4,200 cubic feet per minute. As a result, with the Mobile
Zone control system every minute 4,200 cubic feet of fresh air is introduced into the
booth and the same amount of spent exhaust air is discharged to the atmosphere.
This compares to 22,500 cubic feet per minute of air which is required in booth
without the Mobile Zone control system. This represent an 81 percent reduction in
the ventilating air required to safely operate the booth.
Benefits
Production quality will be maintained or improved. Since the Mobile Zone provides
air over the spray gun in a direction predominately parallel to the spray gun's
operating direction, the paint transfer efficiency should improve and eddy induced
overspray deposits eliminated. Productivity will improve since the Mobile Zone
provides mechanized mobility to the operator to speed access to the product's
surface and reduce fatigue. The cost of owning and operating a spray booth will be
substantially reduced since the Mobile Zone will reduce the ventilating air required
by between 75 and 95 percent. In turn, this will reduce the capital and operating
cost of heating, air conditioning and pollution control equipment by a like amount.
These costs represent a major portion of the costs of a surface coating facility and a
principal area of energy consumption in a manufacturing plant. Over a period of
years the energy costs saved by the Mobile Zone alone will be several times greater
than the initial capital cost of the surface coating facility. Many industrial firms
presently must choose between either products with inferior surface coatings or
production schedules subject to the whims of the weather because they can not
afford humidity and temperature control such as air conditioning. The Mobile Zone
will make this climate control affordable, again improving productivity and quality.
The objectives and regulations of the EPA are met by reducing the quantity of
pollutants generated thereby making abatement practical and affordable. The
objectives and standards of NFPA #33 are met by introducing the required fresh air
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 7 of 11
-------
to keep volatile concentrations below 25 percent LEL. In fact, fire and explosion
danger is greatly reduced since the spray booth work chamber is contained and
isolated from the rest of the facility to a much greater degree than is possible with a
conventional design. The objectives and regulations of QHSA are met by providing
both fresh air over the worker and his spraying activity as well as a physical
barrier between the worker and contamination. In fact, worker safety is greatly
enhanced compared to a conventional design since the worker is provided with a
smoke and fire free path from the booth. Additionally, by design the fresh Mobile
Zone air always passes first over the worker's breathing zone and then to the work
area providing positive protection to his breathing zone. This is in sharp contrast to
conventional design where by common practice the worker often is downstream of
his spraying activity and the overspray is blown back over him thereby
contaminating him and his breathing zone.
Conclusion
Detail descriptions and drawings are included in this presentation. A working scale
model is present for your examination and illustrates the simplicity of the design
and operation. The Mobile Zone finally breaks the linkage between booth size and
exhaust air rate, thereby allowing larger booths without penalty. In most cases, the
Mobile Zone is simply add on equipment with little down time required for
installation. Therefore the fundamental booth design whether new or existing is
still appropriate and valid. As a result, the Mobile Zone represents easier to accept
'evolution' rather then 'revolution'. For the industrial firm, high control costs are no
longer a barrier to cleaning up VOC emissions and VOC emissions are no longer a
barrier to plant expansion. By significantly reducing pollution and energy usage,
the Mobile Zone provides the industrial firm with its only means to manage future
liability and cost risk in these areas. Any booth without the Mobile Zone is obsolete;
for the Mobile Zone represents preparation for the future.
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
1 11 pages with 4 Figures
f Page 8 of 11
-------
1 ILLUSTRATIONS
I Figures 11, 13 & 14 illustrate a configurations of a Mobile Zone featuring Curtain
Panels with laminar flow option.
