Acid Rain Mitigation Study: Volume 1


                                                              PB83-101329
Acid Rain Mitigation  Study.  Volume I
FGD Cost Estimates
Radian Corp.
Austin, TX
Prepared for

Industrial Environmental Research Lab,
Research Triangle  Park,  NC
Sep 82
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                National Technical Information Service

-------
                                    EPA-600/2-82-070a
                                    September  1982

                                     PB83-101329
     ACID RAIN  M1TIGATK)N STUDY
     Volume  L  FGD Cost Estimates
             (Technical Report)
                    bv

         J.G.  Ball and W.R. Menzies
            Radian Corporation
              8501 Mo-Pac Blvd
           Austin, Texas  78766


        EPA Contract No:  68-02-3171

            Work Assignment 12
        William Baasel and P.P. Turner
           Technical Support Staff
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Research Triangle Park, NC   27711
               Prepared for:

INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
     OFFICE OF  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC   27711

-------
                               TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 REPORT NO

   EPA-6QQ/2-82-070a
                                                     3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION* NO.
                                       PSS3   101329
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Acid Rain Mitigation Study: Volume.I. FGD Cost
 Estimates (Technical Report)
                                 5 REPORT DATE
                                  September 1982
                                 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 AUTHOR(S)

J. G. Ball and W. R. Menzies
                                 8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO

                                 DCN 81-203-001-12-23
 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                      10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
 Radian Corporation
 8501 Mo-Pac Boulevard
 Austin, Texas  78766
                                 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                 68-02-3171, Task 12
 2 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PEPJIOI
                                 Task Final:2/80-2/81
                                                    IOO COVERED
                                 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                   EPA/600/13
 s. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer William D. Baasel is no longer with
 EPA. For details, contact P.P. Turner, Mail  Drop 62, '919/541-2826. Volume III is
 the industrial boiler technical report. Volume II contains the appendices.
  ABSTRACT Tne rep0rt gives results of work to provide a consistent set of capital in-
vestment and operating costs for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems retrofitted
to existing industrial boilers.  The investigation of wet limestone scrubbers and lime
spray drying  FGD systems included: (1) the apparent discontinuities in both FGD
system capital investment and operating costs; (2) FGD retrofit factors applied to
existing boilers based on published reports; and (3) differences between PEDCo
Environmental, Tnc. and TVA cost estimates for utility boiler FGD systems.  These
costing issues were examined on the bases of design scope,  costing factors (for
equipment installation, indirect investment, etc.), year of costs, inherent strengths
and weaknesses, and published data of actual system costs.  Recommendations are
made for the  cost bases to use in further acid rain studies.
 7.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                             c  COSATI Field/Group
 Pollution
 Flue Gases
 Desulfurization
 Cost Estimates
 Boilers
 Industrial Processes
Calcium Carbonates
Limestone
Calcium Oxides
Rain
Acidity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Lime
Acid Rain
13B        07B
21B        08G
07A,07D
05A,04A   04B
13A
13H
 3 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Release to Public
                                          19 SECURITY CLASS (Thu Report)
                                          Unclassified
                                                                  21 NO OF PAGES
                     20 SECURITY CLASS (Thu page I
                      Unclassified
                                              22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------
                     NOTICE

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                       11

-------
                                 ABSTRACT

     The U.S.  EPA has initiated a multiphased study of the acid rain problem.
As part of Phase I, Radian Corporation investigated SOz emissions and controls
in the industrial sector.  The primary objective of this work was to provide
a consistent set of capital investment and operating costs for flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) systems applied to both industrial and electric
utility boilers.  Retrofit factors as well as the cost for FGD systems
applied to new boilers were addressed.  Wet limestone scrubbing and lime
spray drying FGD systems were evaluated.

     In conducting the work to provide a consistent set of capital invest-
ment and operating costs for FGD systems retrofitted to existing boilers,
the following issues were investigated:

     •  The apparent discontinuities in both FGD system capital
        investment and operating costs as a function of boiler
        capacity in  the region between industrial boilers and
        small utility boilers,

     »  FGD retrofit factors applied to existing boilers based
        on published reports, and

     •  The differences between PEDCo Environmental, Inc. and
        TVA cost estimates for utility boiler FGD systems.

     These costing issues were examined on  the bases of design scope, costing
factors (for equipment installation, indirect investment, etc.), year of
costs, inherent strengths and weaknesses, and published data of actual system
costs.  Recommendations are made for  the cost bases to use in further acid
rain studies.
                                     iii

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                               VOLUME I

Abstract	
List of Tables	     ix
List of Figures	   xiii
1    INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 	   1-1
     1.1     Introduction	   1-1
     1.2     Summary of Results	   1-4
             1.2.1     Utility and Industrial Boiler FGD System
                       Costs	   1-4
             1.2.2     FGD System Retrofit Factor Evaluation. .  .  .   1-15
             1.2.3     TVA & PEDCo Environmental, Inc. FGD
                       System Cost Comparison 	   1-16
2    FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM COST COMPARISONS FOR
     INDUSTRIAL AND UTILITY BOILERS 	   2-1
     2.1     Wet Limestone FGD System Cost Estimates	   2-2
             2.1.1     Process Description	   2-2
             2.1.2     Limestone FGD System Capital Investment.  .  .   2-7
             2.1.2.1   Utility Boiler FGD System Capital
                       Investment Estimates 	   2-9
             2.1.2.2   Industrial Boiler FGD System Capital
                       Investment Estimates 	   2-13
             2.1.2.3   Comparison and Integration of Utility
                       and Industrial Boiler FGD System
                       Capital Investment Estimates 	   2-17
             2.1.2.4   Comparison of TVA Utility Boiler FGD System
                       Capital Investment Estimates with Actual
                       Installed FGD System Investment	   2-32
             2.1.2.5   Equipment on Actual Installed FGD Systems.  .   2-36
             2.1.3     Limestone FGD System Annual Operating
                       Cost Estimates	   2-39
             2.1.3.1   Utility Boiler FGD System Annual Operating
                       and Maintenance Cost Estimates	   2-39
             2.1.3.2   Industrial Boiler FGD System Annual
                       Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates .  .   2-44
             2.1.3.3   Comparison and Integration of Utility and
                       Industrial Boiler FGD System Annual O&M
                       Cost Estimates	   2-48
         Preceding page blank

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)







SECTION                                                                  PAGE

2.2




















Refe
FLUE
FOR
3.1
3.2
3.3



2.1.4 Use of the Cost Estimate Results 	

2.2.1 Process Description 	
2.2.2 Lime Spray Dryer FGD System Capital
Investment 	
2.2.2.1 Utility Boiler Lime Spray Dryer Capital
Investment Estimates 	
2.2.2.2 Industrial Boiler FGD System Capital
Investment Estimates 	
2.2.2.3 Comparison and Integration of Utility
and Boiler FGD System Capital
Investment Estimates 	
2.2.3 Dry Scrubbing FGD System Annual
O&M Cost Estimates 	
2.2.3.1 Utility Boiler FGD System Annual
O&M Cost Estimates 	
2.2.3.2 Industrial Boiler FGD System Annual
O&M Cost Estimates 	
2.2.3.3 Comparison and Integration of Utility
and Industrial Boiler FGD System Annual
Cost Estimates 	
2.2.4 Use of the Cost Estimate Results 	
rences 	
GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM RETROFIT COST ESTIMATES
UTILITY BOILERS 	
Review of Existing Studies 	
Current Studies 	
Recommended Flue Gas Desulfurization Retrofit
Factors 	
3.3.1 Utility Boilers 	
3.3.2 Industrial Boilers 	
2-58
2-60
2-60

2-64

2-65

2-68


2-70

2-81

2-81

2-85


2-88
2-98
2-10C

3-1
3-2
3-14

3-16
3-16
3-18
         References	    3-19
                                     VI

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)



SECTION                                                                 PAGE

   4     COMPARISON OF TENNESSE VALLEY AUTHORITY AND PEDCO
         ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COST
ALGORITHMS FOR UTILITY BOILER FGD SYSTEMS 	
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6

4.7
Equipment Configuration Basis 	
Economic Premises 	
Capital Investment Algorithms 	
Comparison of TVA and PEDCo Capital Investment . . .
Annual Operating Cost and Revenue Algorithms ....
Comparison of TVA and PEDCo Annual Operating Cost
and Annual Revenue Requirement 	
Summary 	
References 	
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-2
4-8

4-11
4-11
4-15
                                  VOLUME  II
APPENDICES


c
D
E
F
G
Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System Premises 	
Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System Premises 	 	 .
Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System Premises on an
"Industrial Basis" 	
Utility Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System Premises. . . .
Industrial Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System Premises . .
Description of TVA and PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Utility Boiler Lime FGD System Costs Comparison of TVA's Old
and New Premises and PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Costs ....
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-l
F-l
"G-l
                                     Vll

