EPA-650/2-73-051
December 1973
Environmental Protection Technology Series
•Ill
-------
EPA-650/2-73-051
MARKETING H2S04
FROM S02 ABATEMENT SOURCES
-THE TYA HYPOTHESIS
by
D.A. Waitzman, Study Phase Coordinator
and
J. L. Nevins and G. A. Slappey, Market and Economic Analysts
Tennessee Valley Authority
Office of Agricultural and Chemical Development
Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660
Interagency Agreement No. EPA-1AG0134D (Part B)
ROAPNo. 21ADE-24
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officer: W.R. Schofield
Control Systems Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
December 1973
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
A hypothetical study was made on marketing abatement sulfuric acid from
stack gas sulfur dioxide removal processes and acid production facilities
assumed to be installed at selected coal-burning steam plants in the
Tennessee River Valley of the southeastern United States. The study ob-
jective was to create a computer model to determine the net sales revenue
in dollars to the utility by assigning a zero dollar value for the acid
at the steam plants, computing the transportation cost of shipping the
acid to older existing acid producers in the Midwest and Southern States,
and selling the acid to them at or below their basic manufacturing cost.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power production system was used as
the utility model. From a total of about 18,000 MJ coal-burning power
generation capacity in the TVA system, about 10,000 MW was considered for
sulfuric acid production and about 2 million tons of sulfuric acid per
year would be produced. Assuming TVA would be the only utility producing
abatement acid, a net sales revenue of $5 to $9 per ton (0.2-0.5 mills/
kWh or $0.50-0.75/ton of coal burned) was indicated. The computer model
developed for the study is capable of being expanded to include other
utilities in the United States. Such an expansion of the study is suggested.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract Hi
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
Sections
Summary and Conclusions 1
Recommendations 4
Introduction 5
Background 6
Sulfuric Acid Production Capacity of TVA 21
Market Approach 27
Results of Analysis 38
References 48
Appendixes 49
iv
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Capacity (1970) 8
2 Location of Major Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Units--197l *3
3 Freezing Points of Sulfuric Acid 16
14- Location of TVA Power Plants 22
5 Amortized Value of Maintenance and Capital Outlays for 32
New Plants
6 Amortized Value of Maintenance and Capital Outlays for 33
One-Year-Old Plants
7 Amortized Value of Maintenance and Capital Outlays for 3^
Thirty-Year-Old Plants
8 Effect of Sulfur Price on TVA Net Sales Revenue ^.1
9 Demand for TVA Sulfuric Acid ^3
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 S02 Regenerable Process Demonstrations 6
2 Sulfuric Acid Plant Capacity (1970) 7
3 Sulfuric Acid End Use Pattern (1970) 10
k Typical Sulfuric Acid Strengths and Major End Uses 12
5 TVA Steam Plants 23
6 TVA Power Generation Capacity (1972) 21
7 Estimate of Acid Production Capability (1972) 2k
8 Estimated S02 Removal Efficiency 25
9 Forecast of Possible TVA Acid Production 26
10 Estimated Production and Storage Volumes 26
11 Major Parameters in Model 30
12 Production Cost Estimates for Sulfuric Acid 3°
13 Base Case Market Pattern for TVA H2S04 39
Ik Realistic Market Pattern for TVA H2S04 k$
15 Production Costs for Phosphoric Acid Plant k6
vi
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
EPA policy is to express all measurements in Agency documents in metric
units. When implementing this policy results in undue cost or difficulty
in clarity, the National Environmental Research Center-Research Triangle
Park (NERC-RTP) provides conversion factors for the particular nonmetric
units used in the document. For this report these factors are:
British
Multiply
gallon
pound
*
tons/hour
tons /hour
short tons3
long tons3
Btu
°F -32
.X
tons/day
By_
ftrnfmt
5-T85
1^.536 x lO'1
2. 520 x 10"1
9.0718 x 102
9.0718 x 10-1
1.016
2.520 x 10"1
5.555 x 10"1
1.05 x lO'2
Metric
To Obtain
liters
kilograms
kilograms/second
ki lograms/hour
metric tons
metric tons
kilogram- calories
°C
kilograms/second
3 All tons of acid are short tons and all tons of sulfur are long tons un-
less otherwise indicated.
vii
-------
MARKETING %S04 FROM S02 ABATEMENT SOURCES
THE TVA HYPOTHESIS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Processes for removal of sulfur dioxide from stack gases have been devel-
oped to the point that several are being tested in full-scale installa-
tions. The flue gas desulfurization (FGD) processes result in large
quantities of byproduct sulfur equivalents. Throwaway FGD processes such
as lime or limestone scrubbing result in a sludge consisting primarily of
calcium sulfite, calcium sulfate, or calcium carbonate. Regenerable FGD
processes such as magnesia scrubbing, catalytic oxidation, and sodium
scrubbing processes can produce byproducts such as elemental sulfur or
sulfuric acid with known commercial uses. Currently the major interest
is in lime or limestone scrubbing, but recovery methods are also receiv-
ing attention. One of the deterrents to more widespread consideration of
processes that produce useful products is the question of available mar-
kets. This study has been carried out to evaluate the marketability of
sulfuric acid, one of the potential major products from recovery processes
being developed.
The TVA power system was used as the utility model for the production and
distribution of sulfuric acid. The use of the TVA power system as the
focal point of the study should in no way be construed to imply that a
decision has been made for TVA to enter into the production of sulfuric
acid or that TVA believes that FGD processes capable of producing acid or
elemental sulfur are sufficiently demonstrated to merit commercial appli-
cation at this time. In this hypothetical study no attempt was made to
select a process or to estimate the production costs; a zero value was
assumed at the point of production. The most appropriate plants for manu-
facture of acid were identified, a marketing approach was established; and
a production-distribution model was developed to minimize cost of sulfuric
acid to current producers and maximize net sales revenue to TVA. Net
sales revenues were estimated for a base case and several variations from
the base case.
Competition from other abatement acid sources was not included in the study,
but the model could be expanded to estimate the effect of additional sources
of supply. It could be expected that additional abatement acid sources
would have a deleterious effect on the net sales revenue since all sources
would be competing for a limited market. Furthermore, the producers of
Frasch (mined) sulfur could be expected to protect their markets (sulfur-
burning acid plants) until revenues dropped below their mining costs. If
excessive volumes of abatement acid are involved, net sales revenue could
be expected to decline to zero or result in a cost for disposal.
-------
The current .sulfuric acid industry was reviewed to estimate acid plant pro-
duction capacity, consumption patterns were identified, and transportation
methods were determined. Of approximately Jl million tons (all tons of acid
are short tons and all tons of sulfur are long tons unless otherwise indi-
cated) of acid produced in 1972, only about lj million tons was marketed
externally (merchant acid) by the producers. With a growth rate of k to 6%
per year, some acid could be expected to enter new markets, but existing
markets also will have to absorb abatement acid.
Because of unit age, and expected future operating schedules, plus prior
commitments to low-sulfur fuel (Bull Run plant) or stack gas scrubbing
(Widows Creek No. 8), it was determined that only 9,979 MW of TVA's 18,109 MW
of coal-fired power generation has some potential for being equipped with
sulfur dioxide removal processes producing sulfuric acid. Assuming reliable
sulfuric acid-producing systems could be installed by 1975 (i-n reality, this
would not be possible since a minimum of 30 to J>6 months is expected for
design and installation of a proven, demonstrated system) and based on ex-
pected operating schedules and Federal emission guidelines applicable to new
units, about 1,980,000 tons of acid might be produced by the existing TVA
system in 1975- This would be about 5% of the total U.S. acid production.
Of the various current sources of sulfuric acid, the most vulnerable one
appears to be acid produced with raw material sulfur purchased from an ex-
ternal supplier. The strategy used in this study to penetrate existing
markets was to replace purchased sulfur with abatement acid by supplying the
acid at a cost less than the producer1s avoidable processing cost.
In an 11-state area adjacent to the TVA power system 61 existing acid plants
were identified as potential sales points for abatement acid. Using a com-
puter program, the costs for sulfur including transportation charges, the
production costs for each plant (recognizing age and efficiency), and the
transportation costs for moving acid from seven TVA power plants to the 61
acid plants were applied to calculate the maximum net sales revenue to dis-
pose of the 1.98 million tons of acid. For the base case with sulfur at
$25 per long ton f.o.b. Port Sulphur, Louisiana, all barge transportation,
a market demand equal to 100% of acid plant operating capacity, and with a
zero value at the point of production, net sales revenue of $8.76 per ton
was indicated. Such a net sales revenue might reduce the cost of operating
a power plant sulfur dioxide control system by 10 to 20%. If a credit is
added for the estimated increased cost for installation and operation of
tail gas cleanup systems on existing acid plants, the net sales revenue
might be expected to increase by approximately $3 per ton of acid. For a
more realistic situation with mixed rail and barge transportation and re-
duced market demand equivalent to an average 75% on-stream time for existing
acid plants, the net revenue is $6 per ton without credit for tail gas cleanup.
The revenue from sale of abatement acid is directly proportional to sulfur
price; an increase of $5-00 per long ton of sulfur is equivalent to approxi-
mately .f-1.42 net sales revenue per ton of acid. Shipment of 80% acid instead
of 98% increases transportation and handling costs by about $1 per ton of acid.
-------
Another idea with wide implications involves using the abatement acid
directly to produce more valuable phosphoric acid (P205) for fertilizers.
Since TVA presently must purchase wet-process phosphoric acid for its own
needs at the National Fertilizer Development Center at Muscle Shoals,
Alabama, additional revenue could be derived by using some of the abate-
ment sulfuric acid to produce wet-process phosphoric acid internally
passing the purchase cost savings back to the sulfuric acid system.
In summary, it appears that under the circumstances assumed in this study
the potential sulfuric acid from the TVA system could be incorporated
gradually into the market as long as there was no significant competition
from other abatement sources. Competition from other sources would
definitely result in lower acid value. It is conceivable that sufficient
competition could result in a negative acid value if it became necessary
to neutralize the acid or otherwise pay for its disposal.
Probably the most important result from the study is the development of a
versatile, practical, computer program which can be used to extend the
market investigation to the entire United States and the initiation of a
data file on sulfuric acid and sulfur sources and end points both of which
can be made available to others.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Using an expanded data file and the computer model developed during the
study, it is recommended that an evaluation of optimum points of supply
from all U.S. abatement acid sources to the existing markets and to future
markets should be made. The future markets might include new fertilizer
production capability close to the point of acid production. Specifically,
an expanded investigation should be carried out in predefined phases to
realistically:
1. Determine the quantities of byproduct sulfuric acid which could
be produced in all U.S. power plants and smelters.
2. Describe the most economical market distribution-transportation
system including storage costs.
5- Define the competitive costs of sulfuric acid producers using both
Frasch and abatement elemental sulfur as raw material; costs of
acid plant pollution control included.
k. Predict as a function of the above the possible net sales revenue
for market disposal strategies covering the existing acid market
and the growth market with possible relocation of phosphate ferti-
lizer production facilities adjacent to the byproduct acid source.
5- Evaluate the economic, social, and environmental consequences of
wide-scale use of acid-producing abatement methods and possible
alternatives in accordance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969«
-------
INTRODUCTION
For the past several years, numerous sulfur dioxide control systems for
power plant stack gases have been under investigation by both industry
and government. Until recently efforts have centered mostly on process
development; however, with control applications now beginning to accele-
rate from the demonstration stage toward commercial practice, attention
is being turned to byproduct disposal. The byproducts of these systems
are both waste and salable materials such as calcium sludge, gypsum,
liquefied sulfur dioxide, ammonium sulfate, elemental sulfur, and sul-
furic acid of various concentrations. Since the effects of waste
(throwaway) materials on the environment and salable materials on existing
and future markets need further definition, studies are being initiated
to guide potential users of sulfur dioxide removal technology.
With funding provided by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and subsequent con-
tinuations, the Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, initiated a
study to determine the economics of marketing sulfuric acid which could
be produced from fossil fuel-fired steam plants. The objective of the
study is to create a model for estimating the net sales revenue to a
utility from marketing the acid produced. For simplification, the cost
of removing the sulfur dioxide and producing the sulfuric acid is con-
sidered independent from this evaluation; a zero acid value is assumed
at the point of production.
The Office of Agricultural and Chemical Development of TVA was selected
to perform the study since TVA is active in power generation, chemical
development, and fertilizer marketing, and has experienced personnel to
carry out the program.
The study assumes that an acceptable sulfur dioxide removal and sulfuric
acid production process is commercially available and would be installed
at several TVA steam plants; however, the study is hypothetical and should
in no way be construed to imply that a decision has been made for TVA to
enter into the production of sulfuric acid nor that TVA believes that tech-
nology is adequately developed for pratical application. The developed
model, hopefully, will be a useful tool to assist utilities and other
pollution sources in making such a decision in the future.
The model is to be based on the existing sulfuric acid production, distri-
bution, and marketing patterns with consideration given to expected changes
in such patterns due to the introduction of abatement acid into the existing
market. In this initial analysis, it is assumed that TVA would be the only
new source producing abatement sulfuric acid in or near the marketing region
considered. Abatement acid from other utilities would certainly influence
the evaluation; however, for the derivation of the basic model, only TVA's
production is considered. The basic model should be applicable and ex-
pandable to other utilities in the United States. Also, the results of
the study and information from other proposed investigations should give
a clearer economic relationship between the various byproduct systems of
elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, gypsum, and calcium sludges.
-------
BACKGROUND
SULFUR DIOXIDE REMOVAL PROCESSES
The sulfur dioxide removal processes that are being developed include sev-
eral which could produce sulfuric acid as a marketable product. Among
these are the magnesia scrubbing process being developed by Chemical Con-
struction Corporation - Basic Chemicals, and others, the catalytic oxidation
process by Monsanto Company, and the sodium sulfite process by Davy Powergas
Company. The demonstration-size plants in the United States using technology
from these processes are listed below:
Table 1. SO- REGENERABLE PROCESS DEMONSTRATIONS
Process
Demonstration
Utility company
Product
MgO scrubbing
Sodium sulfite
scrubbing
Catalytic oxidation
150 MW oil (1972)
97-5 MW coal (1974)
125 MW coal (1973)
115 MW coal (1975)
110 MW coal (1974)
Boston Edison
Potomac Electric Power
Philadelphia Electric
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Illinois Power
H2S04
H2S04
H2S04
Sulfur
H2S04
Sulfuric acid is marketed at several concentrations—98% and higher, 93/0,
and about 8o/a. Of the above three sulfur dioxide removal systems, two--the
magnesia scrubbing process and sodium sulfite—can produce acid at a concen-
tration of 98% and higher. The third process—catalytic oxidation--produces
acid at a concentration of about 80"/>. The Qo% acid contains more impurities
than the 98'/> acid. Any of these acids could be considered in this study,
but the transportation and storage costs will be greater for the dilute acid
because of the larger volumes required. In addition, the value of the impure
80/> acid is generally less to users.
Regardless of which sulfur dioxide removal and sulfuric acid production pro-
cess is used, abatement sulfuric acid production cost from facilities with
expected lives at least as great as the scrubber system will most likely be
between $1*0 and $110 per ton compared with $10 to $20 per ton when burning
elemental sulfur. Although producing acid from a fossil fuel-fired steam
plant is an expensive way to make acid, the sulfur dioxide would be removed
for pollution abatement reasons and, therefore, the cost of acid production
should be chargeable to pollution abatement. The net sales revenue received
from the sale of the byproduct acid is considered a credit in comparing acid-
producing processes with those producing a waste or other byproduct.
6
-------
THE NATURE OF THE SULFURIC ACID INDUSTRY
In order to gauge the effect of abatement sulfuric acid on the current
production, consumption, and transportation patterns, it is necessary to
define the nature of the existing industry. Some background on the sul-
furic acid industry was given in the EPA-TVA magnesia scrubbing report1
and is used in part in the following discussion.
Current Production
In 1972 approximately 5! million tons of sulfuric acid were produced in
the United States.2 This represents an increase of 5-5$ over 19T1-
Sulfuric acid manufacturing capacity in 1972 was about 39 million tons
with approximately 60$ committed to captive use. Only about 12-5 million
tons was externally marketed out of 29.4 million tons produced in 1971-
As shown in Figure 1, states having the most capacity for acid manufacture
include Florida, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois. Capacity by
states in 1970 is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. SULFURIC ACID PLANT CAPACITY (1970)
(short tons/day)
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Capacity
1,610
2,627
737
6,77^
1,483
1,050
23,661
1,569
3,470
6,9^
2,066
1,877
747
550
12,600
223
2,260
330
1,301
State
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Capacity
1,067
3,503
6,913
446
583
3,480
3,180
630
2,177
50
324
4,421
9,855
2,135
1,985
555
470
67
360
Grand total
114,294
-------
' a.
o /
• *!• '*»'"! -' j
i * • Y—; ;
O; "
ooo
AOO PLANT SIZE - SHCHT TONS PC* OAT
o o o o O O
- - »- '5O«- ZOO- 29OU JOQt- J»O»- 4OOU
900 000 taoo JOOO fSCO §000 3900 4000 MOO
OOOO
•001- »ooi- root- tooi- •ooi- 10,001-
• OOO TOOO 9OOO tOOO IO.OOO t t, 4OO
~
Numbers in circles
indicate number of
plants in area
Figure 1. SULFURIC ACID MANUFACTURING CAPACITY (l9TO)
-------
The size of the individual acid plants has increased over the years with
some plants being as large as 5000 tons per day.3 Such plants are usually
parts of fertilizer complexes and are captively owned and operated. Many
of these plants range in age from modern, large, newly constructed facili-
ties to small plants built in the 1930's and 19^0's. A few of the old
chamber process plants are still in operation but the vast majority of
plants use the more modern and efficient contact process. Except for
plants built very recently, most existing sulfuric acid plants do not
have adequate pollution control facilities. Svenson4 pointed out that
many such plants are confronted with a difficult situation in this regard.
Most (85$) of these sulfuric acid plants use brimstone (elemental sulfur)
as the raw material; however, the direct use of pyrites, smelter gas, and
hydrogen sulfide is increasing.
The operating cost of most contact acid plants is heavily weighted with
raw material costs. When burning elemental sulfur at $30/ton delivered,
the acid manufacturing cost would consist of approximately $10/ton of acid
for raw material and $3-10/ton for conversion and capital costs, with the
lower value prevailing in new, large units.
Current Consumption
The major end uses of sulfuric acid in the United States in 1970 are shown
in Table 3. Fertilizer consumption represented 5^$ of the sulfuric acid
consumed. The long-range growth in acid consumption is estimated to be
about k to 6% per year, which is closely tied to the fertilizer growth
pattern.
Although most of the sulfuric acid consumed in fertilizer manufacture is
concentrated, high quality-material, wet-process phosphoric acid produced
by reacting sulfuric acid with phosphate rock can be made with off-grade
acid. For the other end uses of sulfuric acid, high purity and high con-
centration are almost mandatory.
As is apparent from Table 3 sulfuric acid has a wide variety of uses, some
of which are based on excellent physical properties, but most on cost. Sul-
furic acid is very often preferred over other mineral acids, chemicals, or
different process technology because it is the least expensive alternative.
For example, in phosphate rock acidulations and phosphoric acid manufacture,
the major end use, sulfuric acid is the lowest cost acidulant available.
There was a period in the late I9601s when this was under challenge as sul-
fur prices rose to very high levels; however, the sulfur shortage was short
in duration and supply soon exceeded demand.
-------
Table 3. SULFURIC ACID END USE PATTERN (1970)
End uses
Thousand
short tons
(100$ basis)
Fertilizer
Phosphoric acid products
Normal superphosphate
Cellulosics
Rayon
Cellophane
Pulp and paper
Petroleum alkylation
Iron and steel pickling
Nonferrous metallurgy
Uranium ore processing
Copper leaching
Chemicals
Ammonium sulfate
Coke oven
Synthetic
Chemical byproduct
Chlorine drying
Alum
Caprolactam
Dyes and intermediates
Detergents, synthetic
Chrome chemicals
HC1
HF
Ti02
Alcohols
Other chemicals
Industrial water treatment
Storage batteries
Other processing
13,750
520
1TO
600
2,^00
800
300
350
500
190
150
600
260
370
loo
150
880
1,800
380
200
470
Total
10
-------
Sulfuric acid is an excellent drying agent and is used in such applications
as chlorine and nitric acid drying, chloral production, and in nitration
reactions. The acid is an effective catalyst for many hydrocarbon and
organic chemical syntheses, such as formations of petroleum alkylate and
olefins and a paraffin, or the Beckman rearrangement of cyclohexane oxime
to caprolactam for nylon fiber manufacture. It has been suggested that
this characteristic is associated with its strong affinity for water.
Sulfuric acid readily forms organic sulfates with many hydrocarbons which
are easily hydrolyzed to yield desirable organics; this property is use-
ful in the manufacture of phenol and certain alcohols.
The acid has a high boiling point which limits volatilization losses in
leaching, acidulation, and pickling operations. It is commonly specified
as an electrolyte for batteries, used as a bath in cellulose processing,
consumed in the manufacture of chromates, used in hydrogen fluoride pro-
duction from fluorspar, and serves to process ore for titanium dioxide
and uranium manufacture.
Sulfuric acid is made and used in a variety of concentrations which are
usually indicated as follows:
% H2S04 or °Baume: The simplest description of sulfuric acid con-
centration is H2S04. However, because of the distinct relation-
ship between specific gravity and strength (up to 93$) and the
simplicity of measuring specific gravity by hydrometer, most acid
concentrations up to 93$ are expressed as °Baume. From 93 to 100$,
acids are referred to by concentration.
Monohydrate: This is 100$ HgS04.
Oleum: Acids stronger than 100$. H2S04, containing free S03, are
called oleums or fuming acids and are usually described in terms
of S03 content. For example, a 20$ oleum consists of 20$ S03 and
80$ H2S04; however, in terms of acid content equivalent, it is ex-
pressed as 104.50$ H2S04. Oleum is not considered as a product in
this study.