I Figure 11 illustrates schematically a booth (down draft or side draft) of the present
invention. Just outside the Work Chamber 53, two Curtain panels 55 and 56 are
(located; an opening through both Curtain Panels is defined by a cab 57. As
illustrated in figure 11, in response to the manipulation of an manual position
sensor by the operator, the cab 57 moves at the rate and in the direction selected by
I the operator to provide proper access to the products in the work chamber 53. In
conjunction with the movement of the cab 57, one curtain of each curtain panel 55
and 56 retracts while the other curtain in each panel advances. Curtain Panel 56
I forms the upstream boundary and Curtain Panel 55 forms the downstream
boundary of laminar flow chambers 70. Exhaust air enters each laminar flow
_ chamber 70 by means of conduit 54. The volume of air entering each laminar flow
I chamber is controlled by flow control damper 60 in response to the proportion of
each curtain area exposed in Curtain Panel 55. The exhaust air 59 exits the
J laminar flow chambers into the work chamber 53 through perforations in the
curtains of Curtain Panel 55. Fresh Mobile Zone ventilating air 58 enters the work
chamber 53 through the cab 57. The entire work chamber is uniformly ventilated by
}a combination of laminar flow air 59 and fresh air 58. This ventilating air then
enters the exhaust chamber 13 and passes through filter 15 which removes
overspray. The exhaust air exits through the exhaust fan (not shown) in housing 17
I whereupon the exhaust air is split. The larger portion is diverted into the laminar
flow duct 54 and the smaller portion exits to the atmosphere through exhaust stack
19. The volume of air exiting is controlled by flow control damper 18. The ratio of
J air exhausted to laminar flow air is proportional to the ratio of area of the opening
as defined by the cab 57 in the Curtain Panels 55 & 56 to the total area of
perforated curtain in Curtain Panel 55 in the booth cross section.
3
1
In Figures 13 & 14 is depicted a conveyorized spray booth of the present invention
utilizing a Curtain Panel and the laminar flow feature as described in the Figure 11
schematic. Figure 13 is a frontal isometric view and Figure 14 is a sectional side
view. Suspended from the ceiling 23 are monorail conveyor trays 41 that slowly
transport the objects to be sprayed (not shown) through the booth. Monorail 40
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 9 of 11
I
-------
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
I
3
J
I
f
extends through the booth. Booth end walls 52 have openings 39 for the passage of
the conveyor trays 41. The operator 51 (shown only in Figure 14) rides back and
forth the full cross section of the booth in a motorized cab which is comprised of
floor 47, walls 48 and ceiling 49. The operator sprays the coating from his vantage
point in the cab, thereby avoiding the fatigue of pacing back and forth all day
dragging his paint hoses. Like partitions, the cab further defines the opening in the
two Curtain Panels. In this instance, the cab has the dimensions of four feet wide
and eight feet high. The walls 48 of the cab have windows 50. The cab is equipped
with manual operator control (not shown) to signal the controller 26 which will in
turn cause the cab to stop or move it in a particular direction and speed. The
Curtain Panels are comprised of opposing curtains 43, 44 and opposing curtains 61,
62 which are fabricated from narrow interlocking steel slats. These curtains 43, 44,
61 and 62 spool in and out from drums inside housing 46. Tension is maintained on
these curtains 43, 44, 61 and 62 by tensioning devices 42 connected to the drums.
The curtains and the cab operate in tracks 45. A laminar flow chamber 64 is formed
and bounded peripherally by the floor, walls, ceiling and the two Curtain Panel
comprised of curtains 43, 44, 61 and 62. The downstream curtains 61 and 62 are
perforated to permit exit of the laminar flow air supplied by laminar flow duct 63
from exhaust fan 22. In addition, the perforated curtains 61 and 62 act as diffusers
to evenly distribute the laminar flow air across the booth cross section.
The overspray laden air is drawn through the exhaust chamber 24 by an exhaust
fan 22 to exit to the atmosphere through the exhaust stack 21. The exhaust
chamber 24 is separated from the work chamber 38 by the lower wall portion 32. A
pool of scrubbing water 29 stands in the exhaust chamber 24. The water is
recirculated by pump 27 to spray header 28. The spray constantly wets baffles 30
and 31 which along with the spray constitute a water wash filter, which extends the
entire length of exhaust chamber 24. Openings (not shown) near the bottom of
baffle 30 allow water 29 to stand at the same level throughout exhaust chamber 24.