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER                                                                  PAGE
1.2.1-1   Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System Capital Investment.  .   1-7
1.2.1-2   Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System First Year
          Operating and Maintenance Costs	1-8
1.2.1-3   Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System Capital Investment
          (1980$)	1-9
1.2.1-4   Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System First Year Operating
          and Maintenance Costs (1981$)	1-10
2.1.2-1   TVA Utility Boiler Wet Limestone FGD System Investment
          Bases	2-10
2.1.2-2   TVA Utility Boiler Wet Limestone FGD System Design Scope .  .   2-11
2.1.2-3   Utility Boiler Wet Limestone FGD System Capital Investment
          (1980$)	2-12
2.1.2-4   Industrial Boiler Wet Limestone FGD System Investment Bases.   2-14
2.1.2-5   Radian Industrial Boiler Wet Limestone FGD System Design
          Scope	2-15
2.1.2-6   Radian Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System Investment .  .   2-16
2.1.2-7   Impact of Different Design Scope on TVA Utility Boiler FGD
          System Capital Investment	2-20
2.1.2-8   Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System Investment on an
          Industrial Basis 	   2-21
2.1.2-9   Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System Investment Using
          Industrial Installation Factors and Based on TVA Indirect
          Investment Algorithm 	   2-24
2.1.2-10  Limestone Wet Scrubbing FGD System Installation Factors. .  .   2-26
2.1.2-11  Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System Investment Using TVA
          Costing Algorithm for Both Equipment Installation and
          Indirect Investment	2-27
2.1.2-12  Comparison of PEDCo Adjusted Capital Investment with TVA
          Estimates for Comparable Operating FGD Systems 	   2-33
2.1.2-13  Comparison of Final Adjusted PEDCo Capital Investment to
          TVA Estimates for Similar Operating FGD Systems	2-34
2.1.2-14  Equipment Summary for 62 Operational Utility FGD Systems .  .   2-37
2.1.3-1   TVA Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System Economic Premises
          and Assumptions	2-40
2.1.3-2   Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System First Year Operating
          and Maintenance Costs	2-41
             Preceding page blank
                                     IX

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (continued)
NUMBER                                                                  PAGE
2.1.3-3   Radian Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System Economic
          Assumptions	2-45

2.1.3-4   Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System First Year Operating
          and Maintenance Costs Using Radian Material and Operating
          Costs and Overhead Algorithm	2-46
2.1.3-5   Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System First Year Operating
          and Maintenance Costs on an Industrial Basis 	  2-49
2.1.3-6   Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System First Year Operating
          and Maintenance Costs Using TVA Material and Operating Costs
          Plus Overhead Algorithm (Radian Investment Basis)	2-52

2.1.3-7   Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD System First Year Operating
          and Maintenance Costs Using TVA Material and Operating Costs
          Plus Overhead Algorithm (TVA Investment Basis, i.e.
          Installation Factors)	2-54

2.1.4-1   Summary of Limestone FGD System Cost Studies 	  2-59
2.2.2-1   Utility Boiler Lime Spray Dryer FGD System Capital
          Investment	2-67
2.2.2-2   Radian Industrial Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System
          Capital Investment Estimates 	  2-69
2.2.2-3   Utility Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System Capital
          Investment on an Industrial Basis	2-72
2.2.2-4   Industrial Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System Investment
          Calculated Using Industrial Installation Factors (Radian)
          and TVA Indirect Investment Algorithm	2-75

2.2.2-5   Industrial Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System Investment
          Using TVA Costing Algorithms for Both Equipment Installation
          and Indirect Investment	2-77
2.2.3-1   TVA Utility Boiler Dry Scrubbing FGD System Economic
          Premises and Assumptions 	  2-82

2.2.3-2   Utility Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System First-Year
          Operating and Maintenance Costs	2-83
2.2.3-3   Industrial Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System First-Year
          Operating and Maintenance Costs Using Radian Material and
          Operating Costs and Overhead Algorithm 	  2-86
2.2.3-4   Utility Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System First-Year
          Operating and Maintenance Costs on an Industrial Basis . . .  2-89
2.2.3-5   Industrial Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System First-
          Year Operating and Maintenance Costs Using TVA Material and
          Operating Costs Plus Overhead Algorithm (Radian Investment
          Basis)	2-91

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (continued)
NUMBER                                                                  PAGE

2.2.3-6   Industrial Boiler Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD System First-Year
          Operating and Maintenance Costs Using TVA Material and
          Operating Costs Plus Overhead Algorithms (TVA Investment
          Basis, i.e.,  Installation Factors)  	   2-94

2.2.3-7   Summary of Lime Dry Scrubbing FGD Cost Studies	2-99

3.1-1     1972 M.W. Kellogg FGD System Retrofit Study	3-3
3.1-2     Retrofit Factors From TVA Analysis (3.5% S Coal,  90% SOa
          Removal, On-site Solids Disposal)	3-5

3.1-3     PEDCo Power Plant FGD Capital Investment Retrofit Factors. .   3-7

3.2-1     Investment Retrofit Factor Evaluation	3-15

3.3-1     Capital Investment Components	3-17
A.1-1     Comparison of TVA and PEDCo Equipment Configuration and
          Operating Conditions 	   4-3
4.2-1     Comparison of TVA and PEDCo Economic Premises	4-5
4.3-1     Comparison of TVA and PEDCo Capital Investment Algorithms. .   4-6

4.4-1     Design Bases  for TVA and PEDCo Total Capital Investment
          Comparison	4-7
4.4-2     500 MWe Lime  Slurry FGD System Capital Investment (3.5%  S
          Coal, 90% S02 Removal,  1980$)	4-9

4.5-1     Comparison of TVA and PEDCo Annual Operating Cost and
          Revnue Algorithms	4-10

4.6-1     500 MWe Lime  Slurry FGD Annual Costs and Revenue  (3.5% S
          Coal, 90% S02 Removal)	4-12
4.6-2     500 MWe Lime  Slurry FGD Annual Costs on Same Unit Cost and
          Operating Basis (3.5% S Coal, 90% SOa Removal,  0.63 Capacity
          Factor)	4-13
                                    XI

-------
                                LIST  OF FIGURES
FIGURE                                                                 PAGE

1.2.1-1   Capital Investment for Industrial and Utility  Boiler
          Wet Limestone FGD Systems	1-13

1.2.1-2   First Year O&M Costs for Industrial and Utility  Wet
          Limestone FGD Systems	1-14

2.1.1-1   Limestone FGD Process Flow Diagram 	  2-3

2.1.2-1   Comparison of Total Capital Investment for Small
          Industrial and Large Utility Boiler FGD Systems	2-8

2.1.2-2   Difference in Capital Investment  for Utility and
          Industrial Boiler Limestone FGD Systems	2-18

2.1.2-3   Impact of Major Equipment  Components on Costs  of Large
          Utility Boiler FGD Systems 	  2-22

2.1.2-4   Impact of Using a Utility  Indirect Investment  Algorithm
          on Small Industrial Boiler FGD Systems 	  2-25

2.1.2-5   Impact of Using Large System Installation Factors and
          Utility Indirect Investment Algorithm on Small
          Industrial Boiler FGD Systems	2-28

2.1.2-6   Comparison of All Cases for Limestone Wet Scrubbing
          FGD System Investment	2-30

2.1.2-7   Equipment on 62 Operational Utility Boiler FGD Systems  .  .  .  2-38

2.1.3-1   Utility Boiler Limestone FGD System First-Year Operating
          and Maintenance Costs	2-42

2.1.3-2   Differences in First-Year  Operating and Maintenance Costs
          for Utility and Industrial Boiler FGD Systems	2-47

2.1.3-3   Impact of Putting Large Utility Boiler FGD Systems on an
          Industrial Basis 	  2-50

2.1.3-4   Impact of Putting Small Industrial Boiler FGD  Systems
          on a Large Utility Boiler  FGD System Basis 	  2-53

2.1.3-5   Impact of Putting Small Industrial Boiler FGD  Systems
          on a Large Utility Boiler  FGD System Basis, Including
          Investment	2-55
           Preceding page blank
                                     XI11

-------
                        LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

FIGURE                                                                  PAGE

2.1.3-6   Comparison of All Cases for Wet Limestone  Scrubbing  FGD
          System First-Year Operating and Maintenance Costs	2-56

2.2.1-1   Lime Spray Dryer Process Flow Diagram	2-61

2.2.2-1   Differences in Capital Investment for Utility and
          Industrial Boiler FGD Systems	2-71