Table k shows a few typical acid strengths and their major end uses.3
The major U.S. markets for sulfuric acid are concentrated on the East and
Gulf Coasts. More than half the acid consumed in the United States is used
in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey; Florida uses one-
fourth of the total. Because acid transportation costs are relatively high
(as compared with sulfur), acid production is usually close to the point of
consumption. (See Figure 1.)
11
-------
Table k. TYPICAL SULFURIC ACID STRENGTHS AND MAJOR END
% HPS04
35-6?
62. 18-
69.65
TT.67
80.00
93-19
98-99
100.00
io'+. 50
106.75
109.00
111.25
113.50
114.63
122.50
°Be
30.8
50-55
60.0
61.3
66.0
66.l*B
66. 3*
66. 2b
_
_
-
-
-
—
°lo oleum
('/' S03
content)
-
-
-
_
-
20
30
4o
50
60
65
100
a
Uses
Batteries
Normal superphosphate and fertilizers
Normal superphosphate and fertilizers; isoproply
and secbutyl alcohols
Copper leaching
Phosphoric acid, Ti02
Phosphoric acid, alkylation, ethyl alcohol, boric
acid
Alkylation
Caprolactam (Beckmann, rearrangement); explosives
and nitrations, chlorine and nitric acid drying;
surf ace -active agents, synthetic petroleum sul-
fonates, and other sulfonations; blending with
weaker acids
a These data do not imply that only the indicted concentrations are used for
the applications shown.
At concentrations approaching 100$ H2S04, specific gravity begins to de-
crease.
Transportation
Location of power plants equipped with sulfur dioxide removal and sulfuric
acid production facilities and the methods of transportation will have a
major influence on abatement sulfuric acid economics (for location of major
U.S. power plants burning coal or oil, see Figure 2). Rail or truck trans-
portation is normally used for short hauls. For longer distances, the use
of barges on the inland waterways would be more economical.
i
In a report on the sulfur industry, M. H. Farmer5 presented the following
information about transportation costs:
Sulfuric acid moves by tank truck, barge and railroad tank car. Because
of the much higher transportation costs, when considered on a sulfur
equivalent basis, sulfuric acid is seldom shipped more than 150 miles.
Furthermore, acid is normally shipped in approximately 100$ concentra-
tion even though actual use often involves much lower concentrations,
ranging down to I0)c and even lower.
12
-------
o
oi
1 b' ---.- ;
^ o
-- ---i---
^
-—-' < o
, •?>»•
LESEMO
POot* StM««TIO« SIZE - UEOAWHTS
0- SO- «»- iv»- VM- ZV> 1001- »<»- 4001-
900 000 BOO (000 «OO WOO HOC 4000 KWO
oooOOOOOO
0- SO- <»- iSOw KX>- 2V>-
x>o ooo ooo tooo rsoo xtoo
oooo
Numbers in circles
indicate number of
plants in area
Shaded area indicates
loo*. *ooi- «oo.- »oou .0.001 TVA power system
•OOO TOOO iOOO »OOO lO^OOC rt. OOO
Figure 2. LOCATION OF MAJOR COAL- AND OIL-FIRED POWER UNITS--19J16
-------
The importance of transportation costs varies with the value of the
material being transported. Because sulfur has a low unit value (e.g.,
in .t/long ton) transportation costs represent a significant part of the
delivered price ranging from as little as 10 to 15$ to as much as 70$.
Unit trains are feasible only for high-volume movements between fixed
points.
Elemental S can be stored until a sufficient quantity is available for
economic shipment by barge or bulk carrier. (This consideration does
not apply to unit trains which must be kept in constant operation.)
Sulfuric acid cannot be stored, except at significant cost and as limited
by available storage capacity. This would seem to favor (or even mandate)
the establishment of local markets for abatement acid that could be served
by owned transport. A transportation strike of any kind could force the
shutdown of abatement acid plant—with serious consequences for an electric
utility (and also the consumer).
Little or no value can be projected for abatement S recovered by a poorly
located plant. This point has pertinence on a local as well as a macro-
geographical basis. It is rather obvious that sulfur recovery in Arizona
in unfavorably located. It may be less obvious that recovery of abate-
ment S from mine mouth power plants in Eastern States could also be poorly
located with respect to marketing of S values.
In general, recovery of abatement S at plants directly on the Mississippi
River system, or with direct access to marine transportation, may be
considered as favorable from the standpoint of marketing S values.
Prices at locations some distance from main terminals will be higher than
at the terminals (to take account of local delivery costs). Hence, there
may be specific locations where abatement S can enjoy a good netback.
This is possible if local industry could absorb all of the abatement
supply.
Handling Considerations
The storage, handling, and transportation of sulfuric acid require diligent
care because the acid is a hazardous and toxic liquid, but the industry has
over the years developed safe methods for handling and storing the acid.
Sulfuric acid can be stored in mild steel vessels with an expected life of
about 25 years. The acid forms a protective sulfate film on steel surfaces
which inhibits corrosion. This film, however, is rapidly deteriorated where
flow velocities of any appreciable extent exist and in such circumstances mild
steel will corrode rapidly. Therefore, for tank nozzles, valves, and pumps,
stainless steel must be used. Sulfuric acid has a high density. The specific
gravity of 98$ H2S04 is l.SMi- at 60°F or a density of about l^.k- pounds per
gallon at 60°F. This high density must be taken into account in the selection
of storage tanks, pumps, and barges.
-------
Sulfuric acid exhibits an unusual freezing point curve. Such a curve is
shown in Figure 3. The freezing point of 93$ acid is -J00F and the
freezing point of 98$ acid is 35°F. Although shipment of acid in cold
weather has been satisfactorily accomplished without freezing, the possi-
bility should be recognized and steps taken to avoid it.
THE EXPECTED IMPACT OF ABATEMENT SULFUR AND SULFURIC ACID
Sulfur, its source and its cost, has been the main factor in the economics
of sulfuric acid in recent years. Until recently, the primary source of
elemental sulfur has been through mining with the Frasch process. In 1970,
for the first time, the amount of recovered sulfur from sour gas and other
sources surpassed Frasch sulfur production in the western world. This non-
Frasch sulfur is produced regardless of the market value of sulfur. M. C.
Manderson of Arthur D. Little, Inc., wrote in September 19707 that the
pricing philosophy used by the byproduct producers--who must recover sul-
fur irrespective of prevailing price--"will influence the level of world
sulfur prices over the next decade."
The Frasch sulfur industry's problems with sulfur from sour gas and smel-
ters will be magnified with the production of abatement sulfur or sulfuric
acid from utilities. This point is covered in the principal conclusions
in Farmer's report, portions of which are as follows:
Smelters in Arizona are expected to have a continuing excess of S
value potential over the quantity that can be marketed unless an
economical way of recovering elemental S is developed.
Large quantities of S are also expected to be recovered from coal
gasification or liquefaction. The location of such operations will
determine the way in which the recovered S is utilized (or whether
it can be utilized at all). However, it is likely that the Chicago
region . . . will be the most important center for coal conversion,
with plants located on the Illinois Waterway and Ohio River.
There will not be a market for all the abatement S that might con-
ceivably be recovered in useful form. Attainment of a reasonable
sales value for abatement S will depend either on stockpiling
elemental S until it is needed or on avoiding the production of
more abatement S in useful form than can be absorbed by the market
at a given time. The quantity will increase with time.
The domestic market is now essentially an 'elemental S market,' i.e.,
the merchanting of acid is less important than the marketing of ele-
mental S. However, the market for merchant acid is expected to
expand progressively during the 1980's and 1990's; i.e., industry
structure will change.
-------
° B A U M E
-------
The production of elemental S from W. Canadian sour natural gas
is expected to peak soon after 1980. However, a surplus of pro-
duction over domestic demand will continue for some years and
export potential will be maintained by a stockpile of elemental
S that is not expected to peak until around 1985-86. Once this
peaking occurs, the world balance on a current basis, and exclud-
ing U.S. abatement S, is expected to swing from oversupply to net
demand (on a current basis). Conceptually, U.S. abatement S can
incrementally fill this supply gap.
By 1990, it will be important for the U.S. to be able to recover
abatement S in useful form. This would help the U.S. to recapture
its position as the world's leading exporter of elemental S. If
the sulfur is not recovered in useful form, a reemergence of ^chemi-
cal fertilizer^ processes that do not use S and also of relatively
high cost processes for manufacturing acid and/or elemental S from
gypsum would be expected.
Furthermore Fanner observed that U.S. Frasch sulfur producers would defend
the Tampa and Gulf Coast markets. He writes:
Conceptually, in decreasing order of importance, markets for U.S.
Frasch sulfur are as follows:
a. The Tampa-Bartow area.
b. Gulf Coast markets (almost as important as £, but somewhat
more fragmented.
c. Markets adjacent to owned terminals on the Mississippi River
system and the East Coast.
d. Markets adjacent to owned terminals in northern Europe.
e. Other U.S. markets.
f. Other foreign markets (e.g., in Asia, Latin America).
Under conditions of world oversupply, it is probable that & and f;
would be relinquished if the alternative would be to invite greater
competition and price erosion in the other areas. In the case of
£ and d_ the U.S. Frasch producers may be content to keep a reasonable
volume moving through their own terminals without aggressive market-
ing that would invite competition to seek alternative outlet in a or
b. ~~
Thus U.S. Frasch producers may be expected to defend a, and ]j strenu-
ously and to maintain sales to £ and d long enough for growth in a
and b_ to be sufficient to support total production at economic ~
levels.
-------
Difficulty in sulfur market pricing was further summarized by J. M. Winton
in 19719 when he stated that there are three sulfur price structures in
the United States, (l) Canadian based on f.o.b. Alberta plus rail freight
to the U.S. Midwest, which is about $20 to $27 per long ton, (2) Fraach
sulfur which is $3! per long ton in Tampa, and (3) recovered sulfur with
limited quantities at about $lk to $25 per long ton f.o.b. Southwest re-
finery. These sulfur price structures have a direct bearing on sulfuric
acid production costs and price.
In regard to market penetration by abatement sulfuric acid, Farmer's 1971
report had these remarks:
The total potential for abatement acid systems until 1980 may be
equivalent to the acid recoverable from twenty 800-MW power stations
operating at 60% load factor on 3 wt "jo S coal. Thus, development of
outlet for acid recoverable from power plant SOX is expected to be
slow. It follows that alternatives to acid recovery will be essential
for the near term.
The structures and geography of the elemental sulfur and acid industries
will make it difficult for abatement acid to enter the market. The
willingness of existing acid marketers and captive users to offtake
abatement acid is necessary if a significant outlet is to be developed.
The incentives for such offtake have not been established yet. Currently
the acid manufacturers, particularly those who merchant industrial acid,
stand to benefit if abatement S were to enter the market in elemental
form but to lose if entry were to be as acid. On the other hand, a sig-
nificant amount of old acid plant capacity will soon need replacement.
The shutdown of such capacity may provide the opportunity for some abate-
ment acid to enter the market.
The willingness of existing acid marketers and users to offtake abatement
acid is necessary if a significant outlet is to be developed. However,
this will require the offtakers to make radical changes in their business
operations. The changes will involve difficulty and risk, and will not be
undertaken without adequate incentives.
Currently, the incentives for offtaking abatement acid are not clearly
defined. In fact, the abatement acid potential may be regarded more
as a threat than as an opportunity. The potential threats are erosion
of acid prices, loss of market position by individual acid merchanters,
and premature obsolescence of existing investments in manufacturing
plants and other facilities. Nevertheless, many existing acid plants
are old, and some will be shut down by 1975 because economic compliance
with pollution control regulations will not be possible. The latter
will supply an incentive for arranging to offtake abatement acid instead
of building a new captive acid plant.
18
-------
It must be considered that many acid manufacturers are benefitting
from today's low prices for elemental sulfur. If recovery of
abatement sulfur were to be in elemental form, such manufacturers
would continue to enjoy this advantage. In fact, the delivered
price of sulfur might well drop further in some locations. In
contrast, if recovery occurs in acid form, this will tend to put
pressure on acid prices in local markets.
Matching the size of an abatement acid plant to the outlet available
to an existing acid marketer or consumer may be difficult even if
the latter shuts down an existing plant. A single 800-MW plant,
burning 3 wt % S coal and operating at an average 60% load factor,
could produce about 1^0,000 ST/yr of 100$ acid.
The recent literature, however, indicates that there may be more optimistic
views within the industry as to the extent and timing of the impact of
abatement acid. An article in the June 18, 1973, issue of Chemical and
Engineering News notes that a second sulfur price increase in 1973 putting
the price at $3! per long ton in Florida is a "sharp turnaround from the
prospect, voiced in recent years, of unending glut." The article goes on
to describe recent announcements of large new sulfuric acid plants which
would not be consistent with fears of cheap abatement acid coming on the
market in the foreseeable future. These new acid facilities, however, may
be considered necessary to meet demands between now and the time that
abatement acid would be available in significant quantities.
L. B. Gettinger of Freeport Minerals pointed out in March 197310 that even
though sulfur was in surplus in 1972, logistically, supplies were tight.
The logistics involve the high transportation cost of moving stockpiled
Canadian sulfur into U.S. and worldwide markets. Availability also enters
the picture. Buyers of large quantities of sulfur are reluctant to take
advantage of cutrate prices of sulfur if the supplier cannot meet the
buyer1s total need. The recovered sulfur from sour gas and the refineries
are of limited quantities at each source and the sources are scattered
geographically. Buyers are concerned that the brimstone mines would be
closed down if the price structure would be seriously weakened and without
the mines operating a dependable source of sulfur would not be assured.
It thus appears one inference which can be drawn from the literature re-
viewed is that although a profitable market for a new source of abatement
sulfuric acid may not be readily available, potential markets for some
amount of acid probably could be developed. New production, transportation,
and consumption patterns would have to be developed to accommodate the
abatement acid. The pricing structure would be similar to that of sulfur
recovered from sour gas in that the abatement acid would be sold, not on
the basis of production costs, but on the basis of the maximum price the
market will allow. With substantial quantities of abatement acid becoming
available, the price would not be very stable.
19
-------
A final note of caution is worth mentioning. In cases where local market
competition is expected to be heavy, a potential abatement acid producer
needs to consider necessary measures to protect his share of the market and
to evaluate his alternatives if his outlet is lost. Long-term contracts,
neutralization or storage facilities, and emission variances are some of
the means which should be explored before committing to an acid-producing
FGD process.
20
-------
SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF TVA
TVA is a corporate agency of the United States created by the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act of 1933- *n addition to various other programs, TVA
operates a system supplying the power requirements for an area of approxi-
mately 80,000 square miles containing about 6 million people. Except for
direct service by TVA to certain industrial customers and Federal instal-
lations with large or unusual power requirements, TVA power is supplied to
the ultimate consumer by 160 municipalities and rural electric cooperatives
which purchase their power requirements from TVA. TVA is interconnected
at 26 points with neighboring utility systems.
As of July 1972, the TVA generating system consisted of 29 hydrogenerating
plants with a capacity of 3,185 MW, 11 coal-fired steam-generating plants
in operation with a capacity of 15,5^9 MW, and a small amount of gas- or
oil-fired generating capacity. In addition, power from Corps of Engineers
dams on the Cumberland River and dams owned by the Aluminum Company of
America on Tennessee River tributaries is made available to TVA under long-
term contracts. Figure k shows the location of TVA's present generating
facilities and those under construction, as well as the location of the
above Corps of Engineers and Alcoa dams. The approximate area served by
municipal and cooperative distributors of TVA power is also shown.
Power loads on the TVA system have doubled in the past 10 years and are
expected to continue to increase in the future. In order to keep pace
with the growing demand it has been necessary to add substantial capacity
to the generating and transmission system on a regular basis. Current
plans are based on meeting future additional requirements with nuclear
power stations. The TVA steam plants are listed in Table 5.
The categories of the various TVA plants are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. TVA POWER GENERATION CAPACITY (19T2)
Plant type
Coal- fired steam plants
Hydroelectric plants
Nuclear plants
Gas- or oil-fired turbines
Capacity in service
June 30, 19T2
No. of
plants
11
29
2
MW
15,509
3,185
Under construction
or scheduled
No. of
plants
1
k
MW
2,600
11,101
21
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY REGION
ro
LEGEND
Steam Plants
Coal-Fired __
Nuclear _ O
Dams _<%>
Corps of Engineers Dam [i
Aluminum Co. of America Dam A}
Under Construction iui
Approximate Areas Served
by Municipal & Cooperative
Distributors of TVA Power — i-r~\,
Coal-fired Steam Plants Q
used In this study
fO»' IOUOCX/N i. »••
WOITS B»« ft
CHIC»J>M*UGA (1 Mi
^OWN AT TOP OF SATES
' ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL)
MR_E O MIL£ 23
PADUCAH
PROFILE OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER (ALL MAINSTREAM DAMS HAVE NAVIGATION LOCKS)
Figure k. LOCATION OF TVA POWER PLANTS
-------
Table 5. TVA STEAM PLANTS
ro
Steam plant
Watts Bar (coal-fired)
Johns onvi lie"
Widows Creekb
Shawnee
Kingston
Colbert5
John Sevier
Gallatinb
Thomas H, Allen
Paradise13
Bull Bun
Browns Ferry Nuclear
Cumberland'1
Sequoyah Nuclear
Watts Bar Nuclear
Future nuclear plant
SUPPLEMENTAL GAS
TURBINES
Thomas ft. Allen
Colbert
Unit
1-4
1-6
*
7-10b
1-6
7b
8 .
l-10b
1-9
1-4
h
5b
1-4
1-2?
3-4b
1-5.
l-?b
y
i .
l-3d ,
1-2V
1.2*
l-2d
l-2d
1-16
17-20
1-8
Con-
struc-
tion
started
19^0
1949
1956
1950
1958
I960
1951
1951
1951
I960
1952
1953
1956
1956
1959
1965
1962
1967
1968
1970
1972
197^
1970
1971
1971
Units
placed
in
service
1942-45
1951-53
1958-59
1952-54
1961
1965
1953-57
1954-55
1955
1965
1955-57
1956-57
1959
1959
1963
1970
1967
1973-74
1972-73
1975
1977-78
1979-80
1971
1972
1972
Capacity, kWa
Each
unit
60,000
125,000-
147,000
172,800
140,625-
149,850
575,010
550,000
175,000
175,000-
200,000
200,000-
223,250
550,000
200,000-
223,250
300,000
327,600
330,000
704,000
1,150,200
950,000
1,152,000
1,300,000
1,220,580
1,269,900
1,332,000
23,900
59,600
59,500
Total
240,000
1,485,200
1,977,985
1,750,000
1,700,000
1,396,500
823,250
1,255,200
990,000
2,558,200
95O,OOO
3,456,000
2,600,000
2,441,160
2,539,800
2,664,000
382,400
238,400
476,000
Capacity
in
service,
June 30,
1972
240, OOO
1,485,200
1,977,985
1,750,000
1,700,000
1,396,500
823,250
1,255,200
990,000
2,558,200
950,000
382,400
Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal, gas
Coal
Coal
Nuclear
Coal
Hue lear
Nuclear
Nuclear
Gas, oil
Gas, oil
Gas, oil
24-hr
coal use
(tons)
at full
load
3,040
13,266
16,230
14,040
14,256
11,832
7,392
9,636
7,200
21,016
7,560
22,500
Location
Rhea County, TN
Humphreys County, TN
Jackson County, AL
McCracken County, KY
Roane County, TN
Colbert County, AL
Hawkins County, TN
Stunner County, TN
Shelby County, TN
Muhlenburg County, TN
Anderson County, TN
Limestone County, AL
Stewart County, TN
Hamilton County, TN
Rhea County, TN
Undetermined
a Capacity expressed as maximum generator nameplate rating.
b Plants and units used in this study.
-------
The total of 15,509 and 2,600 or 18,109 MW of coal-fired capacity is of
interest in this study because this capacity represents the potential for
sulfuric acid production. Of this potential only a portion of this capacity
is used as "base load"; that is, the plants are operated continuously ex-
cept for maintenance. These are the newer, larger and more efficient plants.
The other portion is used as "swing load," that is intermittently, or at
times of peak demand. These are the older, smaller and less efficient plants.
The TVA plants which would have the greatest potential for the installation of
sulfuric acid production facilities would be the base load coal-fired plants
(except Bull Run which burns low-sulfur content coal, 1-5$). This is based on
the indication that sulfur dioxide recovery and sulfuric acid-producing facili-
ties would be less competitive in intermittent service for TVA than limestone
scrubbing or "throwaway processes" facilities. Also, sulfur dioxide recovery
and acid-producing facilities operate more efficiently under continuous duty
with steady-state conditions.
One of the relatively new and large units is being equipped with a limestone
scrubbing sulfur dioxide removal system. This plant is the Widows Creek Unit
No. 8 and is not considered a potential sulfuric acid producer. The swing load
plants--Colbert Units 1-4, John Sevier, Johnsonville 1-6, and Kingston—generally
would have limited potential for acid production.
Therefore, of the total 18,109 MW of coal-fired capacity, 9,979 MW could be con-
sidered for sulfuric acid production. This analysis, however, is for study pur-
poses and does not take into account process reliability, costs available alter-
natives, or other environmental factors.
Using fiscal year 1972 (which started July 1, 1971, and ended June JO, 1972)
data from TVA power plant operation, estimates of possible acid production
from the 9,979 MW is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. ESTIMATE OF ACID PRODUCTION CAPABILITY (1972)
Steam plant
and unit
Colbert (5)
Cumberland (l-2)
Gallatin (l-if)
Johnsonville (7-10)
Paradise (l-j)
Shawnee (l-lo)
Widows Creek (7)
Capacity,
total MW
550
2600
1255
691
2558
1750
575
Capacity
factor,
%
31-5*
12. Oc
55-9
54-3
66.4
67-6
46.1
%
sulfur-
coal
4.2
3.8
2.8
3-7
4.o
2.8
3.2
Millions
of tons
coal
burned
0.64
0.15°
2.51
1.36
6.61
4.64
1.08
Thousands
of tons
sulfuric acid
produced
59-9
10.7
138.3
108.7
582.5
255-6
71.4
1227.1
a
Sulfuric acid tonnage in tabulation and elsewhere in report is on 100$
H2S04 basis unless otherwise noted.