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
11 pages with 4 Figures
Page 10 of 11
-------
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
I
FIG 11
laminar flow duct
tensioner
drum housing
solid panel
perforated panel
laminar flow chamber
motorized cab
MOBILE ZONE
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
Figures 1 4 2 of 4
-------
FIG 13
40
1
3
1
1
11
I
21
Mobile Zone Control System Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
Figures 3 & 4 of 4
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST CALCULATIONS
-------
DETAILED COST CALCULATIONS
FILENAME KEY
Filename
Option Thermal Catalytic
1
2
3
4
27KCAT
14KCAT
8KCAT
5KCAT
27KDFIRE
14DFIRE
8KDFIRE
5KDFIRE
Note: For options 3 & 4, capital cost of mobile zone system is included in auxiliary
equipment (Line A)l)b)
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:5KCAT
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER LABEL VALUE
GAS FLOW
LBS/HR SLA# 18763
SCFM SLAS 5000
ACFM SLAA 6000
GAS TEMP. DEC. F TI 175
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR SLL 18.75
AVG. MOLEC. WT MW 106
PPM PPM 126
COMBUSTIO'N CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F TC 650
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC. HEX 70.0%
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY CE 0.55
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY ORE 0.95
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM Btu/HR BC 0.77
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
CATALYTIC INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE; 02/02/89 PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:5KCAT
CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
e) FREIGHT
BASIS RATE AF
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la * 0.10 * 0.0
la+b+c * 0.03 * 1.0
la+b * 0.05 * 1.0
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
COST
$159,200
$96,216
$0
$7,662
$12,771
m^m^m^* «wa^ ^ ^
$275,849
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS la+b
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING la-t-b
C) ELECTRICAL la
d) PIPING la
e) INSULATION la+b
f) PAINTING la+b
g) SITE PREPARATION AS REQ'D
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS AS REQ'D
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
*
4
*
*
*
*
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
$20,433
$17,879
$6,368
$3,184
$5,108
$0
$0
$0
$52,973
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
f) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b *
INDIRI
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.01
* 0.03 <
:cr
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.7
* 2.0
$25,542
$6,385
$12,771
$5,108
$12,005
$15,325
$77,136
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$275,849
$52,973
$77,136
^m ^«B«B «» ^ ^«
$405,958
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:5KCAT
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
DH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(£t3 * deg F)
DH - 0.77 MM BtU/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS BtU/CCF 100,000
AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
AFC - 38627 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI + ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS » 318 DEG. F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP - TI -i- HEX * ( TC - TI )
TP * 508 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG - 0.062 LBS/FT3
DP - 25 in WC
FP - 0.746 * SUVA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
» 1.679 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE » 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
2 FT3
0.12 TONS
DATE: 02/02/39 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:5KCAT
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS
b) SUPERVISORS
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR
b) MATERIALS
HR/SHIFT 6 $/HR
15% OF OPER. LABOR
HR/SHIFT § $/HR
100% OF OPER. LABOR
0.5
0.15
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY
b) NATURAL GAS
$0.120 /KWH
$0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT 5500
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD
8) PROPERTY TAX
9) INSURANCE
10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
$40
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY
10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM)
0.01 * TIEC
0.01 * TIEC
0.02 * TIEC
0.1770 * TIEC
$12,480
$1,872
0.5
1.00
'3
$40
1.0
$12,480
$12,480
$6,000
$1,006
$396
$3,905
$22,099
$0
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
$72,718
$23,587
$4,060
$4,060
$8,119
$71,855
m ^m^m^ « ^ ^ «
$111,680
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING
INDIRECT OPERATING
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED
$72,718
$111,680
»*»*
$184,398
$7,541
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:5KDFIRE
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER LABEL VALUE
GAS FLOW
LBS/HR SLA# 18763
SCFM SLAS 5000
ACFM SLAA 6000
GAS TEMP. DEG. F TI 175
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR SLL 18.75
AVG. MOLEC. WT MW 106
PPM PPM 126
COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F TC 1500
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC. HEX 70.0%
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY CE 0.55
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY DRE 0.95
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM Btu/HR BC 2.16
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
DIRECT FIRED INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:5KDFIRZ
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL COSTS
BASIS
RATE
AF
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
e) FREIGHT
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
COST
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la *
la+b+c *
la+b *
0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *
0.0
1.0
1.0
$183,600
$96,216
$0
$8,394
$13,991
$302,201
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
c) ELECTRICAL
d) PIPING
e) INSULATION
f) PAINTING
g) SITE PREPARATION
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
AS
AS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
REQ'D
REQ'D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
08
14
04
02
01
01
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
0.
