EPA-450/3-75-058
February 1975
UPDATE AND IMPROVEMENT
OF THE CONTROL COST
SEGMENT OF THE IMPLEMEN-
TATION PLANNING PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-75-058
UPDATE AND IMPROVEMENT
OF THE CONTROL COST
SEGMENT OF THE IMPLEMEN-
TATION PLANNING PROGRAM
by
F. L. Bellegia, J. C. Mathews, R. E. Paddock,
and M . M . Wisler
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Contract No. 68-02-0607
Program Element No. 2AC129
EPA Project Officer: Dr. Edwin L. Meyer, Jr.
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
February 1975.
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors
and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from
the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a
fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency
by Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27709, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-0607. The contents
of this report are reproduced herein as received from Research Triangle
Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to
be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Publication No. EPA^50/3-75~058
11
-------
UPDATE OF CONTROL COST SEGMENT OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROGRAM
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES V
LIST OF TABLES vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 REDEFINITION OF SIC-PROCESS CODES 3
2.1 REFERENCES 4
3.0 DEVICE MATRIX 19
4.0 COMBINED EFFICIENCY OF TWO PARTICULATE CONTROL UNITS
IN TANDEM 41
4.1 EMPIRICAL CORRECTION FACTOR METHOD ... 41
4.2 OVERALL EFFICIENCY BY ANALYTICAL METHOD 47
4.3 TANDEM EFFICIENCY ALGORITHMS - COMPARISON 52
4.4 CALCULATION FROM EXPERIMENTAL DATA 53
4.4.1 Graphical Method 53
4.4.2 Approximate Model 62
4.4.3 Analytical Method 64
5.0 DEVICE EFFICIENCY 68
5.1 MECHANICAL DEVICES - EFFICIENCY 68
5.2 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS - EFFICIENCY 69
5.3 ADD-ON DEVICE EFFICIENCY 72
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROGRAM PARTICULATE CONTROL
SYSTEM COSTS 73
6.1 DISCUSSION'AND BASIS FOR EQUATIONS 73
6.1.1 Capital Costs 73
6.1.2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Expenses ... 76
6.1.3 Annualized Capital Costs 84
6.2 CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS - PARTICULATE CONTROL
SYSTEMS 87
6.3 ANNUAL OPERATING COST EQUATIONS - PARTICULATE
CONTROL SYSTEMS 89
6.4 ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS EQUATION - PARTICULATE
CONTROL SYSTEMS 92
6.5 PRINCIPAL DATA SOURCES USED IN DEVELOPING
PARTICULATE CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST EQUATIONS ... 94
7.0 SULFUR DIOXIDE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS 94
7.1 DISCUSSION . 94
7.1.1 Selection of the SO? Control System 97
7.1.2 Wet Gas Cleaning 97
7.1.3 Sulfuric Acid Plants 100
7.1.4 Sulfur Plants 103
7.1.5 Molecular Sieves 103
7.1.6 Dimethylaniline Scrubbing 103
7.1.7 SOp Absorbent Systems 104
iii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
7.2 CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL
COST EQUATIONS 106
8.0 CONVERSION OF OIL- OR GAS-FIRED BOILERS TO COAL-FIRED. . 128
9.0 REFERENCES 131
APPENDIX I 134
APPENDIX II 141
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Empirical correction factors vs. penetration 45
2A. Cumulative size - asphalt plant dust 54
3A. Fractional efficiency curves 55
2B. Cumulative size - open hearth dust 59
3B. Fractional efficiency curves 60
4. Plot of percentile vs. Z 63
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
LA. Industries and processes by the standard
industrial classification code 5
IB. Combustion processes 18
2. Pollution reduction devices or methods 20
3A. Device matrix 22
3B. Combustion process 38
4. Empirical correction factors 44
5. Tandem efficiencies by empirical method 46
6. Tandem efficiencies by analytical method 51
7A. Efficiency calculations - comparison of algorithms-
Example A 56
7B. Efficiency calculations - comparison of algorithms-
Example B 61
8. Selected dusts - size parameters 67
9. Utility unit costs for particulate control systems 92
10. S02 concentration limitations in the application
of S02 control systems 95
11. S02 desulfurization processes 105
12. Chemical and utility unit costs for desulfurization
processes 141
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The control cost segment of the current version of the
Implementation Planning Program (IPP) generates capital and operating
cost data resulting from the simulated application of specified partic-
ulate and SO- control devices or systems to each point source identified
in the primary data file.
The point sources themselves in this current version of IPP are
identified by four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes and associated two-digit process codes. This list was based
upon information available to the National Air Pollution Control Agency
(NAPCA), which funded development of the IPP, and is primarily coordinated
with the National Emission Data Bank maintained at that time by NAPCA.
Since IPP has become operational, NAPCA has been subsumed into the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Emission Data Bank
has greatly expanded. The SIC-process code list has not been materially
changed since its inception, however.
This SIC-process code list is related to appropriate particulate
and S02 control devices via a control device applicability matrix.
Only one device with its specified removal efficiency value can be
applied at a time. There is no capability to use tandem particulate
removal devices to achieve desired levels of control.
Device removal efficiency was preset in the program at three levels
for each particulate control device, corresponding to high, inter-
mediate, and low removal efficiency. Cost data generated for
-------
particulate control devices was thus related to the specified device
at three levels of pollutant removal efficiency. SO* control costs,
however, were determined at the one specified level of S0? removal
capability for each applicable control process.
For the control cost segment of the IPP to provide an effective
contribution to the objectives of the program, there is a need for
periodical review of the methodology itself, and an update of both
applicable technology and cost data. The following report covers
such a review and update comprising:
1. Restructuring of the SIC's and process groupings;
2. Expansion of the control device applicability matrix to
include use of tandem particulate control devices as well
as S0~ control processes ; emphasis is on devices actually
used ;
3. Determination of overall removal efficiency of tandem
particulate removal devices ;
4. Relating reported removal efficiency of particulate
control devices to specific SIC and process codes
rather than an established value for each device ;
5. Updating or developing new cost equations, and updating
unit cost data.
-------
2.0 REDEFINITION OF SIC-PROCESS CODES
The objective of this task as defined by the EPA Project Officer
was to expand the SIG-process code list to include the latest possible
information in defining SIC's and processes that, in RTl's judgment, were
eligible to be defined as point sources for the National Emission Data
Bank, and to restructure the list where necessary into economically grouped
SIC units. "Point sources" in this context has been taken to mean processes
that are capable of emitting 100 or more tons per year of either particu-
late matter or sulfur oxides. Accordingly, RTI has developed the list of
redefined SIC-process codes presented as table 1. Each SIC-process code
has the process defined. Many processes have been added to this list, and
the combustion list has been lengthened considerably.
It should be noted that there are combustion process codes that
are not in the format "XO" of those in the existing IPP list, and for
that reason "XO," where it appears in the SIC-oriented list, should be
taken to mean "XO and 9X," since combustion processes now are numbered
00, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 through 99. It should also
be noted that, because the list has been regrouped as discussed below,
in many cases there are more than 9 unit process types within an "SIC
code." When this occurs, the reserved combustion numbers 10, 20, 30,...,
have been skipped so that there will be no possible confusion. For
example, SIC-process code 071310 unambiguously denotes coal combustion,
8
>10 Btu/hr, general pulverized, as used in grist mills, including
custom flour mills.
-------
In order to show more explicitly the economic relationship
between many unit processes, the EPA Project Officer requested
that detailed four-digit SIC codes be achieved in favor of a grouping
under a general two-digit followed by "00" SIC "code." This has
been done as much as RTI judged desirable. For example, SIC "code"
1100 includes SIC codes 1111, 1112, 1212, and 1213, as originally
assigned by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Each of these
generalizations has been shown explicitly in the list. One side effect
of this approach has been to materially shorten the list of codes in
those cases where an essentially identical polluting process is used in
several SIC's that are grouped together.
2.1 REFERENCES
In addition to use of the documents listed below, extensive per-
sonal contacts with other RTI personnel and with various EPA personnel in
the Industrial Studies Branch, the National Air Data Branch, and else-
where, were made in verifying identification of sources, their potential
for emission, emission factors, and Source Classification Codes of the
National Emissions Data Bank.
1. Standard Industrial Classification Code Manual, U.S. Department
of Commerce.
2. AP-42.
3. APTD-1135.
-------
Table l.(A). Industries and processes by the standard
industrial classification code
0714 Corn Shelling, Hay Baling, and Threshing Service
XO Combustion
01 Corn Shelling
02 Hay Baling
03 Threshing
0723 Grist Mills, Including Custom Flour Mills
XO Combustion
01 Shipping or receiving
02 Transferring, conveying, etc.
03 Screening and cleaning
04 Drying
05 Processing corn meal
06 Processing soybeans
07 Cleaning barley or wheat
08 Cleaning milo
09 Milling barley flour
11 Barley feed manufacturing
0724 Cotton Ginning and Compressing
XO Combustion
01 Unloading fan
02 Cleaner
03 Stick and burr machine
04 Miscellaneous
1000 Metal Ore Mining (includes 1000 to 1099)
XO Combustion
01 Shaft mining, general
02 Strip mining, general
03 Open pit mining, general
04 Crushing, general
05 Drying, general
06 Gold processing
07 Molybdenum milling
08 Titanium pickling
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
1100 Coal Mining (includes 1111, 1112, 1211, 1212, and 1312)
XO Combustion
01 Shaft mining, general
02 Strip mining, general
03 Pit mining, general
04 Fluidized bed dryer
05 Flash dryer
06 Multilouvered dryer
07 Continuous carrier dryer
08 Rotary dryer
09 Cascade dryer
11 Crushing
12 Screening and sizing
1400 Mining and Quarrying of Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels
XO Combustion
01 Mining, general
02 Rock, primary crushing
03 Rock, secondary crushing and screening
04 Rock, tertiary crushing and screening
05 Rock, recrushing and screening
06 Rock, fines mill
07 Rock, screening, conveying, and handling
09 Phosphate rock, drying
11 Phosphate rock, grinding
12 Phosphate rock, transfer and storage
13 Phosphate rock, storage pile
14 Ceramic clay, drying
15 Ceramic clay, grinding
16 Ceramic clay, storage
17 Fly ash, sintering
18 Clay and coke mixed, sintering
19 Clay and coke mixed, crushing and screening
21 Natural clay, sintering
22 Natural clay, crushing and screening
23 Limestone crushing, primary
24 Limestone crushing, secondary
25 Lime kiln, vertical
26 Lime kiln, rotary
27 Phosphate rock, rotary kiln
28 Phosphate rock, grinding
29 Sintering, not elsewhere classified
31 Grinding,not elsewhere classified
32 Drying, not elsewhere classified
33 Transfer and storage, not elsewhere classified
34 Barium ore grinding
35 Barium reduction kiln
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
2010 Manufacturing: Meat Products (includes 2010 to 2019)
XO Combustion
01 Meat smoking
2040 Grain Mill Products (includes 2040 to 2049)
XO Combustion
01 Shipping or receiving
02 Transferring, conveying, etc.
03 Screening and cleaning
04 Drying
05 Cornmeal processing
06 Soybean processing
07 Barley or wheat cleaning
08 Milo cleaning
09 Barley flour milling
11 Alfalfa grinding
12 Alfalfa dehydrating
13 Rice milling
14 Wet corn milling
2060 Manufacturing: Sugar (includes 2060 to 2069)
XO Combustion
01 Open field burning
02 Bagasse burning
2077 Animal and Marine Fats and Oils
01 Fish scrap processing driers
2080 Manufacturing: Beverages (includes 2080 to 2089)
XO Combustion
01 Grain handling
02 Drying spent grains
2090 Manufacturing Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred Products
(includes 2090 to 2099)
XO Combustion
01 Coffee roasting, direct fired
02 Coffee roasting,indirect fired
03 Coffee roasting, stoner and cooler
04 Coffee roasting, instant coffee spray dryer
2100 Tobacco Manufactures (includes 2100 to 2199)
XO Combustion
01 Mechanical steamming
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
2200 Textile Mill Products (includes 2200 to 2299)
XO Combustion
01 Fiberglass, regenerative furnace
02 Fiberglass, recuperative furnace
03 Fiberglass, forming
04 Fiberglass, curing oven
2400 Lumber and Wood Products including Furniture (includes 2400 to 2599)
XO Combustion
01 Conical burner
02 Debarking machine, saw, planers, sanders, etc.
03 Drying kilns
04 Creosote, pressure treating
2600 Manufacturing: Paper and Allied Products
XO Combustion
01 Kraft process, recovery boilers
02 Kraft process, smelt dissolving tank
03 Kraft process, lime kiln
04 Kraft process, fluid bed calciner
05 Kraft process, oxidation tower
06 Fiberboard manufacture, drying
2812 Manufacturing: Alkalies
XO Combustion
01 Conveying, transferring loading soda ash
2816 Manufacturing: Inorganic Pigments
XO Combustion
01 Calcination
02 Digestion
03 Chloride process
04 Chloride coke or ore drying
05 Ore grinding
06 Varnish reaction kettles
2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified
XO Combustion
01 Phosphoric acid, thermal process
02 Sulfuric acid, contact process
03 Sulfuric acid, lead chamber process
04 Sulfur recovery incinerator
05 Sulfur, Glaus
06 Calcium carbide, coke dryer
07 Calcium carbide, electric furnace
08 Calcium carbide, stack
09 Calcium carbide, calcination
8
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
2821 Manufacturing: Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and Non-
vulcanizable Elastomers
XO Combustion
01 Polyvinyl chloride process
02 Polypropylene process
03 Storage and handling of resins
2822 Manufacturing: Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable Elastomers)
XO Combustion
01 Reactor
02 Blow-down tanks
03 Drying
2824 Manufacturing: Synthetic Organic Fibers, Except Cellulosic
XO Combustion
01 Nylon finishing (oil vapor or mist)
02 Polyester finishing (oil vapor or mist)
2840 Manufacturing: -Soap, Detergents-, and^Gleaning Preparations,
Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations (includes
2840 to 2849)
XO Combustion
01 Detergent spray dryer
2850 Manufacturing: Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied
Products (includes 2850 to 2859)
XO Combustion
01 Pigment handling
02 Pigment kiln
2861 Manufacturing: Gum and Wood Chemicals
XO Combustion
01 Charcoal manufacturing, without chemical recovery plant
2870 Manufacturing: Agricultural Chemicals
XO Combustion
01 Nitrate fertilizer, dryers and coolers, with prilling tower
02 Nitrate fertilizer, prilling tower
03 Nitrate fertilizer, dryers and coolers, with granulator
04 Nitrate fertilizer, granulator
05 Normal super phosphate, grinding and drying
06 Ammonium or diammonium phosphate, dryer and cooler
07 Ammonium or diammonium phosphate, ammoniator-granulator
08 Ammonium phosphate, cage mill
09 Screening and bagging
11 Mixing fertilizer
12 Mixing pesticides
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
2893 Manufacturing: Printing Ink
XO Combustion
01 Pigment mixing
2895 Manufacturing: Carbon Black
XO Combustion
01 Channel process
02 Furnace process, oil
03 Furnace process, gas
2899 Manufacturing: Chemicals and Chemical Preparations Not Elsewhere
Classified
XO Combustion
01 Rotary frit furnace
2911 Petroleum Refining
XO Combustion (boilers and process heaters included)
01 Fluid cracking units
02 Moving-bed catalytic cracking units
03 Fluid coking units
04 Compressor internal combustion engines
05 Hydrocracking, fixed bed catalytic reactor I^S
06 Hydrogen treating
07 Chemical treating
08 Physical treating
09 Natural gas flares
2950 Manufacturing: Paving and Roofing Materials (includes 2951 and 2952)
XO Combustion
01 Asphalt batching, rotary dryer
02 Asphalt batching, other sources
03 Asphalt roofing, asphalt blowing
04 Asphalt roofing, felt saturation, dipping
05 Asphalt roofing, felt saturation, spraying
06 Asphalt roofing, felt saturation, dipping and spraying
07 Asphalt batching and quarrying, rock crushing
3210 Manufacturing: Glass Products (includes 3211, 3221, 3229, and 3231)
XO Combustion
01 Soda lime glass melting
3241 Manufacturing: Hydraulic Cement
XO Combustion
01 Quarrying general
02 Rock, primary crushing
03 Rock, secondary crushing
10
-------
04
05
06
07
08
09
11
12
13
14
15
Table l.(A)(con.)
Rock, tertiary crushing
Rock, recrushing and screening
Rock, fines mill
Raw material storate
Dry process, grinding and blending
Dry process, kilns
Dry process, finishing grinding
Wet process, grinding and blending
Wet process, kilns
Wet process, finish grinding
Packaging
3250 Manufacturing: Clay Products and Pottery (includes 3250 and 3269)
XO
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
11
12
13
14
15
Combustion
Ceramic clay, drying kilns
Ceramic clay, grinding
Ceramic clay, storage
Flay ash sintering
Clay mixed with coke sintering
Natural clay sintering
Brick, pipe, etc. raw material handling
Brick, pipe, etc.
Brick, pipe, etc.
Brick, pipe, etc.
Brick, pipe, etc.
Brick, pipe, etc.
Brick, pipe, etc.