Low factor due to unusual outage.
Was put in operation during later part of year.
2k-
-------
The above acid production was calculated on the basis that about 9Q% of
the sulfur in the coal is found as sulfur dioxide in the stack gas. The
remaining sulfur is rejected in the coal mills as pyrites, leaves in the
ash, or is unaccounted for. For every pound of sulfur oxidized, 2 pounds
of sulfur dioxide are produced and for every pound of sulfur dioxide that
is recovered, 1.53 pounds of sulfuric acid can be produced. The figures
in the table are based on the foregoing and on the EPA emission standard
for new coal-fired steam plants—1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million
Btu heat input. Such emission control would require the sulfur dioxide
removal efficiencies shown in Table 8.
Table 8. ESTIMATED S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Steam plant and unit
Colbert (5)
Cumberland (l-2)
Gallatin (l-i*-)
Johnsonville (f-io)
Paradise (l-j)
Shawnee (l-lO)
Widows Creek (7)
S02 removal
efficiency
81
79
71
78
80
71
75
It is thus determined that if TVA had installed acid facilities on its
potential sulfuric acid-producing plants, TVA would have produced about
1,200,000 tons of sulfuric acid in fiscal year 1972. The entire production
of sulfuric acid in the United States in 1972 was about Jl million tons;
therefore, the TVA production of sulfuric acid would have represented less
than 14$ of the national production.
Based on tentative operating projections supplied by TVA1s Division of
Power Resource Planning, an estimate of potential sulfuric acid production
from TVA's plants through the year 1985 was made. In this forecast, con-
sideration was given to the oncoming new plants--coal-fired and nuclear—
and the effect of time, age, and maintenance on operating schedules for
existing plants. Coal analyses were based on 1972 data. The years 1973
and 197^ were not included because sufficient lead time is not available
for the installation of acid production facilities during those years and
probably not until several years later. The changes from 1972 to 1975
reflect the anticipated higher load factors at some of the plants. The
forecast of theoretical TVA production is shown in Table 9.
-------
Table 9. FORECAST OF POSSIBLE TVA ACID PRODUCTION
Stem plant
•nd unit
Colbert
(5)
Cumberland
(1-2)
Gallatin
(1-4)
Johnsonvllle
(7-10)
Paradise
(1-3)
Shawnee
(1-10)
Widows Creek
(7)
Total
1975
121.9
578.7
165-3
135.9
617-3
370.0
92.6
1981.7
estimated production of
1976
112.4
578.7
159-8
135-9
617-3
187.4
86.0
1877.5
1977
121.9
578.7
159-8
135-9
617-3
253-5
92.6
1959-7
197H
112.4
578.7
148.8
120.0
608.4
253.5
86.0
1907.8
1979
103.3
578.7
143.3
111.9
608.4
253-5
86.0
1884.8
pulfuric acid (thousands of tons)
T5B6
121.9
578.7
137.8
111.9
608.4
253.5
86.0
1898.2
1981
112.4
570.5
126.8
95-9
608.4
215.0
79-4
1808.4
1982
103-3
562.2
115-7
71-9
600.0
187.4
72.8
1713.0
19H?
84.4
520.8
99.2
55-9
573-2
137-8
66.1
1537.4
19tfr
65.5
487.8
77.1
48.0
555-6
115-7
59-5
1401.6
198^
84.4
471.2
71.6
4o.o
546.7
99-2
58-9
1366.0
With sulfuric acid production between about JOO and 2000 tons of acid per
day, depending on the size of the plant; sufficient sulfuric acid storage
capacity should be provided at each power plant to provide for upsets in
shipping schedules. Such upsets could be caused by delays in barge move-
ments due to strikes, floods, or breakdowns, or an inability of the acid
purchasers to receive scheduled shipments due to a variety of reasons. A
rough determination indicates that storage for 90 days of production should
be provided at each generating station. This 90-day storage capability
matches that for coal supply, permits shipping in barge quantities, allows
for reasonable transportation tie-ups and covers the normal seasonal demand
of acid for fertilizer. Storage would also be required at the acid con-
sumer's location; to be prudent, this would probably be on the order of
thirty times the daily consumption rate. The anticipated maximum tonnages
of acid shipped monthly and plant storage facilities are estimated in Table
10.
Table 10. ESTIMATED PRODUCTION AND STORAGE VOLUMES
Steam plant
and unit
Colbert (5)
Cumberland (l-2)
Gallatin (l-4)
Johnsonville (/-lo)
Paradise (1-3)
Shawnee (l-io)
Widows Creek (7)
Maximum
monthly production
1000 tons
11.6
55-1
15.T
12.9
58.8
25-7
8.8
5-month storage at
maximum production rates
1000 tons
54.8
165-3
47-1
58.7
176. 4
77-1
26.4
(98% acid)
1000 gallons
4,530
21,520
6,130
5,039
22,970
10,040
3,437
26
-------
MARKET APPROACH
In order to determine the relationship between volume and revenue for
sale of recovered acid, a model was developed based on the hypothetical
production potential of the TVA power system. The response criterion of
the model is net sales revenue (or loss if costs for distribution exceed
price) after freight, handling, and marketing costs are deducted from
total income. For the purpose of this evaluation, a zero dollar value
for the acid has been assumed at the TVA steam plant point of production
to determine net sales revenue. However, since actual production cost
will vary with the process used, the size of the generating unit, and
other factors, the net sales revenue would be reduced by the production
cost in order to determine profitability.
Sulfuric acid may be consumed at the point of production, shipped either
across the fence or for longer distances to the final consumer, or used
in one application and after it becomes contaminated (spent) consumed in
another application. The manufacturing-marketing schemes are quite com-
plex, but several different situations can be identified.
1. Production of acid near the point of use from purchased sulfur.
2. Production of acid near the source of sulfur by the basic sul-
fur producer.
3. Marketing of spent or regenerated acid.
If. Marketing of acid recovered from pollution abatement processes
(smelters, refineries, power plants).
The first of these situations--production from purchased sulfur—is the
most vulnerable because the producer is dependent on an external source
of sulfur. The acid producer who owns his source of sulfur would consider
the investment in mining facilities as "sunk" and would take into account
only his "out-of-pocket" costs when meeting market price pressures. The
arrangements for utilization of spent acid are specialized and it would
be difficult to place abatement acid in this market.
A large incremental volume of merchant acid would result in serious price
erosion. The most orderly way to incorporate the abatement acid into the
market would be to replace the capacity of sulfur-burning sulfuric acid
plants which purchase sulfur from external sources. Therefore, the strategy
assumed for this study is to substitute recovered acid for purchased sulfur.
27
-------
MARKET POTENTIAL
At TVA1s National Fertilizer Development Center, a computerized file of
worldwide manufacturers of fertilizers and related products is maintained;
a list of sulfur-burning acid plants currently in production or planned
through 1975 was developed from this file. The study was limited to a
10-state area on the inland waterway system in the central United States.
The TVA power plants are located with access to this waterway. The states
selected were Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. Also, Florida was included as an
alternate marketing area, if required.
Information from the TVA file provided the following data for sulfuric
acid plants: company, location, annual capacity, and process type. Dates
of construction and major capital improvements were obtained from other
sources.3>n A total of 61 sulfuric acid plants (see Appendix Hi and H2)
were identified as potential points for acid sales. These points can be
roughly grouped into seven market areas: Memphis, Houston, Chicago, New
Orleans, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Tampa.
The production from the 61 plants represents the market potential for re-
covered acid—the market demand is dependent on incentive. Experience has
shown that price, quality, and convenience are the major factors that
influence product or process substitution. The primary incentive to pur-
chase acid will be cost reduction compared with manufacture from purchased
sulfur. In order to estimate the value of acid from sulfur-burning plants,
it was necessary to determine the basic (avoidable) costs of acid production.
Recovered acid could be expected to enter the market at a price no higher
than Che costs which could be avoided by shutting down the most inefficient
plant. In order to move the total production, some of the more efficient
plants would have to be shut down; therefore the price will be influenced
by the volume.
AVOIDABLE COSTS
Estimates of avoidable costs for existing sulfur-burning acid plants are
essential in this study. Simply stated, these costs are those which a pro-
ducer would not incur if he discontinued operation of the plant. They can
be delineated as follows:
Raw material Sulfur
Utilities Electric power, cooling water, process water,
boiler feed water
Operating expenses Labor, supervision, payroll overhead
Capital costs Amortized costs for maintenance of existing
facilities plus amortized cost of new capital
investment at end of useful plant life
An adjustment for loss of steam generation in the acid plant is required.
28
-------
SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION--DISTRIBUTION MODEL
In the derivation of a model to maximize the net sales revenue from sale
of abatement acid, the following factors were taken into consideration:
1. Trade-off between avoidable costs at 61 acid plants and
shipping distances from 7 power plants.
2. Effect of sulfur price.
J. Effect of volume on net sales revenue.
The combinations of these factors contribute to the complexity of the
evaluation and use of a computer is almost essential to establish maximum
revenues. A production-distribution model (similar to a transportation
linear program model) was developed to handle the several variables. The
objective of the model is to minimize acid costs to the existing sulfuric
acid plant locations while maximizing net sales revenue to TVA.
The program, which is explained in detail in Appendix A, was designed so
that key technical and economic parameters can be varied. Table 11 lists
the major parameters and shows typical values. The following description
of the parameters illustrates the logic incorporated into the model.
The first three parameters in Table 11 relate to sulfur conversion effi-
ciency as a function of plant design; the data are based on a report by
the Chemical Construction Corporation.11 Plants built prior to I960
average 95-5$ conversion and later ones are more efficient, 97$• Other
technical variables could be included with minor programming effort.
Parameters 4 through 9 are used to calculate the manufacturing cost of
sulfuric acid; an example is shown in Table 12. The investment require-
ment is based on information from the Sulphur Institute Bulletin No. 8
and operating costs based on the Chemico report.11 The values for the
investment parameters (4-6) in Table 11 are estimates based on the initial
capital estimates shown in Table 12. A regression analysis indicated that
a seven-tenths scale factor would be appropriate for either single or
multiple plant estimates. The utility costs (parameter 7) are fixed per
ton of sulfuric acid and the operating expenses (parameter 8) are annualized;
taxes and insurance (parameter 9) are proportional to initial capital in-
vestment.
In this model., the annual costs are summed and amortized, or averaged,
over all years in the firm's planning horizon. The model is constructed
in terms of constant dollars. Cost streams are composed of (l) constant
annual expenditures for sulfur, utilities, labor, and maintenance; (2)
periodic expenditures for new plants; and (3) maintenance of existing
facilities which is assumed to grow at a compound rate. Constant annual
expenditures are treated in the usual static manner since inflation is
ignored and their first-year value is the same as their average value.
Maintenance and capital outlays are treated as a percent of capital cost.
29
-------
Table 11. MAJOR PARAMETERS IN MODEL
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Description of variable
Tons of sulfur per ton H^SOj (before YEAR60)
Tons of sulfur per ton HSS04 (after YEAR60)
Year of technology change
Sulfurlc acid plant Investment (if/ton-year)
Capacity for this plant (M tons/year)
Scale factor for determining Investment for
other sized plants
Fixed conversion cost per ton ($/ton)
Fixed annual conversion cost ($/year)
Taxes and Insurance rate
Time preference rate for money
Compound maintenance rate
Economic useful life
Percent HPS04 concentration
Port Sulphur price ($/short ton)
TVA H2S04 price ($/ton H2S04)
Proportion of 330 TPD capacity estimate
Number of steam plants
Number of acid plants
Number of years considered
Years considered
Example
value
•5053
.3006
60.
2T.285
21*7-5
. 734054
.47
116.620
.015
.08
.ok
34.
98.
22.32
0.
1.
7-
61.
l.
75-
Fortran
name
PRE60
POST60
YEAR60
EXPENDO
SIZED
FACTOR
AVC
AFC
T1R
RATEI
RATEM
USELIFE
ACDCON
PS
PA
DEMAND
NPLANTS
JNUM
NY EARS
YEAR(I)
Table VcL. PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR SULFURIC ACID
Acid plant
Tons per day
Tons per year, at 330 days/yr
Initial capital, $
Unit capital, $/ton-yr
Operating costs, $
Utility costs
Electric power
Cooling water
Process water
Boiler feed water
Steam (credit)
Labor
Operating
Supervision
Overhead at JOj above
Capital costs, $
Amortized value of maintenance
plus capital outlays at
optimal useful life
(29-41 yr), Ik. 9$
Taxes and Insurance, 1-1/2^
Annual operating cost, $
(excludlnfc sulfur)
Unit cost, $•/ ton (excluding sulfur)
Capacity
50
16,500
909,000
55-09
11,570
6,040
70
980
-io,&ro
47,500
21,100
48,020
135,441
15,635
273,486
16.57
250
82, 500
3,090,000
37.45
57,800
30,200
350
4,910
-54,400
47,500
21,100
48,020
460,410
46,350
662,240
8.03
750
247,500
6,907,000
27.91
172,700
90,300
1,020
14,730
-163,000
47,500
21,100
48,020
1,029,143
103,605
1,365,118
5-52
1,500
495,000
10,905,000
22.03
346,600
181,200
2,100
29,44o
-326,000
47,500
21,100
48,020
1,624,845
163,575
2,138,380
4.32
-------
The average values of these two components are plotted in Figure 5, as a
function of useful life. It can be seen that average capital costs de-
cline rather rapidly as useful life increases. On the other hand, average
maintenance cost increases with the age of the plant. Optimal useful life
is reached when the added capital cost savings from increasing useful life
by one year just equals the added maintenance savings from shortening use-
ful life by one year. In Figure 5 this point corresponds to 5^ years and
is based on the minimum point on the average total cost curve. Note that
the average total cost curve in Figure 5 is very flat over a wide range of
years. For example, average capital charge of lk>9l° used in Table 12 covers
a range of 29 to kl years. However, random effects such as: abrupt physi-
cal, economic, technological, or environmental changes probably have the
dominant influence on timing of plant replacement.
In the present study, existing rather than new plants are of primary con-
cern. Initial capital expenditures for existing plants are "sunk" cost
and do not directly enter a firm's decision to discontinue present produc-
tion in favor of buying pollution abatement sulfuric acid. Only avoidable
costs within the firm'a planning horizon would be considered.
As explained in detail in Appendix A, the amortized cost of an existing
plant can be expressed as a function of remaining useful life. The amor-
tized values of maintenance and capital outlays for a 1-year-old plant are
shown in Figure 6. The average cost of the existing plant only reflects
maintenance, which increases with age and this is shown in Figure 6 as
"old costs." It is assumed that the level of maintenance for a plant of
given age is constant, regardless of the year built. The added savings
from postponing the building of a new plant is just offset by added main-
tenance costs in the 3^th year, which is the same optimal useful life as
for a new plant. The main difference is that the level of costs decreases
from Ik.9% in Figure 5 to J.1% in Figure 6. Figure 7 illustrates the same
sets of curves but for a 30-year-old plant. Note that optimal useful life
is still jjij- years, but that the level of cost has risen to Ik.6% of initial
capital expenditure. Note also that in Figure 6 for a 1-year-old plant,
new cost is only about 1% at Jk years, while new cost climbs to about 11$
in Figure 7 for a 50-year-old plant. Management of a new plant is not very
concerned with replacement alternatives while management of an old plant
is faced with imminent replacement alternatives. This latter group should
be receptive to exploring the alternative of purchasing pollution abatement
acid because maintenance costs are high and within a few years a decision
concerning plant modernization will have to be reached. The computer pro-
gram calculates the above-mentioned costs based on interest rate (8$ of
total investment), maintenance rate (k%> of initial investment compounded
annually at a rate of 1$), and plant age. The user is given the freedom
of selecting useful life, although the program could be modified to calcu-
late and use the optimum value.
The last eight parameters in Table 11 relate primarily to the logistical
portion of the model. It is assumed that the competitive pricing structure
for sulfur in the United States is based on a Gulf Coast price plus trans-
portation cost to a given sulfur-burning sulfuric acid plant. It is recog-
nized that Canadian and other sources of sulfur are factors but it is
assumed that these sources compete on world price basis. This assumption
seems reasonable, since firms buying imported sulfur continually bargain
against Gulf Coast sources.
31
-------
ro
8
o
Q.
O
O
a:
OPTIMAL USEFUL
LIFE
20 30
USEFUL LIFE (YEARS)
Figure 5. AMORTIZED VALUE OF MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL OUTLAYS FOR NEW PLANTS
(Assuming 8$ Interest and h-% Compound Maintenance)
-------
V)
O
o
ce
UJ
a.
OPTIMAL USEFUL
LIFE
20 30 40
USEFUL LIFE (YEARS)
Figure 6. AMORTIZED VALUE OF MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL OUTIAYS FOR ONE-YEAR-OLD PLANTS
(Assuming 8% Interest and k% Compound Maintenance)
-------
§
o
u
o
cr
OPTIMAL USEFUL
LIFE
USEFUL LIFE (YEARS)
Figure J. AMORTIZED VALUE OF MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL OUTLAYS FOR THIRTY-YEAR-OLD PLANTS
(Assuming Q% Interest and h-% Compound Maintenance)
-------
The model thus estimates a delivered sulfur cost to each acid plant con-
sidered and adds the appropriate sulfur to sulfuric acid conversion costs.
These costs not only depend on a plant's age but also on its production
capacity. This requires the assumption that obsolete plants will be re-
placed by new plants of the same capacity. The highest cost plants are
the small, old ones farthest away from the Gulf Coast.
The model calculates transportation costs from each steam plant location
to every potential sulfuric acid market point considered. While only TVA
steam plants are now presently in the program, competitive utilities could
also be included. The model allows a proportional selection of up to three
modes of transportation to each acid producer and rates are based on 100$
HaS04.
Estimated handling costs (fixed cost per ton) associated with each steam
plant, and a TVA f.o.b. acid price are added to the transportation cost,
which results in a delivered price to each acid plant. Maximum net sales
revenue is derived by adjusting the f.o.b. price of acid until the total
volume is sold.
Another important economic factor is the cost of pollution abatement facili-
ties that must be added to existing sulfur-burning acid plants. This cost
could be expected to vary considerably from one plant to another due to
age of plant and process used. The study11 of several processes prepared
by the Chemical Construction Corporation shows that costs vary from $1 to
$7 per ton of sulfuric acid. We have estimated that the average would be
about $3 per ton. This factor is not included in the program and in many
cases net revenue results shown later in the report could be increased by
this amount.
The program is written so that one or more years can be considered simul-
taneously. For a given year the model examines each acid plant to deter-
mine if that firm would be better off continuing production or buying
abatement acid. It also determines the optimum distribution pattern from
each steam plant to each acid plant. This optimization is done in such a
manner as to result in the lowest possible industry cost. The model can
determine the quantity of acid sold at a given price or the highest price
which will just move the required amount from each steam plant.
The model is written for Control Data Corporation Kronos timesharing and
can be run from most any location through a standard telephone. Further-
more, the program can be made available to anyone interested in its use.
Appendix B summarizes the operating procedure. The heart of the model is
a conversational linear programming package called APEX. The present pro-
gram calculates costs for each acid plant - steam plant combination (pres-
ently over kOO) and then generates the required input data file. APEX is
run to optimize the model and a second program interprets solutions as
printed reports. An interactive system is also available which can dis-
play any or all of the standard linear programming solution values.
35
-------
A significant part of the present project is considered to be a demonstra-
tion of this highly useful, modern approach to computer service. Trans-
ferring results from one research group to another, either within the same
organization or to another organization, is often difficult. It is possible
that timesharing could prove an extremely valuable tool in improving this
transferability.
FREIGHT RATES AND HANDLING CHARGES
Freight rates used in the model were obtained from TVA's Navigation Economics
Branch located in Knoxville, Tennessee. These rates can be divided into two
categories:
1. Those used for shipping sulfur from Port Sulphur, Louisiana, to
various plant locations. These rates are used as a factor in
determining the cost of sulfuric acid production at each plant
location.
2. Those rates for shipping sulfuric acid from the seven TVA steam
plants to each of the various sulfuric acid production locations.
These rates are a factor in determining the netback to TVA.
The freight rates for sulfur, both rail and barge, are shown in Appendix C.
The rail rates shown are for crude sulfur with the exception of Fort Madison,
Iowa, where liquid (molten) sulfur has an established lower rate. Barge
rates, which are negotiable, have been estimated for liquid sulfur per net
ton (short ton). At some locations truck rates have been used because they
are lower than rail rates. It will be noted that the tables contain a
column for "percent barge." This was provided so that the cost of alter-
nate transportation could be included when factors affecting the availa-
bility of barges such as river freezing or lack of supply prevent water
transportation. This will be discussed in the various market "cases" later
in the report.
Sulfuric acid freight rates are shown in Appendixes D, E, and F. Appendixes
D and E are based on barge shipments. As mentioned before, since barge
rates are negotiable, all of these rates have been estimated. It should
be noted that the barge rates to the phosphate mining locations in Florida
have been deleted in the appendix tables; only rail rates will be used be-
cause they are less than the barge rates. All barge rates used in the study
are complete rates including equipment costs and towing charges.
In addition to acid and sulfur freight charges, there will be charges for
handling or moving the materials at each plant location. These costs have
not been delineated in this study due to the time that would be required
to obtain the data. Handling charges can be expected to vary considerably
from one location to another. For example, at Fort Madison the sulfur-
burning plant is located on the waterway and has its own docking facilities.