0
5
0
0
0
0
$22,
$19,
$7,
$3,
$5,
385
587
344
672
596
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
$58,585
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
f) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.01
*
*
*
*
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.3
la+b * 0.03 * 2.0
$27,982
$6,995
$13,991
$5,596
$12,032
$16,789
$83,385
t*******************
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$302,201
$58,585
$83,385
^ ^ » ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ «
$444,171
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:5KDFIRE
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR 4992
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
DH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)
DH - 2.16 MM Btu/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS Btu/CCF 100,000
AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
AFC - 107749 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI + ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS - 572.5 DEG. F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP - TI + HEX * ( TC - TI )
TP - 1102.5 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG - 0.062 LBS/FT3
DP - 15 in WC
FP - 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
1.008 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
2 FT3
0.12 TONS
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:5KDFIRE
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS HR/SHIFT § $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) SUPERVISORS 15% OF OPER. LABOR 0.15 $1,872
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR HR/SHIFT @ $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) MATERIALS 100% OF OPER. LABOR 1.00 $12,480
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3 0.0 $0
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY $0.120 /KWH $604
b) NATURAL GAS $0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500 $396
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT 5500 $3,905
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000 $32,688
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000 $30,141
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS $107,045
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD 0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM) $23,587
8) PROPERTY TAX 0.01 * TIEC $4,442
9) INSURANCE 0.01 * TIEC $4,442
10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 0.02 * TIEC $8,883
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY 0.1770 * TIEC $78,618
10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $119,972
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING $107,045
INDIRECT OPERATING $119,972
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $227,018
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED $9,284
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:8KCAT
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER
GAS FLOW
LBS/HR
SCFM
ACFM
GAS TEMP. DEC. F
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR
AVG. MOLEG. WT
PPM
COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM Btu/HR
LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA
TI
SLL
MW
PPM
TC
HEX
CE
DRE
BC
VALUE
32311
8000
9000
130
18.75
106
135
650
70.0%
0.95
0.95
1.36
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
CATALYTIC INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:8KCAT
CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
e) FREIGHT
BASIS
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la *
la+b+c *
la+b *
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
RATE AF COST
$192,500
$98,208
0.10 * 0.0 $0
0.03 * 1.0 $8,721
0.05 * 1.0 $14,535
»^«K«»^»«* *»^ w» ^ «
$313,965
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
c) ELECTRICAL
d) PIPING
) INSULATION
f) PAINTING
g) SITE PREPARATION
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
AS
AS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
REQ'D
REQ'D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
08
14
04
02
01
01
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
0.
0
5
0
0
0
0
$23
$20
$7
$3
$5
i
i
i
i
257
350
700
850
814
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
$60,970
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
c) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
t) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
0,
0,
0,
0,
10
05
10
02
0.01
*
*
*
*
*
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.1
la+b * 0.03 * 2.0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
$29,071
$7,268
$14,535
$5,814
$11,919
$17,442
»^^ ^ « »
$86,050
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$313,965
$60,970
$86,050
« ^«» « ^ ^ « ^
$460,985
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:SKCAT
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR 4992
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
DH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)
DH » 1.36 MM Btu/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS Btu/CCF 100,000
AFC - DH * HOURS / BtU/UNIT
AFC - 67658 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI + ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS - 286 DEG. F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP - TI + HEX * ( TC - TI )
TP - 494 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG - 0.067 LBS/FT3
DP - 25 in WC
FP - 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
2.722 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
3.2 FT3
0.192 TONS
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:8KCAT
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS HR/SHIFT 6 $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) SUPERVISORS 15% OF OPER. LABOR 0.15 $1,872
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR HR/SHIFT @ $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) MATERIALS 100% OF OPER. LABOR 1.00 $12,480
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3 1.0 $9,600
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY $0.120 /KWH $1,631
b) NATURAL GAS $0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500 $396
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT - 5500 $3,905
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000 $32,688
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000 $7,233
