DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN FOR SELECTED SULFUR OXIDE CONTROL PROCESSES M. W. Kellogg Company Houston, Texas 17 March 1972 DISTRIBUTED BY: National Technical Information Service U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151 ------- •atr BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 1. Report No. APTD-1104 3. Recipient's Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle Detailed Cost Breakdown for Selected Sulfur Oxide Control Processes 5. Report Date March 17. 1972 7. Authoi(s) 8. Performing Organization Kept. No'MWKLG-RED-72-1268 9. Performing Organization Name and Address The M. W. Kellogg Company Research & Engineering Development Houston, Texas 10. Pfoject/Taslc/Worlc Unk No. 11. Contract/Grant No. CPA 70-68 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and. Address ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air Programs Control Systems Division 13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final 14. 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstracts . / 7Estimates were prepared for typical^, scrubbing processing areas, indicating capital costs attributable to scrubber, reheat, ductwork and fans. The control processes studied were selected to provide a range of different type gas scrubbing contactors, viz., packed* column, multi-stage spray column, and one which contains beds of hollow plastic spheres. The results are presented of cost breakdowns made for the following control processes: magnesia base (slurry scrubbing, regenerable S02-H2SOi|. by-produftj; wet lime- stone (slurry scrubbing, throwaway); cilJrate (solution scrubbing, regenerable, sulfur by-product); and ammonia scrubbing (solution scrubbing, regenerable, S02-H2S04 by-product).* Y;_ • 17. Key Vords and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors Air pollution control equipment Sulfur oxides Scrubbers Expenses Heat transfer Fans Columns (process engineering) 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms Limestone Ammonia 17e. COSATl Field/Group 13B i\ 18. Availability Statement Unlimited 19.. Security Class (This Report) ' 20. Security Class ('1 his Page •" UNCLASSIFIED 21. No. of Pages 39 22. Price FORM NT): SO (10-70) USCOMM-DC ------- RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN FOR SELECTED SULFUR OXIDE CONTROL PROCESSES TASK |7 FINAL REPORT Submitted to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF AIR .PROGRAMS DIVISION OF CONTROL SYSTEMS Contract No. CPA 70-68 APPROVED : Project Director Manager Chemical Engineering Development /Director Researcn and Development I- ft ------- THEM..W. KELLOGG COMPANY A DIVISION OF PULLMAN INCORPORATED RESEARCH & ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT IKEUOCQI PAGE NO. REPORT RED-72-1268 DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN FOR SELECTED SULFUR OXIDE CONTROL PROCESSES TASK #7 FINAL REPORT EPA-OAP-DCS CONTRACT NO. CPA 70-68 MARCH 17, 1972 Staff: Period Covered: L. O. No.: Distribution: See Attached Sheet October 1971 to February 1972 4092-70 Copy No. Office of Air Programs 1-40 L. C. Axelrod 41 M. J. Cambon 42 C. W. Crady 43 R. E. Daze/C. F. Chatfield 44 J. B. Dwyer 45 S. E. Handman 46 A. N. Holmberg 47 W. Kusen 48 R. H. Multhaup 49 J,. J. O'Donnell 50 C. E. Scholer 51 W. C. Schreiner 52 F. H. Shipman 53 A. G. Sliger 54 M. J. Wall 55 T. H. Wasp , 56 R. I. D. (4) 57-60 AU ORS: ------- STAFF C. F. Chatfield P. Giambalvo W. Kusen D. Masi L. Schneider W. C. Schreiner A. G. Sliger D. Vichi T. H. Wasp U «K. ft ------- MWKLG-RED-72-1268 DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN FOR SELECTED SULFUR OXIDE CONTROL PROCESSES I TASK #7 FINAL REPORT CONTRACT NO. CPA 70-68 Submitted to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS CONTROL' SYSTEMS DIVISION by THE M. W. KELLOGG COMPANY RESEARCH & ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT HOUSTON, TEXAS March r», 1972 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Summary 3 Bases and Procedure for Evaluation "... 