On the other hand, the plant located at North Little Rock, Arkansas, is
located approximately 15 miles from the nearest docking facility. Plants
-------
included m this study are now incurring handling charges for movement of
sulfur for their existing operation. Should they cease production, these
charges would no longer be incurred. It is felt that, even though the
tonnage of sulfuric acid would be about three times that of sulfur the
lowered cost for handling sulfuric acid would approximate the handling
charges now being experienced by these plants so that, in effect the
costs are generally equivalent.
An estimated cost of $0.20 per ton has been programmed into the model to
cover acid storage at the existing acid plants. This would provide 30-
day storage at the existing sulfuric acid plants. (Storage required at
the steam plants is assumed to be included in the steam plant's acid pro-
duction costs. ) The unit cost is based on estimated capital costs for
the tanks and auxiliary facilities of $20 per ton. The investment require-
ment was determined from information obtained in personal communication
with an acid producer and estimates of tank costs provided by General
American Transportation Corporation.
37
-------
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
BASE CASE
Table \J> shows the market pattern for the abatement sulfuric acid for the
base situation. Tables showing variations from the base situation are
contained in Appendix G and will be discussed later in the report. The
base situation shows the market pattern and maximum net sales revenue for
the acid under the following conditions: All acid is sold externally;
acid concentration is set at 98 H2S04; demand, or market potential, is
assumed to be 100^ of annual capacity of sulfur-burning plants considered,
using 330 working days per year; sulfur is priced at $25 per long ton f.o.b.
Port Sulphur, Louisiana; transportation costs for sulfur from Port Sulphur
to each acid plant location is assumed to equal barge rates shown in Appen-
dix C with the exception of Texas locations where no transportation costs
other than handling costs would be expected to occur. Sulfuric acid pro-
duced at each steam plant is shipped entirely by barge.
The base case market pattern shown in Table 13 is the most economical
market pattern under these conditions and would allow TVA to obtain maxi-
mum net sales revenue for its acid. In this case, maximum net sales
revenue is .'|>8-76 per ton. It should be noted that this is the lowest of
the marginal costs shown for each of the seven steam plants. If the unit
price were increased without a change in other variables such as sulfur
price, then TVA would not be able to sell all of its acid. Furthermore,
if net sales revenue per ton were to be increased and acid sales were re-
duced, the production from the Widows Creek plant (which has the lowest net
sales revenue) would be the most economical place to cut acid production.
However, if operation of the power plant were dependent on continued
operation of the abatement facility, acid would be produced and sold at a
lower return or neutralized for disposal.
The list of plant locations shown is the most economical number of customers
where TVA acid could be marketed. If acid is sold at these locations, then
cost of sulfuric acid in the 11-state area is minimized and TVA maximizes
its net sales revenue.
Table 13 lists production capacity and actual production for each of the
sulfuric acid plant locations selected by the model. These two columns
are used to identify the sulfuric acid plant's marginal capacity versus
its actual use. The plant which continues to produce a portion of its own
acid is identified as the "swing" or marginal plant. In this case the swing
plant is No. 37 located at East Chicago, Indiana, and would be the first
plant to discontinue purchase of TVA acid should delivered acid price in-
crease or delivered sulfur costs decrease. Appendix I shows the cost of
sulfuric acid production for each plant location used in the model.
The column headed "sulfur reduction, $" shows the change in the marginal
cost of sulfur at any given plant that would be required before it would
become more economical for it to produce its own acid. For instance, if
the plant at Joliet, Illinois (No. 35) could reduce its sulfur costs by
$1.2if per short ton while sulfur costs to all other plants remained the
the same, then it would not receive TVA acid.
38
-------
Table lj. BASE CASE MARKET PATTERN FOR TVA H2S04
SULFUR PRICE = $22.32
vo
(M TONS)
ACID O
MAXIMUM TVA
PRODUCTION ACTUAL
CAPACITY PROD'N
PLANT
LOCATION
2. N.LITTLE ROCK,AR 86 0
28. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL. 153 0
29. MONSANTO,ILL 139 0
30. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL. 239 0
32. CALUMET CITY. ILL Ml 0
33. JOLIET,ILLINOIS 36 0
35. JOLIET,ILLINOIS 256 0
36. STREATOR,ILL. 35 0
37. E.CHICAGO,IND. 334 72
38. LASALLE,ILLINOIS 35 0
40. JOLIET,ILLINOIS 299 0
41. CALUMET CITY.ILL 30 0
42. CHICAGO HTS,ILL 30 0
46. BATON ROUGE,LA. 90 0
47. NEW ORLEANS.LA. 30 0
54. HAMILTON,OHIO 63 0
55. CINCINNATI,OHIO 30 0
56. CINCINNATI,OHIO 16 0
60. COLUMBUS,OHIO. 18 0
61. COLUMBUS,OH10 24 0
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT PRODUCTION
MARGINAL ACID COST
-------
Acid shipments from each steam plant to the various locations are also
shown in Table 15. This is the most economical distribution pattern for
TVA acid. Should some other distribution pattern be used, then TVA would
have a reduced net sales revenue or sell less acid. For instance, by
examining a complete listing of the program we can determine the amount
of freight TVA would have to absorb in order to sell acid in the large sul-
furic acid-producing area of Florida. TVA's net sales revenue would vary
from a minus $0.28 per ton for acid shipped from the Widows Creek Steam
Plant to a minus $2.21 per ton for acid shipped from the Shawnee Steam
Plant to plant location No. 10 at Pierce, Florida.
Plant capacity refers to sulfuric acid production capabilities for each
steam plant as listed earlier in this report. Plant production shows the
amount produced from the seven steam plants--in this case, 1.98 million tons.
INFLUENCE OF FREIGHT COSTS
Acid freight costs have the greatest effect on TVA's net sales revenue.
The base case assumes that TVA would be able to ship all of its acid by
barge. In all likelihood, weather and other external forces would make it
necessary for TVA to occasionally rely on rail shipment to maintain an even
supply to its customers. A variation of the base case calculated on the
basis that 80$ of the acid produced by TVA would be shipped by barge and
20% by rail is shown in Appendix Gl. Total net sales revenue in this var-
iation would be $12-9 million, a decrease in total net sales revenue of
$^.^ million or a reduction of 2$% from the base case. This decrease re-
flects the increased cost of rail rates and emphasizes the advantage that
TVA would have due to the location of its plants on or near the inland water-
way system. Tables A and B in Appendix K show transportation costs for
sulfuric acid from each steam plant. The costs shown in these tables can
also be used to calculate the delivered price of acid for each location.
For example, the delivered price to acid plant No. 37 in the base case
would be $8.76 plus $3.08, the weighted average barge rate for the acid
shipped from the three steam plants involved, or $11.8!+ per ton.
INFLUENCE OF SULFUR PRICE
In order to determine the effect that sulfur prices would have on TVA's
net sales revenue, variations of the base case have been calculated for
two additional levels in sulfur price, $20 and $30 per long ton, f.o.b.
Port Sulphur, Louisiana. (The effect of sulfur price on TVA net sales
revenue is shown in Figure 8.) A reduction in the price of sulfur from
$25 to $20 results in a decrease of $2-7 million in TVA's net sales revenue.
An increase of $5 per ton in the cost of sulfur to $30 per ton would result
in an additional $2-7 million in net sales revenue to TVA.
-------
35
(T
UJ
a.
UJ
o
cc
u.
24
TOTAL NET SALES REVENUE
(MILLION DOLLARS)
Figure 8. EFFECT OF SULFUR PRICE ON TVA NET SALES REVENUE
-------
INFLUENCE OF ACID CONCENTRATION
As pointed out earlier in the report, one of the sulfur dioxide recovery
processes, Monsanto Cat-Ox, produces 80$ sulfuric acid. Appendix G4 shows
the market distribution pattern for 80$ acid. It has been assumed that
this acid could be marketed to the fertilizer industry at the same price
(100$ basis) that the 98$ acid could be marketed. This may be an over-
simplification because the potential market volume for the lower strength
acid is less than for the total sulfuric acid market. Even at the equiva-
lent price, net sales revenue per ton of sulfuric acid would decline about
$1 from $8.76 to $7-75, as compared to the base case. This reduction in
net sales revenue is a result of increased transportation cost for the more
dilute acid..
EFFECT OF CHANGE IN NET SALES REVENUE
The effect that a change in TVA1s net sales revenue or "price" has on acid
sales is shown in Figure 9 for the base case. As expected, acid movement
declines as the "price" of TVA acid increases. In order to move all of its
acid, TVA could charge no more than $8.76 per ton plus freight. It could
expect to move only about one-half of its production for $10. At $20 per
ton of acid no acid could be sold externally.
EFFECT OF CHANGE IN DEMAND
As used in this report, market demand is assumed to equal annual capacity
based on a 330-day work year. It is recognized that in actuality this
would not be true. Older plants would tend to operate at less than rated
capacity, while newer plants would tend to operate at or above rated capac-
ity. Thus, costs of older plants that are operating below capacity would
be higher and cost for new plants somewhat lower than those shown in the
report. In order to obtain an accurate estimate of demand, a more detailed
survey of potential users of abatement acid would be required. As a means
of approach to this problem, a comparison was made between the total acid
plant capacity on the TVA list for the United States versus production
estimated for the United States by the Department of Commerce for 1971
(latest data available).
The Department of Commerce estimate of 29-5 million tons is 7^.4$ of the
TVA estimated capacity of 39-4 million tons. In order to illustrate the
effect of changes in demand, one variation of the base case was run at 75$,
or an annual capacity based on about 250 days. Appendix G5 shows the distri-
bution pattern for this variation of the base case. Note that TVA acid must
be shipped to 26 locations as compared with 20 in the base case. Net sales
revenue is reduced by slightly over $2 million due to the necessity of moving
TVA acid for longer distances to customers who will have lower acid produc-
tion costs.
-------
UJ
UJ
>
LJ
EC
CO
LJ
to
fc
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
QUANTITY H2S04 (MILLION TONS)
Figure 9. DEMAND FOR TVA SULFURIC ACID
-------
REALISTIC 1975 CASE
From an industry overview, the variations from the base case which appear
the most realistic have been combined and a 1975 solution shown in Table 14.
The production -distribution transportation pattern is shown for a total ex-
ternal marketing situation where demand is set at 75$, acid concentration
at 98$, and transportation costs for sulfuric acid based on 20$ rail and
80$ barge rates. Under these conditions maximum TVA sales revenue would be
$5.99 per ton of acid. Total net sales revenue would be $11.9 million.
INTERNAL USE OF SULFURIC ACID
As an alternative to total external marketing of sulfuric acid, TVA might
use a portion of the sulfuric acid at its National Fertilizer Development
Center at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The abatement sulfuric acid would be used
in the production of phosphoric acid for fertilizer manufacture. Current
TVA plans indicate the need for purchasing merchant- grade phosphoric acid
in the amount of approximately 74,000 tons of P205 in 1975- The cost to TVA
for this phosphoric acid is estimated to be $1.25 per unit of P205 in 1975
and $1.30 per unit of P205 in 1976 (a unit is 20 pounds of P205; merchant-
grade phosphoric acid contains 54$ P205).
The amount of sulfuric acid that would be produced from Colbert No. 5 (550 MW)
and Widows Creek No. 7 (575 MW) would be about 221,000 tons in 1975. A phos-
phoric acid plant sized to use this amount of sulfuric acid would produce
about 74,250 tons per year of P205, or about 225 tons per day. The capital
cost of such a plant would be about $8 million. The production costs in
dollars per ton of P205 are shown in Table 15.
In addition to the savings incurred by producing its own P205, TVA would re-
ceive an increased net sales revenue from its remaining external acid sales
as shown earlier. Assuming a situation where sulfur is priced at $25 per
long ton, f.o.b. Port Sulphur, Louisiana, and acid concentration is 98$, net
sales revenue would climb from $8.76 per ton where all acid (1.98 million
tons) is sold externally to $9.27 per ton when only 1.78 million tons has to
be marketed. This is due to (l) increased freight savings when TVA acid
could be shipped from closer steam plant locations, and (2) to the fact that
less acid would have to be sold to the marginal (low conversion cost) sulfur-
burning acid plant.
At the market price of $1.25 Per ""it f°r P205, the marginal value of sulfuric
acid used in phosphoric acid production is $8.56 per ton after an adjustment
is made for the loss of revenue from reduced external acid sales. This unit
acid value represents the increased return from use of the acid as compared
with marketing the total volume. Thus, the total net sales revenue to TVA
under these conditions could be estimated as follows:
Savings to TVA for P205 (74,250 tons/yr) $ 2,524,000
Net sales revenue from external sales 16,500,000
Total net sales revenue $19,024,000
-------
Table Ik. REALISTIC MARKET PATTERN TOR TVA H2S04
SULFUR PRICE « S22.32
(M TONS)
ACID CONCENTRATION = 98% CAPACITY
MAXIMUM TVA ACID PRICE WOULD BE S 5.99
75%
BARGE
80*
1.
2.
23.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
39.
40.
41.
42.
46.
47.
52.
b4.
55.
06.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
PLANT
LOCATION
HELENA,ARK.
N.LITTLE ROCK.AR
E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
MONSANTO,ILL
E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
MARSEILLES,ILL.
CALUMET CITY,ILL
JOLIET,ILLINOIS
JOLIET,ILLINOIS
STREATOR,ILL.
E.CHICAGO,IND.
LASALLE,ILLINOIS
JOLIET,ILLINOIS
CALUWET CITY,ILL
CHICAGO HTS,ILL
BATON ROUGE,LA.
NErf ORLEANS,LA.
GEISMAR,LA.
HAMILTON,OHIO
CINCINNATI,OHIO
CINCINNATI,OHIO
COLUMBUS,OH10
COLUMBUS,OH10
COLUMBUS,OHIO
COLUMBUS,OH10
COLUMBUS,OH10
PRODUCTION ACTUAL
CAPACITY PROD
101
64
115
104
179
157
83
27
192
26
250
26
224
22
22
67
22
58
47
22
12
48
40
40
13
18
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT PRODUCTION
MARGINAL ACID COST (S)
TOTAL PRODUCTION =• 1982
IAL
i'N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
YEAR
BUILT
67
46
37
67
54
62
56
54
45
51
37
37
42
47
60
53
65
68
48
46
38
65
49
55
37
37
SULFUR
REDUC'N
(S)
7.52
15.19
14.64
8.37
9.13
1.62
7.91
23.92
4.53
22.74
0.
29.41
3.88
30. 3 1
24.91
7.79
19.49
3.42
21 .22
39.16
59.82
0.
9.35
0.
37.49
28.09
COLR
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
STEAM PLANT SALES
CU.MB GALL PARA SHAri
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
192
0
190
0
I 17
22
22
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
40
40
13
18
0
0
35
104
179
0
83
27
0
0
0
0
107
0
0
0
0
0
47
22
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
157
0
0
0
26
60
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WIDC
0
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JOHN
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122 579 165 617 270 93 136
122 579 165 617 270 93 136
6.65 6.97 6.62 6.84 7.57 5.99 7.01
TOTAL NET SALES REVENUE « S 118721 70
-------
Table 15- PRODUCTION COSTS FOR PHOSPHORIC ACID PIANT
(225 tons/day)
Annual operating costs
Direct cost
Phosphate rock, 31.1$ P205 (68$ BPL)
3.58 tons at $14.25/ ton
Sulfuric acid, transportation cost from
Colbert and Widows Creek,\ 2.7 tons at
$l/ton (truck rate)
Labor, 0.83 man-hr at $6-50
Maintenance, 6$ of plant cost
Electricity, 330 kWh, $0.006/kWh
Cooling water, 5.5 M gal at $0.02/M gal
Supplies, analysis, and handling
Total direct cost
Indirect cost
Insurance and taxes, 2$ of plant cost
Depreciation, 12 yr
Overhead, 100$ labor
Interest, 7-1/2$
Total indirect cost
Total production cost
$/ton P20S
51.00
2.70
5-40
7-20
1.98
0.11
2.20
70-59
2.40
10.00
5.40
4.50
20.22
90.8la
This is equivalent to $0.91/unit of P205 (unit =
20 Ib). The net savings would be about $1.25
minus $0-91 equals $0.34/unit of P205 or
$34 per ton of P205
$2,524,000 per year
46
-------
This can be compared to the same situation for the base case where total
net sales revenue amounted to $17,351,886 or a difference of $1,672,000
per year.
If TVA were to enter into an agreement with a commercial fertilizer com-
pany or some other organization that has P205 requirements and jointly
build a phosphoric acid plant, further savings could be realized due to
economics of scale. With completion of the Tennessee-Tombigbee canal ex-
pected in 1981, barge shipment of phosphate rock to Muscle Shoals at low
rates will make such an arrangement even more attractive.
-------
REFERENCES
1. McGlamery, G. G., R. L. Torstrick, J. P. Simpson, and J. F. Phillips,
Jr. Conceptual Design and Cost Study—Sulfur Oxide Removal from
Power Plant Stack Gas, Magnesia Scrubbing - Regeneration: Production
of Concentrated Sulfuric Acid. Tennessee Valley Authority (under
contract with the Environmental Protection Agency). PB 222 5°9«
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
May 1975- 372 p.
2. Current Industrial Reports: Inorganic Fertilizer Materials and Related
Acids, January 1973- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Washington, D.C. 2023}. Series: M28B(73)-1. March 1973- 6 p.
3. Chemical Economics Handbook. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,
California 9^025- December 1967. 792.2010A-792.8030G.
1+. Svenson, 0. W. Sulfuric Acid Supply and Demand in the United States.
A Shortage of Acid? Sulphur (London). No. 100: 6l-6>, May/June 1972.
5. Farmer, M. E. Long Range Sulfur Supply Demand Model. Esso Research
and Engineering Company (under contract with the Environmental Protection
Agency). PB 208993. National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151- November 1971. p. 23.
6. Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses,
Twenty-Third Annual Supplement-1970. Federal Power Commission. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. FPC S-222
(Stock No. 1500-0227). June 1972. 171 p.
7. Manderson, M. C. World Sulfur Outlook into the late 1970's. Arthur D.
Little, Inc. (Presented at the l60th American Chemical Society National
Meeting. Chicago. September 14-18, 1970). 3A p.
8. Farmer. Op. cit. Appendix 6.
9. Winton, J. M. Dark Cloud on Sulfur's Horizon. Chem Week 108 (6):
25-27, 30-32, 3^ 36, February 10, 1971.
10. Gittinger, L. B. Sulphur—Outlook for Producers Best in Several Years.
Eng Ming J 17**: 152-154, March 1973.
11. Engineering Analysis of Snissions Control Technology for Sulfuric Acid
Manufacturing Processes. Chemical Construction Corporation (under
contract with the Environmental Protection Agency). PB 190393-
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
March 1970.
12, Bixby, D. W., D. L. Rucker, and S. L. Tisdale. Fhosphatic Fertilizers:
Properties and Processes. The Sulphur Institute. Washington, D.C. 20006.
Technical Bulletin No. 8 (Revised). October 1966. 85 p.
-------
APPENDIX A
SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION--DISTRIBUTION MODEL
The sulfuric acid production-distribution model can be defined using the
following:
AC(J) = sulfuric acid production cost for the J acid plant ($/ton)
P(J) = quantity of acid produced by the J acid plant (thousand
tons)
DAP(I,J) = price of sulfuric acid delivered to acid plant J from steam
plant I ($/ton)
B(I,J) = quantity of acid purchased by acid plant J from steam
plant I (thousand tons)
D(J) = sulfuric acid demand for acid plant J (thousand tons)
K(I) = sulfuric acid production capacity for steam plant I
(thousand tons)
The objective of the model is to determine the quantities of acid production
P(J) and acid purchases B(I,J) which minimize sulfuric acid cost to all
sulfur-burning sulfuric acid producers. In the model each acid producer
is given the option of continuing production at AC(J) $/ton or purchasing
acid from each TVA steam plant at DAP(I,J) $/ton. The model selects the
production-purchase pattern which minimizes total sulfuric acid cost for
the industry, subject to the constraints that steam plant acid capacities
are not exceeded and sulfuric acid producer demands are met. The model can
be summarized mathematically as follows, assuming 61 acid plants and 7
steam plants.
61 7
MINIMIZE I (AC(J) +£[DAP(I,J)*B(I,J)]}
J=l 1=1
subject to:
7_
J) • D(J)
V
1=1
-------
61
£B
-------
Other production costs are defined as
C(J) = AVC + [AFC/D(J)] + [TIR*EXPEND(J>] -I- AVCE(J)
where
AVC = fixed conversion cost per ton
AFC «= fixed annual cost
TIR = taxes and insurance rate
EXPEMI(J) = capital expenditure per ton for sulfuric acid plant J
AVCE(J) = amortized value of annual capital expenditures by
producer J.
The predominate reason for defining these cost categories is to conform
with previous engineering cost studies.
Capital expenditure for a sulfuric acid plant reflects economies to scale.
An accepted statistical model for estimating capital expenditure curves is
ln(EXPENDi) » ln(B) -f AlnD.
which is a log linear model whose coefficients (A,B) can be estimated by
least squares, given observations on (EXPEND.,D.)• The model can then
be expressed as
EXPEND = BDA.
An alternative procedure used in engineering cost studies is called the
six-tenth factor rule of thumb. It can be expressed mathematically as
EXPEND(J)*D(J) _ (^D(J)^; 6
EXPENDO*DO ~ ^VQ / *
where (EXPENDO.DO) are the known expenditure and capacity of a given plant;
and it is desirable to scale to plant size D(J) and estimate its expenditure,
EXPEND(J), according to a .6 factor. This procedure results in the following
estimators:
A - -.4
B = EXPENDO(DO)'4.
Hence, in the model the only expenditure estimates required are;
EXPENDO,DO,FACTOR.
-------
The model was constructed using the factor rule-of-thumb concept, but
FACTOR and EXPENDO were estimated with a log-linear regression.