Brick, pipe, etc.
raw material storage
tunnel kilns, gas-fired
tunnel kilns, oil-fired
tunnel kilns, coal-fired
periodic kilns, gas-fired
periodic kilns, oil-fired
periodic kilns, coal-fired
3270 Concrete Products (includes 3271, 3272, and 3273)
XO
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
11
12
13
14
15
16
Combustion
Concrete batching
Quarrying general
Rock, primary crushing
Rock, secondary crushing
Rock, tertiary crushing
Rock, recrushing and screening
Rock, fines mill
Raw material storage
Dry process, grinding and blending
Dry process, kilns
finishing grinding
grinding and blending
kilns
finishing grinding
Dry process,
Wet process,
Wet process,
Wet process,
Packaging
3274 Manufacturing : Lime
XO Combustion
01 Crushing, primary
02 Crushing, secondary
03 Calcining, vertical kiln
04 Calcining, rotary kiln
11
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
3275 Gypsum Products
XO Combustion
01 Handling
02 Sheetrock cutting and trimming
3281 Cut Stone and Stone Products
XO Combustion
01 General
3291 Manufacturing: Abrasive Products
XO Combustion
01 General crushing
3295 Minerals and Earths, Ground or Treated
XO Combustion
01 Crushing, general
02 Conveying, screening and shaking
03 Storage piles
04 Drying, general
3296 Manufacturing: Mineral Wool
XO Combustion
01 Mineral wool, cupola
02 Mineral wool, reverberatory furnace
03 Mineral wool, blow chamber
04 Mineral wool, curing oven
05 Mineral wool, cooler
3312 Blast Furnaces (including Coke Ovens, Steel Works, and Rolling
and Finishing Mills)
XO Combustion
01 By product coking, unloading
02 By product coking, charging
03 By product coking, coking cycle
04 By product coking, discharging
05 By product coking, quenching
06 By product coking, underfiring
07 Beehive ovens
08 Pig iron, blast furnace, ore charge
09 Pig iron, blast furnace, agglomerates charge
11 Pig iron, sintering, wind box
12 Pig iron, sintering, discharge
13 Steel, open hearth, no oxygen lance
14 Steel, open hearth, oxygen lance
15 Steel, basic.oxygen
16 Steel, electric arc, no oxygen lance
17 Steel, electric arc, oxygen lance
18 Scarfing
19 Bessemer
12
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
3313 Ferroalloy Manufacturing
XO Combustion
01 Open furnace 50% FeSi
02 Open Furnace 75% FeSi
03 Open furnace 90% FeSi
04 Open furnace silicon metal
05 Open furnace silico-manganese
3320 Iron Foundries (includes 3321 and 3322)
XO Combustion
01 Scrap preparation (principally for electric furnaces)
02 Cupola
03 Reverberatory furnace
04 Electric induction furnace
05 Electric arc furnace
06 Sand handling and preparation
07 Annealing (malleable iron)
08 Inoculation (ductile iron)
09 Casting
11 Casting shakeout
12 Cleaning
13 Finishing
3323 Steel Foundries
XO Combustion
01 Crucible furnace
02 Pneumatic converter furnace
03 Electric arc furnace
04 Electric induction furnace
05 Open hearth furnace
06 Open hearth, oxygen lanced
07 Casting
08 Casting shakeout
09 Cleaning
11 Finishing
3331 Copper Smelting Ibs/ton of ore concentrate
XO Combustion
01 Roaster
02 Reverberatory furnace (w/o roaster)
03 Reverberatory furnace (w/roaster)
04 Converter (w/o roaster)
05 Converter (w/roaster)
06 Refining
07 Materials handling
3332 Lead Smelting
XO Combustion
01 Downdraft sinterer & crushing
02 Updraft sinterer & crushing
13
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
03 Blast furnace
04 Reverberatory furnace
05 Materials handling
3333 Zinc Smelting
XO Combustion
01 Downdraft roaster-sinterer
02 Updraft roaster-sinterer
03 Updraft recirculating roaster-sinterer
04 Roaster (separate sintering)
05 Sintering
06 Horizontal retorts
07 Vertical retorts
08 Electrolytic reducer
09 Materials handling
3334 Primary Production of Aluminum
XO Combustion
01 Bauxite grinder
02 Calciner
03 Anode baking furnace
04 Prebaked reduction cell
05 Horizontal stud Soderburg cell
06 Vertical stud Soderburg cell
07 Materials handling
3339 Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals, Not Elsewhere
Classified
XO Combustion
01 Ore handling and grinding
02 Roasting
03 Sintering
04 Converting
05 Reducing
06 Refining
3340 Secondary Smelting, Refining, Casting, Rolling, Drawing, and
Extruding of Nonferrous Metals (includes 3340 to 3369)
XO Combustion
01 Scrap preparation
02 Aluminum, sweating furnace
03 Aluminum, smelting crucible furnace
04 Aluminum, smelting reverberatory furnace
05 Aluminum, chlorination station
06 Brass or bronze, blast furnace
07 Brass or bronze, crucible furnace
08 Brass or bronze, electric induction furnace
09 Brass or bronze, cupola
11 Brass or bronze, reverberatory furnace
14
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
12 Brass or bronze, rotary furnace
13 Lead, pot furnace
14 Lead, reverberatory furnace
15 Lead, blast furnace/cupola
16 Lead, rotary reverberatory
17 Magnesium, pot furnace
18 Zinc, retort reduction furnace
19 Zinc, horizontal muffle furnace
21 Zinc, pot furnace
22 Zinc, kettle sweat furnace, general scrap charge
23 Zinc, kettle sweat furnace, residual scrap charge
24 Zinc, reverberatory sweat furnace, general scrap charge
25 Zinc, reverberatory sweat furnace, residual scrap charge
26 Zinc, galvanizing kettles
27 Zinc, calcining kiln
28 Nickel flux furnace
29 Zirconium oxide kiln
31 Other metal furnaces not classified
32 Sand handling and preparation
33 Casting
34 Casting shakeout
35 Cleaning
36 Finishing
3390 Iron and Steel Forgings, Nonferrous Forgings, and Miscellaneous
Primary Metal Products (includes 3390 to 3399)
XO Combustion
01 Forge furnaces
3400 Fabricated Metal Products Except Ordnance Machinery and
Transportation Equipment (includes 3400 to 3499)
XO Combustion
01 Cleaning
02 Surface coating
03 Milling
3500 Manufacturing: Machinery Except Electrical (includes 3500 to 3599)
XO Combustion
01 Surface coating
3600 Manufacturing: Electrical Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies
(includes 3600 to 3699)
XO Combustion
01 Surface coating
15
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
3624 Carbon and Graphite Products
XO Combustion
01 Furnace electrode calcination
02 Furnace electrode mixing
03 Furnace electrode pitch treating
04 Furnace electrode baking furnace
3700 Manufacturing: Transportation Equipment (includes 3700 to 3799)
XO Combustion
01 Surface coating
3800 Manufacturing Professional, Scientific and Controlling Instruments;
Photographic and Optical Goods; Watches and Clocks (includes 3800
to 3899)
XO Combustion
01 Surface coating
3900 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (includes 3900 to 3999)
XO Combustion
01 Surface coating
4953 Refuse Systems
XO Combustion
01 Municipal, incinerator, multiple chamber
02 Open burning
03 Industrial/commercial, multiple chamber
04 Industrial/commercial, single chamber
07 Industrial/commercial, controlled air
08 Flue-fed, single chamber
09 Flue-fed, afterburners and draft controls
11 Domestic, single chamber, without primary burner
12 Domestic, single chamber, with primary burner
13 Pathological
14 Conical burner, municipal refuse
15 Conical burner, wood waste
16 Automobile body incinerator
5098 Lumber and Construction Materials, Wholesale Trade
XO Combustion
01 Sand handling
02 Crushed stone handling
16
-------
Table l.(A)(con.)
5153 Grain, Wholesale Trade
XO Combustion
01 Terminal elevators, shipping or receiving
02 Terminal elevators; transferring, conveying,
03 Terminal elevators, screening and cleaning
04 Terminal elevators, drying
05 Country elevators, shipping or receiving
06 Country elevators; transferring, conveying
07 Country elevators, screening and cleaning
08 Country elevators, drying
etc.
17
-------
Table l.(B). Combustion processes
00 All not listed
o
10 Coal, greater than 10 Btu/hr, general pulverized
o
20 Coal, greater than 10 Btu/hr, wet bottom pulverized
Q
30 Coal, greater than 10 Btu/hr, dry bottom pulverized
Q
40 Coal, greater than 10 Btu/hr, cyclone pulverized
o
50 Coal, less than 10 Btu/hr, spreader stoker w/o fly ash reinjection
8
60 Coal, less than 10 Btu/hr, spreader stoker w/fly ash reinjection
8 .
70 Coal, less than 10 Btu/hr, overfeed stoker w/o fly ash reinjection
80 Residual oil, power plant
90 Distillate oil, power plant
91 Residual oil, other than power plant
92 Distillate oil, other than power plant
93 Gas, power plant
94 Gas, other than power plant
95 Wood
96 Mixed fuel combusted at same time
97 Mixed fuel combusted at different times
18
-------
3.0 DEVICE MATRIX
In table 2 are listed the pollution reduction devices and methods
displayed in the Device Matrix in table 3 under columns X, Y, and Z.
Alphanumeric reference notes shown associated with device selection
X, Y, or Z refer to the data sources listed at the end of table 3.
The industrial processes referred to in the Device Matrix, table 3,
are those listed by SIC code in table 1.
The development of the combined efficiency of in-tandem particulate
devices is discussed in sections 4 and 5.
The development of the capital and expense costs for the control
methods and devices specified in the Device Matrix is discussed in
sections 6, 7, and 8.
The Device Matrix, table 3, reports the type of control equipment
used for primary particulate control, under column X, for secondary
control in tandem, under column Y; and for SO. control, under column
Z. Under the two columns labelled "Efficiency," the first shows the
efficiency of particulate control of the devices under x and y combined.
The second column gives the efficiency of control of S0_ emissions under z.
In the columns labelled "Capital Costs," the numbers identify the
appropriate capital cost equations under "x" for primary particulate reduction,
under "y" for secondary devices, and under "z" for SO- removal. Cost
equations are assigned according to the severity of usage in the specific
SIC process and are not necessarily related to reduction efficiency.
Thus, corrosive conditions, difficulty of separation, retrofit costs, etc.,
are judgment factors that control the cost of a particular device
category. These refer to installed capital costs only.
19
-------
Table 2. Pollution reduction devices or methods
Identification Number
Control Device/Method
000
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
No Equipment
Wet Scrubber - High Efficiency
Wet Scrubber - Medium Efficiency
Wet Scrubber - Low Efficiency
Gravity Collector - High Efficiency
Gravity Collector - Medium Efficiency
Gravity Collector - Low Efficiency
Centrifugal Collector - High Efficiency
Centrifugal Collector - Medium Efficiency
Centrifugal Collector - Low Efficiency
Electrostatic Precipitator-High Efficiency
Electrostatic Precipitator - Medium
Efficiency
Electrostatic Precipitator - Low Efficiency
Gas Scrubber (general, not classified)
Mist Eliminator - High Velocity
Mist Eliminator - Low Velocity
Fabric Filter - High Temperature
Fabric Filter - Medium Temperature
Fabric Filter - Low Temperature
Catalytic Afterburner
Catalytic Afterburner with Heat Exchanger
Direct Flame Afterburner
Direct Flame Afterburner with Heat Exchanger
Flaring
Switch from Residual Oil to Coal with
Specified %S
Switch from Distillate Oil to Coal with
Specified %S
Switch from Gas to Coal with Specified %S
Eliminate Coal Combustion
Eliminate Coal and Residual Oil Combustion
Change All Fuel to Natural Gas
No Fuel Use Over a Maximum Sulfur Content
(Specified by Uses in Regional Data Base)
Same as Device 030 but with Second Allowable
Sulfur Content
Same as Device 030 but with Third Allowable
Sulfur Content
Add-On Double Absorption (Sulfuric Acid)
Wellman-Lord System (with or without S02
reduction)
Magnesia (MgO) Slurry System
Double Alkali System
Citrate System
Ammonia System
20
-------
Table 2 (con.)
Identification Number
Control Device/Method
039
040
041
042
043
044
045
046
047
048
049
050
051
052
053
055
056
057
058
059
Catalytic Oxidation ("Cat-Ox")
Alkalized Alumina
Dry Limestone Injection
Wet Limestone Scrubbing
Sulfuric Acid Plant - Single Absorption
Contact Process
Sulfuric Acid Plant - Double Absorption
Contact Process
Sulfur Plant
Process Change
Vapor Recovery System (including
condensers, hooding, and other
enclosures
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Liquid Filtration System
Packed-Gas Absorption Column
Tray-Type Gas Absorption Column
Spray Tower (Gaseous Control Only)
Venturi Scrubber (Gaseous Control Only)
Afterburner-Direct Flame, Regenerative
DMA Absorption
Molecular Sieves
Sodium Phosphate("Powerclaus") System
Screen Filter
NOTE; Whenever a range of efficiency is reported in the literature, an
attempt is made to show this by assigning a different index within the
device code as illustrated below:
Highest Efficiency
Intermediate Efficiency
Lowest Efficiency
Wet Scrubbers
001
002
003
Cyclones
007
008
009
Electrostatic
Preclpitators
%
010
Oil
012
The actual reported efficiency is shown under the "Efficiency Entry"
columns x, y, and z in table 3.
21
-------
Table 3. (A) Device Matrix
Reference** SIC
(D,(6) 10714-01
-02
i i -03
1 " ;
i i
(1),(6), J0723-01
(5), (7) ... -02
: -03
-04
! _Q5
; ' -06
: i -07
' ; -08
!
; ; -09
i -11
' ! 0724-01
; ... ! -°2
'(2c) ,(12)-
. .
i - . - ..
(6) ; -03
! : ~04
(6),(2c),
' (12) ;
1(7) ; 1000-04
! : -05
;
i
x : Y
i
008
009* ;
'
007* ;
008 i
008 018
018* ;
;
004* :
007* ;
018 j
005 - ; 009
007 i
i
004*
018 '.
005 ; 018
:
001 ;
007 ;
018 '
Z
. .
007 i 001
Efficiency
Entries
x+y ! z
700
600*
850*
700
990
990*
600*
850*
990
700
950
^
600*
990*
990
950
800 ,
4
>
995 '
958 i
Capital; Cost
Entries
x y z
2
2
2
2
2
2
;
2 :
' '
i
. .. . j.
1 ;
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
.
3
2
2
2
2 ; "
2
'
3 .
... .
*Asterisk indicates possible control devices and estimated efficiencies. Data
not asterisked are definite literature references.
Capital Cost Indices:
1 = most expensive, or, only one cost equation
2 = intermediate cost, for the indicated class of equipment
3 = least cost
**See source references at the end of section (B) of this table.
22
-------
Table 3. (A)
i i
Reference** SIC | X Y ! Z
(3a),(6), 1100-04 001 :
(7) -06 002
: ; 003* ' ;
. (3a) : 007 :
; (6) : 008*
; 007 : 001
(3a) ' -05 007 :
(6) ' 0°9* '
(l),(2c), 1400-03 007 ;
(6), (7) _Q4 001
: -05 002
-06 007 001
-07
; ' -09 ' '.
' -
. L -i* :
'. . '. ~19 : ''. i
; . -22 . . . ;
! -23
'. -24 : ; '
'. ..':' ~29 '. I \
-32 :
-34 i
-35 :
i (l),(2c) -11 : 007 !
(6), (7) i -12 ' 017 ' ^ __ '
-16 . 007 017
-28 \ [ .......
' . -33 ' ; '.:"'.'
(l),(2c), -15.' 007
(6) , (7) : -25 010 r :
-26 ; on : :
! : -31 012 '
' " ' ] 017 :
! 007 010 i
: 007 : Oil
007 012
' ; 007 ' 017 ;
(con.)
Efficiency
Entries
x+y : z
997
940 '
800* '
820 '
750*
999 ['
820
600* :
800
990
950
999
800 :
995
9.99
800
990
950
900 '
990
. *
990
961 -
936
990 '
Capital. Cost
Entries
X y Z
3
3
3
2 |
2
23'
2
2
2
3
3
2 3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 .
2
2
2 j 2
-
23
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
| ''' j ' ' . : - ' -
Reference** SIC \ ' X \" Y ' j '" I
\
(1),(6), i 2010-01 : 003 ; '
i (12)""! " i ' 012 ; ' "
021 :
i : °03 . °12 I
(1),(6), ' 2040-01 007 018
(7) -02
'. -03 :
I -05 :' ' ;-
! i -06 ' .-..
-07
; -08
-09
(1), (6) -04 007
(7), (5) ; -12 008
' ' -13 007* ' 018* ^
-14 i
(2c),(6) i 2060-02 007* ;
; : , 008 ;
: . ; 001 . i
: ! °03*
; ' oos ' 001 ;
!(!)., (6) ; 2071^01.. L_0.07 ! 021 ' ...
1 2080-01 , 007* !
:(12) ; -02 : 008 i """ : "
! " 009* '
X13) ; 018 ;
. ...!..
Efficiency
Entries
x+y ': z
400 " '.
650 ' :
650 :
670 '.
990 ;
i
950
900
999* ;
850*
700 \
950
800*
955 '_
.590 ;
850*
800 ! /
600* '
990 - ;
;
Capital. Cost
Entries
X y : z
3
2
1
3
2
1
2 2 '
I
'
'
:
2
2
2 2
!
2 ' !
2
3 :
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
-
24
-------
Reference
(l),(6)
(12)
(D,(6)
(D,(6)
(D,(6)
(1)
(2c),(6)
(4b)
(D,(6)
t* SIC
,
2090-01
-02
-03
-04
2100-01
2200-01
-02
-03
-04
2400-01
-02
-03
-04
2600-01
-02
-03
-04
-06
2812-01
2816-01
1 1
X
008
009*
021
008
008
009
008
017*
008
003
017
003
022
003
007
007
021
007
022
001
002
003
007
010
Oil
003
003
001
007
009
003
021
001*
007*
T
Y
021
002
017
021
015
001
001
able 3.
Z
042
036
042
036
036
25
(A) (con .
cff ici
Enti
x+y
800
600*
950
950
800
700
950
999*
800
600
990
990
950
850
800
800
950
950
990
966
874
700
800
970
900
750
950
994
994
970
910
950
950*
850*
ency
ies
z
850
900
850
900
900
Capital
Entr
* y
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
3
2
1
3
3
1
2
3
3
Cost
es
z
i
i
i
i
l
i
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
'.
...
( ..-
eference
(4b)
(4b)r(14
(4b.)>(14
6)
(1), (6)
CD, (6)
* SIC
2819-01
-02
-03
-05
-06
-07
-08
-09
2821-01
-02
-P3
2822-01
-02
5824-01
-02
X
001
010
oil
001
010
012
014
010
010
015
001*
007
007
001*
002
002
018
018
007
017
001
021*
015*
Y
014
014
014
001*
021
021
z
038
057
033
036
034
042
036
057
034
034
.
26
Effidf
Entih
x+y
999
999
963
400
990
900
940
999
999
400
950
850
975
950
940
950
990
990
850*
980
900*
990
990
;ncy
tes
z
900
980
995
900
900
850
900
980
900
900
Capi tal
Entr
* y
1
l
l
1
1
l
1
l
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
Cost
es
z
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
1
Reference** SIC ;
.(1), "(6)'.
_ .
iu), (6>;
(6) '
. (6) ,
(6) (7) .
(6) (7)
(6) (7)
. (7)
'. (1), (6)'
,(4b) , (6)
2840-01
2850-01
02
2861-01
2870-01 .
-02
-03
-04
-05 .
-06
-07
-08
-09
-11
-12
2893-01
2895-02
-03
X
007
007
007
007
002
002
004
018
021
007
007
001
007
017
001
002
017
007
007
017
003
007
002
001
007
007
016
010
Oil
Y ; Z
001
002
003 :
021
003
003
001
002
021
021
- -- -
001
27
Efficiency
Entries
x+y z
850
970
950
920
. f
900
900
900
990
990*
900
700
950 \
960
990
996
810
990
950
999
990
810
960
900
970
900
970 ' 200
990"
970
930
Capital. Cost
Entries
* y z
2
2 3
23.
2 3
3
3
i
1 ; 1 1
2 j
1
1 ! i
1
2 i 3
2 1
i
3 ; !
; ' " i
i
2 I 3
2 '. :
3 ' ;
3 ' ;
2 ;
2 i ;
2 :
3 ! ' :
23
31 :
3 ! 1
2 ; i
2 ' 3
2 :
2
2 i
i
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
1 -.,-..... , ,
. ! i ; ; i
"..."".".'.". Reference** SIC j X. | Y "!_ Z
i i
! (6), . (1) 12899-01 : 003 . | 1
: ! 016 :
' ' : ' : ;
i ! !
.._ !(3a),. (6)j 2911-01 ; 0.10 ; |
'. -02 : on i
i ' " ' -03 i 012 ! "1 " '
;(4b),(10), : 007 010 :
1 008
: '_ 007 !
1 i
(14) ; -01 ; : 044
: i -02 ; ' ; 045
._ : : -03 i . . ; 034
! -04
! ; -05 ' ' '
J': .! i IoV ' : :
; " : " -08 : ;
' ' ' !
(6)', (7) :> 2950-01 : 007 i
(1> -02 008 . !
: : ; 009 : '.
\ (3a)(6) ' ' 001 ' ' '
(i)(7) 002 :
i : 007 : 002 ;
(1) i" 007 i 001 i
: ; 017 : ;
(6) -03' 003 ; 012 1
; (!) ; 001 ' 022 ;
~. ; (6) ; 012 i ;
(1) -04 ; 001 j i
' -051 003 ; ;
... . ... , . . ,
: (1) -06! ..003 : 012
'001 :
i I' 007 i 017" ;" "
: " i T " i "" ' ' "!
. . ; . -
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.) .
'.I'.."."""". Reference** SIC"
*
:
.. '
(1), (6)1 321°-01
--j
1 .