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS $94,765
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD 0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM) $23,587
8) PROPERTY TAX 0.01 * TIEC $4,610
9) INSURANCE 0.01 * TIEC $4,610
10) GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 0.02 * TIEC $9,220
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY 0.1770 * TIEC $81,594
10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $123,621
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING $94,765
INDIRECT OPERATING $123,621
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $218,386
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED $5,170
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL,
FILE:8KDFIRE
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER
GAS FLOW
LBS/HR
SCFM
ACFM
GAS TEMP. DEG. F
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR
AVG. MOLEG. WT
PPM
COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM Btu/HR
LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA
TI
SLL
MW
PPM
TC
HEX
CE
DRE
BC
VALUE
32311
8000
9000
130
18.75
106
135
1500
70.0%
0.95
0.95
3.57
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
DIRECT FIRED INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE-.8KDFIRE
CAPITAL COSTS
BASIS
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
c) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
e) FREIGHT
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la *
la+b+c *
la+b *
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
RATE AF COST
$199,300
$98,208
0.10 * 0.0 $0
0.03 * 1.0 $8,925
0.05 * 1.0 $14,875
M^«»WMMW«MV»«»«
$321,309
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
c) ELECTRICAL
d) PIPING
e) INSULATION
f) PAINTING
g) SITE PREPARATION
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
$23,801
$20,826
$7,972
$3,986
$5,950
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
$62,534
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
f) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b *
la+b *
la+b *
la+b *
la+b *
0.10
0.05
10
,02
,01
0.
0,
0,
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
1.0
0
0
1.0
4.0
la+b * 0.03 * 2.0
$29,751
$7,438
$14,875
$5,950
$11,900
$17,850
m^ ^«» ^ ^ ^ ^ «
$87,765
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$321,309
$62,534
$87,765
m^^ « ^^ ^ ^ «
$471,608
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:8KDFIRE
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR 4992
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
DH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)
DH - 3.57 MM BtU/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS Btu/CCF 100,000
AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
AFC - 178253 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI + ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS - 541 DEG. F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP » TI + HEX * ( TC - TI )
TP - 1089 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG « 0.067 LBS/FT3
DP - 15 in WC
FP » 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
1.633 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE » 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
» 3.2 FT3
0.192 TONS
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:8KDFIRE
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS HR/SHIFT § $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) SUPERVISORS 15% OF OPER. LABOR 0.15 $1,872
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR HR/SHIFT § $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) MATERIALS 100% OF OPER. LABOR 1.00 $12,480
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3 0.0 $0
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY $0.120 /KWH $578
b) NATURAL GAS $0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500 $396
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT 5500 $3,905
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000 $32,688
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000 $70,427
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS $147,706
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD 0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM) $23,587
8) PROPERTY TAX 0.01 * TIEC $4,716
9) INSURANCE 0.01 * TIEC $4,716
10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 0.02 * TIEC $9,432
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY 0.1770 * TIEC $83,475
10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $125,926
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING $147,706
INDIRECT OPERATING $125,926
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $273,632
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED $6,478
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED.ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:14KCAT
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER LABEL VALUE
59574
SCFM SLAS 14000
ACFM SLAA 15000
GAS TEMP. DEG. F TI 100
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR SLL 18.75
AVG. MOLEC. WT MW 106
PPM PPM 77
COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F TC 650
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC. HEX 70.0%
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY CE 0.95
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY ORE 0.95
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM BtU/HR BC 2.51
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
CATALYTIC INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:14KCAT
CAPITAL COSTS
BASIS
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
e) FREIGHT
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la *
la+b+c *
la+b *
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
RATE
AF
COST
0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *
0.0
1.0
1.0
$266,500
$11,296
$0
$8,334
$13,890
$300,020
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
C) ELECTRICAL
d) PIPING
e) INSULATION
f) PAINTING
g) SITE PREPARATION
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
$22,224
$19,446
$10,660
$5,330
$5,556
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
$63,215
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
f) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10
05
10
02
01
1.0
,5
,5
