United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/2-79-185
August 1979
Research and Development
Cost Effectiveness Model
for Pollution Control
at Coking Facilities
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-185
August 1979
Cost Effectiveness Model for Pollution
Control at Coking Facilities
by
William F. Kemner
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
Contract No. 68-02-2603, Task No. 44
and Contract No. 68-02-3074, Task No. 6
Program Element No. 1AB604
EPA Project Officer: Larry G. Twidwell
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report is furnished to the Environmental Protection
Agency by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, in ful-
fillment of EPA Contract No. 68-02-2603, Task No. 44 and EPA
contract No. 68-02-3074, Task 6. It describes the initial
development and use of a cost optimization model for control of
emissions from coke ovens. The cost model has been developed so
that it will accommodate new information that becomes available
on control cost, control systems, and emission levels. The data
presented in this report and now used in the model are considered
to be the best currently available. Because some areas of
knowledge are continually developing, however, some engineering
estimates are used to facilitate the development and refinement
of the model.
The contents of the report reproduced herein are as received
from the contractor. The opinions expressed are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EPA.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an
endorsement by the authors or the EPA.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer. ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgement viii
1.0 Introduction 1
References 3
2.0 Model Structure 4
2.1 Data Requirements 6
2.2 Control Cards 13
3.0 Emission Factors 20
3.1 Source l--Larry Car Charging 22
3.2 Source 2--Coke Pushing Operations 25
3.3 Source 3--Quench Towers with Clean H?0; Source
16--Without Clean H20 27
3.4 Source 4--Door Emissions 29
3.5 Source 5--Topside Leaks 31
3.6 Source 6--Old Combustion Stack; Source 15--
New Combustion Stack 31
3.7 Source 7--Coke Handling 32
3.8 Source 8—Coal Preheat 33
3.9 Source 9--Coal Preparation 34
3.10 Source 10—Coal Storage 35
3.11 Source ll--Pipeline Charging 35
3.12 Source 12--Redler Conveyor Charging 37
3.13 Source 13—Hot-Larry-Car Charging 39
3.14 Source 14—Byproduct Recovery Plants 39
References 41
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4.0 Cost Methodology 44
4.1 Standards and Assumptions 44
4.2 Procedure for Cost Estimating 49
References 57
5.0 Control Systems 58
5.1 General Specifications 58
References 81
6.0 Battery Data Base (Dataset 3) 82
References 96
7.0 Model Formulation 97
8.0 Results 101
Appendix A - Example Computer Printouts for Cost
Functions Presently Included in Model A-l
Appendix B - Example Computer Printout for Cost
Update Program B-l
IV
-------
FIGURES
No. • Paqe
1 Schematic Diagram of Overall Computing Scheme 5
2 Card Format for Emission Factors—Dataset 1 8
3 Card Format for Cost Function Coefficients and
Efficiency 12
4 Card Formats for Datasets 4, 5, and 6 14
5 Sample Output Report of Coke Oven Optimization Model 15
6 Format for the Control Cards 16
7 Relationship of Emission Sources in a Typical
Byproduct Coke Plant 45
8 Flow Plan and Material Balance of a Representative
Coke Byproduct Recovery Plant 46
9 Worksheet for Estimating Capital Costs 52
10 Cross Section of Coke-side Shed 62
11 Conventional Quench Tower Baffles 65
12 Simplified Pictorial Diagram of a Dry Quenching
System 66
13 Door Hood Arrangement 68
14 Dust-suppression Spray System at Car Dump 73
15 Permanently Installed Spray Stanchions Around
Perimeter of Coal Piles 75
16 Total Particulate Emissions from Coke Quenching 77
17 Coke Plant Wastewater Treatment System 80
v
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
18 Battery Data Card Format 90
19 Capital Cost of Control Options for Wet Coal Charging 106
20 Cost Per Pound of Particulate Removal for Control
Options for Wet Coal Charging 107
21 Total Annualized Cost as a Function of Overall
Efficiency 114
VI
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Summary of Uncontrolled Emission Factors 7
2 Control Options by Source 10
3 Relationships of Size and Other Parameters, Coke
Oven Battery 48
4 Typical Items Included in Investment Costs for
Control Devices 51
5 Annualized Operating Cost Factors for Control Systems 54
6 Rates Used in the Cost Model 55
7 Coke Plants Using Process Water for Quenching 79
8 Coke Oven Model - Battery Data Base 84
9 Plant ID Codes 91
10 Total Capital and Annualized Costs for Control
Options 103
11 Total Uncontrolled Emissions 105
12 Model Output for Baseline of No Control 108
13 Model Output for 95 Percent Overall Particulate
Reduction 109
14 Model Output for 80 Percent Overall Particulate
Reduction 111
15 Model Output for 85 Percent Overall Particulate
Reduction 112
16 Model Output for 90 Percent Overall Particulate
Reduction 113
A-l Cost Function Coefficients for Control Options A-2
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Many individuals have been helpful in developing this
report. Mr. Andrew Trenholm of Office of Air Quality, Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) provided invaluable assistance in develop-
ing emission factor and control efficiency estimates and in
reviewing control system specifications. Mr. John Pratapas of
Economics Analysis Branch (EAB) reviewed the approach used for
calculating capital and annualized cost estimates. The assis-
tance of the Project Officer, Dr. Larry Twidwell, is also grate-
fully acknowledged.
Mr. William Kemner served as Project Director, and Dr.
Terrance Briggs as Project Manager. Ms. Beth Fairbairn and Mr.
Steve Tomes of PEDCo did the computer programming and Mr. Gary
Saunders conducted much of the data development effort.
Vlll
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The characterization and control of coke oven emissions have
been of intense interest and study for some 10 years. Origi-
nally, focus was directed primarily toward visible emissions
because most coke oven emissions are fugitive in nature. As
additional data became available on the complex chemical struc-
ture and health effects of both the particulate and gaseous
emissions, however, attention shifted to the organic components
«
contained therein. Because the environmental control of the coke
oven process and its associated operations requires the evalua-
tion of numerous options and because technology and new informa-
tion are continually developing, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) contracted PEDCo Environmental, Inc., to develop a
computer model that could calculate the cost and emission levels
for any combination of controls. Even more important, the model
should be able to calculate the lowest-cost mix of controls for
the various sources to meet a given overall level of emissions.
The model should also answer the reverse problem by calculating
the lowest overall emission level that can be attained at a given
total cost. The model may be used to optimize, i.e., minimize,
either annualized cost or total capital costs.
Intended to be an engineering tool for evaluating various
control strategies on a continuing basis, the model is designed
to operate on the EPA computer at the National Computer Center in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. It accommodates data on
four key pollutants: particulate matter (defined herein as
front-half--Method 5), benzene soluble organics (BSO), benzo-a-
pyrene (BaP), and benzene. The model includes the coke oven
-------
battery, the coal storage and preparation steps, the quenching
and coke screening operations, and the byproduct plant. It
addresses both conventional batteries and preheated coal bat-
teries. Various studies are under way to characterize the emis-
sions from the byproduct operations, but the model now contains
very limited information regarding this source.
The model utilizes three distinct types of data, referred to
as "datasets." Each dataset can be updated and manipulated
separately. Dataset 1 covers the uncontrolled emission rates for
each pollutant, Dataset 2, capital and annualized costs and the
control efficiency of various controls, and Dataset 3, the popu-
lation of the coke oven batteries (e.g., battery height, capac-
ity, and number of ovens).
Although a precise definition of the coke oven population
was not a prime objective of this project, the definition pro-
vided by Dataset 3 is sufficiently comprehensive to be repre-
sentative of both the metallurgical and foundry coke segments of
the industry.
The model includes an auxiliary computer program that can
update costs to account for such factors as inflation, changing
utility rates, and changing labor costs.
The reader of this report is assumed to have a relatively
comprehensive knowledge of coking operations and the concomitant
emission problems and control schemes. The references at the end
of this section are recommended reading for those who desire such
background material.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1. Draft of Standards Support and Environmental Impact State-
ment, Volume I: Proposed National Emission Standards By-
product Coke Oven Wet-coal Charging and Topside Leaks. U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. June 1978.
2. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Steel and the Environment. A Cost
Impact Analysis. May 1975.
3. Kemner, W., et al. Control of Emissions from Dry Coal
Charging at Coke Batteries. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract 68-02-2603, Task 28, January 1979.
4. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. EPA-450/3-77-010. March 1977.
5. Barnes, T.M., H.W. Lownie, Jr., and J. Varga. Summary
Report on Control of Coke Oven Emissions to the American
Iron and Steel Institute. Batelle Columbus Laboratories.
December 31, 1973.
-------
SECTION 2
MODEL STRUCTURE
As shown in Figure 1, the coke model has four essential
elements:
1. The data management element reads the required in-
formation, determines the mode of operation, and
translates the input data into the proper format for
the optimization element.
2. The optimization element calculates the lowest cost for
achieving a given level of emissions or the lowest
level of emissions that can be achieved at a given
cost. Note that optimization is on one pollutant at a
time; however, the results for other pollutants are
calculated in each case.
3. The deterministic mode element calculates specific
cases without regard to optimization, e.g., the total
cost to industry for putting ESP's on all coke oven
stacks.
4. The print element prints the output reports in the
desired format.
It will be noted that the optimization model is built around
the standard 80-column punched card. Although this approach is
somewhat outdated by today's computer technology standards, it
offers certain advantages at this stage of model development.
The main advantage is that the user can actually keep the data
cards in his posession and keep track of the data as they are
changed. The entire system can later be converted to real time
operation from a remote terminal.
-------
r
~i
INITALLY
SUPPLIED
BY PEDCo
INITIALLY
SUPPLIED
BY PEDCo
L
fDATASET 1
r
DATASET 3
COST FUNCTIONS
(y«AXB) CONTROL
EFFICIENCY
EMISSION FACTORS
COKE OVEN
BATTERY DATA
"1
-r
CONTROL
CARDS
L
COST OPTIMIZATION HODEL
ENTIRE SYSTEM ON NCC COMPUTER
_J
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of overall computing scheme.
-------
2.1 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Emission Factors (Dataset 1)
Fourteen air emission sources and four pollutants are
presently considered. A total of 64 uncontrolled emission fac-
tors are required because two sources have alternate factors.
The emission factors used are shown in Table 1. It should be
noted that data for coke oven emissions are very sparse for most
sources and the factors shown in Table 1 represent only a start-
ing point used for the purpose of proceeding with model develop-
ment. The reliability of many of the factors is very low and
is discussed more fully in Section 3. The term "uncontrolled" is
not easily defined in the case of coke ovens, but for purposes of
this project, it represents the conditions existing at the
majority of batteries in the late 1960's. Although this defini-
tion still leaves much room for judgment, it eliminates totally
uncontrolled conditions that could prevail if a coking process
were operated with no concern whatever for emissions.
Because estimates of many of the emission factors have been
based on limited data, provision has been made for easy updating
to accommodate future refinements by use of the card format shown
in Figure 2. The 16 cards (i.e., 14 sources, 2 with alternate
factors) representing the emission factors comprise Dataset 1
input to the model (Figure 1). These emission factor cards also
contain the space to write the name for the source for convenient
identification. (The alphabetic names for new sources and con-
trol options that appear on the computer output must be entered
into the computer using cards identified in the users' manual.)
The derivation of emission factors is discussed in detail in
Section 3.
Cost Functions (Dataset 2)
g
All cost functions are expressed as Y = AX , where Y is
annualized cost in dollars and X is tons of coke capacity. Total
capital cost is also provided as a function Y = AX . Capital and
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS
(Ib/ton of coal)
(See Section 3 for discussion of each factor)
Source
code No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
'8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
" 16
[mission source
Larry car charge (wet coal)
Coke pushing6
Quench, clean water
Doors
Topside leaks
Combustion stack (old)h
Coke handl ing
Coal preheat
Coal preparation
Coal storage
Pipeline charge (dry coal)
Redler conveyor (dry coal)
Hot larry car (dry coal)
Byproduct
Combustion stack (new)
Quench, dirty water
Pollutant
TSPa
1.0b
?.of
1.7f'9
0.4b
0.2d
1.3d
1.0d
7.05b
U.5d
0.1Sd
0.016d
0.010d
0.017d
0C
0.13d
3.2f'9
BSD
l.lb
0.08f
1.7xlO-3b
0.5b
0.25d
0.006d
od
1.05b
od
Od
0.019d
0.006d
0.019d
0.3C
6xlO-4d
6.4xlQ-3b
BaP
0.002C
-------
EMISSION FACTOR FOR BENZENE ,-
Ib/ton coal
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I I I I I I IJ I I I I I I I I.I I I I I I I I LI I I I I I
EMISSION SOURCE
NAME OF SOURCE
EMISSION FACTOR FOR BaP,
Ib/ton coal
EMISSION FACTOR FOR BSO, Ib/ton coal
'—EMISSION FACTOR FOR TSP, Ib/ton coal
Figure 2. Card format for emission factors—Dataset 1.
-------
annualized cost functions are provided for both new and retrofit
installations.
The cost function matrix has the following dimensions:
Sources - Maximum of 20 (16 presently assigned)
Alternative control options—A maximum of nine per
source, including uncontrolled
Table 2 lists the control options by source. The effi-
ciencies shown are initial estimates only and are subject to
change. The model provides for up to eight total control options
for each source, but only a total of 41 are considered at this
time. Although control efficiency is discrete in some cases and
continuous in others, discrete levels have been used in the model
for simplification. The total control option matrix capability
is therefore 20 x 9, which produces a potential maximum of 180
"A" values and 180 "B" values for annualized and capital cost for
both new and retrofit installations. Figure 3 shows the card
format for A and B values. These cards are introduced as Dataset
2 (see Figure 1). As new control options are added or existing
ones modified, the appropriate cost functions are added to
Dataset 2. Most of the cost functions now in the model were
calculated by PEDCo, using a separate computer program that is
not part of the optimization model for coking facilities. The
calculation of costs is discussed in detail in Sections 4 and 5.
Coke Oven Battery Data (Dataset 3)
This dataset contains the coke capacity, physical size, and
existing control equipment information for each individual bat-
tery. It is described more fully in Section 6.
Cost Update Program
The cost update program is separate from the optimization
model. Its purpose is to enable the user to recalculate an-
nualized and capital costs by using different utility rates,
labor rates, and overhead factors and accounting for inflation.
-------
TABLE 2. CONTROL OPTIONS BY SOURCE
Source
No.
01
02
03
04
05
Source
Larry car
charging
Coke pushing
Quenching clean
water
Doors
Topside
Contrn 1
opti on
No.a
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
03
04
Control option
Uncontrol led
Modified car.
steam, boot
New car, steam.
boot
Retrofit second
main *• option
03
Uncontrolled
Controlled
coking
Shed + ESP 95%
Shed + scrubber
95% - 30 in.AP
Enclosed car
Shed + ESP 9?%
Shed + scrubber
99% - 50 in.AP
Uncontrolled
Baffles
Diverted flow
baffles
Dry quenching
Uncontrolled
Cleaning and
maintenance
High pressure
water cleanim
Door hood and
scrubber -
30 in. AP *
02
Door hood +
scrubber -
60 in. f,P +
02
Uncontrol led
Luting and
cl eani ng
Luting and
maintenance
New lids and
castings + 02
TSP,
% efficiency
apturp
80.0
99.0
99.5
60.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60.0
80.0
75.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
97.0
rpmnvfll
NA
NA
NA
NA
95.0
95.0
98.0
99.0
99.0
70.0
90.0
98.0
NA
NA
95.0
98.0
NA
NA
NA
total
0.0
80.0
99.0
99.5
0.0
60.0
85.5
85.5
88.2
89.1
89.1
0.0
70. n
90.0
98.0
0.0
60.0
80.0
88.5
93.3
0.0
90.0
95.0
97.0
BSO,
I efficiency
capture
80.0
99.0
99.5
60.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60.0
80.0
75.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
97.0
removal
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.0
55.0
60.0
50. 0
60.0
70.0
90.0
99. n
NA
NA
60.0
70.0
NA
NA
NA
total
0.0
80.0
99.0
99.5
0.0
60.0
45.0
49.5
54.0
45.0
54.0
0.0
70.0
90.0
99.0
0.0
60.0
80.0
78.0
83.8
0.0
90.0
95. n
97.0
RaP,
1- efficiency
capture
80.0
99.0
99.5
60.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60.0
80.0
75.0
85.0
90.0
95. 0
97. n
removal
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.0
55.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
90.0
99.0
NA
NA
60.0
70.0
NA
NA
NA
total
n.o
80.0
99.0
99.5
0.0
60.0
45.0
49.5
36.0
45.0
54.0
0.0
70.0
90.0
99.0
0.0
60.0
80.0
78.0
R3.8
0.0
90.0
95.0
97.0
Benzene,
* efficiency
capture
80.0
99.0
99.5
60.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60.0
80.0
75.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
97.0
remova 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.0
55.0
60.0
50.0
60.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
NA
NA
50.0
60.0
NA
NA
NA
total
0.0
80.0
99.0
99.5
0.0
60.0
45.0
49.5
54.0
45.0
54.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
60.0
80.0
65.0
72.0
0.0
90.0
95.0
97.0
Remarks
19.0 h avg.
coking time vs.
17.5 h base.
Not appl . for
foundry
batteries
Shed options
Include 90%
capture of one-
half of door
emissions
Includes option
5 on source 2
Includei door
cleaning machine
Option 6 is same
as 4 but 1 side
only0
Option 7 Is same
as 5 but 1 side
only
Not applicable
to pipeline
batteries that
are handled
separately
NA - Not applicable.
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
Source
No.
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Source
Combustion stack
-old
Coke handling
Coal preheater
Coal preparation
Coal storage
yard
Pipe! ine charg-
ing
Redler charging
Hot larry car
charg ing
Byproduct
plant
Combustion stack
-new
Quenching -
dirty water
Control
option
No.a
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
Control option
Uncontrolled
Oven patching
Dry ESP 901
Dry ESP 98T.
Bag house 98%
Uncontrolled
Enclosures +
baghouse 99?
Uncontrol led
Scrubber-15 in.
Dry ESP 95?
Scrubber-30 in.
Dry ESP 99?
Uncontrol led
Enclosure and
baghouse- 99?;
Uncontrol led
Water truck
Unload sprays S
water truck
Coal pile
sprays
Uncontrol led
Operation and
mai ntenance
Uncontrol led
Operation and
maintenance
Uncontrolled
Operation and
ma i ntenance
Uncontrnl led
Mai ntenance
Uncontrol led
Oven patching
Uncontrol led
Baffles
Clean water » 02
Diverted flow
baffles +
c lean water
Dry quenchingc
TSP,
'i efficiency
capture
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
0.0
60.0
75.0
90.0
90.0
99.0
99.0
NA
80.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
removal
80.0
90. 0
98.0
98.0
99.0
95.0
95.0
98.0
99.0
99.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.0
85.0
95.0
99.0
total
0.0
80.0
90.0
98.0
98.0
0.0
89.1
0.0
95.0
95.0
98.0
99.0
0.0
97.0
0.0
60.0
75.0
90.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
NA
0.0
80.0
0.0
70.0
85.0
95.0
99.0
BSO,
J efficiency
capture
100.0
lon.o
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
99.0
99.0
99.0
80.0
80.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
removal
80.0
50.0
60.0
50.0
NA
60.0
45.0
60.0
50.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.0
75.0
85.0
99.0
total
0.0
80.0
50.0
60.0
50.0
0.0
NA
0.0
60.0
45.0
60.0
50.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
35.0
75.0
85.0
99.0
BaP,
t efficiency
capture
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
99.0
99.0
99.0
80.0
80.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
removal
80.0
50.0
60.0
50.0
NA
60.0
45.0
60.0
50.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.0
80.0
85.0
99.0
total
0.0
80.0
50.0
60.0
50.0
0.0
NA
0.0
60.0
45.0
60.0
50.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
35.0
80.0
85.0
99.0
Benzene,
% efficiencj
capture
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
99.0
99.0
99.0
80.0
80.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
removal
80.0
50.0
60.0
50.0
NA
50.0
45.0
50.0
50.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
75.0
75.0
99.0
total
0.0
80.0
50.0
60.0
50.0
0.0
NA
0.0
50.0
45.0
50.0
50.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
75.0
99.0
Remarks
Includes option
5 on Source 2.
a These code numbers are also used to indicate existing control in columns 21-60 of the load card for data set 3 shown in Figure 4.
b Options 6 and 7 are used by the model when a shed is selected to avoid double accounting for capture of coke-side door emissions.
c The cost for this option in this case also includes the cost of water treatment for the water that otherwise would be used for quenching.
-------
©
I I.I I I I I
I I I I I I I.I I I I.I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I I.I I I I I I I.I I I I.I I I I.I I I I.I I
I EMISSION SOURCE
CONTROL OPTION
A COEFFICIENT FOR ANNUALIZED COST OF RETROFIT SOURCES
) B COEFFICIENT FOR ANNUALIZED COST OF RETROFIT SOURCES
I A COEFFICIENT FOR TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RETROFIT SOURCES
I B COEFFICIENT FOR TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RETROFIT SOURCES
I A COEFFICIENT FOR ANNUALIZED COST OF NEW SOURCES
B COEFFICIENT FOR ANNUALIZED COST OF NEW SOURCES
i A COEFFICIENT FOR TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF NEW SOURCES
(T5) B COEFFICIENT FOR TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF NEW SOURCES
(if) TSP CONTROL EFFICIENCY
BSO CONTROL EFFICIENCY
BaP CONTROL EFFICIENCY
BENZENE CONTROL EFFICIENCY
Figure 3. Card format for cost function coefficients and efficiency.
-------
The input to the cost update program consists of the capital
cost and utility and labor requirements for three sizes of
batteries (or plants as applicable). A rate card contains the
various rates and factors that can vary. The program will extend
rates, calculate overhead expenses and capital recovery, and
finally, calculate regression equations for capital and annu-
alized cost as a function of capacity, according to equations of
the form:
Y = AXB
This program is run only if new rates are needed. Figure
4 shows the card formats for the Datasets 4, 5, and 6 which are
the input data to the cost update program. Appendix B contains
an example run of the cost update program. The output cards of
the cost update program represent the input cost function cards
for the optimization model.
2.2 CONTROL CARDS
The model has three basic modes of operation:
1. Deterministic
2. Optimized cost, fixed emissions
3. Optimized emissions, fixed cost
The control cards serve as the interface between the user's
"questions" and the model structure.
Mode 1 is the most straightforward. Its objective is to
calculate the cost of a given strategy without regard to opti-
mization. A control efficiency and a control option are spec-
ified for each source (or for one source). Figure 5 shows the
output. The only reason the quenching and combustion stack sources
appear twice is because two different uncontrolled emission fac-
tors are used for each in the model as described earlier. The
costs and emissions for these sources are additive. Figure 6 shows
the formats of the control cards. (Not all columns of the Number
1 card are necessary for Mode 1.)
13
-------
©
(T) EMISSION SOURCE
(?) CONTROL OPTION
(?) CAPITAL COST FACTOR, $
(T) RETROFIT FACTOR
(?) SIZE, tons/yr
(?) WATER, 1000 gal/yr
(7) ELECTRICITY. kWh/yr
(?) STEAM, 1000 Ib/yr
(?) FUEL, 1000 gal/yr
DATASET 5
(T) (T)
(10)
(jj)
©
©
©
©
(Te)
l I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR, h
SOLID WASTE, tons/yr
ESTIMATED LIFE OF UNIT, YEARS
MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COST, $103
SUPPLIES, $103
CARD CODE "4"
SIZE CODE 1 - SMALL PLANT
2 - MEDIUM PLANT
3 • LARGE PUNT
©
HE
(T) EMISSION SOURCE
(?) CONTROL OPTION
(?) CONTROL EFFICIENCY, TSP (STARTS IN COLUMN 56)
(T) CONTROL EFFICIENCY, BSD
(T) CONTROL EFFICIENCY, BaP
(?) CONTROL EFFICIENCY, BENZENE
(7) CARD CODE "5" IN COLUMN 79
DATASET 6
(T)
HE
©
T7HI
(8) (9) QO) Qj) Q2) Q3) Q4)
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IT
i i i
I,,,,1
(T) WATER RATE, $/gal
(T) ELECTRIC RATE. $/kWh
(?) STEAM RATE, S/1000 Ib
(T) FUEL RATE, J/gal
(T) DIRECT LABOR, $/h
(T) SUPERVISION LABOR, $/h
(7) SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RATE, $/ton
(T) PAYROLL OVERHEAD, I
(9) PLANT OVERHEAT, I
(10) CAPITAL RECOVERY, »
(Tl) ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD, %
(T?) PROPERTY TAXES AND INSURANCE OVERHEAD, %
(TJ) COST BASIS, e.g.. 2nd QUARTER, 1979 = 2Q79
67) INFLATION FACTOR, e.g.. 71 =• 1.07
Figure 4. Card formats for Datasets 4, 5, and 6.
-------
COKE OVEN OPTIMIZATION
OBJECTIVE COST CALCULATION, NO OPTIMIZATION
lASELINEl COST ADJUSTED FOR EXISTING CONTROLS
73.1 I OVERALL EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTi BAP
BASE YEAR 1779
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
(IBS/TON COAL) (TONS/YEAR)
CONTROLLED COST
(MILLION DOLLARS)
SOURCE
LARRY CAR CHAR6IN6
COKE PUSHINB
QUENCHING - CLEAN UATER
BOORS
TOPSIDE
COMBUSTION STACK - OLB
COKE HANDLING
COAL PREHEATED
COAL PREPARATION
COAL STORAGE YARD
PIPELINE CHARGING
IEDLER CHARGING
NOT LARRY CAR CHARGING
BY-PRODUCTS PLANT
COMBUSTION STACK - NEU
•UENCHIN6 - DIRTY UATER
TOTAL UNC.
EXISTING CONTROL
EXISTING EFFICIENCY
BASELINE CONTROL
BASELINE EFFICIENCY
TOTAL CONTROLLED
PERCENT CONTROLLED
TS
B .
B2.
B1.
1 .
B .
B1.
B1 .
17.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
V
P
01
00
70
14
02
30
00
03
30
13
02
01
02
00
13
48
.3
BSD
.0110
.0800
.0017
.2000
.0230
.0040
.0000
1.0300
.0000
.0000
.0190
.0060
.0190
.0600
.0006
.0016
2.235
BAP
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0012
.0001
.0001
.0000
.0004
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.006
BEN
.0030
.0060
.0000
.0080
.0003
.0000
.0000
.0140
.0000
.0000
.0080
.0049
.0080
.0400
.0000
.0001
.686
TSP
496
109463
41049
8757
1094
48840
34731
35925
27365
8209
49
13
10
0
2231
14680
508238
388402
23.6
508237
.0
352920
30.6
BSD
545
4378
41
10946
1368
225
0
5350
0
0
59
7
12
3283
to
48
122349
76172
37.7
122348
.0
26278
76.3
BAP
0
2
3
65
5
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
337
254
24.6
337
.0
84
75.1
BEN
248
328
0
437
27
0
0
71
0
0
24
6
3
2189
0
1
37577
17656
53.0
37577
.0
3341
91.1
CONTROL SCHEME
NEU CAR, STEAM, BOOT
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
CLEANING 1 HAINT.
LUTING 1 CLEANIM6
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
MAINTENANCE
UNCONTROLLED
CLEAN UATER I BAFFLES
CAPITAL
303.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
278.1
ANNUAL I ZEI
164.7
.0
.0
173.8
57.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
17.4
.0
168.1
297.3
.0
581.7
197.1
.0
381.2
EXISTING
TOTAL BATTERIES 216 TOTAL OVENS 12221
TOTAL CAPACITY 109494267 TONS COAL
76623000 TONS COKE
B NOT IN OPTIMIZATION
NEU
TOTAL BATTERIES 0
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL OVENS 0
0 TONS COAL
0 TONS COKE
Figure 5. Sample output report of coke oven optimization model
-------
CONTROL CARD 1
©
(JJ MONTH OF RUN
@ DAY OF RUN
(?) YEAR OF RUN
©MODE: 1-DETERMIN1ST1C;
(Y) POLLUTANT OPTIMIZED
(?) TOTAL DOLLAR RESTRICTION (FOR MODE 3)
(7) TOTAL EHISS10N RESTRICTION. PERCENT EFFICIENCY (FOR MODE 2)
(T) BASE YEAR OF DATA
2-MININUM ANNUALIZED COST. RESTRICT EMISSIONS
3-MINIMUH EMISSIONS. RESTRICT ANNUALIZED COST
4-MINIMUM CAPITAL COST. RESTRICT EMISSIONS
S-MINIML* EMISSIONS. RESTRICT CAPITAL COST
CONTROL CARD 2
©0®©©©©®®®©©©®©®©®®®
I .1.1. I. I. 1 I .1 .1 .1 .1.1.1 .1, I .1 .1 .1 . I
(T) THROUGH (20) FIXED CONTROL OPTION FOR EMISSION SOURCES 1 THROUGH 20
9 (10 (11) (12) (13) (14 (15 (16 17 (1819 20 21
1.1.1.1.1.I.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.I.I.I.I.iTTTTn
(T) BASELINE CODE
(7) THROUGH (2l) BASELINE CONTROL OPTION FOR SOURCES 1 THROUGH 20 RESPECTIVELY
Figure 6. Format for the control cards.
16
-------
In Mode 2, the optimization routine is called into use. The
user first specifies the sources that are to be fixed at a con-
trol level (i.e., as in Mode 1); the remaining sources will be
optimized. A total control level expressed as percent efficiency
for a given pollutant is specified and the lowest cost (either
capital or annualized) combination that will meet that level is
calculated. If some sources are specified to be uncontrolled and
not included in the optimization, the user must take these emis-
sions into account by lowering the total control efficiency.
Otherwise, an infeasible solution can result because the remaining
controlled sources may not meet the total allowable level. The
output is similar to that in Figure 5. A symbol (#) appears by
each source that was fixed, and these do not enter into the
optimization.
In both modes the number two control card can be used to set
a control level for any given source equal to uncontrolled, in
which case the cost is zero. In effect, this enables certain
sources to be removed from the optimization analysis.
The base year specified on Control Card 1 is merely a
reference date to be printed on the output report. If, for
example, the run is a projection for 1985 and projected new
batteries have been added to the battery data base, the base year
will be 1985. Presently, no new batteries are included in the
battery data base and the base year is 1979.
Mode 3 is the opposite of Mode 2. A cost limitation (either
capital or annualized) is entered, and the optimization program
determines the lowest emission rate for the specified pollutant.
It is probably necessary to run Mode 1 and Mode 2 before running
Mode 3 to have some idea of what constitutes a reasonable total
cost.
The comments portion of the printout will contain messages
indicating unreasonable conditions, input errors, or solutions
beyond the bounds of the program. For example, if the emission
restriction (Mode 2) cannot be achieved by the control systems
17
-------
available to the program, the printout will give a message to that
effect.
Control Card 3 controls the baseline used for most calcula-
tions. The baseline codes are as follows:
Code Baseline
1 Uncontrolled; i.e., all costs are calculated
with no regard to existing controls or
existing State Implementation Plan (SIP)
requirements.
2 Existing control; costs are adjusted by not
counting the cost of controls already installed.
3 SIP; i.e., costs are adjusted by not counting
the cost of controls required by SIP whether
they are actually installed or not. No account
is taken for existing controls which exceed
SIP requirements.
4 Average SIP; this option is the same as Option
3, but for convenience of data preparation only
one SIP definition is used and applied to every
plant; whereas as in Option 3 the specific
SIP must be entered on each battery card
depending on the state in which the battery is
located.
5 This is a combination of 2 and 3. The costs
are adjusted by not counting the cost of controls
already installed or the cost of controls
required by SIP whichever is greater.
6 Average SIP and existing; this option is the
same as Option 5 but only one SIP definition
is used and applied to every plant.
Note that no entries are required beyond field one for the
baseline Options 1 and 2 because no distinction is made
between sources in these options. For baseline Options 3
and 5, the control option codes corresponding to SIP must
be entered on the coke oven battery data cards rather than
using Control Card 3.
Currently the model does not attempt to account for costs of
tear-out. If, for example, the optimum alternative differs from
that already installed in a given plant, no tear-out costs are
included. Nor does the model address incremental costs for moving
18
-------
from one control scheme to a higher-cost scheme. If, for example,
existing control is a shed and scrubber and the optimum alternative
is a shed and ESP, the full cost of the optimum alternative is
included rather than just the cost of the ESP.
In Figure 5, line 1 displays the total weighted uncontrolled
emissions expressed in Ibs/ton of coal and total tons. Lines 2
and 3 display the total tons of emissions and percent efficiency
respectively for existing controls. Lines 4 and 5 display the
total tons of emissions and percent efficiency respectively for
the baseline controls which are in the optimum solution. Lines 6
and 7 display the total tons of emissions and percent efficiency
for the optimum solution. The costs shown on line 2 represent
the value of existing controls. The costs shown on line 4
represent the cost of the controls contained in the optimum
solution which are already installed or assumed to be installed
as designated by the baseline.
The costs shown on line 6 represent the cost of the controls
in the optimum solution which exceed the baseline control level.
The sum of these two lines therefore represents the total value
of the controls in the solution.
19
-------
SECTION 3
EMISSION FACTORS
For the 16 emission sources identified, emission factors
were developed for each of the four pollutants: particulates,
/
BSO, BaP, and benzene. To the extent possible, results from
emission tests were used to establish these emission factors.
When explicit data were unavailable, an attempt was made to
derive an emission rate from other available information and
assumptions. If an emission factor could not be developed by
either of these approaches, an engineering estimate was made as
accurately as possible. All the matrix numbers had to be pro-
vided (even if estimated) so that initial runs of the model could
be completed. As new data become available, the values in the
matrix (Table 1) can be updated to reflect more accurately the
nature of emissions from byproduct coke ovens. If estimates have
a broad confidence range, model runs can be made for various
values to examine sensitivity.
Data were obtained from PEDCo's files, EPA reports, articles
in various journals, and emission test reports. A literature
search provided considerable information on coke oven emission
sources and methods of reducing emissions; however, little actual
test data or emission factors were available in comparison with
the total number of potential emission sources. When actual
numerical values were reported, they were used. The level of
precision used in reported results was retained herein, but this
does not imply that the value is precise when used as a general
emission factor for all batteries. This is not surprising be-
cause it is difficult to sample these emission sources, most of
which are fugitive in nature. Nevertheless, the literature did
20
-------
provide considerable information on control techniques and what
could be expected from them.
Because most emissions from the 16 sources are fugitive in
nature, they do not lend themselves readily to Method 5 sampling
techniques. Two commonly used techniques are single-point sam-
pling with a Method 5 sampling train and sampling a fugitive
plume with a High-Vol sampler. Sampling is sometimes attempted
at isokinetic conditions, even though it often is difficult to
achieve. Generally sample results are merely corrected to re-
flect isokinetic sampling. These methodologies appear to yield
as reliable data as can be expected.
Using test data to develop emission factors requires several
assumptions. The first is that the results of the test are
representative of the emissions found at the entire battery
(e.g., charging emissions do not differ significantly from one
oven to another if the same sampling procedures are followed).
In the case of door emission tests, one notable exception would
be if test results were obtained on only one door; the fact that
the one door tested was leaking does not indicate that all the
doors leak. Another exception would be the sampling results from
a single green push; one push does not necessarily represent all
the coke pushes of that battery.
The second assumption is that the emissions from the battery
tested are representative of the industry as a whole. Although
it would be ideal to have test results from various plants for
confirmation, it must be assumed that the values from the test
used are the best currently available and are representative of
battery emissions within the entire industry.
Several problems are unresolved. One is the matter of
equivalency of two different sampling methodologies. Although
some difference can be expected between the results of the Method
5 train and the Hi-Vol method (depending on the parameters of the
emission stream sampled), they are similar enough to be con-
sidered equivalent methods. Another problem is the definition of
TSP. Generally, a reference to a particulate catch means the
21
-------
front half of a Method 5 train (or its equivalent). Total
suspended particulate (or TSP), however, implies both the front
half and back half of a Method 5 train particulate catch (or the
equivalent). Because the definition of particulate matter is
generally a function of temperature, emission factors derived on
the basis of a front-half catch and those derived from both a
front- and back-half catch would differ significantly. Thus the
definition would tend to affect the predicted control efficien-
cies, particularly when discussing TSP. It is likely that many
of the control devices on the optional control systems would not
"see" the particulate captured in the back half of the sampling
train because it would be gaseous in form as it passed through
the control device and would condense some time later. Still
another problem concerns the different methods used to test the
various organic species to determine emission rates. Neverthe-
less, the variability between samples appears to have a greater
effect than the differences in sensitivities and biases of the
analytical methods because the different analytical methods are
believed to yield essentially the same results.
The nature and magnitude of the biases on test results for
each of the identified emission sources are discussed. Also
discussed are the specific assumptions and references used to
arrive at each emission factor. The general assumptions and
comments just covered apply to nearly all the emission sources.
For ease in predicting control efficiencies, particulate emission
factors are given either as the front-half or equivalent value.
3.1 SOURCE 1—LARRY CAR CHARGING (WET COAL)
Particulates
A baseline of emissions must be established when referring
to larry car charging. For the purposes of discussion, "uncon-
trolled" is assumed to mean that a minimal amount of control is
applied during charging and minimal effort is expended to reduce
emissions from wet coal charging. (This generally reflects the
22
-------
situation in the industry about 10 years ago.) On this premise,
an uncontrolled emission factor of 1 Ib particulate/ton of coal
charged has been estimated by EPA in the draft Standard Support
and Environmental Impact Statement (SSEIS) for charging. It is
not known whether this number represents what could be expected
to be captured by the total Method 5 train or just the front-half
particulate catch. If this factor represents only the front
half, actual total uncontrolled particulate is likely to be 1.96
Ib/ton coal because it is assumed that the ratio of particles
collected in the front half and back half of a train are about
equal. This was the case in the testing of an experimental larry
car during a joint project between the American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) and the EPA. The back half proved to be approx-
2 3
imately 0.96 of the mass of the front half. '
The results of four tests revealed a controlled emission
rate of 0.017 Ib/ton coal (front half) for stage charging. It
should be noted that these four tests were conducted anisokineti-
cally, then corrected to reflect isokinetic conditions. A total
particulate factor, calculated on the basis of the front-half
catch, is 0.033 Ib/ton coal.2'3
A standard Wilputte larry car tested as part of the AISI/EPA
program was found to have an emission level of 0.14 Ib/ton coal
(front-half, 10-test average) when tested by the same method as
the experimental larry car. The test values could be in error as
much as an order of magnitude, but less error is expected because
of the sample size of ten. These latter tests were used as a
guide in assigning a control efficiency for conventional stage
charging.
Benzene Soluble Organics
The AISI/EPA particulate test revealed that BSO comprised 57
percent of the front-half catch and 60 percent of the back-half,
and it can generally be assumed that BSO comprises 55 to 60
percent of the total particulate catch without significant
23
-------
124
chance of error. ' ' With the use of the BSO/particulate ratios
above, the calculated emission factors from the AISI/EPA test are
as follows:
Uncontrolled 1.1 Ib/ton coal
AISI/EPA larry car 0.019 Ib/ton coal
Benzo-a-Pyrene
A significant variation in the levels of BaP was detected in
the samples tested. Although the number of samples tested was
not statistically large enough to derive a highly reliable emis-
sion factor, the AISI samples in which BaP was observed indicated
-5 12
an "average" of 2 x 10 Ib/ton coal. ' An emission factor for
BaP of 0.002 Ib/ton coal has been calculated on the basis of
145
ambient data and the ratio of BaP and BSO. ' ' This latter
value is considered more reliable because of the large sample
size and is used in the model.