(2),(c), 3241-02
(i) ;- _03
: -04
i -05'
; . . -06
-08
; -11
-12
. i . .. -14
!. -15
(6),(2c),' -09
(4b)
.
i
j
j ...
.<2c) i -13
1
;6), (3a)j 3250-01
(7) : . -04
-05
; -06
i -09
! -11
r -12
~ 1 i -13
'. . \ -14
: ! -15
I
i (6) ' ' -02
' ' I " - ^ ; - -03
-07
! : -08
i
i
.... 1
.. 1 . . ....
i j
X I . Y Z
i
001 !
016 j
. 1
!
007 |
007 018
j
i
:
i
007
008
010
007 ; 010
008 ! 010
6o9 ; bio
007 016
010 .
012 '
007 i 010
016 ;
.
008 -
008 ! 002
008 : 016
008 i 010
007 . 001
!
;
008 ;
018* ' 1 ' '"
i
i
i
. ! . .
j .
i
'"''" ; ! . ' r ; ; . .
j
.... .
29
Effici
Entr
x+y
560
990
700 '
990
"
800
700
988
995
900
830
995
995
900
995
998
750
900
995
990
990
750
-990*
' "
ency
ies
z
j
1
Capital; Cost
Entries
x y \ z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
J
2 2
2
2 2
2
j
i
!
2
2
2
3
fy
I
2 ! 3
i
2 i 3 : i
i i
2
2
-
1
i
,
- - -
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
1 i i i
Reference** SIC | X j Y Z
; (2c) i 3270-01 ; 018 ; :
: j -08 i 002 i i
-- - - 1 -... ..-.._-. . ., J ... 1- .- . .
1 . I I i
" ; (2c), (6) -03! 009 j 003 "
i ! -04 i 018* :
"~ ! ' ; -05; \
\ . -06 . : : . . ..
-07 ;
j -09' ; !
' -15" " ; ! '. '
T.-."" i . . : '.'. 'I6: '.. - - \ .....
_ (2c) -11. 009 003 I
; _': -IV 016* '_ :
! !
| ', ....... . .
i
i (2c),(6) 3274-01 ! 007 . '< ...
! -02 008
: ' 009 i
_ i . i i 007 i..Qi7
! | ; 009 ;. 017 ]
(2c)(6) i -03 ! 007 !
: -04 008 !
'. ; 009
007 : 016 i
" ; ; ' " 007 ! Oil '
' " ! " ; ! 007 001 i
" i i ! 007 ; 002 j
! (6) '' 3275-01' 018 ; !
...; ; : -02; 007 ; 010 ;
i 1 i '. '
! !' ' i 1 j
! (6),(7)! 3281-01: 007 !
1 ; 1 018 :
| : i 008 '
; . | | . j .
" : l '. :.. ...
: ' i 3291-Oli 008 i
' ! 007 ! i
: " " ; ' i 018 !
i ' !
! 1 ! ! !
1 (1) ! 3295-01 i 018 i
...... ; ! ~02i i i
: i -04 j j
..'.'.. ; i ' | . !'. 30
Efficiency
Entries
x+y | z
990
900 i
t
I
800 j
990 ' ! 't
1
> |
i
i
800 i 200 '
990* :
850 '.
700 :
650 :
990 ', .
950 ;
850 :
700 :
650
999 i
950 !
970 !
960 ;
998 |
990 ;
i
850* j
990 i
700* '
i
800* !
995* ;
i
I
995* j.
1
1
1
Capital, Cost
Entri es
X y < Z
2
3
2
2
2
3 !
3 ;
2 i
I i
; ' *
2
2
2
f\
2
? i
* i.
2,
2 I '
2 ! :
2
2 2
2 3
2 3
2 3 ;
2 1
213.
t .
!
t
:
2 ;
2 i
2
2
2
2
2
'
'
i
... .
- -
-------
""_"_ Reference** SIC
(6)7(1) " ' '3296-01 T
(4b) -02
__ : .J6) -03:.
(1) ;
- (1) - - _04' '
_ .. .(6)
(4b) (14) 3312-01
-02
-05
'. ' ' ~06'
.(4b) . -03.
- ...
-07
,(6),(4b). -08.
-09
(6)
(4b)
'~..~. '. (4b>(6);
(4b),(6) -11
-12
(4b)(6) _ ""
." (2c)(6)' / ' .
. (2c),(6) -13.
(Ab) . . -14
-
X
007
001
001.
001
019
021
016
007
007
001
002
010
Oil
019
021
007
008
001
002
Oil
012
007
007
008
008
007
007
007
010
Oil
007
007
007
016
001
002
010
Oil
016
Table 3. (
1 v:::z
018
: --
012 ;
002
010 " '
001
002
001
002
Oil
012
010
Oil
001
....
. _ _
31
A) (con.)
Efficiency
Entries
x+y z
970
600
600
680
680 .
500
990
925
990
700
600
990
950
"980
980
700
600
980
900
980
900
984
919
980
913
984
919
800
980
9.40
980
952
'998
990
992
" 950
999
970
990
Capital. Cost
Entries
X y z
22 "" "
3
3. ... .
3 3
1
i i
i
2 i
,2 i 3
2 ! 3 . .
.
3
3 :
3 :
3 | ]
I '
1 i
2 ;
2 ',
3 :'
3
3 ,' '
3
23
2 : 3
2 ; 3
2 ': 3
2:3
2 ' 3
2 :
1 i
1 . i
2 ! 1
2 ! 1
22
i ;
1 i
1 j
1 >
1 '
i.| \ :
'
-
-------
Reference
(3)a)(6)'
.(4)b)
. (6)
(4b),(6)
(4b),(6)
; (4)(b)
(2c)(3a)
(3a)
(3a)
(2c)(6)
(2c)(6) .
**SIC
-15
-16.
-17
-18
-19
3313-01
-02
-03
-04
-05
3320-02
-03
-04.
-
-05
-08
-06
-12
-11
-13
-09.
Table 3. (
X V ' Z
001
010
001
010
004
002
010
Oil
004 002
001
010
001
002
010
Oil
016
001
002
003
Oil
012
016
016
003
Oil
012
016
003
Oil
012
016
007 001
001 . . .
' ' ' 32
A) (con.)
Effi ciency
Entries
x+y z
999
998
999
998
600 .
900
970
940
913
999
999
990
940
930
940
989
990
913
885
960
900
998
990
700
970
920
990
700
970 '
920
994
999 "
990
Capi tal. Cost
Entries
x y z
2 '
1
1
1
1
2 '
i :
i ' !
1 2 ;
o
~>
i
2 ' ,
*!
3 : :
3
1
2
n
2
3
3
1
1
2
3 .
3 . . .
1
2
31
t
3
1
2
1
3 ]
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
f
leference
(2c),(6)
(2c) (6)
(3a),(6)
(14)
(3a)(14)
(3a),(6)
3a) (6)
4b) , (6)
(14)
* SIC
3323-01
-02
-03
-04
-05
-06
-07
-08
-09
-11
3331-01
-02
-03
L4) -04
-05
-06
-07
3332-01
-02
-03
-04
-05
-06
-07
X
001
002
Oil
012
001
003
010
Oil
016
001
010
Oil
016
001
007
001
016
001
001
010
016
010
016
016
010
Y '
001
010
056
043
044
036
Z
043
044
045
034
037
043
042
056
043
044
056
999
960
33
Effic
Enti
x+y
990
880
960
900
950
700
970
920
990
950
999
970
990
990
999
950
998
998
997
990
999
999
999
980
975
995
900
I
ncy
es
z
975
995
900
900
950
975
850
980
975
995
980
Capital
Entr
* y
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
Cost
es
z
1
1
1
i
1
1
l
1
1
i
1
l
l
l
l
-------
Table 3. (A) (Con.)
Reference
(4b)(2c)
(6)(2c)
j)(2c)
[4b)
;6)(2c)
(4b)
(6)(2c)
(4b)
(6)
(4b)
(4b)
** SIC
3333-01
-02
-03
-04
-05
-06
-07
-08
-09
3334-01
-02
-03
X
001
010
001
016
007
002
003
010
001
012
-04 008
Y
010
016
Z
043
044
037
045
056
I
I
002
003
012
007 010
-05 002
003
Oil
007
-06 001
-07
3339-01
-02'
003
007
1
.
010
i
i
010
012
007
002
003
010
016
010
012
010
001
002
042
043
044
045
34
ti Tic
Enti
x+y
998
995
990
999
999
830
700
980
oncy
ies
z
975
995
950
900
980
980
620
1
780
850
800
200
200
870
980
780 200
710
200
930
980
960
750
950
990
900
980
830
720
980
999
990
950
i
200
200
850
975
995
900
Capi uii
Entr
* y
l
l
l
l
l
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
Cost
ies
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
3
!;
_
2 2 i
j
1
3
3
3
2 3
3
3
2
3
3
2 3
3
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
i
|
i
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
Reference
(4b)
(4b)
(3b)(6)
(4b)(6)
(6)
Kb) (6)
Kb)
(D(6)
4(b)
(3b)(l),
(6)
'3b)(i)(6
[3b)(2c)
(4b)
(2c)(4b)
(3b)(6)
(4b)
** SIC
-03
-04
-05
-06
3340-02
-03
-04
-05
'>
-06
-07
-08
-09
-11
-12
) -13
-14
-15
-16
X
007
008
010
Oil
016
010
012
001
016
001
002
012
001
016
007
008
010
Oil
016
001
002
016
001
016
001
016
001
002
007
008
001
016
010
Oil
001
002
Y
016
016
010
Oil
010
Oil
010
Oil
010
Oil
Z
043
042
036
042
036
35
L i' r i c
Enti
x+y
900
800
990
950
990
990
950
997
995
990
950
900
998
950
900
800
990
950
990
990
950
997
992
989
994
993
990
950
900
800
992
989
990
950
990
950
ency
ies
z
975
850
900
850
900
Capi Lai
Entr
* y
l
l
l
l
l
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
.2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
COS L
es
z
l
l
l
l
l
i
-------
Table 3. (A) (C0n.)
1
Reference
2(c)(6)
2(c)
C2c)(b)
(4b)
2(c)
2(c)
2(c)
6)(4b)
(1)
(6)(1)
(6)
(4b)(6)0
(4b)
(6)
(1)
(4b)
** SIC
-17
-18
-19
-21
-22
-23
-24
-25
-26
-27
-01
-32
-33
-34
-35
-36
3390-01
3400-01
-02
-03
3500-01
3600-01
3624-04
3700-01
3800-01
)4953-01
-02
-03
-07
-08
X
012
007
007
010
Oil
022
016
001
002
010
016
012
012
008
018
010
016
008*
021
008*
002
021
012
001
007
008
002
001
010
Y
016
016
016
010
Oil
620
980
Z
042
036
36
LfflC'l
Enti
x+y
800
990
990
850
750
990
930
. 990
950
850
990
800
800
700
990
960
990
750*
950
750*
900
990
800
750
800
950
990
ency
ies
z
850
900
Capital
Entr
* y
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cost
es
z
1
1
i
-------
Table 3. (A) (con.)
Reference
4(b)(6)
(l)
(6)
(1)
(6) (1)
(6)(1)
C6)(l)
(6)(l)(2c
(1)
(6)
** SIC
-09
-11
-12
-13
-17
-14
-15
) 5053-01
-02
-03
-04
-05
-06
-07
-08
5098-01
-02
X
021
021
021
021
010
002
003
007
007
007
007
008
018
r
Y
017
018
Z
37
i
hffic-
Entr
x+y
990
990
990
990
950
950
700
950
995
950
700
850
990
ency
ies
z
Capital
Entr
* y
i
i
i
i
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cost
les
Z
-------
Table 3. (B) Combustion processes
t-Calcu
*.*See s
Reference
<6>.
t
(9a)
6a)
9a)
6a)
(9a)
ated fro
urce ref
*SIC
10
20
30
40
_g
50
1 Table 3
reftces at
X
007
008
009
010
012
007
010
007
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
001
007
008
009
010
001
005
006
007
008
009
010
001
the enc
Y
012
of this
z
042
036
037
034
056
042
036
037
034
056
042
036
037
034
056
042
036
034
045
037
table .
38
Effid
Enti
x+y
750
600
400
995
800
880
400
300
200
995
820
650
990
950
900
750
995
990
300
200
900
800
700
995
990
ency
ies
z
850
900
950
900
980
850
900
950
900
980
850
900
950
900
980
850
900
900
900
950
Capi tal
Entri
* y
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Cost
es
z
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
-------
Table 3. (B) (con.)
1
teference
(6)
(9a)
(1) '
(1)
(1j
(1)
? Pa
ha
do
**SIC
70
80
IP.
21
92
11
94
95
96
11
ticulate
not bee
remove s
X
007
008
009
010
001
?
5
-^
-«
e
001
003
removal
success
me parti
Y
or oil
ul and :
ulates.
Z
042
036
034
056
037
042
036
034
029
030
029
030
nd gas fi
i not pra
39
Effic'<
Entr
x+y
950
900
750
995
990
200
200
200
950
800
ed utili
:ticed.
sncy
ies
z
850
900
900
980
950
850
950
900
:y and cc
50- scrul
Capital
Entr
x y
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
mmer
'ing
opei
Cost
es
z
l
l
1
1
l
1
1
l
1
l
1
1
boil
atio
irs
is
-------
Table 3. (A) & (B) Reference sources
A search of available literature was made on actual practice of
device selection and reported collection efficiencies. The following
documents have been examined to determine the nature of pollutants for
each SIC, type of control applied, efficiency of collection, and whether
stand-alone or tandem arrangements are practiced. The numbers and letters
within parentheses correspond to those listed in the first column of the
table.
(1) Air Pollution Engineering Manual-EPA AP-40 2nd Edition, 1973
(2) Particulate Pollutant System Study - Midwest Research Institute
(2)(a) Volume I Mass Emissions, 1971
(2)(b) Volume II Fine Particles, 1971
(2)(c) Volume III Emission Properties, 1971
(3) Air Pollution Control Technology - Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
(3) (a) September 1972 Issue
(3)(b) December 1970 Issue
(4) Electrostatic Precipitator Technology - Southern Research Institute
(4)(a) Part I - Fundamentals, 1970
(4)(b) Part II - Application Areas, 1970
(5) The Economics of Clean Air - Report to the Congress - December 1970
(6) Air Pollution Emission Factors - EPA - AP42, 1973
(7) Scrubber Handbook - A.P.T. Inc., August 1972 - Vol. I.
(8) Proceedings, Specialty Conference APCA St. Louis Section - March 1973
(9) Evaluation of SO- Control Processes EPA Contract CPA 70-68
(9)(a) Task 5 - M. W. Kellogg Company - October 1971
(9)(b) Task 7 - M. W. Kellogg Company - March 1972
(10) Conceptual Design and Cost Study-TVA-EPA PB-222-509-May 1973
(11) Applicability of Reduction to Sulfur Techniques PB-198-407
Allied Chemical Vol. I, Phase I, July 1969
(12) Control Techniques - Particulates AP 51 1969
(13) Control Techniques - Particulates-NATO/CCMS 1973
C14) Control Techniques - Sulfur Oxides - NATO/CCMS 1973
40
-------
4.0 COMBINED EFFICIENCY OF TWO PARTICULATE
MATTER CONTROL UNITS IN TANDEM
The problem of estimating the combined efficiency of two control
units in tandem is discussed in this section. The stand-alone rated
efficiency of a device treating a particular dust stream is based on
the weight percent of the dust removed. The fractional efficiency of
removal is high for the large particles and considerably lower for the
smaller sizes. In the sub-micron sizes, removal is extremely difficult.
When a second control device follows a primary cleaning device, the
applied efficiency of the secondary device is lower than its stand-alone
rated efficiency on the dust stream entering the primary device. In
the following sections, several methods are discussed for evaluating
combined efficiency; calculated efficiencies are compared with actual
tandem efficiencies reported in the technical literature.
4.1 EMPIRICAL CORRECTION FACTOR METHOD
For the purpose of developing an empirical relationship for the
efficiency of two tandem devices, it is assumed that .feed to the device
is based on processing a standard silica dust with standard particle size
distribution. Fractional efficiency in each particle size range for
the control devices in question is also known, as found in reference 6.
41
-------
In the following discussion,
let:
E- = rated efficiency of primary device,
E9 = rated efficiency of secondary device,
AE, = applied efficiency of secondary device as affected by its
being preceeded by the primary device,
CF = correction factor applied to the rated efficiency
of the secondary device to determine its applied efficiency,
(AE2):
CF = (1 - AE2)/(1 - E2), (4.1-1)
EOA = overall efficiency of both the primary
working in
tandem, «= 1 - (1 - E. ) (1 - .
and secondary devices
AE2). (4.1-2)
Assume, for example, the following devices, from page A-3 of reference 1:
Primary device
Secondary device -
The applied efficiency,
calculated as indicated
Fractional
Weight efficiency of
Size % Primary
0-5 ym 20 x 0.63
5-10 10 x 0.93
10-20 15 x 0.96
20-40 20 x 0.985
>44 35 x 1.0
Irrigated long-cone cyclone
Dry multiple cone cyclone,
, EI = 0.91 (rated),
E2 - 0.938 (rated).
correction factor, and overall efficiency are
in the following work sheet
Weight % Weight %
Retained by Passed by
Primary Primary
12^,6 7.4 x
9.3 0.7 x
14.4 0.6 x
IS. 7 0.3 x
35.0 0 x
91 9.0
:
Fractional Weight %
efficiency of Retained by
Secondary Secondary
0.63 = 4.662
0.95 = 0.665
0.98 = 0.588
0.995 - 0.298
1.0 - 0
6.214
42
-------
Applied efficiency of secondary, AE2 = 6.214/9.0 = 0.69, and
_ 1 - 0.69 _
CF " 1 - 0.938 ~ 5
In calculating many of these correction factors (see table 4),
a correlation was found between the primary rated efficiency E.., and
CF. Plotting (1 - EI) vs CF on semi-log coordinates (figure 1) yielded
a straight line represented by the following equation:
0.3010 -
CF
0.3642
(4.1-3)
Overall efficiency is found from the applied efficiency of the secondary
device given by the following equation:
AE,
1 - (1 - E2)
0.3010 - Iog10(l - Ej
0.3642
(4.1-4)
Overall efficiency, EGA = 1 -
(1 - E.)
0.3010 - Iog10(l
0.3642
(4.1-5)
A computer program generated the matrix of overall efficiencies
for the indicated primary and secondary rated efficiencies shown in
table 5. Ratings of the rated device efficiencies used in the table
are arbitrary. If the actual particle size distribution is known
and the fractional efficiencies for the devices have been determined,
the algorithm is applicable.
43
-------
Table 4. Empirical correction factors
Correction Factor
Range,
Existing Mid-point
Efficiency EI
> 0 and
>40 and
>60 and
>65 and
>70 and
>75 and
>80 and
>83 and
>86 and
>89 and
>91 and
>93 and
>95 and
>97 and
>99 and
£40
£60
£65
I70
I75
£80
£83
£86
£89
£91
£93
£95
£97
£99
<100
20
50
62.5
67.5
72.5
77.5
81.5
84.5
87.5
90.0
91.5
94
96
98
99.5
98% 90% 80%
Wet Scrubber
100-Ej^ (001,002,003).
80
50
37.5
32.5
27.5
22.5
18.5
15.5
12.5
10.0
8.5
6
4
2
0.5
1.0
1.25
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
85% 75% 60%
Dry Cyclone
(007,008, 009)
1.0
1.8
2.0
2.25
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
5.0
99% 95% 90%
Electrostatic
Precipitator C.F.