6 Discussion of Results 10 Appendix. . 20 ------- LIST OP TABLES 1. Net Investment Cost Breakdown 4 2. Characteristics of Selected Control Processes ........ 7 3. Net Investment Cost Breakdown 11 4. Magnesia Base Scrubbing - Detailed Cost Breakdown 27 5. Wet Limestone Scrubbing - Detailed Cost Breakdown ..... 28 6. Citrate Process - Detailed Cost Breakdown . . . . t 29 7. Ammonia Scrubbing (A) - Detailed Cost Breakdown 30 ------- OF FIGURES !. Typical Turbulet Contact Absorber Scrubber . . 13 2. standard Impinjet Scrubber 3. Amnonia Scrubbing (A) - Schematic of ^ implnjet Scrubber . • • iii ------- INTRODUCTION Under Contract Number 70-68 awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Air Programs (OAP), The M. W. Kellogg Company has been supplying engineering services comprising studies and evaluations of different aspects of air pollution control technology. Specific assignments are made via individual task orders. For example, under Task #5 specifications, prelimi- nary process designs and economic evaluations were made of twelve different S02-control processes for power plant stack gases (final report PB-204711). In follow-up Task #6 Kellogg made an approximate parametric study of investment as a function of both the concentration of sulfur in the fuel (coal) and plant capacity for several control processes selected by EPA from the Task #5 group. As a corollary to Task #6, EPA requested that Kellogg initiate detailed capital estimate breakdowns for some major processing steps in selected control processes. Again, the results of the Task #5 studies were to be used in making the investment breakdowns. As Phase I of Task #7S estimates were prepared for typical scrubbing processing areas, indicating capital costs attributable to scrubber, reheat, ductwork and fans. The control processes studied were selected to provide a range of different type gas scrubbing ------- 'contactors, viz., packed column, Impinjet™ scrubber (multi-stage spray column) and Turbulent Contact Absorber, TCA™ (contains beds of hollow plastic spheres). This report presents the results of cost breakdowns made for the following control processes; selected by OAP: Magnesia Base (slurry scrubbing, regenerable by-product) Wet Limestone (slurry scrubbing, throwaway) Citrate (solution scrubbing, regenerable, sulfur by-product) Ammonia Scrubbing (A} (solution scrubbing, regenerable, by-product), ------- SUMMARY Detailed investment cost breakdowns are presented for the individual processing steps in the scrubbing areas of the following pollution control processes for power plant stack gases: • Magnesia Base • Wet Limestone • Citrate • Ammonia (A) These are four of the twelve processes for which preliminary process designs and economic evaluations were made under Task #5 of the same EPA contract. The cost estimates made during the Task #5 study served as the bases in breaking out the investment costs for the scrubbers, scrubber circuit, flue gas reheat circuit, induced draft fans, and ductwork, valves and expansion joints for the selected processes. Table 1 summarizes the net investment costs for each of the categories considered. To arrive at figures for the incremental costs owing to the installation of the control plant "standard plant deductions" are subtracted from the total investment required for fans and ductwork for the combined power plant and control plant, The figures in Table 1 include these cost deductions. Some general observations which can be made about the breakdown are: (1) The Citrate Process has the most expensive scrubber, a field-fabricated packed tower, while the -3- ------- TABLE 1 NET INVESTMENT COST BREAKDOWN (looo MW - 3-55&S Coal) Description Scrubber Scrubber Circuit Reheat Circuit Fans Magnesia Base 3,460 6,810 2,730 970 Wet