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-
------- |