2.2.2-2   Impact of Major Equipment Components on Costs of Large
          Utility Boiler FGD Systems 	   2-73

2.2.2-3   Impact of Using Utility Indirect Algorithm on Small
          Industrial Boiler FGD Systems	2-76

2.2.2-4   Impact of Using Large System Installation  Factors  and a
          Utility Indirect Investment Algorithm on Small
          Industrial Boiler FGD Systems	2-78

2.2.2-5   Comparison for All Low Sulfur Cases for Lime Dry
          Scrubbing FGD System Investment	2-79

2.2.3-1   Utility Boiler FGD System First-Year Operating and
          Maintenance Costs	2-84

2.2.3-2   Difference in First-Year Operating and Maintenance Costs
          for Utility and Industrial Boiler FGD Systems	2-87

2.2.3-3   Impact of Putting Large Utility Boiler FGD Systems on
          an Industrial Basis	2-90

2.2.3-4   Impact of Putting Small Industrial Boiler  FGD Systems on
          a Large Utility System Basis 	   2-92

2.2.3-5   Impact of Putting Small Industrial Boiler  FGD Systems on
          a Large Utility Boiler FGD System Basis, Including
          Investment	2-95

2.2.3-6   Comparison of all Low Sulfur Cases for Lime Dry Scrubbing
          FGD System First Year Operating and Maintenance Costs.  .  .  .   "2-96
            Preceding page blank
XIV

-------
                                 SECTION 1

                         INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1  INTRODUCTION
     There is a growing concern about the acidity of precipitation in the
northeastern United States and Canada.  Acidic precipitation is thought by
many scientists to kill aquatic and plant life, damage crop-growing soil,
and accelerate erosion and damage to buildings.  Although the mechanisms
producing acid rain are not clearly understood, sulfur dioxide (SCL) and
oxides of nitrogen (NO ) are thought to be the precursors of the chemicals
                      X
that cause acid rain.  Large quantities of SO- and NO  are produced by
                                             &       X
various combustion and non-combustion processes in both the utility and
industrial sectors.1  Reducing these S0_ and NO  emissions to the atmosphere
                                       ^       X
should reduce the potential for acid rain.

     Because this concern is increasing, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a multi-phased study of the acid rain
problem.  As one part of Phase I,  Radian Corporation investigated
S0~ emissions and controls in the industrial sector, while Teknekron, Inc.
made a similar study of the utility sector.  The results of these studies
would provide direction for additional phases.  The objectives of the
later phases are to investigate SO. sources in more detail than Phase I,
to investigate NO  sources, and to model source/receptor relationships.
                 X

     In support of the Phase I efforts, Radian Corporation was asked to
provide a consistent set of capital investment and operating costs for flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) systems applied to both industrial and electric
utility boilers.  Since existing S0» sources are the primary targets for
reducing the impacts of acid rain, retrofit factors as well as the cost for
                                     1-1

-------
FGD systems applied to new boilers were addressed.   This report summarizes
the results of that cost work.

     The cost estimates used as the basis for this study are:

     •  Utility boiler FGD systems by TVA and PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,  and

     •  Industrial boiler FGD systems by Radian Corporation.

Wet limestone scrubbing and lime spray drying FGD systems were evaluated.
The U.S. EPA has recognized that there appear to be discrepancies in these
published cost estimates in two areas:

     •  Utility boiler limestone FGD system costs prepared by TVA
        and PEDCo Environmental, Inc., and

     •  FGD system costs in the capacity transition from industrial
        boilers to small utility boilers.

     To achieve the primary objective of the study (provide a consistent
set of capital investment and operating costs for FGD systems retrofitted
to existing boilers), the following issues were investigated:

     •  The apparent discontinuities in both FGD system capital
        investment and operating costs as a function of boiler
        capacity in the region between industrial boilers and
        small utility boilers,

     •  FGD retrofit factors applied to existing boilers based
        on published reports, and

     •  The differences between PEDCo Environmental, Inc. and
        TVA cost estimates for utility boiler FGD systems.
                                      1-2

-------
     The above costing issues are examined on the bases of design scope,
costing factors*, year of costs, inherent strengths and weaknesses,  and
published data of actual system costs.  Recommendations are made for the
cost bases to use in further acid rain studies.

     This report contains two volumes.  Volume I is divided into four major
sections.  Section 1 contains an introduction and summary of results.  The
three issues described above are addressed in Sections 2, 3, and 4,  respec-
tively.  Volume II, Appendices, contains the technical support for the study.
*For equipment installation, indirect investment,  etc.
                                     1-3

-------
1.2  SUMMARY OF RESULTS

     As discussed in the introduction, the primary objective of the study
was attained by:

     «    resolving apparent discontinuities in both capital and
          operating cost estimates for FGD systems applied to new
          industrial and utility boilers,

     •    evaluating the retrofit factor studies and recommending
          retrofit factors to be used in the acid rain work, and

     •    comparing the FGD system cost estimates prepared by TVA
          and PEDCo Environmental, Inc. for utility boiler applica-
          tions.

The results of the work in each area are summarized below.  Each of the
three issues identified above will be discussed separately.

1.2.1  Utility and Industrial Boiler FGD System Costs

     Significant discontinuities in both the FGD system capital investment
and operating cost areas as a function of boiler capacity have been observed
in the capacity transition from industrial to small utility boiler systems.
This study attempts to determine the causes of these discontinuities and to
provide a consistent set of costs (capital and operating) for both types
of FGD systems applied to new boilers.  Cost estimates by TVA (for utility
boilers) and Radian Corporation (for industrial boilers) were used for this
analysis since these estimates are current and well-documented.  In order
to properly compare the TVA and Radian estimates, the costs were adjusted
to the same economic and technical bases, which include:
     •    design scope made identical,
     •    same year of construction basis,
     •    same indirect investment algorithm basis, and
     •    same unit cost basis for labor, raw materials, utilities, etc.

                                     1-4

-------
In addition, major components of industrial boiler FGD systems are usually
shop-fabricated whereas utility systems are field-erected.  The capital and
operating costs developed after accounting for the differences described
above were compared to determine if the discontinuities were real or a
result of inaccuracies in one or both sets of cost data.

     Wet limestone scrubbing and lime spray drying FGD systems are the only
processes evaluated in this study.   For electric utility plants, wet lime
and limestone systems dominate the operating units while wet lime/limestone
scrubbing and lime spray drying processes are the prevalent systems being
planned for future facilities.  For industrial boilers, dual alkali and
sodium (once-through) systems dominate operating and planned units, although
spray drying systems are beginning to be applied.  The dual alkali is more
typical of the FGD system that will be applied to large industrial boilers.
Sodium (once-through) will most likely be applied to small boilers where the
high TDS (total dissolved solids) liquid waste can be easily disposed of (such
as on steam generators used in oil field injection where the liquid waste can
be disposed of by well injection or in evaporation ponds).

     To simplify the basis of this and other studies, only the wet lime/
limestone FGD costs are recommended for use in developing cost impacts of
FGD control for acid rain mitigation.  The reasons for this recommendation
are:

     •  The capital and operating costs for wet limestone and dual
        alkali FGD systems are comparable for industrial boiler FGD
        applications over the capacity range of 30 - 200 x 10s Btu/hr.
        boiler heat input, and

     •  Due to the large amounts of data on existing utility boiler FGD
        systems, the cost estimates for limestone systems should be more
        accurate than for lime spray dryer systems.   In addition,  the cost
        estimates supplied by TVA for utility boiler spray dryer FGD
        systems were preliminary and had not been finalized prior to
        completing this report.

                                     1-5

-------
Only the costs for wet limestone FGD systems are presented and discussed
in this summary.  However, the analysis of spray drying in Chapter 2,
Section 2 points out the major factors that affect the costs for these systems.

     The capital and annual first year operating and maintenance (O&M)* costs
for FGD systems applied to new industrial boilers are derived from the cost
data developed by Radian Corporation.  These costs are for limestone FGD
systems, however, Radian found that dual alkali and limestone FGD costs were
comparable (within 10 percent) for the capacity range evaluated.  These cost
data are part of the background information document which was developed to
support new source performance standards for industrial boilers.  Table 1.2.1-1
presents a complete breakdown of the capital investment costs (1980 dollars)
for FGD systems applied to new industrial boilers ranging in capacity from 30
to 200 million Btu per hour.  Table 1.2.1-2 shows the first year O&M costs for
those same FGD systems.  These costs are recommended for use in the acid rain
study.

     TVA has  performed a similar cost analysis for limestone  FGD systems
applied to new utility boilers.   Their costing work is part of  an on-going
program to develop detailed and accurate costs for utility-sized FGD systems.
Table 1.2.1-3 presents the capital investment costs,  while Table 1.2.1-4
shows the first year annual O&M costs.   These costs are also recommended  for
use in the acid rain study.