Benzene
No explicit data on the magnitude of benzene emissions were
found in the references noted above; however, an emission factor
was calculated on the basis of the results of two tests of coke-
side shed emissions and a test on coke-oven door emissions.
These tests indicate that benzene emissions are equivalent to 25
to 50 percent of the front-half particulate emission rate. (This
is not to say benzene is captured in the front-half.) Assuming
an emission rate for benzene equivalent to 50 percent of the
front-half catch, the following emission factors are calculated:
Uncontrolled 0.5 Ib/ton coal
AISI/EPA larry car 0.008 Ib/ton coal
These rates are highly variable for door emissions, however, and
using these estimates to derive an emission factor for charging
emissions provides a low-confidence estimate.
24
-------
3.2 SOURCE 2—COKE PUSHING OPERATIONS
Particulates
Several data sources were available to use in the calcula-
tion of an emission factor for coke pushing operations. ' ' ' '
The magnitude of pushing emissions varies, depending on test
methodology and "greenness" of the push. The sources used were
a report on tests using Hi-Vol samplers suspended in the plume
12-14
and one on sampling isokinetically. Results from tests
using a Method 5 sampling train or sampling the stack of a coke-
side shed appeared somewhat low and biased (a certain amount of
dilution could bias the results on the low side). The two coke
pushing operations tested were in close agreement. One of the
batteries used an enclosed push car with hooding to capture the
particulate. The enclosed car was controlled by a scrubber/
and a standard Method 5 sampling train was used to sample the
scrubber inlet and outlet. A Hi-Vol sampler was placed above the
hood to capture the fugitive emissions. The total emission rate
of particulate was estimated by combining the results of the Hi-
Vol sampler and the scrubber inlet.
The emission rate from pushes that were moderately green
averaged approximately 2.0 Ib particulate/ton coal. Because
little condensible matter was found in proportion to the particu-
late captured (i.e., back-half vs. front-half), a separate emis-
sion factor for a front-half and back-half TSP need not be cal-
culated. For clean pushes an emission factor of 0.7 Ib par-
ticulate/ton coal appears appropriate.
The significance of the clean push emission factor involves
two separate items. First, the use of dry coal charging appears
to provide uniform coking while reducing coking time. When
running this optimization model it may be appropriate for the
coke pushing emission factor to be selected on the basis of
whether wet coal or dry coal methods are employed. Second, an
often discussed alternative or control option is to increase the
average coking time and establish some minimum coking time before
25
-------
pushing takes place. Such an option might reduce emissions in
cases where battery operators otherwise would cut short the
coking time, but indications are that the greenness of the push
is more closely related to the oven characteristics and heating
12
integrity than to coking time. Although further study is
needed, it is conceivable that some ovens in need of maintenance
could not thoroughly "coke-out" the coal charge regardless of
coking time. The greenness of the push after some specified
minimum coking time might therefore be used as an indicator that
an oven needs maintenance.
Benzene Soluble Organics
An emission factor for BSD as condensibles in the coke
pushing operations was based on a test of the hooded coke car
13 14
used in the Ford/Koppers demonstration project. ' The emis-
sion rate was determined to be 0.08 Ib BSD/ton coal for pushes
that were moderately green, and a BSO emission factor of 0.03 Ib
BSO/ton coal was determined for clean pushes. These rates are
based on the assumption that most of the condensible material
captured is BSO. Although tests of coke-side sheds indicate that
the amount of BSO generated is somewhat higher than these rates,
it is believed that other factors (such as door leaks) biased the
results. ' ' ' Results of another test for coke pushing emis-
sions, which will be available in several months, may confirm the
stated emission factors.
Benzo-a-Pyrene
Emissions of BaP were detected by sampling with cyclohexane
and analyzing by GC/MS. An emission rate of 4 x 10 Ib BaP/ton
13 14
coal was established. ' It should be noted that the emissions
of BaP were not reduced by passage through the venturi scrubber
used at the plant, even though the emission level is very low.
Although door leaks tend to interfere with the results, tests of
the coke-side shed confirm the relatively low level of emis-
4,6,7,8
sions. ' '
26
-------
Benzene
The tests of the Ford/Koppers scrubber-controlled quench car
showed a small amount of benzene released during coke pushing
operations. The average of six tests was 0.008 Ib C,H /ton coal
b b
(actually benzene and homologues). The actual rate of benzene
only is expected to be in the range of 0.006 to 0.008 Ib/ton
coal. For clean pushes, benzene emissions could be as low as
0.0005 Ib/ton, but they are expected to average 0.001 Ib/ton
coal. These factors are based on tests of the Ford/Koppers
13,14
system.
3.3 SOURCE 3—QUENCH TOWERS WITH CLEAN H20; SOURCE 16—
WITHOUT CLEAN H20
Particulates
Considerable data have become available on the magnitude and
17-21
nature of coke quench tower emissions. Besides the interest
in the various types of control options, considerable interest
has developed in quenching with clean versus dirty water. Emis-
sion factors for quenching with both clean and dirty water are
discussed.
The development of an emission factor for particulate from
18 19
quench towers is based primarily on the work of Edlund et al., '
and on a data comparison from a recent report by Midwest Research
20
Institute (MRI) . The results of the various tests vary widely/-
however, a data comparison was made primarily between Method 5
tests and Hi-Vol sampling techniques. It is difficult to main-
tain isokinetic sampling rates in the gas stream because the
moisture content varies widely, but isokinetic sampling may be
maintained "over the average." The difference in quench tower
designs and other variables make it difficult to quantify the
bias. Uncontrolled emissions from quench towers refer to the use
of natural draft towers without baffles or other control devices
to capture the emissions from wet quenching. The following
particulate emission factors (to be used in the model) are based
27
-------
18 19
on Edlund et al.: ' 1.7 Ib particulate/ton coal (clean H20)
3.2 Ib particulate/ton coal (dirty H-O). These numbers are
slightly higher than the averages from MRI, but they are well
documented and fall well within the range of variation observed
for the various tests. There appears to be no direct correlation
between particulate emissions from quenching and the greenness of
a push.
Benzene Soluble Organics
Many of the tests performed were also for the purpose of
quantifying emissions of organic materials. Again, variations
were similar to those observed for particulate emissions. For
example, some test results from "clean" water quenches showed
20
higher emission rates than results from "dirty" water quenches.
The emission factors shown below, however, are based on recent
17 21
test ' results from a quench tower where the concentration of
BSO in the gas stream was found to be about 1000 times less than
the concentration of particulate matter during clean water
quenches. Furthermore, dirty water quenches showed a concen-
tration of BSO four times higher than that found in clean water
17 21
quenches. ' Based on these ratios, the emission factors for
BSO to be used in the model are:
1.7 x 10~3 Ib BSO/ton coal (clean H20)
6.4 x 10~3 Ib BSO/ton coal (dirty H20)
Benzo-a-Pyrene
Several tests made of the emissions of BaP showed some
variations, but the absolute variation was small. The appearance
of these variations may be due to the low levels of BaP present,
which approach the detection limits of the sampling methodology.
On the other hand, the data appeared to be consistent with the
particulate data because dirty water quenches had about twice the
17 21
level of pollutant emission as clean water quenches. ' The
following emission factors were indicated:
1.4 x 10~4 Ib BaP/ton coal (clean HO)
3.1 x 10~4 Ib BaP/ton coal (dirty HO)
28
-------
Emissions of BaP, which are not found in every sample, appear to
be related somewhat to the greenness of the push.
Benzene
Data are limited regarding benzene emissions. Only two grab
samples are available, and the data do not explicitly indicate
whether these samples were taken during clean or dirty water
quenches. Although the reliability of these values is ex-
tremely poor, they are used with the assumption that a higher
level of benzene will be found in dirty water quenches:
c
3 x 10 Ib/ton coal (clean H20)
2.6 x 10~4 Ib/ton coal (dirty H-0)
3.4 SOURCE 4—DOOR EMISSIONS
Particulates
Considerable data are available on emissions from doors
r "I r\ 2O O*3
during the coking cycle. ' ' It can normally be assumed
that any door emissions that occur will be greatest during and
5 9
immediately after oven charging. ' One test indicated that most
emissions occur within the first 8 hours of the coking cycle. In
a discussion of door emissions, it is difficult to define "uncon-
trolled" emissions. Two methods might be used to determine
uncontrolled emissions. First, uncontrolled door emissions may
be defined as emissions occurring because of failure to clean the
oven doors thoroughly after each cycle. Such failure results in
improperly sealed doors. Uncontrolled emissions might also
result from failure to immediately remove damaged and warped
doors from service for repairs at the end of a cycle. A second
definition of uncontrolled emissions might be based on the number
of doors leaking (e.g., no more than 40%). Thus, "uncontrolled"
is not necessarily a measure of effort, but rather of results. A
series of two tests were performed using an enclosure hood around
the door and a Hi-Vol sampler. An emission rate of 0.025 to 0.04
9
Ib/ton coal can be calculated from these data, but this value
29
-------
seems low in view of available data from tests of coke-side sheds
23
and door emission sheds with prototype gas cleaning equipment.
These latter data produced an uncontrolled emission factor of 0.4
Ib/ton coal, which will be used in the model. This factor is
based on the assumption that emissions from both sides of the
battery are essentially the same and that approximately 40 per-
cent of the doors leak when "uncontrolled."
Benzene Soluble Organics
A considerable portion of the door emissions is BSO; the BSO
may actually exceed the front-half particulate emissions. The
data from most of the tests indicate a factor of 0.25 Ib BSO/ton
coal may be appropriate for emissions from the doors on one side
4 9
of a battery. ' This value is supported both by tests on a
single door and by tests of continuous background emissions in a
coke-side shed. The values obtained from the shed are more
significant in that they consider the average of all leaks from
one side of the battery. Again, it is assumed that the emission
rates from both sides of the battery are equal, resulting in a
total emission rate of 0.5 Ib BSO/ton coal.
Benzo-a-Pyrene
Based on most of the data available from stack tests and
comments from EPA, an BaP emission factor of 0.003 Ib BaP/ton
coal appears appropriate, although some data indicate a lower
level of emissions is possible. ' ' If 40 percent of the coke
battery doors are leaking, it is believed that the emissions from
doors would be equal to or greater than that for "uncontrolled"
larry car charging.
Benzene
Emissions of benzene can represent a significant portion of
the condensible particulate matter during the initial portion of
the coking cycle, but these emissions appear to decrease rapidly
9
over the first 2 to 3 hours. Averaged over the entire coking
cycle and from several ovens, benzene emissions appear large at
30
-------
q
first, then decrease considerably in magnitude. The results
from both an individual door test and tests of a coke-side shed
indicate an emission factor of 0.01 Ib C,H../ton coal for one side
6-9 6 6
of the battery. For both sides (assuming both emit equally)
the emission factor is 0.02 Ib C,Hr/ton coal.
b b
3.5 SOURCE 5--TOPSIDE LEAKS
Although no test data are available for reliable quantifi-
cation of topside emissions, it is likely that they are similar
in composition to door emissions. It is also likely that such
1 4
emissions are less than half those from door leaks. ' The
rationale for this assumption is that the area through which
topside emissions may escape is roughly half that of the doors,
oven pressure is generally lower, and the emissions are more
easily controlled (e.g., by luting or replacement of warped
lids). Emissions occur primarily from charging lids and stand-
pipe caps.
the model:
1 4
pipe caps. ' The following emission factors will be used for
Particulate 0.2 Ib/ton coal
BSO 0.25 Ib/ton coal
BaP 0.001 Ib/ton coal
Benzene 0.005 Ib/ton coal
These uncontrolled emission factors are based on the assumption
that a minimal amount of manpower is devoted to topside main-
tenance.
3.6 SOURCE 6—OLD COMBUSTION STACK; SOURCE 15—NEW COMBUSTION
STACK
Particulates
Although data are available for calculating emission factors
for combustion stacks, they are currently considered confidential
and cannot be used in this study. Enough information was pro-
vided to estimate the level of emissions, however. When use of
the data is permitted, they should be incorporated into the
matrix of emission factors.
31
-------
An average particulate emission factor for all combustion
stacks is estimated to be 0.7 Ib/ton coal. The range of values
is wide, however, with old battery stacks showing higher emis-
sions because of oven cracks and subsequent leakage into the
flues. Nevertheless, the values are expected to be well within
the range of 1.3 Ib/ton coal for the old stack and 0.13 Ib/ton
coal for the new stack. The values are known to be about an
order of magnitude apart.
Benzene Soluble Organics
Emissions of BSO are expected to be small from combustion
stacks: 0.006 Ib/ton coal from old stacks, and 0.0006 Ib/ton
coal from new stacks.
Benzo-a-Pyrene, Benzene
Emissions of BaP range from 6 x 10 Ib/ton coal from old
stacks to 6 x 10 Ib/ton coal from new stacks. Very little
benzene is believed to be emitted because it is probably com-
busted. Therefore, benzene emissions are considered to be
zero.
3.7 SOURCE 7—COKE HANDLING
Particulates
No explicit data were found on which to quantify emissions
from coke handling, but it is assumed that the coke is cooled
sufficiently to prevent hydrocarbon emissions. Further, it is
expected that larger particulate matter from sizing and screening
operations would contribute greatly to the total particulate
24
mass. Therefore, an emission factor of 1.0 Ib/ton coal has
been estimated. This value is twice that found for coal prepara-
tion.
32
-------
3.8 SOURCE 8—COAL PREHEAT
Particulates
Data from several tests of coal preheating systems are used
to indicate the level of emissions to be expected from the pre-
O c o c
heater. ' More data are needed to improve the data base and
should be added as they become available.
The particulate emission factor is based on the results of
two series of emissions tests in which production rates and
25
drying temperatures varied. Particulate emissions appear to
relate primarily to the rate of coal drying, and there is a
slight correlation between emissions and gas temperatures. An
average uncontrolled emission rate was developed over six test
runs with the various production/temperature combinations and
25
was determined to be 7.05 Ib particulate/ton coal. The rela-
tionship between production rate and emissions/ton coal appears
to be inversely proportional. "Uncontrolled emissions" refers to
the use of no control device after initial separation of the pre-
heated coal from the gas stream.
Benzene Soluble Organics
The level of organic emissions (taken as BSO) was also
tested during the particulate tests and average emissions were
25
determined to be 1.05 Ib/ton coal for six tests. More recent
data indicate a slightly higher emission rate, but this factor
2 fi
will be used until more information becomes available.
Although not enough data are available to define accurately the
relationship between gas temperature and the rate of organic
emissions, the emission rate appears to increase exponentially
with higher production rates. Organic emissions also appear to
increase with gas temperature.
Benzo-a-Pyrene
Recent data on BaP emissions indicate that emissions from
the preheater scrubber outlet are approximately 2.0 x 10~ Ib
33
-------
26
BaP/ton coal. Based on an assumed scrubber efficiency of 50
percent for BaP, the uncontrolled emission rate would be 3.9 x
-4
10 Ib BaP/ton coal. Although the absolute variation of the
emission rates tends to be small, the percentage variation is
quite high.
Benzene
2 fi
Data concerning benzene emissions are confusing at best.
Recent data indicate benzene emissions to be higher at the scrub-
ber outlet than at the inlet, which would indicate a "negative"
efficiency for benzene scrubbing, but no other source for benzene
has been found that would clarify this. The outlet values will
be used to determine an emission factor for the model. These
values should be considered of low reliability, however, until
the results are explained. One possible explanation is that the
data sets might be reversed. Because insufficient data were
provided to calculate a benzene emission factor directly, the
known ratio between benzene and BSO had to be used. Based on the
ratio between benzene and BSO hydrocarbons from this test (factor
= 0.0130 x BSO), benzene emissions are estimated to be 0.014 Ib
C,H^/ton coal.
b b
3.9 SOURCE 9--COAL PREPARATION
Particulates
Coal preparation is generally defined as the crushing,
screening, and sizing of coal prior to charging of the ovens.
Included are the emissions from handling and material transfer
points. Coal dust is the predominant particulate emission.
Normally no hydrocarbons are emitted because insufficient heat is
supplied to cause any carbonization of the coal. It is assumed
that the coal has been washed and separated from the burden
material at the coal mine prior to its transport to the coke
battery. Two sources indicate that with minimal controls (i.e.
34
-------
hooding, water sprays), the expected particulate level is ap-
proximately 0.5 Ib particulate/ton coal. This includes all
27 28
transfer and crushing points. ' Uncontrolled emissions have
the potential to be as high as 10 Ib particulate/ton coal.
3.10 SOURCE 10—COAL STORAGE
Particulates
The only pollutant of concern from this source is particu-
late because it is assumed that the other pollutants either do
not occur or are below detectable levels. The amount of particu-
late emissions from coal storage piles is usually a function of
the size and shape of the storage pile, the wind speed, and the
29
amount of material movement on the pile. Thus a site-specific
value would need to be assigned for the storage pile at each
plant. PEDCo has performed several surveys on emissions from
29 30
storage piles. ' Based on the assumption that the storage
pile will be relatively inactive and that wind erosion is the
primary cause of fugitive emissions, the emission factor would be
0.10 to 0.15 Ib/ton coal. If loading onto the storage pile,
traffic around the pile, and loadout of material are considered,
the emission factor would be in the range of 0.4 to 0.5 Ib/ton
coal. The former value will be used in the model. If the total
activity on or around the piles is applicable, the higher value
can be used.
3.11 SOURCE 11--PIPELINE CHARGING (PREHEATED DRY COAL)
Particulates
Theoretically, emissions from pipeline charging could be
near zero. In most cases, however, theoretical and actual
values differ significantly at the batteries observed to date.
In most pipeline charging operations, both operation and main-
tenance practices and engineering design factors have contributed
to the level of emissions that have been observed.
35
-------
No formal tests have been made of emissions caused by pipe-
line charging. The charging hole lids and standpipe elbow covers
are the major emission points. (Door leaks can also be a signif-
icant source of pollutants; these are discussed under Source 4.)
The emission factors presented below are arrived at by relating a
mass/time emission factor to visible emissions, using a mass/time
constant of 0.0015 Ib particulate/second of observed emissions.
This factor is based on observation of the AISI/EPA larry car
? O 1 C
emissions. ' ' Based on this factor, an average of approxi-
mately 0.55 Ib/charge was observed at the "worst case" battery.
It is assumed here that the characteristics of charging emissions
are the same as those observed for the AISI/EPA larry car charg-
ing. If the quantity of coal charged to the oven is assumed to
be equivalent to 35 tons of wet coal, the emission factor is
calculated to be 0.016 Ib/ton coal. This value would be equiv-
alent to that captured by the front half of a Method 5 sampling
train. A total particulate emission factor of 0.031 Ib/ton coal
can be developed for a front and back half if it is assumed that
characteristics are the same as those for the emissions of the
AISI/EPA larry car charging. The assumptions used for calculat-
ing emission factors for dry coal charging are broad, and the
results derived must be considered tenuous. The computations
show that emission factors for pipeline charging and the AISI/EPA
larry car charging are comparable. Informal observations also
show that pushes from batteries using dry coal tend to be cleaner
(i.e., the coal is more completely "coked") than those from
batteries using wet coal. This factor has not been quantified in
the model.
Benzene Soluble Organics
If it is assumed that emission characteristics are similar
for BSO from both wet and dry coal charging and that BSO com-
prises 60 percent of the total particulate emissions, the cal-
culated emission factor would be 0.019 Ib BSO/ton coal. The
assumed value of 60 percent is slightly higher than that observed
36
-------
at the AISI/EPA test; however, the preheated coal may produce
more volatile organic compounds during charging because of its
higher temperature.
Benzo-a-Pyrene
Because both the emission factors and the assumed emission
characteristics are similar to those of the AISI/EPA larry car,
the BaP/BSO ratio for wet coal charging is used to derive an
emission factor of 3.5 x 10 Ib Ba.P/ton coal.
Benzene
For similar reasons, the benzene emission factor to be used
in the model is 0.008 Ib C,H,/ton coal.
b b
3.12 SOURCE 12--REDLER CONVEYOR (PREHEATED COAL) CHARGING
No formal emission tests have been performed on the Redler
conveyor system. An emission factor has been developed, however,
on the basis of several visible emission observations. Based
on seconds of observed emissions, the emission factor is esti-
mated to be 0.35 Ib/ton charge. Assuming an equivalent 35 tons
of wet coal/charge, the emission factor is 0.01 Ib/ton coal.
Particulate emissions were observed primarily from the
charging ports and from the conveyor/chute junction. Emissions
from the charging ports are not expected to differ significantly
from those produced by the AISI/EPA larry car. Emissions from
the conveyor/chute junction, however, appear to be mostly rela-
tively large coal particles which could increase the weight of
total particulate emissions. These emissions should not
increase the emission factor above 0.03 Ib/ton coal.
An emission factor based on total particulate emissions
(front- and back-half) is expected to range from 0.0148 to 0.0168
Ib/ton coal, primarily because of condensible emissions from the
charging ports. (This is assuming that ^1/2 of the total emis-
sions are from the charging ports, that the back-half emissions
37
-------
would be 96 percent of the mass of the front-half, and that the
total of any other emission sources is added.)
Benzene Soluble Organics
Emissions of BSO are expected to be less than those from
pipeline and larry-car charging because the ratio of BSO to total
front-half and back-half particulate is lower. The change in
this ratio is due to the relative short periods of visible emis-
sions that have been observed from the charging ports where the
BSO is assumed to originate. Charging port emissions represent
0.0098 Ib/ton (estimated) of particulate; if 60 percent of the
particulate fraction is assumed to be due to BSO, emissions are
calculated to be 0.006 Ib BSO/ton coal.
Benzo-a-Pyrene
Because of the small quantity of BSO emitted, emissions of
BaP are expected to be less than half that expected for the worst
case for wet-coal larry car charging, or 0.0005 Ib BaP/ton coal;
and they could average as low as 1.1 x 10 Ib BaP/ton coal. The
latter value will be used in the model because it is believed to
be more representative of actual emissions.
Benzene
Emissions of benzene are difficult to quantify. Based on
the assumption that benzene emissions originate from the charging
port and that the emission factor is 25 percent of that for total
particulate emissions from the charging port (0.0098), the
emission factor becomes 0.0025 Ib C-H,/ton coal. At 50 percent
b b
of the total particulate from the charging port, the emission
factor becomes 0.0049 Ib C,H,/ton coal. This higher value will
b b
be used in the model.
The preceeding emission factors are only estimates; there
are no test data to substantiate them. Dry coal charging should
improve the level of pushing emissions because of the greater
number of "clean" pushes resulting from more complete coking; it
38
-------
should also provide the potential for lower levels of charging
emissions.
3.13 SOURCE 13—HOT-LARRY-CAR CHARGING (PREHEATED DRY COAL)
Although no data are available on which to base emission
factors for any of the four pollutants, these emissions are not
expected to be significantly higher than those from wet-coal
charging. Because the equipment will be new, the hot larry car
should perform as well or better than the AISI/EPA larry car.
Therefore, the following emission factors are to be used:
0.017 Ib particulate/ton coal
0.033 Ib total particulate/ton coal
0.019 Ib BSO/ton coal
3.5 x 10~5 Ib BaP/ton coal
0.008 Ib C,H,/ton coal
b b
The value for total particulate emissions is not used in the
model, but it is shown for general information.
3.14 SOURCE 14—BYPRODUCT RECOVERY PLANTS
It is difficult to quantify the emissions from coke-oven by-
product-recovery plants. The main difficulties are the numerous
fugitive sources and the significant differences in the type of
byproduct recovery practiced from plant to plant. The approach
taken to quantification of emissions was to select a plant that
appeared to be representative of a majority of the byproduct
recovery plants. Because not all sources of emissions have been
tested and reliable emission data are not readily available, the
estimates presented here are rough, and represent only the
summation of estimates for various areas in a typical byproduct
plant. Front-half Method 5 particulate emissions are believed
to be zero.
The primary pollutants appear to be organics, but no useful
data are available except on benzene. During processing, the
coke-oven gas is cooled to a sufficiently low temperature to
39
-------
condense the various hydrocarbons that make up the benzene
soluble organics. Therefore only those with relatively high
volatility should be emitted as fugitive emissions. Based on
test data and estimates, benzene emission are calculated to be at
least 0.2 Ib/ton coal. It is possible some constituents of BSD
(such as, naphthalene) are emitted at very high levels and con-
tribute at least 0.3 Ib BSD/ton coal. This value will be used in
the model until more specific data become available. ' Although
BaP levels are unknown, they should be relatively low because of
the condensation effect mentioned above. ' For the purposes of
the model, BaP emissions will be considered zero.
40
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
1. Draft of Standards Support Environmental Impact Statement.
Volume 1: Proposed National Emission Standards, Byproduct
Coke Oven Wet-Coal Charging and Topside Leaks. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. June 1978.
2. Coke Oven Charging Emission Control Test Program. Vol. 1.
EPA-650/2-74-062. July 1974.
3. Coke Oven Charging Emission Control Test Program--Supple-
mental Observations. EPA-650/2-74-062A. September 1974.
4. Trenholm, A.R., and L.L. Beck. Assessment of Hazardous
Organic Emissions from Slot Type Coke Oven Batteries. ESED,
U.S. EPA, March 16, 1978.
5. Personal communication from A.R. Trenholm, ESED, U.S. EPA,
March 21, 1979.
6. Source Testing of a Stationary Coke Side Enclosure. EPA-
340/1-76-012. 1976.
7. Great Lakes Carbon Corporation. Study of Coke Side Coke-
Oven Emissions. EPA-340/1-77-014A. Vol. 1: Source Testing
of a Stationary Coke Side Enclosure. St. Louis, Missouri.
1977.
8. Great Lakes Carbon Corporation. Study of Coke Side Coke-
Oven Emissions. EPA-340/1-77-014A. Vol. 2: Source Testing
of a Stationary Coke Side Enclosure. St. Louis, Missouri.
9. Sampling and Analysis of Coke Oven Door Emissions. EPA-
600/2-77-213. 1977.
10. Paley, L.R., and R.J. Powals. Assessment of the Fugitive
Particulate Emissions Escaping from a Coke-Side Shed. (Date
and Publication Date Unknown).
41
-------
11. Paley, L.R., M. Antell, V.W. Hanson, and R.J. Powals. Were
the Measured Emission Rates Representative of a Coke Bat-
tery's Typical Emissions? Presented at the Joint APCA/
Source Evaluation Society Meeting, Dayton, Ohio, September
19, 1975.
12. Jacko, R.B., D.W. Neuerdorf, and J.R. Blandford. Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. Plume Parameter
and Particulate Emissions from the Byproduct Coke Oven
Pushing Operation. Presented at the 71st APCA Conference,
Houston, Texas, June 25-30, 1978. APCA No. 78-9.4.
13. Emissions Testing and Evaluation of Ford/Koppers Coke
Pushing Control System. Vol. 1: Final Report. EPA-600/2-
77-187A. 1977.
14. Emissions Testing and Evaluation of Ford/Koppers Coke
Pushing Control System. Vol. 2: Appendices. EPA-600/2-77-
187B. 1977.
15. Roe, E.H., and J.D. Patton. Coke Oven Pushing Emission
Control System. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 25(4)-.379-382. April 1975.
16. PEDCO Environmental, Inc. Control of Emissions from Dry
Coal Charging at Coke Oven Batteries. (Preliminary Draft).
Prepared for U.S. EPA, IERL, OAQPS, Durham, N.C., under
Contract No. 68-02-2603, Task 28. October 1978.
17. Dowling, M.P., J.D. Jeffry, and A.H. Laube. York Research
Corporation, Stamford, Connecticut. Reduction of Quench
Tower Emissions. Presented at the 71st APCA Conference,
Houston, Texas, June 25-30, 1978. APCA No. 78-9.2.
18. Edlund, C., A.H. Laube, and J.D. Jeffry. U.S. EPA, Washing-
ton, D.C. Effects of Water Quality on Coke Quench Tower
Particulate Emissions. Presented at the 70th APCA Confer-
ence, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 20-24, 1977. APCA No.
77-6.3.
19. Laube, A.H., J. Jeffry, and C. Edlund. Characterization of
Pollutants Exiting Quench Towers. Presented at the 4th
National Conference on Energy and the Environment, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, October 3-7, 1976. pp. 260-267.
20. Midwest Research Institute. Engineering Analysis of Emis-
sion Controls for Wet Quench Towers. Prepared for ESED,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., under Contract No. 68-02-2609, Task 7.
42
-------
21. Rudolph, J.L., and C.E. Rechsteiner. Analysis of Samples
from Coke Quench Tower Emissions. (Draft). Prepared by
Arthur D. Little, Inc., for York Research Corporation.
November 1978.
22. Study of Concepts for Minimizing Emissions from Coke-Oven
Door Seals. EPA 650/2-75-064. 1975.
23. Barrett, R.E., and P.R. Webb. Effectiveness of a Wet
Electrostatic Precipitator for Controlling POM Emissions
from Coke Oven Door Leakage. Presented at the 71st Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston,
Texas, June 25-30, 1978.
24. Air Pollution in the By-Product Coke Industry. Chapter II:
Dust and Fume Generation in the Iron and Steel Industry.
Russian Translation, MIR. 1977.
25. Betz Environmental Engineers. An Emission/Efficiency
Evaluation of the A-5 Coke Oven Battery North Pre-Heat Bleed
Venturi Scrubber System at the Aliquippa Works of the Jones
and Laughlin Corporation. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, January
1977 and May 1977 (two tests).
26. York Research Corporation. Draft data from coal preheater
tests at J&L Steel (Aliquippa Plant). EPA/IERL. July-
August 1978.
27. Background Information for Standards of Performance: Coal
Preparation Plants. Volume 1: Proposed Standards. EPA-
450/2-74-021a. October 1974.
28. Inspection Manual for Enforcement of New Source Performance
Standards: Coal Preparation Plants. EPA-340/1-77-022.
November 1977.
29. Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines. EPA-908/1-78-003.
February 1978.
30. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Technical Guidance for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. EPA-
450/3-77-010. March 1977.
31. Research Triangle Institute. Environmental Assessment of
Coke By-Product Recovery Plants. EPA 600/2-79-006, NTIS PB
293278/AS. 1979.
43
-------
SECTION 4
COST METHODOLOGY
4.1 STANDARDS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Cost Standards
Three basic costs have been determined: (1) total installed
capital cost, (2) annual operating cost, and (3) annualized cost.
These costs reflect 4th quarter 1978 dollars. The procedures for
calculating installed capital costs for control equipment are
presented in Section 4.2, as are the details of the capital
recovery factor, the items included in the cost estimates, unit
prices for labor, and other such information.
Process Standards
The flow diagram of a typical coke plant (Figure 7) and the
corresponding flow diagram of a byproduct plant (Figure 8)
indicate the scope of the processes included in the model.
The following constants are used the control cost calcula-
tions:
Useful life of battery 40 years
Days in year 365
Hours in day 24
Coke oven gas/ton wet coal 11,500 ft
Bulk density of wet coal 50 Ib/ft
Bulk density of dry coal 44 Ib/ft
Coking time 17.5 h for furnace coke
24.0 h for foundry coke
12.5 for preheated coal
44
-------
6% MOISTURE
tn
TSP
TSP
BINS
SP, BSO. BaP
TSP
1 o.rK 1 OR* "«- RSfl
1 j 1 BaP
PREHEATER OTHER
PIPELINE REDLER HOT
CONVEYOR LARRY CAR 6900 ft
\ J 1
COKE COKE COKE
OVENS OVENS OVENS
* t *
J
SAME AS
STACK
'
3 '
4600 ft
1
WET COAL COKE OVEN
GAS
11.500 ft3
MAKEUP
HATER *
1
L
WET (
\
•nil TSP TSP
-OAL BSO BSO
BaP BaP
LARRY CAR CHARGING DOOR
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMI
1
COKE
— -* OVENS
„ PUSH INC, BSO
EMISSIONS BaP
TjP ^
HOT 1 FMi«;<;inN<; RYPHnniir.T<;
CO
1400 Ib
YE \ )7] )()
1 | >-105 gal
» yUtNLH • UA'TEUATER
TOWER * WUILWAILK
— -
Ht_J
TSP TSP
BSO BSO
BaP BaP
LID STAHDPIPE
SSIONS EMISSIONS
IONS
COOLED COKE
COKE
TSP
CRUSHING AND SCREENING
SIZED
COKE
1260 Ib
,
UNDERSIZE
COKE
140 Ib
Figure 7 . Relationship of emission sources in a typical byproduct coke plant.
-------
RECYCLED COOLING WATER
FLUSHING LIQUOR
COAL
7SI
COKE
OVENS
COKE
(
E
S
37
^^
i
i
PR
CO
I
aUSHING
LIQUOR
DECANTER
I MARY
OLER
_/•
-Q*~ ' RE
EXHAUSTER
PRIMARY
COOLER
DECANTER
r~i 1
WEAK
LIQUOR
DECANTER
COG
TAR
STRIPPED
AMMONIA
STREAM
SLURRY
CAUSTIC
SODIUM
PHENOLATE
STEAM
-FREE
1
)NIA
JATOR
ILIQ
5TAL
RATOR
Ul
\7
* FINAL
COOLER
,
UOR
NEPHTHALENE
SEPARATOR
1
ronnr
^TT7
t
^ COOLING _
TOWER
1
AID
DEBENZOUZEO COG
AMMONIA
SALT
NEPHTHALENE
BLOWDOWN
resuinmizATioN
PLANT
COG TO
STORAGE
LEAN
WASH OIL
MASTEWATER
CRUDE
LIGHT OIL
WASTE AMMONIA
LIOUOP
LIKE
SLUDGE
COAL TAR
AR
Carbon sol Ids
Utter
t«rbon dloitde
Hydrogen suttldc
AMonU nitrogen
Cyanide
Chloride
&4iei: H.,CO.CH..N..O,.KC
Cirbon dttulfldl ' '
Light oils
I*r jcfds
I*r b«tcs
Polycycllcs
Other
ToUls
TenperAture *C
"•"""• *"rs
Coil
10.000*
500
10,500
Coke
7370
7370
91 s
100
89
29
15
4
1500
2
90
2
1
1840
60
1.1
MM
llnuor
900
1
1
5
1
1
1
910
30
T
t
1500
S
1720
30
1.0
: th> >c4lt ftctor to Dunlop
-------
Doors
Wet coal moisture
Excess flushing liquor
Quench water requirement
Coke/coal yield
Percent of gas used for underfire
Flow rates:
Enclosed hot car, acfm
Enclosed shed, acfm
Volume of shed
Length of shed (L)
Wet quenching, acfm
Dry quenching, acfm
Combustion stack, acfm
Coal preheater stack, acfm
Self-sealing (no luted
doors)
6 percent
45 gal/ton wet coal
150 gal/ton coke
70 percent
40 percent
75,000
(0.67) x volume
35.6 ft3/ft of length per
ton of coke pushed (T)
4 ft x (No. of ovens) +
20 ft
30,800 x T
88 x (tons of coke/day)
59 x (tons of coal/day)
at 450°F @ 100% excess air
16,900 x (106 tons of
coal/year)
Temperatures:
The exhaust temperatures used are as follows:
Source
Charging
Pushing
Quenching
Doors
Topside
Combustion stack
Coal preheater
Temperature, °F
180
300
200
120
120
450
180
Table 3 shows the relationship between key oven parameters
used to translate capacity data into the physical size data
needed to determine certain costs. For example, oven volume is
the key parameter for sizing larry-car hoppers, tons of coke per
push is the key parameter for sizing an enclosed hot car, and
oven height is a key parameter for determining shed cost. These
47
-------
TABLE 3. RELATIONSHIPS OF SIZE AND OTHER PARAMETERS,
COKE OVEN BATTERY
Basis: 50 ovens
Oven height, m
3
Oven volume, ft
Tons coke/push
Without preheat
Coking time, h
Pushes/day
Tons coke/yra
With preheat
Coking time, h
Pushes/day
Tons coke/yra
3
540
8.5
17.5
68.6
213,000
12.5
96
296,000
4
720
12.0
17.5
68.6
300,000
12.5
96
420,000
6
1390
25.0
17.5
68.6
626,000
12.5
96
876,000
aDirectly proportional to number of ovens and inversely proportional to
coking time.
48
-------
relationships were used in calculating the cost functions for
model input. For convenience the cost equations are expressed as
a function of capacity. Because most batteries fall into one of
the three categories shown in Table 3, the use of capacity as the
cost variable is reasonable.
Two "interactions" are recognized in the model. An inter-
action is defined as a control of one source that effects control
of another source. The interactions are as follows:
0 The use of shed control on the pushing source effects
control of coke-side door emissions. The removal
efficiency is the same as that for pushing emissions
except that only the coke-side door emissions are
captured.
0 The use of dry quenching on the quenching source
effects control of pushing emissions because dry
quenching utilizes an enclosed hot car. The cost of
dry quenching also includes the cost of water treatment
at those plants that would otherwise use dirty water
for quenching.
4.2 PROCEDURE FOR COST ESTIMATING
Estimates for coke making systems are divided into two major
categories, capital costs and annualized costs. Capital costs
include such things as basic equipment and installation costs,
contractors' fees, and taxes. Estimates are sometimes obtained
directly from vendors and published information, or they may be
based on engineering experience and judgment. Some elements of
annualized costs also can be obtained from published information
or other documented sources, whereas other elements (e.g.,
annualized overhead) must be calculated because they are depen-
dent on capital costs.
The direct operating cost estimates in this report are based
on engineering judgment unless otherwise noted. They reflect 4th
quarter 1978 dollars based on the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
Index.
49
-------
Capital Costs
Capital costs represent the total investment required to
install a new control system. General factors that must be
considered for any type of control device are total equipment
cost, piping and ductwork, insulation, painting, and the like.
Table 4 lists typical items included in investment costs of air
pollution control systems.
System-specific factors affecting costs must also be con-
sidered. For coke oven systems these are capture method, tem-
perature, effect on byproduct quality (if applicable), fuel
storage (if applicable), and construction interest charges. Not
included are production losses due to control equipment installa-
tion and startup and research and development costs.
The worksheet presented as Figure 9 organizes all capital
investment cost factors for control systems into direct and
indirect costs. Factors for the components in each group are
calculated either as a function of the basic cost of the equip-
ment or material (obtained from vendor quotations) or calculated
specifically from engineering estimates (e.g., cubic yards of
concrete required for foundations).
Annualized Costs
Total annualized costs include direct operating costs,
capital charges, and overhead charges.
Direct operating costs include such items as utilities (fuel
oil, natural gas, electricity, process water, etc.), operating
labor (both direct and supervisory), maintenance and supplies
(labor and material), and solid waste disposal.
Capital charges include depreciation, interest, admini-
strative overhead, property taxes, and insurance. Depreciation
and interest are computed from the total capital cost by using a
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF), the value of which depends on the
50
-------
TABLE 4. TYPICAL ITEMS INCLUDED IN INVESTMENT COSTS
FOR CONTROL DEVICES
Total equipment cost, f.o.b. site
Device control instrumentation
Piping and duct work
Electrical equipment (motors, starters, conduits, etc.)