1.0
4.3
la+b * 0.03 * 2.0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
$27,780
$6,945
$13,890
$5,556
$11,945
$16,668
« «» ^ ^ ^«B«»
$82,783
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$300,020
$63,215
$82,783
« ^ «» « ^ « ^m ^ *
$446,018
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:14KCAT
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR 4992
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
OH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)
DH - 2.51 MM Btu/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS Btu/CCF 100,000
AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
AFC - 125232 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI * ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS - 265 DEC- F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP - TI * HEX * ( TC - TI )
TP - 485 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG - 0.070 LBS/FT3
DP - 25 in WC
FP - 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
4.740 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
5.6 FT3
- 0.336 TONS
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:14KCAT
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS
b) SUPERVISORS
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR
b) MATERIALS
HR/ SHIFT i $/HR 0.5
15% OF OPER. LABOR 0.15
HR/SHIFT @ $/HR 0.5
100% OF OPER. LABOR 1.00
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY
b) NATURAL GAS
$0.120 /KWH
$0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT 5500
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD
8) PROPERTY TAX
9) INSURANCE
10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
$40
$40
1.0
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY
10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM)
0.01 * TIEC
0.01 * TIEC
0.02 * TIEC
0.1770 * TIEC
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
$12,480
$1,872
$12,480
$12,480
$16,800
$2,839
$396
$3,905
$32,688
$40,131
w^«^w*»«»«
$136,071
$23,587
$4,460
$4,460
$8,920
$78,945
»MB«»W«M»W«
$120,373
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING
INDIRECT OPERATING
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED
$136,071
$120,373
»«»**«»*
$256,445
$6,072
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:14KDFIRE
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER LABEL VALUE
GAS FLOW
LBS/HR SLA# 59574
SCFM SLAS 14000
ACFM SLAA 15000
GAS TEMP. DEG. F TI 100
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR SLL 18.75
AVG. MOLEC. WT MW 106
PPM PPM 77
COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F TC 1500
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC. HEX 70.0%
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY CE 0.95
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY ORE 0.95
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM BtU/HR BC 6.39
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
DIRECT FIRED INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:14KDFIRE
CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
e) FREIGHT
BASIS
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la *
la+b+c *
la+b *
RATE
0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
AF COST
$236,900
$11,296
0.0 $0
1.0 $7,446
1.0 $12,410
$268,052
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
c) ELECTRICAL
d) PIPING
e) INSULATION
f) PAINTING
g) SITE PREPARATION
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
AS
AS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
REQ'D
REQ'D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
08
.14
.04
02
.01
01
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
0
1
1
2
0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
$19
$17
$9
$4
$4
,856
,374
,476
,738
,964
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
$56,407
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
f) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
0.10 *
0.05 *
0.10 *
0.02 *
0.01 *
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.8
la+b * 0.03 * 2.0
$24,820
$6,205
$12,410
$4,964
$11,913
$14,892
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
$75,203
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$268,052
$56,407
$75,203
«» ^^ ^ ^ * ^ «
$399,662
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:14KDFIRE
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR 4992
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
DH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)
DH - 6.39 MM Btu/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS BtU/CCF 100,000
AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
AFC - 318773 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI + ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS - 520 DEG. F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP - TI * HEX * ( TC - TI )
TP - 1080 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG - 0.07 LBS/FT3
DP - 15 in WC
FP - 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
2.844 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
5.6 FT3
- 0.336 TONS
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:14KDFIRE
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS HR/SHIFT § $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) SUPERVISORS 15% OF OPER. LABOR 0.15 $1,872
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR HR/SHIFT g $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) MATERIALS 100% OF OPER. LABOR 1.00 $12,480
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3 0.0 $0
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY $0.120 /KWH $1,704
b) NATURAL GAS $0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500 $396
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT 5500 $3,905
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000 $32,688
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000 $150,720
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS $228,725
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD 0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM) $23,587
8) PROPERTY TAX 0.01 * TIEC $3,997
9) INSURANCE 0.01 * TIEC $3,997
10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 0.02 * TIEC $7,993
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY 0.1770 * TIEC $70,740
10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $110,314