Limestone /*» 3,620 6,130 2,290 610 Citrate *\ */ 4,620 7,930 2,930 900 Ammonia (_A) 2S920 4,450 2,240 890 Ductwork, Valves & Expansion Joints 1,300 770 1,610 710 ------- ImpinjetT^ scrubber used in the Ammonia (A) Scrubbing Process is the least expensive. The TCA Absorbers used in Magnesia Base and Wet Limestone Scrubbing are intermediate in costj (2) The reheat systems are based on total carbon steel construction, while alloy construction probably will be needed for the gas cooler, thus adding $3-^ MM to the reheat system investments. Most likely, a different type of flue gas reheating system will be employed in any commercialization of the control processes; and (3) Control plants with two sets of scrubbers (Venturis for fly ash removal and main scrubbers for sulfur oxide removal in Magnesia and Citrate Processes) require about twice as much investment for ductwork as do those which utilize the main scrubber for both fly ash and sulfur oxide removal (Wet Limestone and Ammonia). As mentioned in the Task #5 final report (PB 204711) these preliminary investments for the various control processes should be viewed more on a comparative rather than on an individual basis, and this applies also to the results in this report. The sparsity of input information for many of the control processes and the limited effort authorized by the Task Order for the orig- inal study essentially limits the use of the results to process screening and program planning which were OAP's objectives. -5- ------- BASES AND PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION The following four scrubbing processes were selected for evaluation in this study: • Magnesia Base • Wet Limestone • Citrate • Ammonia (A) These four represent a cross-section of the different type scrubbing systems studied for Task #5. Table 2, "Charac- teristics of Selected Control Process", indicates that the four processes selected for study represent three types of absorbers: turbulent contact (TCA™) absorber, packed, and multi-stage spray column (Impinjet™); two types of scrubbing liquids: slurry and solublei two types of ash/solids removal: venturi and main scrubber; and three types of by-product: sulfuric acid, elemental sulfur, and throwaway slurry. All processes have six trains of equipment treating the flue gas from a 1000 MW power plant burning 3»5$ sulfur coal. Sulfur removal from the flue gas is at a nominal 90$ and all four processes have systems for reheating the scrubbed flue gas. The cost estimates made for the control processes for Task #5 were based on new plants (i.e., not retrofits) and battery limits only. In order to obtain investment figures attributable only to ------- TABLE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED CONTROL PROCESSES Type of Process Absorber TM Magnesia Base TCA TM Wet Limestone TCA Citrate Packed TM Ammonia (A) Impinjet Scrubbing Liquid Slurry Slurry Soluble Soluble Ash/ So lids Removal Venturi Scrubber Venturi Scrubber Type of By-Pyoduct Acid Throwaway Sulfur Acid Note: All processes have 6 trains and reheat systems, ------- the SOg-control plant, certain "standard plant" deductions were made for fans and ductwork - i.e., equipment which would be required for any power plant, with or without a downstream pollution control system. This procedure has been followed also for the present study. The four scrubbing systems considered were sub-divided as follows: 1. Scrubber 2. Scrubber Circuit 3. Reheat Circuit 4. Pans 5. Ductwork, Valves and Expansion Joints The Appendix of this report contains flow sheets and equipment lists indicating the process equipment used for each of the above classifications. The investment figures presented in the Task #5 final report were for the entire SOg-control plant, including scrubbing section, scrubbing liquid recovery regeneration and sulfur by-product production where applicable. When considering each