(010,011,012) Avg.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
1
1.52
1.77
2.05
2.3
2.46
2.53
2.83
3.0
3.5
3.8
4.3
4.6
5.0
5.3
44
-------
1000]
Q
8
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
7
K
5
4
s,
10-
7
6_
5
4_
3_
i.n.
\
>
V
^
^
u
f
L
>
fc
>
>
k
N
V
=
s
t=>
\
--
=
^
s
j
s
-
s
s
1
s
-
,
*
s
J
1
1
s
«/
^l
L-
A
\
1
t
'
)
(
>
f
Rl
X
-I
\
\,
'
;<
** r
/
i
\
k
>
irJK
HJI>
1
-
,
S
S
r
F
1
s
A
H
s
-
Figure
1
"F
F
1
S
N
J
S
s
>
*
f
\.
\
c
r
\
1
S
Empirical correction
vs. penetration.
k
n
i
s
^
s
s
r
\
|r
S
I
^
factors ;
45
-------
Table 5. landem efficiencies by empirical method
SECONDARY DEVICE
Device Number
Rated Efficiency, EZ
w
o
M
I
X
P-I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
H
0)
1
Device r
60
40
30
85
75
60
o
g
rH
o
W w"1
T)
0)
4-1
tT)
1
98
98.5
98.3
98.2
99.1
98.8
98.5
2
90
92.3
91.3
81.2
95.4
93.8
92.3
3
80
84.6
82.8
82.5
90.7
87.6
84.6
4
5
6
7
85
88.5
87.1
86.9
93
90.7
88.5
8
75
80.8
78.5
78.1
88.4
84.5
80.8
9
60
69.3
65.5
65
81.5
75.2
69.3
10
99
99.2
99.1
99.1
99.5
99.3
99.2
11
95
96.2
95.7
95.6
97.7
96.9
96.2
12
90
92.3
91.4
91.2
95.4
93.8
92.3
13
80
84.6
82.8
82.5
90.7
87.6
84.6
14
99
15
85
16
99
99.5
99.3
99.2
17
99
99.5
99.3
99.2
18
99
99.
99.
99.
Overall Efficiency, EGA
EGA = 1- U-Ej^
0.3010 -
0.3642
V]
(4.1-5)
NOTE:
The rated efficiencies of primary and secondary devices
shown in this table are chosen arbitrarily.
The algorithm is used by entering the actual efficiencies
of the device for the actual dust to be controlled.
-------
4.~2 OVERALL EFFICIENCY BY ANALYTICAL METHOD
(2) (3)
Vatavuk and Gipson have demonstrated that the efficiency
of a particulate collecting device relying on inertia (as cyclone,
scrubber, electrostatic precipitator) can be found from the equation,
00
/[
- BD - YIL
( 0e ) (1 - e. 'jdD- (4.2-1)
where 3 is a parameter characterizing the frequency distribution of the
dust particle sizes and y characterizes the control device.
In deriving the expression above, it was assumed that both the
frequency distribution of the dust particle size and the separation
efficiency of the device can reasonably be represented by simple
exponential functions. Unless the extremely large or extremely small
particles are of unusually high significance, these assumptions are
reasonable.
The size collecting efficiency of a device is given as Q(D), and
the cumulative size distribution,
Y(D) = f f (D)dD . (4.2-2)
-
I
If we assume a log-normal distribution of particle sizes, a reasonable
representation of the cumulative distribution between the 16 and 85
percentiles is an exponential of the form,
Y(D)= e ~ BD (4.2-3)
47
-------
where 3 is a parameter characteristic of a specific particle size
distribution. Collection efficiency for particle size D is of the form,
Q(D) = 1 - e ~ Y (4.2-4)
where y is a parameter characteristic of a particular collecting device.
Efficiency of collection then is,
CO
E -J f(D)Q(D)dD. (4.2-5)
o
since
f(D) = -l^-lY(D)]- 3e , (4.2-6)
-YD -i
- e )J dD (4.2-7)
Equation 4.2-7 is useful in estimating the efficiency of a collecting
device on a particular dust. The parameter, y nas teen evaluated for
cyclones (Gallaer); for scrubbers (Ranz and Wong); and for electrostatic
(2)
precipitators (Engelbrecht) as cited by Vatavuk. The dust parameter
3 is the slope of the straight line relating particle size to the log-
arithm of the cumulative distribution.
(3)
Gipson points out that if the rated efficiencies E,. and £
of two devices are known, the exponential parameters can be calculated,
arid the overall efficiency of their tandem arrangement can be determined.
48
-------
For a primary device with E- rated efficiency,
Y1=T=E^~ (4.2-8)
and for a secondary device with E» rated efficiency,
Y2 " i E (4.2-9)
2
The frequency distribution of the particle stream leaving the
primary device (and entering the secondary), f(D), has been modified
by the removal of selected sizes by the primary device. The applied
efficiency of the secondary device then is,
GO
AE2 =y f2(D) Q2(D) d D. (4.2-10)
o
By means of a differential mass balance over the two tandem
devices, f2(D) is found to be,
(4.2-11)
Since Q_(D) = 1 - exp (- -=-\ D , the applied efficiency of the
1 \ 1 - E. /
secondary device is
E,)
j I i. 1
AE = /If =)exo( - )D II 1 - exp C- =-)D dD =
a2
E2(l - E^
1 - EE (4.2-12)
49
-------
Since the overall efficiency of tandem devices is (from eq. 4.1-2),
EGA = 1 - (1 - Ex)(1 - AE2),
E - 2E E + E
then EOA ±- ±-| *- (4.2-13)
1 - £
This equation was programmed to generate a matrix of primary and
secondary efficiencies to yield overall efficiencies (see table 6)i
50
-------
Table 6. Tandem efficiencies by analytical method
SECONDARY DEVICE
Device Number
Rated Efficiency, E_
8
M
W
a
PRIMAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(U
55
3
60
40
30
85
75
60
ziciency,
W P4
o
0)
4J
1
98
98
98
98
98.2
98.1
98
2
90
91.3
90.6
90.6
93.6
92.3
91.3
3
80
84.6
82
81.6
90.6
82.5
84.6
4
5
6
7
85
87.7
86.4
85.9
91.9
89.6
87.8
8
75
81.8
78.6
77.4
89.6
85.7
81.5
9
60
75
68.4
65.8
87.8
81.8
75
10
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
11
95
95.3
95.2
95
96.1
95.7
95.3
12
90
91.3
90.6
90.4
93.6
92.3
91.3
13
80
84.6
82.4
81.6
90.8
87.5
84.5
14
99
15
85
16
99
99
99
99
17
99
99
99
99
18
99
99
99
99
Overall Efficiency, EGA =
El - 2E1
(4.2-13)
NOTE: The rated efficiencies, of the primary and secondary devices
shown in this table, are chosen arbitrarily.
The algorithm is entered with the actual efficiencies of the
devices on the actual dusts to be controlled.
-------
4.3 TANDEM EFFICIENCY ALGORITHMS - COMPARISON
E - 2E x E7 + E,
EOA =
(2) EOA =| 1 - (1 - E.^
0. 3010 - log (1 - E.)
0.3642
Algorithm (1) is based on an exponential distribution of particle size.
Algorithm (2) was developed from the particle size distribution of a
"standard silica dust", but is reasonably applicable to other dis-
tributions.
The above methods give results of overall efficiency within
% to l*s percent of each other, method (2) being higher. Method (1),
however, is simpler to work with in calculator computations and gives
results well within the accuracy of the basic data on device efficiency.
With a primary device having a rated efficiency of 90 percent, fol
lowed by secondary devices in tandem of efficiencies 90 percent, 95 per
cent, and 99 percent a comparison of overall efficiencies (EOA) by the
two methods shows:
El
90
90
90
E2
90
95
99
UVSfl
Method (1)
94.7
96.5
99.08
J-JVJTk,
Method (2
96.4
98.2
99.64
52
-------
4.4 CALCULATION FROM EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Although algorithms (1) and (2) were based respectively on an
exponential particle size distribution and "the standard silica dust",
they give fairly accurate results of overall efficiency provided the
primary and secondary stand-alone efficiencies are empirically determined.
It is well recognized, however, that dust distributions actually are
(4)
best represented by the log-normal.
Reasonable estimates for the efficiency of a device in the
collection of a real dust can be made if the geometric mean and standard
geometric standard deviation of the dust particle size are known. If, in
addition, the fractional efficiency of the collecting device has ;been
determined, the stand-alone efficiency of the device can be computed as
it pertains to the known dust.
4.4.1 Graphical Method
Example A.
For this example, an asphalt plant dryer dust was selected with
geometric standard deviation, S , of
50 percentile _ 18ym _ _
16 percentile 3.4 ym
The primary collecting device is a medium-efficiency cyclone
followed by a low-energy wet scrubber as secondary collector.
The 50-percent and 16-percent cumulative particle loading of the
dust will establish two points of a straight line on log-probability
coordinates (see figure 2A). Fractional efficiency curves for the two
selected devices are shown in figure 3A.
The treatment shown in table 7A illustrates the method of applying
fractional efficiency data of a dust collecting device to a known dust
53
-------
99.99
99.9 99.8
99 98 95 90 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20
10
2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01
i
Figure 2A. Cumulative size - asphalt
plant dust.
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0,5 1 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SO 95 98 99
99.8 99.9 99.99
-------
Figure 3A. Fractional efficiency
curves.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
PARTICLE SIZE, /x m
-------
Table 7A. Efficiency calculations, - comparison of algorithms
Example A
Size range
100-80
80-60
60-40
40-20
20-10
10-5
5-1
========= =
Accum. . in
Range
84.5-81
81 - 76
76 - 68
68 - 52
52 - 37
37 - 22
22 - 4
============
Percent
in range
3.5
5.0
8.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
18.0
==========
80.5
Size
Midpoint
90 ym
70 ym
50 ym
30 ym
15 ym
7. 5 ym
3 ym
==========
Fract .
Eff.
Venturi
100
100
99
97.5
97.0
96.0
88.0
= = = = =====
Weight %
retained
by Venturi
3.5
5.0
7.92
15.6
14.55
14.4
15.84
===========,
76.81
Fract .
Eff.
Cyclone
99
97
94
80
60
30
8
=========
Weight %
retained
by Cyclone
3.465
4.85
7.52
12.8
9.0
4.5
1.44
===========
43.58
Passed by
Cyclone
(Primary)
0.035
0.15
0.48
3.2
6.0
10.5
16.56
= ========,=,
36.925
Retained
by Venturi
(Secondary)
0.035
0.15
0.475
3.2
5.82
10.08
14.57
===============
34.25
Stand-alone efficiency of Venturi = 78.81/80.5 = 95.4 %
Stand-alone efficiency of cyclone = 43.58/80.5 = 54%
Total dust retained by both units in tandem = 43.58 + 34.25 = 77.83
Overall efficiency of tandem units = 77.83/80.5 = 96.68%
In tandem,
54%,
^
By algorithm (1)
(4.2-13) EGA
Z = 95.4%
_ x E + E
0.54 - 2 x 0.54 x 0.954 + 0.954
x
1 - 0.54 x 0.954
0.464
.0.485
= 95.6%
By algorithm (2)
(4.1-5) EGA = 1 - (1 -
0.3010 - log^d-Ej
0.3642
).046 = 96.03%
-------
for which we know the geometric mean particle size and the geometric
standard deviation. Thus, for the selected dust, the cyclone is found
to have a stand-alone efficiency E,, of 54 percent, and the venturi
E_ = 95.4 percent. If these stand-alone efficiencies are already known,
however, use of the tandem efficiency algorithms are useful in estimating
overall efficiency of particulate control. Algorithm (2) agrees with
the tabular calculations of the overall efficiency of 96.68 percent
within 0.7 percent. Algorithm (1) comes within 1.1 percent. Either
model is well within the reliability of the basic data. The range of
data reported in the literature for efficiency of particular control
devices and on the composition of particular dust emissions is quite
wide, and percentage-wise exceeds the deviations found above for
estimating tandem efficiencies by either of the two models suggested.
Example B
For this example, we select a dust with less dispersion of particle
size, namely a steel making open hearth off-gas using oxygen lancing. From
table 7.2-19, in the Scrubber Handbook, A.P.T., Inc., we find,
_ 50 percentile _ 6 _ , -Q
J ~~ -, f . i ~" ., -y ~" J J t, .7
g 16 percentile 1.7
This dust is less disperse than the asphalt dryer dust in Example A,
for which
S = 5.29.
g
57
-------
Primary collector is a 12" diagonal cyclone, 610 ft /min, 7" H20
AP. Fractional efficiency curve for this device is shown on figure 3B.
Data are taken from Particulate Pollutant Study, Midwest Research Institute,
Vol. II, figure 13.^
3
The secondary is a venturi scrubber, throat velocity 17,800 ft /min.
Fractional efficiency is from figure 11 of the Midwest Study.
Plotting the 50 percentile and 16 percentile sizes on log-probability
coordinates for the open hearth dust on figure 2B yields a straight line
from which class size cumulative probabilities can be read.
Table 7B develops the stand-alone and tandem efficiencies of the
selected devices. Algorithms (1) and (2) estimate the tandem efficiency
within 0.7 percent and 0.2 percent respectively of the tabular calculation
for overall efficiency.
The stand-alone efficiency of this venturi is calculated on table 7B
as 96.6 percent using dust characteristics and fractional efficiencies
given above. Venturi efficiencies on open hearth off-gases range from
98.2 percent to 99.6 percent, as reported on page 7-41 of the Scrubber
Handbook. Comparison is not possible, however, since there is no inform-
mation on the relative power inputs to the scrubbers (see section 5.1).
-------
Ln
vo
lO.Ch
8
7
6
5
£
1.0-
8
7
6
4_
3-
2
0 1-
99.99
1 L
- [
" L
,
I
n
- h
_JlL
s
(/
TTT
w'' 0.01 0.05
99.9
A
/
/
/
'
99
/
'
.8
>
/
r
/
r
---;
--^
~1~
i __
Z _
0.1 0.2 0.5
99
-" +
:,! =
|.._
^
1
98
w
y
t
9
^
5
A
y
,
V
2 5
90 80 70
::::::::: = = = = ::J
::::::::: :---::!:
::::::::: " = -|::
1i :::
?
.
I
t
::::::::: zz:i:i:
lapft
j *
. 1
--- -^
2
, '
'
[ L
m
* In
j V
j
J. _
( - - --
f
10 20 30
60 50 40 30
MnnEEiMEjjIm
::::::::*: j::::: :
::::::|i::::::::::
EEEEmEEiiiiiiiii
EE==j==EEEEEEEEE=i
EHEEEE:EEE::EEEEE
P
^
II
ur -
EEEEEEEE[!EEEEEEEE
:::::;»!::::::::::
i= = = = h== = = E = EE = i =
Eii=JEEiEiEEEEEE=E
EEJE^:: = = ^^ = ^ =
EfEEEEE:EEEEEEEEEE
20
I
1i -
.. .
...
...
...
...
::::::::::::::: pigure 21
.] l_ f
40 50 60 70
!-[?!
80
10
EEEE=|3
:::j[ = -
::?«"_
F
:?:: :
p _
i^
I
^
^
P
2
= (
f^!;
i - -
i
0
.5
0
2
Cumulative size - open
hearth dust.
---F 1- 3
-
ll
1
JQ;
90 95 98
ri
$ -
-31 :
T
99
_
..
"I
|-
0.1
1
.
1
,
99.8 99.9
o.os
0.01
99.99
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
2
10.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-------
100
Figure 3B. Fractional efficiency
curves.
56789 100
-------
Table 7B. Efficiency calculations - comparison of algorithms
Example B
Size
Range
100-80
80-60
60-40
40-20
20-10
10- 5
5-1
1- .5
.5- .1
Ac cum. in
Range
98.6-98
98 -96.5
96.5-93
93 -83
83 -68
68 -44
44-8
8 - 2.5
1.5- 0.06
Percent
in range
0.'6
1.5
3.5
10
15
24
36
5.5
2.44
98.54
Size
Midpoint
90
70
50
30
15
7.5
3.0
0.75
0.30
Fractional
Efficiency
Cyclone
100
100
99
96
92
85
70
37
10
Weight %
Retained
by Cyclone
0.6
1.5
3.465
9.6
13.8
20.4
25.2
2.035
0.0244
76.6244
Passed by
cyclone
(Primary)
0
6
0.035
0.04
1.2
3.6
10.835
3.465
2.416
21.951
Fractional
Efficiency
Venturi
100
100
100
100
100
99
98
86
35
Retained by
Venturi
(Secondary)
0
0
0.035
0.04
1.2
3.564
10.618
2.980
0.846
19.643
Retained by
Venturi as
a Primary
0.6
1.5
3.5
10.0
15.0
23.76
35.28
4.73
0.854
95.224
Stand-alone efficiency of cyclone, E.. =
76.6244
98.54
95.224
77.i
96.6%
Stand-alone efficiency of venturi, E» = go 5A
Total dust retained by both units in tandem = 76.6244 + 19.643
= 96.2674
Overall efficiency of tandem units EOA =
In tandem E^, = 0.778, EZ = 0.966
v + E
96.2674
98.54
97.7%
By algorithm(l) E.. - 2E
W.2-13) E°A
0.778 - 2 x Q.778 x Q.966 + 0.966 _ 1.744 - 1.503
1 - 0.778 x 0.966
0.2484
= 97.02%
By algorithm(2)
(4.1-5)
EOA - l-d-E.^
0.3642
= 1-0.222
).301Q + 0.6941
0.3642
(1-0.
966) = 1-0.206 = 97.94%
-------
4.4.2 Approximate Model
Figures 2A and 2B show a graphical method of displaying the particle
size distribution of a dust for which the geometric mean size and the
standard geometric deviation are known. Particle size parameters for
a number of industrial dust streams are given in the literature (see
Scrubber Handbook, Vol.1, A.P.T., 1972). From the 50 percentile and the
16 percentile cumulative size data, we find the geometric mean, M at
&
the 50 percentile size. The deviation is the ratio,
size at 50 %
g size at 16 %
The size of a particle, D, can be found from, '
D = M (S )Z
g g
where Z is the number of standard deviations on the probability curve at
the percentile where the size, D, is required. The values of Z can be
found from statistical tables (Pearson and Hartley, 1966). The value of
Z is plotted against percentile in figure 4, and faired to yield the
equation,
Z - 0.03016(Per)-1.5
D = M (S )0.03016(Per)-1.5
g g
"nit
Per = percentile corresponding to D
108 ₯
fs- + 49.73
0.03016 logS
o
The above relationships are fairly accurate between the values of
percentile from Per = 10 percent to Per = 90 and may be useful for manual
calculations within this range.
62
-------
-2
-3
Figure 4. Plot of percentile vs. Z
-------
4.4.3 Analytical Method
A more precise relationship, suitable for computer programming, is
developed below.
a) Given M and S to find particle size, D, corresponding to a
O O
cumulative percentile, Per:
= Mg(Sg)Z
2.30753 + (0.27061)n 2
(0.99229)n + (0.04481)n
where n
= V ln ( %-
and p
1 - if 50% < Per
Per if Per < 50%
100
if Per < 50 - Z from (2) is applied in (1)
if Per > 50', + Z from (2) is applied in (1)
b) To find the percentile, Per, given the size, D, of the particle:
Firs t, compute:
InD - ln(M
(1.414) ln(S )
O
64
-------
i) if x < 0, take the absolute value of x and use the following
formula(7),
A = 1-
[l + (0.27893) x + (0.23089) x2 + (0.000972) x3 4- (0.078108)
Then,
Per = 0.5 |
ii) if x > 0, put x, as is, in the above formula to get A.