Insulation
Painting
Concrete and steel for foundations and support structures
Labor for equipment installation and materials application
Site preparation and building modifications
Construction management and supervision (contractor's fees)
Contingencies
Engineering and inspection
Startup
Freight charges for equipment and materials
Taxes and insurance
51
-------
SUMMARY
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NO. BY
DESCRIPTION
DIRECT COSTS
1 . Equipment
2. Instrumentation
3. Piping
4. Electrical
5. Foundations
6. Structural
7. Sitework
8. Insulation
9. Painting
10. Buildings
11.
12.
15. DIRECT SUBTOTAL
INDIRECT COSTS
21. Field Overhead
22. Contractor's Fee
23. Engineering
24. Freight
25. Offsite
26. Taxes (5% x material)
27. Allowance For Shakedowr.
26. Spares
29.
30.
31. INDIRECT SUBTOTAL
35. SUBTOTAL
41. Contingency (20% of line 35)
42. Interest During Construction
(10% of line 35)
4 5 . TOTAL
DETAIL
SHEET
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
Figure 9. Worksheet for estimating capital costs.
52
-------
operating life of the system and on the interest rate.* For
example, a CRF of 13.2 percent per year of the total capital
costs is allowed for a system with a 15-year life expectancy and
an interest rate of 10 percent. Property taxes and insurance are
fixed together at 2.0 percent of the total capital cost per year.
Administrative overhead charges are also fixed at 2.0 percent of
the total capital cost.
Table 5 presents annualized operating cost factors used for
control systems. Table 6 lists the specific rates used for
computing the annualized costs for this particular study.
Modified/Reconstructed Facilities
The cost of installing a control system in an existing plant
that has been modified, reconstructed, or expanded (given the
same exhaust gas parameters) is greater than in a new plant
because of special design considerations, more complex piping
requirements, etc. It is difficult to estimate additional
installation costs or retrofit penalty because many things are
peculiar to an individual plant. Such factors as lack of space,
additional ducting, and additional engineering have been con-
sidered here.
The location of the control system is governed by the con-
figuration of the existing equipment. Long ducting runs from
ground level to the control device and to the stack are sometimes
required, depending on the location of the process or stack.
Placing the control equipment above ground, which often requires
steel structural support, may increase costs. Other cost com-
ponents that may be increased because of space restrictions and
plant configuration are contractor's fees and engineering fees.
Under normal conditions these fees are estimated at 15 percent
and 10 percent, but they can be expected to increase to 20 per-
cent and 15 percent for a retrofit. Fees vary according to
i(l+i)n
* CFR = . . _y where i = interest rate (decimal factor) and
n = economic life of asset (No. years)
53
-------
TABLE 5. ANNUALIZED OPERATING COST FACTORS
FOR CONTROL SYSTEMS
Direct operating costs
Utilities:
Fuel oil
Coal
Natural gas
Electricity
Operating labor:
Direct and supervisory (assume X shifts/day and X days/year to calcu-
late hours/day)
Maintenance:
Labor
Materials
Supplies:
Labor
Materials
Solid waste disposal
Water treatment costs
Capital charges
Depreciation and interest
Administrative overhead
Property taxes
Insurance
Recovery credit adjustments
54
-------
TABLE 6. RATES USED IN THE COST MODEL
Item
4th Quarter, 1978 dollars
Source
Water
Electricity
Steam
No. 2 oil
Natural gas
Coke oven gas
Direct labor
Supervisory labor
Compound MR dust control
Bag cost (Lt 275°F)
Bag cost (Gt 275°F)
Sodium hydroxide
Polyelectrolyte
Solid waste disposal
Payroll overhead
Plant overhead
Interest rate
Administration overhead
Property taxes and insurance
overhead
0.161/1000 gal
0.0266/kWh
4.13/M Ib
0.42/gal
2.80/1000 ft3
1.39/1000 ft3
15.22/h
18.26/h
3.69/gal
0.28/ft2
0.44/ft2
360/ton (100% basis)
2.48/gal
8.25/ton
20% of payroll
50% of labor and supplies
10%
2% of installed cost
2% of installed cost
a
a
b
b
b
b
a
b
c
d
d
e
f
d
d
d
d
d
aTBS (Reference 2).
Calculated by PEDCo from rates in Reference 2.
cPEDCo Fugitive Dust Report. EPA-450/3-77-010. Reference 3.
Estimated by PEDCo.
Reference 4.
Reference 5.
55
-------
locale, difficulty of the job, the risks involved, and current
economic conditions. PEDCo estimated the fees cited.
The required additional ducting varies considerably with
plant configuration, but for purposes of this study, it is esti-
mated that approximately 50 percent more ducting is required for
a retrofitted control system.
Additional labor will be required to tie the system into the
process, probably at premium-time wage rates (assumed to be
double the straight-time pay).
When these additional cost factors are applied, the cost of
retrofit installations generally runs about 20 percent higher
than the cost of new installations; specific retrofit penalties
are estimated individually for each module in the PEDCo cost
model. Retrofit is not feasible in some plants, and these cases
must be treated on a site-specific basis. The systems which are
the most difficult to deal with as retrofits are dry coal charg-
ing and dry quenching. In the case of dry coal charging, there
is the additional problem of apportioning cost between pollution
control and increased production capability. Dry coal charging
systems are included in the model only if they already are in-
stalled; retrofits to existing batteries are not included. Dry
quenching is included with the provision that it may be not
feasible for all plants.
Annualized Cost of Control Systems
The annualized costs of control systems for modified/re-
constructed facilities are calculated in a manner similar to that
for new facilities. The cost components that are based on
capital costs are about 10 to 20 percent higher than those for
new facilities.
56
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Research Triangle Institute. Environmental Assessment of
Coke By-Product Recovery Plants. EPA 600/2-79-006, NTIS PB
293278/AS. 1979.
2. Temple, Barker & Sloane. Analysis of Economic Effects of
Environmental Regulations on the Integrated Iron & Steel
Industry EPA-230/3-77-015B, July 1977.
3. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. Prepared for EPA by PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. March 1977. EPA-450/3-77-010.
4. Chemical Marketing Reporter, October 9, 1978.
5. Personal communication between W. Kemner of PEDCo and D.
Pietruszka of Betz Co., Trevose, Pennsylvania, 19047. June
1978.
57
-------
SECTION 5
CONTROL SYSTEMS
This section provides a general description of each control
option listed in Section 2 (Table 2). Further details such as
exhaust temperature, duct diameter, and flow rate for each size
of battery and plant are presented in the computer printouts for
each control option in Appendix A. This section also provides a
summary of capital and annualized costs for each option.
The cost estimates presented are based on engineering esti-
mates by PEDCo, unless otherwise noted. Where applicable, the
procedures described in Section 4.2 are used to derive the costs.
For those control options that involve additional manpower or
changes in operation and maintenance (rather than equipment),
costs represent estimates of additional manhours required (some-
times based on related work previously performed by PEDCo).
5.1 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Source 1—Larry Car Charging
Control Option 2: Modified Car, Steam, and Smoke Boot—
Modification costs are based on a standard four-hopper larry
car. The basic modifications are the addition of a gooseneck
cleaner, hydraulics for independent drop sleeve operation, a
suction pipe (U-tube), stainless steel cones for hoppers, heat
shields, new hopper discharge assemblies allowing independent
operation, and a fume pipe for ventilation from the U-tube on
Port 4 to Port 1. Costs also include all necessary engineering,
58
-------
assembly, and installation. Estimates are based on the assump-
tion that the existing car is relatively new and that modifica-
tions are feasible. It is also assumed that headroom at the coal
bunker is adequate. Estimates do not consider OSHA requirements
for filtered air supply.
The steam supply considered in this option consists of a
pressure regulating station, a 4-inch header along the battery,
1-inch takeoffs at each standpipe, and steam injection jets and
the attendant miscellaneous piping, insulation, and installation.
Although the baseline for "uncontrolled" probably represents
a battery already supplied with steam, it is assumed that the
supply is not adequate to provide the quantity, pressure control,
or the reliability necessary for good stage charging.
The final portion of this option involves a smoke seal for
the leveling bar. The operating costs cover one additional
lidman per shift (to insure timely lid replacement and luting)
and one pipefitter on day shift to provide preventive maintenance
for steam nozzle and liquor spray. Steam requirement is esti-
mated at 24 Ib/ton coke.
Control Option 3: New Car, Steam, Smoke Boot--
The new car included in Option 3 controls affords greater
control because it is more reliable, and includes such design
improvements as a gravity feed butterfly valve (Carbotek), and
"two ovens-away drafting."
The car basically consists of four hoppers with flow control
valves and drop sleeves, fume pipes between Ports 1 and 4 and
Port 4 two ovens away, hydraulic slide gates, and gooseneck
cleaner.
The battery steam supply and smoke boot are also included.
Many site-specific details of design will increase or
decrease the cost from plant to plant. Furthermore, site-
specific problems such as three-hole batteries, coal bunker
clearance, warped battery tops, and off-battery-limit steam
supply problems are not considered in the cost estimates.
59
-------
The operating costs include the same additional manpower as
described for Option 2. The additional costs for treating the
condensed steam are not included, nor are potential losses due to
deleterious effects of steam on tar quality (these should be
addressed later in the refining of the fully developed model).
Control Option 4: Retrofit of Second Collecting Main Plus
Option 3—
This option applies only to batteries with one collecting
main, and includes the same features as Option 3 plus the retro-
fit of a second main. The estimate for the latter is based on
the cost data in Reference 1. The reference does not indicate
specifically what is included, but it is assumed that the second
collecting main includes standpipes and goosenecks, collecting
main, crossover mains across the battery top, steam and liquor
spray systems, and a pressure regulating system. Such an instal-
lation is probably not feasible for batteries nearing the end of
their useful life.
An additional refinement of the model could restrict usage
of this option for older batteries because battery age is in-
cluded in the battery data base. The model should also account
for the probable decrease in door emissions afforded by a double
collecting main, but presently this factor is ignored.
Source 2—Pushing
Control Option 2: Controlled Coking--
This option involves no capital cost--only annual operating
costs. These include one additional man per shift for monitoring
flue temperature and coking time. The major portion of the costs
is based on an increase in average coking time of 17.5 to 19
hours. This represents an 8 percent loss in capacity (given that
\
demand is at capacity). Lost production is valued at $110/ton of
coke. For a battery with a capacity of 400,000 tons/year, the
cost is (0.08) x (400,000) x ($110), or $3,520,000. At capacity
utilization ratios below 92 percent, the cost thus calculated is
60
-------
theoretically zero, but periodic need for maximum output would
still entail some lost production.
Control Options 3 and 6: Shed and Electrostatic Precipitator
(ESP); Control Options 4 and 7: Shed and Scrubber—
The control efficiencies of the ESP are translated into cost
by the relationship between efficiency and collection area shown
below:
Plate area,
Efficiency, % ft2/1000 acfm of gas flow
99.9 385
99.0 240
95.0 188
The larger the plate area, the higher the control efficiency and
the greater the control cost.
Aside from this factor, the general specifications for both
of the shed ESP systems are identical as described here. The
length of the shed is 4 feet per oven plus 20 feet of overhang.
The exhaust volume is calculated according to the equation:
Exhaust volume in acfm = 1.67 (shed volume)
shed volume = 35.6 (L)(T)
where L = length of shed and
T = tons of coke per push
The shed includes foundations, columns, sheeting, internal light-
ing, and exhaust main along the length of the shed and under the
exhaust main, an access walkway through shed. Figure 10 is a
simplified cross section of the shed.
The shed system includes the shed, the ESP, the fan and
drive, connecting duct work, the exhaust stack, and control
dampers at the fans. As is the case for all air-moving systems,
fan redundancy is 100 percent for fans smaller than 500 bhp and
50 percent over 500 bhp. For example, if the total horsepower
required is 400 bhp, two 400 bhp fans are provided. For a total
requirement of 1000 bhp, three 500 bhp fans are provided. Fan
drive horsepower is based on standard air density of 0.075
Ib/ft to allow for cold starts.
61
-------
EXHAUST
DUCT
W
COKE
GUIDE
QUENCH
CAR
BENCH
BATTERY
Figure 10. Cross section of coke-side shed.
62
-------
The redundancy of the ESP is 20 percent of the plate area
required. The ESP's are insulated and covered and include dust-
handling hoppers and conveyors. Duct diameters are based on a
duct velocity of 4000 ft/min. Stack diameters are based on a
stack velocity of 3000 ft/min. The 300 ft of duct work for the
shed is unlined and uninsulated carbon steel, as is the 100-ft
stack. Fans are induced-draft and centrifugal with radial-tipped
blades, and are rated for material handling (MH). The totally
enclosed motors are drip-proof and have oil-cooled bearings as
required. The fan electrical system includes motor starters,
louver operators, annunciators and related switches, and wiring.
No allowance is made for additional substations or increasing
plant electrical capacity.
The only difference in the scrubber systems is that the ESP
is substituted with an unlined stainless steel venturi scrubber
and mist eliminator. Total system pressure drop is 50 in. H-O
for a 99 percent TSP collection efficiency and 30 in. E.~O for a
95 percent collection efficiency. (These are initial estimates
only and can be refined later.) The L/G ratio of the scrubbing
liquor is 7.9. Wastewater is recycled through a treatment sys-
tem, which includes a clarifier-vacuum filter section, a waste-
water recirculating pump, and a makeup water pump. It is assumed
that this system will have a 5 percent blowdown rate to an ex-
isting water treatment system for removal of dissolved compounds
such as phenol and cyanide.
The shed systems are assumed to capture coke-side door
emissions in addition to 90 percent of the pushing emissions.
Coke-side door emissions are assumed to be 50 percent of total
door emissions.
Control Option 5: Enclosed Hot Car—
The enclosed hot car used in this option is described in the
literature and in Reference 2. Equipment costs are based on a
rough quote by Chemico; indirect costs were added by PEDCo. No
separate allowance is made for reenforcement or modification of
63
-------
the bench or for modification of the quench tower or wharf except
as they might be included in a gross estimate represented by the
retrofit factor. The Chemico car was chosen from a variety of
designs to represent this general class of control. Additional
variations can be added to the model if desired.
Source 3—Quenching Clean Water
Control Option 2: Wooden Baffles—
The cost of quench tower controls is a function of the num-
ber of quench towers in the plant rather than of coking capacity.
Because specific data are not available on the number of quench
towers required, it is assumed that one quench tower can handle
up to 900,000 tons/yr of coke production. Figure 11 shows the
scope of this option.
Control Option 3: Diverted Flow Baffles—
The total installed capital cost of a diverted-flow, baffled
quench tower was estimated by PEDCo based on a brochure from
Firma Carl Still. The estimate includes baffles, water system,
and quench tower extension. It does not include dismantling of
an existing tower and total replacement by a new quench tower.
Operating costs are calculated to be about 10 percent of the
total capital cost. The number of quench towers required is
calculated as indicated under Option 2.
Control Option 4: Dry Quenching—
Costs are based on a system such as that shown in simplified
form in Figure 12, which was derived from a brochure by American
Wagner Biro Company. This system includes enclosed pushing
hardware, which is accounted for in the model; i.e., when dry
quenching is used, pushing control is put at level 5. Because no
U.S. plants use dry quenching and the steam generated might not
be useful to the plant, the potential steam credit is not con-
sidered here. If it were, the annualized cost would become
negative, which would complicate the optimization model. If
desired, however, the cost update program can be used to generate
64
-------
BAFFLES
SPRAY WATER
STRAINER
PUMP
QUENCH TOWER
TYPICAL BAFFLE ARRANGEMENT
Figure 11. Conventional quench tower baffles.
65
-------
DRY
QUENCHING
TOWER
HOT COKE
BUCKET
CRANE FOR CHARGING
HOT COKE
HOT COKE BUCKET SHOWN
IN CHARGING POSITION
BOILER
MEASURING HOPPER
QUENCHED
COKE CONVEYOR
Figure 12. Simplified pictorial diagram of a dry quenching system.
66
-------
revised cost functions for dry quenching, which do account for
steam credit. There are some relatively small plants (less than
100,000 tons of coke per year) in the data base for which dry
quenching is probably not feasible. It is also questionable
whether the present cost function is applicable in this small
range. These issues can be further investigated as a later
refinement.
Source 4--Doors
Control Option 2: Cleaning and Maintenance--
This option involves no capital cost. The annual operating
cost is based on the addition of two men/shift for cleaning, door
inspection, and repair. Maintenance costs also include the cost
of door replacement at a rate of 10 percent per year.
Control Option 3: High Pressure Water Cleaning--
This option entails the installation of two (one per side)
high-pressure water-cleaning machines, either on the existing
pusher and door machines or on a separate car. Costs are based
on a rough quote by Industrial High Pressure Systems, Inc. It is
assumed that the existing pusher and door machine operators will
operate the cleaning units. The option requires the addition of
one man/shift for troubleshooting and inspection. Cost of re-
placement doors is the same as for control Option 2.
Control Options 4 and 5: Door Hood and Scrubber--
The scrubber, duct work, fans, and auxiliaries used in this
control option are generally of the same specification as pre-
viously described. An unlined stainless steel venturi is used
with a mist eliminator. The scrubber efficiency at 30 in. H,jO
pressure drop is estimated to be 95 percent; at 60 in. H_0, 98
percent. The water treatment system is the same as described
under Source 2. The duct length included is 150 ft plus the
length of ducts along both sides of the battery calculated as
four feet per oven per side. Stack height is 100 feet. Both are
constructed of unlined, uninsulated, carbon steel. Figure 13
presents a sketch of the system and indicates the required flow
67
-------
FRONT VIEW
COLLECTING DUCT
TO ^
C ^Dl IDD r D
— W
-r
K
x
VA
'W
HOOD
VARIABLE, MANUAL
DAMPER SETTINGS
4ft
TOP VIEW 1.5ft£E3 cLb iJJjBUCKSTAYS
HOOD "OUTLINE
MAIN DUCT
HOOD I
SIDE VIEW
1.5ft
BATTERY
BENCH
DOOR FACE AREA = (1.5 ft) x (4 ft) = 6 ft2
NUMBER OF OVENS EXHAUSTED AT ANY GIVEN TIME = 6
FACE VELOCITY = 200 ft/min FOR 75% CAPTURE
FACE VELOCITY = 250 ft/min FOR 85% CAPTURE
FLOW RATE (ONE SIDE) = (6 ft2) x (6) x (200 ft/min)
= 7200 acfm
TEMPERATURE = 100°F
FLOW RATE = 6800 scfm
FLOW RATE (BOTH SIDES) = 13,600 scfm FOR 75% CAPTURE
= 17,000 scfm FOR 85% CAPTURE
IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, DUCT WOULD BE OF VARYING
DIAMETER AND REQUIRE SOME DAMPER ARRANGEMENT
TO DISTRIBUTE FLOW ALONG LENGTH OF BATTERY.
THE COST ESTIMATE IS NOT OF SUFFICIENT DETAIL
TO RECOGNIZE SUCH DETAILS. DUCT COST THEREFORE
IS BASED ON A CONSTANT DIAMETER.
Figure 13. Door hood arrangement.
68
-------
rate. Also included in the cost of this option are the costs
described under Option 2.
Source 5—Topside
Control Options 2 and 3: Luting, Cleaning and Maintenance—
These two control options entail no capital costs and differ
only in degree. Option 2 includes one additional man/shift for
inspection and luting of lids and standpipes (in addition to the
lidman and larry car operator). For Option 3, additional main-
tenance hours are added for grouting lid seats and standpipe
bases and replacing faulty lids and caps. The cost estimate is
based on an additional 1000 hours/year of labor plus the cost of
supplies.
Control Option 4: New Lids and Seats--
The cost of this option includes one additional man/shift
for inspection and luting of lids and standpipes plus an addi-
tional capital cost for new lids and seats at a rate of four lids
per oven. This option is not applicable to preheated coal bat-
teries.
Source 6--Combustion Stack (Old)
Control Option 2: Oven Patching--
The arbitrary definition of "old" combustion stack is based
on a battery age of 15 years or older. This option involves the
cost of 5900 maintenance hours per year for oven spraying and
patching on a regular basis and one additional man around the
clock for inspection and adjustments to the heating system. No
capital costs are included.
Control Options 3 and 4: Dry ESP—
The control efficiencies of ESP's are related to cost in
that higher efficiencies require larger collection areas, as
shown below:
69
-------
2 Plate area,
Efficiency, % ft /1000 acfm of gas flow
90.0 232
98.0 450
General ESP specifications are the same as those described
under Source 2. The length of duct allowed is 150 ft; duct work
is brick lined carbon steel. In the case of retrofits, it is
assumed that the duct is tied into the existing flue and the
existing stack is used. A booster fan with a total static
pressure capacity of 6 in. H-O is added. The flow rate for this
source is calculated as:
acfm = 59 x tons coal/day
with an exhaust temperature of 450°F. This flow is based on a
stoichiometric calculation for coke oven gas with 100 percent
excess air." Costs for flue gas conditioning are not included.
A separate ESP system is provided for each battery although, in
specific cases, it might be feasible to use a common ESP for
adjacent batteries. Because of space limitations and problems
with duct tie-in, the retrofit of an ESP to underfire stacks may
not always be possible. The ability to shut the gas off to an
existing battery long enough to accomplish tie-in without damag-
ing oven refractories is a site-specific problem and is not
addressed in this study.
Control Option 5: Baghouse--
This option is the same as Options 3 and 4 except that a
fabric filter is substituted for the ESP. Temperature to the
baghouse is limited by increasing the rate of air flow suffi-
ciently to reduce the temperature from 450° to 275°F. The
resulting flow rate is about 1.85 times that flow used for
Options 3 and 4. The air-to-cloth ratio used is 3.0.
Source 7—Coke Handling
Control Option 2: Enclosures and Baghouse--
Specific details of this control system for emissions from
coke handling will vary from plant to plant. The generalized
70
-------
system used in the model consists of a plain carbon steel hood
over the primary screen and five conveyor transfer point enclo-
sures vented to a fabric filter having an air-to-cloth ratio of
6.0. Duct work is unlined, uninsulated, plain carbon steel of
variable length depending on plant size. The average length is
75 ft. An exhaust fan with a static pressure rating of 8 in. H~0
is included. Flow rate is based on standard ventilation formulas
2
for hoods and appropriate conveyor belt widths. The control
system is rated to accommodate the total coking capacity of a
plant and is based on the assumption that a common coke-handling
station serves all batteries. This is a safe assumption because
only a few plants have widely separated groups of batteries and
more than one handling and loadout station. The system does not
include controls at the coke wharf.
Source 8—Coal Preheater
Control Options 2 and 4: Wet Scrubber—
The control options for this source are applicable only to
those few batteries that have coal preheating systems. The two
scrubber options are identical except in pressure drop require-
ment and concomitant fan capacity. Both scrubbers are stainless
steel and contain corrugated-baffle mist eliminators. Both
options include 100 ft of carbon steel duct work and a 100-ft
stack. Flow rate (in acfm) is calculated according to the
following formula:
^~f i c. ann /tons of coal/year.
acfm = 16,900 x ( If000,000 )
Control Options 3 and 5: Dry ESP—
These options are similar to the scrubber options except
they call for ESP's rather than wet scrubbers. No data are
available on the collection area required for coal preheater
exhaust. Based on the assumption that preheater particulate
emissions are similar to underfire stack emissions, the following
2
values are used:
71
-------
Plate area
Efficiency, % ftylOOO acfm of gas flow
95.0 324
99.0 538
Source 9—Coal Preparation
Control Option 2: Enclosures and Baghouse—
The sources of coal preparation emissions are the crushing,
mixing, and transfer steps that occur between the initial coal-
receiving station and the coal storage bunkers at the battery.
The size of the control system is determined by the coal capacity
of the plant. The system includes six conveyor transfer-point
hoods vented to a fabric filter having an air-to-cloth ratio of
6.0. Duct length varies with plant size, but the average is 250
ft. The system also includes an exhaust fan with a static
pressure capacity of 8 in. H»0.
Source 10—Coal Storage Yard
Control Option 2: Spray Truck—
This option consists of a standard tractor trailer outfitted
with a spray system and water storage tank. The estimated
efficiency rating is 60 percent, but little data are available on
dust control of coal storage piles. It is assumed that the truck
would be used during periods of dry weather or windy conditions
to suppress emissions at these most critical times. Operating
costs include driver time, dust suppressant chemicals, and truck
maintenance.
Control Option 3: Unloading Sprays and Spray Truck—
In addition to a spray truck, control Option 3 includes a
spray system at the car dumper (or barge unloading station). The
system is shown in Figure 14. Control efficiency should be
increased from 60 to 75 percent with the application of option.
This increase is based not only on the suppression of emissions
during dumping, but also on the assumption that application of a
dust suppressant provides more thorough and longer lasting con-
trol than water spraying alone.
72
-------
SUPPLY LINES TO
FOUR SPRAY HEADERS
(ONE ON DUMPER,
THREE AROUND
HOPPER)
STORAGE TANK FOR
WETTING AGENT
1
r- , WATER
dL 1_J SUPPLY'^
FILTER
_ MIXING
.-Ud. TANK
PUMPS
Figure 14. Dust-supression spray system at car dumper.
73
-------
Source 10—Coal Storage
Control Option 4: Coal Pile Sprays—
This control option (shown in Figure 15) is much more
expensive than Options 2 and 3. It consists of permanently
installed spray stanchions around the perimeter of the coal
piles. These stanchions can be regulated at a central pump
house. The lines are insulated and heated for winter operation.
The size of the system is based on the amount of storage area
2 2
required (based on a coal pile storage density of 0.28 ton/ft ).
The control options for Source 10 are based on total plant
capacity. Cost estimates are independent of battery character-
istics.
Source 11—Pipeline Charging; Source 12—Redler Conveyor Charging;
and Source 13—Hot Larry Car Charging
Control Option 2: Operation and Maintenance--
Information concerning controls for dry-coal charging sys-
tems (Sources 11, 12, and 13) is limited. These sources repre-
sent topside emissions from batteries charged with dry coal.
Emission controls for such sources as doors and stacks are the
same as those in conventional batteries. The control of emis-
sions from hot larry car loading at the coal bunker is not con-
sidered because there is only one such battery and controls were
included in its design.
A recent study of pipeline-charged batteries and Redler-
charged batteries suggests such controls as additional steam
aspiration, better seals at discharge ports, and slower charging
4
rates. Because specific controls have not been selected, how-
ever, a capital cost cannot be determined. Cost estimates pre-
sent only an annual operating cost based on the addition of one
topside worker for inspection, luting, and minor maintenance of
lids, standpipes, and the pipeline or conveyor.
74
-------
TOP VIEW OF
STORAGE YARD
L
SPRAY NOZZLE AT ABOUT 30 ft
I
MANUAL CONTROL OF SPRAYS
VfSPRAY SYSTEM EQUIPMENT:
1 PROPORTIONING EQUIPMENT, PUMP, REGULATOR,
J CONTROL PANEL, STORAGE TANK, FILTER, ETC.
WATER SUPPLY
NOZZLE
SPRAY
STANCHION
WATER SUPPLY
LINES \
FLOW
JCONTROL
HEIGHT:
8 TO 10 ft
3 ft MINIMUM
GROUND LEVEL
Figure 15. Permanently installed spray stanchions
around perimeter of coal piles.
75
-------
Source 14 - Byproducts Plant
Control Option 2: Maintenance—
No control systems or procedures have yet been developed for
the control of air emissions from byproduct plants. So that a
working model recognizing this potential emission source could be
provided, a control option consisting of 8760 hours/year of
inspection and maintenance has been used. This includes valve
packing, tank patching, and repair of pipe leaks, and should
produce a control efficiency of 80 percent. These data are
artificial data, however, and are used only to provide a complete
dataset for the model.
Source 15—Combustion Stack (New)
Control Option 2: Oven Patching—
The designation of a battery stack as "old" or "new" is
arbitrary and is used only to help explain broad variations in
uncontrolled emissions. If site-specific data classifying each
stack according to emission level were available, the designation
of age as a parameter could'be eliminated. Oven patching is the
same as the control option described for old battery stacks, and
it is the only control option used for new stacks because more
extensive measures are not necessary.
Source 16—Quenching With Dirty Water
Control Option 2: Wooden Baffles—
This option is identical to that shown in Figure 11 (for
Source 3, Option 2).
Control Option 3: Clean Water and the Use of Baffles—
The most definitive study available on the subject of
emissions from quenching is by Edlund. The study addresses only
particulate emissions. Figure 16 illustrates the relationship
between emissions and dissolved solids in the quench water.
Determining the total dissolved solids for each plant is beyond
76
-------
6.0r-
« 5.0
o
o
c
o
£ 4.0
03
2 3.0
-o
c.
o
Q.
2.0
oo
1/1
1—4
S i.o
o:
i—i
-------
the scope of this project, but it is known that the composition
of process water varies from plant to plant, as does the ratio of
process water to quench water. The total amount of process water
also varies. Table 7 (extracted from a preliminary summary of
Effluent Guidelines 308 Questionnaire Data) shows these varia-
tions.
The variations in quench water composition and the many
different water treatment methods used require some assumptions
for simplification:
1. Plants are designated as using either clean water or
dirty water for quenching. The particulate emission
rates are assumed to be 1.7 Ib/ton of coal for clean
water and 3.2 Ib/ton of coal for dirty water.
2. The control scheme for treating dirty water (instead of
using it for quenching) is an ammonia distillation
column using caustic soda, a bio-oxidation plant with
3-day retention time, and activated carbon filters for
polishing. An incinerator is included for incinerating
the ammonia vapors, although these could be recovered
and converted to useful byproduct. A flow sheet of
this system is presented in Figure 17. It is assumed
that water thus treated becomes acceptable effluent and
that river water (i.e., clean water) is used for
quenching.
3. The quantity of water to be treated is assumed to be
150 gal/ton of coke. (It should be noted that the
control option of dry quenching must include the
treatment of the dirty water that would otherwise have
been used for quenching). The plant is sized for 50
percent excess capacity to enable recovery from outages.
4. When dry quenching and wastewater treatment are used in
combination, it is assumed the steam generated by the
dry quenching system is used to displace the steam
requirement of the water treatment system.
Although these are significant assumptions that could affect
the usefulness of the model, they are necessary to establish a
starting point. More detailed data and additional control
schemes can be factored into the model at some later date.
The other control options for quenching have already been
described.
78
-------
TABLE 7. COKE PLANTS USING PROCESS WATER FOR QUENCHING
Reference
:io.
001 ?A
01 I2B
Oll^C(Ruse)
OmC(Frank)
OUZO
02561
02HUB
03«4(i»2)
03«4(»3)
0432A
044HA
0464E
0584C
ObBIF(Mdin)
06H4A
0684B
0684FO)
0684F(2)
0732A
0856F
0856N
Ob60B
Orf64
0948A
Company
Alabama B.P.
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
Cyclops-FMP OCT.
Phi ladelphia Coke
Inland
Inland
J4L
Kaiser
Koppers
National
National
Republ ic
Republ ic
Republ ic
Republ ic
Shenango
uss
uss
uss
uss
YS&T
Location
larrant, Ala.
lackawanna, N.Y.
Johnstown, fa.
Johnstown, p(t.
Chesterton, Ind.
Portsmouth, Ohio
Phi ladelphid, H.i .
1. Chicago, Ind.
L. Chicago, Ind.
Al ujuippd, P,i .
lo'Hdna , Cal if .
Uessemer, Ala.
Granite City, 111 .
Wpirton, W. Va.
Younystown, Ohio
Barren, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Neville Island, Pa.
Fairless Mills, Pa.
Lorain, Ohio
Gary, Ind.
Gt'tievH , Utah
Campbel 1 , Ohio
1 xce'.s
NH^ 1 iquor
18
58
110
166
97
52
100
50
167
278
90
90
li.-nzol
plant
14
64
295
104
42
32.5
20
50
209
56
73
75
61
Fi na 1
cooler
145
120
5
10
505
70
125
125
1
150
10
29
5
10
80
2.5
174
100
175
Iliirornetric
i ondenser
100
230
28
5
71
Ocsul fur-
iznr
765
Other3
5
5
28
270
10
100
70
30
20
100
Total,
yal/min
145
225
42
160
1770
110
70
430
100
493
140
150
62
61.5
155
130
209
56
80
107.5
311
452
265
J26
Process
wastewater
.is ':. of total
iiiJ"nch volume
11.1
5.6
12.9
11.1
53.9
98.1
18.3
16.7
13.8
64.5
43.8
57.6
7.1
22.1
11.1
16.3
62.1
28.3
16.2
10.3
72.8
7.6
70.7
92.2
Process
wastewater
in gal /ton
93
50
60
74
493
139
121
100
90
323
49
144
51
39
81
146
93
42
73
52
103
65
106
123
Includes larry car scrubber wastewaters,
and miscellaneous floor drains.
"I scrubbers, qas holder seals, preheater condensate'.,, d> iirr, and seals on oas mains.
-------
COKE PLANT
WASTEWATER (!)
150 gal/iMn
I
SUMP
20,000 gal
RUBBER -
LINED
HOLDING TANK
1,000,000 gal
(3-day SURGE
AND DECANT)
CHEMICAL
TANK
TO
ATMOSPHERE
AERATOR
75 hp
NUTRIENT
ADDITION"
i
i
I AERATOR
1 75 hp
BIOXYD.
540,01
i
STG. II
)0 gal
k
BIOXYD. STG. I
540,000 gal
DRAIN
3-day RETENTION
— i
ACTIVATED
CARBON
POLISHING
AUXILIARIES:
ELECTRIC SUPPLY
WATER SUPPLY
INSTRUMENTATION
STEAM SUPPLY
INSTRUM. AIR SYSTEM
RETENTION • 2 TO 2.5 h
..FILTRATE
TREATED
_-. WASTEWATER
TO
SEWER
TO RECYCLE ABOVE
••SLUDGE—» TO
CAKE DISPOSAL
Figure 17. Coke plant wastewater treatment system.
80
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5
1. Draft of Standards Support and Environmental Impact State-
ment. Volume I: Proposed National Emission Standards By-
product Coke Oven Wet Coal Charging and Topside Leaks. U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. June 1978.
2. Development of Air Pollution Control Cost Functions for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry. (Draft) Prepared by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, for the U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Washing-
ton, D.C., under Contract No. 68-01-4600. September 1978.
3. Midwest Research Institute. Study of Coke Oven Battery
Stack Emission Control Technology Volume II, Control Methods,
Prepared for Emission Standards and Engineering Division.
U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Contract 68-02-
2609, Task 5. March 1979.
4. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Control of Emissions from Dry
Coal Charging at Coke Oven Batteries. Prepared for U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Contract 68-02-2603,
Task 28. October 1978.
i3. Edlund, Carl, A.H. Laube, and J. Jeffrey. Effects of Water
Quality on Coke Quench Towers Particulate Emissions.
6. Personal communication with Mr. Bernie Bloom, DSSE, Wash-
ington, D.C. to W. Kemner, PEDCo. September 14, 1978.
81
-------
SECTION 6
BATTERY DATA BASE (DATASET 3)
This dataset provides a record of the following for each
battery in the United States:
Company location code
Date installed or date of last major rebuilding
Number of ovens
Capacity, tons of coke/year
Type of charging used
Oven height
Number of collecting mains
Control equipment in place
These data are used as input to the model to determine total coke
industry emissions and the costs to control them.
The data base for coke oven batteries was assembled from a
variety of documents, some of which provide conflicting informa-
tion. Most of the capacity data is from Reference 1. Where
given data conflicted, PEDCo used its own expertise and knowledge
of the industry to select data values for use in the model. For
most of the foundry coke batteries, the main data source was
Reference 6.
The scope of this project does not cover the development of
a detailed data base for the U.S. coking industry, but it was
necessary to prepare a reasonably accurate census to estimate
control costs.
Input of the battery data is arranged so that it can be
updated easily as additional data become available. Although
some of the data are estimated and some may be outdated, most of
82
-------
the industry is correctly represented in the census, and the
aggregate costs calculated from the current data base should be
representative.
Table 8 represents the data base provided to the model.
Figure 18 shows the data coding form used to change or update the
data base. Table 9 presents the plant ID codes used for the data
coding form.
Total industry cost for a given control option and effici-
ency are calculated generally as:
n B
Industry cost = I A • X.
i=l 1
where A and B = cost coefficients from the cost model
X. = capacity (tons coke/year) for battery i
n = total number of batteries
Company names are used only for convenience in coding and
keeping track of the data. This study is not source-specific,
and company names will not appear in the model printout.
In this model, plant capacity has generally been used as the
variable in determining control costs. Certain costs, however,
are not strictly a function of capacity. Shed cost, for example,
is a function of oven height and number of ovens. In the case of
quench towers, on the other hand, cost is proportional to the
size and number of towers. The slight inaccuracies introduced by
the use of capacity as the cost variable, however, are not of
major concern in this stage of model development. In the case of
quench tower baffles, it is assumed that one quench tower can
handle up to 2500 tons of coke per day. For coal yards, coal
preparation, coke processing, and byproduct plants, the model
calculates costs for entire plants rather than individual bat-
teries (i.e., X. becomes the total capacity of all batteries in
a plant).
Certain other site-specific factors could affect cost. For
example, the economy of scale gained by combining two or more
adjacent batteries under a common control device to control
83
-------
TABLE 8. COKE OVEN MODEL BATTERY DATA BASE
FACE
CO
PLANT INST.
NO OATt
1 19*6
1 19*7
2 l«30
2 1941
1947
1952
1961
1976
197?
1942
1953
1941
|942
1953
1976
1915
1918
192V
1922
1929
1936
1941
1948
1950
1952
1955
1957
I94|
1943
1943
1944
1952
1962
197V
1940
1969
1972
111 I960
18 197*
10 1974
NO.
OVINS
55
55
15
25
25
76
45
57
57
4?
15
51
51
00
• 0
t)
63
63
63
63
6V
61
61
bb
65
65
*5
7*
76
»7
57
76
7*
76
74
•2
02
31
65
47
CUKC
CAPACITY
TUNS/VH
220000.
220000.
80000.
130000.
130000.
540000.
24VOOO.
670000.
670000.
19VOOO.
190000.
400000.
400000.
44000U.
090000.
260000.
260000.
260000.
260000.
250000.
260000.
310000.
310000.
350000.
350000.
3500VO.
350000.
450000.
450000.
300000.
300000.
495000.
495000.
900000.
420000.
1170000.
1270VOO.
15UOUO.
36VOUO.
290000.
CHANGING HEIGHT PUSH
(ME TENS) CONTNOL
LANNV
LARNV
LANKY
LAHHV
LAHNV
LANNV
LAHHV
LANRV
LANNV
LANHV
LAHNV
LANRV
LANNV
LANHV
LANNV
LANKY
LANKY
LANRV
LAHHV
LAHNV
LARHV
LANNV
LAHKV
LAHNV
LAHKV
LAHHV
LAHKV
LANNV
LAHNV
LAKNV
LANNV
LANKY
LAKMV
LARKY
LARHV
LANNV
LARNV
LANRV
LANNV
LANNV
CAR
CAR
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAR
CAR
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAR
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAR
CAN
CAM
CAR
CAR
CAN
CAR
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
ENCLOSED CAN
ENCLOSED CAR
SHED
SHED
NONE
NUNE
NONE
OTHER
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
OTHER
OTHER
NONE
NONE
NONE
QUENCH
MATER
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
• CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
OIRTV
OIHTT
OIRTV
DIRTY
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
OIRTV
OINTV
OIRTV
OIRTV
OINTV
OINTV
OINTV
OIRTV
01RTT
OIRTV
OIRTV
OIHTT
OIHTT
NO. COLL.