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING $228,725
INDIRECT OPERATING $110,314
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $339,039
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED $8,027
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:27KCAT
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER
GAS FLOW
LBS/HR
SCFM
ACFM
GAS TEMP. DEG. F
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR
AVG. MOLEG. WT
PPM
COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM Btu/HR
LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA
TI
SLL
MW
PPM
TC
HEX
CE
DRE
BC
VALUE
118054
27000
28000
85
18.75
106
40
650
70.0%
0.95
0.95
4.97
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
CATALYTIC INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS? AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE.-27KCAT
CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
e) FREIGHT
BASIS RATE AF
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la * 0.10 * 0.0
la+b+c * 0.03 * 1.0
la+b * 0.05 * 1.0
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
COST
$448,800
$15,762
$0
$13,937
$23,228
$501,727
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
c) ELECTRICAL
d) PIPING
e) INSULATION
f) PAINTING
g) SITE PREPARATION
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
la+b '
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
' 0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
$37,165
$32,519
$17,952
$8,976
$9,291
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
$105,904
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
f) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b *
la+b *
la+b *
la+b *
la+b *
0
0
0
,10
.05
,10
0.02
0.01
*
*
*
*
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
1.0
0,
0,
1.0
2.6
la+b * 0.03 * 2.0
$46,456
$11,614
$23,228
$9,291
$12,079
$27,874
^ ^ » ^ ^ ^
$130,542
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$501,727
$105,904
$130,542
«Mt ^ « » ^ *»^ ^ «
$738,172
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:27KCAT
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR 4992
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
DH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)
DH - 4.97 MM BtU/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS Btu/CCF 100,000
AFC » DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
AFC - 248106 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI + ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS » 255 DEG. F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP - TI + HEX * ( TC - TI )
TP.» 481 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG » 0.072 LBS/FT3
DP - 25 in WC
FP - 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
- * 9.101 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
« 10.8 FT3
- 0.648 TONS
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:27KCAT
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS HR/SHIFT @ $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) SUPERVISORS 15% OF OPER. LABOR 0.15 $1,872
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR HR/SHIFT I $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) MATERIALS 100% OF OPER. LABOR 1.00 $12,480
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3 1.0 $32,400
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY $0.120 /KWH $5,452
b) NATURAL GAS $0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500 $396
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT 5500 $3,905
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000 $32,688
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000 $110,341
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS $224,494
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD 0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM) $23,587
8) PROPERTY TAX 0.01 * TIEC $7,382
9) INSURANCE 0.01 * TIEC $7,382
10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 0.02 * TIEC $14,763
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY 0.1770 * TIEC $130,657
10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $183,771
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING $224,494
INDIRECT OPERATING $183,771
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $408,265
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED $9,666
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:27KDFIRE
BASIS OF DESIGN
PARAMETER
GAS FLOW
LBS/HR
SCFM
ACFM
GAS TEMP. DEG. F
SOLVENT LOADING
LBS/HR
AVG. MOLEG. WT
PPM
COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F
HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY
REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM BtU/HR
LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA
TI
SLL
MW
PPM
TC
HEX
CE
DRE
BC
VALUE
118054
27000
28000
85
18.75
106
40
1500
70.0*
0.95
0.95
12.45
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
DIRECT FIRED INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 1 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
FILE:27KDFIRE
A) DIRECT COSTS
1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL COSTS
a) CONTROL DEVICE
b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
c) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
d) TAXES
c) FREIGHT
BASIS
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la *
la+b+c *
la+b *
SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
RATE
AF
COST
0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *
0.0
1.0
1.0
$322,300
$15,762
$0
$10,142
$16,903
$365,107
2) INSTALLATION DIRECT
a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS la+b
b) ERECTION AND HANDLING la+b
C) ELECTRICAL la
d) PIPING la
«) INSULATION la+b
f) PAINTING la+b
g) SITE PREPARATION AS REQ'D
h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS AS REQ'D
SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
$27,045
$23,664
$12,892
$6,446
$6,761
$0
$0
$0
$76,809
B) INDIRECT COSTS
3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT
a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
d) STARTUP
e) PERFORMANCE TEST
f) MODEL STUDY
g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
INDII
*
*
*
*
*
*
*£C
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
T
10
05
10
02
01
03
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.
0.
0.
1.
3.
2.