Then,
Per = 0.5 + -4
As an example, from figure 2A, we find the size D, below which 70
percent of the particles occur, to be 43 ym.
For this dust M = 18
g
S = 18/3.4 = 5.29.
8
From paragraph 4.4.3.a).l)
D = M (S )Z
g g
Per = 70 % = 0.70
p = 1 - Per = 0.30
n = Jln( 7- ) = -Jin ( - ~ ) = 1.
1 P * 2
55176
- F
|_ 1
Z = 1 55176 _ 2.30753 + (0.27061) (1.55176)
+(0.99229)(1.55176) + (0.04481)(1.55176)2 J
- 1.55176 - 1.03012 = 0.52164.
65
-------
Since Per > 50
D = 18(5.29)°*52 = (18)(2.38) = 43 ym.
This example of the analytical procedure checks the graphical
display of the cumulative distribution of particle sizes, and suggests
the possibility of using computer techniques for applying fractional
efficiencies to particle sizes that are log-normally distributed.
When stand-alone efficiencies of tandem units are found, the algorithms
from Section 4.3 can be entered to compute tandem efficiencies.
4.4.4 Characterizing Dust
The advantages of determining and reporting dust parameters as the
50 and 16 cumulative percentile sizes are:
a) the ability to establish a linear relationship between size
and cumulative percent occurrence,
b) facility for interpolating data,
c) ability to extrapolate data with some reservations.
The 50 and 16 percentile particle sizes for a number of industrial
dusts are tabulated in section 7 of the Scrubber Handbook, A.P.T., Inc.,
August 1972. From these parameters, the dispersion of the distribution,
or, the standard geometric deviation S can be calculated as the ratio of
O
the size at the 50 percentile to the size at the 16 percentile points.
A selection of these data is given in table 8.
66
-------
Table 8. Selected dusts - size parameters
Dust
Coal Dryer, Fluidized Bed
Coal Dryer, Multilouver
Coal Dryer, Cascade
Stone, Jaw Crusher
Lime Calcining, Rotary Kiln
Lime Calcining, Vertical Kiln
Coal Combustion, Cyclone Furnace
Coal Combustion, Pulverized Coal
Coal Combustion, Spreader Stoker
Coal Combustion, Underfeed Stoker
Steel, Open Hearth, with Oxygen Lance
Steel, Basic Oxygen Furnace
Cupola Furnace
Ferroalloy, Blast Furnace
Ferroalloy, Electric Furnace
Kraft Pulp, Recovery Furnace
Phosphate Fertilizer, Rotary Dryer
Asphalt Pavement Batching, Rotary Dryer
Incinerator, Municipal
Particle Size.um
under
16%
45
6.6
6.6
20
3.5
13
1.85
6
14
21
1.7
0.041
7
O.-l
0.1
0.48
13
3.4
1.6
under
50%
200
28
28
200
50
30
6.4
18
58
100
6
0.095
100
0.45
0.3
1.0
80
18
90
S
g
4.44
4.24
4.24
10.0
14.3
2.3
3.46
3.0
4.14
4.76
3.5
2.3
14.3
4.5
3.0
2.1
6.2
5.3
56.3
67
-------
5.0 DEVICE EFFICIENCY
A literature search was made to determine the actual equipment used
in the many industrial processes for control of particulate and SO pol-
X
lutants. The collection of these data, as detailed in section 3, gives an
overall view of current practice .and performance (see table 3).
5.1 MECHANICAL DEVICES -EFFICIENCY
It was found that literature references often give a range of
efficiency with a particular device class and in the same SIC process
category. Variation also .existed among the various literature sources.
.Collection efficiency is not a property inherent with a particular
device class. Weight fraction of a dust collected by a particular device
depends not only on the performance of the equipment but also on the
nature of the dust, i.e., particle size distribution, chemical and
physical .properties of the particles, etc. Energy input to the collector
is of primary .importance in determining efficiency.
As an example, the particle size is given below for particles col-
lected with identical efficiency, 98.5 percent, by venturi scrubbers of
/g\
different energy inputs:
A P, "H-0 Particle Size, ym
5" 10
10" 3.7
20" 1.3
30" 0.64
40" 0.40
Another way to show this is to select a fixed particle size, say 1
ym, and give the pressure drop and the collection efficiency at that
pressure drop.
68
-------
A P, "H20 Efficiency. %
5" 81
10" 93
20" 98
30" 98.6
40" 99.7
(9)
Semrau has correlated scrubber efficiencies by means of the model,
n = 1 - exp (-aPY) (5.1-1)
where n is efficiency of collection, a and y are dust parameters related
to size and distribution, and P is total contacting power.
Some representative dust parameters are:
Talc dust Venturi a <= 0.915 y » 1.05
Foundry Cupola Venturi a » 1.35 y « 0.621
Open Hearth Venturi a = 1.26 y - 0.569
To determine collection efficiency, we would need to know the total
2
contacting power, P, in horsepower per 1000 ft /min of gas. Once the
dust parameters a and y are established empirically, it is possible to
predict the performance of the particular type of scrubber by prescribing
the required hydraulic and pneumatic power input to the contactor.
5.2 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS (ESP) - EFFICIENCY
The Deutsch-Anderson equation for ESP efficiency is:
n = 1 - exp (- ^ w) (5.2-1)
g
2
A = area of collecting surface, ft
3
V = gas flow rate, ft /min
O
w = precipitation rate parameter, ft/min
69
-------
Average values of the precipitation rate parameters, w, and the
efficiency of collection of particulates in offgases are given for the
following industries.
Efficiency, at Efficiency, at
A/V » 0.120 A/V - 0.300
w. ft/min
3.6
6.0
9.6
14.4
15.0
21.0
21.6
25.8
Industry
Smelter
Cupola
Open Hearth
Sulfuric Acid
Pulp and Paper
Cement
Blast Furnace
Utility Fly Ash
B
35%
51%
68%
82%
83.5%
92.0%
92.5%
95.5%
6
66%
80.9%
94.4%
98.67%
98.89%
99.82%
99.85%
99.98%
The sulfur content in the fuel exerts a large effect on the efficiency
of collection of fly ash from a pulverized coal utility boiler furnace.
The influence of the fuel sulfur content on w, the precipitation
rate, is shown as follows:
S w, ft/min Efficiency
1 17.22 1 - exp (-17.22 A.V )
g
2 43.67 1 - exp (-43.67 A/V )
6
3 75.07 1 - exp (-75.04 A/V )
O
70
-------
For a boiler with inlet temperature of 3008F to the ESP and
A/V = 0.120,
g
% s
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
jr.
74%
78%
81%
84%
92%
99%
The above data can be represented by,
log n « 0.0478 S + 1.8388 (for A/V - 0.120) (5.2-2)
O
The interrelationship between device and dust characteristics,
discussed in section 5.1 above, is even more vividly shown in the case of
ESP's where the electrical properties of the dust affect the collection
efficiency drastically. The precipitation rate as a function of dust
particle size and resistivity can vary as much as 8 to 1 in various dusts
with efficiencies of collection varying as much as 2 to 1 in the same
size ESP with identical gas volume flow rate.
The efficiency of an ESP in combustion gas service is further affected
by sulfur to ash ratio, power input, type of furnace, etc. An empirical
model based on the Deutsch equation has been developed for a pulverized
(12)
coal furnace by Selzer and Watson as follows:
1 - exp -0.57 x 203 t^)1'4 * (M
where,
2
A = collecting plate area (1000's of ft );
V = flue gas volume flow (1000's of ACFM);
kW = power input to discharge electrodes, kW;
71
-------
S/AH = sulfur to ash ratio in fuel, by weight;
n = efficiency, fractional.
The number 203, applicable to a pulverized coal furnace, is replaced
by 157.6 for a cyclone furnace because of the smaller sized particles in
the latter, and because of the particle resistivity associated with
that type of firing. The same reduction in r\ occurs if the ESP is preceded
by a cyclone.
5.3 ADD-ON DEVICE EFFICIENCY
In addition to evaluating current pollution control levels, the
IPP faces the problem of improving control in those areas or industries
that are deficient. In this case there is the advantage of specifying
control effectiveness of the add-on device to achieve an acceptable overall
control level. In specifying the efficiency of the additional control
there is considerable flexibility since efficiency levels can be built into
devices within reasonable constraints of engineering and economics.
For instances of the above points, cyclones can be designed for
high pressure drops at the cost of power; scrubbers can be designed with
high gas and liquid energies by use of high pressure blowers and pumps;
electrostatic precipitators can be made with longer residence time by
adjustment of contact area or gas velocity; fabric filters are inherently
high efficiency devices, but need design ingenuity to adapt them to
temperature, corrosion, and abrasion forces.
If the actual existing collection efficiency, E., of a particular
process control device is known, a secondary device with a design
efficiency, E~, can be specified and designed to achieve a desired overall
efficiency, EGA, by application of the estimating methods outlined in
section 4.0.
72
-------
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROGRAM PARTICULATE
CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS<13~22)
6.1 DISCUSSION AND BASIS FOR EQUATIONS
6.1.1 Capital Costs
A review of the costing procedure for particulate removal devices
adopted in the original Implementation Planning Program (IPP) which
establishes a "flange to flange" cost for the control device itself,
and then factors this value to obtain a total installed cost, indicates
that the resulting capital costs obtained tend to be significantly lower
than those reported for "real-life" installations. A systems study of
wet scrubbers conducted by Ambient Purification Technology, Inc., for
EPA provides a direct comparison of actual installed costs for various
industrial wet scrubber systems versus the high and low range of installed
costs for these systems predicted by the "flange to flange" approach
detailed in the NAPCA (1969) AP-51 report and followed by the IPP program.
Actual costs of all types of scrubbers except packed bed scrubbers, are
greater than even the predicted high range cost.
An examination of commonly accepted methods for developing preliminary
capital cost estimates confirms that equipment cost is a common primary
cost element but that this term includes all identifiable equipment
within a system, i.e., pumps, heat exchangers, fans, etc., as well as the
primary equipment. The cost of this total grouping is then factored,
73
-------
depending on process characteristics, to provide associated direct
material such as piping, instruments, electrical, etc. Labor to install
the equipment and erect the field materials is usually determined from
established labor/material relationships. Indirect costs, field super-
vision, engineering and contractor's fee, etc., are added as factors of
the total of the foregoing. Total installed costs for a given process
may run 3-4 times the total equipment cost for the usual materials of
construction. Estimates made in this manner reflect considerable experience
and judgment in the selection of the factors used.
Although the original IPP approach equated efficiency of the
control device with total installed cost, an examination of estimates and
reported costs for the installation of pollution control equipment
suggests that rated efficiency of the prime device is not necessarily the
determinant of the total cost, although it does influence directly the
annual operating and maintenance costs. What does appear to be more
important is the nature or characteristics of the source and the complexity
of the installation itself. Retrofitting control equipment to an existing
plant is frequently a major problem and a contributor to abnormal costs
irrespective of the rated efficiency.
The uncertainties associated with both the above method of capital
cost determination, and the efficiency-cost relationship have suggested
an approach that establishes capital costs versus gas volume throughput
for a specific control device system based on reported costs for commercial
installations of that system. Total installed costs for each of the
particulate control devices culled from reports identified in the references,
miscellaneous articles in a variety of technical journals, and cost data
extracted and synthesized from engineering studies on pollution control
74
-------
systems in a number of industries, were updated to a 1974 cost basis
using Marshall and Swift indices, and plotted against actual gas flow
(ACIM).on log-log graph paper. These plotted costs for each control
device were grouped into three cost levelshigh, intermediate, low,
or where more appropriate, two levelshigh and low, and curves drawn
through the respective groupings. Because of the data scatter and un-
certain reliability, formal curve fitting techniques were not used.
These cost curves were then expressed as equations of the form y = a + bx
to express cost versus capacity relationships.
An example of the approach taken for wet scrubbers is provided
in Appendix I, Chart 1. Charts 2-6 provide the developed curves only,
for the other specified particulate control devices.
It should be noted that in the case of electrostatic precipitators,
efficiency has been retained to differentiate cost level because of the
unique relationship between efficiency, the number of collecting plates
in the ESP, and the plate area or size, and the direct impact of these
parameters on total cost.
Each SIC source and its associated processes was then reviewed, and
on the basis of the characteristics of each processfor example, corrosive-
ness, gas temperatures, complexity of the plant itselfeach process
was related to one of the available cost equations for each specific
control device by an appropriate coding designation. Thus, the capital
cost for particulate control devices is a direct function of the type
of control device and the size or gas volume throughput and is indirectly
related to the characteristics of the source itself. Section 6.2
provides coded capital cost equations. The Device Matrix, table 3 relates
75
-------
the SIC number, process number, applicable control devices, and efficiencies
for that process, with the associated capital cost code designation.
6.1.2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Expenses
Operating costs for particulate control devices are determined
from:
a) the amount of power necessary to maintain the effluent
gas flow through the control device,
b) the amount of power necessary to drive the pumps and
auxiliary equipment associated with the control device,
c) the cost of water, chemicals, and additional fuel required
by the system,
d) the labor required to operate the system,
e) the necessary maintenance and supplies to keep the equip-
ment functioning at the design or operating level,
f) the cost or credit resulting from the disposal of the
collected pollutants,
g) the cost of taxes and insurance and the appropriate unit
costs for each of these elements. Section 6.3 provides the
resulting equations for total annual operating costs for the
different particulate control devices.
Not all elements are associated with each control device, but
the computation of the annual usage of each of these elements is as
follows:
a) Power
For all devices, the power used is a direct function of the
gas throughput (ACFM) and the pressure drop (P) of the control
device. The equation providing annual power requirements in
kWh is developed as follows:
76
-------
Pressure drop of control device = P (inches water) ,
Gas flow at temperature °F = ACFM;
then,
Gas flow at standard conditions (60°F and 29.92 in.Hg)
= ACFM x 520
460 + T°F
Density of air at 60°F and 29.92 in.Hg = 0.0763 Ib/ft ,
3
Density of water at 60°F = 62.4 Ib/ft ;
then,
Pressure drop of device in feet of air = 10 ^"rr,^ = 68.152 (P)feet,
(520 \
460 + T°F J (°'(
Work performed = , ,
ACFM x I o-l (0.0763) x 68.152 (P)
but,
33,000 ft-lbs/min = 1 HP
and
1 HP = 0.746 kW
then, if fan efficiency = 60%
I. 520 \
I 460 + T°FJ
tw . Arm x I ^^- I (0.0763)(68.152)(P)(0.746)
kW - ACFM x ( ,.tn ^ | (33,000) (0.6)
520 ,_,
ACFM x UeO -f T J5104
then annual power requirements
ACFM x
5104
77
-------
where ACFM = Source effluent gas flow rate
T = Temperature (°F) of gas
P = Pressure drop of control device (inches water)
h = Annual hours of operation.
For wet scrubbers, the source (ACFM) is changed by virtue of both
cooling and take-up of water vapor. Assuming cooling to 130°F the new
volume becomes
ACFM1 =
(see section 7.1.2)
where,
T
ACFM
Temperature of source effluent °F
Source effluent gas rate
and
kWh/year
ACFM
t/ - 520 \
I 460 + 130 I
(P) fhV
5104
,-3
0.1726 x 10 (ACFM')(P) (h)
The fan is assumed to be located after the wet scrubber.
78
-------
The pressure drop associated with a specific control device is in
most cases a function of the efficiency of the device. The following
values are representative:
Device
Efficiency
(particulate removal)
001
002
003
007
009
010
Oil
012
016
017
013
014
015
019
020
021
022
055
Scrubber
Centrifugal
collector
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Fabric Filter
Gas Scrubber
Mist Eliminator
Afterburners
(Catalytic)
Afterburners
(Catalytic and
Heat Exchanger)
Direct Flame
Direct Flame and
Heat Exchanger
Direct Flame
and Regenerative
High
Medium
Low
High
Low
High
Medium
Low
(High temp) * 200°Fi
(Low temp ) <, 200 °FJ
High
Low
Pressure Drop
(in. H20)
40"
20"
5"
5"
3"
0.5"
5"
6"
10"
5"
8"
12"
6"
12"
10"
79
-------
b) Auxiliaries Power
ScrubbersIf the liquor circulation rate is W gal/ACFM and
2
the water pressure at the scrubber sprays is p Ib/in with a
pump efficiency of 50 percent, then
if 1 Ib/in.2 - 2.3 ft water
and 1 gal water =8.33 Ibs
work performed = (p)(2.3)(ACFM)(W)(8.33) ft-lbs/min
but 33,000ft-lb/min = 1 HP
and 1HP = 0.746 kW
then with 50% pump efficiency
vw = (P) (2.3)(ACFM)(W)(8.33)(0.746)
(33,000)(0.50)
= 0.8662 x 10~3(ACFM)(P)(W)
Annual power requirements
kWh/year = 0.8662 x i(f3 (ACFM) (p) (W) (h)
Liquor circulation and spray pressure is related to the efficiency
of the scrubber and the following relationships are representative:
(W)Circulation Rate (p) Spray Pressure
High Efficiency 0.025 gal/ACFM 60 psi
Medium Efficiency 0.015 gal/ACFM 40 psi
Low Efficiency 0.010 gal/ACFM 25 psi
then scrubber annual auxiliaries power requirements are :
80
-------
High Efficiency kWh/yr = 0.0013 (ACFM)(hr)
Medium Efficiency kWh/yr = 0.00052(ACFM)(hr)
Low Efficiency kWh/yr = 0.00022(ACFM)(hr)
Electrostatic PrecipitatorsThe power cost for ionizing the gas
and operating the dust removal gear is essentially a function of the
efficiency of the unit. Typical values are:
High Efficiency kWh/yr = 0.00040(ACFM)(hr)
Medium Efficiency kWh/yr = 0.00030(ACFM)(hr)
Low Efficiency kWh/yr = 0.00020(ACFM)(hr)
c) Fuel Costs
Only the fuel costs associated with the operation of
afterburners are considered in this group. The cost con-
tributions of water usage, etc., towards the operation of
other control devices are judged as minor and are not considered.
The fuel requirement relationships for the five types of afterburners
are computed as follows:
BASIS: Inlet temperature of effluent gas = 300°F
Available heat from natural gas
with no excess air at 1400°F = 939 Btu/SCF
950°F = 962 Btu/SCF
Enthalpy of air at 300°F =4.42 Btu/SCF
(Fan located before afterburner)
81
-------
019
020
021
022
023
Afterburner
type
Catalytic
Catalytic +
Heat Exchanger
Direct Flame
Direct Flame
+ Heat
Exchanger
Direct Flame
+ Regenerative
Exit
Temperature
F
950°F
650°F
1400°F
1000°F
450°F
Btu/SCF
16.92
11.00
26.13
17.92
7.23
AH
12.50
6.58
21.71
13.50
2.81
SCF Natural Gas
per
ACFM-hr
0.53
0.28
0.95
0.59
0.12
d) Operating Labor
Operating labor for particulate-control devices is not a
major cost contribution.
<100,000 ACFM >100,000 ACFM
\
6 hr/day 12 hr/day
No labor loading
2 hr/day 4 hr/day
6 hr/shift 12 hr/day
No labor loading
No labor loading
Scrubbers
Settlers}
Cyclones J
ESP's
Fabric Filters
Mist Eliminators
Afterburners
e) Maintenance
Maintenance costs are usually related to the complexity of
the installation and not primarily to throughput. Relating main-
tenance costs to capital investment is an effective approach and
appears compatible with the objectives of the Implementation Plan-
ning Program. The following relationships are defined based on
maintenance factors commonly used in estimating practice:
82
-------
Scrubbers 0.08 C.I.