     The industrial and utility boiler FGD system capital investments, shown
in Tables 1.2.1-1 and 1.2.1-3, respectively,  should exhibit some discontinuity
in the capacity transition from large industrial boilers to small utility
boilers due to the following:
includes raw materials,  labor, maintenance, utilities,  solid  waste disposal
 (if applicable), and overhead.  Does not include capital-related costs such
 as depreciation, income taxes, interest, return-on equity.
                                     1-6

-------
TABLE 1.2.1-1   INDUSTRIAL BOILER LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Boiler Heat Input
Capacity, 10° Btu/hr
Direct Investment
Raw Materials Handling
S02 Scrubbing
Fans
Solids Separation
Utilities & Service
Total Direct Investment (TDI)
Indirect Investment
Engineering
Construction & Field Expense
Construction Fees
Startup
Performance Test
Total Indirect Investment (Til)
Contingencies
Total Turnkey Investment (TTI)
Land
Working Capital
Capital Investment*,
30

59
149
20
160
23
411

98
41
41
8
4
192
121
724
0.6
52
75

99
244
40
189
34
606

98
61
61
12
6
238
169
1,013
0.8
72
150

147
368
69
227
49
860

98
86
86
17
9
296
231
1,387
1
106
103 $
200

171
401
76
275
55
978

98
98
98
19
10
323
260
1,561
1
126
    Total Cap. Investment (TCI)
    1978 $                              777    1,086    1,494    1,688
    TCI x 1.21 = 1980 $                 940    1,314    1,808    2,042


    TCI (1980S) 103$/106 Btu/hr         31.3     17.5     12.1     10.2


* Refer to Tables 2.1.2-4 and 2.1.2-5 for bases.
                                    1-7

-------
TABLE 1.2.1-2
INDUSTRIAL BOILER LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM FIRST YEAR OPERATING
AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Boiler Heat Input
Capacity, 106 Btu/hr
Direct Costs
Raw Material
Limestone
Conversion Costs
Operating Labor
Supervision
Utilities
Process Water
Power
Maintenance Labor & Materials
Solid Waste Disposal
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
Indirect Costs
Payroll Overhead
Plant Overhead
G&A
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
Total First Year O&M, 1978$
1981 $ (1978 $ x 1.285)
$/106 Btu (1978$)
$/106 Btu (1981$)
Annual
30

10

105
21

0.2
7
33
28
204
38
40
31
109
313
402
1.99
2.56
O&M Cost,
75

24

105
21

0.7
18
48
71
288
38
44
43
125
413
531
1.05
1.35
103 $/Yr
150

49

105
21

1
36
68
143
423
38
48
60
146
569
731
0.72
0.93
(1978$)
200

65

105
21

2
42
78
190
503
38
50
68
156
659
847
0.63
0.81
*Refer to Tables 2.1.2-4, 2.1.2-5, and 2.1.3-3 for bases.
                                    1-8

-------
TABLE 1.2.1-3   UTILITY BOILER LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM CAPITAL INVESTMENT (1980$)
Capital Investment,* 10 $
Utility Boiler Capacity MWe
Boiler Heat Input**(106 Btu/hr)
Direct Investment
Raw Materials Handling
S02 Scrubbing
Waste Disposal
Total Direct Investment (TDI)
Indirect Investment (II)
Engr. Design & Supv. plus
Architectural & Engr. (A&E)
Construction Expenses
Contractor Fees
Contingency
Fixed Investment (TDI +11)
Other Capital Requirements
Startup & Modifications
Interest During Construction
Land
Working Capital
Total Capital Investment (TCI)***
$/KWe
103$/106 Btu/hr**
100
1,000
1,738
9,399
5,013
16,149
1,453
2,584
807
4,199
25,192
1,938
3,779
634
820
32,363
323.6
32.4
250
2,500
1,875
16,070
8,859
26,805
2,412
4,289
1,340
6,969
41,816
3,217
6,272
1,247
1,388
53,932
215.7
21.6
500
5,000
3,844
26,764
14,058
44,666
4,020
7,147
2,233
11,613
69,679
5,360
10,452
2,107
2,349
89,947
179.9
18.0
1,000
10,000
4,541
53,272
22,743
80,556
7,250
12,889
4,028
20,945
125,667
9,667
18,850
3,573
4,270
162,027
162.0
16.2
  *Refer to Tables 2.1.2-1 and 2.1.2-2 for bases.
 **Assumes 10,000 Btu/kwh
***TCI = TDI + II + Other Capital Requirements.
                                     1-9

-------
 TABLE 1.2.1-4   UTILITY BOILER LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM FIRST YEAR OPERATING
                 AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (1981$)
Boiler Capacity MWe
Boiler Heat Input** (106 Btu/hr)
Direct Costs
Raw Material
Limestone
Conversion Costs
Operating Labor & Supervision
Utilities
Process Water
Electricity
Steam
Maintenance Labor & Materials
Analyses
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
Indirect Costs
Overheads
Plant & Administrative
Total First Year O&M Costs***
Mills/Kwh
$/106 Btu****
Annual
100
1,000 2

174

172

3
264
166
1,109 1
52
1,940 3

800 1
2,740 4
5.79
0.58
O&M
250
,500

436

260

9
604
414
,785
52
,560

,258
,818
4.07
0.41
Cost*, 103
500
5,000

872

356

18
1,201
829
2,970
78
6,324

2,042
8,366
3.53
0.35
$/Yr
1,000
10,000

1,744

486

38
2,343
1,657
5,428
104
11,800

3,611
15,411
3.26
0.33
   *Refer to Tables 2.1.2-1, 2.1.2-2, and 2.1.3-1 for bases.

  **Assumes  10,000  Btu/Kwh.
 ***Direct plus indirect costs.
****Based on Boiler heat input.
                                     1-10

-------
                              Utility  Boiler            Industrial  Boiler
                               FGD  System                FGD  System

1.  Design scope         Includes spare absorber     Does not  include  spare
                         modules, stack gas          absorbers,  stack  gas
                         reheat, and  on-site         reheat, or  an on-site
                         sludge disposal pond        pond.

2.  Method of            Field-erection              Shop-fabrication  of
    Installation                                     major  components

3.  Indirect Invest-     M..O times direct           ^0.75  times direct
    ment plus other        investment                  investment
    capital
    requirements


The analyses performed in  Section 2 of this report illustrate that the three

items listed above account for most of the discontinuity in the capital
investment costs.
     As with the capital investment costs, the industrial and utility boiler
annual O&M costs presented in Tables 1.2.1-2 and 1.2.1-4, respectively, are

also likely to exhibit some discontinuity due to the following:


                             Utility Boiler              Industrial Boiler
                               FGD System                   FGD System

1.  Design scope         Stack gas reheat steam      No stack gas reheat steam
                         used; sludge disposed       used; sludge disposed of
                         of in pond on-site          by outside contractor
                                                     at $15/ton
2.  Unit costs for raw   See Table 2.1.3-1           See Table 2.1.3-3
    materials, labor,
    utilities, etc.
3.  Capacity utiliza-    0.54                        0.60
    tion factor


In addition to these factors,  O&M costs that  are estimated based on capital
investment (such as maintenance and sometimes overhead) will be significantly

different for the two systems  because of factors which cause discontinuities

in the capital investment (see previous discussion on capital investment).

The analyses performed in Section 2 illustrate that the items identified

above account for most of the  cost discontinuity.
                                     1-11

-------
      The discontinuities  are shown graphically  by plotting  the  data
 presented in Tables  1.2.1-1  through 1.2.1-4.  Figure  1.2.1-1  shows  a  plot
 of  the  capital  investment costs  and Figure  1.2.1-2 shows  a  plot of  the
 first year O&M  costs.   Also  shown on these  graphs is  a  plot of  the  normalized
 cost  values which  result  from elimination of  the  differences  in design  scope,
 installation and indirect investment algorithms,  capacity utilization factors,
 and unit costs  mentioned  above.   The final  normalized curves  eliminate  most
 of  the  discontinuities  in both sets of  data.  The rationale for developing
 the normalized  curve is discussed in detail in  Section  2.