0
5
5
0
6
0
$33
$8
$16
$6
$12
$20
$98
,806
,452
,903
,761
,170
,284
,376
SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION DIRECT
INSTALLATION INDIRECT
TIEC
$365,107
$76,809
$98,376
»W»<»M«W«»W»«
$540,292
DATE: 02/02/89
PAGE 2 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:27KDFIRE
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
HOURS/DAY 16
DAYS/WEEK 6
WEEKS/YEAR 52
HOURS/YEAR 4992
SHIFTS/YEAR 624
AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
DH - SLAS * CPg * ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )
CPg - 0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)
DH - 12.45 MM BtU/HR
ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION GAS Btu/CCF 100,000
AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
AFC » 621364 CCF
STACK TEMP, TS
TS - TI + ( 1 - HEX ) * ( TC - TI )
TS - 509-5 DEG. F
PREHEAT TEMP, TP
TP - TI + 0.7 * ( TC - TI )
TP - 1075.5 DEG. F
FAN POWER, KWH/HR
SG - 0.072 LBS/FT3
DP - 15 in WC
FP - 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG / (6356 *.65 )
- 5.460 KWH/HR
CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
WASTE » 2 FT3/MCFM * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
10.8 FT3
0.648 TONS
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 3 OF 4
-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL. FILE:27KDFIRE
ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS
1) OPERATING LABOR
a) OPERATORS HR/SHIFT i $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) SUPERVISORS 15% OF OPER. LABOR 0.15 $1,872
2) OPERATING MATERIALS
3) MAINTENANCE
a) LABOR HR/SHIFT $/HR 0.5 $40 $12,480
b) MATERIALS 100% OF OPER. LABOR 1.00 $12,480
4) REPLACEMENT PARTS CATALYST $3,000 /FT3 0.0 $0
5) UTILITIES
a) ELECTRICITY $0.120 /KWH $3,271
b) NATURAL GAS $0.7928 /CCF 1ST 500 $396
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT 5500 $3,905
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT 49000 $32,688
$0.5714 /CCF OVER 55000 $323,620
SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS $403,192
B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
7) OVERHEAD 0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM) $23,587
8) PROPERTY TAX 0.01 * TIEC $5,403
9) INSURANCE 0.01 * TIEC $5,403
10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 0.02 * TIEC $10,806
11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY 0.1770 * TIEC $95,632
10 YEARS, 12 * INTEREST
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $140,830
SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT OPERATING $403,192
INDIRECT OPERATING $140,830
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $544,023
COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED $12,880
DATE: 02/02/89 PAGE 4 OF 4
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 450/3-89-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of Emission Control Options at Leed
Architectural Products
5. REPORT DATE
ieptember 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Engineering Science, Inc.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Engineering Science, Inc.
Two Flint Hill
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, VA 22030
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4398
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Standards Division
Mail Drop 13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT ' "' ' ' ' "
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection requested assistance from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Control Technology Center in evaluation of
feasible alternatives to control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
a specialty aluminum coating facility. The facility desired to increase its use of
high VOC content liquid polyvinylidene fluoride (PVF) Kynar* coatings. The report
examines several options for emission control by incineration of spray booth and bake
oven exhaust gases. The report also discusses the development of Kynar*powder coatings
other PVF powder coatings and triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC) polyester powder coatings
with performance characteristics similar to liquid Kynar*coatings.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTtFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Air Pollution
Surface Coating
Architectural Aluminum Products
KynarR Coatings
Powder Coatings
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rav. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
t. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, il used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which il \\as selected (e.g.. Jate oj /.v.wir, date <>j
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S) . . .-
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doc. etc.). List author's affiliation il it ditlcrs Irom the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels ot an organisational hircarchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTR ACT/G R ANT NUMBE R
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc,, and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGtNCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES , , , , .
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, translation <>l, I resented a( coiUi-u-iuc »i.
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16 ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in die report. II I IK- report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper aullion/cd terms that identity me major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries lor cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI III LD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 C'OSAl I Sub|ect Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignments) will be spentic discipline, area ol human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-rclercnced with secondary 1 ield/(,roup assignments that will lollov.
the primary posting) s).
', Denote releasabihty to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." < He any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, il any.
22 PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, il known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rex. 4-77) (Reverse)
------- |