MAINS
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
11 1947
(continued)
21
BUUOO.
LANNV CAN
NONE
CLEAN
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
PA6E 2
oo
Ul
PLAmT
NU
II
II
12
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
14
14
14
1)
15
1)
It
Ik
Ik
Ik
Ik
Ik
Ik
17
17
17
III
Ik
Ik
1C
»•
19
19
19
19
21
21
«;!
21
£1
21
21
IMST.
UAlt
|94k
19)2
I9k4
I9k2
l«»63
|9kS
19k4
1972
1949
19)3
I9kl
19)7
19)7
I97«
19)0
19)k
|9)«
19)*
1970
1974
1978
19)5
|9)k
19)7
|9)S
19k«
I9kl
I9kl
I9kl
194)
1946
I**)!
|97k
194*
19*2
1*49
19)5
19)3
I960
1460
NU.
UVtMS
kS
29
70
kl
kl
2)
4)
IS
49
27
kl
7W
IB
•*
t$
• 7
B7
• 7
SI
)k
k9
.,;
)0
50
79
59
59
59
59
lUb
106
bV
bb
«.,
1)
Ob
«b
«•,
«b
«b
CUftt
CAPACI1 t
lUNS/VH
2)0000,
120000.
420000.
460000.
460000.
200000.
540000.
100000.
440000.
240000.
260000.
430000.
•60000.
1060000.
520000.
460000.
460000.
460000.
)50000.
910000.
1100000.
500000.
320000.
320000.
470000.
370000.
370000.
370000,
370000.
)90 0 0 0 .
)90 O 00 «
iefOuUU.
lOflOOOO.
ilouoo.
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
00
PLAN!
NO
it
24
24
24
24
24
2%
25
2*
2*
2%
26
2T
26
29
2*
29
SI
SI
32
52
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
52
32
32
32
32
52
32
52
52
55
55
35
INSI.
OAlk
1941
1949
194*
1950
1950
1960
1952
19)2
1957
19)«
1956
1976
19)5
1943
1943
19)2
1965
1961
1951
1924
1924
1924
1946
19)1)
19)0
19*4
19)4
19)4
19)5
19))
19))
19)1
19)7
19)«
19/2
1973
1976
197?
1947
i«»«7
ttur
NO.
OVENS
39
40
sa
4U
6)
59
63
65
51
51
)l
51
31
7%
b)
b)
65
67
67
61
61
61
•5
61
61
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
07
• 7
b?
«7
)9
)1
)S
cunt
CAPACITY
TUNS/YM
22UOUU.
34UOUU.
26UOUO.
34VOOO.
44VOUO,
4UUOOO.
44UOUV.
44000V.
350000.
350000.
350000.
350000.
210000.
500000.
430000.
390000.
430000.
550000.
550000.
270000.
270000.
270000.
360000.
270000.
270000.
340000.
340000.
3«OwOO.
540000.
3MOOVO.
54000U.
340000.
340000.
340000.
630000.
bVOOOO.
650000.
6JUOOO.
*Jl>000.
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
PA6E 4
00
PLANl
NU
55
35
55
55
5k
56
5k
5k
5k
5k
5k
5k
54
54
54
S9
40
40
40
4*
41
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
42
42
45
45
44
,.,
45
45
4k
• 6
U6
OAlE
1455
1445
1956
1957
1449
1441
1451
1444
1454
1470
1975
197k
1952
1952
1950
|47d
1950
1950
1950
1950
1947
1447
1951
1954
195k
1971
194*
1952
1955
1955
1964
197*
1442
I45fc
|4».
1454
1955
1955
1452
1956
1461
NO.
OVtNS
44
54
54
59
77
77
77
77
77
65
57
57
77
77
65
57
63
63
63
63
53
53
61
41
41
• 7
53
k5
47
47
51
79
74
14
45
76
76
7k
74
75
»r
cunt
CAPACIIT
TUrtS/VM
250000.
230000.
230000.
250000.
32UOOO.
320000.
520000.
520000.
520000.
4000OO.
430000.
430000.
400000.
400000.
400000.
900000.
320000.
320000.
320000.
320000.
350000.
350000.
•00000.
£70000.
270000.
1350000.
250000.
500000.
leoooo.
1MOOOO.
190000.
eooooo.
530000.
140000.
370000.
4600OO.
400000.
460000.
HoUOOO.
4t>0000.
5350UU.
CHANIilNt HEIGHT PUSH
(METEMS) CONTMQL
LAMNT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMNT CAM
LAMNT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAR
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
HEUttH
MEOLtM
LAMMT CAN
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
HOT L.C.
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAR
LAHMT CAM
LAMMT CAR
LAMMT CAM
LAHMT CAM
LAHMT CAR
LARMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMHT CAM
LAHNT CAM
LAHMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMNT CAN
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMHT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
ENCLOSED CAR
ENCLOSED CAM
NONE
NONE
NONE
OTHER
NONE
HONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
OTHER
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
SHED
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
QUENCH
• ATEH
OIRTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIRTT
OIMTT
OIRTT
OIMTT •
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIRTT
CLEAN
CLtAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
OIRTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIRTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
OIRTT
OIMTT
OIMTT
DIMTT
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
NO. COLL.
NAINt
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
t
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
(continued)
-------
PASE 9
TABLE 8 (continued)
PLANT
NU
45
49
•LH
*%U
6)
17
?T
• 1
s •*
::
•7
••
JJ
::
9i
VI
92
9S
94
INST.
UAtk
IV73
1911
1941
IVbb
!«2
19*8
1918
196*
1953
1967
1972
19 3d
1V8
1941
1974
19*!
!2J
1919
|9S»
NU.
UVtMS
iv
"
5%
23
3*
J»
2!
60
76
ftf
23
23
74
7U
411
41
47
40
51
40
u
93
fc5
;:
CUfct
TUnS/TM
73000.
73000.
2^1U U 0
iiou u (I •
I4b000.
18*5000.
120000.
2*10000.
2*30000.
bnouo.
56000.
326000.
409000.
797000.
82000.
6*000.
340000.
to 7 ^t OUO
1 1 90U0 •
119000,
121000.
140000.
117000.
17*000.
316000.
316000.
316000.
360000.
266000.
192000.
44UOO.
60000.
CHAHtilMi
LAHMT CAN
LAMMT CAM
LAHMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
PIPELINE
LAMMT CAN
LAHMT CAM
LAHMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAHMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMRT CAR
LAHHT CAN
LAHMT CAM
LAHNT CAN
LAHNT CAN
LAMNT CAN
LAMNT CAM
PIPELINE
LAMNT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMMT CAM
LAMNT CAM
LANMT CAN
LAMMT CAN
LAHHT CAN
LANHT CAN
LANMT CAN
LANMT CAN
LANMT CAN
LANHT CAN
LANHT CAN
LAMMT CAN
HEIGHT
(ME TENS}
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4 '
4
S
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
0
S
1
S
PUSH
CONTMOL
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
OTHER
OTHEH
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
OTHtH
OTHtN
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
KHEO
NONE
NONE
NONE
QUENCH
HATCH
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN •
CLEAN
OINTT
OINTT
OIHTT
OINTT
OINTT
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
OIHTT
OINTI
OIMTT
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
OINTT
OIHTT
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
OINTT
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
CLEAN
NO. COVL.
MAINS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
a
a
i
i
i
i
t
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
17
40000,
LAMMT CAN
NONE
OIHTT
(continued)
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
PAGE
00
PLANT
NO
94
94
94
94
94
94
9»
97
97
97
97
97
9ft
9ft
99
99
99
99
lust.
UATE
1920
1924
19«9
I
-------
n I I I i i I i * I < i i i i i i r~ir~iI i I i r~i r~i i r~i' i ' I ' I ' I ' I ' T"1 i ' i
M i I i I i i I i i i i i i I I I I i I i I i I i I i I I I i I i I i I i I i I i I i I i I i I i I ' I i I i I ' I
vo
o
]} NUMBER OF BATTERIES IN A PLANT
? TYPE OF BATTERY: 1 = EXISTING; 2 = NEW HYPOTHETICAL
PLANT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
DATE OF INSTALLATION OR LAST MAJOR REHABILITATION
NUMBER OF OVENS IN BATTERY
OKE CAPACITY, tons/yr
CHARGING METHOD: 1 * LARRY CAR; 2 = PIPELINE; 3 = REDLER; 4 = HOT LARRY CAR
OVEN HEIGHT, m
NUMBER OF COLLECTING MAINS: 1 OR 2
BASELINE CONTROL LEVEL FOR SOURCE 1
(jj) EXISTING CONTROL LEVEL FOR SOURCE 1
(f|) BASELINE CONTROL LEVEL FOR SOURCE 2
@ EXISTING CONTROL LEVEL FOR SOURCE 2
REMAINDER OF COLUMNS SET IN SIMILAR FASHION FOR SOURCES 3 THROUGH 20
Figure 18. Battery data card format.
-------
TABLE 9. PLANT ID CODES
Plant IDe
Company
01
02
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
24
25
27
28
29
31
32
33
36
39
40
(continued)
Keystone Coke, Conshohocken, Pa.
Arrtico, Middletown, Ohio
Armco, Houston, Tex.
Bethlehem, Bethlehem, Pa.
Bethlehem, Sparrows Point, Md.
Bethlehem, Lackawanna, N.Y.
Bethlehem, Johnstown, Pa.
Bethlehem, Burns Harbor, Ind.
CFI, Pueblo, Colo.
Crucible, Midland, Pa.
Empire Detroit, Portsmouth, Ohio
Ford, Rouge Works, Detroit, Mich.
Granite City, Granite City, 111.
Great Lakes Steel, Detroit, Mich.
Inland, East Chicago, Ind.
Interlake, South Chicago, 111.
J & L, Pittsburgh, Pa.
J & L, Aliquippa, Pa.
Kaiser, Fontana, Calif.
Lonestar Steel, Texas
Republic, Mahoning Valley Dist., Ohio
Republic, Cleveland, Ohio
Republic, Central Alloy Dist., Ohio
Republic, South Chicago, 111.
Republic, Gulfsteel, Ala.
USS, Fairless Hills, Pa.
USS, Homestead Clairton, Pa.
USS, Lorain, Cuyahoga, Ohio
USS, Gary, Ind.
USS, Fairfield, Ala.
USS, Geneva, Utah
91
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
Plant IDC
Company
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
50
65
77
81
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Weirton Steel, Weirton, W. Va.
Wheeling Pitt, Steubenville, Ohio
Wheeling Pitt, Monesson, Pa.
Wisconsin, South Chicago, 111.
YST, Campbell, Youngstown, Ohio
YST, East Chicago, Ind.
Indiana Gas, Terre Haute, Ind.
Allied, Ironton, Ohio
Koppers, Erie, Pa.
Shenango, Neville Island, Pa.
Chatanooga Coke & Chem., Tenn.
Allied, Buffalo, N.Y.
Allied, Ashland, Ky.
Diamond Shamrock, Painesville, Ohio
Eastern Fuel Assoc. Philadelphia, Pa,
Allied Chemical, Detroit, Mich.
Citizens Gas, Indianapolis, Ind.
Milwaukee Solvay, Milwaukee, Wis.
Donnar Hanna, Buffalo, N.Y.
Missouri Coke, St. Louis, Mo.
Koppers, St. Paul, Minn.
Empire Coke, Holt, Ala.
Koppers, Bessemer, Ala.
Sharon, Fairmont, W. Va.
Jim Walter, Birmingham, Ala.
USS Duluth, Minn.
ABC, Tarrant, Ala.
Plant ID numbers are not sequential.
92
-------
battery stacks has not been considered. Also, the number of
spare hot cars required in a multibattery plant is less in pro-
portion to capacity than the number at an isolated plant having
one battery. Such site-specifics are not considered in this pro-
ject.
New Versus Existing Batteries
To evaluate projected growth (or decline) in the industry,
the user may add battery data cards corresponding to the pro-
jected growth, or delete the battery cards for projected retire-
ments .
New battery cards must be filled out even though the data
may be speculative. It is not sufficient just to enter simply 10
percent growth; the user must decide, for example, that there
will be 10 new batteries by 1985, that they will be 60-oven
batteries 6 meters high and that they will be equipped with some
specific controls. Only if specific plans for a given plant are
known is the plant ID entered. In the case of retirements the
user simply removes the battery card from the card deck.
The primary distinction between "new" and "existing" in the
model is the use of new or retrofit cost functions.
Existing Installed Equipment
Columns 21 to 60 of the battery data card (Figure 18) are
20 two-digit fields corresponding to the twenty sources con-
sidered. Only 16 are now used. The code numbers to be entered
in these fields correspond to the control option codes. The
first column of each two digit field contains the desired base-
line code and the second column contains the existing control
code.
Because the control level (control efficiency and exact
control equipment) of a given plant may not be the same as those
designated in the options used, the user must be careful to
select the code for the control option that most closely cor-
responds to the existing equipment or control program.
93
-------
In the computer program, the code is used for one of two
purposes:
1. To correct total industry cost (or total cost for any
given industry subset) by eliminating the cost of a
control option for those plants where the option is
already in use.
2. To allow the use of a control baseline (e.g., SIP)
whereby only costs above this baseline are considered.
The same baseline can be used for every battery. A
single card for all batteries can be used to avoid
having to enter the same codes on each of the more than
200 battery cards. This card is designated as Control
Card 3, described in Section 2.
As an example of the first purpose, assume Battery 1 has
already installed a new larry car for stage charging and has good
stage charging practice. The card for this battery would then
contain a Code 3 in the charging columns (Column 22). Conse-
quently, in the program to determine the cost of charging con-
trols for this plant, the only costs calculated will be those for
controls achieving control levels greater than level 3. "Tear-
out" costs (i.e., for removal of existing controls) are not con-
sidered in the present model.
A more complicated example arises when the existing controls
achieve an efficiency close to that described in the options but
are represented by different hardware. If a battery already has a
shed and scrubber, for example, it is probably better to consider
this comparable in achieving a given level of control rather than
equivalent to the specific hardware configuration. For this
reason, the control options are ordered according to degree of
efficiency. This permits the user to select the option that
achieves the highest level he considers appropriate. The com-
puter will disregard the cost of all options equal to or less
than the option selected for the given battery.
The approach in the second purpose is similar, but the
concept is different. In this case the user establishes a
baseline of control below which control costs are not considered
whether installed or not. For example, if the baseline for
94
-------
charging control is modified larry cars for stage charging, no
costs will be calculated for control options achieving control
levels below those of larry car modification. The battery card
in this case would contain a Code 2 in the charging columns
(Column 21). In the extreme, if the highest control option were
selected as the baseline for every source, no costs would be
calculated. If the user wanted costs for inspection only, they
could be obtained by making a computer run with "uncontrolled" as
the baseline.
95
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6
1. Industry Response to Section 308 Effluent Guidelines Ques-
tionnaires 1976-1977.
2. Pictrucha, W.E., and R.L. Deily. Steel Industry in Brief:
Databook USA, 1977. Institute for Iron and Steel Indus-
tries, Green Brook, New Jersey.
3. Iron & Steel Works Directory of the United States and
Canada. American Iron and Steel Institute. 1977.
4. Air and Water Compliance Summary for the Iron and Steel
Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Enforcement. October 20, 1977.
5. World Steel Industry Data Handbook, Vol. 1. The United
States, 33 Magazine 1978, McGraw Hill, 1221 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, New York 10020.
6. Kulujian, N.J. By-Product Coke Battery Compliance Evalua-
tion. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
DSSE by PEDCo Environmental, Inc. June 1975. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-1321, Task 13.
96
-------
SECTION 7
MODEL FORMULATION
The first step in the model is the calculation of total
industry control costs. In the discussion of this calculation,
mathematical nomenclature has been defined as follows:
i = the emission source (i = 1 . . . I)
j = the pollutant (j = 1 . . . J)
k = the control technology (k = 1 . . . K)
n = the specific battery (n = 1 . . . N)
E = the annual emissions, in tons/year
C = the annualized cost (or capital cost)
e.., = the control efficiency
X = the capacity of battery n in tons coke/year
U.. = the uncontrolled emission factor in Ibs/ton coal
Note that for some sources such as coke handling, Xn actu-
ally represents capacity for all batteries in a given plant.
Then C. ., represents a specific dollar value calculated
from the general cost function:
C. ., = A. .. XBijk
ijkn ijk n J
where A = y intercept, B = slope
Note that Cilkn = Ci2kn =
i.e., the cost of a specific control system does not vary by
pollutant.
(100 - e
Similarly, E.jkn = [ 10Q ljk) (U..) (X^.7)] / 2000
but' Eilkn * Ei2kn * Ei3kn * Ei4kn
97
-------
The C and E matrices are calculated from the input data-
sets. Note that k = 1 will represent no additional control.
Therefore, C. ., = zero by definition and
Eijln= [
-------
To find the optimum combination of controls, consider Mode
2, the restriction being total emissions, p., and the objective
being to find lowest cost. Another matrix, Y, must now be intro-
duced. The values of Y will be either one or zero. A one will
indicate that a control option, k, is selected and a zero will
indicate that the control option is not selected. The Y matrix
is a mathematical device to solve the optimization and has no
significance from an engineering standpoint. For example,
1 of V = Y =1
let ik *14 x
this means Control Option 4 on Emission Source 1 is part of the
optimum solution.
If this is so, then by definition, all other Y's for source
1 are zero :
time.
Y =Y
11 12
= Y
= Y
= Y
= Y =0
Ik
13 15 16
That is, a source can only be controlled by one option at a
The statement of the problem in matrix form is therefore:
Minimize ZCY
subject to IY = 1
and IEY * p
and Y * 0
In expanded form:
for a given j
for all i
for a given j
for all i
minimize
+
subject
3 n c\ '
C Y + C ~Y + .
Ull 11 12 12
C Y + C Y +
21 21 21 21
to YII + Y12 + Y13 +
Y + Y + Y +
21 22 23
F Y + E Y +
bll 11 12 12
E Y + E Y +
b21 21 21 21
C, , Y, ,
Ik Ik
r Y
2k 2k
C Y
ik ik
Ylk = l
Y^, = 1,
2k '
E Y,,
Ik Ik
F Y
2k 2k
E.VY.V ^
ik ik
etc . for
each i
P •
1
and
every ± and k
99
-------
The optimal solution to this problem will be determination
of the Y matrix. The Y matrix in turn will define a k value for
each i (i.e., a control option for each emission source that will
result in the overall minimum cost for meeting a total emission
restriction). Note that any given k may equal 1, i.e., no con-
trol. In general, the program will select those alternatives
which reduce emissions the most and cost the least.
After the optimum solution is found, the Y matrix will be
superimposed onto the E matrices for the other pollutants to
determine the emissions of the pollutants that were not re-
stricted. To the optimum totals the program will add the costs
and emissions for those sources previously excluded from the
optimization (by using the No. 2 cards described in Section 1) to
get total industry costs and emissions.
The statement for Mode 3 is very similar:
Minimize • LEY
subject to: ECY^T
and £Y=1
and Y^O
The same approach as described above is used in this case
also. Operation of the model in Modes 2 and 3 is identical re-
gardless of whether annualized cost or capital cost is the subject
of optimization.
The greatest value of the model is its ability to supply
rapid answers to "what if" questions. The model has great flexi-
bility, and its user can easily examine its sensitivity to
variations in the emission factors and control costs by simply
changing the input data.
Controls for any given emission source can be fixed at a
predetermined level and the source can thus be removed from the
optimization procedure. The battery data base can be set up to
represent all batteries or any subset of batteries. For example,
furnace coke producers can be separated from foundry coke pro-
ducers.
100
-------
SECTION 8
RESULTS
The function of the model is to calculate emissions and
emission control costs and to select a set of controls that will
meet a given emission restriction at the lowest cost. Concep-
tually, this is as if the "bubble concept" were applied to all
the coke plants in the United States. Section 2 describes the
many variations of the basic scheme.
An example best illustrates the logic of the model. The
data base for this example consists of the 216 coke oven bat-
teries presented in Section 6, the uncontrolled emission factors
presented in Table 1, and the control options and their effi-
ciencies presented in Table 2. Annualized and capital cost
functions associated with the control options are shown in
Appendix A.
Figure 19 is a graphic presentation of the capital cost
functions for the three control options applicable to Source 1,
wet coal charging. These values are based on tons of coke
capacity for a 60-oven battery. An increase in the number of
ovens would increase the cost because certain elements of the
capital cost (e.g., steam lines and number of standpipes) are
directly proportional to the number of ovens. Every cost func-
tion represented in Appendix A could be plotted as shown on
Figure 19.
Figure 20 shows the annualized cost per pound of particulate
removed for the same three options. The spacing of the curves is
related to both the relative costs of the options and the re-
lative efficiencies. Although Option 3 is more costly than
Option 2, the curves are very close because the efficiency of
101
-------
Option 3 is 99 percent compared with only 80 percent for Option
2. The 99.5 percent efficiency of Option 4, on the other hand,
represents an improvement of only 0.5 percent over Option 3, but
the cost is much higher. Each option for each source could be
analyzed in a similar manner.
Table 10 presents the capital and annualized cost matrix
calculated for the present data base. Table 11 presents the
uncontrolled emissions matrix. These matrices and the appro-
priate control efficiencies could be used to generate curves like
those in Figures 19 and 20 for each source.
The function of the optimization model is to analyze all
such curves and find the lowest cost combinations. In this sec-
tion, the examples deal with minimizing annualized cost, but the
approach is identical for capital cost. Table 12 is the model
output for a case of no control on any source. This provides a
convenient frame of reference for uncontrolled emission quanti-
ties. The table shows that pushing is the largest single source
of uncontrolled particulate emissions, although the total of
quenching (with clean water and with dirty water) is slightly
larger. Charging is by far the largest single source of both BSO
and benzene emissions.
Table 13 is the model output to meet a restriction calling
for an overall particulate control at least 95 percent effi-
ciency, which requires the highest possible control level on
every source except dry coal charging and the byproducts plant.
The latter two are excluded from the solution by the model because
their contributions to particulate emissions are very low; in
fact, particulate emissions from the byproducts plant are zero.
Total annualized costs for the industry are $1,396,000,000 and
total capital costs (retrofit) are $2,887,000,000. It should be
noted that the model seeks to minimize annualized costs in the
examples presented in this section. In this example the costs do
not take into account any control that may already exist, as
indicated by the baseline notation in the tables. That is, the
costs are theoretical costs based on no controls on any battery.
102
-------
TABLE 10. TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS
(in millions of dollars)
FOR CONTROL OPTIONS
Source/control option
Wet coal charging
Modified larry car
New larry car
New larry car and second main
Coke pushing
Control led coking
Shed + ESP with 95i eff.
Shed + scrubber with 95'. eff.
Enclosed hot car
Shed + ESP with 99w eff.
Shed + scrubber with 99.- eff.
Quenching, clean water
Conventional baffles
Diverted flow baffles
Dry quenching
Doors
Cleaning and maintenance
High pressure water cleaning
Hoods + scrubber with 951. eff.
Hoods + scrubber with 98. eff.
Topside
Luting and cleaning
Luting, cleaning, and maintenance
New lids
Combustion stack, old
Oven patching
Dry ESP with 90. eff.
Dry ESP with 98, eff.
Fabric filter with 98. eff.
Total capital cost
91
304
649
0
905
1277
1164
973
1330
7
53
424
0
90
386
439
0
0
22
0
411
b44
323
Total annualized cost
124
165
254
993
295
489
314
307
538
2.4
14
111
174
189
464
481
57
109
63
89
1L3
176
112
(continued)
103
-------
TABLE 10 (continued)
Source/control option
Coke handling
Enclosures * fabric filter
Coal preheater
Scrubber with 955, eff.
Dry ESP with 95% eff.
Scrubber with 98% eff.
Dry ESP with 99* eff.
Coal preparation
Enclosures + fabric filter
Coal storage
Water spray truck
Unloading sprays + spray truck
Coal pile sprays
Pipeline charging
Operating and maintenance program
Redler charging
Operating and maintenance program
Hot larry car charging
Operating and maintenance program
Byproduct plant
Maintenance program
Combustion stack, new
Oven patching
Quenching, dirty water
Conventional baffles
Clean water + conventional baffles
Clean water + diverted flow baffles
Dry quenching
Total capital cost
40
11.7
10.5
12.1
12.7
29
17
30
148
0
0
0
0
0
9
27a
341
300
Total annualized cost
17
9
5
10
6
13
8
11
69
3
0.7
0.3
17
20
3.5
168
184
251
104
-------
TABLE 11. TOTAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
(tons/year)
Emission source
Wet coal charging
Coke pushing
Quenching with clean water
Doors
Topside
Combustion stack, old
Coke handling
Coal preheater
Coal preparation
Coal storage
Pipel ine charging
Redler charging
Hot larry car charging
Byproducts plant
Combustion stack, new
Quenching with dirty water
Pollutant
Particulates
49,600
1 09 , 500
41 ,000
21,900
10,900
43,800
54,700
35,900
27,400
3,200
50
13
11
0
2,200
97,900
BSO
54,600
4,400
41
27,400
13,700
225
0
5,400
0
0
60
8
12
16,400
10
196
BaP
100
2
3
164
55
2
0
2
0
0
a
a
a
0
a
10
Benzene
24,800
330
1
1,100
274
0
0
71
0
0
25
7
5
10,900
0
8
o
Ul
Less than one ton per year.
-------
4 x TO6
3 x 106
c
T3
o
<_)
I
«
2 x 10'
s
1 x 106
OPTION 4
OPTION 3
OPTION 2
BASIS: 1 BATTERY
60 OVLNS
4TH QUARTER
1978 DOLLARS
NDD1FY LARRY CAR + STEAM SUPPLY * SMOtf BOOT
OPTION 1 • UNCONTROLLED, COST • 0
| |
I
100,000
200,000 300,000
ANNUAL COKI PRODUCTION, tons
I
400,000
Figure 19. Capital cost of control options
for wet coal charging.
106
-------
10
O
-j
O
•o
2-
UJ
a:
<_>
»—•
i—
OC
O.
U.
O
O
O
Q.
QC
UJ
o.
oo
O
o
UJ
8
100,000
200,000 300,000
ANNUAL COKE PRODUCTION, tons
400,000
Figure 20. Cost per pound of particulate removal for control
options for wet coal charging.
-------
TABLE 12. MODEL OUTPUT FOR BASELINE OF NO CONTROL
COKE OVEN OPTIMIZATION
OIJECTIVEl NINIHUN ANNUALIZED COST RESTRICTION!
BASELINEi ASSUMING NO SIP OR EXISTING CONTROLS
.01 OVERALL EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTtl80
IASE TEAR 1979
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
(LIS/TON COAL) (TONS/TEAR)
CONTROLLED COST
(BILLION DOLLARS)
O
CO
SOURCE
LARRY CAR CHAR61N6
COKE PUSHING
QUENCHING - CLEAN UATER
IOORS
TOPSIDE
COHIUSTION STACK - OLD
COKE HANDLING
COAL PREHEATER
COAL PREPARATION
COAL STORAGE YARD
PIPELINE CHARGING
tEDLER CHARGING
NOT LARRT CAR CHARGING
IT-PRODUCTS PLANT
CONIUSTION STACK - NEU
BUENCHIN6 - DIRTY HATER
TOTAL UNC.
EXISTING CONTROL
EXISTING EFFICIENCY
IASELINE CONTROL
IASEL1NE EFFICIENCY
TOTAL CONTROLLED
PERCENT CONTROLLED
T
It
12
11
1
1
11
It
17
13
SP
.00
.00
.70
.40
.20
.30
.00
.03
.30
.13
.02
.01
.02
.00
.13
.20
9.3
ISO
1.1000
.0800
.0017
.3000
.2300
.0060
.0000
1.0300
.0000
.0000
.0190
.0060
.0170
.3000
.0006
.0064
2.233
IAP
.0020
.0000
.0001
.0030
.0010
.0001
.0000
.0004
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0003
.006
IEN
.3000
.0060
.0000
.0200
.0030
.0000
.0000
.0140
.0000
.0000
.0060
.0049
.0060
.2000
.0000
.0003
.686
T8P
49633
109463
41049
21892
10946
48840
34731
33923
27363
8209
49
13
to
0
2231
97871
308238
388402
23.6
308237
.0
308238
.0
ISO
34399
4378
41
37363
13682
223
0
3330
0
0
39
7
12
16419
10
193
122349
74172
37.7
122348
.0
122349
.0
IAP
99
2
3
164
34
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
337
234
24.6
337
.0
337
.0
BEN
24817
328
0
1094
273
0
0
71
0
0
24
6
3
10944
0
7
37377
17636
33.0
37577
.0
37377
.0
CONTROL SCHEME
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
CAPITAL
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
297.3
...o
.0
ANNUAL IZEI
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
197.1
.0
.0
EXISTING
TOTAL BATTERIES 216 TOTAL OVENS 12221
TOTAL CAPACITY 109494267 TONS COAL
76673000 TONS COKE
I NOT IN OPTIMIZATION
NEU
TOTAL BATTERIES 0
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL OVENS 0
0 TONS COAL
0 TONS COKE
-------
TABLE 13. MODEL OUTPUT FOR 9b PERCENT OVERALL PARTICULATt REDUCTION
COKE OVEN OPTIMIZATION
OIJECTIVEl MINIMUM ANNUALIZEB COST RESTRICTION!
lASELINEt ASSUMING NO SIP OR EXISTING CONTROLS
93.OZ OVERALL EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTiTSP
•ASC TEAR 1979
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
UBS/TON COAL) (TONS/TEAR)
CONTROUEB COST
(MILLION DOLLARS)
O
vo
SOURCE
LARRT CAR CHAR8IN6
COKE PUSHING
QUENCHING - CLEAN UATER
IOORS
TOPSIBE
COMBUSTION STACK - OLI
COKE HANDLING
COAL PREHEATER
COAL PREPARATION
COAL STORAGE TARI
PIPELINE CHARGING
REDLER CHARGING
NOT LARRY CAR CHARGING
IT-PRODUCTS PLANT
CONIUSTION STACK - NEU
IUENCHIN6 - DIRTT UATER
TOTAL UNC.
EXISTING CONTROL
EXISTING EFFICIENCY
IASELINE CONTROL
IASELINE EFFICIENCY
TOTAL CONTROLLED
PERCENT CONTROLLED
TSP
.01
1 .22
.03
.03
.01
.03
.11
.07
.02
.02
.02
.01
.02
.00
.03
.03
ISO
.0053
.0440
.0000
.0610
.0073
.0030
.0000
.3230
.0000
.0000
.0190
.0060
.0190
.3000
.0001
.0001
IAP
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0003
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
IEN
.0023
.0033
.0000
.0034
.0002
.0000
.0000
.0070
.0000
.0000
.OOGO
.0049
.0080
.2000
.0000
.0000
TSP
24«
11931
820
1444
328
974
3943
339
820
820
49
13
to
0
444
978
ISO
272
2408
0
4433
410
112
0
2473
0
0
39
7
12
14419
2
1
IAP
0
1
0
24
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IEN
124
180
0
304
8
0
0
33
0
0
24
4
3
10944
0
0
9.3 2.233 .004
CONTROL SCHEME
NEU CAR, SECOND MAIN
ENCLOSED HOT CAR
DRY QUENCHING
DOOR HOOD, SCRUBBER 98Z
NEU LIDS I CASTINGS
BA8HOUSE, 98Z
ENCLOSURES + BA6HOUSE
ESP 991
ENCLOSURE » BA6HOUSE - 99Z
COAL PILE SPRAYS
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
OVEN PATCHING
DRY QUENCHING
.484 306238 122349 337 37377
388402 74172 234 17434
23.4 37.7 24.4 33.0
308237 122348 337 37377
.0 .0 .0 .0
23238 2*814 32 11438
93.0 78.1 90.3 49.0
CAPITAL
449.3
.0
421.9
439.1
21.8
323.2
40.0
12.7
29.1
147.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
799.3
297.3
.0
2984.4
ANNUAL IZEB
233.4
.0
111.4
491. 1
43.0
111.4
14.5
3.8
12.7
48.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
20.1
231.4
197.1
.0
1393.8
EXISTING
TOTAL BATTERIES 214 TOTAL OVENS 12221
TOTAL CAPACITY 109494247 TONS COAL
74423000 TONS COKE
I NOT IN OPTIMIZATION
NEU
TOTAL BATTERIES 0
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL OVENS 0
0 TONS COAL
0 TONS COKE
-------
When dry quenching is selected as the control for quenching
emissions, no cost is assigned to the enclosed car option for
pushing emissions because the equivalent of an enclosed car is
included in the cost of the dry quenching system. For small
batteries (less than 100,000 tons of coke per year) further
examination of the cost functions for dry quenching is required
because they are not necessarily applicable in this small size
range. If a shed is selected as the control option for pushing
emissions, the cost of door hoods is reduced to the extent that
they are not used on the coke-side doors. Otherwise there would
be a double accounting of the control cost for coke-side doors.
Cost is overstated when the options selected include a
scrubber and wastewater recirculation. This occurs because each
battery is treated independently. An example would be a plant
with four batteries, on which both door hoods and a wastewater
recirculation system are provided for each battery. In such a
scheme it is likely that one common water system could be in-
stalled to serve all four batteries for less than the cost of
four separate water systems. Similarly, if a shed and scrubber
were installed for control of pushing emissions and coke-side
door emissions and a hood system was installed for pusher-side
doors, the water system (and perhaps the scrubber itself) could
be designed to handle both sources.
Although the existing model could be modified to address
these issues, specific assumptions would be required.
Tables 14, 15, and 16 represent the model output for the
same kind of problem except that the control efficiency restric-
tions are set at 80, 85, and 90 percent, respectively. In these
cases, certain sources can use lower-level control schemes, and
the total cost is decreased. Figure 21 shows total cost as a
function of efficiency, based on the results shown on Tables 13
through 16.
110
-------
TABLE 14. MODEL OUTPUT FOR 80 PERCENT OVERALL PARTICULATE REDUCTION
COKE OVEN OPTIMIZATION
OBJECTIVE! MINIMUM ANNUALI7ED COST RESTRICTION: 80.01 OVERALL EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTtTSP
BASELlNEi ASSUMING NO SIP OR EXISTING CONTROLS
8A9E TEAR 1979
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
(IBS/TON COAL) (TONS/TEAR)
CONTROLLED COST
(MILLION DOLLARS)
SOURCE
LARRT CAR CHAR6INS
COKE PUSHING
BUENCHINB - CLEAN HATER
IOORS
TOPSIDE
COMBUSTION STACK - OLD
COKE HANDLING
COAL PREHEATER
COAL PREPARATION
COAL STORAGE TARD
PIPELINE CHARGING
REDLER CHARGING
HOT LARRT CAR CHARGING
IT-PRODUCTS PLANT
CONRUSTION STACK - NEU
QUENCHING - DIRTT WATER
TOTAL UNC.
EXISTING CONTROL
EXISTING EFFICIENCY
BASELINE CONTROL
BASELINE EFFICIENCY
TOTAL CONTROLLED
PERCENT CONTROLLED
TSP
.20
.22
.17
.40
.20
.03
.1)
.07
.02
.04
.02
.01
.02
.00
.13
.74
7.3
BSO
.2200
.0440
.0002
.3000
.2300
.0030
.0000
.3230
.0000
.0000
.0170
.0060
.0170
.3000
.0006
.001?
2.233
BAP
.0004
.0000
.0000
.0030
.0010
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0001
.006
BEN
.1000
.0033
.0000
.0200
.0050
.0000
.0000
.0070
.0000
.0000
.0080
.0047
.0080
.2000
.0000
.0003
.686
TSP
7727
11731
4104
21872
10746
776
3763
337
820
2032
47
13
to
0
2231
27361
508238
388402
23.6
508237
.0
100644
80.2
BSO
10717
2408
4
2736S
13682
112
0
2673
0
0
3?
7
12
16417
to
38
122349
74172
37.7
122348
.0
73737
37.7
BAP
17
1
0
164
34
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
337
234
24.6
337
.0
243
27.3
BEN
4763
180
0
1074
273
0
0
33
0
0
24
6
5
10746
0
7
37377
17636
33.0
37377
.0
17339
33.3
CONTROL SCHEME
MODIFIED CAR, STEAM, BOOT
SHED * ESP 771
DIVERTED FLOU BAFFLES
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
BAGHOUSE, 78Z
ENCLOSURES • BAGHOUSE
ESP 191
ENCLOSURE » BA6HOUSE - 971
UNLOAD SPRAYS » WATER TRUCK
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
BAFFLES
CAPITAL
70.6
972.7
38.0
.0
.0
323.2
40.0
12.7
27.1
27.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
9.3
297.3
.0
1343.3
ANNUAL IZED
124.0
307.0
14.0
.0
.0
111.4
16.5
3.8
12.7
11.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3.3
197.1
.0
606.3
EXISTING
TOTAL BATTERIES 216 TOTAL OVENS 12221
TOTAL CAPACITY 107494267 TONS COAL
76423000 TONS COKE
II NOT IN OPTIMIZATION
NEU
TOTAL BATTERIES 0
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL OVENS 0
0 TONS COAL
0 TONS COKE
-------
TABLE 15. MODEL OUTPUT FOR 85 PERCENT OVERALL PARTICULATE REDUCTION
COKE OVEN OPTIMIZATION
OBJECTIVEl HI MI HUN ANHUALIZED COST RESTRICTION: B3.0I OVERALL EFFICIENCY POLLUTANT:T3P
lASELINEl ASSUHINO NO SIP OR EXISTING CONTROLS
IASE TEAR 1979
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
(LIB/TON COAL) (TONS/YEAR)
SOURCE
LARRT CAR CHARBINB
COKE PUSHING
QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER
DOORS
TOPSIDE
COHIUSTION STACK - OLD
COKE HANDLING
COAL PREHEATER
COAL PREPARATION
COAL STORAGE YARD
PIPELINE CHARGING
REDLER CHARGING
NOT LARRT CAR CHAR6INB
IT-PRODUCTS PLANT
COHIUSTION STACK - NEW
QUENCHING - DIRTT UATER
TOTAL UNC.
EXISTING CONTROL
EXISTING EFFICIENCY
IASELINE CONTROL
BASELINE EFFICIENCY
TOTAL CONTROLLED
PERCENT CONTROLLED
TSP
.20
.22
.17
.40
.20
.03
.11
.07
.02
.04
.02
.01
.02
.00
.13
.14
?.3
BSD
.2200
.0440
.0002
.3000
.2500
.0030
.0000
.5250
.0000
.0000
.0190
.0060
.0190
.3000
.0006
.0010
2.235
DAP
.0004
.0000
.0000
.0030
.0010
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.006
BEN
.1000
.0033
.0000
.0200
.0050
.0000
.0000
.0070
.0000
.0000
.0080
.0049
.0080
.2000
.0000
.0001
.484
TSP
9927
11931
4104
21892
10946
974
5965
359
870
2052
49
13
10
0
2231
4893
309238
388402
23.6
508237
.0
76176
85.0
BSD
10917
2408
4
27363
13682
112
0
2673
0
0
39
7
12
16419
10
29
12234?