plant section alone, certain prorations had to be made based on the full plant investment. For example, it is very difficult to determine accurately the portion of start-up and contractor's fees that should be allocated to each of the processing sections. ------- As mentioned in the Task #5 final report, sufficient time, funds and input data were not available to permit a very detailed estimate of each process to be made. The major use of the results was expected to be in process screening and program planning by EPA-OAP, in which case the relative merits of the various processes would be of prime importance. Similarly, the Task #7 cost break- down results should be viewed in this light. -9- ------- DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The tabulated results of the detailed cost breakdowns for the various processing steps for the four selected control processes are presented In the Appendix as Tables 4 - 7> The costs are broken down as follows: 1. Major Equipment Cost 2. Foundations, Concrete, Steel, Buildings, Paint and Insulation 3. Other Costs (Construction Forces, Home Office Engineering, Procurement, Insurance, Start-up, and Contractor's Fee) 4. Sub-Total Investment Cost (excl. standard plant deductions) 5. Net Investment Cost (includes standard plant deductions) Sub-breakdowns include total direct materials costs and sub- contracts; also piping, electrical, and instrument costs are indicated. Table 3 summarizes these individual costs by indicating the net investment for all four processes for each of the categories studied, viz., the scrubber/, scrubber circuit, reheat circuit, fans, and ductwork, valves and expansion joints. ------- TABLE 3 NET INVESTMENT COST BREAKDOWN Description Scrubber Scrubber Circuit Reheat Circuit Fans Ductwork, Valves & Expansion Joints (1000 MW Magnesia Base jf ~^>> 3,460 6,810 2,730 - 3.5%S-C6al) Wet Limestone (? 3,620 6,130 2,290 Citrate Ammonia (A) . 4,620 2,920 7,930 4,450 2,930 2,240 970(2,250) 610(1,890) 900(2,180)890(2,170) 1,300(2,320) 770(1,790)1,610(2,630)710(1,730) Total Plant Investment* 26,800 10,800 21,200 16,200 ( ) - excluding "standard plant deduction" -11- ------- Scrubb'er Three types of scrubbing devices are considered in this study. Magnesia Base and Wet Limestone Scrubbing use multi-bed turbulent contact absorbers, each stage containing an unrestrained bed of hollow plastic spheres (TCA ), designed and manufactured by Universal Oil Products Company, Air Correction Division. Figure 1 depicts a typical turbulent contact absorber scrubber. The Ammonia Scrubbing process utilizes a multi-staged perforated plate-impingement scrubber with separate circulation of liquor streams. The bottom stage is designed to have a high dust (fly ash) - removal efficiency. Figure 2 shows a standard Impinjet^M scrubber designed and manufactured by the W. W. Sly Manufacturing Company, and Figure 3 schematically depicts the scrubber design used in the Ammonia Scrubbing control process. Lastly, a standard design packed column is the scrubber used in the Citrate Process. The investment figures presented in Table 3 for the scrubbers alone indicate that the packed tower absorber used in the Citrate Process is the most expensive, $4.62 MM. This is consistent with the high sub-contract costs for field fabrication of the large TM diameter towers. The TCA's for Magnesia and Wet Limestone Scrubbing, as expected, require the same investment, about $3.5 MM. The Ammonia Scrubbing Impinjet™ scrubber is the least costly, slightly less than f>3 MM. 2- ------- FIGURE 1 TYPICAL TURBULENT CONTACT ABSORBER SCRUBBER Gas outlet 4. Liquid drain 13 ------- STANDARD TMP1NJFT SCRUBBER ------- FIGURE 3 AMMONIA SCRUBBING (A) -•SCHEMATIC. OF IMPINJET SCRUBBER SO2 absorption stage absorption stage SO] absorption stage Dust removal stage Stack gas in Gas out Liquor distributor S\. L. /NTV W n X \/ n Spray nozzles for gas