      However, due  to the  environmental  regulations and  economy  of scale,  the
 design  scope is likely  to be considerably different for industrial  and  util-
 ity boiler FGD  systems  as discussed previously.   Many components of indus-
 trial boiler FGD units  are likely to be shop-fabricated,  whereas, utility
 systems are field-erected.   In addition, unit costs for raw materials,  util-
 ities,  and solid waste  disposal  are likely  to be  considerably different due
 to  volume or quantity considerations.   Different  capacity utilization factors
 may also be expected.   The factors affecting  capital  investment and,  there-
 fore  certain O&M costs  (such as  maintenance and overhead),  are  also important.
 Therefore, discontinuities in the capital investment  and  O&M  curves similar  to
 those shown in  Figures  1.2.1-1 and 1.2.1-2  should be  expected.

      In summary, the annual  O&M  and capital investment  cost estimates for
 wet limestone FGD  systems presented in  this study* should be  considered as
 valid,  consistent  data.  Therefore, it  is  recommended that  the  cost data
 shown in Tables 1.2.1-1 through 1.2.1-4 be  used in later  acid rain  studies
 as the  basis  for  assessing cost impacts for FGD controls.** Of course,
 adjustment to  the  bases (such as design scope,  startup  date,  and site-
 specific unit  costs for raw materials,  utilities, etc.) may be  required
 by a  particular reader.  The data in this  report  is documented  so  that  these
 adjustments can be made,  if desired.
 *For FGD systems  applied  to  new industrial  and  utility boilers.
**Retrofit factors will have  to be used to adjust these costs to  reflect the
  costs of applying FGD systems to existing boilers.
                                      1-12

-------
         IOC-i
          50-
     s
     •s,
10-
          5-
0.
o
                                  NORMALIZED CAPITAL
                                  INVESTMENT CURVE
                                             LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM
                                             3 35 - 3 5% SULFUR COAL
                                             90% SO2 REMOVAL
                                                   UTILITY FGD SYSTEMS
                                                 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS
                                                      (TABLE 1 2 1-3)
       INDUSTRIAL FGO SYSTEMS
       CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS
            (TABLE 1211)
                                    • COST DATA FROM TABLES 1211 AND 1 2 1-3

                               	RESULTING CURVE WHEN INDUSTRIAL AND
                                      UTILITY COST ARE ADJUSTED TO SAME BASIS
                                      THIS INCLUDES
                                      (1) DESIGN SCOPE
                                      (2) INDIRECT INVESTMENT ALGORITHMS
                                      (3) METHOD OF INSTALLATION
                                        (SHOP-FABRICATED OR FIELD-ERECTED)
            10
                          SO     100              500    1000

                                    BOILER HEAT INPUT, 106 Btu/hr
                                                                     5000
                                                                 10000 _

                                                                     I
                                                                     a
                                  I
                                 10
                                                50     100
                                     FOR UTILITY BOILERS MWe
                                                                     500
                                                                           1000
                                     BOILER CAPACITY


NOTE:   Utility  boiler  FGD unit  investment  estimates  are provided for  boiler
capacities of 100-500  MWe and are expressed as dollars per  106 Btu/hr of
capacity assuming a plant heat  rate of  10,000 Btu/kwh. Industrial boiler
FGD  system estimates are also expressed  as dollars  per 10   Btu/hr of  boiler
capacity.  The  utility and industrial boiler investment and capacity  scales
are  interchangeable if the same 10,000  Btu/kwh conversion  factor is assumed.
This is a close approximation of the heat  rate for  most utility plants.
               Figure 1.2.1-1. Capital Investment for Industrial and Utility
                         Boiler Wet Limestone FGD Systems.
                                        1-13

-------
         10-
         5-
   CO~
   CO
   8
   O
   a:
   <
   01
   gc
   u.
5-
                   INOUSTRIAL FGD SYSTEMS
                    FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS
                       (TABLE 1 2 1-2)
                                      • COST DATA FROM TABLES 1 2 1-2 AND 1 2 1-4

                                   	RESULTING CURVE WHEN INDUSTRIAL AND
                                       UTILITY COSTS ARE ADJUSTED TO SAME BASIS
                                       THIS INCLUDES
                                       (1) DESIGN SCOPE
                                       (2) INDIRECT INVESTMENT ALGORITHMS
                                       (3) UNIT COST FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS
                                       (4) CAPACITY UTILIZATION FACTOR
                                       (S) METHOD OF INSTALLATION
                                         (SHOP FABRICATION OR FIELD-ERECTED)
                                     NORMALIZED O&M
                                      COST CURVE
                                                         UTILITY FGD SYSTEMS
                                                        FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS
                                                           (TABLE 121-4)
          10
                         50
                                                     1000
                                    BOILER HEAT INPUT 10° Btu/hr
                                                           5000    10000  §
-1	1	1	1—
 S      10              50      100
            FOR UTILITY BOILERS MWe

            BOILER CAPACITY
                                                                    —r~
                                                                    500
                                                                 —I
                                                                 1000
NOTE:   Utility  boiler  FGD unit  annual O&M estimates are  provided  for boiler
capacities of 100-500  MWe and are expressed as  $/106 Btu assuming a plant
heat  rate of 10,000 Btu/kwh.  Industrial boiler FGD system estimates are
provided for boiler heat input  capacities of 30-200 x 10s  Btu/hr  and are
expressed as $/106 Btu.   The utility and industrial boiler capacity scales
are  interchangeable if the same 10,000  Btu/kwh  conversion  factor  is
assumed.  This  is a close approximation of the  heat rate for most utility
plants.
             Figure 1.2.1-2. First Year O&M Costs for Industrial and Utility
                             Wet Limestone FGD Systems.
                                          1-14

-------
1.2.2  FGD System Retrofit Factor Evaluation

     A retrofit factor is defined as  the ratio of  the capital  investment
or operating cost for installing a process  in an existing plant  to  the  capital
investment or operating cost for the  same process  in a new  installation.
This factor is often applied to new installation costs to estimate  the
costs of putting the same basic equipment into an  existing  facility.

     Retrofit factors were only evaluated for utility boilers  because there
was no published information on retrofit factors for industrial  boilers.
Therefore, there is no retrofit factor recommendation for industrial boiler
FGD systems.

     Capital Investment

     Retrofit factor studies performed by TVA, PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,
M.W.  Kellogg, and Radian Corporation were examined.  Retrofit factors
ranging from 0.9 to 3.0 were found in these studies.  Space availability
was identified as the principal factor affecting the capital investment
associated with retrofitting FGD systems.

     For a preliminary evaluation, a retrofit factor of 1.2 is recommended
for "average" retrofits for boilers less than ten years old and with
capacities greater than 200 Mw.  A retrofit factor range of 1.1  to 1.4  is
also recommended.  The lower end of the range is applicable when installa-
tion of the FGD system is relatively uninvolved and when available space
for FGD equipment is adequate.   Retrofit factors in the upper range nearer
1.4 would be used when retrofitting is complex.
                                     1-15

-------
     The retrofit factor 1.2 is recommended for use in a preliminary
evaluation of FGD system retrofit costs for utility boilers.   The reader
should note that:

     (1)  Retrofit of FGD systems to some boilers will be infeasible.
     (2)  Retrofit factors greater than 1.4 are possible.

Only a site-specific evaluation of the factors associated with retrofit can
accurately quantify the costs.

     Annualized Costs

     No retrofit factor for annualized costs is recommended.   Increased
annualized costs for retrofits compared to new systems are primarily
associated with the higher capital investment.  Therefore, an annualized
cost retrofit factor would be a strong function of the capital investment
retrofit factor, the load factor of the boiler, and the remaining useful
life of the boiler.

1.2.3  TVA and PEDCo Environmental, Inc. FGD System Cost Comparison

     Both TVA and PEDCo have developed cost estimating procedures for
utility boiler FGD systems.  In the past, estimates from the  two organiza-
tions have shown significant differences.  Cost estimates by  TVA and PEDCo
were evaluated to determine whether the differences are real  or a function
of such factors as design scope, indirect investment algorithms, unit cost
for raw materials, utilities, and other economic parameters.

     The results of the study are presented in Section 4 and  show that
capital investment and O&M costs for a lime wet scrubbing system prepared
by both organizations are very similar when all bases (economical and
technical) are made identical.
                                    1-16

-------
                                 SECTION 2

               FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM COST COMPARISONS
                      FOR INDUSTRIAL AND UTILITY BOILERS

     Most operating flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units applied to utility
boilers are lime or limestone systems.  The majority of the planned systems
are either wet lime/limestone or spray dryers.  For industrial boilers, wet
lime/limestone, dual alkali, spray dryers, and sodium scrubbing (once
through) are the realistic alternatives for future FGD units.9  Industrial
boiler dual alkali and limestone costs (capital and operating) have been
shown to be comparable for all boiler sizes.9  In this report the costs for
limestone and lime spray dryer FGD systems applied to new utility and
industrial boilers are evaluated and compared.  These costs should be
representative of user costs for typical industrial and utility applications.*

     Cost estimates were obtained from TVA and Radian Corporation for
utility and industrial boiler FGD systems, respectively.  Capital invest-
ment is expressed as $/KWe and $/106 Btu/hr (boiler heat input) for
utility and industrial systems, respectively.  First year O&M costs are
expressed as mills/kwh and $/106 Btu (boiler heat input).  In order to
compare the industrial and utility system costs, the utility boiler FGD
unit costs can also be expressed as $/106 Btu/hr and $/106 Btu if a plant
heat rate of 10,000 Btu/Kwh is assumed.