As is the case with most engineering cost studies, the present model
assumes constant dollars overtime. However, the model does deal with
cash-flow patterns in a more realistic manner, and thus could be readily
modified to account for expected rates of inflation. The fundamental
problem in dealing with alternative cash-flow patterns is expressing
multivariable flows as unique, comparable values. This is done by
introducing a time preference rate for money, i, and discounting cash-
flow streams to a common equivalent point in time. If TCF^ is the total
cash flow for year k, the present value of this cash-flow pattern (PVCF)
is:
TCFk
PVCF - > —'
•I
where H is the firm's planning horizon in years. The model assumes an
infinite planning horizon, although the accuracy of cash-flow estimates
beyond about 40 years is not critical since their added discounted value
is essentially zero. Since persons are more accustomed to dealing with
annual rather than lump-sum present values, an amortization or equal
annual mortgage representation of cash-flow patterns is desirable. This
can be stated mathematically as
H
AMCOST
= PVCF
where AMCOST is a constant annual cash flow which is precisely equal to
the present value of cash flow (PVCF). For very long planning horizons
it can be shown that
AMCOST = i PVCF
or
TCFk
AMCOST
T
)
All costs referenced to this point have been assumed constant per year and
their sum is now defined as ACF, while time-dependent expenditures are
defined as CF. , hence
TCFk = ACF + CFk,
-------
and it can be shown that,*
V i CFi
AMCOST = ACF + ) £_•
L-> /•!_,_.vk
k=l
A more formal presentation of the model could include constant-per-year
costs in the cash flow; since without inflation, the dynamic and static
statement of the model yields identical results.
Suppose the cash-flow stream can be represented as equal lump-sum
expenditures which occur every T years. This might represent the useful
life of a piece of equipment or of an entire plant. The above cash- flow
equation assumes that costs are incurred at the end of the kth period
Let these periodic expenditures occur at the beginning of the period so
that the amortized value of these expenditures, AMEXPEND, is
00
AMEXPEND = Y i EXPEND
L a+nkT '
k=0 U+1'
and it can be shown that
AMEXPEND = AMORT*EXPEND
where
T
AMORT =
which is the standard amortization formula, often referred to as periodic
rent of an annuity whose present value is one. It might be noted that a
standard approximation used in mathematical analysis is+
Using the approximation
(l+i)T = 1 + Ti.
AMORT = - + i,
1'1' Handb°°k °f Che^stry and Phvsics. (36th edition)
+ "Approximations," Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, (36th edition)
>"*'^-^ ^
-------
one gets the approximation used in most engineering cost studies. The
first term is called depreciation, and the second term is called interest
on investment. The exact amortization expression is used in the model.
When equipment is new, plant maintenance is at a relatively low level,
but as plants age maintenance and replacement costs increase. At some
point in time it becomes more profitable to stop rebuilding old plants
and build a new one. It seems reasonable to estimate maintenance
patterns with an expotential growth function, which is equivalent to
compound interest. Since historical maintenance data on sulfuric acid
plants were not available, the standard engineering cost assumption that
maintenance is proportional to initial capital expenditure was used. As
a result, annual maintenance expenditure in year k, MA, , is estimated as
MAk - M(l+M)k" ^EXPEND,
where M is the compound maintenance rate. As a result, the .present value
of maintenance over T years, PVMA(T), is
PVMA(T) = EXPEND * Y
It can be shown that
PVMMT) - S^l { 1 -
Define the useful life of a plant as USELIFE, so that the present value
of maintenance for a new plant, PVMANEW, is
PVMANEW = PVMA (USELIFE) .
The present value of maintenance is equivalent to a lump-sum expenditure
like initial capital investment, so they may be added and amortized to
get the capital and maintenance cost for a new plant:
COSTNEW = AMORT (EXPEND + PVMANEW).
In addition to dealing with the cost of new plants, a requirement of the
model is that it handle the cost of existing plants. Since the capital
expenditure on an existing plant is a sunk cost, it does not enter the
cash flow. Only avoidable costs are considered. The amortized cost for
an existing plant, AMCOST, can be defined as
AMCOST = COS TOLD + — COSTNEW
a+1,USELIFE-AGE
-------
where COSTOLD is the amortized or average maintenance and replacement cost
for an existing plant which is AGE years old. As the managers of this
existing plant look at their cash flow in perpetuity, they expect annual
costs to increase. When it becomes profitable to stop rebuilding the old
plant and replace it with a new one, they will. Hence, the useful life,
USELIFE, is an economic rather than a physically determined variable, it
is definitely not an income tax related variable to be confused with'lRS
accepted depreciation rates. The AMCOST formula reflects not only the
average annual costs of the existing plant but also the amortized cost of
replacing this plant after (USELIFE-AGE) more years. However, since
COSTNEW can be avoided for sometime, it must be discounted to the present.
If an existing plant has just been built, COSTNEW will be discounted to
virtually zero and will not materially affect the estimate of AMCOST.
However, the managers of a very old plant may be seriously considering
such a replacement decision within the next year or so, and the discounted
value of the new plant will greatly affect their decision. The important
thing to keep in mind is that AMCOST is an avoidable cost. One opportunity
for avoiding it in the present study is to buy pollution abatement sulfuric
acid.
Since data on maintenance costs of existing sulfuric acid plants of various
ages were not available, it was decided to assume that maintenance on an
existing plant would be approximately the same as that of a new plant of
equivalent AGE. As a result, the present value of maintenance on the
existing plant, PVMAOLD, is
USELIFE-AGE
PVMAOLD = Y M(1+M)
= PVMA (USELIFE-AGE)* (1+M)AGE,
and the amortized cost of this present value is
COSTOLD = i*PVMAOLD.
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA SETUP AND OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM EXECUTION
DATA SETUP
An ASCII sequential data file was developed for the TVA sulfuric acid
distribution model. These data include major parameters used in the model
(Table 5); data for TVA steam plants (Appendix J); capacity data for
sulfuric acid plants (Appendix H); and barge and rail rates (Appendices
D, E, and F). Each line in the data file begins with a specific 5-digit
line number followed by the standard delimiter (one space). On pages 59
through 63 is a listing of this data file which has been named SDAT714.
Major Parameters in Model
The major parameters for this model are given in lines 00001 through 00020
of the data file. A value must be specified for each of the 20 parameters.
One or more spaces separate the value from the line number. The major
parameter data setup is as follows;
Line
No.
Value of
Parameter
Columns
1-5
00001
00002
00003
00004
00005
00006
00007
00008
00009
00010
7-18
.3053
.3006
60.
27.285
247.5
.734054
.47
116.620
.015
.08
Line
No.
Value of
Parameter
Columns
1-5
00011
00012
00013
00014
00015
00016
00017
00018
00019
00020
7-18
.04
34.
98.
22.32
0.
1.00
7
61
1
75
Data for Steam Plants—Fixed Format
Data for this section of the file are supplied in the order of line number,
steam plant name, report name, steam plant costs in dollars per ton, and
sulfuric acid production capacity in thousand tons per year for a maximum
of 10 years. Line numbers for these data are from 10001 to 100** in
-------
increments of one, where ** represents the number of steam plants A
maximum of 10 steam plants may be used in this model. A description of
these data are as follows:
Line
No.
1-5
10001
10002
10003
10004
Steam Plant
Name
7-18
Colbert
Cumberland
Gallatin
Paradise
Report
Name
20-23
COLB
CUMB
GALL
PARA
Steam
Plant
Costs
Sulfuric Acid - Prod. Capacit-y
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Columns
24-29
.20
.20
.20
.20
30-35
121.9
578.7
165.3
617.3
36-41
42-47
Year
4
48-53
Year
5-9
• * •
Year
10
84-89
Data for Sulfuric Acid Plants--Fixed Format
Sulfuric acid plant data are supplied in the order of line number, plant name,
plant location, year built, annual sulfuric acid production capacity in
thousand tons, rail freight rate for sulfur from Gulf Coast to add plants
in cents per ton, barge freight rate for sulfur from Gulf Coast to acid plant
in cents per ton, and the percent barge assumed in the model Line numbers
will extend from 20001 to 200** in increments of one w£ere ** re"preZts
the total number of acid plants. A maximum of 99 acid plantfcan be used
in this model. The following example shows the data layout for sulfur c
acid plants;
Line
No.
1-5
20001
20002
20003
20004
Sulfuric Acid
Plant Name
7-26
Arkla Chemical Corp
Olin Corporation
American Plant Food
Borden Chemical
Plant Location
Columns
28-43
Helena, AR
N Little Rock, AR
Houston, TX
Texas City, TX
Year
Built
45-46
67
46
65
53
Ann.
Cap.
48-51
135
86
116
128
Rail
Rate
53-56
1580
1343
1740
1740
Barge
Rate
58-61
260
280
0
0
%
Barge
63-65
100
100
100
100
57
-------
Barge and Rail Rates—Fixed Format
The last section of the data file provides the barge and rail rates for
shipments of sulfnric acid from TVA steam plants to each of the sulfuric
acid plants. There are three data lines for each sulfuric acid plant:
(first line) 1,500-ton barge rates from each TVA steam plant, (second
line) 3,000-ton barge rates from each TVA steam plant, and (third line)
rail rates from each TVA steam plant. The line numbers extend from
30101 to 3**03 where the second and third digits represent the particular
acid plant number and ** represents the total number of acid plants. The
second and third digits represent acid plant numbers. The fifth digit
represents the type rates as described above. The first figure in each
line following the line number is the percentage of that type freight used
in the model. An example of these data are shown below:
To acid
Plant 1
To acid
Plant 2
Line
No.
7
/o
Used
FROM STEAM PLANT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Columns
1-5
30101
30102
30103
30201
30202
30203
7-9
100
0
0
100
0
0
11-
14
285
265
619
370
350
828
16-
19
245
210
675
315
300
904
21-
24
285
265
782
370
350
997
26-
29
285
265
782
370
350
997
31-
34
195
185
675
275
260
904
36-
39
345
325
805
400
370
1021
41-
44
245
210
675
315
300
852
46-
49
51-
54
56-
59
PROGRAM EXECUTION
Program--GENS714
The Fortran program GENS714 will print eight different data Tables and/or
generate the required APEX input data file after calculating costs for each
acid plant, steam plant combination. (See complete listing of this program
on pages 6k through 71.)
Program execution begins with a RUN, MA = 56000 command. In response to the
"ENTER DATA FILE NAME?" command, the present data file name, SDAT714, is
entered. The program then responds "IS SPECIAL REPORT DESIRED?" A "NO"
answer to this query causes the program to skip to the question "DO YOU WISH
TO RUN THIS PROBLEM (YES OR NO)?" which is discussed below. A "YES" answer
initiates the program response "ENTER SPECIAL REPORT DESIRED #(1-8, 9=ALL,
0=REPORT NAMES)?" One or all of the data reports (Tables 1-8) may be
-------
printed at this point. A "0" may be entered to print the eight report
names (shown below). The nine choices for printing the tables are:
1. Sulfuric Acid Plants Considered in Model
2. Steam Plants Considered
3. Sulfur Freight Rates
4. 1,500-Ton Barge Rates
5. 3,000-Ton Barge Rates
6. Rail Rates
7. Transportation Costs Used in Model
8. Sulfuric Acid Production Costs
9. All of the Above
After the final table is printed, the program responds "DO YOU WISH TO RUN
THIS PROBLEM (YES OR NO)?" A "NO" answer terminates execution, whereas a
"YES" answer causes the program to generate the APEX input data file
called TAPE3. This file is to be saved under a permanent file named LUCK714,
Program--GOG714
After the APEX input data file has been saved as a permanent file (LUCK714)
the linear programming formulation is ready to be initiated. (See complete
listing of this program on page 72.)
The actual linear programming formulation of the model takes a slightly
different form from that described earlier. The activities of the model
are defined as:
XO = Aggregate quantity of sulfur purchased by the sulfur-
burning sulfuric acid plants considered
X1(J) = Quantity of sulfur shipped from Port Sulphur to acid
producer J
X2(J) = Quantity of sulfuric acid produced by acid plant J
X3(I,J) = Quantity of sulfuric acid purchased from steam plant I
by acid producer J
X4 = Total quantity of TVA acid sold.
The objective of the model is to determine values of the above quantities
which minimize the functional
61 7
£[s
-------
term is defined earlier. This minimization is subject to the following
constraints:
61
(0) XO - ^ Xl(J) = 0
J=l
(1) X(J) - F(J) X2(J) = 0 (J=l,2,...,61)
7
(2) X2(J) + £ X3(I,J) = D(J) (J=l,2 61)
1=1
61
(3) £ X3(I,J) s K(I) (1-1,2,....7)'
J=l
61 7
(4) X4 - £ ^ X3(I,J) = 0.
J=l 1=1
The linear programming model is solved with Control Data Corporation's
APEX optimizer, which uses a modified MPS input-output format. The main
difference in standard MPS and APEX format is that 10-character names,
which may begin with numbers, are acceptable by APEX. The naming scheme
for both rows and columns is the 5-digit format
L JJII,
where L is the node level corresponding to the above five constraint sets
or the five XL activity definitions
L = 0,1,2,3,4.
The formula for a given name is
(10000*L) + (100*J) + I,
where J=0 or 1=0 where ranges of these indicies are not implied. A
primary purpose of the program GENS is to generate this MPS format
on TAPE3 for input to APEX.
A unique feature of interactive APEX is the option that solutions may
be placed in very compact Fortran files. This feature is used in
generating the special report for the model. This APEX operation is
triggered by typing "-GOG714" or, if the APEX input data file name is
60
-------
other than LUCK714, operation is begun by typing "-GOG714 (LUCK714=input
data file name)."
The results of this run are saved by the program in a direct access solution
file called SOL714. After the solution file has been generated by APEX a
second program can be used to list the entire MPS report, or to selectively
list various parts of the total solution, using masking options.
Program--REPT714
A special report (Appendix Gl) on the Market Pattern for H2504 can be
printed by using the program REPT714. This Fortran program is a report
writer that reads the results from the solution file SOL714 and prints
the special report. (See a complete listing of this program on pages
73 through 75.)
61
-------
SDAT714 -- PAGE I
12.31.23
73/08/29
OOOO1
00002
00003
00004
00005
00006
00007
00008
00009
00010
000 t 1
000)2
00013
00014
0001 5
00016
00017
00018
00019
00020
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
20001
20002
20003
20004
20005
20006
20007
20008
20009
20010
2001 1
20012
20013
20014
20015
20016
20017
20018
20019
20020
20021
20022
20023
20024
20025
20026
20027
20028
.3053
.3006
60.
27.285
247.5
.734054
.47
1 16.620
.015
• 08
• 04
34.
98.
22.32
0.
1.00
7
61
1
75
COLBERT C0LB
CUMBERLAND CUMB
GALLATIN GALL
PARADI SE PARA
SHAWM EE SHAW
WID0WS CREEK WI DC
J0HNSONVILLE J0HN
ARKLA CHEMICAL C0PR.
OLIN CORPORATION
AMERICAN PLANT F00D
B0RDEN CHEMICAL IND.
E.I .DUP0NT DE NEM
E.I .DUP0NT DE NEM
OLIN C0HP0RATI0N
OLIN CORP0RATI0N
OLIN CORPORATION
AGRIC0 CH EM- WILLIAMS
B0RDEN CHEMICAL IND.
CF INDUSTRI ES,INC.
CF INDUSTRI ES,INC.
CF INDUSTRIES, INC.
CF INDUSTRIES, INC.
CITIES SERVICE C0
C0NSERVE»INC.
FARMLAND INDUSTRIES
FARMLAND INDUSTRIES
W.R.GRACE A C0.
W.R.GRACE & C0.
CHEMICALS, INC.
CHEMICALS, INC.
R0YSTER C0MPANY
SWIFT * COMPANY
U.S.S.AGRI-CHEM.
U.S.S.AGRI-CHEM.
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP
.20 121.9
.20 578.7
.20 165.3
.20 617.3
.20 270.0
,20 92.6
.20 135.9
HELENA, ARK.
N. LITTLE R0CK,AR
H0UST0N, TEXAS
TEXAS CITY, TEXAS
H0UST0N, TEXAS
LAP0RTE, TEXAS
BEAUM0NT,TX
PASADENA, TEX AS
PASADENA, TEXAS
PIERCE, FLORIDA
PALMETT0, FLORIDA
B0NNIE, FLA.
PLANT CITY, FLA.
PLANT CITY, FLA.
PIERCE, FLORIDA
TAMPA, FLORIDA
NICHOLS, FLORIDA
PIERCE, FLORIDA
GREENBAY,FLA.
BART0W,FLA.
BART0W, FLA.
BART0W, FLORIDA
BONNIE, FLA.
PIERCE, FLORIDA
BAR TOW, FLA.
BARTOW, FLA.
FOKT MEADE,FLA.
E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
67
46
65
53
61
60
57
65
65
55
66
55
55
55
55
59
73
61
66
65
60
65
63
65
48
60
62
37
135
86
1 16
128
300
350
180
222
150
718
450
1486
419 .
660
428
928
400
478
748
330
700
980
594
278
274
376
492
Ib3
580
343
740
740
740
740
740
740
740
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
580
260
280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
490
565
565
410
410
490
185
490
490
565
565
565
565
565
490
565
565
600
375
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
62
-------
SDAT714 -- PAGE 2
12.31.23
73/08/29
20029
20030
20031
20032
20033
20034
20035
20036
20037
20038
20039
20040
20041
20042
20043
20044
20045
20046
20047
20048
20049
20050
20051
20052
20053
20054
20055
20056
20057
200 5S
20059
20060
20061
30101
30102
30103
30201
30202
30203
30301
30302
30303
30401
30402
30403
30501
30502
30503
30601
30602
30603
30701
30702
30703
30801
AMER. ZINC* LEAD* SMELT
MONSANTO COMPANY
AG PRODUCTS C0
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AHCC CHEMICAL
ARMY AMMUNITION PLT
BORDEN CHEMICAL IND.
E.I .DUPONT DE NEM
MATTHI ESSEN & HEGLEK
MOBIL 01 L C0MPANY
OLIN CORPORATION
SWI FT AND COMPANY
U.S.S.AGR1-CHEM.
AGRICO CHEM- WILLIAMS
AGKI PRODUCTS(BEKER)
ALLIED CHEMICAL C0HP
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP
AMERI
CAN
COASTAL
COASTAL
CYANAMID
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
E.I .DUPONT DE
FREEPORT
NEM
MINERALS
RUBICON
STAUFFER
AMERI
CAN
CHEM I
CAL CO
CYANAMID
INTERNATIONAL
MOBIL
AMER.
AMERI
AMERI
MINER.
OIL COMPANY
ZINC*LEAD&SMELT
CAN
CAN
ZINC
ZINC
OXIDE
0F ILL
BORDEN CHEMICAL IND.
FARMERS
100
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0 1
too
0
0 1
100
0
0 1
100
0
0 1
100
0
285
265
619
370
350
828
590
540
322
590
540
322
590
540
322
590
540
322
550
50 b
0 1229
too
590
FERTILIZER
245
210
675
315
300
904
530
435
1344
530
4B5
1344
530
485
1344
530
485
1344
490
450
1275
530
285
265
782
370
350
997
590
540
1438 1
590
540
1438 1
590
540
1438 1
590
540
1438 1
550
505
1344 1
590
M0NSANT0*ILL 67
E«ST.L0UIS*1LL. 54
MARSEILLES.ILL. 62
CALUMET CITY*1LL 56
J0LIET* ILLINOIS 54
FORT MADISON* I A. 68
J0LI ET*ILLIN0IS 45
STREAT0R,ILL« 51
E.CHICAGO, IND. 37
LASALLE/ILL1N0IS 37
DEPUE,ILLIN0IS 67
J0LIET*ILLIN0I S 42
CALUMET CITY* ILL 47
CHICAGO HTS*ILL 60
DONALD *VLLE*LA. 70
TAFT*LA 65
GEISMAR/LA. 67
BATON ROUGEjLA
NEW.ORLEANS*LA
PASCAGOULA*MI
PASCAGOULA*MI
BURN3IDE
*LA.
UNCLE SAM* LA.
GEISMAR*LA.