Settlers 0.01 C.I.
Cyclones 0.02 C.I.
Electrostatic Precipitators
High Efficiency 0.04 C.I.
Standard 0.02 C.I.
Fabric Filters
High Temperature 0.10 C.I.
Low Temperature 0.08 C.I.
Mist Eliminators 0.02 C.I.
Afterburners 0.04 C.I.
f) Disposal Costs
Disposal of solid particulate material may be associated with
the following control devices: scrubbers, settlers, cyclones,
electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters.
In all cases except scrubbers, certain industries may return the
captured particulates to the process and no disposal costs are
incurred. However, for the purposes of this program it is as-
sumed that disposal costs will always be incurred. They are
calculated from the reported emission rate for particulates in
tons/day, the efficiency of the control device (or adjusted ef-
ficiency if tandem devices used) and the number of operating days.
Annual Disposal Cost = (E) (n)(Days)($/ton disposal)
where (E) = Uncontrolled particulate emissions in
tons/day
(n) = Efficiency of removal of control device
(Days) = Annual days of operation
Representative Disposal Costs are
Scrubbers $3/ton
Cyclones/ESP's/Fabric Filters $2/ton
83
-------
g) Cost of Taxes and Insurance
Taxes and insurance are usually allowed for as a percentage
of the total capital investment. An annual allowance of 2 1/2
percent is commonly used.
6.1.3 Annualized Capital Costs
To evaluate and compare the economics of alternative particulate
or SC-2 control equipment or processes, it is necessary to relate for
each system, both the annual operating and maintenance costs and the
initial capital investment. There are a number of methods whereby the
initial capital investment may be converted to an annual value related
to the expected life of that particular piece of equipment or system.
The simplest approach is to divide the initial capital investment by
the expected life of the equipment or investment. This figure can then
be interpreted as that part of the initial investment which is "consumed"
or "depreciated" each year during the useful lifetime of the equipment.
Other depreciation methods such as the sum-of-years digits and declining-
balance, accelerate the rate of depreciation in the early life of the
asset. All these methods, however, fail to take into consideration the
)
time value of money by neglecting interest. Money not invested in a
capital venture could be drawing interest at current bank or security
rates. Thus , the evaluation of a capital investment project should consider
the effect of interest, and the annual "depreciated" value of this capital
investment over its useful life should include the potential interest
contributions. This concept of the time value, or present worth of
money is inherent in such profitability study techniques as present-worth,
interest-rate-of-return, or discounted cash flow. A variation of these
criteria is known as the Capitalized Cost Method which involves the use
84
-------
of an amortization factor ("Capital Recovery Factor") to reduce the
capital investment figure to a uniform series of annual values over the
life of the investment.
The Capital Recovery Factor (C.R.F.) is expressed as follows:
C.R.F.
(1 + i) -1
where,
i = the interest rate 0«" tj.
85
-------
The total annualized cost of pollution control equipment is thus
the sum of the annualized capital charge, all variable operating costs,
and the annual maintenance, insurance, and taxes charges. This may be
expressed as
AC = CRF(I) + (V1 + M + T)
where,
AC = total annual cost
CRT = capital recovery factor
I = total capital investment
V1 = annual variable operating costs
M = maintenance cost (commonly expressed as fraction
of total capital investment
T = taxes and insurance (commonly 2 1/2% TCI)
However, present income tax provisions covering the installation of
pollution control equipment exercise a significant influence on the final
annual cost of such equipment to a corporation. When the income tax rate
(expressed as 0) is introduced into the above relationship, total annual
costs become:
/ Depreciation \
AC = CRF (I) + (V1 + M + T)(1 - 6) - I allowance I 6
Vfor (1st) year/
The depreciation allowance for any given year depends on the particular
depreciation method adopted (e.g., Straight Line) which provides a uniform
value over the life of the equipment, or an accelerated method which pro-
vides faster write-off over the early life of the equipment. Under normal
circumstances, the accelerated approach is favored and the "Sum-of-the-
Year's Digits" depreciation method would be used. With this method an-
86
-------
nual depreciation for any year k, would be defined by the expression:
m 2 |"N + 1 - kl
N |_ N + 1 J
where N = rated life of equipment
D = annual depreciation
If pollution control alternatives are being evaluated on the basis of
the annual costs for the first year of operation; the general relation-
ship can be expressed as:
AC =
+ M + T)a - e) - ~ (N~+T) e
for Sum-of-the-Year's Digits depreciation.
6.2 CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS - PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS
Capital cost of particulate control devices covers the cost of the
total system, i.e., equipment, installation, auxiliary materials such
as pumps, fans, piping, etc. together with indirect and engineering costs
where,
x = 103 ACFM
3
y = 10 dollars
001, '002, 003 - Wet Scrubbers
1 - High Cost y = 83.8 + 3.8 x
2 - Intermediate Cost y = 18.8 + 1.6 x
3 - Low Cost(^100,000 y = 7.1 + 1.6 x
ACFM)
004, 005, 006 - Settlers
1 - Cost y = -0.34 + 0.40 x
87
-------
007, 008, 009 - Cyclones
1 - High Cost y^= 5.0 + 0.7 x
2 - Low Cost y = 2.5 + 0.4 x
010, Oil, 012 - Electrostatic Precipitators
1 - High Cost (High Efficiency) y;L = 170 + 3.25 x
2 - Intermediate Cost y~ = 117 + 2.08 x
(Medium Efficiency)
3 - Low Cost (Low Efficiency) y = 89 + 1.01 x
014. 015 - Mist Eliminators
1 - High Cost (high velocity) y^ = 11.1 + 0.6 x
2 - Low Cost (low velocity) y^ = 5.0+0.3x
016, 017. 018 - Fabric Filters
1 - High Temperature (> 200 F) y^ =-1.0 + 3,5x (-3000 ACFM)
2 - Low Temperature y« = 2.4 + 1.8 x
019 - Afterburner - Catalytic
1 - Cost y, = 31.3 + 1.1 x
020 - Afterburner - Catalytic with Heat Exchanger
1 - Cost * y2 = 51.0 + 2.4 x
021 - Afterburner - Direct Flame
1 - Cost y., = 25.6 + 0.9 x
22 - Afterburner - Direct Flame with Heat Exchanger
1 - Cost y-L = 24.8 + 1.9 x
55 - Afterburner - Direct Flame - Regenerative
1 - Cost y-L = 55.5 + 4.3 x
NOTE: The log-log cost curves for the particulate control devices provided
in Appendix I have been approximated by the linear equation y = a+bx.
This format maintains accuracy within the capability of the methodology
but offers advantages in implementation.
88
-------
6.3 ANNUAL OPERATING COST EQUATIONS - PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS
Scrubbers (001, 002, 003)
o
ANNUAL OPERATING = (ACFM') (Hrs) ($/kWh) [(0.1955 x 1Q~ ) (P) + K]
COST (AOC)
+(E)(n)(Days)($3/ton) + 0.08(C.I.) + (L)(Days)($/hr)
. + 0.025 (C.L)
where
ACFM' = Corrected gas flow rate
T = Temperature of source gas °F
P = Pressure drop across scrubber ("H^O)
K = Constant related to efficiency of scrubber
E = Particulate emission tons/day
r\ = Efficiency of control device
L = Operating hours factor
C.I. = Capital investment
Total
Aual
[ id +/ 1
|_u + ±r - ij
(c.i.) + (AOOU - e) -
cost
USER INPUTS (See Section 6-4
(ACFM) = Effluent gas flow rate to scrubber
(Hrs) = Annual hours of operation
*($/kWh) = Electric power
(P) = Pressure dropC'I^O)- Dependent on level of scrubber
efficiency selected (Hi = 40"; Med. = 20"; Low = 5")
(K) = Constant. Dependent on level of scrubber efficiency
selected (Hi *>. 0.00130; Med. = 0.00052; Lo = 0.00022)
(E) = Particulate emission rate (tons/day)
(Days) = Annual days of operation
(n) = Efficiency
($/hr) = Operating labor rate
(L) = Operating labor (hours/day) < 100,000 ACFM = 6
> 100,000 ACFM =12
*See table 9 for mid- 19 74 costs.
89
-------
Settlers (No annual operating costs assigned)
Centrifugal collector (08, 09)
Annual Operating = (0.1955 x 10~3) (ACFM) (P) (Hrs)($/kWh)
Cost (AOC)
+ (E)(n)(Days)($2/ton) + 0.02(C.I.) + 0.25 (C.I)
USER INPUTS
(ACFM) = Effluent gas flow rate to cyclone
(Hrs) = Annual hours of operation
*($/kWh) = Electric power
(P) = Pressure drop ("H20) - Dependent on level of
cyclone efficiency selected(5"; 3")
(E) = Particulate emission rate(tons/day)
(n) = Efficiency
Total Annual Cost = (See Section 6.4)
Electrostatic Precipitators (010, Oil, 012)
Annual Operating = (ACFM) ($/kWh)(Hrs) [(0.1955 x 10~3)(0.5) + K]
Cost (AOC)
+ (E)(n)(Days) ($2/ton) + (M)(C.l) + (L)(days)($/lw)
+ (0.025)(C.I)
USER INPUTS
(ACFM) = Effluent gas flow rate to ESP
(Hrs) = Annual hours of operation
*($/kWh) = Electric power
($/hr) = Labor rate
(K) = Constant. Dependent on level of ESP efficiency
selected (Hi. = 0.0004; Med. = 0.0003; Lo = 0.0002)
(E) = Particulate emission rate (tons/day)
(n) = Efficiency
(M) = Maintenance constant(0.04 high efficiency
(0.02 standard
(Days) = Annual days of operation
(L) = Operating labor factor(hours/day)< 100,000 ACFM = 2
>100,000 ACFM = 4
Total Annual Cost = (See Section 6.4)
*
See table 9 for mid-1974 costs.
90
-------
Fabric Filters (016, 017)
Annual Operating = (ACFM) ($/kWh)(Hrs) [(0.1955 x 10~3)(5)]
Cost (AOC) _-
[0.9775 x 10 ]
+ (E)(n)(Days)($2/ton) + (L)(Days)($/hr) + (M)(C.I.)
+ (0.025)(C.I)
USER INPUTS
(ACFM) = Effluent gas flow rate to filter
(Hrs) = Annual hours of operation
*($/kWh) = Electric power
($/hr) = Labor rate
(E) = Particulate emission rate (tons/day)
(n) = Efficiency
(Days) = Annual days of operation
(M) = Maintenance Constant JO.10 high temperature >200°F
(0.08 low temperature
(L) = Operating labor (hours/day <100,000 ACFM = 6
>100,000 ACFM = 12
Total Annual Cost = (See Section 6.4)
Annual Operating = (0.1955 x 10~3)(ACFM)(P)(Hrs)($/kWh) + 0.02 (C.I.)
Mist Eliminator (014, 015)
Annual Ope
Cost (AOC)
+ (0.025)(C.l)
USER INPUTS
(ACFM) = Effluent gas flow rate to mist eliminator
(Hrs) = Annual hours of operation
*($/kWh) = Electric power
(P) = Pressure drop across eliminator - 10" high efficiency
5" low efficiency
Total Annual Cost = (See Section 6.4)
Afterburners (019, 020, 021, 022, 023)
Annual Operating = (ACFM)(Hrs) [(0.1955 x 1Q~3)(P)($/kWh)
Cost (AOC)
+ (F)($/MCF)] + 0.04(C.I.) + (0.025(C.l)
Total Annual Cost = (See Section 6.4)
USER INPUTS
(ACFM) = Effluent gas flow to afterburner
(Hrs) = Annual hours of operation
*($/kWh) = Electric power
*($/MCF) = Natural gas
(F) = Fuel constant dependent on type afterburner
019 =0.53, 020 = 0.28, 021 = 0.95, 022 = 0.59, 023 = 0.12
See table 9 for mid-1974 costs.
91
-------
Table 9. Utility unit costs for particulate
control systems as of mid-1974
Electric Power
Natural Gas
$0.015/kWh
$1.25/M CF
6.4 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS EQUATION - PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS
The total annual cost (TAG) for all systems if the effect of taxa-
tion is ignored, is
TAG =
1(1 + i)
N
(C.I) + (Annual Operating Cost)
(1 + i)" -1
When the effect of taxation rate is included, the sum-of-the-year's
digit's method of accelerated depreciation is used, the annualized capital
cost for the first year reduces
TAG =
(1 + i)N -1
(C.I) + (Annual operating cost)(1-6)
2(0.1)
/ N Y|
\N + I;J
9
where
i
N
6
C.I
interest rate
rated life of control device
the taxation rate , where 0<6<1
capital investment
Values of N for the listed particulate control devices :
Scrubbers
Settlers
Centrifugal collector
15 years
20 years
15 years
92
-------
Electrostatic Precipitators 15 years
Fabric Filters 15 years
Gas Scrubbers 15 years
Mist Eliminators 15 years
Afterburners 15 years
The Internal Revenue Department Publication 534(10-72), "Tax Informa-
tion on Depreciation," provides write-off periods for industries as a whole.
Twelve to fifteen years appears to be the usual period for such industries
as pulp, iron and steel mills, and swelters which utilize particulate recovery
equipment.
93
-------
7.0 SULFUR DIOXIDE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS
7.1 DISCUSSION
The list of processes and systems which, in theory at least, offer
promise as practical SO^ control methods is both long and varied.
However, few processes have been demonstrated under full scale commercial
plant conditions although a number today are currently undergoing small
scale testing and evaluation.
This situation introduces considerable uncertainty regarding the
final costs and operating performance of most S02 control processes.
Costs reported in the literature are frequently sketchy and commonly do
not define the approach taken in regard to indirect costs, engineering
costs, contingencies, contractors fees, etc.
For this reason, only a limited number of SO. control processes has
been selected for-cost-equation development for the Implementation Planning
Program. It is believed that these selected processes are representative
of the types of S02 control processes available and that the cost equations
developed will be equally representative. The cost functions include an
allowance for retrofitting to an existing facility.
Process input parameters have been limited to the effluent gas flow
rate (ACFM), the daily S0? emission rate in tons per day (E), and the
temperature of the effluent gas (°F) to facilitate direct input from the
NEDS files. Table 10 provides S02 concentration limitations in the
application of specific S02 control systems.
The specific S02 recovery limits which have been assigned to each
selected process represent typical expected values but obviously in real-
life application this value may vary considerably.
94
-------
Table 10. SCL concentration limitations in the application of SO-
control systems
Minimum
% S02 in
Effluent Gas
Single Absorption Sulfuric Acid Plants 3.5%
Double Absorption Sulfuric Acid Plants 4.0%
Sulfur Plants 10.0%
Dimethylaniline Scrubbing 1.5%
Limestone Scrubbing
Wellman-Lord Process
Citrate Process
Double Alkali
Molecular Sieves
No Minimum Limit
95
-------
In developing equations for annual operating costs, a number of
simplifications have been adopted and these are listed below.
1) Utilities and raw materials have been determined on the basis
of fixed relationships to the process input parameters for each SO-
control process which are constant over the entire range of application.
Representative costs for utilities and raw materials as of mid-1974
are provided in appendix II.
2) Operating hourly labor has been specified and fixed for each
process with coverage for the full year (365 days) irrespective of
the actual days of operation. An additional 20 percent has been in-
cluded for supervision and benefits. No allowance for plant overhead
has been provided since these plants do not contribute normally to
plant output. The hourly rate is a user input variable.
3) Maintenance charges have been taken as a specified percentage of
the process capital investment.
4) Taxes and insurance have been taken at 2 1/2% of the total
capital investment.
5) Conditions for marketing the output from those SO- control processes
which produce sulfuric acid, elemental sulfur or SO- are uncertain.
Income from disposal may range from going market prices through
negative values. Credit or debit values per unit of production have been
designated as user inputs.
The equation for annual capital charges has been developed using the
"Capital Recovery Factor" technique and includes the impact of the income
tax rate on these capital charges when depreciation is based on the Sum-
of-the-Year's Digits approach. Section 6.1.3 provides a brief discussion
on this treatment.
96
-------
The total annual cost of any control system is obtained by summing the
annual operating costs and the annual capital charges.
7.1.1 Selection of the SOp Control System
Although entries have been made in the Device Applicability Matrix
for S02 control systems compatible with specific industries and processes,
the variability of SO- concentrations possible even within the same
industry and process suggest that an alternative approach to the
matching of S0~ control systems may be advantageous.
Table 10 provides the S02 minimum concentration limits for the S02
control systems costed in the program and these values could provide
a decision-making capability in the selection process.
An additional advantage could be obtained by differentiating between
weak or low strength S02 effluent streams on the basis of whether they
are tail gas streams from primary SO,, control systems or direct effluent
streams from the process itself. With tail gas streams, e.g., from
single absorber sulfuric acid plants, sulfur plants, or Glaus units, only
a scrubbing-concentrating process is required with recirculation of the
concentrated S02 gas back to the primary S02 control system. Molecular
sieves, dimethylaniline scrubbing, or the Wellman-Lord process without
the sulfur plant provide this option.
(23)
7.1.2 Wet Gas CleaningVJ;
Sulfur oxide control processes which produce a final product of ele-
mental sulfur, sulfuric acid, and liquid or gaseous S0_ require a feed gas
which is essentially free of particulate matter and excess water vapor. It
has been assumed that prior particulate removal devices will reduce partic-
ulate loading in an effluent stream down to 0.1 - 0.2 gr/SCF and that
97
-------
additional gas cleaning and conditioning is necessary prior to sulfur
recovery processes applied as primary SO, control systems.
The degree of additional treatment required will be related to
the particular source of the effluent gases. Smelter gases will require
the most extensive treatment involving water scrubbing from temperatures of
the order of 500 - 600 °F, electrostatic precipitation of acid mist, and
air stripping of dissolved SOj together with neutralization, thickener,
and recirculation facilities to handle the resulting slurry and solid
material. However, even power plants' effluent-gas streams directed to
sulfur recovery processes may require additional wet-gas cleaning to
remove such contaminants as chlorine, etc.
The development of a cost equation for wet-gas cleaning thus
poses some difficulties. Where gas cleaning is universally required with
a sulfur recovery process, the cost has been incorporated with the cost
equation for that process, e.g., sulfuric acid plants. Where the sulfur
recovery process may be applied either as a primary S02 control or as a
tail gas S02 clean-up or secondary process, gas cleaning and conditioning
will not be required in the latter situation,-and a separate cost function
for gas cleaning is necessary.
The approach taken has been to develop a cost equation for a
system comprised of
- humidifying/scrubber section,
demister,
thickener,
Such a system may not fully satisfy the gas treatment requirements of
a smelter but it will provide a reasonable overall approach.
98
-------
The cost equation for gas cleaning has been developed on the basis
of SCFM rather than ACFM to better accommodate the variability in the
input-gas temperature ranges. Since the source data provides only ACFM,
the cost equation includes a conversion of ACFM to SCFM. Operating
costs are also based .on SCFM, and an overall cost function provided for
total annualized costs. The function should be activated and the
annualized costs added to the annualized costs for the primary S0»
control system when the following conditions are applicable unless other-
wise qualified by the specific cost equation:
1) Effluent gas temperature > 130°F, and/or
2) Particulate loading of effluent gas stream > 0.01 gr/SCF.
Gas conditioning will change the actual gas volume to the primary
SO,., control process and it is necessary to determine this new gas
V-olume furr input to the primary control process cost equation. The
derivation of an expression for this new volume based on the initial
temperature and ACFM of the gas stream is provided below.