     Limestone and lime spray dryer FGD system costs applied to new boiler
installations are evaluated and compared in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.  Retrofit
costs are considered in Section 3.
*The capital investment and annual operating costs are significant only to
 two figures; however, results are reported to the last whole significant
 figure to be consistent with other similar studies.
                                    2-1

-------
2.1  WET LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES

     In this section, cost estimates (capital and operating) for utility and
industrial boiler wet limestone FGD systems are presented and compared.  In
addition, reported costs for installed utility FGD systems are evaluated and
compared to the TVA cost estimates.

2.1.1  Process Description

     The wet limestone flue gas desulfurization process uses a slurry of calcium
carbonate to absorb S02 in a wet scrubber.  This process is commonly referred
to as a "throwaway" process because the calcium sulfite and sulfate formed
in the system are disposed of as waste solids.

     The basic design of a wet limestone scrubbing system can be divided
into the following process areas:

     (1)  Limestone Preparation,

     (2)  S0_ Absorption, and

     (3)  Solids Separation and Disposal.

Figure 2.1.1-1 presents a generalized process flow diagram.

     Limestone Preparation

     The raw material for a utility or industrial FGD system generally comes
directly from the quarry, and is then reduced in size by crushing and grinding.
For very small FGD applications, preground limestone would probably be
purchased.  The limestone is mixed with water to make a 25-60 percent solids
slurry for feed to the effluent hold tank.
                                    2-2

-------
                             MAKEUP WATER
   LIMESTONE
Tho two  primary options for
SolJd Waste  Concentration
and disposal  are:

(1)  On-site ponding of hold
     tank  effluent, or

(2)  Solids  concentration in a
     thickener and vacuum filter
     with  the wastes trucked to
     off-site disposal
                    TO SOLID WASTE
                    CONCENTRATION
                    AND DISPOSAL
 SUPERNATANT LIQUOR
 RETURN FROM SOLID
WASTE CONCENTRATION
     OPERATION
                            FIGURE 2.1.1-1
LIMESTONE  FGD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

-------
      SO? Absorption

      Absorption  of S02  takes  place  in  a  wet  scrubber using limestone in a
circulating  slurry.   Particulates can  be removed  in the S02 absorber or
ahead of the absorber by  an electrostatic precipitator, baghouse,  or particu-
late  scrubber.   The  selection of a  method for  particulate removal is
based on economics and  operational  reliability.   Removing particles in
the S02 absorber increases the solids  load in  the S02 scrubbing  system.   It
is also believed that some components  of the fly  ash catalyze  the oxidation
of sulfite to sulfate,  thus increasing the potential for sulfate scaling.

      The absorption  of  S(>2 from the flue gases by a limestone  slurry
constitutes  a multiphase  system involving gas, liquid,  and several solids.
The overall  reaction of gaseous S02 with the alkaline slurry, yielding
CaS03-JjH20, follows:
     S02(g) + CaC03(s) + ljH20 * CaSOrJsH20(s) + C02(g)

The  solid  sulfite  is only  slightly  soluble  in the  scrubbing  liquor and  thus
will precipitate to form an  inert solid  for disposal.

     In most cases, some oxygen will also be absorbed from the flue gas or
surrounding atmosphere.  This leads to oxidation of absorbed S02 and precipi-
tation of solid CaSOi, • 2H20.   The overall reaction for this step is as
follows:
     S02(g) + *s02(g) + CaC03(s) + 2H20 -* CaS0lt-2H20(s) + C02(g)

The extent of oxidation can vary considerably, normally ranging anywhere
from almost zero to 40 percent.  In some systems treating dilute S02 flue
gas streams, sulfite oxidations as high as 90 percent have been observed.
The actual mechanism for sulfite oxidation is not completely understood.
However, the rate is known to be a strong function of oxygen concentration
in the flue gas and liquor pH.  It may also be increased by trace quantities
of catalysts in fly ash entering the system.
                                   2-4

-------
     Various types of gas-liquid contactors can be used as the SC>2 absorber.
These differ in S02 removal efficiency as well as operating reliability.
Four types of contactors are generally used for SO2  removal:

     •    venturi scrubbers,

     •    spray towers (horizontal and vertical),

     •    grid towers, and

     •    mobile bed absorbers (such as marble bed and turbulent
          contact absorber  [TCA]).

Simple impingement devices are placed downstream from the absorber to remove
mist entrained in the flue gas.

     The effluent hold tank receives the lime or limestone feed slurry
and absorber effluent.  The tank is equipped with an agitator for maintain-
ing uniform composition.   The volume of the hold tank is sized to allow
adequate residence time for calcium sulfite and sulfate precipitation.
Reaction time outside the scrubber is needed to allow the supersaturation
caused by 862 sorption in the scrubber to dissipate and to permit limestone
dissolution.  Too little residence time in the hold tank can cause nuclea-
tion of calcium sulfite and sulfate solids in the scrubber, resulting in
scaling.

     Solids Separation and Disposal

     A continuous slurry stream of 10-15 percent solids is recycled to
the absorber from the effluent hold tank.  In addition, a bleed stream is
taken off to be dewatered.  The dewatering step, which is needed to minimize
the area needed for sludge disposal, varies depending on the application and
type of disposal.
                                    2-5

-------
     For systems with on-site pond disposal, solids may be pumped directly
from the effluent hold tank to the pond area.  Clear overflow liquor from
the pond would then be returned to the system.  Depending on the physical
properties of the solids produced in the system, a thickening device such
as a clarifier can be used to increase the solids content to a maximum of
about 40 weight percent.  Additional dewatering to 50-60 percent solids can
sometimes be achieved by vacuum filtration.  This type of processing may
be selected if the waste solids must be transported offsite to disposal.
                                    2-6

-------
2.1.2  Limestone FGD  System Capital  Investment

     Studies have shown  that  there can  be  large  differences  in  capital
investment per unit of capacity when comparing FGD  systems for  small  indus-
trial boilers to large utility boiler FGD  systems.1'2  A  typical example
of this difference is illustrated in Figure  2.1.2-1, which shows a very high
capital investment per unit of capacity for  very  small industrial boilers,
followed by a rapid drop as process  size increases.  The  utility boiler FGD
investment also shows a decrease in  investment per  unit of capacity as the
process size is increased, but the rate of change is not  as  sharp as  in the
industrial case.   However, a  two to  four times higher investment has been
noted for utility boiler FGD systems as they approach the size of large
industrial boiler FGD systems.3  Some have claimed  this is due to the fact
that (1)  industrial boiler FGD systems are shop-fabricated, while utility
systems are field-erected and (2) that the design scope for industrial boiler
FGD systems are considerably different than  the scope for utility boiler
FGD systems.1*  The question then becomes whether these differences are real
or an artifact of the algorithms and assumptions used to calculate the FGD
system investment.   To answer this question, current capital investments
were obtained for both utility and industrial limestone FGD systems.   Then
the assumptions and algorithms used  to calculate the investments were care-
fully studied to  determine if the differences could be caused by the use of
different bases or methods of calculation.
                                    2-7

-------
                                                          UTILITY SYSTEMS
              0.
              3


              I
              I-
              UJ

              i
              UJ
<

E
O
                         INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS
00
                                              PROCESS CAPACITY
                         Figure 2.1.2-1. Comparison of Total Capital Investment for
                           Small Industrial and Large Utility Boiler FGD Systems.

-------
2.1.2.1   Utility Boiler FGD System Capital Investment Estimates

     Utility boiler FGD system capital investment as a function of process size
was estimated by the Technical and Economic Evaluation Section of the Tennessee
Valley Authority by using their Shawnee Lime/Limestone Scrubbing Computerized
Design/Cost-Estimate Model.5'6  This model was updated in 1979 and 1980, and
represents the most recent algorithm available for calculating lime and lime-
stone FGD system capital investment and operating costs.7  The economic bases
and design scope are outlined in Tables 2.1.2-1 and 2.1.2-2, respectively, for
a limestone FGD process achieving 90 percent S02 removal on a boiler firing
3.36 percent sulfur coal.  The capital investment estimates are given in Table
2.1.2-3.  Detailed assumptions, material balances, equipment lists and economic
results for 100, 250, 500, and 1000 MWe FGD systems are given in Appendix A.