separation and initial dust removal Water-dust slurry to settling tank Ammoniacal liquor feed to 4th stage Liquor to 4th stage circulation system Feed to 3d stage To 3d stage circulation system Feed to 2d stage To 2d stage circulation system Recirculated water for dust removal 15 ------- Scrubber Circuit A cost breakdown also was made for the scrubbers including their auxiliary equipment. This scrubber circuit comprises the scrubbing liquid circulation piping, circulation pumps and tanks, and renturi scrubbers (where applicable). Ductwork for the flue gas is excluded. The breakdown for the four control processes shows that the Citrate scrubbing equipment has the highest investment, $7-93 MM. This is reflected by the high field erection cost of the packed tower and the cost of venturi scrubbers which are required for fly ash removal from the flue gas before the latter enters the scrubbing tower. The MgO and Wet Limestone scrubbing circuits both use equivalent TCA-^ absorbers, but the Magnesia Base pro- cessing sequence is costlier ($6.8l vs. 6.13 MM) because it has Venturi scrubbers which represent a $1.2 MM sub-contract cost. The lower investment cost, $4.45 MM, for the Ammonia scrubbing section is due to the absence of Venturis, a cheaper scrubber (Impinjet™), and a lower circulation rate requirement of scrubbing solution. Reheat Circuit All f6ur control processes have systems for reheating the scrubbed flue gas from their saturated temperatures of about 120°F to 250°F. The basis for selecting the reheat system used -16- ------- was a TVA study -1- in which five different stack gas reheat methods, where evaluated: (1) direct heating with natural gas (2) indirect heat exchange between the stack gas and a heat- transfer liquid, (3) indirect heat exchange between the gas streams before and after scrubbing, , (4) indirect heating with steam (in a new power plant designed to produce excess steam), and (5) direct heating with cool in a stoker system. In accordance with TVA's conclusion, method (2) was used in making the process design for those SC>2-control plants requiring stack gas reheating. A closed loop circulation of water is used as the indirect heat exchange medium for cooling and reheating the flue gas. Materials of construction for both gas cooler and reheater were specified as carbon steel. As mentioned in the Task #5 final report, it was concluded that TVA's specification of carbon steel material of construction for the flue gas cooler located downstream from the air preheater is inadequate since the gas will be cooled below its dewpoint, thereby forming E^SOj^ by the combination of SOo and water in the flue gas. A corrosion resistant material (e.g., Alloy 20) would be required for this corrosive service. Kellogg requested several heat exchanger vendors to quote prices for Alloy 20 exchangers of the large size required in the reheat circuits (about 250,000 ft2 each). Sulfur Oxide Removal From Power Plant Stack Gases - Use of Limestone in Wet Scrubbing Process, TVA, Contract No. TV-29233A, 1969. -17- ------- A reluctance by the vendors to quote any figures required Kellogg to stay with the cost estimate for carbon steel. A price for the alloy exchangers was finally received, but at too late a date to incorporate into plant cost investments. It was found that an additional $3-4 MM in investment would be necessary if Alloy 20 gas coolers are used. The costs presented in Table 3 for the four control processes' reheat systems, however, are for consistency with the Tas"k #5 work, based on the original TVA evaluation, viz., both gas coolers and heaters are carbon steel with aluminum fins on the gas side. The plant investments for the reheat systems (which includes the exchangers, water circulating pumps, tanks, and piping) range from $2.2 to $2.9 MM, the differences relating directly to slight differences in reheat levels and total flue gas