BAT0N R0UGE*LA
HAMILTON
*0HI0
CINCINNATI*OHI
CINCINNATI *0HI
COLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
CBLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
235 195
265 185
782 675
370 275
350 260
997 904
590 490
540 450
438 1344
59 0 49 0
540 450
438 1344
590 490
540 450
438 1344
59 0 49 0
540 450
438 1344
550 450
505 415
368 1299
590 490
>0HI0
*0HI0
*0HI0
*0HI0
*0HI0
345
325
805
400
370
1021
655
600
53
. 65
58
72
67
68
68
. 65
48
0 46
0 38
65
49
55
37
37
245
210
675
315
300
852
530
485
139
239
210
111
36
449
256
35
334
35
359
299
30
30
1224
429
450
90
30
210
495
450
1632
78
750
63
30
16
64
53
54
18
24
1580
1580
1640
1640
1640
938
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
820
820
820
820
820
1023
1023
820
820
820
820
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1 700
1700
1700
375
375
475
505
485
450
485
655
505
470
470
485
505
505
110
110
1 10
120
too
135
135
1 10
1 10
1 10
120
670
485
485
1085
1085
1085
1085
1085
100
100
loo
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
too
100
100
1462 1344
655
600
1462 1
655
600
1462 1
655
600
1462 1
615
565
530
485
344
530
485
344
530
485
344
490
450
1368 1275
655
530
-------
SDAT714 -- PAGE 3
12.31.23
73/08/H9
30H02
30H03
.109 0 1
30902
30903
31003
31103
31203
31303
31403
31503
31601
31602
31603
31703
31803
31903
32003
32103
32203
32303
32403
32503
32603
32703
32601
32802
32803
32901
32902
32903
33001
33002
33003
33101
33102
33103
33201
33202
33203
33301
33302
33303
33401
33402
33403
33501
33502
33503
33601
33602
33603
33701
33702
33703
0
0
too
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
0
0
100
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
too
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
540
1322
1
590
540
322
126
126
126
106
106
126
10OO
1
960
106
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
250
230
805
250
230
805
250
230
805
350
325
576
370
340
1603
1
1
1
1
1
365
335
603
320
295
547
365
335
603
560
535
520
385
355
603
485
1344
530
485
1344
1210
1210
1189
1189
1189
1210
940
905
189
189
210
210
189
189
189
189
210
189
189
189
230
210
719
230
210
719
250
210
719
290
270
1441
320
300
1441
315
290
1441
260
245
1441
315
290
1441
510
490
1412
325
300
1441
540
1438
590
540
438
169
189
169
169
1169
1 169
1000
960
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
169
250
230
782
250
230
782
250
230
782
350
325
1467
370
340
1467
365
335
1467
320
295
1494
365
335
1467
560
535
1441
385
355
1467
540
143R
590
540
1438
1210
1231
1210
1189
1189
1210
1000
960
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
250
230
675
250
230
675
250
230
675
350
325
1304
370
340
1304
365
335
1304
320
295
1359
365
335
1304
560
535
1276
385
355
1304
450
1344
490
450
1344
1210
1231
1210
1210
1210
1210
890
860
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
160
155
713
160
155
713
160
155
713
250
240
1304
285
265
1304
275
260
1304
220
210
1276
275
260
1304
470
455
1235
285
270
1304
600
1462
655
600
1 462
1106
1 106
1082
1082
1082
1106
1050
1005
1082
1082
1 106
1106
1082
1082
1082
1082
1106
1082
1082
1082
300
280
890
300
280
' 890
300
280
890
400
370
1603
445
410
1603
435
405
1603
390
340
1683
435
405
1603
620
590
1576
450
415
1603
4H5
1344
530
4«f>
344
189
210
189
169
169
189
940
905
1 182
1189
1 189
1189
1189
1 189
1 189
1 189
1 189
1 189
1 189
1 189
230
210
719
230
2 10
719
230
210
719
290
270
1467
320
300
149 4
31 5
290
1494
260
245
1441
315
29 O
1494
510
490
1441
325
300
1494
6k
-------
SDAT7I4 -- PACE A
12.31,23
73/08/29
33801
33808
33803
33901
33902
33903
34001
04002
34003
3-4101
34 102
34103
3420)
34203
34203
34301
34302
34303
34401
34402
34403
34501
34502
34503
34601
346C2
34603
34701
3470S
34703
34801
34803
34803
34901
3 49 OB
34903
3500 1
35002
35003
35101
35102
35103
35201
35203
35203
35301
35362
35303
35401
35402
3S403
35301
35502
35503
35601
100
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
o
100
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
100
335
310
1547
330
305
1547
365
335
1603
370
340
1603
385
355
1603
465
425
1112
465
425
1043
465
425
912
465
425
912
465
425
890
5 45
500
869
545
500
869
465
425
935
465
425
935
465
425
912
465
425
912
536
511
912
330
305
912
330
885
e*5
1441
280
265
1441
315
290
1441
320
300
1441
325
300
1441
405
370
1183
405
370
1136
405
370
996
405
370
996
405
370
996
485
445
977
485
445
97,7
405
370
1039
405
370
1039
405
37O
996
405
370
996
486
466
761
280
260
761
280
335
310
1441
330
305
144!
365
335
1467
370
340
1467
385
355
1467
465
485
1275
465
485
1205
465
425
1061
465
425
1061
465
485
1061
545
500
996
545
,500
996
465
425
1061
465
425
1061
465
425
1061
465
425
1061
531
506
719
325
300
719
325
33S
310
1304
330
305
1304
365
335
1304
370
340
1304
385
355
1304
465
425
1229
465
425
1253
465
425
1082
465
425
1082
465
425
1082
545
500
1061
545
500
1061
465
425
1106
465
425
1106
465
425
IOS2
465
425
1082
426
416
675
220
210
675
220
245
£30
1235
240
230
1235
275
260
1304
285
263
1304
285
270
1304
355
325
1205
355
325
1159
355
325
996
355
325
996
355
325
1018
445
415
996
445
415
996
355
325
1039
355
325
1039
355
325
996
355
325
996
451
436
1276
245
230
1276
245
395
365
1603
390
365
1603
435
405
1603
445
410
1603
450
41S
1603
515
470
1205
SIS
470
1136
SIS
470
1061
515
470
1061
515
470
996
600
550
935
600
550
93S
SIS
470
1018
515
470
1OI6
SIS
470
1061
SIS
470
1061
596
566
826
390
360
826
390
285
265
1441
280
26S
1441
31 5
290
1494
320
300
1494
325
300
1494
405
370
1159
405
370
1136
405
370
977
405
370
977
40 5
370
996
485
445
977
485
445
977
405
370
1018
405
370
1018
405
370
917
405
370
977
486
466
826
280
260
826
280
-------
SDAT714 -- PAGE 5
12.31.23
73/08/29
35602
35603
35701
35702
35703
35801
35802
35803
35901
35902
35903
36001
36002
36003
36101
36102
36103
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
100
0
0
too
0
0
100
0
0
305
912
965
930
1603
965
930
1603
965
930
1603
965
930
1603
965
930
1603
260
761
910
885
1439
910
885
1439
910
885
1439
910
885
1439
910
885
1439
300
719
965
930
1358
965
930
1358
965
930
1358
965
930
1358
965
930
1358
210
675
965
930
1304
965
930
1304
965
930
1304
965
930
1304
965
930
1304
230
1276
360
830
1467
860
830
1467
860
830
1467
860
830
1467
860
830
1467
360
826
1030
1000
1520
1030
1000
1520
1030
1000
1520
1030
1000
1520
1030
1000
1520
260
826
910
885
1494
910
885
1494
9 10
885
1494
910
885
1494
910
885
1494
LENGTH » 237 LINES
66
-------
GENS714 — PAGE I
73/08/29
THIS F0RTRAN PROGRAM PRINTS DATA REPORTS AND GENERATES MPS
DIMENSION AND DATA STATEMENTS
PROGRAM GENSC I NPUT, 0UTPUT. TAPE1 , TAPES)
DIMENSION DC100>,SCIOO>,TC10,100),STMCAP<10,10>,Ctmn
F<100),ILOC<2,100),RAILLC»PS
READC1,)LC»PA
READC 1*>LC* DEMAND
READC1,>LC,NPLANTS
READC 1,)LC,JNUM
READC 1*>LC»NYEARS
READC1,)LC,CYEARCI
D0 2 L^l,NY EARS
2 YEAR19CL)*YEARCL) +
STEAM PLANT DATA
D0 36 I«1*NPLANTS
READC1,35)NN0CI>,NNAMC1,I),NNAMC2,I),NRPTNAMU
1N0(J),INAMCI,J),INAM(2,J>*IL0CC1,J),XL0CC2»J)*
-------
GENS714 -- PAGE 2
13.04.59
73/08/29
GT. Y EAK60) G0 T0 96
96
31
00650* YEAHBLTCJ),U,BAKGCJ),PERt3ARS2A10, 1X.A10*A6* 1X*F2«0*3< 1X*F4.0), 1X,F3.0)
D(J)=D(J)*DEMAND
SULTCSTU)=C«
9 IFCYEAKDLKJ)
FCJ)=PKE60
GO TO 31
FCJ)=POST60
CONTINUE
EXP=FACT0R-I.
ALPHA=EXPENDO/* » I * 1 «NPLANTS)
F0RMAT( IX, 12, 12* 1X*F3.0* 10C1X*F4«0))
IFL
DO 901 I=1*NPLANTS
BAR1(I*J)=TEMRATE(I)
G0 TO 48
D0 902 1=I*NPLANTS
BAR2( I , J) =TEMRATE< I >
G0 TO 48
D0 903 I=1»NPLANTS
RAILU*J)=TEMRATE
SPECIAL REPORTS
SPECIAL REP0RT DESIRED (YES 0R N0)>
T0 199
01140
011.50
01 160
01170
01180***
01 190***
PRINT 550
F0RMATC//37HIS
READ*ANSW
IF(ANSW.E0.2HN0)GO
PRINT 105
FQKMAT<48HENTER SPECIAL REP0RT *C1-8*9=ALL,0"REP0RT NAMES)!
RCAD,N0REPT
IF(N0REPT.EQ.O)G0 T0 106
G0 T0 < 107»3»6»12» 14* 170* 521/ 180*1 14>*N0REPT
REPORT NAMES
68
-------
GENS714 -- PAGE 3
13.04.59
73/08/29
01200 106
01210 115
01220+
01830+
01240+
01250+
01260+
01270+
01280+
01290
01300 114
01310***
01320*** REPORT
01330 107 J=l
01340 137
01350 131
01360+
01370+
01380
01390 132
01400+
01410 134
01420
01430
01440
01450
01460
01470 139
136
333
PRINT 115
FOKMAT11HREPCRT NAME/2H1•,IX,
40HSULFURIC ACID PLANTS CONSIDERED IN M0DEL/2H2., IX,
23HSTEAM PLANTS CONSIDERED/2H3.,1X,20HSULFUR FRE GHT RATES/
2H4.,1X,20H1500 T0N BARGE RATES/2H5.,IX, ^"GHT RATES/
20H3000 T0N BARGE RATES/2H6.,IX,10HRAIL RATES/2H7.,
1X,34HTRANSP0RTATI0N C0STS USED IN M0DEL/2H8.,
1X,30HSULFUR1C ACID PR0DUCTI0N C0STS/2H9 ., IX,
16HALL 0F THE AB0VE//)
G0 TO 116
NALL=0
l\
233
60
01480
01490
01500
01510
01520
01530
01540
01550***
01560***
01570
01580
01590
01600+
01610+
0162O
01630
01640
01650+
01660
01670
01680
01690
01700
01710
01720
01730
01740
PRINT 131
F0RMAT
K=7
PRINT 134,IN0(J),INAMC1,J),INAM(2,J),1L0CC1,J),IL0C<2,J>,
YEARBLT
F0RMATCI2,2H. ,2A10,2X,A10,A6,3X,2H19,F2.0,3X,F4.0)
K=K+1
IF(J.EO.JNUM)G0 T0 333
J=J+1
IFCK.EQ.6DG0 TO 139
G0 TO 132
PRINT 136 $ G0 T0 137
F0RMAT(///>
J=65-K
DO 233 1=1,J
PRINT 60
F0RMATC1H )
IF(NALL.EQ.O)G0 T0 3
G0 T0 50
REP0RT *2
3 J=l
7 PRINT IUCYEAR190),I = 1,NYEARS>
11 F0RMAT
PRINT 60
80
120
130
PRINT 80,NNO(J),NNAM<1,J),NNAM(2,J),NRPTNAM(J),C0STCJ>,
2,10F8.1)
IF(J.EQ.NPLANTS>G0 T0 130
J=J+1
IF(K*EQ.61)G0 T0 120
G0 T0 S
PRINT 136 $ G0 T0 7
J=65-K
D0 140 I«1,J
-------
GENS714 -- PAGE A
13*04.59
73/08/29
01750 140
01760
01770
01780***
01790*** REPORT
01000 6 Jal
01810 8
01820 45
OB83O+
01840+
01650
01860 S3
01870 49
01880
01890
01900
01910
01920
01930 52
01940 51
01950
01960 54
01970
01980
01990***
02000*** REPORT
02010 12 J=l
13
160
PRINT 60
IF*IL0C*S(J>*BARGCJ),PERBARS(J>
F0RMATC2*2H. * A10* A6»2C 4X/F4.0) 7X»F3. 0)
52
8
IF
F0RMAT//>
PRINT 60
K=7
SUMsO.O
00 440 I*1.NPLANTS
SUM=SUM+BAR1CI»J)
IF*
64 F0RMATC12*2H. * A10* A6» 1X*F4.O» IX* 10F6.0>
442
71
75
78
IF(J.EO.JNUM)G0 T0 75
J=J+1
IFCK.EQ.6DG0
G0 T0 72
PRINT 136 S G0
J = 65-K
00 78 I=I*J
PRINT 60
IFG0
G0 T0 50
T0 71
T0 13
TO 14
02250***
02260*** REP0RT *5
02270 14 Jal
15 PRINT 150*(NRPTNAM(M)»M=1»NPLANTS)
ISO F0RMAT
-------
GENS714 -- PAGE
13.04. 59
73/08/29
02300*
02310
02320
02330 124
02340
02350 443
02360
02370
02380+
02390
02400
02410 444
02420
02430
02440 122
02450 121
02460
02470 123
02480
02490
02500***
0251O*** REP0RT
02520 170 J=l
02530 172
02540 171
02550+
02560
02570
173
SUM=0.0
D0 43 I =1»NPLANTS
SUM = SUM+DAR2U,J>
IF(SUM.EQ.O.O)G0 T0 444
PRINT 64,IN0,IL0C<1,J),IL0C(2,J>,PERFSTM<2,J>,
,Isl,NPLANTS>
K=K+1
IFCJ.EQ.JNUM)G0 T0 121
J=J+1
IF(K.EQ.61)G0 T0 122
G0 T0 124
PRINT 136 $ G0 T0 15
J=65-K
00 123 I=1,J
PRINT 60
IF(NALL.E0.0)G0 T0 170
G0 T0 50
PRINT 171*(NRPTNAM(M)*M=1»NPLANTS)
F0RMAT//)
PRINT 60
K = 7
SUM=0.0
D0 445 I=J*NPLANTS
SUM=SUM+RAILCI,J>
IF,IL0C<2,J),PERFSTMO,J>,
(RAIL(I»J),I=1,NPLANTS)
K=K+1
IF(J.EQ.JNUM)G0 T0 174
J=J+1
IF^K.EQ.61)00 T0 175
G0 TO 173
PRINT 136 $ G0 T0 172
J»6S-K
00 176 1=1,J
PRINT 60
IF(NALL.EQ.O)G0 TO 521
G0 T0 50
PLANTS/
0258O
02590
02600 445
0261O
02620
02630+
02640
02650
02660 446
02670
02680
02690 175
02700 174
02710
02720 176
02730
02740
02750***
02760*** REPORT *7
02770 521 J=l
02780 522 PRINT 523*CNRPTNAM(M>*M=1*NPLANTS)
02790 523 F0RMAT/l5X»34HTRANSP0RTATI0N C0STS USED IN M0DEL//39X*
02800+ 12HSTEAM PLANTS/IX*1H*»2X*8HLOCATI0N*10X,10<2X>A4)//)
02810 PRINT 60
02820 K=»7
02830 524 SUM=0.0
02840 00 525 1=1*NPLANTS
71
-------
GENS714 -- PAGE 6
13.04.59
73/08/29
02850 525
02860
02870
02880 564
02890
02900
02910 526
02980
02930
02940 528
02950 527
02960
02970 529
02980
02990
03000***
03010*** REP0RT
03020 180 J=l
03030 190
81
SUM»SUM+TU*J>
IFCSUM.EQ.0.0>G0 T0 526
PRINT 564*IN0(J)>IL0C(1»J)*IL0C(2,J),(T(I*J).
F0RMATCI2*2H. * AID,A6*2X*10F6.0)
K*K+1
IFG0 T0 180
G0 T0 50
I»l,NPLANTS>
84
83
89
210
133
03040
03050*
03060+
03070
03080
03090
03100*
03110
03120
03130
03140
03150
03160
03170
03180
03190
03200
03210***
03220***
03230***
03240 199
03250 4
03260
03270
03280
03290
03300
03310
03320
03330
03340
03350
0336O
03370
03380
03390
900
910
920
930
30
90
PRINT 81»,IL0CCljJ)*IL0C<2»J>»F»
(C(J*I)*T0TC0ST(J*I)*I=1*NYEARS)
F0RMAT(I2»2H. *A10*A6*3X*F5.4.4X*10CF6.2*2X»F6.2) )
K=K+1
IF(J.EQ.JNUM)GO T0 210
JaJ+1
IF(K.EG.61)60 T0 89
G0 T0 84
PRINT 136 S G0 T0 190
J = 65-K
D0 133 1=1*J
PRINT 60
GENERATE MPS FILE
PRINT 4
F0RMAT(/43HD0 Y0U WISH T0 RUN THIS PROBLEM (YES 0R N0))
READ/ANSWRUN
IF(ANSWRUN.EQ.2HN0>G0 T0 299
REWIND 3
WRITEO»900)INAME
F0RMATC4HNAME* 1 OX» A!0«/« 4HR0WS)
F0RMAT<1X»1HE*2X»I 5)
F0RMATC1X»1HL*2X»I5)
F0RMATC 1X«1HN>2X>4HC0ST*F2.0)
00 30 I=1*NYEARS
WRITE<3»930)YEAR(I)
DO 90 J = 1»JNUM
IR0W=10000*100*J
WRITE(3*910)IR0W
00 92 J=1»JNUM
72
-------
GENS714 -- PAGE 7
13.04.59
73/08/29
03400
03410
03420
03430
03440
03450
03460
03470
03400
03490
03500
03S10
03520
03530
03540
03550
03560
03570
03580
03590
03600
03610
03620
03630
03640
03650
03660
03670
036SO
03690
03700
03710
03720
03730
03740
03750
03760
03770
03780
03790
03800
03810
03820
03830
03840
03850
03860
03870
03880
03890
03900
03910
O3920
03930
03940
92
94
990
1R0W=20000*100*J
WRITE<3*910)IR0W
DO 94 l«l.NPLANTS
IR0W330000+L
WRIT£<3»920)IR0W
IR0WMODOO
WRITE< 3/910>I ROW
IR0W=40000
WR1TE(3*910)IR0W
WRITE(3,990>
F0RMATC7HC0LUMNS)
D0 100 J=|jJNUM
IC0L=IOOOO+100*J
WRITEC3, 1000HC0L*IC0L
SCJ)=SCJ)/100.
D0 41 I«1>NYEARS
41 WRITEO* 10IO)IC0L*Y£ARCI >, SULTCSTCJ)
100 C0NT1NUE
1000 F0RMATC4X»I5»5X*5H10000*5X,3H-1*«12X*15»5X»3H-I*>
1010 F0RMAT<4X*15.,5X,4HC0ST*F2.0»4X»F6.2)
00 200 J=1,JNUM
IC0L=20000+100*J
IR0W=10000+IOO*J
WRITE(3*1020)IC0L>JR0W*F(J).IC0L
1020 F0RMAT<4X»I 5, 5Xt I 5« 5X«F6> 4*9X» I 5* 5X»SH1*>
00 40 IB |, NY EARS
WRITE<3* 1010) I C0L*YEARCI ) »C
1061 F0RMAT<
WRITEC3*
1070 F0RMAT
1040)1C0L
4X,I5, 5X,5H40000, 5X,3H-IO
1,NYEARS
1041) IC0L«YEAR * T
4X,15, 5X.4HC0ST»F2.0*4X>F6.2)
1050)
4X*5H40000*5X,5H40000'SX*2HU)
1* NY EARS
1051)YEAR(I),PA
4X*5H40000*5X»4HCOST*F2.0*3X»F6.2)
1060)
4Xj5HIOOOO»5X*5HtOOOO*5X*2Hl*>
1,NYEARS
1061)YEAK(1 )*PS
4X*5H100OO» 5X» 4HC0ST* F2. 0» 4X* F6. 2>
1070)
HRHS)
75
-------
GENS714 -- PAGE 8
13.CM.59
73/08/29
039 bO
03V 60
03970
039HO
03990
04000
04010
04020
04030
0404O
040 SO
04060
04070
04oso
04090
04100
041 10***
P4I20***
04130***
041 40***
04150
04160
04170
04180
04190
04200***
04210*+*
04220
04230
04240
04250
04260***
04270***
04280
04290
04300
04310
04320
04330
04340
04350
04360
DO 46 K=UNYEARS
DO 400 J=I,JNUH
IHOW=20000+100*J
400 WRI TEC3, I 080) Y EAKCK) ,1 R0W, DC J)
1 080 F0RMATC 4X, 3HRHS, F2 . 0, 5X, I 5, 5X » F 1 0 . 3)
DO 500 I=I,NPLANTS
I ROW=30000+I
500 WKI lt!(3, KWO>YEAH(K),IR0W, STMCAP(I>K)
46 CONTINUE
WKI TEC 3* 1090)
1090 FOKMAT<6HENDATA)
REWIND 3
PIUNT 1100
1100 FOKMAT<20HTAPE3 READY FDR APEX)
299 STOP
END
FUNCTIONS
FUNCTION
-------
GOG714 -- PAGE J 13.35.23 73/08/29
110* ATTACH,APEX/UN=LIBRAKY.
120*$GET*TAPE1=LUCK714.
130, JREWIND,TAPE1.
140* $GET* TAPE3=INB714.
150,SKEWIND»TAPE3.
I 60* SATTACH* S0L7I4/MrW.
170*$ATTACH»0UT714/M=W.
180*RFL»40000.
19 0* APEX ( SOL VE, Ml N> 0=SOL7 \ 4* S0F=OUT714* RL = 25, SP* BCD* INB)
200»$REWIND, S0L714.
210»$RETURN,S0L7I4.
220,SREWIND»0UT7I4.
230»$RETURN»0UT714.