76172
37.7
122348
.0
73707
39.8
BAP
19
1
0
164
54
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
337
254
24.6
337
.0
244
27.6
DEN
4963
180
0
1094
273
0
0
35
0
0
24
6
5
10946
0
1
37577
17656
53.0
37577
.0
17533
33.3
CONTROL SCHEME
MODIFIED CAR, STEAM, BOOT
SHED « ESP 991
DIVERTED FLOU BAFFLES
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
BAGHOUSE, 98Z
ENCLOSURES + BAGHOUSE
ESP 991
ENCLOSURE * BAGHOUSE - 992
UNLOAD SPRAYS * UATER TRUCK
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
CLEAN UATER, DIV. FLOU BAFFLES
CONTROLLED COST
(MILLION DOLLARS)
CAPITAL ANNUALIZED
90.6
972.9
58.0
.0
.0
323.2
40.0
12.7
29.1
29.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
341.1
124.0
307.0
14.0
.0
.0
111.6
16.3
5.8
12.7
11.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
183.6
297.3
.0
1897.1
197.1
.0
786.6
EXISTING
TOTAL BATTERIES 216 TOTAL OVENS 12221
TOTAL CAPACITY 109494267 TONS COAL
76623000 TONS COKE
I NOT IN OPTIHIZATION
NEU
TOTAL BATTERIES 0 TOTAL OVENS 0
TOTAL CAPACITY 0 TONS COAL
0 TONS COKE
-------
TABLE 16. MODEL OUTPUT FOR 90 PERCENT OVERALL PARTICULATE REDUCTION
COKE OVEN OPTIMIZATION
OBJECTIVEl HI HINUN ANNUALIZED COST RESTRICTION: 70.01 OVERALL EFFICIENCY POLLUTANTiTSP
lASELINEi ASSUMING NO SIP OR EXISTING CONTROLS
IASE YEAR 1779
CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
(IIS/TOM COAL) (TONS/YEAR)
CONTROLLED COST
(MILLION DOLLARS)
SOURCE
LARRY CAR CHARGING
COKE PUSHING
BUENCHIN6 - CLEAN UATER
DOORS
TOPSIDE
COMBUSTION STACK - OLD
COKE HANDLING
COAL PREHEATER
COAL PREPARATION
COAL STORAGE YARD
PIPELINE CHARGING
REDLER CHARGING
HOT LARRY CAR CHARGING
DY-PRODUCTS PLANT
COMBUSTION STACK - NEU
QUENCHING - DIRTY UATER
TSP
.01
• .23
.17
.40
.01
.03
.11
.07
.02
.04
.02
.01
.02
.00
.03
.03
ISO
.0110
.0408
.0002
.3000
.0073
.0030
.0000
.3250
.0000
.0000
.0190
.0060
.0190
.3000
.0001
.0001
BAP
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0030
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0002
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
BEN
.0030
.0031
.0000
.0200
.0002
.0000
.0000
.0070
.0000
.0000
.0080
.0049
.0080
.2000
.0000
.0000
TSP
496
12366
4104
21892
328
976
5963
339
820
2032
49
13
10
0
446
978
ISO
345
2234
4
27365
410
112
0
2673
0
0
39
7
12
16419
2
1
BAP
0
1
0
164
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BEN
248
167
0
1094
8
0
0
33
0
0
24
6
5
10946
0
0
CONTROL SCHEME
NEU CAR, STEAN, BOOT
ENCLOSED HOT CAR
DIVERTED FLOU BAFFLES
UNCONTROLLED
NEU LIDS S CASTINGS
BAGHOUSE, 98Z
ENCLOSURES » BAGHOUSE
ESP 991
ENCLOSURE * BAGHOUSE - 991
UNLOAD SPRAYS + UATER TRUCK
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
OVEN PATCHING
DRY QUENCHING
CAPITAL
303.6
42V. 2
38.0
.0
21.8
323.2
40.0
12.7
29.1
29.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
797.3
ANNUAL IZED
164.7
133.4
14.0
.0
63.0
111.6
16.3
3.8
12.7
11.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
20.1
251.4
TOTAL UNC.
EXISTING CONTROL
EXISTING EFFICIENCY
BASELINE CONTROL
BASELINE EFFICIENCY
TOTAL CONTROLLED
PERCENT CONTROLLED
9.3 2.235 .006 .686 308238 122349 337 37377
388402 76172 254 17656
23.6 37.7 24.6 33.0
308237 122348 337 37377
.0 .0 .0 .0
30862 49831 170 12538
90.0 39.3 49.6 66.6
297.5
.0
2046.8
197.1
.0
806.6
EXISTING
TOTAL BATTERIES 216 TOTAL OVENS 12221
TOTAL CAPACITY 109494267 TONS COAL
76A23000 TONS COKE
I NOT IN OPTIMIZATION
NEU
TOTAL BATTERIES 0
TOTAL CAPACITY
TOTAL OVENS 0
0 TONS COAL
0 TONS COKE
-------
2000
t/i
o
Q
UJ
«f
a:
H-
l/l
CD
1600
1200
800
400
I
0 10
I
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
OVERALL PARTICULATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY, %
J
90 100
Figure 21. Total annualized cost as a function of overall efficiency.
-------
Clearly these examples represent only a few of the cases
that can be evaluated. Furthermore, the results for other pol-
lutants and emission factors, control cost functions, and battery
subsets have not been examined. These are among the many possi-
bilities that remain for the users of the model.
115
-------
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
FOR COST FUNCTIONS PRESENTLY
INCLUDED IN MODEL
Complete and detailed printouts for each control option have
been provided to the Project Officer as data supplements for the
three plant sizes. Table A-l is a summary of all the cost func-
tions. This appendix also includes summary pages for each con-
trol option for the large plant. Each set of pages is arranged
in ascending order according to source number and control option
number (as indicated at the top of every page). The first page
contains general information and the second page describes the
control system. The third page summarizes the capital cost (if
applicable) and the fourth page summarizes the annualized cost.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. COST FUNCTION COEFFICIENTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS0
(cost in fourth quarter 1978 dollars)
i
M
Source control option
Wet coal charging
Modified larry car
New larry car
New larry car & second main
Coke pushing
Controlled coking
Shed and ESP, 95%
Shed and scrubber, 95?.
Enclosed hot car
Shed and ESP, 99%
Shed and scrubber, 99?.
Quenching, clean water
Conventional baffles
Diverted flow baffles
Dry quenching''
Doors
Cleaning and maintenance
High pressure water cleaning
Door hoods, scrubber, 95,
Door hoods, scrubber, 98'..
Door hoods, scrubber, 95 one side
Door hoods, scrubber, 9tJ one side
Topside
Luting and cleaning
Luting, cleaning, and maintenance
New lids, luting, and cleaning
Combustion stack, old
Oven patching
Dry ESP, 901.
Dry ESP, 98'(
Fabric filter, 98T
Basis
for
X value
Battery
Battery
Plant
Battery
Battery
Battery
Hew Installation ,
Capital cost
A
290,539.2
2,784.7
326,894.4
0
17,498.8
25,028.5
423,778.8
14,710.7
23.357.7
1.7
82.6
771.8
0
414,499.8
18,558.0
21,562.1
13,431.0
11,682.0
0
0
81,100.0
0
2,534.3
2,609.3
418.3
B
0.0250
0. 4882
0.1935
0
0.4228
0.4223
0.1938
0.4422
0.4310
0.8412
0.7119
0.7065
0
0
0.3453
0.3441
0.3409
0.3620
0
0
0
0
0.5283
0.5484
0.6518
Annual (zed cost
coefficient
A
227,751.9
68,022.8
341,620,2
25.7
3,177.5
7,752.5
70,214.2
2,907.6
5,243.8
0.4
9.5
87.6
804,801.2
876,701.5
954,615.0
879,789.9
106,371.0
863,212.0
264,900.1
503,300.4
300,799.9
503,300.4
5,373.4
3,989.6
551.5
B
0.0762
0.1934
0.1117
0.9593
0.4737
0.4439
0.2354
0.4836
0.4823
0.8750
0.7714
0.7683
0
0
0.0624
0.0715
0.0431
0.0614
0
0
0
0
0.3994
0.4333
0.5543
Retrofit Installation
Capital cost
coefficient
A
319,187.0
3.064.5
293,877.1
0
22.052.2
30,128.9
466,163.3
18,452.7
28,061.2
2.1
107.5
848.9
0
414,499.8
21,613.0
25,298.2
15,000.0
13,625.0
0
0
105,399.9
0
2,976.1
3,085.1
515.9
B
0.0251
0.4882
0.2046
0
0.4141
0.4166
0.1938
0.4337
0.4254
•
0.8412
0.7119
0. 7065
0
0
0.3487
0.3465
0.3443
0.3638
0
0
0
0
0.5306
0.5500
0.6504
Annual ized cost
coefficient
A
230,194.8
63,015.2
320,512.5
25.7
3,659.2
8,519.4
76,212.7
3.345.8
5.825.5
0.4
12.7
96.8
804,801.2
876,701.5
880,426.2
812,304.1
998,158.0
808,202.0
264,900.1
503,300.4
304,299.8
503.300.4
5,061.8
3,800.7
546.8
B
0.0761
0.2014
0.1178
0.9593
0.4670
0.4403
0.2332
0.4771
0.4776
0.8707
0.7621
0.7651
0
0
0.0708
0.0800
0.0496
0.0682
0
0
0
0
0.4101
0.4440
0.5616
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
i
U)
Source control option
Coke handling
Enclosures and fabric filters...
Coal preheater
Scrubber, 951
Dry ESP, 95%
Scrubber, 98%
Dry ESP. 99%
Coal preparation
Enclosures and fabric filter
Coal storage
Water spray truck
Water spray truck and unloading
sprays
Coal pi le sprays
Pipel ine charging
Operating and maintenance program
Redler charging
Operating and maintenance program
Hot larry car charging
Operating and maintenance program
Byproducts plant
Maintenance program
Combustion stack, new oven patching
Quenching, dirty water
Conventional baffles
Conventional baffles and clean
water
Diverted flow baffles and clean
water
Dry quenchingc
Basis
for
X value
Plant
Battery
Plant
Plant
Battery
Battery
Battery
Plant
Battery
Plant
"
New Installation
Capital cost
A
196.0
2.083.4
1,869.5
2,051.3
1,944.9
682.6
159,450.1
314,191.3
42.5
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
11.753.1
B
0.5789
0.4691
0.4688
0.4724
0.4799
0.46B6
0.0341
0.0245
0.7780
0
0
0
0
0
0.8412
0.4319
0.4765
Annual iz
coeffi
A
111.2
131,626.3
52,969.1
102.188.8
41,863.8
2,893.9
76.052.9
101,422.0
13.4
539,800.0
358,100.3
264,900.1
300,000.0
503,300.4
0.3
348.3
352.8
838. 3
;d cost
fient
B
0.5612
0.1515
0.1785
0.1719
0.2006
0.3108
0.0428
0.0443
0.8097
0
0
0
0
0
0.8944
0.6848
0.6894
0.6503
Retrofit Installation
Capital cost
coefficient
A
207.7
2,244.9
2,007.5
2,211.2
2,095.3
693.2
179,919.7
372,093.4
53.3
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
21,656.8
13,599.2
B
0.5823
0.4704
0.4702
0.4737
0.4811
0.4746
0.0336
0.0231
0.7695
0
0
0
0
0
0.8412
0.4328
0.4802
Annual iz
coeffi
A
112.9
123.839.7
49,467.6
96,494.4
38,805.0
2.710.6
79,334.9
110,347.1
14.8
593.800.0
358,100.3
264,900.1
300.000.0
503.300.4
0.4
436.3
440.6
967.5
ed cost
cient
B
0.5629
0.1574
0.1855
0.1755
0.2084
0.3180
0.0422
0.0424
0.8055
0
0
0
0
0
0.8888
0.6724
0.6779
0.6448
a Cost = AXB; X = tons of coke/year.
Annualized cost does not account for potential steam credit.
c Annualized cost does not account for potential steam credit except for steam used in water treatment.
-------
INDEX TO COST SHEETS
Source Option Page
Larry car charging 2 A-5
3 A-9
4 A-13
Coke pushing 2 A-17
3 A-20
4 A-24
5 A-28
6 A-32
7 A-36
Quenching, clean water 2 A-40
3 A-44
4 A-48
Doors 2 A-52
3 A-55
4 A-59
5 A-63
6 A-67
7 A-71
Topside 2 A-75
3 A-78
4 A-81
Combustion stack, old 2 A-85
3 A-88
4 A-92
5 A-96
Coke handling 2 A-100
Coal preheater 2 A-104
3 A-108
4 A-112
5 A-116
Coal preparation 2 A-120
Coal storage 2 A-124
3 A-128
4 A-132
Pipeline charging 2 A-136
Redler charging 2 A-139
Hot larry car charging 2 A-142
Byproducts plant 2 A-145
Combustion stack, new 2 A-148
Quenching, dirty water 2 A-151
3 A-154
4 A-158
5 A-162
A-4
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UMTS OPTION
FPSES
tAPAC
: 501.
ITY:
LARRY CAR
.708
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN: l.OOOOuO
BSO
BAP
ALLOWABLE
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
*
* »
1.
•
• •
•
•
• .
BENZENE
LOAD IN:
OUST
TEMP
ALLOWABLE
•
• •
200000
23.10
loooou
220000
25.41
002000
000400
.05
50000JL
100000
11.55
COLLECTED PER DAY:
OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: o. AT
ACFM FLOW:
L/G RATIO:
PROCESS WATEk
COOLING WATER
SUSPENDED SULI
0
AT
FLOW:
FLOW:
DS OUT:
CHARGING COKE 2
MILLION TUNS/YEAR
J.BS/TON
LBS/TON
LB5/HR
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
LBS/HR
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
LBS/Hk
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
LBS/HR
1.1
180.
180.
70.
180.
.0
0.
0.
0.
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: eo.ox
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: eo.ox
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: eo.ox
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: eo.ox
TONS(DRY)
F
F
F
F
GPM
GPM
MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-5
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS
PPSES: 501. LARRY CAR CHARGING
COKE
OPTION
2
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
LARRY CAR
LEVELING BAR SMOKE SEAL
STEAM SUPPLY
JLIETJJF ADDITIONAL DUCT
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS a) 0. HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL
_etAMEJLE_R_:
HP;
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY:
8760.
O.X
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP:
STACK HEIGHT:
NQ._JDF_JDVENS_
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
0.
0.
60.
DIAMETER: o.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
AVG. COKING TIME»HRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
_B U L K _D JEN5I1Y
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
17. b
62.
50.
L8S/CUBIC FT.
.70
1011967.
A-6
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UMTS OPTION
PPSES: 501.
CAPACITY:
LARRY CAK CHARGING COKE
. 708 MILLJQIM TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110.OCX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q7b COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
DIHFr.T COST
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIP LN.G
110500.
0.
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE KURK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
7500.
0.
45700.
0.
18100.
400.
0.
37000.
234200.
30400.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
J. IE LD OVER HEAD
CONTRACTORS FEE 17900.
ENGINEERING 21600.
FREI £ til
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDUWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
0.
6200.
4600.
5bOO.
65200.
155900.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
16700.
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST KITH RETROFIT
406800.
447500.
A-7
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS
PPSES: 501.
_£APA£LT U
LARRY CAR CHARGING COKE
.706 MILLION_IfiNS/XEAfi
OPTION
2
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST
*** UTILITIES ***
MATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0. MGAL/YR
0. KWH/YR
17001. MLBS/YR
U. GAL/YR
S .1595/1000 6AL
$ ,0266/KWH
i 4.0920/MLBS
J ,4180/GAL
0.
0.
69600.
0.
««» OPERATING LABOR «««
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
676U.
1752.
HRS/YR
HRS/YK
J14.34/HR
S17.20/HK
125700.
30100.
CA
IB
«*« MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES *««
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
DIRECT OPERATING
5200. HRS/YR
1040. HRS/YK
0. TON/YR
COST
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
$ 8.25/TON
74600.
17900.
36700.
19400.
0.
0.
374000.
1C)
(Dl
(El
CF)
PAY R 0 L L.. ILV E R H E A D _=20_, OAJD
PLANT OVEKHEAD =50. OX OF
TOTAL OPERATING COST
QPE BALING COST I fy[ D _0 L L A R S_
OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST
_A t B ± C * l>
PER
PER
OF
TON
TON
OF
CAPITAL
PROpUCLIpjN ___
DUST COLLECTED
COST
IN DOLLARS
AS PERCENT
___ LN s TALL A i I.GLN, u _ME._iw_ji£LK s_
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
___ C A P I T A L_R EC 0 VEKt_Ul.Q2 X_OF_ T 0_T_A L__C A PI
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOT~AL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. C 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
152200.
575900.
,81
1422.72
126.7
25,
-11300 .
9000.
9000.
- NEW
636900.
A-8
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 501.
CAPACITY:
LARRY CAR CHARGING
,708 MJLITON TONS-
UNITS
COKE
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 501. LARRY CAR CHANGING COKE 3
CAPACITY: .708 MILLION TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110. OCX
CATEGORY
*** DIRECT COST ***
EQUIPMENT OR MAT€RIAL 1
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RETROFIT
OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST
COST IN DOLLARS
222600.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Or
0.
17000.
0.
0.
117700.
1357300.
39100.
19100.
14500.
16000.
0.
57000.
6100.
57100.
897200.
508100.
136600.
2002000.
?202?00T
.
A-10
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 501. LARRY CAR CHARGING
JJ.NH5 Q.P.T10N.
COKE 3
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
LARRY CAR
LEVELING BAR SMOKE SEAL
STEAM SUPPLY
_FLEET_OJL_APPITIONAL PUC_T:__
TOTAL PRESSURE PROP:
0 FANS 9 0. HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL_MP.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED
STACK HEIGHT:
__NO._QF_OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH ..
AVG. CO
NO. CYC
_BULK_PE
YIELP
TONS COAL/YEAR
JB J AMETER; o.
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: o.x
8760.
HP:
0.
0.
DIAMETER: o.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
NG
S/0
ITY
T
A
IME
Y
,HRS.
17
82
50
•
•
•
5
LBS/CUBI
C
FT
•
.70
1011967.
A-ll
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 501. LARRY CAR CHARGING COKE 3
CAPACITY* ,708 MILLION TQNS/YEAR
CATEGORY QUANTITY RATE
*** UTILITIES ***
MATfR o. MGAL/YR $ .I^VIQOO GAL
ELECTRICITY 0. KWH/YR $ ,0266/KKH
STEAM 17001. MLBS/YR $ 4.0920/MLBS
FUEL 0. GAL/YR J. .4160/GAL
*** nPFRATTNG 1 AROR ***
DIRECT 6760. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 1752. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
*** MAINTENANCE A SUPPLIES ***
DIRECT LABOR 6200. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 1240. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 0. TON/YR S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =20.01 OF AfB+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.0% OF A + B + CtD + Et-F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF OUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WFEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.02% OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES * INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
- NEW
'
ANNUAL COST ($]
0.
0.
69600.
0.
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
66900. (C)
21300. (D)
43900. (E)
23100. (F)
0.
0.
402600.
53200.
166500.
622300.
.66
1242.31
26.3
BO.
25.
.0
242600.
44000.
44000.
952900.
922900.
. A-12
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UMTS OPTION
PPSES: 501.
.CAPACITY!
LARKY CAR CHARGING
_ -70ft MTIITHN
COKE
PARTICULATE
L0AD IN :.._
ALLOWABLE
.OOOUOO LbS/TON _C.Q AL_
.005000 LBS/TON COAL
,5b LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 99.51
BSD
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
i.ioooou LBS/TON COAL
.ooSsou IB &/TLJN. CUAi.
LBS/MK
MAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOwAbLEt
.000010
LbS/lUN
LBS/TON
LfeS/Hk
COAL
COAL
EFFICIENCY: 99.5*
BENZENE
1 M!
.sonout)
ALLOWABLE:
.oogbou LBS/TON COAL
,29 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 99.5%
UUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TfMP 0"T (IF
l.<4 TONS(DRY)
inn, r
EXHAUST TEMPEKATURt:
SCFM FLOW:
AT
70. F
ACFM FLOW:
t/r;
o.
AT
160. F
Q
PRUCEbb WATEK FLO«:
COOLING WATEK FLOw:
SUSPENDhD SOLIDS OUT:
0. GPM
0. GPh
0. Mb/L
XSOLIDS
A-13
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 5U1.
LARKY CAR CHARGING
UUJ-S. OP-lJ-
CUKE 4
CONTROL SYSTEM CONF1GORATI ON:
LARRY CAR
LEVELING BAR SMOKE SEAL
STEAM SUPPLY
SECOND COLLECTING MAIN
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT
TOTAL PRESSORE DROP:
Q CAMS ^
-------
CAPITAL COST:
PPSES: 501.
CAPAC ITYi
LARRY CAR CHARGING
BLON
JJJH.T;
COKE
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.00X OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR «076 COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
DIRECT COST ***
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENT AT ION
PIPTNb
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
SITE *ORl\
1NSULAT1UN
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
0.
G.
0.
0.
0.
17000.
0.
117700.
**« INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
lbB3UO.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENblNEERlNG
136300.
252900.
OFFSHE «URK
TAXES
SHAKEOUAN
19900.
116600.
SPARES
CONTIMGENLY
116700.
69U500.
COST
no.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
196000.
TOTAL COST
TlltAI PflST MTTH
443740U.
A-15
-------
OPERATING CUST:
PPSES: 501
APATY?
LARRY CAR CHARGING
UN]TS OPTION
COKE 4
,706 MILLION TONS/YEA^
CATEGORY
UUAN1ITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST I>
*** UTILITIES ***
ff A TER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FULL
U MQAL/YK
0. KnvH/YR
17U01. MLBS/YR
Or t,A| /YR
$ 1595/ 1000 GAL
4 ,02bb/KrtH
& 4.0920/ML6S
4 .41HU/RAL
11
0.
b9bOU.
0.
«** OPEPATINC LABOR ***
DIKECT
6760. HRS/YR
Jia.3«/HK
12b700. (Aj
3Jil^^_liiJ
DIRECT LAbOR
SuPERVISIDiM
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
*** MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES ***
llbOU. HRS/YR JH.3a/HR
23?U, MRh/YR 417-20/HK
Ibb400.
39900.
62buO.
43300.
ICJ
(ni
IEJ
(FJ
SULID WASTE
DISPOSAL
0. TON/Yk
$ 8.25/TON
0.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =?" ox OF A+B+C+D
PLAN! OVERHEAD =bO.O% OF A-fb + C + DtEt-F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST Ii\j DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TOlx CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (Il_(j2l UF TOTAl CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.0Z OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANMUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
• NEfc
72400
244000.
b 7 4 0 0 0 .
1736.01
16. b
60
.0
510900,
92600.
1570500.
1540300.
A-16
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY;
COKE PUSHING COKE
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAJ) _IN : 2 ._000000 _L_BS/ TON COAL_
ALLOWABLE: .eooooo IBS/TON COAL
92.42 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.0800UU LBS/TON COAL
.L B S /TON COAL
EFFICIENCY;
3.70 LBS/HR
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000040 LBS/TON COAL
.000016 LBS/TON COAL
.00 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
BENZENE
LOAD IN;
.OOfeOOO LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: ,oo2«oo LBS/TON COAL
.26 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT UF PROCESS;
1.7 TONS(DRY)
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 0. AT
ACFM FLOW: 0. AT
L/G RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOn:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
300. F
70. F
300. F
.0
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-17
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 502. COKE PUSHING
UNITS OPTION
COKE 2
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
CONTROLLED COKING
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT. 0.
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP: 0.
JQ.JLA N S ._ol__ JJL, _ HP EAC H _§_P_AR_fe__
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT; 0.
DIAMETER:
INCHES
niAMFTFR! 0.
NU. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
0VEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
NU. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
60.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
17.5
50. L6S/CUBIC FT
.70
1011967
A-18
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY;
COKE PUSHING COKE
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAR
OPTI0N_
2
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST U
*** UTILITIES ***
KATER
0. MGAL/Yk
S .1595/1000 SAL
0.
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
0. KWH/YK
0. MLBS/YR
_0_t_GAL /U?
K * ,0266/KrtH
YR $ a.0920/MLBS
R $ .4160/GAL
0.
0.
0.
*«« OPERATING LABOR «*«
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
6760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
$17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100* (B)
««« MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIED
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
. J.A T. E_R_T R_E AJ^
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
0. HRS/YR
0. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
417.20/HR
0. 1C)
0. (D)
0. (E)
6857100. (F)
0. TON/YR
* 6.25/TON
0.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PA YJjLUkU_P_V E RHE AD ggQ. Q X OF A-»6»C *D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A + 6 + Ci-D«E
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERA T ING C OS T_I N DOLLARS PER TON
"OPERATING CUST IN DOLLARS'
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT
7012900.
_il200
3506500
10550600
PER TON OF
OF CAPITAL
PRODUCTION _
OUS'T COLLECTED
COST
17376.39
.0
_l N s TALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
C API T AL RECOVERY (10.00* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD t 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.0Z OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUAL1 ZED COST - RE IfiDOI
99,
.0
_P_.
0.
0.
- NE*
10550600.
A-19
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
FPSES: 502.
CAPACITY;
COKE PUSHING COKE
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAR
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN:
_2_«000000 i,BS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .290000 LBS/TON COAL
35.86 L8S/HR
EFFICIENCY: 85.sx
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.080000 LBS/TON COAL
,044000 LBS/TOh COAL
5.35 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY
BAP
LOAD IN: .000040 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000022 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: as.ox
.0 o LBS/HR
BENZENE
LOAD IN:
.OUfaOOO LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .003300 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: as.ox
.40 LBS/HR
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
_TEMP__O.UT_OF_PRp_CE55•
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
s c F M_ F L o w : _ 3 n o o o_,
ACFM FLOW: 365000.
-L/fLR* Jj .0_:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOw:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS UUl :
AT
TONSIDRY)
__300,_JF_
150. F
70_. F
150. F
.0
0. GPM
0. GPM
_0_f JMG/L.
A-20
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 5D2. COKE PUSHING
UNITS
COKE
.QPI10_N_
3
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
ESP
COKE OVEN SHED
FAN AND DRIVE
DUCTWORK
STACK
_D.JJST HANDLING HOPPER
DAMPERS
FAN AND
DRIVE ELECTRICAL
SCA: 188. TOTAL PLATE
FJET _OF_ A D_ DI TIOHAL DUCT_|
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
3 FANS a) 575. HP EACH
_D?_£E.AUMfi_HOU.R5._AJ FULL H£J.
OPERATING HUURS AT REDUCED HP
STACK HEIGHT:
_NO.__QF_ OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
.JLDNS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIMErHRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
.BULK DENSITY
YIELD
AREA: azooo. SQ.FT. o> 202 SPARE CAPACITY
300. DIAMETER; n.
12. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY
50.X
0.
100.
60j._
b.O
1346.
DIAMETER: 12.
METERS
CUBIC FEET
BS/CUBIC FT,
TONS COAL/YEAR
1011967
A-21
-------
CAPITAL COST:
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY;
COKE PUSHING
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAR
UNJLLS 5>p LI ON
COKE 3
TOTAL COST
CCOST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q78 COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
*** DIRECT COST *»*
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
1740300.
0.
0.
71900.
15500.
7900.
59900.
9600.
8800.
694500.
2680500.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD. OVERHEAD ___
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
_£fl£JLGH.T
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKE DOWN ____
'SPARES
CONTINGENCY
261400.
237100.
A440JU
48100.
98000.
95 00 0 ._
8920 6.
829900.
2101200.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
TOTAITCOST
IJJTAi. COST KITH RETROFIT
429600.
5211300.
5840000.
A-22
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY!
CATEGORY
COKE PUSHING
,708 MILLION TO
QUANTITY
UNITS
COKE
RATE
OPTION
3
ANNUAL COST t
*** UTILITIES ***
WATER-
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
0, MGAL/YH
6677492. KWH/YR
0. ML8S/YR
0. GAL/YK
S .1595/1000 KAI
i .0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
0.
231000.
0.
0.
DIRECT
«•* OPERATING LABOR «««
'ISION
6760.
1752.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700.
30100.
(A)
(6)
*** MAINTENANCE ft SUPPLIES »««
DIRECT LABOR 11867. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 2373. HRS/YR 417.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 865. TON/YR S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD B20.0X OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A+B*C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPEKATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF OUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.0X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
- NErt
170200.
40800.
86800.
44700.
0.
7100.
736400.
73400.
249200.
1059000.
1.
1223.
18.
130.
20.
12.
686000.
1U800.
U6800.
1978600.
1879500.
(C)
(D)
(E)
IF)
49
95
1
2
A-23
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY:
COKE PUSHING
.708 MILLION TONS/YEAR
UNITS OPTION
COKE 1
PARTICIPATE
000000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: ,290000 LBS/TON COAL
35.26 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: J5.5X
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.080000 LBS/TON COAL
.000000 LBS/T0N COA_l
«.91 LBS/HR
LFFICIENCY: 09.sx
BAP
LOAD IN: .0000*10 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000020 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 49.5X
.00 LBS/HR
BENZENE
LOAD IN;
_±QOJ>OOP LBS/TQN COAL
ALLOWABLE: .003030 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: «9.sx
.37 LBS/HR
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP 0UT OF PRQCE.SLSJ
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
_s c FM FLOW: 3_« 5 o o_o_, A I
ACFM FLOW: 365000. AT 100. F
L/e RATIO: 7.9
2.4 TONS(DRY)
100. F
70,
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
_SMP_E_NPED soLJLPs OUT;
2738. 6PM
0. GPM
Igfl. MG/L
A-24
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 502. COKE PUSHING
.mils.
COKE
OPTION
4
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
VENTURI SCRUBBER
COKE OVEN SHED
MIST ELIMINATES—
FAN AND DRIVE
DUCTWORK
STACK
HASTEWATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
DAMPERS
«ASTF HATfR PFTURM SYSTEM
WATER PUMPING
FAN AND DRIVE
SYSTEM
ELECTRICAL
FEET OF ADDITIONAL OUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE PRQfA
3 FANS 9 1436. HP EACH
300. DIAMETER: n.
30. INCHES
50.X
SPARE FAN CAPACITY:
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 6328.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: 100. DIAMETER: 12.
NO. OF OVENS 60.
OVEN HEIGHT fr.O MFTPRS
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
JLVG. COKING TIME.HRS,
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YTFl P
13«b. CUBIC FEET
62.
50. L8S/CUBIC FT,
.70
TONS COAL/YEAR
1011967.
A-25
-------
CAPITAL COST:
OPTION
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY:
COKE PUSHING COKE
.TQB MTU TON TflNS/YFAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 0076 COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
»t»
COST • «
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
8507500.
51900.
235000.
316500.
89500.
IPIflOO.
11000.
23400.
28300.
38600.
623700.
4049200.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERMEAD «5_1100.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
TNOTRFCT COST SUBTOTAL
247400.
396500.
91ROO-
72800.
145800.
136400.
118400.
1131000.
>797ftOO¥
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
563500.
TOTAL COST
TPTAI COST MlIti_RETROFlT_
7410500.
a?5910Q.-
A-26
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY:
CATEGORY
MATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
UNITS OPTION
COKE PUSHING COKE 4
.708 MILLION TONS/YEAR
QUANTITY
RATE
*•* UTILITIES ««*
273002. MGAL/YR S .1595/1000 GAL
18980168. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
*** OPFRATING L
8760. MRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
*•* MAINTENANCE &
17163. HRS/YR
3433. HRS/YR
1730. TON/YR
$ .0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
AftOR «**
SU.34/HR
517.20/HR
SUPPLIES ***
S14.34/HR
J17.20/HR
» 6.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD s20.CZ OF A+B+C+D
ANNUAL COST ($)
43600.
505300.
0.
0.
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
246200. (C)
59100. (D)
191100. (E)
110200. (F)
0.
14300.
1325600.
92200.
PLANT OVERHEAD sSO.OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL
JALSTALLUJDN TTMF \n MFEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
PRODUCTION
OUST
COST
COLLECTED
OF
_C A PH Aj. _R E C 0 V E RJ_U 3 , J 5X
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD (
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.OX
TOTAL ANNUALTIED COST - RETROFIT
IQlAL_tAPJLIAj.>
2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
381200.
1799000.
2,54
2079.21
21.8
- NEW
15.
26.8
_LP_85900_.
165200.
165200.
3215304)^
3069700.
A-27
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 508.
CAPACITY;
COKE PUSHING
COKE
TONS/YEAfi
PARTICIPATE
ALLOWABLE:
,000000 IBS/TON _COAL
.236000 IBS/TON COAL
66.45 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 66.
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.080000 LBS/TON COAL
_,.(>3680Q.JLB3/JLON_ COAL
13.79 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: sa.ox
BAP
BENZENE
LOAD IN:
LOAD IN: .OOOOaO LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000026 LBS/TON COAL
.01 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 36.ox
_..PJ)6000_LB.S/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .002760 LBS/TON COAL
1.03 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 54.ox
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS;
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE;
JSCFM jFLQW.t
ACFM FLOW:
_L££_RAIID1_
J1000.
75660.
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
2.4 TONS(DRY)
100. F
_AT _ 70. F_
AT 100. F
-.D.
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. MG/L
XSOLIDS:
.0
A-28
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 502. COKE PUSHING
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
ENCLOSED HOT CAR
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
JLm JiP__£ACH_
o. DIAMETER:
o. INCHES
JSEJLRJE FAN CAPACITY;
5.
O.I
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 2700.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 5900.
STACK HFTGHT:
flTAMFTFP: 0.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TlMErHRS.
NOT CYCLES/DAY
60.
6.0
1348.
24.
17.5
8?,
METERS
CUBIC FEET
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
1011967.
A-29
-------
CAPITAL COST:
_UJ1LLS OPTION
PPSES: 502.
COKE PUSHING
_ -70ft MILLION
COKE
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.001 OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRFCT COST SUBTOTAL
3841700.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ft,
0.
0.
0.
0.
23100.
7864800.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVER H £ A [)_
lL5fl.fi...
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
3800.
55000.
7700.
0.
192400.
192400.
38500.
677500.
1378800.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
524400.
TOTAL COST
TOTA> COST MjTH
5768000.
fciaoaoo.
A-30
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY:
COKE PUSHING COKE
.708 MIL1 TON TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
*** UTILITIES ***
««« OPERATING LABOR *««
*•* MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES »*«
MATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
6375. MGAL/YR
4173. KWH/YR
0. ML8S/YR
672958. GAL/YR
S .1595/1000 GAL
$ ,0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S .ai60/GAL
1000.
100.
0.
281300.
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
0. HRS/YR
0. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
0. (A)
0. (B)
DIRECT LABOR 8000. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 1600. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 1785. TON/YR $ 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD S20.0I OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A+B+C+DtE*F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES * INS. C 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALI2ED TOST - RETROFIT
- NEW
114800. (C
27500. (D
114800. (E
38600. (F
0.
14700.
592800.
28500.
147900.
769200.
1.09
861.80
12.1
104.
20.
41.8
745300.
126900.
126900.
1768300.
1677500.
)
)
)
)
-
A-31
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY:
COKE PUSHING COKE
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAR
PARTICIPATE
LPAD IN.:_ 2,00000_Q_LBS AT 0N _C£AJL..
ALLOWABLE: .218000 LBS/TON COAL
£6.51 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
BSD
LOAD IN: .ObOOOO LBS/TON COAL
_ALLQjLAttLE: .044000 LBS/TON COAL
EFFICIEMCY: 45.0X
5.35 LBS/HR
.BAR.
LOAD IN: .000040 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000022 LBS/TON COAL
.00 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
BENZENE
>06000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .003300 LBS/TON COAL
,ao LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: as.ox
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS;
2.5 TONSCORY)
, JE
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
_S_Qf M FLOW: 317 Q10._
ACFM FLOW: 365000.
AT
AT
150. F
70. F
150. F
L/C RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOw:
COOLING ^ATER FLO«:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. M6/L
XSOLIDS
A-32
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 502. COKE PUSHING
UMTS OPTION
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGUKATION:
ESP
COKE OVEN SHED
FAN ^AN£_D_R_I V.E
DUCTWORK
STACK
J>P.SJ__HAND LJNG H_UPPER_ & C0NVEYQRS
DAMPERS
FAN AND DRIVE ELECTRICAL
SCA: 240. TOTAL PLATE AREA! 105000. SQ.FT. S> 20X SPARE CAPACITY
_F E E!_Qf _ADp I TIUN A L__ DUCJJ 300. DIAME TER: 11.
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP: 12. INCHES
3 FANS 2 575. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: 50.X
_O.P E R ALLN G_HfiUR S AT FULL HP: 6322.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: 100. DIAMETER: 12.
NO. OF LIVENS eo,
OVEN'HEIGHT 6.0 METERS
OVEN VOLUME 13*>6. CUBIC FEET
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK PENSITJL
YIELD
TUNS COAL/YEAR
17.5
62.
50. LBS/CUBIC _FJT
.70
1011967.
A-33
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UMTS OPTION
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY;
COKE PUSHING COKE
-TUB MILL TQM TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.00X OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4076 COS!
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE KURK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
1676100.
0.
0.
81100.
lt>200.
81200.
9100.
66900.
10500.
10100.
750000.
2907200.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD 0VEH HEAD.
3.95100^
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDUhN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
267400.
259300.
91500.
54600.
105400.
106200.
100400.
900700.
2301000.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
472100,
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST rtlTH RETROFIT
5660300,
t>35S9JJLQL
A-34
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES7~~ 5~02~"
CAPACITY:
COKE PUSHING COKE
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAR
UNITS__ OPTION
6
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST U)
HATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
*** UTILITIES ***
0. M6AL/YR » .1595/1000 GAL
KfcH/YR
0. MLbS/YK
0. GA L.AYR__.
4 ,0266/KNH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S ,4180/GAL
243600.
0.
0 .
*«« OPERATING LABOR «*«
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
6760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. IB)
**« MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES ***
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
(HATER TREATMENT
11667.
2373,
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
$
i
1
1
4
7
,34/HR
,20/HR
170200
40800
86600
44700
0
. (C)
. (D)
. IE)
. (f)
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
902. TON/YR
* 6.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
J?A_Y_K_g.kL
7400
749300,
PLANT OVERHEAD *50.0X UF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF OUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
K«H PER TUN CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY Ul.7bX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. C 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALI2ED COST - RETROFIT
249200.
1071900.
1.51
1166.80
16.9
20.
12.9
746600.
127100.
127100.
- NEW
1966300.
A-35
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 502.
CAPAriTY:
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
BAP
UNITS OPTION
COKE PUSHING COKE 7
T70ft MILLION TDNS/VFAR
2.000000 LBS/TON COAL
: .218000 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 89. IX
26.51 LBS/HR
.080000 LBS/TON COAL
: .036800 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 54. OX
fl.07 LBS/HR
LOAD IN: .000040 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .ooooie LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY
.00 LBS/HR
54.ox
BENZENE
INI
,006000 LBS/TQN CQA
ALLOWABLE: .002760
. .34
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TFMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 345000. AT
ACFM FLOW: 365000. AT
L/G RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 54. OX
LBS/HR
2.5 TONS(DRY)
500. F
100. F
70. F
100. F
7»0
2738. GPM
0. GPM
124. MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-36
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UN1I5 QP.UDN_
PPSES: 502. COKE PUSHING COKE 7
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
VENTURI SCRUBBER
COKE OVEN SHED
MTST PI TMTNATOR
FAN AND DRIVE
DUCTWORK
-SIACK
WASTEWATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
DAMPERS
WASTE MATER RETURN SYSTEM
HATER PUMPING SYSTEM
FAN AND DRIVE ELECTRICAL
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 300. DIAMETER: 11.