handled for the different processes. For example, in the Magnesia Base scrubbing process the load on the exchangers is increased by the addition of flue gas from the magnesium sulfate reducer/calciner. Pans Induced draft fans are required in balanced draft power plants to draw the flue gases through the steam generation equipment and discharge it to the base of the stack. The standard power plant fans are estimated to supply a pressure differential of 20 inches of water which is needed to induce the flue gas to flow from the -18- ------- boiler through the superheaters, reheaters, economizer, air preheater, and electrostatic precipitator. The pollution control plant requires additional fan horsepower due to pressure drop of the gas in scrubbers, exchangers, and ducts. In order to obtain a cost figure for fans attributable to the control process alone, the investment for the I.D. fans for the control process for the complete system (i.e., power plant and S02 control) is reduced by the amount needed for the standard power plant by itself. This allowance has been designated as the "standard plant deduction" which for a 1000 MW power plant is $1.28 MM. Thus, the total I.D. fan investment is reduced by this amount and the resulting net incremental investments for the S02~control processes shown in Table 3 range from $0.6l MM to $0.97 MM, the difference related directly to the overall pressure drop through the control process equipment. Ductwork This category comprises ductwork for the flue gases, expan- sion joints, and duct valves. As was done for the fans, a deduction is taken for the portion of ductwork that would be required in the standard power plant which does not have a pollution control system. A total of $1.02 MM' is deducted from the total ductwork investment to arrive at a figure for the incremental cost owing to the installation of the control plant. The net investment for ductwork for the Citrate Process and -19- ------- -.Magnesia, Base Scrubbing Process are $1.6l MM and $1.30 MM, 's''""•-. respectively. The corresponding investments are $0.77 MM and $0.71 MM for Wet Limestone and Ammonia Scrubbing. The approximate ratio of two in investment for the two sets of processes is explained by the fact that Magnesia and Citrate require ducting for gas flow to/from venturi scrubbers and main scrubbers, while Wet Limestone and Ammonia have ductwork associated with flue gas transferred in and out of main scrubbers, only; i.e., no Venturis. -20- ------- APPENDIX This Appendix includes: 1. An equipment list for each process and processing step studied. 2. Plow sheets for the following scrubbing process: • Magnesia Base (PD-118-D, 5/18/71) • Wet Limestone (PD-108-D, 5/21/71) • Citrate Process (PD-121-D, 5/24/71) • Ammonia (A) (PD-113-D, 5/19/71) The various processing steps considered in the cost breakdown are delineated on each flow sheet. 3. Tables 4 to 7, showing the detailed investment breakdowns for the selected processes. -21- ------- EQUIPMENT LIST MAGNESIA BASE: Scrubber - E-l A-F Scrubbing Circuit - E-l A-P, E-3 A-P, J-l A-F, J-5 A-P, Piping; ex-duetwork Reheat Circuit - C-l A-P, C-2 A-F, F-2, J-4 A-F, Piping; ex-duetwork Pans - J-3 A-F Ductwork - Air Preheater to Stack, includes valves and expansion joints WET LIMESTONE: Scrubber - E-l A-P Scrubbing Circuit - E-l A-P, F-5 A-P, J-l A-P, : Pipingj ex-duetwork Reheat Circuit - C-l A-F, C-2 A-F, F-6, J-3 A, B, •Pip ing; ex-due twork Fans - J-2 A-F Due twork - Air Preheater to Stack, includes valves and expansion joints CITRATE: Scrubber - E-2 A-F Scrubbing Circuit - C-3 A-P, E-1A-F, E-2 A-F, J-3A-F, J-4 A-F, Piping; ex-ductwork Reheat Circuit - C-l A-P, C-2 A-F, F-12, J-2 A-P, -> Piping; ex- due twork Fans' * J-l A-P Ductwork - Air Preheater to Stack, includes valves and expansion joints -22- ------- EQUIPMENT LIST (CONTINUED) AMMONIA SCRUBBING (A); Scrubber - E-l A-F Scrubbing Circuit - E-l A-F, F-l A, B, F-2 A, B, F-3 A, B, J-l A, B, J-2, A, B, J-3 A, B, J-4 A, B, J-6 A, B. Reheat Circuit - C-l A-F, C-2 A-F, F-5, J-8 A, B, Piping; ex-ductwork Fans - J-9 A"F Ductwork - Air Preheater to Stack, includes valves and expansion joints. -23- ------- ------- X / 5OT/MR 6-' PBULK w "fc NOTE -FLOW SATES IMSIDC CLOCK FOB i orfe SIMILAR U«ITS \ IBSM r~r rwte/ Y- —-(?