LENGTH = 13 LINES
-------
KEPT714 •• PAGE 1
13.38.14
73/08/29
00100***
001 10+**
00120
00130
00140
00 150
O0160
00170
00180
00190
00200
00210
00220
00230
00240
00250
00260
00270
00280
00290
00300
00310
00320
00330***
00340***
00350***
00360
00370
00380
00390
00400
00410
00420
00430
00440
00450
00460
00470
00460
00490
00500
00510
00520
00530
00540
00550
00560***
00570***
005BO***
00590 110
00600
00610
00620
00630
00640
THIS FORTRAN PROGRAM PRINTS REPORT 0N MARKET PATTERN FOR H2S04
PROGRAM SULRPTC INPUT. OUTPUT* TAPE 1*TAPE2)
DIMENSION LOC( IOO*2)*DEM< 1GO)*PC0ST( 100)*PR0D< 100).BUYC 103* 10)
DIMENSION ACAP<10)*ACCST(10)*A<16)*B<8)*APR0C10)*YEARC10)
DIMENSION 13TM< 10),NKPTNAM< 10)*YEARBLT< 100)
EQUIVALENCE (KNHR0B* At 2) ) * ( RD0BJFN* A(8) ) * (LJR0 WS. A< 15))
EOUI VALENCE ( LJCOLS* A< 1 6) ) * ( ACT* B< 3) ) * < UP* B( 6) ) , C VAL» B< 7) )
PRINT 1000
1000 FOKMATC24HENTER SOLUTION FILE NAME)
KEAD 1010*S0LFILE
1010 FHRMAT(AV)
CALL ATTACH<5HTAPE1>S0LFILE,0*0*0)
REWIND 1
CALL 0PENMS
-------
REPT714 -- PAGE 2
1 3 • 38 . 1 4
73/08/29
130
220
140
00 6 SO
00660
00670
00680
00690
00700
00710
00720
00730
00740
00750
00760
00770
00780
00790
00800
00810
00820
00830
00840
00850
000 60
008 70
00880
00890
00900
00910
00920
00930
00940
00950
00960
00970
00980
00990
01000
01010
01020
01030
01040
01050
01060
01070
01080
01090
01100***
Oil 10***
01120***
01130
01 1 40
01150
0 I 1 60 170
01 170+
01180+
150
155
361
363
362
DO 130 'J=1,JNUM
CALL SETSCTO, INDEX)
CALL HEADMSO,B*8,-0)
INDEX "INDEX +8
ACAP
-------
REPT714 -- PAGE 3
13.38
73/08/29
01200 171
01210+
01220 172
01230*
01240
01250
01260
01270
01280
01290
01300
01310
01320
01330+
01340 2000
7X,8HCAPACITY.2X,6HPR0D'N,2X.SHBUILT.
••••
173
240
F0RMATC/8X*5HPLANT*8X>10HPH0DUCTI0N, IX, 6HACTUAL,2X, 4HYEAR 2*
6HSULFUR, 14X,17HSTEAM PLANT SALES)
F0HMATC7X»8HL0CAT10N*
7HREDUCfN,10<2X,A4>>
PRINT 173
F0RMAT<48X*3HC$>>
00 160 I=1,INUM
TBUY=0»
D0 240 J=I,JNUM
TBUY = TBUY + BUYU*J>
CONTINUE
IF >L0C< I *2>, DEMf I > ,PR0bCI > ,YEARBLT ,
PC0ST(I)>(BUY(I*J)*J=1/JNUM)
F0RMAT(I2»2H. '» A10*A6/
01350+
01360 160
01370
01380
01390
01400
01410
01420
01430
01440
01450+
01460
01470
180
190
200
270
10F6.0)
CONTINUE
PRINT 180*(ACAP(J)»J=1»JNUM)
PRINT 190*»J=1,JNUM)
PRINT 200*(AC0ST(J)»J=1*JNUM)
PRINT 270»SUMAPR0»TNB
F0RMATC/I4HPLANT CAPACI TY» 39X* 10F6.0)
F0RMATC/I6HPLANT PR0DUCTI 0N*37X* 10F6.0)
F0RMAT(/22HMARGINAL ACID C0ST C$) , 31X* 10F6
F0RMATC/19HT0TAL PR0DUCTI0N » >F6.0*20X*
27HT0TAL NET SALES REVENUE « $, F9.0/////)
ST0P
END
2X> »2X* F2.0, 2X» F7.2, IX*
2)
LENGTH » 138 LINES
-------
APPENDIX C
SULFUR FREIGHT RATES
0 LOCATION
1. HELENA, ARK.
2. N. LITTLE ROCK,AR
3. HOUSTON, TEX AS
4. TEXAS CITY, TEXAS
5. HOUSTON, TEX AS
6. LAPORTE, TEXAS
7. BEAUMONT, TX
8. PASADENA, TEXAS
9. PASADENA, TEXAS
10. PIERCE, FLORIDA
II. PALMETTO, FLORIDA
12. BONNIE, FLA.
13. PLANT CITY, FLA.
14. PLANT CITY, FLA.
15. PIERCE, FLORIDA
16. TAMPA, FLORIDA
17. NICHOLS, FLORIDA
18. PIERCE, FLORIDA
19. GHEENRAY.FLA.
20. BARTOW.FLA.
21. BARTOW.FLA.
22. BAHTOW, FLORID A
23. BONNIE, FLA.
24. PIERCE, FLORIDA
25. BARTOW,FLA.
26. BARTOW.FLA.
27. FORT MEADE,FLA.
28. E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
29. MONSANTO, ILL
30. E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
31. MARSEILLES, ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY, ILL
33. JOLIET, ILLINOIS
34. FORT MAD I SON, I A.
35. JOLIET, ILLINOIS
36. STREATOR, ILL.
37. E.CHICAGO, IND.
38. LASALLE.ILLINOIS
39. DEPUE, ILLINOIS
40. JOLIET, ILLINOIS
41 . CALUMET CITY, ILL
42. CHICAGO HTS.ILL
43. DONALD'VLLE,LA.
44. TAFT.LA
45. GEISMAR,LA.
46. BATON ROUGE, LA.
47. NEW ORLEANS, LA.
48. PASCAG()ULA,MI
49. PASCAG()ULA,MI
50. BURNSIDE.LA.
51. UNCLE SAM.LA.
52. GEISMAR,LA.
b?. BATON ROUGE, LA.
54. HAMILTON, OHIO
RAIL"
1580
1343
1740
1740
1740
1740
1740
1740
1740
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1 129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1129
1 129
1580
1580
1580
1640
1640
1640,,
938d
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
1640
820
820
820
820
820
1023
1023
820
820
820
820
1700
BARGE6
-^^— — _^»
260
280
245
245
245
245
210
245
245
c
49O
~ f *J
565C
565C
4IOC
4IOC
c
490
•»vu_
185
F
490
490C
' .*»
56 5C
•»
565C
r-
565
r-
565
r-
565
"/*»
490C
*•
565C
-*w-/p
565
600
375
375
375
475
505
485
450
485
655e
505
470
470
485
505
505
110
no
no
120
100
135
135
no
no
no
120,.
670*
PORT SULFUR RATES PERCENT
BARGE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
-------
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
SULFUR FREIGHT HATES
PORT SULFUR RATES
*
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
LOCATION
CINCINNATI, OH 10
CINCINNATI, OHIO
COLUMBUS, OHIO
COLUMRUS,()HIO
COLUMBUS, OH 10
COLUMBUS, OH 10
COLUMBUS, OHIO
RAILa
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
J700
BARGE °
485
485 ,
1085f
1085*
1085*
I085i
I085r
PERCENT
BARGE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Rates in cents/net ton (short ton) for crude
sulfur, single-car minimum. Weight requirements
, vary between kO to 50 tons.
Barge rates in cents/net ton (short ton) of
liquid sulfur, single barge 3*200 tons.
Seagoing barge rate used with minimum of 8,000
tons for all Florida locations. Barge-truck
combinations used to interior plants.
Special rate used for molten sulfur, minimum
e weight 190,000 pounds.
, Barge-truck rates used via LaSalle, Illinois.
Barge-truck rates used via Cincinnati, Ohio.
80
-------
APPENDIX D
1500 TON BARGE RATES8
It
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
16.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
bl.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
LOCATION
HELENA, ARK.
N. LITTLE ROCK,AR
HOUSTON, TEX AS
TEXAS CITY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEX AS
LAPOUTE,TEXAS
BEAUMONT, TX
PASADENA, TEXAS
PASADENA, TEXAS
TAMP A, FLOW I DAb
E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
MONSANTO, ILL
E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
MARSEILLES, ILL.
CALUMET CITY, ILL
JOL I ET, ILLINOIS
FORT MAD I SON, I A.
JOL I ET, ILL I NO IS
STREAT()R,ILL.d
E. CHICAGO, IND.
LASALLE, ILLINOIS
DEPUE, ILLINOIS
JOLIET, ILLINOIS
CALUMET CITY, ILL
CHICAGO HTS.ILL
DONALD'VLLE,LA.
TAFT,LA
GEISMAR.LA.
BATON ROUGE, LA.
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
PASCAGOULA.MI
PASCAGOULA,MI
BURNSIDE,LA.
UNCLE SAM.LA.
GEISMAH,LA.
BATON ROUGE, L.A.
HAMILTON,OHI()d
CINCINNATI, OHIO
CINCINNATI,OH-10
COLUMBUS, OH 10°
COLUMBUS, OH I Od
COLUMBUS, OHIOd
COLUMBUS, OH I Od
COLUMBUS, OHIOd
PER
USED
too
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
COLR
285
370
590
590
590
590
550
590
590
1000
250
250
250
350
370
365
320
365
560
385
335
330
365
370
385
465
465
465
465
465
545
545
465
465
465
465
536
330
330
965
965
965
965
965
CUMB
245
315
530
530
530
530
490
530
530
940
230
230
250
290
320
315
260
315
510
325
285
280
315
320
325
405
405
405
405
405
485
485
405
405
405
405
486
280
280
910
910
910
910
910
STEAM
TO.
285
370
590
590
590
590
550
590
590
1000
250
250
250
350
370
365
320
365
560
385
335
330
365
370
385
465
465
465
465
465
545
545
465
465
465
465
531
325
325
965
965
965
965
965
PLANTS
PAH A
285
370
590
590
590
590
550
590
590
1000
250
250
250
350
370
365
320
365
560
385
335
330
365
370
385
465
465
465
465
465
545
545
465
465
465
465
426
220
220
965
965
965
965
965
SHAW '
195
275
490
490
490
490
450
490
490
890
160
160
160
250
285
275
220
275
470
285
245
240
275
285
285
355
355
355
355
355
445
445
355
355
355
355
451
245
245
860
860
860
860
860
HI DC "
345
400
655
655
655
655
615
655
655
1050
300
300
300
400
445
435
390
435
620
450
395
390
435
445
450
515
515
515
515
515
600
600
515
515
515
515
596
390
390
1030
1030
1030
1030
1030
JOHN
245
315
530
530
530
530
490
530
530
94O
230
230
230
290
320
315
260
315
510
325
285
280
315
320
325
405
405
405
405
405
485
485
405
405
405
405
486
280
280
910
910
910
910
910
Rates in cents/net ton of sulfuric acid.
Tampa rates shown allow for transfer from inland waterway barges to
seagoing barge. Barge rates to all other Florida locations are not
shown since rail rates are cheaper.
Barge-truck rates used via LaSalle, Illinois.
Barge-truck rates used via Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
APPENDIX E
3000 TON BAHGE RATES3
#
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
16.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
PER
LOCATION USED
HELENA, ARK.
N. LITTLE ROCK, AH
HOUSTON, TEXAS
TEXAS CITY .TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEX AS
LAPORTE, TEXAS
BEAUMONT, TX
PASADENA, TEXAS
PASADENA, TEXAS
TAMPA, FLORIDA13
E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
MONSANTO, ILL
E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
MARSEILLES. ILL.
CALUMET CITY, ILL
JOLIET, ILLINOIS
FORT MADISON, I A.
JOL I PT, ILLINOIS
SI'WI AIOH,ILL.C
E.CHiCAG(),IND.
LASALLE, ILLINOIS
DEPUE, ILLINOIS
JOLIET, ILLINOIS
CALUMET CITY, ILL
CHICAGO HTS,ILL
DONALD'VLLE.LA.
TAFT.LA
GEISMAR,LA.
BATON ROUGE, LA.
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
PASCAGOULA.MI
PASCAGOULA.MI
BURNSIDE,LA.
UNCLE SAM, LA.
GEISMAH,LA.
BATON ROUGE, LA.
HAMILTON.OHKP
CINCINNATI .OHIO
CINCINNATI, OHIO
COLUMBUS, OHIO d
COLUMBUS, OHIO d
COLUMBUS, OHIO
-------
APPENDIX F
RAIL RATES
a
PER
» LOCATION USED
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1 1 .
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
HELENA, ARK.
N. LITTLE ROCK,AR
HOUSTON, TEX AS
TEXAS CITY, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
LAPORTE, TEXAS
BEAUMONT, TX
PASADENA,TEXAS
PASADENA, TEXAS
PIERCE, FLORIDA
PALMETTO, FLORIDA
BONNIE, FLA.
PLANT CITY, FLA.
PLANT CITY, FLA.
PIERCE, FLORIDA
TAMP A, FLORIDA
NICHOLS, FLORIDA
PIERCE, FLORIDA
GHEENBAY,FLA.
BAHTOW.FLA.
BAHTOW.FLA.
BARTOW, FLORIDA
BONNIE, FLA.
PIERCE, FLORIDA
BARTOW, FLA.
BARTOW, FLA.
FORT MEADE,FLA.
E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
MONSANTO, ILL
E. ST. LOUIS, ILL.
MARSEILLES, ILL.
CALUMET CITY, ILL
JOLIET, ILLINOIS
FORT MADISON, I A.
JOLIET, ILLINOIS
STREATOR,ILL.
E. CHICAGO, IND.
LAS ALL E.ILLINOIS
DEPUE.ILLINOIS
JOLIET, ILLINOIS
CALUMET CITY, ILL
CHICAGO HTS.ILL
DONALD'VLLE.LA.
TAFT,LA
GEISMAR.LA.
BATON ROUGE, LA.
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
PASCAGOULA,MI
PASCAGOULA.MI
BURNSIDE.LA.
UNCLE SAM, LA.
GEISMAR.LA.
BATON ROUGE, LA.
HAMILTON, OH 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
00
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COLB
619
828
1322
1322
1322
1322
1229
1322
1322
1126
1126
1126
1106
1106
1126
1106
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
805
805
805
1576
1603
1603
1547
1603
1520
1603
1547
1547
1603
1603
1603
1112
1043
912
912
890
869
869
935
935
912
912
912
CUMB~
675
904
1344
1344
1344
1344
1275
1344
1344
1210
1210
1189
1189
1189
1210
1189
1189
1210
1210
1189
1189
1189
1189
1210
1189
1189
1189
719
719
719
1441
1441
1441
1441
1441
1412
1441
1441
1441
1441
1441
1441
1183
1136
996
996
996
977
977
1039
1039
996
996
761
STEAM
GALL
782
997
1438
1438
1438
1438
1344
1438
1438
1169
1189
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1 169
1169
1169
1169
782
782
782
1467
1467
1467
1494
1467
1441
1467
1441
1441
1467
1467
1467
1275
1205
1061
1061
1061
996
996
1061
1061
1061
1061
719
PLANTS
PARA
782
997
1438
1438
1438
1438
1368
1438
1438
1210
1231
1210
1189
1189
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
675
675
675
1304
1304
1304
1359
1304
1276
1304
1304
1304
1304
1304
1304
1229
1253
1082
1082
1082
1061
1061
1106
1106
1082
1082
675
SHArt
wi m*i
675
904
1344
1344
1344
1344
1299
1344
1344
1 210
1231
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
713
713
713
1304
1304
1304
1276
1304
1235
1304
1235
1235
1304
1304
1304
1205
1159
996
996
1018
996
996
1039
1039
996
996
1276
winr
" A U\f
805
1021
1462
1462
1462
1462
1368
1462
1462
1 1 DA
i i \j\j
1106
1082
1082
1082
1106
1082
1082
1106
1106
1082
1082
1082
1082
1106
1082
1082
1082
890
890
890
1603
1603
1603
1683
1603
1576
1603
1603
1603
1603
1603
1603
1205
1136
1061
1061
996
935
935
1018
1018
1061
1061
826
IHUKI
junn
675
852
1344
1344
1344
1344
1 ?75
• £ 1 J
1 144
1 J ~^
1344
1 1 no
i i oy
1210
1189
1169
1169
1139
1182
1 189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1 189
1189
719
719
719
1467
1494
1494
1441
1494
1441
1494
1441
1441
1494
1494
1494
1159
1136
977
977
996
977
977
1018
1018
977
977
826
-------
APPENDIX F (Cont'd)
RAIL RATES
PER
STEAM PLANTS
#
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
LOCATION
CINCINNATI .OHIO
CINCINNATI, OHIO
COLUMBUS, OH 10
COLUMBUS, OH 10
COLUMBUS, OHIO
COLUMBUS, OH 10
COLUMBUS, OHIO
USED
Yl^MMiSw
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COLB
912
912
1603
1603
1603
1603
1603
CUMB
761
761
1439
1439
1439
1439
1439
GALL
• ' rsss
719
719
1358
1358
1358
1358
1358
PARA
675
675
1304
1304
1304
1304
1304
SHArt
1276
1276
1467
1467
1467
1467
1467
'rtlbC
826
826
1520
1520
1520
1520
1520
JoHM
««M^__^
826
826
1494
1494
1494
1494
1494
Rates expressed in cents/net ton of sulfuric acid.
-------
XTOEHDTX Gl
oo
SULFUR PRICE - $22.32
PLANT
LOCATION
I. HELENA,ARK.
2. N.LITTLE ROCK.AR
28. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
29. MONSANTO,ILL
30. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY,ILL
33. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
35. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
36. STREATOR,ILL.
37. E.CHICAGO,IND.
38. LASAULE.ILLINOIS
40. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
41. CALUMET CITY,ILL
42. CHICAGO HTS.ILL
46. BATON ROUGE,LA.
47. NErf ORLEANS,LA.
54. HAMILTON.OHIO
55. CINCINNATI,OHIO
56. CINCINNATI,OHIO
58. COLUMBUS,OHIO
59. COLUMBUS,OH10
60. COLUMBUS,OHIO
61. COLUMBUS,OHIO
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT PRODUCTION
MARGINAL ACID COST <$)
MARKET PATTERN FOR TVA H2S04
-------
APPENDIX G2
SULFUR PRICE * SI 7.86
MARKET PATTERN FOR TVA H2S04
-------
APPENDIX G3
SULFUR PRICE » S26.79
PLANT
LOCATION
2. N.LITTLE ROCK,AR
28. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
29. MONSANTO,ILL
30. E.ST.LOUIS.ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY,ILL
33. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
35. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
36. STREATOR.ILL.
37. E.CHICAGO,IND.
38. LASALLE,ILLINOIS
40. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
41. CALUMET CITY,ILL
42. CHICAGO HTS.ILL
46. BATON ROUGE,LA.
47. NEW ORLEANS,LA.
54. HAMILTON,OHIO
55. CINCINNATI,OHIO
56. CINCINNATI,OHIO
60. COLUMBUS.OHIO
61. COLUMBUS,OH10
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT PRODUCTION
MARGINAL ACID COST ($)
TOTAL PRODUCTION - 1982
MARKET PATTERN FOR TVA H2S04
(M TONS)
ACID CONCENTRATION = 98% CAPACITY
MAXIMUM TVA ACID PRICE WOULD BE $10.12
100%
BARGE = 100%
PRODUCTION
CAPACITY
86
153
139
239
III
36
256
35
334
35
299
30
30
90
30
63
30
16
18
24
ACTUAL
PROD'N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
YEAR
BUILT
46
37
67
54
56
54
45
51
37
37
42
47
60
53
65
48
46
38
37
37
SULFUR
REDUC'N
(S)
7.25
7.38
1.33
2.50
3.87
17.06
1.24
13.91
0.
2 1 .89
.68
22.90
J7.39
0.
8.49
11.35
28.03
44.54
22.54
15.07
COLB
0
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CUMB
0
0
0
0
35
0
127
35
18
35
299
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
STEAM
GALL
0
0
O
0
0
36
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PLANT
PARA
0
55
139
239
76
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
63
30
16
0
0
SALES
SHA*i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
108
0
0
0
0
90
30
0
0
0
18
24
nIDC
86
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JOHN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
136
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122 579 165 617 270 93 136
122 579 165 617 270 93 136
10.63 It.J4 10.63 10.63 11.55 10.12 11.14
TOTAL NET SALES REVENUE - $ 20056294
-------
APPENDIX Gk
CO
CD
SULFUR PRICE - $22.32
PLANT
LOCATION
I. HELENA,ARK.
2. N.LITTLE ROCK.AR
28. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
29. MONSANTO,ILL
30. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY,ILL
33. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
35. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
36. STREATOR.ILL.
37. E.CHICAGO,IND.
38. LASALLE,ILLINOIS
40. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
41. CALUMET CITY,ILL
42. CHICAGO HTS.ILL
47. NEW ORLEANS,LA.
54. HAMILTON.OHIO
55. CINCINNATI,OHIO
56. CINCINNATI,OHIO
60. COLUMBUS,OHIO
61. COLUMBUS,OHIO
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT PRODUCTION
MARGINAL ACID COST <$>
TOTAL PRODUCTION » 1982
MARKET PATTERN FOR TVA H2S04
(M TONS)
ACID CONCENTRATION » SOX CAPACITY
MAXIMUM TVA ACID PRICE WOULD BE $ 7.75
100%
BARGE » 100%
PRODUCTION
CAPACITY
135
86
153
139
239
1 11
36
256
35
334
35
299
30
30
30
63
30
16
18
24
i)
ACTUAL
PROD'N
117
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
YEAR
BUILT
67
46
37
67
54
56
54
45
51
37
37
42
47
60
65
48
46
38
37
37
SULFUR
REDUC'N
(S)
0.
7.53
8.41
2.45
3.53
4.0J
17.21
1.39
12.62
0.