     The capital investment results given in Table 2.1.2-3 illustrate the
increase in investment/KWe that occurs as the size of the process decreases.
The total capital investment/KWe doubles from $162 to $324 as the process size
is reduced tenfold, from 1000 to 100 MWe.  Estimates were not developed below
100 MWe because the computer program does not contain equipment costs for
units smaller than 100 MWe.  Computer extrapolation below this process size
would result in an abnormally high investment/KWe, since some of the component
equipment sizes and, therefore, costs would remain constant as the process
size decreases.  In fact, the capital estimates for 100 MWe systems are
somewhat high due to the incorporation of some over-sized equipment.

     The investment results include estimates for a new solid waste disposal
pond which meets Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) require-
ments for disposal of nonhazardous wastes.  Thus, a heavier dike, a security
fence and lighting, costs for monitoring wells, and monitoring analytical costs
for the life of the facility are included.  Additional land is also provided
for a wider perimeter of undisturbed land and topsoil storage than in previous
models.  These additional items increase the pond contruction direct invest-
ment by about 30 percent,8 which in turn increases the total FGD system
capital investment by approximately $12/KWe compared to the previous model.
                                     2-9

-------
TABLE 2.1.2-1  TVA UTILITY BOILER WET LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM INVESTMENT BASES*



Investment

                                    % of Total Direct Investment**(TDI)
1. Indirect Investment

   Engr. Design + A&E                       9
   Construction Expenses                   16
   Contractor Fees                          5
   Contingency***                          26

2. Other Capital Requirements
   Startup and Modifications               12
   Interest During Construction            23.4
   Land                                 ^3.9-4.7
   Working Capital                         ^5.3


Plant Investment Indices

          1978      218.8
          1980      265.0****
          1982      299.8



   * Corresponds to the design scope described in Table 2.1.2-2.

  ** Total Direct Investment includes installed cost of all process equipment,
     disposal pond, foundations, structures, buildings, electrical,
     instrumentation and services.

 *** Contingency is defined as 20 percent of (TDI plus engineering design plus
     construction expenses plus contractor fee).
**** N0t in "official" TVA publications but used in limestone FGD study.
                                   2-10

-------
   TABLE 2.1.2-2  TVA UTILITY BOILER WET LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM DESIGN SCOPE
•    Costs are for new limestone FGD systems applied to new utility boilers.
•    Capital investment is expressed in 1980$.
•    Coal contains 3.36 percent sulfur and has a heat content of 11,700 Btu/lb.
•    S02 removal efficiency in the scrubber is 90 percent.
     Scrubber redundancy:
     Size. MWe
     Operating absorbers
     Spare absorbers
250
100    	
 1      2
 1      1
500
 4
 1
1000
  8
  2
•    Equipment components included in the design:
          limestone handling and preparation
          turbulent contact absorbers and associated process equipment
          stack gas reheaters
          induced draft (I.D.)  fans and ductwork
          pumps for slurry transport to pond and supernatant liquor return

•    Onsite pond construction to meet RCRA requirements is included.
     Thickeners and vacuum filters are not included.

•    Particulate matter control equipment is not included.

•    Heat rate is 9500 Btu/KWH for all plants.
                                   2-11

-------
 TABLE 2.1.2-3  UTILITY BOILER WET LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM CAPITAL INVESTMENT
                (1980$)*
Capital Investment, 103 $
Utility Boiler Capacity MWe
Direct Investment
Raw Materials Handling
SO2 Scrubbing
Waste Disposal
Total Direct Investment (TDI)
Indirect Investment (II)
Engr. Design & Supv. +
Architectural & Engr. (A&E)
Construction Expenses
Contractor Fees
Contingency
Fixed Investment (TDI +11)
Other Capital Requirements
Startup & Modifications
Interest During Construction
Land
Working Capital
Total Capital Investment (TCI)**
$/KWe
103$/106Btu/hr***
100
1,738
9,399
5,013
16,149
1,453
2,584
807
4,199
25,192
1,938
3,779
634
820
32,363
323.6
32.4
250
1,875
16,070
8.859
26,805
2,412
4,289
1,340
6,969
41,816
3,217
6,272
1,247
1,388
53,932
215.7
21.6
500
3,844
26,764
14,058
44,666
4,020
7,147
2,233
11,613
69,679
5,360
10,452
2,107
2,349
89,947
179.9
18.0
1000
4,541
53,272
22,743
80,556
7,250
12,889
4,028
20,945
125,667
9,667
18,850
3,573
4,270
162,027
162.0
16.2
  *Refer to Tables 2.1.2-1 and 2.1.2-2 for bases.
 **TCI = TDI + II + Other Capital Requirements.
***Assumes a 10,000 Btu/kwhplant heat rate.
                                     2-12

-------
2.1.2.2  Industrial Boiler FGD System Capital Investment Estimates

     Capital investment estimates for limestone wet scrubbing FGD systems
for small industrial boilers (30 to 200 * 106 Btu/hr heat input capacity*)
were  developed by Radian Corporation as part of a series of technology
assessment reports to assist in setting New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for industrial boilers.9  The bases and design scope used in estimat-
ing the investment are described in Tables 2.1.2-4 and 2.1.2-5, respectively.
These factors, which are different from those used by TVA for utility boiler
FGD systems, account for some of the differences between utility and
industrial boiler FGD system cost estimates.  Material balances and
equipment lists used in estimating the direct investments for limestone FGD
systems with 90 percent SC-2 removal for industrial boilers firing 3.5
percent sulfur coal are contained in Appendix B.

     The capital investment estimates are given in Table 2.1.2-6.  These
costs are based on a higher solid separation investment than that used in the
Industrial Technology Assessment Review (ITAR).10  This investment component
was revised by Radian after publication of the ITAR.  The total capital
investment has been updated to a 1980 cost basis from a 1978 basis by using
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Indices (265.0/218.8=1.21).
* These boiler sizes would generate steam at about 20,000-140,000 Ib/hr.
  Small utility boilers of comparable size would generate about 3-20 MWe
  of power,assuming a plant heat rate of 10,000 Btu/KWH.
                                    2-13

-------
 TABLE  2.1.2-4   INDUSTRIAL BOILER WET LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM INVESTMENT BASES*

                                               % of  Total  Direct
 Indirect  Investment                         Investment**   (TDI)	
   Engineering                                    ***
   Construction  &  Field  Expense                   10
   Construction  Fees                               10
   Startup                                         2
   Performance Test                                 1
     Total Indirect Investment (Til)               33

 Other  Capital Requirements***                Factor
   Contingency                              20% x (TDI + Til)
   Land                                    0.084 x TDI
   Working Capital                         25% x TDC****
   * For the design scope and costs presented in Tables 2.1.2-5 and 2.1.2-6.
  ** Total Direct Investment includes installed cost  of all process equipment,
     foundations, instrumentation, etc.   Buildings and solid waste disposal
     areas are not included.
 *** For this study, the engineering costs are assumed the same for all
     industrial boiler applications and  are based on  10 percent of the
     Total Direct Investment (TDI) for the 200 x 106  Btu/hr boiler.
**** TDC = Total Direct Costs, which include a portion of  the operating and
     maintenance annual costs, are defined in Section 2.1.3.2.
                                    2-14

-------
TABLE 2.1.2-5  RADIAN INDUSTRIAL BOILER WET LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM DESIGN SCOPE


 •    Costs are for new limestone FGD systems applied to new industrial boilers.

 •    Capital investments  were expressed  in 1978  $  in the ITAR and  are
      adjusted  to  1980  $  in this report.

 •    Coal contains 3.5 percent sulfur and has a heat content of 11,800 Btu/lb.

 •    S02 removal efficiency in the scrubber is 90 percent.

 •    No spare scrubbers are incorporated into the cost estimate.

 •    Equipment components included in the design:
           limestone handling
           turbulent contact absorber and associated process equipment
           forced draft (F.D.) fan
           thickener, vacuum filter and associated equipment

 •    Solid waste disposal is performed by outside contractor.  No capital
      investment is included beyond the vacuum filter.

 •    Stack gas reheat is not included.