BASIS: 1. Effluent gas cooled and conditioned to 130°F;
2. Specific heat of effluent gas taken as 0.24 Btu/lb/9F;
3. Molecular weight effluent gas taken as 30.4;
4. Latent heat of vaporization of water at 60°F
= 1,060 Btu/lb;
5. Temperature in °F.
If.ACFM is the unconditioned effluent gas rate, then the heat load to
be removed from T°F to
5+°T ) 30'4 X °-
isf1- UeoTr I 30'4 x °'24(T - 130)>
99
-------
11.99(ACFM) , ... ,,,.,._
(460 + T) ( ~ ' Btu/min.
, j 11.99(ACFM)(T - 130) , .
water required = (460 + T) 1060 lbs/min
Volume of water at 130°F
J.O
/ 590 \ f 11.99(ACFM)(T - 130)1
\ 460 / L (460 + T) 1060 J
0.289(ACFM)(T - 130)
(460 + T)
Volume of effluent gas at 130 °F = ACFM x
+ T
Total new volume(ACFM') [ ACFM
460
M \ [552.4 + 0.289x1
+ T f L
t
where ACFM = Effluent gas rate ACFM after conditioning and
cooling to 130°F.
7.1.3 Sulfuric Acid Plants
The references for this section provide considerable information on
acid -plants but it is difficult to compare the provided cost data. The Chemico
work is directed towards the H-^SO^ industry itself whereas the IPP approach
considers the application of sulfuric acid plants as SO emission control
X
devices. An important additional cost factor must thus be considered in
any cost determination and that involves the gas cleaning and conditioning
equipment which must be provided prior to any HUSO, plant operating as an
SO control device.
x
100
-------
Whether the acid produced is marketed or disposed of via neutralization,
some storage facilities must be provided and legitimately constitute part
of the cost of the acid plant as a control device.
Almost all H2SO, plants installed in the United States are single-
absorption units and as such are capable of attaining an S0» recovery
efficiency of approximately 97 percent. Without additional tail gas
clean-up facilities, such plants cannot meet today's emission standards.
However, such plants may be satisfactory in those situations where
the tail gas may be recirculated back to an on-site scrubbing system.
In other circumstances, the plant may be upgraded by the addition of
a second absorber section although additional tail gas clean-up treatment
may still be required to meet proposed standards.
Cost equations have been developed for the following cases
1) Single absorption plant,
2) Double absorption plant,
3) Add-on second absorption section.
Since smelter operations commonly use acid plants today as SO
control devices, metallurgical acid plants are sold as turnkey units
and include wet cleaning equipment such as scrubbers, mist eliminators, etc.
The cost equations therefore include gas cleaning and conditioning.
Acid storage is also included and allowance is made for site clearance
and utility hook-up and retrofitting to an existing emission producing
plant.
In developing the cost equations, the effect of SC^ concentration
in the gas stream has been taken into effect as well as the S0~ emission
rate itself. J.M. Connor in Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol.64, No. 1,
Nov. 1968, indicates that percent S09 has a significant influence on costs.
101
-------
Cost of add-on absorption is related to the original plant capacity
but is expressed in terms of l^SO, produced and S02 concentration in the
inlet gas.
DETERMINATION OF DECIMAL FRACTION OF S02 IN EFFLUENT GAS
Provided Data:
E = S02 emission rate TPD
ACFM = Flow rate of effluent gas
Volume of SO, at 32°F and 14.7 lb/in2
£
_ (E)(2000)(359) 3
- (24)(60))64) ft
Since source temperature data is reported in °F, then:
Volume SO at T°F = (E)(2000)(359) x (460 + T) ACFM.
volume E>02 at i t (24) (60) (64) 492
Decimal fraction S02 in effluent gas
h T) E_
_
492 ACFM
(7.284 + 0.0158 T) E
ACFM
102
-------
7.1.4 Sulfur Plants(28)
The direct application of sulfur plants to S02 carrying streams is
probably limited to situations where the S02 concentration is greater
than 10 percent and the oxygen content is less than 1-3 percent. Although
the process may be applied as a primary S02 control process, e.g., for
certain non-ferrous smelter gas streams, it will usually be incorporated
with some primary SC^ concentrating process such as citrate scrubbing
and sodium sulfite scrubbing. In this program, the cost of elemental
sulfur plants providing a secondary function has been incorporated with
the overall cost function for the primary SO- control system.
(29)
7.1.5 Molecular Sievesv '
Molecular sieves are tail gas clean-up systems. They have been
applied commercially to sulfuric acid plants but are applicable to any
SO--containing tail gas. Switching sequences between absorption and
regeneration are automatic. No additional labor is required to operate
the system.
(30-32)
7.1.6 Dimethylaniline Scrubbingv
Dimethylaniline (DMA) scrubbing is an SO- concentrating process
capable of yielding 100 percent liquid or gaseous SO- product. Although
it can be designed to handle weak S0~ containing streams (0.5% SO-), it is
generally applied to streams containing 1.5 percent SO-or more.
Since the process is applied to primary 862 sources, gas scrubbing
and conditioning is necessary prior to the DMA process itself, and the
cost function developed includes this cost. Costs of both the gas
conditioning section and the DMA scrubbing system are based on gas flow
(ACFM) and the derived cost equation incorporates the necessary calculation
of the new gas flow from the conditioning section as input to determine
the DMA scrubbing cost.
103
-------
7.1.7 SO,, Absorbent Systems
There are a large number of S02 aqueous absorbent systems which might
be viewed as potential commercially applicable SO control systems. Very
few, however, have progressed beyond the small scale demonstration size and
of these, the majority have been applied to utility power generation
facilities. The cost picture accordingly, is rather unstable with
estimated costs for particular systems escalating dramatically as knowledge
is broadened and designs modified accordingly.
Four SC>2 aqueous absorbent systems have been chosen as representatives
of present scrubbing technology. These are :
1) Limestone Scrubbing - non-rege'nerable throwaway system ;
2) Wellman-Lord (Sodium Sulfite Scrubbing) - regenerable with
S02 or sulfur recovery;
3) Citrate Process - regenerable with sulfur recovery ;
4) Double-Alkali Process - regenerable scrubbing medium, throwaway
solids.
The processes may be applied as primary S0« control systems or as
secondary or tail gas clean-up systems. The Wellman-Lord process provides
a further option of recirculating the recovered SO- back to the primary
control system or of producing elemental sulfur.
Table II provides a listing and grouping of sulfur dioxide desulfurization
processes which today are being evaluated in either commercial installations
or small scale demonstration units. The individual cost equations
developed for the above processes are believed to be reasonably representative
of the costs of those processes within their own group.
It should be noted that table 2 provides among the listing of S02
control systems, two methods which are not included in table 11. These methods-
namely, dry limestone injection and alkalized aluminado not appear today to
offer potential as commercial S0? control methods although they have been
retained in the record to avoid possible-conflict with the NEDS files.
104
-------
Table 11. SO. desulfurization processes
(Presently under evaluation)
(A) NON-REGENERABLE THROWAWAY SYSTEMS
*Llmestone Scrubbing
Lime Scrubbing
(B) REGENERABLE WITH S02 OR SULFUR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Group I: *Wellman-Lord Process
Magnesia (MgO) Scrubbing
Ammonia Scrubbing
Catalytic Oxidation (Cat-Ox Process)
Group II: *Citric Acid
*Double-Alkali Process (Throwaway Solids)
Sodium Phosphate Scrubbing (Stauffer's Powerclaus Process)
*Processes selected for costing and inclusion in the program.
105
-------
7.2 CAPITAL, OPERATING, AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
(043, 044, 033) SULFURIC ACID PLANTS
Capital Cost Equations (Includes gas cleaning and conditioning, acid storage and retrofitting)
043 SINGLE ABSORPTION (RECOVERY 97.5%)
0.60
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
112,
(E)
0.68
044 DOUBLE ABSORPTION (RECOVERY 99.5%)
0.60
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
033 ADD-ON DOUBLE ABSORPTION
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
128,
(E)
0.68
29,500
).62
where,
% S02 =
T =
E =
ACFM =
Decimal fraction S02 in effluent gas
(7.284 + 0.0158T)
Effluent gas temperature °F)
SO* emission rate in tons/day
Sulfuric acid production from single absorption plant as 100% TPD
Effluent gas flow rate
-------
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
043 SINGLE ABSORPTION
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
AOC = ' (E) (Days) [95.55($/kWh) + 1.64($/M gal)]
+ 21,024($/hr) + 0.06(C..I.) + 0.025(C.I.)
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES
TAC =
where,
ANNUAL H2S04(100%) PRODUCTION
044 DOUBLE ABSORPTION
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Q
i
N
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES
where,
AOC =
taxatlon rate Q < 6 < 1
interest rate
life of equipment
1. 49 (Days) (E)
(E) (Days) [l!8.84($/kWh) + 1.68($/M gal)]
-I- 21,024($/hr) + 0.06(C.I.) + 0.025 (C.I.)
TAC
e
i
N
ANNUAL H2S04(100%) PRODUCTION
a + ±r -1
taxation rate 0 < 9 < 1
interest rate
life of equipment
1.53(Days)(E)
-=-)!
N + 1/J
-------
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
033 ADD-ON DOUBLE ABSORPTION -
ANNUAL OPERATING COST AOC = 14.29(Days)(H2S04>($/KWH) + 0.06(C.I.) + 0.025(C.I.)
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES TAG = | ~^ | (C.I.) + (AOC) (1 - 9) -
(1 + i) - 1.
where, Q = taxation rate 0 < 6 < 1
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL H2S04(100%) PRODUCTION = 1.02(H2S04)(Days)
where,
E = S02 emission rate tons/day
Days= Annual days of operation
C.I.= Capital investment
H2S04= Daily production H 80^(100%)
-------
OPERATING DATA BASIS
Power:
Process and Cooling Water:
Single Absorption
64 kWh/ton H2S04
1.1 M gal/ton H2SO,
Double Absorption
78 kWh/ton H^O^
1,1 M gal/ton H2S04
Labor:
Fixed at 2 men/shift
(With 20% allowance for
fringes and benefits)
Maintenance:
0.06 C.I.
o
vo
Capital Charges:
15 year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2,5%(C.I,)
USER INPUTS
= S02 emission rate-tons/day
= Annual days of operation
(E)
(Days)
*($/kWh) = Electric power
*$/M gal) = Process water
*($/short ton) 100% H2SO,
($/hr) = Labor
(i) = Interest rate
*See appendix II for mid-1974 costs.
-------
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
045 SULFUR PLANT (RECOVERY 90%)
NOTE: (Does not include gas cleaning and conditioning)
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
where,
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES
E
%SO,
ACFM
ANNUAL OPERATING COST AOC
TAG
0.43
105,4001
(E)
0.58
S0« emission rate in tons/day
Decimal
ACFM
(7.284 + 0.0158T)
Effluent gas flow rate
I. v 0.80
18/-g^1 ($/kWh) +6.1
x \0.40
°2 / water
1
gal)]
fr^ J
catalyst
21,024($/hr) + 0.06(C.I.) + 0.025(C.I.)
(C.I.) + (AOC) (1 - 9)
-»-
where,
e
i
N
taxation rate 0 < 0 < 1
interest rate
life of equipment
0,17
($/M CF methane)
2(C.I.) ( N )
L N \N+ 1/J
ANNUAL SULFUR PRODUCTION CREDIT = 0.45(E)(Days)($/short ton sulfur)
-------
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Power:
Methane:
Cooling Water:
Catalyst:
Labor:
Maintenance:
40 kWh/ton sulfur
13.4 M CF/ton sulfur
1.8 M gal/ton sulfur
3.8 Ib/ton sulfur
Fixed at 2 men/shift (includes 20% allowance for fringes and benefits)
0.06 C.I.
Capital Charges: 15 year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5% C.I.
USER INPUTS
(E)
(Days)
*($/kWh)
*($/M gal)
*($/M CF)
*($/lb)
($/hr)
(ACFM)
(T)
(i)
S02 emission rate TPD
Annual days of operation
Electric power
Cooling water
Methane
Catalyst
Labor
Effluent gas flow rate
Effluent gas temperature °F
Interest rate
*See appendix II for mid-1974 costs.
-------
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
057 MOLECULAR SIEVE (RECOVERY 98%)
(Tail gas clean-up process)
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
850(ACFM)
0.70
1.3.
,0.25
ANNUAL OPERATING COST AOC = (Days )[0.024(ACFM)1' J($/kWh) + 32.6(E)U'" ($/MM Btu)] +0.13.(C.I.)
N>
where,
(ACFM)
(E)
C.I.
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES TAG
where,
9
i
N
effluent gas flow rate
S02 emission rate TPD
capital investment
r m + i)s i
La + D" -1J
-------
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Power: 0.024kWh (ACFM)1'3
H^at: 6.94 MM Btu/ton S02
Sieve Replacement(every 2 years) 0.08(C.I.)
Maintenance: 0.05 C.I.
Labor: None
Capital Charges: 15 year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5% C.I.
USER INPUTS
j->
to (ACFM) = Effluent gas flow rate
(Days) = Annual days of operation
*($/kWh) = Power
*($/MM Btu) = Heat
*($/short ton) = 100% sulfuric acid
(i) = Interest rate
* See appendix II for mid-1974 costs.
-------
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
034 WELLMAN-LORD PROCESS (SO,, RECOVERY 90%)
(Includes particulate scrubbing)
Maximum Sized Unit; 350.000 ACFM
A. Primary SO- Control System with Production of Elemental Sulfur
CAPITAL COST (C.I.) = 1800(ACFM)°'6° + 250,000(E)°'65
where,
(ACFM) = effluent gas flow rate
(E) = S0» emission rate tons/day
ANNUAL OPERATING COST AOC = V~f§o₯/ (Days> [300($/kWh) + 1.5*($/MM Btu)J
+ (E)(Days) Fl66.3($/kWh + 9.22($/M lb steam) + 0.8($/M gal H20)
+ 6.37($/M CF methane) + 71.25($/lb Na2C03)~|
+ 26,280 ($/hr) + 0.06(C.I.)+ 0.025(C.I.)
*Utility applications only. v n
I r- . . . N 1 f /
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES TAG = I l(1 + P (r.T.^ + fAnrl C\ - fH - 2(C>I') ^-
if i(i + i)N ] (C
lL(l + i)N- ij
where, Q = taxation rate 0 < 9 < 1
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
-------
ANNUAL ELEMENTAL SULFUR PRODUCTION CREDIT OR DEBIT
3.2(E)(Days)($/ton)
B. Tail Gas SO^ Control System with Recirculation of Gaseous S0? to Primary Control System
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
where,
(ACFM)
(E)
ANNUAL OPERATING COST (AOC)
1200(ACFM)0'60 + 185,000(E)°*65
tail gas flow rate
S02 emission rate tons/day
-f§f| ) (Days) |"300($/kWh)l+ (E) (Days) [ 142.5($/kWh)
+ 9.98($/M Ib steam) + 71.25($/lb Na2C03)J
V
+ 21,024 ($/hr) + 0.06(0.1.) + 0.025 (C.I.)
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES
TAC -
(AOCH1-e) -
where,
0 = taxation rate 0 < 6 < 1
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
ANNUAL S02 PRODUCTION CREDIT OR DEBIT = 0.90 (E)(Days)($/ton)
-------
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Power: Scrubbing 0.30 kWh/ACFM-day
Sulfur Handling 350 kWh/ton sulfur
Sulfur Handling(as S02) 300 kWh/ton sulfur
Steam: 19.4 M Ib/ton sulfur
21 M Ib/ton sulfur (no elemental sulfur production)
Soda ash(Na2C03):150 Ib/ton sulfur
Cooling Water: 1.7 M gal/ton sulfur
Methane:
Labor:
Maintenance:
13.4 M CF/ton sulfur
for elemental sulfur
Fixed at 2% men/shift(2 men/shift-S02 only)
(with 20% allowance for fringe-benefits)
0.06 C.I.
Capital Charges: 15 year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5% C.I.
USER INPUTS
(ACFM)
(E)
(Days)
*($/Mlb) =
*($/Mgal) =
*($/lb)
*($/MCF)
* ($/MMBtu) =
($/hr)
*($/short ton) =
(i)
Effluent gas flow rate
S02 emission rate-tons/day
Annual days of operation
Electric power
Steam
Cooling water
Soda ash (Na2C03)
Methane
Reheat (for utility applications)
Labor rate
Credit or debit for elemental sulfur disposal
Interest rate
*See appendix II for mid-1974 costs.
-------
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
042 LIMESTONE SCRUBBING (S02 RECOVERY 85%)
(NOTE: Does not require gas conditioning - includes particulate scrubbing)
Maximum Sized System; 350.000 ACFM
°'65 0 75
CAPITAL COST (C.I.) = 1170 (ACFM) + 125,000(E)
where,
(ACFM) = effluent gas flow rate
(E) = SO- emission rate tons/day
/ ArFM\ r * -1
ANNUAL OPERATING COST(AOC)= ( ^Q 1 (Days) 300($/kWh) + 1.5 ($/MM Btu*
+ (E)(Days) Fl53($/kWh) + 1.9($/MM Btu)+ 2.34 ($/ton
+ 21,024($/hr) + 0.06CC.I.)+ 0.025(C.I.)
*Utility applications only.
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES TAG
where.
- 1(1 \^ - (C.I.) + (AOC) (1-9) - 2(C^') (~-J
,,
0 = taxation rate 0 < 0 < 1
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
ANNUAL SLUDGE PRODUCTION = (Days) (6. 5 E) tons/day (@50% solids)
NOTE: Capital cost includes disposal pond. Therefore operating costs do not include specific charge
for sludge disposal.
-------
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Power:
Water:
Reheat:
Limestone:
Labor:
Maintenance:
Capital Charges:
00
Scrubbing 0.30 kWh/ACFM-day
Alkali Handling 360 kWh/ton sulfur
4.5 M gal/ton sulfur
0.0015 MM Btu/ACFM-day (utility applications only)
5.5 tons/ton sulfur
Fixed at 2 men/shift
(with 20% allowance for fringes and benefits)
0.06 C.I.
15-year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5% C.I.
USER INPUTS
(ACFM)
(E)
(Days) =
*($/kWh)
*($/M gal) =
*($/ton) =
*($/MM Btu)=
($/hr)
(i)
Effluent gas flow rate
SO- emission rate-tons/day
Annual days of operation
Electric power
Raw water
Limestone
Reheat (for utility applications)
Labor rate
Interest rate
*See appendix II for mid-1974 costs.
-------
vo
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
056 DIMETHYLANILINE SCRUBBING (98% RECOVERY)
(Includes additional gas cleaning and conditioning prior to DMA Scrubbing System)
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
where,
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
ACFM
T
AOC
750 ACFM x
I" 320 f68
\_ 460 + Tj
ACFM ]
46o + T/
|0,7
555 + 0.27 T
Effluent gas flow rate
Temperature (°F) of effluent gas
+ 13($/M gal)
water
+ [446($/kWh) + 5.3($/M Ib) + 37($/M gal condensate)
steam
+ 4.6($/lb DMA) + 167($/lb H2S04) + 147($/lb Na2C03)
+ 15,768($/hr) + 0.06(C.I.) + 0.025 (C.I.)
\
>
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES
where,
TAG =
.I.) t CAOC) (1 - 9) -
6 = .taxation rate 0 < 9 < 1
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
ANNUAL 100% LIQUID OR GASEOUS SO PRODUCTION CREDIT = (E)(Days)(0.98)($/ton)
where,
E = S02 emission rate TPD
Days = Annual days of operation
-------
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Conditioning
Power :
Water:
Scrubbing
Power :
Steam:
Condensate:
DMA:
Labor :
Maintenance:
Capital Charges:
USER INPUTS
245 kWh /M SCFM - day)
13 M gal/M SCFM - day
Note Basis SCFM
446 kWh/M ACFM-day
5,3 Ib/M ACFM-day
37 M gal/M ACFM-day
4.6 Ib/M ACFM-day
167 Ib/M ACFM-day
147 Ib/M ACFM-day
Fixed at 1% men/shift (With 20% allowance for fringes and benefits)
0.06 C.I.
15 year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5% C,I.