22.30
.83
23.04
17.51
8.11
11.07
29.26
45.77
18.33
10.86
COLB
0
0
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122
122
8.38
CUMB
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
127
35
0
35
299
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
579
579
9.00
STEAM
GALL
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
165
165
8.38
PLANT
PARA
Id
0
55
139
239
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
30
16
0
0
617
617
8.38
SALES
SHAW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
198
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
18
24
270
270
9.50
WIDC
0
86
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
93
7.75
JOHN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
136
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
136
136
9.00
TOTAL NET SALES REVENUE - S 15360062
-------
cx»
SULFUR PRICE > $22.32
PLANT
LOCATION
I. HELENA,ARK.
2. N.LITTLE ROCK,AR
28. E.ST.LOUIS.ILL.
29. MONSANTO,ILL
30. E.ST.LOUIS.ILL.
31. MARSEILLES,ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY,ILL
33. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
35. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
36. STREATOR.ILL.
37. E.CHICAGO,IND.
33. LASALLE.ILLINOIS
39. DEPUE,ILLINOIS
40. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
41. CALUMET CITY,ILL
42. CHICAGO HTS,ILL
46. BATON ROUGE.LA.
47. NEW ORLEANS,LA.
52. GEISMAR,LA.
54. HAMILTON,OHIO
55. CINCINNATI,OHIO
56. CINCINNATI,OHIO
53. COLUMBUS,OHIO
59. COLUMBUS,OHIO
60. COLUMBUS,OHIO
61. COLUMBUS.OHIO
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT PRODUCTION
MARGINAL ACID COST <$)
MARKET PATTERN FOR TVA H2S04
(M TONS)
ACID CONCENTRATION - 98% CAPACITY
MAXIMUM TVA ACID PRICE WOULD BE S 7.71
75X
BARGE » 100%
PRODUCTION
CAPACITY
101
64
115
104
179
157
83
27
192
26
250
26
269
224
22
22
67
22
58
47
22
12
40
40
13
18
ACTUAL
PROD'N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
226
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
YEAR
BUILT
67
46
37
67
54
62
56
54
45
51
37
37
67
42
47
60
53
65
68
48
46
38
49
55
37
37
SULFUR
REDUC'N
(S)
4.55
13.65
12.96
6.67
7.46
0.
9.61
25.69
6.30
22.74
0.
30.88
0.
5.64
32. 5 J
26.58
6.32
17.72
1.92
18.37
37.68
53.35
7.22
0.
35.36
25.96
COLB
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
44
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CUMB
0
0
0
0
0
157
0
0
17
26
105
26
0
224
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
STEAM
GALL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
165
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PLANT
PARA
101
0
87
104
151
0
83
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
47
22
12
0
O
0
0
SALES
SHAW
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
67
22
58
0
0
0
40
40
13
18
WIDC
0
64
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JOHN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
136
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122 579 165 617 27O
93 136
122 579 165 617 270 93 136
8.22 8.73 8.22 8.22 9.14 7.71 8.73
TOTAL PRODUCTION
1982
TOTAL NET SALES REVENUE - S 15283291
-------
APPENDIX HI
SULFURIC ACID PLANTS CONSIDERED IN MODEL
* NAME
I. AHKLA CHEMICAL COPR.
2. OLIN CORPORATION
3. AMERICAN PLANT FOOD
4. BOHDEN CHEMICAL IND.
5. fc.I.DUPONT DE NEM
6. E.I.DUPONT DE NEM
7. OLIN CORPORATION
8. OLIN CORPORATION
9. OLIN CORPORATION
10. AGRICO CHEM-WILLIAMS
II. BORDEN CHEMICAL IND.
12. CF INDUSTRIES,INC.
13. CF INDUSTRIES,INC.
M. CF INDUSTRIES,INC.
15. CF INDUSTRIES.INC.
16. CITIES SERVICE CO
17. CONSERVE,INC.
18. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES
19. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES
20. H.R.GRACE 4 CO.
21. W.R.GRACE & CO.
22. CHEMICALS,INC.
23. CHEMICALS,INC.
24. ROYSTER COMPANY
25. SWIFT & COMPANY
26. U.S.S.AOHI-CHEM.
27. U.S.S.AORI-CHEM.
28. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP
29. AMER.ZINC.LEAO&SMELT
30. MONSANTO COMPANY
31. AG PRODUCTS CO
32. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP
33. AMERICAN CYANAMID
34. ARCO CHEMICAL
35. ARMY AMMUNITION PLT
36. BORDEN CHEMICAL IND.
37. E.I.nUPONF DE NEM
38. MATTHIESSEN & HEGLER
39. MOBIL OIL COMPANY
40. OLIN CORPORATION
41. SrflFT AND COMPANY
42. U.S.S.AGRI-CHEM.
43. AGRICO CHEM-WILLIAMS
44. AGRI PKODUCTS(BEKER)
45. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP
46. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP
47. AMERICAN CYANAMID
48. COASTAL CHEMICAL
49. COASTAL CHEMICAL
t>0. E.I.OUPONT DE NEM
bl. FREEPOHT MINERALS
b2. HUB ICON
bl. STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO
b4. AMERICAN CYANAMID
YEAR ANNUAL
LOCATION BUILT CAPACITY
HELENA,ARK. 1967 135
N.LITTLE R()CK,AR 1946 86
HOUSTON,TEXAS 1965 116
TEXAS CITY,TEXAS 1953 128
HOUSTON,TEXAS 1961 300
LAPORTE,TEXAS I960 350
BEAUMONT,TX 1957 180
PASADENA,TEXAS 1965 222
PASADENA,TEXAS 1965 150
PIERCE,FLORIDA 1955 718
PALMETTO,FLORIDA 1966 450
BONNIE,FLA. 1955 I486
PLANT CITY,FLA. 1955 419
PLANT CITY,FLA. 1955 660
PIERCE,FLORIDA 1955 428
TAMPA,FLORIDA 1959 928
NICHOLS,FLORIDA 1973 400
PIERCE,FLORIDA 1961 478
GREENRAY.FLA. 1966 748
BARTOH,FLA. 1965 330
BARTOW.FLA. I960 700
BARTOW,FLORIDA 1965 980
BONNIE,FLA. 1963 594
PIERCE,FLORIDA 1965 278
BARTOW.FLA. 1948 274
BARTOW.FLA. I960 376
FORT MEADE.FLA. 1962 492
E.ST.LOUIS,ILL. 1937 153
MONSANTO,ILL 1967 139
E.ST.LOUIS,ILL. 1954 239
MARSEILLES,ILL. 1962 210
CALUMET CITY,ILL 1956 III
JOLIET,ILLINOIS 1954 36
FORT MADISON,I A. 1968 449
JOLIET,ILLINOIS 1945 256
STHEATOH.ILL. 1951 35
E.CHICAGO,IND. 1937 334
LASALLE,ILLINOIS 1937 35
DEPUE,ILLINOIS 1967 359
JOLIET,ILLINOIS 1942 299
CALUMET CITY,ILL 1947 30
CHICAGO HTS.ILL I960 30
DONALD'VLLE.LA. 1970 1224
TAFT,LA 1965 429
GEISMAH.LA. 1967 450
BATON ROUGE,LA. 1953 90
NErt ORLEANS,LA. 1965 30
PASCAGOULA.MI 1958 210
PASCAGOULA.MI 1972 495
BUUNSIDE.LA. 1967 450
UNCLE SAM,LA. 1968 1632
GEISMAR.LA. 1968 7fl
BATON ROUGE,LA. 1965 750
HAMILTON,OHIO 1948 63
-------
APPENDIX HI (Cont'd)
SULFURIC ACID PLANTS CONSIDERED IN MODEL
* NAME LOCATION BU!LT cJScnhr
S" ^IE,WNATIONAL MINEH« CINCINNATI .OHIO 1946 30
«?* ?(u?IL,?IL COHPANY CINCINNATI.OHIO 1938 16
57. AMER.ZINC.LEAD&SMELT COLUMBUS.OHIO 1965 64
58. AMERICAN ZINC OXIDE COLUMBUS.OHIO 1949 53
59. AMERICAN ZINC OF ILL COLUMBUS OHIO 955 54
60. BORDEN CHEMICAL IND. COLUMBUS.OHIO 1937 |fl
61. FARMERS FERTILIZER COLUMBUsloHIO 1937 24
91
-------
APPENDIX H2
-------
APPENDIX I
SULFUR1C ACID PRODUCTION COSTS
# LOCATION
I. HELENA,ARK.
2. N.LITTLE ROCK.AR
3. HOUSTON.TEXAS
4. TEXAS CITY,TEXAS
5. HOUSTON.TEXAS
LAPORTE,TEXAS
BEAUMONT,TX
PASADENA,TEXAS
PASADENA,TEXAS
PIERCE,FLORIDA
PALMETTO,FLORIDA
BONN IE,FLA.
PLANT CITY,FLA.
PLANT CITY,FLA.
PIERCE,FLORIDA
TAMPA,FLORIDA
NICHOLS,FLORIDA
PIERCE,FLORIDA
GREENRAY.FLA.
BARTOW.FLA.
BART()W,FLA.
BARTOW,FLORIDA
BONN IE,FLA.
PIERCE,FLORIDA
BARTOW,FLA.
BARTOW,FLA.
FORT MEADE.FLA.
E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
MONSANTO,ILL
E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
MARSEILLES,ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY.ILL
33. JOLIET.ILLINOIS
FORT MADI SON,I A.
JOLIET,ILLINOIS
STREATOR.ILL.
E.CHICAGO,IND.
LASALLE,ILLINOIS
DEPUE,ILLINOIS
JOLFET,ILLINOIS
CALUMET CITY,ILL
CHICAGO HTS.ILL
DONALD'VLLE.LA.
TAFT.LA
GEISMAR.LA.
BATON ROUGE,LA.
NEW ORLEANS,LA.
PASCAGOULA.MI
PASCAGOULA,MI
BURNSIDE.LA.
UNCLE SAM,LA.
GEISMAH,LA.
53. BATON ROUGE,LA.
54. HAMILTON,OHIO
6,
7.
8,
9,
10,
II,
12.
13.
14,
15,
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
46,
49,
50,
51,
52
SULFUR CONVERSION A
FACTOR 1975
.3006
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3053
.3006
.3006
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3053
.3053
.3053
.3053
.3006
.3006
.3006
.3006
.3053
.3006
.3006
.3006
.3053
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3006
.3053
.30O6
.3053
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3053
.3053
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3053
.3053
.3006
.3006
.3006
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3006
.3006
.3006
.3006
.3006
.3053
4
7
5
6
3
3
5
4
4
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
5
3
3
6
4
4
4
6
TOTAL COSTS
.65 12.14
.58 15.25
.11 1
1 .82
.03 12.85
.98 10.69
.87 10.68
.03 1
1.85
.06 IO.77
.65
.46
.20
.88
.01
.54
.99
.02
.88
.47
.79
.58
.19
.65
.14
.77
.02
.79 1
.38 1
.35
.77
.61
.42
.08
.60
.30
0.40
.07
.65
.19
.99
.73
.06
.55
.96
3.56
1 '.89
•31 14.27
.60 12.44
.82 12.78
.37 12.51
.07 14.43
10.10 18.40
J.UM I
5.27 1
1 .14
3.56
10.61 19.43
4.94 13.30
M.32 19.57
3.35 1
1.48
5.10 13.40
M.88 20.24
10.25 18.61
2.27 9.31
3.31 10.35
3.14 10. IB
6.88 14.06
9.57 16.58
4.70 1
2.
3.
2.
5.
2.
8.
.93
76 9.88
U 10.18
21 9.25
71 12.75
84 9.91
42 17.28
-------
APPENDIX I (Cont'd)
SULFUR 1C ACID PRODUCTION COSTS
• LOCATION
b5. CINCINNATI, OHIO
50. CINCINNATI «OHIO
57. COLUMBUS, OHIO
58. COLUMBUS, OHIO
59. COLUMBUS, OHIO
60. COLUMBUS, OHIO
61 . COLUMBUS, OHIO
SULFUR
FACTOR
.3053
.3053
.3006
.3053
.3053
.3053
.3053
CONVERSION
* TOT
1975
II .97
17.01
6.55
8.97
8.26
15.92
13.64
20. 26
25.31
16.52
19.09
IB. 38
26.04
23.76
-------
APPENDIX J
STEAM PLANTS CONSIDERED
REPORT CAPACITY
* NAME NAME COST 1975
1. COLBERT COLR .20 121.9
2. CUMBERLAND CUMB .20 578.7
3. OALLATIN CALL .20 165.3
4. PARADISE PARA .20 617.3
5. SHAWNEE SHAW .20 270.0
6. WIDOWS CREEK WIDC .20 92,6
7. JOHNSONVILLE JOHN .20 135.9
-------
APPENDIX Kl
SULFURIC ACID TRANSPORTATION COSTS USED IN MODEL
100% BARGE
# LOCATION
I. HELENA,ARK.
2. N.LITTLE ROCK.AR
3. HOUSTON,TEXAS
4. TEXAS CITY,TEXAS
5. HOUSTON,TEXAS
6. LAPORTE.TEXAS
7. BEAUMONT,TX
8. PASADENA,TEXAS
9. PASADENA,TEXAS
10. PIESCE,FLORIDA
II. PALMETTO,FLORIDA
12. BONNIE,FLA.
13. PLANT CITY,FLA.
14. PLANT CITY,FLA.
is. PIERCE,'FLORIDA
16. TAMPA,FLORIDA
17. NICHOLS,FLORIDA
18. FIERCE,FLORIDA
19. GREENBAY.FLA.
20. BARTOW.FLA.
21. BARTOW.FLA.
22. BARTOH,FLORIDA
23. BONNIE,FLA.
24. PIERCE,FLORIDA
25. BARTOW.FLA.
26. BARTOW.FLA.
27. FORT MEADE,FLA.
28. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
29. MONSANTO,ILL
30. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
31. MARSEILLES,ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY,ILL
33. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
34. FORT MAD I SON,I A.
35. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
36. STREATOR.ILL.
37. E.CHICAGO,IND.
38. LASALLE,ILLINOIS
39. DEPUE,ILLINOIS
40. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
41. CALUMET CITY,ILL
42. CHICAGO HTS.ILL
43. DONALD'VLLE.LA.
44. TAFT.LA
45. GEISMAH,LA.
46. BATON ROUGE,LA.
47. NEW ORLEANS,LA.
48. PASCAG()ULA,MI
49. PASCAGOULA,MI
bO. BURNSIDE.LA.
bl. UNCLE SAM,LA.
52. GEISMAR,LA.
b3. BATON ROUGE,LA.
b4. HAMILTON,OHIO
STEAM PLANTS
COLB CUMB GALL PARA SHAW WIDC JOHN
285
370
590
590
590
590
550
590
590
1126
1126
1126
1106
1106
1126
1000
It 26
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1 126
1126
1126
1126
250
250
?50
350
370
365
320
365
560
385
335
330
365
370
385
465
465
465
465
465
t>45
b45
465
465
465
465
536
245
315
530
530
530
530
490
530
530
1210
1210
1189
1189
1189
1210
940
1189
1210
1210
1189
1189
1189
1 189
1210
1189
1189
1189
230
230
250
290
320
315
260
315
510
325
285
280
315
320
325
405
405
405
405
405
485
485
405
405
405
405
486
285
370
590
590
590
590
550
590
590
1169
1189
1169
1169
1169
1169
1000
1169
1169
1 169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1 169
1169
1169
1169
250
250
250
350
370
365
320
365
560
385
335
330
365
370
385
465
465
465
465
465
545
545
465
465
465
465
531
285
370
590
590
590
590
550
590
590
1210
1231
1210
1 189
1189
1210
1000
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
250
250
250
350
370
365
320
365
560
385
335
330
365
370
385
465
465
465
465
465
545
b45
465
465
465
465
426
195
275
490
490
490
490
450
490
490
1210
1231
1210
1210
1210
1210
890
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
160
160
160
250
285
275
220
275
470
285
245
240
275
285
285
355
355
355
355
355
445
445
355
355
355
355
451
345
400
655
655
655
655
615
655
655
1 106
1106
1082
1082
1082
1106
1050
1082
1106
1106
1032
1092
1082
1082
1106
1032
1092
1082
300
300
300
400
445
435
390
435
620
450
395
390
435
"445
450
515
515
515
515
515
600
600
515
515
b!5
515
596
245
315
530
530
530
530
490
530
530
1189
1210
1189
1169
1 169
1189
940
1189
1189
1189
1189
1 189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1 189
1 189
230
230
230
290
320
315
260
315
510
325
285
280
315
320
325
405
405
405
405
405
485
485
405
405
405
405
486
-------
APPENDIX Kl
SULFURIC ACID TRANSPORTATION COSTS USED IN MODEL
100% BARGE
# LOCATION
55. CINCINNATI,OHIO
56. CINCINNATI,OHIO
57. COLUMBUS,OHIO
58. COLUMBUS,OH 10
59. COLUMBUS,OHIO
60. COLUMBUS,OHIO
61. COLUMBUS,OH 10
STEAM PLANTS
COLB CUMR GALL PARA SHAW WIDC JOHN
330 280 325 220 245 39O 280
330 280 325 220 245 390 2RO
965 910 965 965 860 J0.10 910
965 910 965 965 860 1030 910
965 910 965 965 860 1030 910
965 910 965 965 860 1030 910
965 910 965 965 860 1030 910
97
-------
APPENDIX K2
SULFURIC ACID TRANSPORTATION COSTS USED IN MODEL
80% BARGE
» LOCATION
I. HELENA,ARK.
2. N.LITTLE ROCK.AR
3. HOUSTON,TEX AS
4. TEXAS CITY,TEXAS
5. HOUSTON,TEX AS
6. LAPORTE.TEXAS
7. BEAUMONT,TX
8. PASADENA,TEXAS
9. PASADENA,TEXAS
10. PIERCE,FLORIDA
II. PALMETTO,FLORIDA
12. BONN IE,PLA.
13. PLANT CITY,FLA.
14. PLANT CITY,FLA.
15. PIERCE,FLOW I DA
16. TAMPA,FLORIDA
17. NICHOLS,FLORIDA
18. PIERCE,FLORIDA
19. G»EENRAY,FLA.
20. BARTOW.FLA.
21. BARTOW.FLA.
22. BARTON,FLORIDA
23. BONNIE,FLA.
24. PIERCE,FLORIDA
25. BARTOW.FLA.
26. B"VRTOW,FLA.
27. FORT MEADE.FLA.
28. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
29. MONSANTO,ILL
30. E.ST.LOUIS,ILL.
31. MARSEILLES,ILL.
32. CALUMET CITY,ILL
33. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
34. FORT MADISON,I A.
35. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
36. STHEATOR.ILL.
37. E.CHICAGO,IND.
38. LASALLE,ILLINOIS
39. DEPUE,ILLINOIS
40. JOLIET,ILLINOIS
41. CALUMET CITY,ILL
42. CHICAGO HTS.ILL
43. DONALD'VLLE.LA.
44. TAFT.LA
45. GEISMAR.LA.
46. BATON ROUGE,LA.
47. NEW ORLEANS,LA.
48. PASCAGOULA,MI
49. PASCAGOULA.MI
50. BUHNSIDE.LA.
51. UNCLE SAM,LA.
52. GEISMAR.LA.
53. BATON ROUGE,LA.
54. HAMILTON,OHIO
STEAM PLANTS
COLB CUMB GALL PARA SHAW WIDC JOHN
352
462
736
736
736
736
686
736
736
1126
1126
1126
1106
1106
1 126
1021
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1 126
1126
1126
1126
1126
1126
361
361
361
595
617
613
565
613
752
629
577
573
613
617
629
594
581
554
554
550
610
610
559
559
554
554
611
331
433
693
693
695
693
647
693
693
1210
1210
1189
1199
1189
1210
990
1189
1210
1210
1189
1189
1189
I 189
1210
1189
1189
1189
328
328
344
520
544
540
496
540
690
548
516
512
540
544
548
561
551
523
523
523
583
583
532
532
523
523
541
384
495
760
760
760
760
709
760
760
1169
1189
1169
1169
1169
1169
1034
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
1169
356
356
356
573
589
585
555
585
736
601
556
552
585
589
601
627
613
584
584
584
635
635
584
584
5R4
584
569
384
495
760
760
760
760
714
760
760
1210
1231
1210
1189
1189
1210
1042
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
335
335
335
541
557
553
528
553
703
569
529
525
553
557
569
618
623
588
588
588
648
648
593
593
588
588
476
291
401
661
661
661
661
620
661
661
1210
1231
1210
1210
1210
1210
954
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
1210
271
271
271
461
489
481
431
481
623
489
443
439
481
489
489
525
516
48J
483
488
555
555
492
492
483
483
616
437
524
816
816
816
816
766
816
816
1106
1106
1082
1082
1082
1106
1056
1082
1106
1106
1082
1082
1082
1082
1106
1082
1082
1082
418
418
418
641
677
669
649
669
811
681
637
633
669
677
681
053
639
624
624
611
667
667
616
616
624
624
642
.131
422
693
693
693
693
647
693
693
1 189
1210
1189
1169
1169
1189
988
1189
1 189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
1189
328
328
328
525
555
551
496
551
696
559
516
512
551
555
559
556
551
519
519
523
583
563
528
528
519
519
554
98
-------
APPENDIX K2
SULFUrtIC ACID TRANSPORTATION COSTS USED IN MODEL
80% BARGE
# LOCATION
55. CINCINNATI,OHIO
56. CINCINNATI,OH10
i>7. COLUMBUS,OHIO
58. COLUMBUS,OHIO
b9. COLUMBUS,OH10
60. COLUMBUS,OH10
61. COLUMBUS.OHIO
STEAM PLANTS
COLB CUMB GALL PARA SHAW
WIDC JOHN
446
446
1093
J093
1093
1091
1093
376
376
1016
10)6
1016
1016
1016
404
404
1044
1044
1044
1044
1044
311
311
1033
1033
1033
1033
1033
451
451
981
981
981
981
981
477
477
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
389
389
1027
1027
1027
1027
1027
99
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA-650/2-73-051
3.H
------- |