TOT AJ_ PRFSSURF DROP; 5J) . INCHES
3 FANS 3 2394. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: 50.1
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8322.
Q P_ER AT I.N G HOURS AT REDUCE D HP; 0.
STACK HEIGHT: 100. DIAMETER: 12.
MO. OF OVENS 60.
-OVEN .«£J£MJ fe^O MFTFRS
OVEN VOLUME 1348. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH 24.
_A VG., _ COKI NG_IlMEjr HRS , 1 7j_5
NO. CYCLES/DAY 82.
BULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
YIELD *1Q
TONS COAL/YEAR 1011967.
A-37
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UMTS OPTION
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY!
COKE PUSHING COKE
.708 MILLION TOMS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
•*« DIRECT COST «**
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
2727900.
51900.
235000.
316500.
95600.
126200.
11000.
23400.
28200.
38600.
628400.
4282900.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
_?ilLp_ OVERHEAD 462200.
CONTRACTORS FEE 250700.
ENGINEERING 396500.
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
73300.
157500.
119300.
1185700.
2886500.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
604600,
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RETROFIT
7774000,
A-38
-------
OPERATING COST:
UM TS DPTIUN
PPSES: 502.
CAPACITY!
COKE PUSHING COKE
.708 MILL TON TDNS/YF4R
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
*** UTILITIES ***
ttiTFp
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
?73flOj>, MGAL/Y&
31514320. KKH/YR
o. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
* .1*595/1000 GAL
$ ,0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S .41BO/GAL
43*00,
636900.
0.
0.
«** OPERATING » AROR ***
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
676U.
1752.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700.
30100.
(A)
(B)
* ** MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES ««*
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
DIRECT OPERAT
17763.
3553.
1603.
ING COST
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
TON/YR
SI
SI
$
4.34/HR
7.20/HR
8.25/TON
254600.
61100.
197600.
112800.
0.
14900.
1679500.
(C)
JDJ
(E)
(F)
PAYROLL OVERHEAD C20.0X OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.01 OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
JlPjE R All NG_C0SI IN_DJ) L L ARSJPJR_IfiN PR.QDU_C_TJON_
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
_LNSJ_ALLAllfltt. .LLMF IN WFEK&
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (13.15% OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZF-0 COST - RETROFIT __
- NEh
-9A3M,
391100.
2164900.
3_t06
2401.01
25.0
15.
44.5
-1139.4.00.,
173200.
173200.
Jb^TDO*
3496000.
A-39
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 503.
CAPACITY:
QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER COKE
MT1 1 TON THNS/YFAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN:
1.700000 LBS/TDN COAL
ALLOWABLE: .510000
£35. 6b
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 70. OX
L8S/HR
BSD
LOAD IN: .001700
ALLOWABLE: .000510
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TQN COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 70. OX
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000140 LBS/TON COAL
.000048 LBS/TON COAL
.02 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
70. OX
BENZENE
LOAD IN:
.000030 LBS/TQN COAL
ALLOWABLE:
.000030
.01
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY
.OX
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS;
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 566000
U W_V V V •
AT
L/G RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
6.6 TONS(DRY)
_2jO.]3L^_E
aoo. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW: 705000. AT 200. F
.0
0. GPM
0. GPM
_0 ._ MG/L XSOL IDS;
A-40
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSESt 503. QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
QUENCH TOWER BAFFLES
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS » 0.,_HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP:
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP:
STACK HEIGHT
o. DIAMETER: is.
o. INCHES
FAN CAPACITY; o.x
8760.
0.
o. DIAMFTFR: o.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME, MRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
60.
6.0
1348.
24.
17.5
82.
METERS
CUBIC FEET
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
0047668.
A-41
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PP5ES: 503.
CAPACITY:
QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER COKE
MILLION TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR «Q78 COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
««* DIRECT COST «»«
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
114100.
0.
30800.
6200.
900.
OT
600.
0.
900.
0.
60300.
*** INDIRECT
FIELD OVERHEAD
COST ***
45400,,
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
27900.
35100.
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
JHA_KE_DOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
0.
5700.
_L3P..p_,
3500.
TlflOO.
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
10700,
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST MTTH RETROFIT
439200,
S71000.
A-42
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS QPTIQN
PPSESI 503.
QUENCHING - CLEAN MATER COKE
MTI I TON TflNS/YFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
*** UTILITIES ***
MATFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
A-^A C A 1 X V D
0. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
j 1^95/lQOO ?AL
$ .0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
««« OPERATING I AROR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
0. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
»17.20/HR
0.
0.
(A)
MATNTENANCg & SUPPLTFS ««*
DIRECT LABOR 1200. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 240. HRS/YR 517.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 4817. TON/YR $ 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD s20.0X OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.01 OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN MEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL*
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
• NEW
17200. (C)
4100. CD)
0600. (E)
4500. (F)
0.
39700.
74100.
4300.
17200.
95600.
.03
39.69
16.7
26.
20.
.0
67100.
11400.
11400.
185500.
164800.
A-43
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
ppsEs: "503. Q u E N c H i NG"^~CL"EAN~w7fi"R
CAP AC III ?- 2. 83.
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
..UNITS „ .OPTIUN.
PPSES: 503. QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER COKE 3
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
QUENCH TOhER BAFFLES
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 0. DIAMETER: 14.
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP: 0. INCHES
_0 FANS a 0. HP EACH SPARE F AN _£ APAC I T Y :. _ O.X
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
.STACK HEIGHT:. ._ . __._.o. DIAMETER; _o.
NO. OF OVENS 60.
OVEN HEIGHT 6.0 METERS
OVEN VOLUME __ 1346, _CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH 24.
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS. 17.5
NO. CYCLES/DAY _ &2.
BULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CUbIC FT.
YIELD .70
TONS COAL/YEAR 4047868.
A-45
-------
.UNITS
CUKE
OPTION
3
CAPITAL COST:
PPSES: 503. QUENCHING""- "CLEAN WATER
.... C.AP.ACITY: 2.834 MILLION TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4U78 C0sf~
CATEGORY
_. _***._DJR.ECT_ X.OS!_*.**.
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
COST IN DOLLARS
928400.
30800.
13200.
0.
0.
0.
8800.
7900.
3500.
0.
654700.
DIRECT COSLSUBTOTAL _____ ............ _. ... _______ 1647300. _ . ________
COST ***
*** INDIRECT
FIELD OVERHEAD
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT _ ..._
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST..SUBTOTAL ....
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RETKOFIT
70400.
338800.
244200.
..0^
44000.
46400.
2b400.
44000.
638000.
1454200.
155100.
3256600.
4233600,
A-46
-------
OPERATING COST:
>PSES: ~
CAPACITY.:.
CATEGORY
WATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER
_2_.e34.MILLION TONS/YEAR
QUANTITY RATE
*** UTILITIES ***
UNITS
COKE
OPTION
3
ANNUAL COST ($
0* MGAL/YR
0. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0, _GAL/YK_
i _.1595/1000 GAL
4 ,0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S>. ,4180/GAL
0.
0.
o.
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
_***. OPERATING LABOR ***
0. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
0. HRS/YR i!7
0.
U.
CA)
(H)
_*** _MAINT.ENANCE._&_SUP?LIES ***
4000.
600,
HRS/YR
HKS/YK
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER.. TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 6193. TON/YR
DIRECT OPERATING COST
S17.20/HK
$ 6.25/TON
PAYROLL OVERHEAD_=20,OX OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN
OPERATING COST IN
OPERATING COST AS
INSTALLATION TIME
ESTIMATED LIFE OF
DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
IN WEEKS
SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75* OF
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD t 2,
TOTAL CAPITAL)
OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST -RETROFIT .__
- NEW
57400. (C)
13800. (D)
114800. (E)
27900. (F)
51100.
265000.
14200.
107000.
386200.
.14
124.72
9.1
20.
.0
497300.
84700.
64700.
1052900.
698900.
A-47
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 503.
CAPACTTYI
QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER COKE
MTM TON TflNS/YFAR
4
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN;
_C Q AL_
ALLOWABLE: .034000
15.71
BSO
LOAD IN: .001700
ALLOWABLE: .000017
.01
BAP
LOAD IN: .000140
ALLOWABLE: .000001
.00
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: *».OX
LBS/HR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 99. OX
LBS/HR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 99. OX
LBS/HR
BENZENE
IQAD IN;
.0000*0 IRS/THN COAI
ALLOWABLE:
.000000 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY
.00 LBS/HR
99.ox
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
9.8 TONS(ORY)
300. f
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE: aoo. F
SCFM FLOW; 549000. AT 70. F
ACFM FLOW: 683000. AT 200. F
L/G RATIO;
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT;
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. M6/L
XSOLIDS:
A-48
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
U_NJ T 5 QPJLJ Q_N_
PPSESt 503. QUENCHING • CLEAN WATER COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
DRY QUENCHING
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 0. DIAMETER: 15,
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP: 0. INCHES
0 FA NS 9 0.__HP_fc A CLH SPAR I FAN CAPACITY: 0,
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
_SJACLK._HE.IGHJL: o. DIAMETFR: JL
NO. OF OVENS 60.
OVEN HEIGHT 6.0 METERS
OVEN VOLUME 1346. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH 2a.
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS. 17.5
Jill. _CICL£ S/ DAY 92^ _
BULK DENSITY 50» LBS/CUBIC FT.
YIELD 070
_IQ N S_ _C QAL/Y E_A R
A-49
-------
CAPITAL COST:
PPSEsT~"50137
CAPACITY;
UNITS OPTION
QUENCHING * CLEAN WATER COKE
g.634 MILLION TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OCX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
««« DIRECT COST «»«
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
9365400.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4495300.
13860700.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD 24095pP_.
1591300.
476500.
JL.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
INTEREST DURING INSTALLAT
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RFTRQFTT
404600.
449500.
674300.
71900.
4890900.
10968500.
ION 3103700.
37932900.
A-50
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 503.
CAPACITY;
QUENCHING - CLEAN WATER COKE
2.834 MIL! TON TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
*** UTILITIES ***
WATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0T Mr, 41 /YR
22668064. KWH/YR
o. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
£ .1595/1000 GAL
$ .0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
* .flUO/GAL
0.
603400.
0.
0.
*«» OPERATING LABOR ***
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760.
__. 1752..
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700.
30100.
(A)
(B)
*_*_* MAINTENANCE t, SUPPI TFS
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
62337. HRS/YR
12467. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
J17.20/HR
894200.
214500.
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
-MATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
3372. TONVYR
$ 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD s20TOX OF A+B + C±D
(C)
ID)
447100. (E)
233400. (F)
0.
27800.
2576200.
2S29_CJL.
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.01 OF A*B*C+D*E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIMF IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.02* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL).
TOTAL ANNUAL I ZED COST • RETROFIT
972500.
3801600.
1127.44
12.4
130.
25.
6.0
3385000.
614500.
614500.
- NEW
7996300.
A-51
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 50
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES:
DOORS
UNITS OPTION
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
COKE OVEN DOOR CLEAN & MAINT
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
_Q EANS 9 q, HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP:
oe DIAMETER: o.
o. INCHES
sp_ARJ FAN CAPACITY: o.x_
8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
_S.ULCK._ME1GJ1T J D.« niAMFTFR;
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
_0_VEN_y_OJLUM£
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING
JJ.0^ _CJLC.L£ 8/DA V
BULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
YIELD .70
TONS COAL/1EAR. 1011967.
H
IME»HRS.
Y
60.
6.0
1318.
uls
METERS
CUBIC FEET
A-53
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 504.
CAPACITY:
OOORS
-UNI TS OPTION
COKE 2
»7Qfl MILLION TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
MATER
*** UTILITIES ***
0. MEAI /YR
CAI
JU
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0. KwH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
S .0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S ,4180/GAL
0.
0.
0.
«** OPERATING LABOR ***
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
0. HRS/YR
0. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
J17.20/HR
0. (A)
0. (B)
*** MAINTENANCE ft
***
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS.
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
DIRECT OPERAT
17520.
3504.
0.
ING COST
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
TON/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
J 8.25/TON
251300.
60300.
125400.
58000.
0.
495000.
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
PAYROLL OVERHEAD ggQ.OI nF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.01 OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (10.00X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL!
TOTAL ANNUALI2CD COST - RETROFIT
247500.
804800.
1.14
5301.89
.0
8.
99.
.0
0.
0.
0.
- NEW
804600.
A-54
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 504.
CAPACITY:
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
BSD
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
BENZENE
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE
DOORS
.TUB
.500000
: .100000
11.55
.500UOO
: .100000
11.55
.003000
: .000600
.07
.010000
: .002000
.23
OUST COLLECTED PEK DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: o. AT
ACFM FLOW:
L/G RATIO:
0. AT
PROCESS WATER FLOw:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUl :
MILLION
UBS/TON
LBS/TON
LbS/MR
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
LBS/HR
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
LBS/HR
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
LBS/HR
.6
120.
120.
70.
120.
.0
0.
0.
0.
COKE 3
TONS/YEAR
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: -ao.ox
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: so. ox
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: so. ox
COAL
COAL EFFICIENCY: so. ox
TONSIDRY)
F
F
F
F
GPM
GPM
MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-55
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES:
CONTROL
504.
SYSTEM
COKE OVEN
DOORS
CONFIGURATION:
DOOR CLEAN & MAINT
UNITS OPTION
COKE 3
FEET UF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 0. DIAMETER: 0.
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP: 0. INCHES
_0_F_ANS _» OjL_HP JLACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: O.I
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 6760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: o. OIAMFTER: OT
NO. OF OVENS 60,
OVEN HEIGHT 6.0 METERS
_ovEN__yPLUME 1346. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSh 24.
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS. 17.5
6L2,.
BULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CU8IC FT.
YIELD . .70
TONS COAL/YEAR 1011967.
A-56
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UMTS
PPSES: 50«.
CAPACITY:
DOORS COKE
.7Pfl MTLLIQN TDNS/VFAR
OPTION
3
TUTAL COST
ICOST BASIS IS 110.OCX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
£51900.
0.
0.
0.
0.
OT
0.
0.
0.
0.
13300.
265200.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
_£! EL D_flV E_RH£Afi 7000.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFS1TE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
3000.
17500.
1500.
0.
12500.
8300.
12000.
63900.
119700.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
29600.
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST KITH RETROFIT
414500.
4145QQ.
A-57
-------
OPERATING COST:
504
DOORS
UNJJ_S
COKE
OPTION
3
CAPACITY
.7U8 MILLION TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST
*** UTILITIES ***
MATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
ti. MGAL/Yk
0. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
S .159S/1000 GAL
J .0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
$ ,4180/GAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
OPERATING LABOR *««
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
17520. HRS/YR
3504. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
251300. (A
60300. (B
MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES ««*
DIRECT LABOR «500. HRS/YR $U.3«/HR
SUPERVISION SOU. HRS/YR J17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 0. TON/YR i 6.35/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =80. OX OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD sbO.OX OF A+b+CtD+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING CUST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KrtH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.02* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.0* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.0* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
» NEW
64500. 1C.
15500. (D
62300. (E
16800. (F;
0.
0.
490700.
78300.
245400.
814400.
1.15
4023.85
196.5
80.
25.
.0
45700.
8300.
8300.
S76700.
876700.
A-58
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSESt 504. DOORS
—CAPACITY:
WITS —OPTION
COKE A
,708 -MILLION TONS/YEAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN: -.500000
ALLOWABLE: .057500
6.99
-LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 88.5)1
LBS/HR
BSO
LOAD IN:
—ALLOWABLE:
.500000
..110000
13.38
BAP
LOAD IN: .003000
ALLOWABLE: .000660
,.08
BENZENE
LOAD IN: -.010000
ALLOWABLE: .003500
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF -PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
LBS/TON COAL
4.BS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: -7-6,OX
EFFICIENCY: 78.OX
LSS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 65,OX
LBS/HR
SCFM FLOW:
ACFM FLOW:
30000.
22000.
AT
AT
L/6 «ATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
.6 TONS(DRY)
120. F
100. F
70. F
100. F
160. GPM
0. GPM
532. MG/L
XSOLIDS:
.1
A-59
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 504. OOORS
-UNITS
COKE
-OPTION
A
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
VENTURI SCRUBBER
MIST ELIMINATOR
—FAN -AND -DRIVE
DUCTWORK
STACK
-CANOPY-HOOD -
WASTEWATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
DAMPERS
*ASTE WATER RETURN SYSTEM
WATER PUMPING SYSTEM
FAN AND DRIVE ELECTRICAL
--COKE-OVEN DOOR CLEAN * MA INT
FEET-OF -ADOITIONAL--OUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
2 FANS a 202. HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS-AT FULL -HP: -
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
HOOD SIZE:
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME -
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS SOAL/YEAR 1011967
i>30. --DIAMETER! -3. -
35. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: loo.x
-8322.
0.
100.
60.
16.
6
-1346.
24.
17.5
50
DIAMETER: 3.
SQ.FT.
0 METERS
-CUBIC
LBS/CUBIC FT,
70
A-60
-------
CAPITAL COST:
PPSES: 504.
CAPACITY: -----
TOTAL COST
CATEGORY
— UNITS —OPTION
DOORS COKE 4
-.708 -MILLION TONS/YEAR '---
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST
-—*-**-DIRECT -COST--***
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
—PIPING -.-•---
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
-STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
—PROTECTIVE -COAT-ING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT -COST -SUBTOTAL
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN . .
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
COST IN DOLLARS
441400.
51900.
67100.
99000.
22600.
43600.
3800.
7700.
--1.2900.
10800.
156700.
436100.
66900.
136300.
^11900.
20400.
38000.
-37700.
34500.
333200.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH -RETROFIT
—957500. -
-449000.
131900.
1938400.
2363000.
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 504.
CAPACITY:
CATEGORY
DOORS
-UNITS --OPTION
COKE a
V708 MILLION TONS/YEAR
QUANTITY RATE
*** UTILITIES ***
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
.FUEL
1333553. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0.--SAL/YR
—$-
$ ,0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
— -$ ^4180/GAL
-GAL
ANNUAL COST ($
-2500.
35500.
0.
— 0.
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
*** OPERATING-LABOR ***
8760. HRS/YR
41752. -HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
417,20/HR
125700. (A
- 30100. (B)
*** -MAINTENANCE -& -SUPPLIES -***
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
33977. HRS/YR
-4)795.
514.34/HR
$17,20/HR
448. TON/YR
8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL-OVERHEAD *20.0X OF 4+B*C+0
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.OX OF AtBtC+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
IN WEEKS
SYSTEM IN
OPERATING COST IN
OPERATING COST AS
INSTALLATION TIME
ESTIMATED LIFE OF
YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (13.15X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. C 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
- NEW
487400. (Cl
-416900. (oi
236400. (E)
128300. (F*1
0.
3700.
1166500.
152000.
562400.
1660900.
2.66
8400.71
79.6
104.
15.
1.9
310700.
47300.
47300.
2286200.
2213300.
A-62
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
_... _.. . .__UNJTS —OPTION
PPSES: 504. DOORS COKE 5
CAPACITY: .708-MILLION -TONS/YEAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN: .500000 LBS/TON-COAL
ALLOWABLE: .033500 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 93.31
4.07 LBS/HR
BSO
LOAD IN: .500000 LBS/TON COAL
—ALLOWABLE: — ^oaiooo LBS/TON COAL — EFFICIENCYJ
9.85 LBS/HR
LOAD IN: .003000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .oooaee LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 83. ex
..... — - - ,0fe LBS/MR ...... ------------------
BENZENE
LOAD IN: »oioooo LBS/TON COAL - ...........
ALLOWABLE: .002800 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 72. ox
.34 LBS/HR
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY: .6 TONS(DRY)
TEMP OUT -OF PROCESS: 120. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE: 100. F
SCFM FLOW: 26000. AT 70. F
ACFM FLOW: 27000. AT 100. F
L/G RATIO: -«.o
PROCESS WATER FLOW: 208. GPM
COOLING WATER FLOW: 0. GPM
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT: 409. -MG/L XSOLIOS: .0
A-63
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES! 504. DOORS
—UNITS —OPTION
COKE 5
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
VENTURI SCRUBBER
MIST ELIMINATOR
--FAN AND DRIVE --
DUCTWORK
STACK
-.CANOPY -HOOD
WASTEWATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
DAMPERS
-WASTE WATER RETURN SYSTEM
WATER PUMPING SYSTEM
FAN AND DRIVE ELECTRICAL
--COKE -OVEN-OOOR -CLEAN -& MAINT
AT REDUCED HP;
FEET-OF ADDITIONAL
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
2 FANS a) 460. HP EACH
OPERATING -HOURS AT FULL-HP
OPERATING HOURS
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
HOOD SIZE:
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
-650, -DIAMETER: 3.
65. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: 100.1
-8322, -» —
0
100
60
16
6
13U6.
IT!I
-82.
50.
DIAMETER:
SQ.FT.
0 METERS
CUBIC FEET
3.
LBS/CUBIC FT.
,70
1011967.
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 504. DOORS COKE 5
C-APACITYI -—• r*06-MILL-ION-TH3NS/Y€AR
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110.OCX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4076 COST
CATEGORY COST IN DOLLARS
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL 551400.
INSTRUMENTATION 51900.
5700.
ELECTRICAL 110300.
FOUNDATIONS 27000.
-STRUCTURAL - -- - -_67900.
SITE WORK 4200.
INSULATION 6600.
PROTECTIVE-COATING -44000.
BUILDINGS 12200.
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR 177900.
-DIRECT -COST -SUBTOTAL H2HOO.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
CONTRACTORS FEE 75700.
ENGINEERING 148900.
FREIGHT 46100.
OFFSITE WORK 23200.
TAXES ' 43800.
SHAKEDOWN-.- -- -- — -.-- -43900, — -
SPARES 39000.
CONTINGENCY 378400.
-4NDIRECT -COST -SUBTOTAL- 953800.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION 150100.
TOTAL COST 2225000.
TOTAL COST WIT* RETROFIT 2696700.
A-65
-------
OPERATING COSTt
DOORS
-UNITS —OPTION
COKE 5
r*08 *ILL40N JONS/YE4R
QUANTITY RATE
ANNUAL COST
*** UTILITIES ***
*ATER 2077£.-MGAL/-fR 1 —r45*5/-HK>0-€AL
3026942. KWH/YR $ ,0266/KWH
0. MLBS/YR S 4.0920/MLBS
0,-G4L/*R J—r44«OAGAL
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
— *UEL
80600.
0.
. . - .-0.
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
***-OPERATlNG -L-ABOR-*** -
8760. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
125700. (I
-J0100. 41
DIRECT LABOR
.-SUPERVISION ._...
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
33977. HRS/YR
_6795. -HRS/YR
-SUPPL-I-ES-***
S14.34/HR
472. TON/YR
$ 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
-PAYROLL OVERHEAD a20.X)X -OF ^*B*C*D
PLANT OVERHEAD cSO.OX OF
TOTAL OPERATING COST
IN COLLARS
IN DOLLARS
PERCENT
4N WEEKS
SYSTEM IN
PER TON - PRODUCTION _________
PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OF CAPITAL COST
YEARS
OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST AS
INSTALLATION TIME
ESTIMATED LIFE OF
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY .U3«15X OF TOTAL-CAPITAL)---
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ^NNUALIZED -COST - RETROFIT ----
• NEW
487400. (
--1-U900.
236400.
126800. (F
I
3900.
1213100.
-152000.
562700.
1927600.
2.72
8167.2
71.5
104.
15.
4.3
354500.
53900.
53900.
-^2390100. -
2309300.
1
A-66
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UMTS OPTIUN
PPSES: 50U. DOORS
CAPACITY: ,.708
PART
BSO
bAP
ICULATE
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
L 0 A (> IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.500000
.057500
.500000
,110000
13.38
COKE 6
MTLI ION TONS/YFAR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 8b.5%
LbS/HR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 78. OX
LBS/HR
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.003000 IBS/TON COAL
.UOObbU LBS/lUN COAL
EFFICIENCY: 78.o%
BENZENE
LOAD IN;
ALLU'AAhLE:
.oioooo LBS/T.ON._CJUAL_.
.()035uO LBS/TOtv COAL
.«3 LBS/HK
EFFICIENCY: 65.0%
DOST COLLECTED PER DAY
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
bCF*i FLUA: loooo.
AChM FLOw: 11 000.
•
•
AT
AT
100
70
100
.6
. JL
• r
. f-
. F
.6 TONS(OP-Y)
L/£_.EAUiJ_: 8.0
PROCESS uATER FLOA: 60. GPK
COOLING VNAIF.K FLUA: 0. GPM
SU_SHtNjJE^_SJlkI_l).S__OllU 1^6^*.. MG/L... _ ..*bOLlOS.:
A-67
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
HPSF.S: S04. DOOMS COKE 6
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
VENTURI SCRUBBER
MIST ELIMINATOR
FAN AND PRIVE
DUCTWORK
STACK
CANOPY HOUD
WASTEwATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
DAMPERb
_w_AJ>It... w ATER. _R£1URN_S YSIEM
WATER PUMPING SYSTEM
FAN AND DKIVE ELECTRICAL
COKE OVtN DOOR CLtAN ^ MA1NT
.f E£1 _ 0£_ AI.LO LTJM.AU _Q-U£ T_: . JJ?_0^ Q1AMELE&J 2L,__
TOTAL PRESSURE DkUP: 3b. INCHES
^ FANS oi 101. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: 100.X
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8322.
OPbRATlNG HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: 100. DIAMETER: 2.
_NO .__OF JO VENS ________________ 6.0. ,. _ ..... ..... _____
SlZt: : Ib. SQ.FT.
HEIiiHT fe.O METERS
VOLUME. ___ ___ ______ 13«8. CUrtl.C_F_EEJ ____
" " 24. .....
AVb. COKING TIME, MRS. 17.5
BuLK DENSITY 50. L8S/CUI3IC FT.
YIELD .70
TO^S COAL/YEAR 1011S67.
A-68
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS UPTIUN
PPSES: 50a.
DOOKS
CUKE
JUP-AJLII Y_;
8.. W10J_1I)N.-JLONS/_Y1£AK_-
TOTAL CDST
(COST BASIS IS 110.COX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
«** DiRFn TOST ***
EQUIPMENT OK MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRurTtlRAI
SITE KORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
OTRFr.T COST .SUBTOTAL
270300.
51900.
48100.
7a300.
IbOOO.
aHiooT
3000.
b800.
8000.
7800.
108900.
fe3faM)0.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAP
9SOOO
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITF WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
44900.
113400.
24900.
l«bOO.
24500.
27500.
25100.
220700.
590feOO.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
92500.
____ LO_LA L__CD5 T_ai T H _Ji E J R OFJ T
A-69
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 504.
DOORS
UNITS UPTIU_N_
COKE 6
APACJli:
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (i
*** UTILITIES ***
fcATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
7989. MGAL/YR
666276. KKH/YR
o. MLBS/YR
U. GAL/YR
S .1595/1000 GAL
$ .0266/KAH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
$ .41WO/GAL
1300.
17700.
0.
0.
*.** _DRERA11N£ .LABOR .**.*_
DIRECT
SUPERV
IS]
ON
8760.
1752.
HRS/
HKS/
YK
YR
$14.
$17.
34
20
/HR
/HR
1
25700.
30100.
(A|
CB:
& SUPPLIES «*«
DIRECT LABOR 29937. HRS/YR $14.34/HR
SUPFRVISION 5987. HRS/YR $17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID AASTE
DISPOSAL 448. TUN/Yk $ 8.25/TUN
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =20. OX OF A+6+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OP A+B+ C tD+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DOST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWri PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (13.15X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES «. INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANK'UALIZEO COST - RETROFIT
- NEW
429400. (C
103000. ( f ;
209100. (t
112300. (F
0.
3700.
1032300. '
137600.
504600.
167U700.
2.36
7479. 7b
105. H
ICu.
.9
208100.
31700.
31700.
L94fe200,
1901000.
A-70
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 504.
CAPACITY:
DOORS
_UM is.
COKE
P NL
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN:
.500000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .033500 LBS/TON COAL
4.07 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 93.3*
BSO
LOAD IN: .500000 LBS/TON COAL
AL L.Q_W A_b_LjE_j .0.8 LQ-UO—L B S /TQN COAL
EFFICIENCY; 63.8*
9.85 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN: .003000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .oooabb LBS/TON COAL
.Ob LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 83.
BENZENE
L PAD INI
_..QLO.OJ)_0_LBS_/_T.QN_Q.OAL
.002800 LBS/TON COAL
.34' LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 72.ox
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TE-MPtRATURE :
SCFM FLOM 13000. AT
ACFM FLOW: i«ooo. AT
L/G RATIU:
PROCESS WATER FLO«NI
COOLING rtATF.R FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS DDT:
.6 TONS(DRY)
120. F
100. F
70. F
100. F
8.0
104. GHH
0. GPM
818. MG/L XSOLIDS: .1
A-71
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UMTS UPTIQii,
PPSES: 50«. OOOKS CUKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
VENTURl SCRUBBER
MIST ELIMINATOR
_EAN... AN D.._DiU ME
DUCTWORK
STACK
. C_A.N U PY HOOD
WASTEr.ATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
DAMPERS
-VAS.TE ..WAT£R._RE.IURJ^..^^JiM
WATER PUMPING SYSTEM-
FAN ANO OKIVE ELECTRICAL
COKh OVEN POOR CLEAN A MA INT
'• E£T OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: _______ ^50. DTAKFTFR:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP: 65. INCHES
2 FAivS «i) 259. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: 100. 1
ATIiMP HOUR S AT FULI __ b£J. _____ 8J ZJL* ____
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: 100. DIAMETER: 2.
.. _.OF_D.V.
HOOD SIZE: 16. SQ.FT.
OVEN HEIGHT 6.0 METERS
_P V._ENi__y U L U IE 1346. CUBIC FE E_J_
TONS COKE/PUSH Pa.
AVG. CUKING TIME,HRS. 17.5
NO. CYCLES/DAY 82...
HULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CU6IC FT
YIELD .70
JTUNS__C_0_AL_/jr E A R 1 CLU_9fcLLjL
A-72
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 504.
CAPACITY:
DOORS COKE
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q78 COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
*** DIRECT COST **«
EUUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING,
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
_SJ_P U C_LU_WAL
SITE WURK
INSULATION
PKOTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EOUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL_.
340000.
51900.
54600.
82800.
19700.
3^00.
6500.
9000.
8900.
115700.
743700,
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD 106500.
CONTRACTORS FtE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE wuRK
TAXES
SHAKEOUrtN
SPARES
CONT INGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
52300.
123000.
27600.
17000.
29300.
32BOO.
29200.
254300.
672000.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
107300.
TOTAL COST
JLDJ.AL..COJ>I_yO_IH RETROFIT
1523000.
18184UQ.
A-73
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 504
DOORS COKE
-70H MTU ION TniMS/YFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL C-OS1
tlhCTRIClTY
STEAM
f_U£l _
*** UTILITIES ***
J> .1595/1000 GAL
1569274. KKIH/YR
u. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
5> ,0266/KlftiH
5 4.0920/MLBS
S> .41HO/CAL
2 (U).
41»00.
0.
0.
D T k F. C T
**» OPERATING LAROR * * *
8760. HRS/YR
17 52. HKS/YR
J.17.20/HK
12570U.
_J_Q_ 1..Q 0_.
i)!WKCT LABOR
MATfKlALS
SUPPLIES
WATER. T RL.A IMJ
SOulU ^AST
i'lSPuSAL
»** MA1NTEMANCF K SUPPl Th'S * * *
30137. HRS/Yk
4 8.25/TON
OPERATING COST
P * I R.O L L _P VL R_H£A!2_=-2 Q. ^ 0. X..
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF
10ML OPERATING COST
uHrlKATj.Mo COST IN D QL.L AR_S PER TON
PROD U C.I1U
COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
CUST Ab PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
TIME IN hl{
tST
LIFE UF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KMM HFN TDK CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (13.15X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD t 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES * IMS. ( 2.ox OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
_C_o SI_I_B t T R.QFJ I
- NEA
432300. (Ci
103700. (D)
211300. (E)
113500. (F
3900.
lOfeaooo.
508300
1710700
____ 2
.41
.46
.1
7247
94
104, _
15.
2.2
_239iu_q_,
36400.
3b400.
J21122 WO.
19719UO.
A-74
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
OPTION
PPSES: 505.
CAPACITY:
TOPSIDE
COKE
MILLION TO NS/YEA R
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN:
.200000 LB8/TQN COA_L
ALLOWABLE:
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.020000
2.31
.250000
.025000
LBS/TON
LBS/HR
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
COAL
COAL
COAL
EFFICIENCY:
EFFICIENCY:
*o.ox
90. OX
2.69 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.001000 LBS/TON COAL
.000100 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 90.Ot
.01 LBS/HR
BENZENE
LOAD IN:
TQ05QOQ IBS/TDK COAL
ALLOWABLE:
.000500 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 90.OX
.06 LBS/HR
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PRDCFSSt
.2 TONS(DRY)
120. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW:
AT
120. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW:
L/G RATIO:
0.
AT
120. F
.0
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. MG/L
ISDLIDS
.0
A-75
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 505. TOPSIDE
JINJIS QP11QNL
COKE 2
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
TOPSIDE MAINTENANCE • LEVEL 1
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSUKE DROP:
0 FANS 9 0. HP EACH
o. DIAMETER: o.
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: o.»
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIMEfHRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
0. DIAMETER: 0.
60.
6.0 METERS
isae. CUBIC FEET
17.5
ft?.
50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
1011967.
A-76
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 505,
CAPACITY!
TOPSIDE COKE
.TQfl MTU TON TflNS/YFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (S)
•** UTILITIES ***
ttATFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0 MRA^/YR
0. KMH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
$ ,1595/inoo $AL
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
0»
0.
0.
0.
QPFfiATTMC LABOR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
««« MAINTENANCE A SUPPlTFS «««
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
0.
0.
0.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
TON/YR
S14.34/HR
S17. 20/HR
S 6.25/TON
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD ggfl.OX OF A+B+C»D
155600.
31200.
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
77900.
264900.
.37
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
TNSTALI 4TTON TIMF IN MFPKS
2908.53
.0
a.
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (10.00* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
99.
.0
0.
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAj AMMHALT7EP COST— PFTPHFTT ;
0.
0.
364900.
• NEW
264900.
A-77
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 505. TOPSIDE
CAPAETTYt .708 MTI I THM TONS/YFAR
COKE
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN;
-200000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: ,010000
1.16
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY! -JfS.
BSO
LOAD IN: .250000
ALLOWABLE: .012500
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TQN COAL
EFFICIENCY; 95.01
1.44 LBS/MR
BAP
LOAD IN: .001000
ALLOWABLE: .000050
.01
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 95.0%
BENZENE
LOAD IN;
.005000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000250
.03
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 95.ox
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
.3 TONS(DRY)
. -f
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE: 120. F
SCFM FLOW: 0. AT 70. F
ACFM FLOW:
L/C RATTQt
0.
AT
120. F
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT;
0. 6PM
0. 6PM
0. M6/L
XSOLID8:
.0
A-78
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 505. TOPSIDE
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
TOPSIDE MAINTENANCE * LEVEL 2
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS 8 0. HP EACH
o. DIAMETER: o.
o. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: o.x
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: 0.
flTAMFTFRl 0.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIMErHRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
24.
17.5
ft2.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT,
.70
1011967.
A-79
-------
OPERATING COST:
UMTS
OPTION
PPSESt 505.
CAPACTTY2
TOPSIDE
COKE
.708 MILLION TflNS/YfAP
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (S)
«** UTILITIES ***
MiTFP
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0. MQAL/YR
0. KNH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
$ 1595/1000 (?AL
$ ,0266/KHH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
0
0.
0.
0.
OPERATING LABOR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
SI4.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
««« MAINTENANCE A SUPPtTES ***
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
5900. MRS/YR
1180. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17,20/HR
64600. (C)
20300. (D)
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
HATFR TREATMENT
21200. (E)
18900. (F)
0.
SOLID
DISPOSAL
0. TON/YR
S 6.25/TON
0.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROL
OVERHEAD
OF
300800.
52100.
PLANT OVERHEAD sSO.OX OF A*B*Ct-D*E-»-F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COS T IN DOLLARS PER TON
PRODU CTION
150400.
503300.
.71
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF OUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME TN MFEKS
5235.24
.0
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (10.00X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
99.
.0
0.
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES * INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALTZED COST - RFTRDFTT '
• NEW
0.
0.
503300.
A-80
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS
OPTION
PPSES: 505.
CAPACITY;
TOPSIDE
.7QB MILLION TONS/YEAR
COKE
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN:
.200000 IBS/TUN COAL
ALLOWABLE:
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.006000
.69
.250000
.007500
LBS/TON
LBS/HR
LBS/TON
LBS/TON
COAL
COAL
COAL
EFFICIENCY*
EFFICIENCY:
9 7. OX 4
97. OX
.87 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.001000
.000030
.00
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL
LB8/HR
EFFICIENCY: 97.0%
BENZENE
LOAD TN:
.005000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE:
.000150 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 97.OX
.02 LBS/HR
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TFMP OUT or PROCESS:
.3 TONS(DRY)
130. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW:
o.
AT
120. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW:
L/S RATIO:
o.
AT
120. F
-0
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. M6/L
XSOLIDS
A-81
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 505. TOPSIDE
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
TOPSIDE MAINTENANCE - LEVEL 1
WEW LIDS AND CASTINGS
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
o. DIAMETER:
o. INCHES
0.
0 FANS a 0. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY:
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT ftgDUCED HP! 0
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME.HRS.
0.
60.
b.O
17ls
DIAMETER: o.
METERS
CUBIC FEET
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
82.
50. LB5/CUBIC FT.
.70
TONS COAL/YEAR
1011967.
A-82
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 505. TOPSIDE COKE
CAPACITY; .70S HTM TON TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.00* OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q76 COST.)
CATEGORY COST IN DOLLARS
ft»« DIRECT CO&T ***
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
*** INDIRECT COST *«*
FIELD OVERHEAD
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RETROFIT
55200.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4300.
2000.
1800.
0.
900.
0.
1800.
12200.
PSOOO.
900.
61100.
A-83
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES? 505.
OPACITY:
TOPSIDE COKE
.708 MTLtTON TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (S)
MATER
•** UTILITIES *«*
0. MSAL/YR 1
CAL
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. SAL/YR
I ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4160/GAL
0.
0.
0.
OPERATING LABOR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
J17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
««« MAINTENANCE ft SUPPLIES «*«
DIRECT LABOR 600. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION ' 120. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 0. TON/YR S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD S20.0X OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (10.37X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. I 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAl ANNUALIZFD COST - RETROFIT .
- NEW
6600. (C)
2100. (D)
2200. (E)
1900. (F)
0.
0.
170600.
13100.
65300.
289200.
.41
2946.19
274.4
12.
35.
.0
10900.
2100.
2100.
304300T
300800.
A-84
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 506.