 •    Particulate control equipment is not included.
                                     2-15

-------
TABLE 2.1.2-6   RADIAN  INDUSTRIAL  BOILER LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM  INVESTMENT*
Capital Investment, 10 3 $
Boiler Heat Input Capacity
106 Btu/hr
Direct Investment
Raw Materials Handling
S02 Scrubbing
Fans
Solids Separation
Utilities & Service
Total Direct Invest. (TDI)
Indirect Investment
Engineering
Construction & Field Expense
Construction Fees
Startup
Performance Test
Total Indirect Invest. (Til)
Contingencies
Total Turnkey Invest. (TTI) **
Land
Working Capital
Total Cap Invest. (TCI)
1978 $
TCI x 1.21 = 1980 $
'CI (1980 $),103 $/106 Btu/hr
30
59
149
20
160
23
All
98
41
41
8
4
192
121
724
0.6
52
777
940
31.3
75
99
244
40
189
34
606
98
61
61
12
6
238
169
1,013
0.8
72
1,086
1,314
17.5
150
147
368
69
227
49
860
98
86
86
17
9
296
231
1,387
1
106
1,494
1,808
12.1
200
171
401
76
275
55
978
98
98
98
19
10
323
260
1,561
1
126
1,688
2,042
10.2
 *Bases  and  design  scope  given in Tables  2.1.2-4 and  2.1.2-5.
**TTI = TDI  plus Til plus contingencies.
                                     2-16

-------
2.1.2.3  Comparison and Integration of Utility and Industrial Boiler FGD
         System Capital Investment Estimates
     Figure 2.1.2-2 illustrates the dramatic investment difference between
FGD systems for utility and industrial boilers.  The costs shown are those
described in Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2.  Three components of the bases
used for the utility boiler FGD system and industrial boiler FGD system
investment estimates account for most of this difference:

     1.  Equipment components (design scope),
     2.  Algorithms for estimating direct investment and other
         capital requirements,  and
     3.  Equipment installation factors (shop-fabrication vs. field-erection)

The impacts of each of these components will be considered in comparing  the
utility and industrial boiler FGD system cost estimates.  Investments for
industrial and utility systems will be put on the same economic and technical
bases  to determine  if the cost curves form a smooth transition through the
FGD system size range.  Smooth transition would indicate that the basic  tech-
nical  premises (including material and energy balances) and purchased equip-
ment costs are comparable for the two system types.

     The TVA utility boiler FGD system costs were developed for-two different
design scopes:

     1)  "Utility basis" - this design scope includes stack gas reheat,
         spare scrubbers, and an onsite pond for FGD sludge disposal.
         This scope is typical of many planned utility boiler FGD
         systems and was described in Table 2.1.2-2.

     2)  "Industrial basis" - this design scope includes a thickener
         and vacuum filter for waste solids concentration but does
         not include stack gas reheat, spare scrubbers, or an onsite
                                    2-17

-------
30—1
20-
Ill
i
LLJ
z
<
E
5
10—
0—1
300-1
ai
in

-------
pond. It is assumed that a contractor will haul the sludge
to an offsite disposal area; the associated costs are
considered as operating costs. Although large utility
boiler FGD systems are not generally designed this way,
the results are useful for comparison with industrial boiler FGD
system costs, since these systems are typically designed in this manner.

As stated above, many industrial boiler FGO systems do not contain stack gas
reheat, spare scrubbers, or an onsite disposal pond.

Table 2.1.2-7 presents the utility boiler FGD system capital investment
for both design scopes discussed above. The difference in the capital invest-
ment for the two scopes ranges from $70/KWe to $170/KWe. The table shows
that adding spare scrubbers for the smaller-sized units has the greatest
impact on capital investment (+$88/KWe), while adding a waste disposal pond,
rather than concentrating the slurry and transporting it away, has the
greatest impact (+$32/KWe) on the larger units. A breakdown of the direct
and indirect investments and other capital requirements for a utility FGD
system on an "industrial basis" is given in Table 2.1.2-8. The detailed
premises, material balances, equipment list, and investments and operating
costs are given in Appendix C. Similar cost data for the "utility basis"
FGD system were presented in Table 2.1.2-3 and Appendix A.

Figure 2.1.2-3 shows that even with the three major equipment components
subtracted out to yield an "industrial basis" utility FGD system, there are
still significant investment differences between comparable sizes of indus-
trial boiler FGD systems and utility FGD systems on an "industrial basis."
As stated previously, the algorithms used to calculate the indirect investment
and other capital requirements for utility boiler FGD systems are different
from those used for small industrial boiler FGD systems. In addition some
of the indirect investment and other capital requirement categories are different
for utility and industrial systems. The TVA algorithm results in a higher
2-19
-------
TABLE 2.1.2-7 IMPACT OF DIFFERENT DESIGN SCOPE ON TVA UTILITY BOILER FGD SYSTEM CAPITAL INVESTMENT

N>
1
to
O

Capital Investment, 1980 $
Boiler Capacity 100 MWe 250 MWe 500 MWe 1000 MWe
103$ $/KWe 103$ $/KWe 103 $ $/KWe 103$ $/KWe
"Industrial Basis"** 15,441 154.4 27,093 108.4 50,696 101.4 90,608 90.6
+ Stack Gas Reheat 3,269 32.7 5,707 22.8 9,340 18.7 18,279 18.3
+ Scrubber System Spares 8,843 88.4 10,183 40.7 10,575 21.2 20,735 20.7

+ Pond* 4,810 48.1 10,949 43.8 19,346 38.7 32,405 32.4
"Utility Basis" 32,363 323.6 53,932 215.7 89,947 179.9 162,027 ]62.0
* This represents the difference between waste ponding vs. concentrating the waste for offsite disposal.
** "Industrial" basis denotes the removal of stack gas reheat, scrubbing system spares and onsite waste
disposal pond. Clarifiers and vacuum filters are added so that the resulting sludge can be trans-
ported for offsite disposal.
-------
TABLE 2.1.2-8
UTILITY BOILER LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM
INVESTMENT ON AN INDUSTRIAL BASIS*
Capital Investment. 10 3 $
Utility Boiler Capacity, MWe 100
Direct Investment
Raw Materials Handling
SO 2 Scrubbing
Solids Separation (thick-
eners & filters)
Total Direct Investment
Indirect Investment
Engr. Design & Supervision
Construction Expenses
Contractor Fees
Contingency
Fixed Investment
Other Capital Requirements
Startup & Modifications
Interest During Construction
Land
Working Capital
Total Capital Investment
(1980 $}
S/KWe
103$/106 Btu/hr
1,753
4,283
1,767
7,803
702
1,249
390
2,029
12,173
936
1,826
15
491
15,441
154.4
15.4
250
1,866
9,636
2,199
13,700
1,233
2,192
685
3,562
21,372
1,644
3,206
19
852
27,093
108.4
10.8
500
3,845
19,033
2,780
25,659
2,309
4,105
1,283
6,671
40,027
3,079
6,004
27
1,54'9
50,686
101.4
10.1
1000
4,492
37,643
3,746
45,882
4,129
7,341
2,294
11,929
71,575
5,506
10,736
42
2,749
90,608
90.6
9.1
*No spare scrubber
No stack gas reheat
Waste disposal pond replaced with clarifiers and filters

Bases
3.5% S Coal
90% S02 Removal
1980 $
2-21
-------
MOTE THE READER SHOULD REFER TO FIGURE 2122 FOR EXPLANATION Of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
UTILITY AND INDUSTRIAL BOILER TOO SVSTEM COST CURVES
30-
g
o>
111
I
z
_l
<
Z
o
I.
(0
10
c
£
a
20-
10-
?
0-1
300-
|r 200—
100—
LIMESTONE FGD SYSTEM
3 35 - 3 5% SULFUR COAL
90% SO2 REMOVAL
UTILITY SYSTEMS ON A
UTILITY BASIS (TVA)
(TABLE 2 12-3)
+ POND W/O THICKENERS
ABLE 2.1 2-7)
INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS ON AN
INDUSTRIAL BASIS (RADIAN)
(TABLE"2 1 2-8)
UTILITY SYSTEMS ON AN
INDUSTRIAL BASIS (TVA)
(TABLE 2 1 2-8)
100
I I I
200 300

FOR UTILITY BOILER SYSTEMS MWe
400
500
I
I
I
1000 2000 3000

FOR INDUSTRIAL BOILER SYSTEMS, 10> Blu/hi (heal Input)

BOILER CAPACITY
4000
5000
Figure 2.1.2-3. Impact of Major Equipment Components On
Costs of Large Utility Boiler FGD Systems.
2-22
-------
investment than the Radian algorithm. The total capital investment for a
small industrial boiler FGD system (based on the Radian algorithms) can
be approximated by multiplying the direct investment by 1.75; similarly, the
capital investment for a utility boiler FGD system based on the TVA algorithms
may be approximated by multiplying the direct investment by 2.0. Applying
the utility indirect investment algorithm to the industrial direct invest-
ment will increase the total capital investment slightly, as shown in Table
2.1.2-9 and illustrated in Figure 2.1.2-4.