(ACFM)
(Days)
*($/kWh)
*($/M gal)
*($/M gal)
*($/M
*($/lb)
*($/lb)
*($/hr)
Effluent gas flow rate
Annual days of operation
Electric power
Raw water
Condensate
Steam
H2J
Na2v
Labor"
($/ton liquid SO- credit (if taken)
(i) = Interest rate
*See appendix II for mid-1974 costs.
*($/lb)
DMA.
-------
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
036 DOUBLE ALKALI PROCESS (S02 RECOVERY QO^
(Single scrubber only - no separate particulate scrubbing)
Maximum Sized System; 350,000 ACFM
CAPITAL COST (C.I.) = 1000 (ACFM)0'60 + 200,000(E)°'65
where,
(ACFM) = effluent gas flow rate
(E) = S02 emission rate tons/day
M / .__ \ r * 1
10 ANNUAL OPERATING COST AOC = ( *^ ) (Days) 240($/kWh) +1.5 ($/MM BtuN
+ (E)(Days) Fl90($/kWh) + 1.9($/M gal H20) + 1.14 ($/ton CaO)
+ 0.19($/ton Na2C03)l + 21,024($/hr) + 0.06(C.I.) + 3.33($/ton sludge) + 0,025 (C.I.)
*Utility applications only.
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES TAG = i(1 + ^ (C.I.) + (AOC) (1 - 9) - 2(C'I>) ( ^ 1 9
L (1 + i) - 1 J L ' J
T,jV|p7"O
wiieLe, Q = taxation rate 0 < 9 < 1
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
ANNUAL SLUDGE PRODUCTION = 3.2(E)(Days)
NOTE: Annual operating cost includes sludge disposal.
-------
N>
N>
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Power:
Reheat:
Water:
Lime(CaO):
Scrubbing 0.24 kWh/ACFM-day
0.0015 MM Btu/ACFM-day(utility applications only)
4 M gal/ton sulfur
2.4 tons/ton sulfur
Soda ash (Na2CO_): 0.4 tons/ton sulfur
Labor:
Maintenance:
Fixed at 2 men/shift
(with 20% allowance for fringes and benefits)
0.06 C.I.
Capital Charges: 15 year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5% C.I.
USER INPUTS
(ACFM)
(E)
(Days)
*($/kWh) =
*($/M gal) =
*($/MM Btu)=
*($/ton)
*($/ton)
($/hr)
($/ton) =
(i)
*See appendix
Effluent gas flow rate
S0~ emission rate tons/day
Annual days of operation
Electric power
Raw water
Reheat (for utility applications)
Lime (CaO)
Soda ash (Na^O-)
Labor rate
Cost of disposal of sludge solids
Interest rate
II for Mid-1974 Costs.
-------
N>
co
CAPITAL, OPERATING AND ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST EQUATIONS
037 CITRATE PROCESS (SO,, RECOVERY 95%)
(Includes particulate scrubbing)
Maximum Sized System; 350,000 ACFM
CAPITAL COST (C.I.) = 1800(ACFM)0'60 + 220,000(E)°'6°
where,
(ACFM) = effluent gas flow rate
(E) = S02 emission rate tons/day
ANNUAL OPERATING COST AOC = ( IQOQ ) (Days) |300($/kWh) + 1.5*($/MM BtuM
f (E)(Days) Fl90($/kWh) + 1.71($/Mgal H20) + 3.8 ($/Mlb steam)
+ 6.37($/to.CF methane) + 4.28($/lb citric acid) + 29.2($/lb Na2C
+ 26,280($/hr) + 0.06(C.I.)f 0.025(C.I.)
*Utility applications only.
[N
i(1 +>Ti)
.(i + i)N-i
(c.i.) + (Aoc)d-e) -
N
N
e
where,
6 = taxation rate 0
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
ANNUAL SULFUR PRODUCTION CREDIT OR DEBIT = (0.475E)(Days)$/ton)
-------
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Power: Scrubbing 0.30 kWh/ACFM-day
Sulfur Handling 400 kWh/ton sulfur
Reheat:
Process Water:
Steam:
Methane:
Citric Acid:
0.0015 MM Btu/ACFM-day (utility applications only)
3.6 M gal/ton sulfur
8 M Ib/ton sulfur
13.4 M CF/ton sulfur
9 Ib/ton sulfur
N>
Soda Ash:
Labor:
Maintenance:
Capital Charges;
61.5 Ib/ton sulfur
Fixed at 2% men/shift
(with 20% allowance for fringes and benefits)
0.06 C.I.
15-year life
Taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5% C.I.
USER INPUTS
(ACFM)
(E)
(Days)
*($/kWh)
*($/MMBtu) =
*($/M gal)-
*($/Mlb) =
*($/lb)
*($/lb)
($/hr)
($/ton) '
(i)
Effluent gas flow rate
S0~ emission rate-tons/day
Annual days of operation
Electric power
Reheat (for utility applications)
Process water
Steam
Citric acid
Soda ash (Na2C03)
Labor rate
Credit or debit for elemental sulfur disposal
Interest rate
*See appendix II for mid-1974 costs,
-------
CAPITAL AND TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST EQUATIONS
N5
GAS CLEANING AND CONDITIONING
Applied to SO- containing effluent streams if
a) temperature >130°F , and /or
b) particulates >0.01 gr/SCF unless otherwise noted
CAPITAL COST (C.I.)
where,
ACFM
T
ANNUAL OPERATING COST AOC
where,
(
0.68
750 I ACFM x
effluent gas flow to conditioning plant
temperature of gas (°F) to conditioning plant
(Days)
ACFM
520
1000
(460
245($/KWH) + 13($/M gal)
+5,256($/hr). + 0.06(C.I.) + 0.025(C.I.)
(Days) = Annual days of operation
-------
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGES TAG
where
9 = taxation rate 0<0<1
i = interest rate
N = life of equipment
NJ
°" FLOW RATE OF CONDITIONED EFFLUENT STREAM
ACFM' = I TzTrV 1 (552.4 + 0.289T)
where,
ACFM = gas flow rate to conditioning plant
T = temperature (°F) of effluent stream to conditioning
plant
Temperature of Conditioned Effluent Stream = 130°F
-------
OPERATING DATA INPUT
Power:
Raw Water:
Labor:
Maintenance:
Capital Charges:
245kWh/M SCFM-day
13 M gal/M SCFM-day
Fixed at % man/day
(With 20% allowance for fringes and benefits)
0.06(C.I.)
15-year life
taxes, insurance, etc. 2.5%C.I,
ro
USER INPUTS
(Days)
(ACFM)
(T°)
*($/kWh)
*($/M gal)
($/hr)
(i)
Annual days of operation
Effluent gas flow to gas conditioning
Temperature (°F) of effluent gas to gas conditioning
Electric power
Raw water
Labor rate
Interest rate
*See appendix II for mid-1974 costs.
-------
8.0 CONVERSION OF OIL- OR GAS-FIRED BOILERS TO COAL-FIRED
The factors which may affect the conversion of an oil or gas-
fired boiler to a coal-fired unit are many and varied, and a generalized
approach can only be approximate. Packaged boilers, for instance, cannot
be converted while the larger radiation areas needed for coal combustion
make other boiler type conversions difficult and often impractical to
undertake.
For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that conversion
can be achieved only by replacement of the oil- or gas-fired boiler with
a new coal-fired unit. Costs will thus include removal of the original
boiler, retrofitting the new boiler to the existing structure and generating
equipment and provision of coal handling facilities.
On the.basis of a conversation with a representative of Babcock and
Wilcox, a cost of $10/lb steam or $85/kW has been taken as a representative
cost of a coal-fired boiler including pulverizers, up to 200 MW in size.
The 1970 National Power Survey provides estimated average investment
cost for new generating capacity at 1968 price levels as follows:
<100 MW $203/BJ = $288/kW (1974 costs)
100 - 300 MW $188/HJ = $267/kW (1974 costs)
Boiler cost might reasonably be expected to account for approximately
one-third of the total utility costs and the base cost of $85/kW falls
within this range.
128
-------
Two main parameters affecting boiler costs appear to be Ibs/steam
generated and the steam pressure. However, since the NEDS file reports
rated boiler capacities in MM Btu/hr and does not report on steam
pressure, the cost equation has been developed only on the basis of MM Btu/hr.
A retrofitting factor of 1.5 has been used.
Coal handling costs have been developed from data included in "Systems
Evaluation of Refuse as a Low Sulfur Fuel," Vol. II, Envirogenics Company,
Nov. 1971, PB-209-272, and are based on MM Btu/hr.
No equation for operating costs has been developed. It is assumed
that operating costs apart from fuel costs will be the same as for the
original boiler. Fuel costs will be computed from the existing routines
in the Implementation Planning Program.
129
-------
CAPITAL COST EQUATION
024, 025, 026 CONVERSION OF OIL- OR GAS-FIRED BOILER
CAPITAL COST (C.I.) = 41, 650 (MM Btu/hr)°<8° + 4, 390 (MM Btu/hr) °*
where,
MM Btu/hr = rated capacity of boiler in million Btu/hr
Co
O
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
(1) EPA document AP-42, July 1973, Table A-2.
(2) Vatavuk, William,M. A Technique for Calculating Overall Efficiencies
of Particulate Control Devices. EPA, August 1973.
(3) Gipson, Gerald, EPA, private communication.
(4) "The Lognormal Distribution", Aitchison and Brown, Chapter 10, 1957.
(5) Particle size distributions are given in: (1) Electrostatic
Precipitator Technology - Part II, Southern Research Institute, 1970,
(2) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. II, Midwest Research
Institute, 1971, (3) Scrubber Handbook, Vol. I, A.P.T., 1972.
(6) Fractional efficiency data are given in: (1) Particulate Pollutant
System Study, Vol. II, Midwest Research Institute, 1971, (2) Air
Pollution Emission Factors, EPA, Table A-2, 1973.
(7) Hastings. Approximations for Digital Computers. 1955, pp 185, 191.
Princeton University Press.
(8) Hubbert, G. Specialty Conference, APCA, March 1973.
(9) Semrau, K.T. JAPCA, June 1960, "Correlation of Dust Scrubber
Efficiency".
(10) Electrostatic Precipitator Technology - Part I, Southern Research
Institute, p 205.
(11) Electrostatic Precipitator Technology - Part I, Southern Research
Institute, p 208.
(12) Selzler, D.R. and Watson, W. D., JAPCA, February 1974. Hot Versus
Enlarged Electrostatic Precipitation of Fly Ash.
(13) Scrubber Handbook, Ambient Purification Technology, Inc., Prepared
for the Control Systems Division, Office of Air Programs, EPA,
Contract No. CPA-70-95, August 1972.
(14) A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Southern Research
Institute, EPA Contract CPA 22-69-73.
(15) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Midwest Research Institute, Vol.
Ill, PB-203-522.
(16) Study of Technical and Cost Information for Gas Cleaning Equipment
in the Lime and Secondary Non-ferrous Metallurgical Industries,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract CPA 70-150, Dec. 1970.
131
-------
(17) Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning, PB-222-746, Sept. 1972.
(18) Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology, GCA Corporation, December 1970.
(19) A Cost Analysis of Air Pollution Controls in the Integrated Iron
and Steel Industry, Battelle Memorial Institute, PB-184-576,
May 1969.
(20) A Process Cost Estimate for Limestone Slurry Scrubbing of Flue Gas,
Catalytic Inc., EPA-R2-73-148a, Jan. 1973.
(21) Applicability of Reduction to Sulfur Technologies to the Development
of New Processes for Removing S02 from Flue Gases, Allied Chemical
Corporation, PB-198-407, July 1969.
(22) Costs of Air Cleaning with Electrostatic Precipitators at TVA Steam
Power Plants, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
April 1974.
(23) The Impact of Air Pollution Abatement on the Copper Industry, An
Engineering Economic Analysis Related to Sulfur Oxide Recovery,
Kennecott Copper Corporation, N.Y. PB-208-293, April 1971.
(24) Chemical Construction Corp., "Engineering Analysis of Emissions
Control Technology for Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Processes,"
Contract CPA 22-69-81, March 1970.
(25) Arthur G. McKee & Co., Systems Study for Control of Emissions from
Primary Non-ferrous Smelters, Contract Ph 86-65-85, June 1969.
(26) TVA Conceptual Design and Cost Study M 0 Scrubbing Regeneration
Contract PB-222-509, May 1973. g
(27) Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Primary Copper, Zinc,
and Lead Smelters, EPA, August 1973.
(28) See Reference 21.
(29) The Coulton Purasiv S. Unit Goes on Stream - L. L. Fornoff, J. J.
Collins, W. C. Miller, and D. C. Lovell. Paper presented at 66th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Chicago,
Illinois, June 1973.
(30) Background Information, Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters, EPA, August 1973.
(31) Personal communication with Mr. Mike Varner, American Smelting and
Refining Company, Salt Lake City.
132
-------
(32) Impact of Air Pollution Abatement on the Copper Industry, Kennecott
Copper Corporation, PB-208-293, April 1971.
(33) Sulfur Dioxide Emission Control by l^S Reaction in Aqueous Solution,
The Citrate Process, Bureau of Mines, RI 774, 1973.
(34) Citrate Process Ideal for Claus Tail gas Clean-up. Frank S. Chalmers,
Hydrocarbon Processing, April 1974.
(35) See Reference 30.
(36). Sulfur Dioxide Removal in A Double-Alkali Plant, C. G. Cornell and
D. A. Dhalstrom, Chemical Engineering Progress, December 1973.
(37) An EPA Overview of Sodium-based Double-Alkali Processes, Norman
Kaplan, May 1973.
(38) Economics of Flue Gas Desulfurization, Gary T. Rochelle, EPA, May
1973.
(39) See Reference 23.
133
-------
APPENDIX I
Chart 1 - Installed Capital Cost Wet Scrubbers
2 - Installed Capital Cost - Cyclones
3 - Installed Capital Cost - Electrostatic Precipitators
4 - Installed Capital Cost - Mist Eliminators
5 - Installed Capital Cost - Fabric Filters
6 - Installed Capital Cost - Afterburners
134
-------
APPENDIX I
Chart 1
INSTALLED CAPITAL COST WET SCRUBBERS
ill
-faex
CO
o
10
9
H 8
§:
a
a-
w .
a a
Jew
4 6678910
10
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
100
3 4 5678910
GAS FLOW 10 ACFM
135
-------
APPENDIX I
Chart 2
INSTALLED CAPITAL COST - CYCLONES
10
9
o
rH
H
O
CJ
nnr
j B
< 4
i-t 3
H
O
H
10
9
8
7
6
6
lltE
3 4 5678910
10
3 4 66789
ioo
3 4 6678910
GAS FLOW 10 ACFM
136
-------
APPENDIX I
Chart 3
INSTALLED CAPITAL COST - ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
10
e
7
6
e
3
2
J
9
0 8
1-1 7
cn- '
H 6
en
8 6
i-l 4
INSTALLE1
CO
TOTAL
O IV.
9
8
7
6
6
4
a
2
1
(I
J
I)
I
I ...
. . . , i I . - a ^
_.-'..... i _ -
_ ___.._..,! .... .__
,
C" '" ,»
2 3
-- -,; | <- - ^
£ ' 3 i ' i
Jflfif mli|fj
. i g >
- i ' y
?' ':
^
^
/
( '
( '
3 i
g i '
. 9 \
t
^?::::::::::::::ji
1 ,!...--
. i
456789 10 2 3
100
---ji g^
.^....... yf. __
g 2
*' ,. ,2
i1
(*
^'
('
_ c_ _ _ _ _ i.
2
, i
1
t _
i
7
?j
f
«
' * . ^ 1 ! i i 11
45678910 2 3
1000
C . . . t
' t. '
.. ...;[ ..,.. ..
4 6 6 7 8 9 1(
GAS FLOW 10 ACFM
137
-------
APPENDIX I
Chart 4
INSTALLED CAPITAL COST - MIST ELIMINATORS
H W
. 9
<* 8
H 7
O 6
O
r
£2 9
g
H
10
4 S 6 7 8 9 10
10
3 4 6 6789 10
100
4 B 6 7 8 9 10
GAS FLOW 10 ACFM
138
-------
APPENDIX I Chart 5
INSTALLED CAPITAL COST - FABRIC FILTERS
10
% I
8 *
p-J 6
3 .
W
2;
M s
3 4 5678910
10
3 4 6678910
100
4 6 6 7 8 9 10
GAS FLOW 10° ACFM
139
-------
APPENDIX I
Chart 6
INSTALLED CAPITAL COST - AFTERBURNERS
10
9
B
7
4
2
10
9
8
7
4
2
q
8
7
2
1
|
)
(
|
__ -ill; __
2 3
^
- 1 ^ -
-?*-
I ! ' ' ^
I ' ' ' * '
*- ...
,l!l _ ...^
;;;;I:!!;!;~EEEE;;;-
X
^
^
?
;'
. ,«!
t r
** **
/ « ''
.''
('' £'
P<" Tji' - jf
_^5 ,;!
* ^ * < ' '
* ' i ' '
h== = :;;>;|;;;;:;!!
ri! I __.
+ *. - ---
45676910 2 3
10
::::::: ::i-z?:::
.£. ..
, i
-! -^ ?
;> ! 1'*-
~ 1* -;/
p i ' ^
n ' ' < ?
- ' +*
'* -
;.'! »2--
( * 2
* i '
( i '
( t '
^
M
%-
^
^
i!
L,1
\
T
___.... \i ... _.
-._.,):... __
Zt~" ~~
^j 1,5 _,
--»U^ 4-,^
-- -s --- ' Xj
---5 --
:__! :Eil::: .! :;
^[.]( :^..:;..: ^
4S678910 2 3
100
:::sji!::i:: :::
_5. ....i ,^,..
4 5678
9 10
ro
O
rH
H
O
U
H
O
H
GAS FLOW 10 ACFM
140
-------
APPENDIX II
CHEMICAL AND UTILITY UNIT COSTS FOR DESULFURIZATION PROCESSES
As of Mid-1974
A. Chemicals Costs
Limestone (CaGO-) $8/ton
Soda ash (Na2O>3) $50/ton
Lime (CaO) $22/ton
Citric acid 42.5
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on //.v reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-75-058
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Update and Improvement of the Control Cost Segment
of-the Implementation Planning Program
5. REPORT DATE
. _February 1975
G. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
F. L: Bellegia, J. C. Mathews, R. E. Paddock,
M. M. Wisler
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
2AC129
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0607
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
SRAB, MDAD, OAQPS, OAWM
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCr CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Most point source emitters of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter are
'identified and assigned a four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code
and a two-digit process code. The latter specifically identifies the process taking
place within the SIC. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide control equipment
applicable to each SIC-process code combination are identified, and typical removal
efficiencies reported. Tandem control arrangements are also considered. Algorithms
are developed for estimating the costs associated with installing and operating
the control equipment identified as applicable to the SIC-process code combinations.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Costs
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Air Pollution Control Equipment
b.lDENTIFIERS/OHEN ENDED TERMS
I'. COS AT I I k-M/tiroup
13 B
l-j. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (I hit Report,
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS ('Ihit pax?/
Unclassified
21. NO. Of I'AGLS
148
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
142
------- |