CAPACITYI
COMBUSTION STACK • OLD COKE
.708 MILLION TONS/YEAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN;
ALLOWABLE:
,260000 LBS/TON COAL
30.04 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: ao.oz
BSO
LOAD IN: .006000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .0012oo LBS/TON COAL
EFFICIENCY; so.ox
.14 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN: .000060 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: ,000012 LBS/TON COAL
.00 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: eo.ox
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 67000. AT
ACFM FLOft* 115000. AT
L/G RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
1
450
450
70
450
0
0
0
.4 TONS(DRY)
. F
. F
. F
. F
.0
. GPM
. GPM
. MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-85
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 50b. COMBUSTION STACK - OLD
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
HEATING CONTROL AND PATCHING
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS 3 0. HP EACH
0. DIAMETER: 6.
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: o.i
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HPl 0.
STACK HFTSHT! 0.
OTAMFTFBl
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
1306. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TlMEfHRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
24.
17.5
fl?.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT,
.70
1011967.
A-86
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 506.
COMBUSTION STACK • OLD COKE
.708 Mill TON Tf>NS/YFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (J)
*** UTILITIES ***
MATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0. MGAL/YR
0. KlftH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/Yk
S .1595/1000 GAL
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
«*« OPERATING LABOR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
6760.
1752.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HK
125700.
30100.
(A)
•»* MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES «**
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
5900. HRS/YR
1160. HRS/YR
J14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
64600. (C)
20300. (D)
21200. (E)
16900. (F)
0.
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
0. TON/YR
$ 8.25/TON
0.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =20.01 OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =5U.OX OF AtB+C+D+EtF
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
300600.
52100.
150400.
503300.
.71
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN HfFKS
956.44
.0
a.
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (lO.OOt OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
99.
.0
0.
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALTZED COST « RETROFIT
0.
0.
- NEW
503300.
A-87
-------
INFUKMATIUIM:
UNITS UPTIUN
>Eb: bOb. CUMBUSUUN STACK - ULO CUKb 3
CAPACITY: < .Tub
PArtl 1CULAU,
LUAu IN'. 1.300000 LbS/TUN <£OAL
ALjajAArijLJtJ . 13000
15.
BSD
LUAU 1U:
ALL'JWAnLL: .UU.4UUU
LO. OJ>faiLJ_BS/lUjl_C JU AIL
LHb/TU
Lttb/hk
.OOKO.iU LHb/TUi\< CUA-L EFFlCltNCY: bO.OX
UUS1 CULLtCTEu PtH UAY: i.b
.AfcI-!P. uu I. uF__HK.U.£t.bbi
ft'^^tKATUKt: ^bO, F
iC_FM F_Ly»: _1JL?.^.0_0., AT 70, F
AT <4bO. F
. KAliOJ
SS WAI'tK FLfiA: 0. tiPM
iMbAATtKF'LUrt! 0 . G H M
Sjjj_JLuj3_ .LUJ_j_: ^. MbVL x_bUL_I_pS: ,0
A-88
-------
L IKFURMAIIUD:
UNITS OPTION
PPSti>: bUo. CUKitiUST IUIM SlAL'iS - OLD CUKt 3
CUNTKUL SYSItM COM lliUkAI
tSP
FArt AND UKiVE
DUCT AUKK
T_H * N.UU .N t_ HO. P HE «_&_£ O.U V E Y. U « JL
HAN AMU DKIVL ELtCTKlCAL
C*: £3e;. U11AL PLATt AkbA: blOUO. SQ.FT. o) 20% SPAKt CAPACITY
6. 1NCHL6
HAKS o* d^U. H^ tACn SPAKt f-AK CAPACHY: 10U.X
i HIM IK 5 Al HJLL MP: _J>/bO,
UHcKATlivb hUUKb Ali KEOULtU HP: 0.
STALK HtlbHl: y. DlAMfcltK: 0.
rlLIUHT b.O l^.tltKS
VULUMt 13*40. CUbiC FEE1
Curst/HUSH dH.
A V b . Cu^liVb Tlf-i£»HKS. 17.5
NU. CYCLtS/UAY bi.
.bUL^ Ot.N.Sll.Y jjOj,. LoS/CUblC FT.
YltLU .70
K»l 19t>7.
A-89
-------
CAPITAL COS!:
UNITS UP11 UN
P PS t_S :__J>0n. CUMbUST IUtv_SJ_A£K. - OLD CLLts.t •*._...
CAPACITY: .7ob MILLION IONS/YEAH
TUTAL CUS1 ICubT BASIS IS 110.00% I'F JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FUR 41)76 COST
._ LUS1 IN UULLAKS :_ _. .
*** UlKtCT COST ***
JAU1PMLM..UR_K/LLEB1AJ
1 A 1lu* u.
0.
FUUNUAT lUi>iij VUUO.
SIKUCTUkAL 56700.
bll E jmKh _____________________ ..... ____ f>1.00.
tLTI^t CUAllwb 700u.
a UlLlvl > b7u.
tUUlPMtM /rtA 1 tKj AL LAbUk
CUS1 SUbTuTAL 15«3bOO.
*** iKUlwtCT CUST ***
FULL) UVtWHtAU '
_CU'^IKALlUK3 hht __ 1
'
FktIGhl 7i2UO.
_____________ OF.Ir.8 ilfc. ..«y «fi ______________ 3faOOO.
IAXHS bbbOO.
SHAKtDU^N . 6S300.
S H A h' c b _ ___
bObfaOO.
COST SUdfuTAL
Nii INSTALLATION
T u T^_L C J M
IUIAL COST WITH KtTKUFlT 3794500.
A-90
-------
UPEKAlliviG CUST:
PPbES: bUb,
CAPAC1TY:
CAltbUKY
WA1EK
_ELECTKICI1_Y
STEAM
FUF.L
UNITS OPTION
ION STAC* - OLD COKE 3
.700 MILLION TONS/YEAK
UUAN1ITY KAIE
_.._.*_** Ul j L 1 T 1_E S ** *
u. NGAL/YK J. .1595/1000 GAL
0. MuoS/YK
l>. GAL/YK
***
o/bu. hhS/Yk
17bd. HfvS/Yk
***
4.09aO/MLoS
LAbUK ***
& SUPPLIES ***
LAMOK
IS lul"
hAl t.Kl ALS
" SUPPLIES
WATEK TKEATM
_SULIU ..f..AbU
M k S / Y K
hhb/Yn
S14.
>>1 7.CO/HK
4 6.^5/TU^
UHfc^A I J.wi, COS I
PAYROLL UVbKHtAL- = _r.5 0.0% UF A -t-b-t
lU FAL UPt.KAl l;\ib CUSI
UPEKAIJNG UUbT IIM UULLAKS PEK 1 UN PKOUUCHUN
»< A_T ij»i?__{._u_s L.L1^. jiUL.L AH s PEK _iDj\,_uf__uysj_ _L_UL_LEC_LEJJ
UPEKA 'I IIMI", LOST AS PtKCENI OF CAPITAL CUST
ALLAT IUl\i 11ME I iM WtEKS
.MAI.tLL.LJ.Lt_AlF_aiSlth_JJ.v YEARS
PtK lur-i CAPACITY
ANNUAL COST ($)
0.
O.
0.
0.
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
101UOO. 1C)
2420U. (D)
59100. (E)
27VOO. IF)
0.
4900.
43fabOO.
56HOO.
CAPJIAL KhLUvtWY 111. 7bi OF 1UTAL CAPITAL)
AUM 1 N 1_SJ_K_A T ]_UiJ_ U VE KHt_AIJ I 2 ._01_UF _J U.IA_L _C_AJP_ilAL 1 __ __
PKUPLKIY TAXES V l"i\iS."l 'g'.'oi'uF" TOTAL CAPITAL)
1UTAL AfJNUALlZED CuST - REThOFIT
6769UO.
.96
_____ H«3_,«l
17. e
loa.
______ 20 ^
3. a
445700.
_ 15900,
75900.
1 2 7 4 « 0 0 .
__L1
A-91
-------
PPShS: bOb.
CAPAC11Y:
PAKT JCULAlh
LOAD 1 IM :
HAP
t:
LOAD ]N:
A L L U A A w L t. '•
CoLLtcTtU
OF
>T ION STACK - OLD
,7ue MILLION TONS/YEAR
UNITS
COKE
OPTION
4
l.iuuuuu Lbb/TON IOAL
. Oc?bOUO LBb/TON COAL
3.0H LBb/HK
COAL
COAL
. _E F.F 1 C. IE N C Y J 9 b , 0%
.00
L/AY:
t XM AnS I 1 t"iPt K A I lint :
i FLU..: loVuuu. A_I
"ALFM FLUV: "le«uOi/. Al
L/G KAlIo:
PKtJtr-Sb w«TtK (-m.-;:
CuuLl'-Jb AAltK FuO^S
SuSH-tunti; SuL lub ou i :
bO.UX
LUAL EFF !Clti\iCY : 60.OX
l.tt lOIMStDKY;
70._ F
... ^...^.
0. bPM
0. bPM
0. Mb/L
5tSOLlUJ>:
.0
A-92
-------
litNEKAL Iw
UNITS UPTIUiM
PPSbS: bob, _.i;(.'JM>HU!?Jl.UN__Ji>.J_AfK - OLL> CUKt ._. .. .4
CUI'.'IKUL SYSU>. LOUF IbUtfAT 1UK:
FAiM AND UKJVt
_DUbT h
UAMPtko
FAN AIVIL) UHlVt LLhClKILAL
SLA: usu. FUIAL PLAU AKt*: sisuou. SU.FT. oi am SPA^t CAPACITY
.Flth-T _UH .AUDI 1.1 t.n;jAL ..UULl :. _______ ..._2b.U... _.. ._ULl AMELLhl ______ 6. _______ ___ _______ .
lulAL HKtbSuKh u^UH: t>. iTvCMLS
d FAc.'S o* ?40. HP tACH SPAkt FAN CAPACHY: loU.X
jPtKA I ll\/i, huunb A) FULL _HP:_ __ 07.60. ___________ _. _________ __ _________________
IIVL. riiJUKj) Al KcinJLtL' HP: 0.
htlGH'i: 0. DIANtltK: 0.
jyu. oF jjyrA.s ____ ______ ______________ b_0_, _____ _____ ____ ______
rltlbMl 6.U l^tltKS
ii VULH-ilr. 14«b. LUbiC FfctT
17.b
NU. CYCLES/DAY btL.
j*jJLjS _u{L'xsru_ ________________ ___b_y» _ LBS/CUBIC FT.
Y 1 1 L l> .70
LLIAL/YLAK IOIISD?.
A-93
-------
CAPITAL CUbl :
PPbtb: bUb.
CUMHUb I iUi>J SI ACK - OLD
UM la
LUKt
UPT 1UIM
CAPACITY: .Jva MILLJUIM TUNS/YLAH
TUIAL LUbT ICUbl bAblb ]b 110. OIU UP JUNt 1977 DULLAKS FUK 4U7tt CUS<
CATbbUKY CUbJ IN UULLARS ;
*** UlWtCl CDS! ***
UW MAl.twjAL _ J23d7UO.
0.
0.
l A I 1 l.ii\i
PIPING
tLcC1KILAL
>• uui\UA 1 1 U.^b
MrxllCI UKAL
3 1 I f ^ U K K
li\b'I.ILA I JUi\-
PKUl tL I i Vt CUA I i.gL.
bli J L Ul NbS
I/MA I th 1 AL LAB UK
LLl CUS1 SUttTDUL
b b b u o .
S3UO.
b / 0 7
2Ub'4bUU.
*** INU 1 K fc C T Lubl ***
F ItLU uVtknt Alt
IM fc t K J iv G 19310U.
bhl B9700.
7 d b U U .
I Axtb
bnAKti)
b P A k t b
CtHvJl li^bt^C Y
_ 93000.
bbS/00.
INOlhtCf CUb! SUrtlUTAL
l.^ltKtbT UUKii\ib Il\ib'T ALLA 1 HUM
1 U 1. AjL_.k u.>> J
TUTAL CUbT AllH rtt
1813300.
« d 1 b b U U .
A-94
-------
ATlWG CUST:
_PP_b t_S.: bo b,
CAPACITY:
_C.lJLM_ouSJ. IULM STACK...- ULD
UNlTb UPTJUN
_CJLLKJL *!
CATtbUKY
MTtK
ELECTK1CTTY
Sit AM
FUtL
MILLION TUNS/YtAK
IT Y
KAIt
_ ..*_*_*-.U.I 1LJ T It b ***
0. l»ibAL/Yk 4 .1595/1000 bAL
4
4>
0. MLbb/Yk
U. bAL/YK
ANNUAL COST
U.
0.
0.
DlKfcCl
***
O/t>U. hKb/Yk
1 7 D ^ . n K b' / Y K
***
a/1 7
0. U)
30100. lb)
***
SUPPLltS
WAltK IKtAlMfcN'l
D A A S.I.E
UISHubAL
Mkb/YK
1 UPtKA I li\ib CUbl
&UPHLlt'S ***
8>17.?0/nK
101000. 1C)
* tt.
PAYkuLL LiVtKhtAI) =£y.O* UF
P L A \\ T_ 11V F k h t
-------
JIMFUKMAI IUN:
UMTS
PHbbSt _bOb. COlhUbf J UN blACK - OLD CQKb 5.
CAPALITY: ,/U6 MILLION
PAKTlLUtAlt
LOAD Ji*: l.3oouuo LHb/H>iM COAL
ALLOvMAbLfc: .Odftoow Lnb/Tu.v L Q.AJ. iiFH ILIEUC Y; 9b. {}JL_
i.uw LBS/HU
JjSLt __.. _
IIM: .uuboou LBS/IUIM CUAL
ALLUvvAnLt: .()\J±U\jV Lbb/UHvi LOAL tFFlClEWCV: 50. 0%
________________ .^"3 LHb/hK ________________
. .. LUAt) l\\: ..O.VUObO .Lbb/fUi^ .LUAL
ALLU. \AhLt: . oowuiu Lbb/ll)u LUAL
.UU LHb/HK
UUbT CULLtCltAi HtK DAY: 1.6 lUi\SlDKYJ
' uul UF .PKUCtbb.: ...... _._.4bU. f .. _____
e?/b. F-
bCFN FLU
ACFN-, FLU
L/b WATI
P K U C f . b b
CUUL I UG
bUSPf'MUt
t\:
A:
u:
l\Al
AA T
U vS
14t)UOU. Al
e??5UUU. Al
t K F L U A :
c^ F Hi., :
UL 1 u^ uu i :
7o. F
*7b. F
_,u
0. l-Ht-i
0. b^C
U. K'b/L XSULlDb:
.0
A-96
-------
GENERAL IfviFUWMAl JUiv:
urjl is UPT lou
PPbEbi bob. ClWbUbT iOi\i STACK - UU> CUKt b
COlviTkUL SYSTEM CuwK IbUK AT 1 UN :
FAN AND UklVE
PAh Aivij UKlvt tLtl. 1KILAL
A/C: 5.0 TUIAL CLUln AKLA: 1100UU. bW.FT. a) 2UX SHARt CAPACITY
HtH UP AulUllUWAL iJUCl: ^bU. UlAMtltK: 9.
101AL PKtJbUKt iJkoH: 10, J^CHLb
6 KAixib 01 i46. HP fcALM SPAKt FAI\! CAPACITY: bO.%
UPt^Ai iiM(, HunKb A i I-I.ILL HP: &7bo.
OKtKAllmti HOUrv'b A I KtUuLtU hP : 0.
SlACKhtlbHl: 0. UlAMtThK: 0.
(MO. Uh UVtUb hO.
OVKK ntlliMl _. .. . 6,0 tvElEKti
uvt.M vuLtiHfc Ijiah. LublC f-ttl
limb Co^c/l-'t)bn t^t*.
AVi5. CUMiMb llwtfhrfb. ____ 17. b
»MU. CYCLhb/IJAY bd.
ciUL^ UtiiSltY bU. LBS/CUblC Fl.
YIELD ....... _. . ___________________________ ,70 _______________________ ... _______
Toub LUAL/YtAK 1011Sb7,
A-97
-------
CAPITAL CUS1:
PPStib: !2 Ob.
CUMbOSTlON STACK - OLU
UMTS
COKL
OPTION
CAPACITY:
.706 MILLION TONS/YEAK
TOTAL COST ICObl bAblb IS 110.00* OF JONE 1977 DOLLARS FOR <»U7tt COST
CATEbUKY COST IiM DULLAhS (
*** DIRECT COST***
A I I U N
PIPING
Ib900.
IbuO.
FUUNUATJUf-jS
STKllClUKAL
A I 10 IV
P.
-------
OPERATING COS 1 :
PPSES: bOb.
CAPACITY:
CATEbUkY
WATEk
ELECTRICITY
STEAK,
FUEL
COMBUSTIUN STACK -
.7 Ob MILLION
ULiANI ] 1 Y
*** UTI
0. MGAL/Y
39ti5t! . " 1 bO/GAL
ANNUAL COST U)
f ,
6.
lOfalOO.
0.
0.
*** UPEkATING LABOR ***
UlKtC I
SUPEK VISION
UlKt.CT LAbUk
SuPEkVISION
MATEKJALS
SOPPLItS
rtATtk TKEA1MENT
SOLID K/ASIE
DISPOSAL
DIKECT OPEKAlIiviG
PAYKOLL OVERHEAD
PLANT OVEkHEAU =
TOTAL OPERATING
liPERATIuG COST 1
bb4. HKS/YK SI/.^O/HH
*** MAINTENANCE (4 SUPPLIES ***
bo!7. hkS/Yk M4.3«/rlk
13b3. HkS/Yk 417.20/Hk
b«b. TUN/Yk * 6.25/TON
COST
=dO.OX OF A+B+C+D
bO. OX OF A + b + C + D + E + F
COST
N DULLAKS PEk TUK PkODOCUON
U1900.
10000.
97bOO.
23500.
56bOO.
0.
5300.
37bbOO.
3<4bOO.
543700.
•
U)
(b)
(U
ID)
(E)
(FJ
77
UPtK_AT lj\)t CUS1 IN OULLA^kS_ PEk TON OF _QUST COLLECTED
"OPEkATI^b CuS'i AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST"
l.MSTALLAT AON TIME IN WEEKS
.ES U MAHiU LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEAkS _______________
K^'H PEk TUN CAPACITY
CAP11AL KECUVEkY 111.75X OF TuTAL CAPITAL)
lb.5
AI-)Ml!llsJ.k_AI.lUi\i UVEKHtLAD I 2.0% yF_UITAL_C AP_I T AL)
>KUPEklY TAXES fc INS. ( 2.0X OF TOTAL CAPIIAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZEO CuST - KETKOF1T
5.b
3tt7SOO.
bblOO,
bblOO.
A-99
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 507. COKE HANDLING
COKE
PARUCULATE
LOAD IN!
1.000000 LBS/TQN COAL
ALLOWABLE: ,109000 LBS/TON COAL
53.oa LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS!
a.9 TONS(DRr)
70. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
$CFM
70. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW:
90000.
AT
_R AJJ 0_s
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SQLTDS OUT!
70. F
.0
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. MK/I
ISDl TnS
A-100
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 507. COKE HANDLING
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
BAGHOUSE
FAN AND DRIVE
OUCTHflRK
CANOPY HOOD
CONVEYOR TRANS PT. HOOD
FAN AND DRIVE ELECTRICAL
A/C: 6.0 TOTAL CLOTH AREA: 16000. SQ.FT. a 20X SPARE CAPACITY
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 200. DIAMETER: 5.
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP: 8_.__1NCLHES
2 FANS d 189. HP EACH
SPARE FAN CAPACITY? 100.X
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP:
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP!
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
_HOP_D__SJ1E_:
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,MRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK _P_ENS_IJLY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
0,,
60.
196. SQ.FT.
DIAMETER: o.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
2JL.
17.5
62.
-5Oj, LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
4047668.
A-101
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS
OPTION
PPSES: 507.
rAPATITY;
COKE HANDLING COKE
MII j TON TQNS/YFAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q76 COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
DIRECT COST ««»
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAI
396800.
4000.
AGO.
12600.
12300.
A6QQO.
1800.
0.
18600.
9000.
99900.
607000.
*** INDIRECT
FIELD OVERHEAD
COST ***
71500.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FRFI6HT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTA1
51600.
63800.
20100.
7600.
24200.
22700.
20300.
219100.
501100,
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
60000,
TOTAL COST
TflTAl COST MTTH RETROFIT
1166100,
A-102
-------
OPERATING COST:
FPSES: 507
CAPACITY!
COKE HANDLING
UNITS OPTION
COKE 2
MTLt TON TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (S)
*** UTILITIES ***
HATFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0, MGAt /VR
1375802. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
S ,1*595/1000 CAI
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
OT
36600.
0.
0.
»«* OPERATING LABOR «*«
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
2920. HRS/YR
584. HRS/YK
*14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
41900. (A)
10000. (B)
«** MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES «««
DIRECT LABOR 4100. HRS/YR J14.34/HR
SUPERVISION ' 820. HRS/YR J17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 1803. TON/Yk S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD «20.0X OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD eSO.OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL).
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST • RETROFIT
- NEW
58800. (C)
14100. (D)
28700. (£)
16300. (F)
0.
14900.
221300.
25000.
84900.
331200.
.12
183.66
25.5
S3.
20.
.5
152600.
26000.
26000.
SlSflOO.
515200.
A-103
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 508. COAL PREHEATER
UNITS OPTION
COKE 2
CAPACITY!
MILLION TDNS/Y€Afi
PARTICULATE
L_0 AJ?_1N1 7_j.P_50 0 0_0
ALLOWABLE: .352506
60.01
_Lfi.3/lQN_CJlAL_
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY*
BSD
LOAD IN: 1.050000
ALLOWABLE:
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL
EFFICIENCY; 60. OX
71.50
BAP
LOAD IN: .000390
ALLOWABLE: .0001*6
.03
BENZENE
LOAD IN: .ouooo
ALLOWABLE: .007000
1.19
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 17000. AT
ACFM FLOW: 80000. AT
L/e RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
LBS/HR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 60. OX
LBS/HR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 50. OX
LBS/HR
13.0 TONS(DRY)
180. F
180. F
70. F
180. F
6.5
111. 9PM
0. GPM
15206. MG/L XSOLIDS: 1.5
A-104
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS
OPTION
PPSES: 506. COAL PREHEATER
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
VENTURI SCRUBBER
MIST ELIMINATOR
FAN ANH DRIVE
DUCTWORK
MASTEWATER
DAMPERS
RECYCLE SYSTEM
WASTE MATER RETURN SYSTEM
MATER PUMPING SYSTEM
PAN AND ftRTVF
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
DIAMETER; 3.
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
a FANS 3 94. HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT fULL
18. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: 100.1
HP;
OPERATING HOURS
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
AT
REDUCED
HP:
0
0
60
*
•
*
DI
AMETER
:
0
.
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
AVG. COKING TIMErHKS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
12.5
115.
SO. LBS/CUBIC FT
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
.70
1416755.
A-105
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION.
PPSES: 508.
TAPArTTY!
COAL PREHEATER COKE
-90? Mill TOM TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
COST ***
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DTRFCT CflST SUBTOTAl
280600.
51600.
56700.
64800.
18500.
J>
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES:506,
CAPACITY;
COAL PREHEATER
.UN. J TS OPTION
COKE 2
.99? MILLION TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
-ANNUAL COST ($)
WATER
*** UTILITIES ***
11035T MGAL/YR
.1595/1000 GAL
1600.
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
548080. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
$ .0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
I .4180/GAL
14600.
0.
0.
*«« OPERATING LABOR «»«
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
6760. MRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
J14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
* * * MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES ««*
DIRECT LABOR 6567. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 1713. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 9489. TON/YR S 8,25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =20.01 OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD sgO.OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TTMF IN WFFKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (13.15X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD I 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES * INS. { 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
~ •••«- TOTAL ANNUALI2ED COST • OFTftnFlT
- NEW
122900. (C)
29500. (D)
104800. (E)
40200. (F)
0.
78300.
547900.
61600.
226600.
636100.
.64
176.23
56.7
104.
15.
.6
193800.
29500.
29500.
1088900.
1066500.
A-107
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
J1NJJL5 QPJLIDN-
PPSES: 508.
CAPACITY;
COAL PREHEATER COKE
MJLi TON TONS/YEAR
PARTICULATE
LOAJ)_J N_: 7.050000 LBS/TQN COAL
ALLOWABLE: .352500 LBS/TON COAL
60.01 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY* *5.0X
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
1.050000 LBS/TON COAL
.577500 LBS/TON COAL
EFFICIENCY; 05.0%
98.31 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000390 LBS/TON COAL
a LbS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 45.OX
BENZENE
LOAD IN;
.010000 LBS/TQN COAL
ALLOWABLE: .007700 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: AS. ox
1.31 LBS/HR
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE;
SCFM FLOW: nooo. AT
ACFM FLOw: 20000. AT
L/G RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
13,0 TONS(DRY)
160. F
180. F
70. F
180. F
.0
0. GPM
0. 6PM
0. MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-108
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UMTS OPTION
PPSES: 508. COAL PREHEATER
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
ESP r
FAN AND DRIVE
OUST HANDLING HOPPER & CONVEYORS
DAMPERS
FAN AND flftfVE ELffCTRJCAl
sf.tt 324.
TOTAL PLATE AREAt
8000. SQ.FT. 3 ?QX SPARE CAPACITY
FEET OF ADDIUOMAL DUCT
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
2 FAN6 a) 21. HP EACH
loo. DIAMETER: 3.
4. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: IOQ.X
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIMErHKS.
NO- CYCJ ES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
• Jl ^ 3 3
• Q jC C Q
HP: 0.
0.
60,
6.
1346.
24.
12.
50.
1416755.
OTAMETFR: 0.
0 METERS
CUBIC FEET
5
LBS/CUBIC FT.
70
A-109
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 508. COAL PREHEATER
COKE
CAPACITY;
.992 MfLLTON TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q76 COST
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
*** DTRFfT COST »••
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
326700.
0.
0.
26600.
4400.
17200.
2100.
16000.
5000.
2400.
143700.
566100.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
94300.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
59200.
75000.
18900.
12500.
22100.
30300.
29700.
200900.
543900-
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
89200.
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST XITH RETEOFTT
1198200.
1111600.
A-110
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS
OPTION
PPSESS 508,
E4PACTTYI
COAL PREHEATER
MTI I TON
COKE
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (J)
*** UTILITIES ***
ttATfR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0. MGAL/Y&
363639. KWH/YR
o. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
j ,}<595/10QQ GAL
4 ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S -41BO/GAL
0.
9700.
0.
0.
ftPFPATTMC I AflflP
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
S14.3a/HR
S17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
«*« MAINTgNANCE ft SUPPLTFS *««
DIRECT LABOR 2517. HRS/YR $U.3a/MR
SUPERVISION 503. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
rtATFR TRFATMFNT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 47«a. TON/YR $ 6.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD S20.0X OF A*B*C*D
PLANT OVERHEAD sSO.OX OF A+B*C*D*E*F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WFEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75% OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALT7F.D COST * RETROFIT
- NEW
36100. (C)
6700. (D)
19700. (E)
9700. (F)
0.
39100.
278800.
40100.
115000.
433900.
.44
91.46
33.1
ifla.
20.
.4
154100.
26200.
26200.
640400.
622600.
A-lll
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UMTS
OPTION
PPSES: 508.
CIPAETTYS
COAL PREHEATER
MTI 1 THM
COKE
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN:
7.050000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE:
•141000 LBS/TON COAL
24.00 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY!
BSO
LOAD IN: 1.050000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .020000 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY;
71.50 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000390 LBS/TON COAL
.000156 LBS/TON COAL
.03 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: bo.oz
BENZENE
LOAD IN;
.OiaOQO IBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE:
.007000 LBS/TON COAL
1.19 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: so.ox
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS;
13.4 TONS(DRY)
180
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFMJFJLOW:
17000.
AT
160. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW: 20000. AT 180. F
L/C RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW;
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
111. 6PM
0. 6PM
15206. MG/L
ISOLIDS:
1.5
A-112
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 508. COAL PREHEATER
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
~~VENTURI SCRUBBER
*IST ELIMINATOR
FAN AND DftTVF
DUCTWORK
WASTEWATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
DAMPERS
WASTE WATER RETURN SYSTEM
WATER PUMPING SYSTEM
FAN AND DRIVE ELECTRICAL
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
100.
DIAMETER!
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
2 FANS 3 173. HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL
HP:
33. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY:
8322.
100. X
OPERAT
STACK
NO. OF
ING HOURS
HEIGHT:
OVENS
AT
REDUCED
HP:
0.
0.
60.,.
D
I
AMETER:
o.
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
12.5
115.
50.
LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
1416755.
A-113
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 508.
CAPACTTYl
COAL PREHEATER COKE
.992 MTLLTQN TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OCX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST.
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
««« DIRECT COST
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
301700.
51600.
56700.
84800.
19500.
241 00 T
3400.
6600.
7300.
9300.
100400.
670400.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
97900.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
47600.
113500.
18900.
17800.
26300.
33200.
30200.
224800. '
610200.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
104600.
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST MITH RETROFIT
1385200.
A-114
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 508. COAL PREHEATER COKE 4
CAPApITYl .092 MILLION TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY QUANTITY RATE
*** UTILITIES *** 1
WATER 11055. MGAt/YR * .1595/}OQ0 GA(
ELECTRICITY 998794. KWH/YR S .0266/KWH
STEAM 0. MLBS/YR S 4.0920/MLBS
FUEL 0T GAL/YR & .4180/GAL
ANNUAL COST ($)
=1r
1800,
26600.
0.
0.
*** DPf RATING I ARQR ***
DIRECT 8760. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 1752. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
*** MAINTENANCE ft SUPPLIES ***
DIRECT LABOR 8767. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 1753. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE.
DISPOSAL 9788. TON/YR » 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD *20.0Z OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (13.15X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( a. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
* TflTAl ANNIIALTZFO COST • UFTROFIT
- NEW
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
125700. (C)
30200. (D)
107000. (E)
41000. (F)
0.
80800.
568900.
229900.
861100.
.87
175.94
56.6
15.
1.0
199900.
30400.
30400.
1098600.
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION!
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 508. COAL PREHEATER
CAPACITY!
COKE
THNS/YFAR
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN:
7.050000 LBS/TQN COAL
ALLOWABLE:
.070500 LBS/TON COAL
12.00 LBS/HR
IFFICIENCYJ
. OX
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
1.050000 LBS/TON COAL
.525000 LBS/TON COAL
89.36 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: so.ot
RAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000390 LBS/TON COAL
.000195 LBS/TON COAL
.03 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: so.ox
BENZENE
LOAD IN:
.014000 IBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .007000 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: so. ox
1.19 LBS/HR
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TFMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 17000. AT
ACFM FLOW: 20000. AT
L/R RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
13.5 TONS(ORY)
180t F
160. F
70. F
ISO, F
.0
0. 6PM
0. GPM
0. MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-116
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 508. COAL PREHEATER
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
.£SP
f AN AND DRIVE
DUCTWORK
OUST HANDLING HOPPER t CONVEYORS
DAMPERS
A-NO DRIVE ELECTRICAL
SCAt 53B.
FEET OF ADflrflONAL OUCT
PRESSURE DROP:
FANS 9 21. HP EACH
TQTAJ- PLATE ARFAt
_a
Too. DIAMETER: 3.
4. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY; IOQ.X
SPARE CAPACITY
OPERATING HOURS AT
OPERATING HOURS AT
STACK HEIGHT:
FULL HP: 8322.
REDUCED HP: 0.
DIAMETER:
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
1348. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
MO. CYCLES/DAY
12.5
115.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
U16755.
A-117
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 506.
CAPACITY:
COAL PREHEATER COKE
MILt TON TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.001 OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q76 COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
««« niREfT rnST «**
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRFCT COST SUBTOTAL
397400.
0.
0.
31900.
4600.
«9«00.
8600.
21100.
5500.
3100.
177500.
6&6500.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
115400.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
JNDTRFCT COST SllpTDTA(
74000.
67700.
2*000 T
16300.
26200.
36700.
36100.
241300.
«56700.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
112500.
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RETROFIT
1455700.
A-118
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: SOB,
CAPACITYt
COAL PREHEATER COKE
.992 MILLION TONS/TEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
*** UTILITIES ***
HATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0T MGAL/VR
471304. KKH/YR
o. MLBS/YR
0. 6AL/YR
A tl*i9$/1000 GAl
$ ,0266/KHH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
0.
12500.
0.
0.
««« OPERATING LABOR «««
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
ft SUPPLIES «««
DIRECT LABOR 2517. HRS/YR 114.34/HR
SUPERVISION 503. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
SOLID HASTE
DISPOSAL 4944. TON/YR S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD S20.0X OF A+B«C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A + B+OD+E + F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF OUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
TNSTALLATinN TTMF TN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES S INS. ( 2, OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALI2EO COST •- RETROFIT
- NEW
36100. (C)
8700. (D)
19700. (E)
9700. (F)
0.
40800.
283300,
40100.
115000.
438400.
.44
88.67
27.5
ioa.
20.
.5
187300.
31900.
31900.
489500.
667600.
A-119
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 509.
COAL PREPARATION COKE
MILLION TONS/YEAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAD INt
.500000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .015000 LBS/TON COAL
7.30 IBS/MR
EFFICIENCY:
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT QF PRQCESSj
. 7 TONS(DRY)
70. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
SCFM FLO*; 70000.
70. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW. 70000. AT 70. F
L/G RATIO: .0
PROCESS MATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
0. 6PM
0. 6PM
0. M6/L
XSQLTDS:
.0
A-120
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS
OPTION
PPSES: 509. COAL PREPARATION
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
BAGHOUSE
FAN AND DRIVE
CONVEYOR TRANS PT. HOOD
DAMPERS
FAN AND DRIVE ELECTRICAL
A/C:
6.0
THTAL CLHTH APEA1
laooo. SQ.FT. a got SPAPE CAPACITY
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
2 FANS 8 147. HP EACH
300. DIAMETER: 5.
8. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: ioo.x
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8322.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HFTGHTt ; 0.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AV6. COKING TIME, MRS.
NO, CYCLES/DAY
60.
6.0
1348.
24.
17.5
ft?.
METERS
CUBIC FEET
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
SO. LBS/CUBIC
.70
4047666.
FT
A-121
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSESt 509.
CAPACITY:
COAL PREPARATION COKE
MILtTOM TOMS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOZ OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q7d COST.)
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
ftTRPCT
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
252300.
4000.
500.
9100.
4500.
2aioor
500.
0.
16100.
0.
73600.
384700-
*** INDIRECT
FIELD OVERHEAD
COST ***
45900.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE rtORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOMN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
27300.
35100.
23200.
1000.
15300.
7400.
7500.
160000.
322700.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
26300.
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST MITH
733700.
614700.-
A-122
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS
OPTION
PPSES: 509,
CAPACITY!
COAL PREPARATION
COKE
THMS/YFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
MATFR
*** UTILITIES ***
0. MRAI /VR S -1S95/1HOD
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
1016568. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
S .0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
27100.
0.
0.
1 ABC1R
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
500.
100.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
f 14.34/HR
417.20/HR
7200.
1700.
(A)
(B)
«** MATNTFNANCF
SUPPLIES ***
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
fcfATFR TREATMENT
3000. HRS/YR
600. HkS/YR
S14.34/HR
J17.20/HR
43000. (C)
10300. (D)
17600. (E)
11400. (F)
0.
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
982. TON/YR
S 8.25/TON
8100.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYRQLt OVERHEAD s20TOX QF A+B + C'fD
126400.
12400.
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.OX OF A + B + OO + E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.0% OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL).
TOTAL 1NNUALIZED COST • RETROFIT
45600.
184400.
.07
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED 187.86
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST 22.6
-LMSTA1 LA1ION TIMF TN HFFKS 52^
20.
.4
957 OJL.
16300.
16300.
119700,
- NEW
300000.
A-123
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 510.
CAPACITY;
COAL STORAGE YARD COKE
2.830 MTLI TON TONS/YEAR
PARTICULATE
LOAD INI
LBS/TON CO
ALLOWABLE! ,060000 LBS/TON COAL
27.73 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
.5 TONS(DRY)
70. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM fi OKI:
JLI_
70. F
70. f
ACFM FLOW:
L/G RATIO:
0.
AT
70. F
.0
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING MATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
170. GPM
0. GPM
0 MK/I
ism rnst
A-124
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 510. COAL STORAGE YARD
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
TRANSFER POINT SPRAY
SPRAY TRUCK
HATER PUMPTNfi 8YSTFM
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
DIAMETER; o.
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS d 0. HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP;
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY:
8760..
o.x
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP:
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
0.
0.
60.
DIAMETER:
0.
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
24.
AVG. COKING TIME,MRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
17.5
82.
50. LB8/CUBIC FT.
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
.70
4047666.
A-125
-------
CAPITAL COST:
PPSES:slbT
CAPACITY:
UNITS OPTION
COAL STORAGE YARD COKE
3.834 MILLION TOMS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.00% OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4076 COST.)
-CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
««* DIRECT COST **«
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
90100.
3800.
22900.
15600.
100.
«aoo.
500.
19600.
200.
0.
4000.
IfelflOO.
«** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
11600.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
7600.
31600.
1000.
200.
6300.
600.
1100.
36700.
46900.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
7100.
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST HTTH RETROFIT
265400.
297200.
A-12 6
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 510.
CAPACITY:
CATEGORY
COAL STORAGE YARD
?T§ia MII t f ON TO
QUANTITY
UNITS OPTION
COKE 2
RATE . ANNUAL COST (S)
*** UTILITIES ***
*i*TFP
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
A9A70. MGAL'YB
32639. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. 6AL/YR
? . H9S/1<*00 SAL
£ ,0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
AOOfl.
900.
0.
0.
nPFBATTMK 1 ARflB
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
1800. HRS/YR
360. HRS/YK
SU.3a/HR
S17.20/HR
25800. (A)
6200. (B)
«»« MAINTENANCE ft StlPPl TF9
DIRECT LABOR . 800. HRS/YR $U.3a/HR
SUPERVISION 160. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATFR TRFATMFNT
SOLID HASTE
DISPOSAL 0. TON/YR S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLI OVFRHFAD C20.0X QF A+B+CfD
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALl ATION TIMF TN WFFKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75* OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( 2. 01 OF TOTAL CAPITAL}
;
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 510.
COAL STORAGE YARD
MTI i TOM
UNITS OPTION
COKE 3
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN;
.COAL
ALLOWABLE: .037500 LBS/TON COAL
17.33 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROC.ES_S?
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
arFM FI nwt o. A
.6 TONS(DRY)
70. F
70. F
70. f
ACFM FLOrtt
L/G RATIO:
0.
AT
70. F
.0
PROCESS MATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW;
sni Tns
254. 6PM
0. GPM
0. MG/L
iSQLins:
A-128
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 510. COAL STORAGE YARD
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
COAL RECEIVING STATION SPRAYS
TRANSFER POINT SPRAY
SPRAY TRUCK
HATER PUMPING SYSTEM
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS a 0. HP
o. DIAMETER:
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY!
OPERAT
OPERAT
STACK
ING HOURS
ING HOURS
HEIGHT:
AT
AT
FULL HP
REDUCED
*
HP:
6760.
0.
0.
PI
AMETER:
0.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,MRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
24.
17.5
62.
50. L8S/CUBIC
.70
4047668.
FT.
A-129
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 510. COAL STORAGE YARD COKE 3
CAPACITY! 2 ,,814 MILLION TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110.00*
CATEGORY
«** DIRECT COST ***
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE HOkK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
ftTRFCT COST SUBTOTAL
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FRFTBHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RPTROFTT
OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q78 COST.