} D—S Ir^^"-^^-^ ™- ------- REHEATERS \ I i3S>°»f •) *N lO.^"*l5!CA «1 '/ (IMCRCBElnUlfcAeMj ?»XT»fT«-«l 5H.«~«"< J ^^ f .-.S^SMS-. U0JSSSS*}}*-"' I «v SK,400/(5l) EQUIPMENT SHOWN WITHIN DASHED UNES NOT i«i.u»it> IN pnoc •ajcitig>emu. PON» *TM*tt OP Luujr ------- E-^_ __ _2**fi*^ TBACWSjCXttrTF-* ------- TABLE 4 MAGNESIA BASE SCRUBBING DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN "TAll Costs in $M) Description Scrubber Reheat Ductwork, Valves Scrubber Circuit Circuit Fans & Expansion Joints Major Equipment Cost Direct Materials Sub-Contracts Piping, Elect. & Instr. 2,120 2,328 1,200 525 1,643 1,410 170 195 1,182 Foundations, Concrete, Steel, Buildings, Paint & Insul. Direct Materials Sub-Contracts 45 Sub-Total Mat'l. &S.C. 2,165 92 4,145 37 20 20 1,870 1,625 23 1,205 Other Costs Construction Forces, Home Home Office Eng., Proc., Insur., Start-Up & Contractor's Fee 1,295 Sub-Total Investment Cost for Process Plant 3,460 Other Investment Costs Deduct Standard Plant 2,665 6,810 860 625 1,115 2,730 2,250 2,320 (1,280) (1,020) Net Investment Cost 3,460 6,810 2,730 970 1,300 -28- ------- TABLE 5 WET LIMESTONE SCRUBBING DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN (All Costs in ?M) Scrubber Reheat Ductwork, Valves Description Scrubber Circuit Circuit Fans & Expansion Joints Major Equipment Cost Direct Materials 2,100 2,360 1,359 1,140 936 Sub-Contracts - 162 - - Piping, Elect. & Instr. - 662 141 143 Foundations ^Concrete, Steel, Buildings, Paint & Insul. Direct Materials 124 141 33 21 17 Sub-Contracts - - 20 - Sub-Total Mat'l. & S.C. 2,224 3,325 1,553 1,304 953 Other Costs Construction Forces, Home Office Eng., Proc., Insur., Start-Up & Contractor's Fee 1,396 2,805 737 586 857 Sub-Total Investment Cost for Process Plant 3,620 6,130 2,290 1,890 1,790 Other Investment Costs Deduct Standard Plant - (1,280) (1,020) Net Investment Cost 3,620 6,130 2,290 610 770 -29- ------- TABLE 6 CITRATE PROCESS DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN (All Costs in ?M) Scrubber Reheat Ductwork, Valves Description Scrubber Circuit Circuit Fans & Expansion Joints Major Equipment Cost Direct Materials 720 1,030 1,798 1,320 1,322 Sub-Contracts 2,748 3,943 - Piping, Elec. & Instr. - 450 186 192 Foundations, Concrete, Steel, BuiIdings^ Paint & Insul. Direct Materials 44 84 40 19 21 Sub-Contracts - - 25 - Sub-Total Mat'l & S.C. 3,512 5,512 2,049 1,531 1,343 Other Costs Construction Forces, Home Office Eng.,Proc., Insur., Start-up & Contractor's Fee 1,108 2,418 881 649 1,287 Sub-Total Investment Cost for Process Plant 4,620 7,930 2,930 2,180 2,630 Other Investment Costs Deduct Standard Plant - (1,280) (1,020) Met Investment Cost 4,620 7,930 2,930 900 1,610 -30- ------- TABLE 7 AMMONIA SCRUBBING (A) DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN (All Costs in ?M) Scrubber Reheat Ductwork, Valves Description Scrubber Circuit Circuit Fans & Expansion Joints Major Equipment Cost Direct Materials 1,635 1,835 1,341 1,350 972 Sub-Contracts - - - Piping, Elect. & Instr. - 400 140 176 Foundations, Concrete, Steel; Bui Id ings 7 " ."~" Paint & Insul. Direct Materials 87 125 32 20 14 Sub-Contracts - - 20 - Sub-Total Mat'l. & S.C. 1,722 2,360 1,533 1,546 986 Other Costs Construction Forces, Home Office Eng., Proc., Insur., Start-up & Contractor?s Fee 1,198 2,090 707 624 744 Sub-Total Investment Cost for Process Plant 2,920 4,450 2,240 2,170 1,730 Other Investment Costs Deduct Standard Plant - - - (1,280) (1,020) Net Investment Cost 2,920 4,450 2,240 890 710 -31- ------- |