COST IN DOLLARS •
153300.
3800.
50100.
22900.
2600.
4400.
900.
26700.
400.
5500.
10400.
PfllOOO,
24100.
14800.
42700.
i«00.
300.
9000.
1600.
1600.
62200.
| 58200.
13500.
452700.
5?S100-
A-130
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 510
CAPACITY!
COAL STORAGE YARD COKE
3.834 MILLION TONS/VFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (S)
*** UTILITIES ***
7A6Q5. M6AL/YR
1595/1000 CAL
««« OPERATING LABOR ««*
««« MAINTENANCE ft SUPPLIES ***
11900.
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
46959. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/VR
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4160/GAL
1300.
0.
0.
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
1600.
360.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
25600.
(A)
DIRECT LABOR 1200. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 240. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 0. TON/YR S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =20. OX OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL).
f v TOTAL ANNUAL I7EO COST • RETROFIT
- NEW
17200. (C)
4100. (D)
9300. (E)
4900. (F)
0.
0.
80700.
10700.
33600.
125200.
.04
549.66
23.6
52.
20.
.0
61700.
10500.
10500.
907900.
196600.
A-131
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 510.
CAPACITYl
COAL STORAGE YARD . COKE
MTLLION TDNS/YFAR
PARTICULATE
: __ , 150 OPJLJ.B S / 1 QN _CJDAL
ALLOWABLE; ,015000 LBS/TON COAL
6.93 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY* *O.OI
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
.7 TONS(DRY)
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS; T_O, _F_
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE: TO. F
8CFM FLO*:
0.
_AT
70. F
ACFM FLOW:
L/G RATIO:
0.
AT
70. F
.0
PROCESS MATER FLOW: 680. GPM
COOLING MATER FLU*: 0. GPM
SUSPENDED SOLIDS.._OJJLT : 0. M6/L
tSOLTOS:
A-132
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 510. COAL STORAGE YARD
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
COAL RECEIVING STATION SPRAYS
SPRAY TRUCK
COAL PTLF PERIMETER SPRAY
MATER PUMPING SYSTEM
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS a 0. HP FACH
0.
0. DIAMETER:
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPAfTTYl Q.t
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT; 0.
DIAMETER; o.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
CUBIC FFET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME, MRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
24.
17.5
62.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAt /YEAR
50. IBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
A-133
-------
CAPITAL COST:
PPSES: 510.
CAPACITY;
COAL STORAGE YARD COKE
g.834 MILLION TONS/YEAR
_U_N_1!S QPI1QN_
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4076 COST,
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
««» DIRECT COST «*«
EQUIPMENT OK MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE fcORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
1240100.
3600.
582100.
78100.
20400.
4400.
15300.
347000.
700.
96400.
72300.
2460600.
*** INDIRECT COST ***
JElELjp_QyE.RHEAP_
369900.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
239600.
235600.
13800.
68100.
63200.
17500.
12700.
687500.
1728100.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
306700,
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RETROFIT
4497400,
4974100.
A-134
-------
OPERATING COST:
UMTS OPTION
PPSES: 510.
CAPACITY!
COAL STORAGE YARD COKE
?.a-*a MTLI TDM TQN$/YFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
*** UTILITIES ***
JtfATFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
200046. MGAL/YR
130926. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
S 1595/1000 CA1
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
11900.
3500.
0.
0.
PPFRATINIS LABOR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
40590. HRS/YR
8116. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
J17.20/HR
562200. (A)
139700. (B)
««« MAINTENANCE > SUPPLIES «««
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
*ATFR TRFATMFNT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
DIRECT OPERATING
6376.
1276.
0.
COST
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
TON/YR
»1
SI
$
4.34/HR
7.20/HR
8.25/TON
91500.
21900.
46500.
24700.
0.
0.
941900.
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
PAYROLL OVERHEAD &20.0I OF A+B+C+D
167100.
PLANT OVERHEAD sSO.OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL
INSTALLATION TlMF TN MEFKS
DUST
COST
COLLECTED
453300.
1562300.
.55
5717.87
31.4
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75X
IN YEARS
OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. (
TfiTAl ANNUALI7FD COST •
( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
RFTROFTT
20.
.0
584300.
99500.
99500.
2145600.
- NEW
2270400.
A-135
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 511.
CAPACITY:
PIPELINE CHARGING COKE
99? MLIQN TQN$/YPAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN;
.JLL6_0_0.0 IBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE:
,000160 LBS/TON COAL
.03 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY:
BSO
LOAD IN: .019000 LBS/TON COAL
: .1)00190 LBS/TQN COAL
EFFICIENCY; 99.ox.
.03 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000035 LBS/TON COAL
.000000 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 99.OZ
.00 LBS/HR
BENZENE
LOAD IN;
.008000 IBS/TQN COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000060 LBS/TON COAL
.01 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 99.01
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
.0 TONS(ORY)
IflQ- F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW;
o.
AT
160. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW:
L/S RATIO;
0.
AT
160. F
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW;
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT;
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. MG/L
XSOLIDS
.0
A-136
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
-UNITS OPTION.
PPSES: 511. PIPELINE CHARGING
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
TOPSIDE AND PIPELINE MAINT.
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS 9 0. HP EACH
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED
STACK HEIGHT:
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME, MRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
o. DIAMETER: o.
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: o.x
: 8760.
HP: 0.
Or HTAMFTFRl 0,
60.
6.0 METERS
13«6. CUBIC FEET
24.
ia.5
115.
50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
1416755.
A-137
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 511.
CAPACITY!
PIPELINE CHARGING COKE
MTU TON TnMS/YFAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (S)
*** UTILITIES ***
MATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
o M$AL/YR
0. KftH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0T GAL/YR
$ 15^*»/1QOQ GAL
S .0266/K*H
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
0.
0.
0.
0.
*** OPERATING 1 IRDP
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
6760.
1752.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700.
30100.
(A)
(B)
*** MAINTENANCE A SUPPLIES ««*
DIRECT LABOR 5900. HRS/YR S14.J4/HR
SUPERVISION 1160. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 0. TON/YR S 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD 820. OX OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD zSO.OZ OF A+B + OD+E + F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (10.00X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.01 OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIJED COST • RETROFIT
- NEW
84600
20300
42300
22100
0
0
325100
52100
162600
539800
48107
a
99
0.
0.
0.
539800,
539800.
. (C)
. (D)
. (E)
. (F)
.
•
.
^54
.55
.0
!o
A-138
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION*.
PPSESS 512.
CAPACITY I
REDLER CHARGING
COKE
OPTION
2
TQNS/YFAR
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN;
.010000 LBS/ID_N._£ML
ALLOWABLE:
.000100 LBS/TON COAL
.02 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 99.ox
BSO
LOAD IN: .006000 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .OOOObO LBS/TQN COAL EFFICIENCY: 99.OX
.01 LBS/HR
LOAD IN: .000011 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000000 LBS/TON COAL
.00 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 99.0%
BENZENE
LOAD TN:
.000900 I BS/TOM COAI
ALLOWABLE:
.000049 LBS/TON COAL
.01 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 99.ox
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCFSS!
.0 TONS(ORY)
ISO. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW;
0. AT
180. F
70. F
ACFM FLOW:
RATIO;
o.
AT
160. F
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:_
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. MG/L
XSOLIDS!
A-139
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 512. REOLER CHARGING
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
REOLER SYSTEM MAINT.
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS SI 0. HP EACH
0. DIAMETER: 0.
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY; o.x
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 6760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: o.
PTAMETEfl: 0-
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
1348. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TlMEtHRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
24.
12.5
115.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT,
.70
1416755.
A-140
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 512.
CAPACITY;
REDLER CHARGING
COKE
MTLL TDN TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (I)
*** UTILITIES ***
MATFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0 , MKAL / YR
0. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
ft »l*595/fPOQ ?AL
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
OT
0.
0.
0.
OPFRATINE \ ABflR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
6760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
»17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
*** MAINTFNAKCK & SUPPtTFS
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
2000. HRS/YR
400. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
26700. (C)
6900. (D)
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
14300. (E)
7500. (F)
0.
SOLID MASTE
DISPOSAL
0. TON/YR
S 6.25/TON
0.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD C20.0X OF A+B«C+D
213200.
36300.
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.OX OF A+B+C«D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
106600.
356100.
.36
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIMF IN WEEKS
51062.60
.0
a.
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
K«H PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (10.QQX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
99.
.0
0.
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.01 OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ANNUALIZED COST • RETROFIT
0.
0.
- NEW
356100.
A-141
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 513.
CiPACTTYt
HOT LARRY CAR CHARGING COKE
MTLI Tf>M TONS/YEAR
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN;
.017000 J.BS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE:
.000170 LBS/TON COAL
.03 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 99.
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.019000 LBS/TON COAL
.000190 LBS/TQN COAL
EFFICIENCY: 99.01
.03 LBS/HR
SAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000035 LBS/TON COAL
.000000 LBS/TON COAL
.00 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY! 99.OX
BENZENE
LOAD TN;
.008000 LflS/TQN CQAt
ALLOWABLE: .000060 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 99. OX
.01 LBS/HR
OUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 0. AT
ACFM FLOW: 0. AT
L/C RATTO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
180
160
70
160
0
0
0
.0 TONSCDRY)
. F
. F
. F
. GPM
. GPM
. MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-142
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 513. HOT LARRY CAR CHARGING
UNITS OPTION
COKE 2
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
HOT LARRY CAR -TOPSIDE
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS S 0. HP EACH
o. DIAMETER: o.
o. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: o.*
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: S760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIfiHT; 0.
PTAMFTFR! 0.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,MRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
24.
12.5
115.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
.70
1016755.
A-143
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES1 513.
CAPACITY;
HOT LARRY CAR CHARGING COKE
MILLION TOMS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
**« UTILITIES ***
MTFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
o, MpiL'YP
0. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
Or GAL/YR
1 .159V1QPO ff*L
$ ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4160/6AL
0.
0.
0.
0.
1ABQR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
J14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
««• MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES «««
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TRFATMFNT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
DIRECT OPERATING
0.
0.
0.
COST
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
TON/YR
SI
$1
S
4.34/HR
7.20/HR
8.25/TON
0.
0.
0.
«.
0.
0.
155600.
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
PAYROLL OVERHEAD s2Q.Ot OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.OX OF A+B+CtD+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
77900.
264900.
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
-INSTALLATION TTMF IN WEEKS
22219.45
.0
fl-
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOV£RY_il0.00X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
99.
.0
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES i INS. ( 2.ox OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TQTAt AMNUALI2ED COST - RETROFIT
- NEw
0.
0.
264900.
264900.
A-144
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
J1N1TS
J1PT1QN
PPSES: 514.
CWACTTYS
BY-PRODUCTS PLANT COKE
MTI 1 TON TflMS/YPAR
BSO
LOAD INC
.300000
ALLOWABLE! .060000
27.73
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY! *O.OX
BENZENE
LOAD IN: .200000
_ ALLOWABLE; .000000
LBS/TON COAL
IBS/TON COAL
EFFICIENCY: ao.ox
18.48
DUST CQILECTFD PFR PAY!
LBS/HR
.0
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
100. F
100. F
SCFM FLOW:
ATFM FLOWS
0. AT
0. AT
70. F
100. f
L/G RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW;
.0
0. SPM
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
0. 6PM
0. MG/L
XSOLIOS: .0
A-14 5
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 514. BY-PRODUCTS PLANT
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
SY-PRODUCT CONTROLS
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS 3 0. HP EACH
0. DIAMETER: 0.
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY; o.x
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP! 6760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP! 0.
STACK HEIGHT! IK
DIAMETER!
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
60.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
34.
17.5
£2.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50. LBS/CUBIC FT,
.70
4047866.
A-146
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 514.
CAPACITY:
CATEGORY
BY-PRODUCTS PLANT
2,fiia MILLION TO
QUANTITY
UNITS OPTION
COKE 2
RATE ANNUAL COST (S)
• »* UTILITIES ***
MATFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
o. M$AL/Y&
0. KWH/YR
o. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
f • ISWIOOO GAL
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S -4180/GAL
fl.
0.
0.
0.
QPFPATIlMC I Attf>P
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
0. HRS/YR
0. HRS/YR
$14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
0. (A)
0. (B)
MATNTE1SIAMCIF ft SUPPt TFS ***
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
8760.
1752.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
I17.20/HR
125700. (C)
30100. fD)
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
MATER TREATMENT
0. CE)
23400. (F)
0.
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
0. TON/YR
S 6.25/TON
0.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD B20.0X OF A+B+C*D
PLANT OVERHEAD sSO.OX OF A+B+C+D*E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF OUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME TN WEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (10.00X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
^¥ ^TOTAI ANNUAL TIED COST - ftETROFlfT
179200.
31200,
69600.
300000.
.11
25163.59
.0
ft.
99.
.0
0.
0.
0.
100000.
- NEM
300000.
A-147
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 515.
CAPACITY;
COMBUSTION STACK • NEW COKE
-7QB MILL TON TONS/YEAR
PARTICULATE
LOAD INt
.130000 IBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE!
.026000 LBS/TON COAL
3.00 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: eo.ox
BSO
LOAD IN: .000600 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000120 LBS/TQN COAL EFFICIENCY: BO.01
.01 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000006 LBS/TON COAL
.000001 LBS/TON COAL
.00 LBS/HR _
EFFICIENCY: so.ox
OUST COLLECTED PER DAYl
.1 TONS(DRY)
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
150. F
450. F
3CFM FLOW: 67000. AT 70. F
ACFM FLOW: 115000. AT 450. F
L/C RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING MATER FLOW;
.0
0. 6PM
0. 6PM
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
0. MG/L
XSOLIDS:
.0
A-148
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 515. COMBUSTION STACK - NEW
COKE
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
HEATING CONTROL AND PATCHING
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT:
TOTAL PRESSURE DROP:
0 FANS 8 0* HP EACH
0. DIAMETER: 6.
0. INCHES
SPARE FAN CAPACITY: o.x
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING HOURS AT REDUCED HP: 0.
STACK HEIGHT: o.
OTAMFTERI
0.
NO. OF OVENS
OVEN HEIGHT
OVEN VOLUME
TONS COKE/PUSH
AVG. COKING TIME,HRS.
NO. CYCLES/DAY
60.
6.0 METERS
1346. CUBIC FEET
24.
17.5
82.
BULK DENSITY
YIELD
TONS COAL/YEAR
50, LBS/CUBIC FT,
.70
1011967.
A-149
-------
OPERATING COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 515.
CAPACITY:
COMBUSTION STACK » NEW COKE
,.708 MILLION TONS/YEAR
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST ($)
*** UTILITIES ***
WATFR
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0 . M£ AL/ YR
0. KKH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0T GAL/YR
£ .1*»95/1000 G^L
S .0266/KWH
$ 4.0920/MLBS
S .41BO/GAL
0.
0.
0.
0T
*** OPFRATTNE LABOR
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8760. HRS/YR
1752. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
J17.20/HR
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
*«* MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES «««
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
5900. HRS/YR
1160. HRS/YK
S14.34/HR
H7.20/HR
64600. (C)
20300. (D)
21200. (E)
16900. (F)
0.
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
0. TON/YR
S 6.25/TON
0.
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD sgQ.Ot OF AtRtC»D
PLANT OVERHEAD sSO.OX OF A*B*C*Dt-E*F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
300600.
S2100.
150400.
503300.
.71
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF OUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN WEEKS
9564.39
.0
ft.
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
.£ A.PJ ! A L_R E C 0 V E R.Y_Q 0^0 0 % OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
99.
.0
0,
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES ft INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAi ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT '
- NEW
0.
0.
503300.
A-150
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION
PPSESt 516. QUENCHING
CAPACITY: 2Taia
PARTICIPATE
LOAD IN: 3.200000
ALLOWABLE! .960000
403.60
BSO
LOAD IN: .006000
ALLOWABLE: .001920
.89
BAP
LOAD IN: .000310
ALLOWABLE: .000093
.04
BENZENE
LOAD IN: .000260
ALLOWABLE: .000260
.12
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS:
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE:
SCFM FLOW: 0. AT
ACFM FLOW: o. AT
L/R RATIO:
PROCESS WATER FLOW:
COOLING WATER FLOW:
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT:
• OIRTY HATER COKE 2
MTLl TON TOMS/YFAR
LBS/TON COAL
IBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY! 70.0%
LBS/HR ='
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: TO. ox
LBS/HK
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 70. OX
LBS/HR
LBS/TON COAL
LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: .OX
LBS/HR
12. a TONS(DRY)
200. F
200. F
70. F
200. F
.0
0. GPM
0. GPM
0. MG/L XSOLIDS: .0
A-151
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS OPTION
PPSES: 516.
CAPACITY I
QUENCHING - DIRTY MATER COKE
3.830 MILLION TONS/YEAR
TOTAL COST
(COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COST.
CATEGORY
COST IN DOLLARS
««« DIRECT COST
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURAL
SITE WORK
INSULATION
PROTECTIVE COATING
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
DIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
114100.
0.
30000.
6800.
900.
0.
600.
0.
900.
0.
80300.
P13BOO.
*** INDIRECT
FIELD OVEjRHEAJl
COST ***
45400.
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
FREIGHT
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES
SHAKEDOWN
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
INDIRECT COST SUBTOTAL
87900.
35100.
4400.
0.
5700.
1300.
3500.
71400.
194700.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
10700,
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST HTTH BETBOFTT
439200,
571000,
A-152
-------
OPERATING COST:
JiMITJL
PPSES: 516.
CAPACITY*
QUENCHING » DIRTY WATER COKE
g-ftlfl MTM TON TQNS/YPAB
OPTION
2
CATEGORY
QUANTITY
RATE
ANNUAL COST (S)
*** UTILITIES ***
HATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
0. MR 41 /VB
0. KWH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
0. GAL/YR
S 1595/1000 GAL
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
S .4180/GAL
Q
0.
0.
OPERATING LABOR •**
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
0. HRS/YR
0. HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
S17.20/HR
0. (A)
0. (B)
««» MAINTENANCE
8UPPLTFS
DIRECT LABOR 1200. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
SUPERVISION 240. HRS/YR S17.20/HR
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 9067. TON/YR $ 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD S20.0I OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50. OX OF A + B + OD+E + F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
OPERATING COST AS PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
INSTALLATION TIME IN MEEKS
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.75X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2. OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES S INS. ( a.0% OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALI2ED COST - RFTROFjT
- NEW
17200. (C)
4100. (D)
6600. (E)
4500. (F)
0.
74600.
109200.
4300.
17200.
130700.
.05
26.63
22.9
26.
20.
.0
67100.
11400.
11400.
220600.
199900.
A-153
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSES: 516. QUENCHING • DIRTY MATER
4W ITS-
COKE
—CAPACITY: ~
PARTICULATE
LOAD.-IN:
MILLION TONS/Y£AR
ALLOWABLE:
5-200000-LBS/T-ON XOA1
.480000 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 85.OX
221.80 LBS/HR
BSO
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE*
,006aOO LBS/TON COAL
-.00-1600 -LBS/TON -COM EFFJCJENCY4 75,OX
.74 LBS/HR
BAP
LOAD IN:
ALLOWABLE:
.000310 LBS/TON COAL
.000062 LBS/TON COAL
EFFICIENCY: so,ox
BENZENE
_ —-LOAD -IN:
ALLOWABLE:
-.000260 -LBS/TON £OAL
.000065 LBS/TON COAL
.03 LBS/HR
EFFICIENCY: 75.ox
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY:
15.1 TONS(DRY)
TEMP-OUT OF PROCESS: 200, F -—
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE: 200. F
SCFM fLOW: _0. --AT --70. F - ----- -_
ACFM FLOW: 0. AT 200. F
L/G RATIO: . . _- . . - _....._,o -
PROCESS WATER FLOW: 1213. GPM
COOLING WATER FLOW: 0. GPM
SUSPENDED -SOLIDS OUT: -1707, MG/L -XSOLIDS: - .2
A-154
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
--------------------- ..... ...... ---- _ ----------- - ----------- UNITS --- OPTION
PPSES: 516. QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER COKE 3
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
QUENCH TOWER BAFFLES
COKE PLANT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 0. DIAMETER: 0.
TOTAL -PRESSURE-DROP: --------------------- O.-tNCHES ---------- - •---
0 FANS S 0. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: O.X
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERATING *OURS 4T --REDUCED *P: ~_ot- --------- -
STACK HEIGHT: o. DIAMETER: o.
NO. OF OVENS 60.
-OVEN-WEIGHT - -WO DETERS
OVEN VOLUME 1348. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH 24.
-- AVG. COKING -T-IWEt-HRS. --------- - 17.5 -
NO, CYCLES/DAY 82.
BULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
TONS COAL/YEAR 4047668.
A-155
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS —4>PT ION
PFSESI 516. QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER COKE 3
-CAPACITY 2*434~MJU.-IQN
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q78 COST
CATEGORY COST IN DOLLARS
—***-DIR£CT—€<38T -***
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL 3iai700.
INSTRUMENTATION 424400.
PIPING — 745400.
ELECTRICAL 833900.
FOUNDATIONS 131400.
STRUCTURAL 4-30540.
SITE WORK 166600.
INSULATION 121100.
PROTECT IVE-COAUNG 4420-0, —
BUILDINGS 546000.
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR 321600.
DIRECT-COST-S*>BTOTAL 64U4400-,
*** INDIRECT COST *«*
FIELD -OVERHEAD 1-034500.
CONTRACTORS FEE 228100.
ENGINEERING 633400.
-FREIGHT - 28500.
OFFSITE WORK 149600.
TAXES 126300.
...-SHAKEDOWN- .._ .. -249800. -
SPARES 124100.
CONTINGENCY 1559900.
INDIRECT-COST--SUBTOTAL 4134200.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION 982500.
TOTAL COST 11128500.
TOTAL COST WITW RETROFIT -133*8200.
A-156
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 516,
-CAPACITY I —•
CATEGORY
QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER
2»«34 MILLION TONS/YE*R
QUANTITY RATE
OPTION
COKE 3
ANNUAL COST (S)
*** UTILITIES ***
-WAT€R
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
--------- 0 . -MG ALV YR
4250262. KWH/YR
1068566. MLBS/YR
-2312143.
S — rK95/+000 ~6 AL
$ ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
0 .
113100.
4348000.
$66500.
DIRECT
-SUPERVISION
»**
6760.
4752.
HRS/YR
HRS/YR
L*BOR ***
S14.34/HR
-417.-20/HR.
125700. (A)
30100. (B)
-*** MAINTENANCE 4-SUPPLIES--***
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
*ATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
17200. HRS/YR
3440. -HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
-$U.20/HR
11010. TON/YR
$ 8.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD *20,OX OF A+B+C+D
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.OX OF A+B+C+D+E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST IN DOLLARS PER TON PRODUCTION - -
DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
IN WEEKS
SYSTEM IN
YEARS
OPERATING COST IN
OPERATING COST AS
INSTALLATION TIME
ESTIMATED LIFE OF
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY U3.15X OF -TOTAL CAPITAL) —
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
- NEW
246700. (C)
59200. -(0)
238100. (E)
367700. (F)
-0.
90800.
6585900.
92300.
533800.
7212000.
2,55
1310.06
53.8
104.
15.
37.4
1761500.
266000.
268000.
9509500.
9120300.
A-157
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PPSESt 516. QUENCHING • DIRTY WATER
CAPACITY* 2r«34-MJLirK)N^0NSAY€AR
PARTICULATE
LOAD IN:
—UNITS —OPTION
COKE 4
1,200000 -L-BS/TON -COAL
ALLOWABLE: .ifeoooo LBS/TON COAL
73.93 L8S/HR
EFFICIENCY* 95.OX
BSD
-BAP
LOAD IN: .006400 LBS/TON COAL
-ALLOWABLE* -*«00960 H.BS/TON -COAL
.44 LBS/HR
LOAD IN: .000310 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000046 LBS/TON COAL
--,02 -LBS/HR
— 85.
EFFICIENCY: as.ox
BENZENE
- LOAD IN: ,4)00260 IBS/TON COAL - — •
ALLOWABLE: .000065 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 75.OX
.03 LBS/HR
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY: 16.9 TONS(DRY)
TEMP OUT-OF PROCESS: 200, F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE: 200. F
SCFM FLOW: 0. AT 70. F -
ACFM FLOW: 0. AT 200. F
L/G RATIO: *o
PROCESS WATER FLOW: 1213. 6PM
COOLING WATER FLOW: 0. GPM
SUSPENDED -SOLIDS OUT: -4707. MG/L -XSOLIOS: ,2
A-158
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
TS ____ OPT-ION
PPSES: 516. QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER COKE 4
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
QUENCH TOWER BAFFLES
COKE PLANT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 0. DIAMETER: 0.
JTDTAL -PRESSURE -DROPi — 0.-4ACHES -
0 FANS a 0. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: O.I
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
OPERA TING-HOURS-AT-«EOUCEO-HP: 0. ....._. - _...
STACK HEIGHT: 0. DIAMETER: 0.
NO. OF OVENS 60.
OVEN HEIGHT 6,0-METERS
OVEN VOLUME 1348. CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH 24.
4VG. POKING TIME,WRS. 47,5 -•-
NO. CYCLES/DAY 82.
BULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
.YIELD . . ,70 _._ ._
TONS COAL/YEAR 4047868.
A-159
-------
CAPITAL COST:
UNITS —OPTION
PPSES: 516. QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER COKE 4
CAPACITY: —-2*^34-MILLION -THJNS/*€AR
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110.OCX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4Q78 COS
CATEGORY COST IN DOLLARS
»**--OIRECT—COST-***
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL 3956000.
INSTRUMENTATION 455200.
—PIPING 727-BOO.
ELECTRICAL 287700.
FOUNDATIONS 130500.
STRUCTURAL 133500.
SITE WORK 174800.
INSULATION 129000.
—PROTECTIVE-COATING 51«00.
BUILDINGS 546000.
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR 896000.
DIRECT-COST-SUBTOm 7-425300.-
*** INDIRECT COST ***
FIELD OVERHEAD - 1459500,
CONTRACTORS FEE 539000.
ENGINEERING 642500.
-FREIGHT -- 34100.
OFFSITE WORK 193600.
TAXES 169000.
SHAKEDOWN- . 27_4900^ _
SPARES 164600.
CONTINGENCY 2126500.
- INDIRECT-COST -SUBTOTAL-— 5393700.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION 1126900.
TOTAL COST 13945900.
TOTAL COST WITH RETROFIT - 47060800.
A-160
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 516.
6-AP4CITYI —
CATEGORY
QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER
2.*34 -MILLION TONS/YEAR
QUANTITY RATE
-UNITS
COKE
PTION
4
ANNUAL COST (
*** UTILITIES ***
-WAT€R
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
. FUEL
4250262. KWH/YR
1062566. MLBS/YR
-2312 J.a3
—,4595/4400-frAL
S ,0266/KWH
S 4.0920/MLBS
-0.
113100.
4348000.
$£6500.
DIRECT
-SUPERVIS-ION
*** -OPERATING 4.-ABOR-*** -
8760. HRS/YR S14.34/HR
125700. (A
-30100. (8
*** -MAINTENANCE
DIRECT LABOR 20000. HRS/YR
_5UP£8VISION 4000. -HRS/YJ? ._
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER WEATWENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL 123,06. TON/YR
DIRECT OPERATING COST
OF
S14.34/HR
S 8.25/TON
J»AYROtL
PLANT OVERHEAD sSO.OX
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING -COST-IN -DOLLARS
OPERATING COST IN
OPERATING COST AS
- INSTALLATION TIME
ESTIMATED LIFE OF
PER JON -PRODUCTION
DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
4N WEEKS —-
SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
- - CAPITAL RECOVERY-U3.15X OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES & INS. ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT
- NEW
286900. (C
68800.
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
UNITS OPTION ..-
PPSES: 516. QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER COKE 5,
CAPACITY: —2,«34-MILLION T£NSAY£AR —
PARTICULATE
LOAD -IN: —3*200000-L8S/TON COAL -
ALLOWABLE: .032000 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 99.ox
14.79 LBS/HR
BSD
LOAD IN: .006400 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE:—.00006U -LBS/TON COAL -EFFICIENCY:- 99.ox
.03 LBS/HR
... ..
LOAD IN: .000310 LBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000003 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 99.ox
... - _-.00 —L-BS/HR - —-.
BENZENE
-LOAD IN: - ,.000260 -IBS/TON COAL
ALLOWABLE: .000003 LBS/TON COAL EFFICIENCY: 99.ox
.00 LBS/HR
DUST COLLECTED PER DAY: 17.6 TONS(DRY)
TEMP OUT OF PROCESS: 200. F
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE: 200. F
SCFM FLOW: 549000. AT 70. F
ACFM FLOW: 683000. AT 200. F
••L/G-RATIO: rO
PROCESS WATER FLOW: 1213. GPM
COOLING WATER FLOW: 0. GPM
SUSPENDED SOLIDS OUT: 1707. -MG/L XSOLIDS: .2
A-162
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION!
UNITS OPTION -
PPSES: 516. QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER COKE 5
CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATION:
DRY QUENCHING
COKE PLANT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FEET OF ADDITIONAL DUCT: 0. DIAMETER: 15.
—TOTAL-PRESSURE-0ROP: -0,-IHCWES —
0 FANS 9 0. HP EACH SPARE FAN CAPACITY: O.X
OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HP: 8760.
—OPERATING-HOURS "AT"*EDUC£f)-HP« 0. - -
STACK HEIGHT: 0. DIAMETER: 0.
NO. OF OVENS 60.
- -OVEN HEIGHT --- — - ~6.0-MET€RS — •
OVEN VOLUME 13480 CUBIC FEET
TONS COKE/PUSH 24.
-AV6. -COKING -TI-MErHRS. 17.5
NO. CYCLES/DAY 82.
BULK DENSITY 50. LBS/CUBIC FT.
—-M€LD - - --,70 • — —
TONS COAL/YEAR 4047668.
A-163
-------
CAPITAL COST:
_______________
516.
QUENCHING • DIRTY MATER
2*434 -MIU.-UW ^ONS/YEAR
UNITS — OPTION
COKE 5
PPSES:
—C-APACITY: —
TOTAL COST (COST BASIS IS 110.OOX OF JUNE 1977 DOLLARS FOR 4078 COS
CATEGORY COST IN DOLLARS ;
EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL
INSTRUMENTATION
—PIPING
ELECTRICAL
FOUNDATIONS
-STRUCTURAL-- ----------- — ......
SITE WORK
INSULATION
-PROTECTIVE-COATING ___________
BUILDINGS
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL LABOR
_. --- DIRECT -COST-SUBTOTAL ~ - -
*** INDIRECT COST ***
-FIELD -OVERHEAD ---
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING
-fREIGHT - - - ....... --
OFFSITE WORK
TAXES .
.-SHAKEDOWN - ..... -
SPARES
CONTINGENCY
-INDIRECT-COST -SUBTOTAL
12393000.
424400.
M-4600 .
227700.
130500.
-430500.
166000.
121100.
--48300.
546000.
4736600.
INTEREST DURING INSTALLATION
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITH RETROFIT - -
m367SO
3398600.
1791500.
1074600.
24100.
554200.
570100.
- 922800.
192500.
6379400.
-44906000.
4075500.
38622200.
-«3553400.
A-164
-------
OPERATING COST:
PPSES: 516,
CAPACITY:
CATEGORY
UNITS —-OPTION
QUENCHING - DIRTY WATER COKE 5
—2r834-MILLION-TONS/Y€AR
QUANTITY RATE
ANNUAL COST (
*** UTILITIES ***
WATER —-
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
-6AL-
26916326. KWH/YR S ,0266/KWH
•1204241. MLBS/YR S 4.0920/MLBS
— 2312143.-6AL/YR ------ -J —,-4 1*0 /GAL
G. -
716600.
0.
966500.
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
*** -OPERATING
17520. HRS/YR
—3504. -HRS/YR —
-***
J14.34/HR
7, 20/MR
251300. (A
—*0300. (B
-*** -MAINTENANCE-* -SUPPLIES•
DIRECT LABOR
SUPERVISION
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL
78337. HRS/YR
—15667.-HRS/YR
S14.34/HR
-SI 7,^0/MR
6«12. TON/YR
$ 6.25/TON
DIRECT OPERATING COST
PAYROLL OVERHEAD *20.0X OF A+B+C+D -
PLANT OVERHEAD eSO.OX OF A*B+C+D*E+F
TOTAL OPERATING COST
OPERATING COST -IN COLLARS-PER TON —PRODUCTION
DOLLARS PER TON OF DUST COLLECTED
PERCENT OF CAPITAL COST
IN WEEKS
SYSTEM IN YEARS
KWH PER TON CAPACITY
CAPITAL RECOVERY (13.151 OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
PROPERTY TAXES * INS. ( 2,OX OF TOTAL CAPITAL)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST - RETROFIT - -
- NEW
OPERATING COST IN
OPERATING COST AS
INSTALLATION TIME
ESTIMATED LIFE OF
1123700. (C
^269500.
-------
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE COMPUTER PRINTOUT
FOR COST UPDATE PROGRAM
This appendix illustrates the output of the cost update
program. In the example provided, the cost of Option 5, the
enclosed hot car for the coke pushing source, has been adjusted
by changing the cost basis from fourth quarter 1978 to mid-1979,
assuming a 7 percent inflation rate. Also the cost of labor has
been increased 10 percent. These increases are arbitrary and
used only as an example. When the cost update program is run,
one or all of the functions can be updated by using the data
cards for whichever cases are to be modified.
B-l
-------
COST UPDATE OF COKE OVEN
MODEL COST FUNCTIONS
BASIS: 2Q79
OPERATING COST:
SOURCE: 2
CAPACITY:
CATEGORY
UNITS
COKE
OPTION
5
.272 MILLION TONS/YEAR
QUANTITY RATE
*«* UTILITIES ***
ANNUAL COST ($)
UATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
2450. HGAL/YR
1603. KUH/YR
0. HLBS/YR
258563. GAL/YR
* .1600/1000 6AL 392.
f ,0266/KUH 43.
$ 4.0920/MLBS 0.
* .4180/GAL 108079.
*** OPERATING S MAINT LABOR ***
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8000. HRS/YR 115.77/HR
1600. HRS/YR 117.20/HR
126160. (A)
27520. (B)
*** HAINT & SUPPLIES ***
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
SOLID UASTE
DISPOSAL
686. TONS/YR $ 8.25
114800. (C)
38600. (D)
5659.
DIRECT OPERATING COST 421253.
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =20.OX OF A+B 30736.
PLANT OVERHEAD '50.0Z OF A+B+C+D 153540.
TOTAL OPERATING COST 423096.
ESTIHATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS 20.
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.70Z OF TOTAL CAPITAL) 659888.
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.002 OF TOTAL CAPITAL) 112801.
PROPERTY TAXES S INS. < 2.00Z OF TOTAL CAPITAL) 112801.
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST- RETROFIT 1308587.
- MEU 1228087.
- RETROFIT 5640066.
- NEU 5127333.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
B-2
-------
COST UPDATE OF COKE OVEN
MODEL COST FUNCTIONS
BASIS: 2Q79
OPERATING COST:
SOURCE: 2
CAPACITY:
CATEGORY
UNITS OPTION
COKE 5
.405 MILLION TONS/YEAR
QUANTITY RATE
**« UTILITIES ***
ANNUAL COST (*)
UAIER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
3643. MGAL/YR
2385. KUH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
384576. GAL/YR
$ .1600/1000 GAL 583.
$ .0266/KUH 63.
$ 4.0920/MLBS 0.
* .4180/GAL 160753.
*** OPERATING S MAINT LABOR ***
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
8000. HRS/YR
1600. HRS/YR
*15.77/HR
117.20/HR
126160. (A)
27520. (B)
»** MAINT I SUPPLIES ***
MATERIALS
SUPPLIES
SOLID UASTE
DISPOSAL
1020. TONS/YR
$ 8.25
114800.
38600.
8415.
(C)
(ID
DIRECT OPERATING COST 476894.
PAYROLL OVERHEAD =20.OX OF A+B 30736.
PLANT OVERHEAD =50.01 OF A+B+C+D 153540.
TOTAL OPERATING COST 478737.
ESTIMATED LIFE OF SYSTEM IN YEARS 20.
CAPITAL RECOVERY (11.703: OF TOTAL CAPITAL) 712685.
ADMINISTRATION OVERHEAD ( 2.002 OF TOTAL CAPITAL) 121827.
PROPERTY TAXES J INS. ( 2.002 OF TOTAL CAPITAL) 121827.
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST- RETROFIT 1435075.
- NEU 1348135.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST - RETROFIT 6091328.
- NEU 5537571.
B-3
-------
COST UPDATE OF COKE OVEN
MODEL COST FUNCTIONS
BASIS: 2Q79
OPERATING COST:
SOURCE: 2
CAPACITY!
CATEGORY
UNITS
COKE
OPTION
5
.708 MILLION TONS/YEAR
QUANTITY RATE
»** UTILITIES ***
ANNUAL COST ($)
UATER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
FUEL
6375. NGAL/YR
4173. KUH/YR
0. MLBS/YR
672958. GAL/YR
» .1600/1000 GAL 1020.
$ .0266/KUH 111.
$ 4.0920/MLBS 0.
$ .41BO/GAL 281296.
*** OPERATING & MAINT LABOR ***
DIRECT
SUPERVISION
BOOO. HRS/YR 115.77/HR
1600. HRS/YR 117.20/HR
126160. (A)
27520.
*** MAINT S SUPPLIES *»*
HATERIALS
SUPPLIES
SOLID UASTE
DISPOSAL
1785. TONS/YR $ 8.25
114800.
-------
COST UPDATE OF COKE OVEN
HODEL COST FUNCTIONS
BASIS: 2979
REGRESSION ANALYSIS:
UNITS OPTION
SOURCE: 2 COKE 5
.1938
CAPITAL COST - NEU = 453443.O(CAPACITY) CAPACITY IN UNITS PER YEAR
.1938
CAPITAL COST - RETROFIT = 498787.3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Imtrucrions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-185
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Cost Effectiveness Model for Pollution Control at
Coking Facilities
5. REPORT DATE
August 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
William F. Kemner
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT-.NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB604
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2603, Task 44 and
68-02-3074, Task 6
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 9/78 - 7/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer twidwell is no longer with EPA; for
details contact Norman Plaks, Mail Drop 62,..919/541-2733.
16. ABSTRACT
The report describes a computer model, developed for coking facilities,
that allows the user to determine the optimum mix of pollution control devices to
achieve a specified reduction in pollutant emission at the minimum annualized or
capital cost. The computer program calculates and displays: the associated cost for
each emission control; the total capital and annualized cost for the optimum mix of
controls; and the emission levels in pounds of pollutant per ton of coal and tons of
pollutant per year for each of the four pollutant types (total suspended solids, ben-
zene-soluble organics, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzene). The program can consider 20
emission sources and 9 control options for each emission source.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Coking
Organic Compounds
Pyrenes
Iron and Steel Industry
Cost Effectiveness
Mathematical Models
Benzene
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Suspended Solids
Benzo(a)pyrene
13 B
13H
11F
14A
12A
07C
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
293
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-7J)
------- |