PB85-153559
Capital and 0 and M Cost Relationships for
Hazardous Waste Incineration
Addendum No. 1 - Ionizing Wet Scrubber Costs
Acurex Corp., Mountain View, CA
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, »B
Jan 85
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA/600/2-85/004
January 1985
PB85-153S59
CAPITAL AND O&M COST RELATIONSHIPS FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION-
ADDENDUM NO. 1 - IONIZING WET SCRUBBER COSTS
R. McCormick and H. Lips
Acurex Corporation
Energy and Environmental Division
555 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94039
Contract 68-02-3176
Project Officer
Dr. Benjamin L. Blaney
Thermal Destruction Branch
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 56268
-------
TECI4NtCAL REPORT DATA
(heau i’d . *w’jc,u.,u
on Ihe fc c i sc hc/wr c’.mpl(zsa,g/
I REPORT NO I CIPjLNTSACCESSIOpN
EPA/600/2-85/ 0 04 P85 5
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Capital and 0&N Cost Relation&iips for Hazardous
Waste Incineration: Addendum No. 1 — Ioniziz g Wet
Scrubber Costs
f 35591
5 REPORT DATE
January 1985
F0RMINGOkGANIzaTIoNcooE
- AUTIIOR ISI
R. McCormick and H. Lips
I PERFORMING ORGANZATION REPORT P .O
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS -
Acurex Corporation
555 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94039
*0 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
CBRD1A
11 CO NFHACY,GRANT NO
68—02—3176
12 SPONSORING AGE NCV NAME AND ADDRESS
Hazardous Waste Engineeriug Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cin2innatl, Ohio 45268
*3 TYPE OF REPORT ANb PERIOD COVERED
12/1/83—6/1/84
*4 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/6 00/12
IS SUPPLEMEr j rAN’,’ NOTES
Addendum to EPA/600/2-34/175 “Capital and 0&M Cost Rel tionships for Hazardous
Waste Incineration”
16 ABSTRACT
This report addresses certain cost aspects of hazardous w?ste incineration;
specifically capital and operating costs for ionizing wet scrubbers (IWS).
It is an addendum tc, a more comprehensiye report “Capital nd O&M Cost
Relationships for Hazardous Waste Incineration,” which developed parametric
methods for estimating capital and annual costs for incinerators as a function
of waste characteristics and quantities, facility capacity, type and location.
The earlier study assumed that particulate/Nd emissions were control led using
a venturi scrubber/packed bed absorber systems. This study includes a IWS
systems as a design alternative. it provides for IWS systems a methodology to
estimate:
(1) Capital cost vs. capacity/particulate efficiency and
(2) Operating (primarily power and makeup water) requirements
These can be used with the earlier study to project overall capi-ta -l and O M
costs for incineration facilities using IWS’ s.
KEY WORDS
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b IOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C COSATI I ild/Group
*9 SECURITY CLASS (ThiiRepoi.ij
21 NO OF PAGES
20 SECURITY CLASS (Th i s p gc) —
20
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220 I (9 73(
1
-------
DI S CLAY H ER
The information in thh. docuraeit has been funded by the
United States Environmentai Protection ‘Agency (EPA) under Contract
68—O2 3176 to Acurex Corppr i Energy & Environuental Division.
It has been subject to the Agency’s peer and administrative
review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document.
1 1 .
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. Thc Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
(HWERL) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved methodologies
that will meet these needs efficiently and econolnicaijy.
This report provides information on capital and operation costs for
ionizing wet scrubber systems designed to achieve RCRA air emissions standards
for hazardous waste incineration facilities. It is intended primarily for EPA
utilization in assessing cost/be,iefit trade—offs, although it may also be useful
to other individuals or organizatjon interested in hazardous waste incineration
e ono ics. The Thermal Destruction Branch, HWEPL, ;nay be contacted for additional
information on this subject.
David C. Stephan, Director
Hazardous Was Engineering Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
i ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, is currently conducting a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
of performance standards for hazardous waste ncinerators. This
RIA is intended to determine both the costs and benefits of
various regulatory standards. The study reported here addresses
certain cost aspects of hazardous waste incineration; specifically
capital and operating costs for ionizing wet scrubber (IWS)
systems used to control air emissions in some incineration
facilities.
This report serves as an addendum to a much more
comprehensive report, entitled “Capital and O&H Cost Relationships
for Hazardous ‘aste Incineration”, (Reference 1). The referenced
report was the result of a two—year study to develop parametric
cost estimating methods for hazardous waste incineration. These
parametric relationships allow capital and annual costs for
incinera-tjon facilities to be estimated as a function of waste
cha:acteristics and quantLtles, facility capacity, generic
incineration system design, energy recovery utilization, air
pollution control requirements, operating schedule, and location
within the U.S.
Due to the broad scope of the original study, a number of
assumptions concerning facility design and operation were needed
to limit the user input requirements and ensuing engineering/cost
calculations. One of the major design assumptions was that
particulate/IIC 1 emissions are controlled using venturi
scrubber/packed bed absorber systems. In recent years, however,
IWS systems have increased in popularity relative to the more
conventional venturi/packed bed scrubbing systems. This is
particularly true for large incineration facilities which generate
extremely fine particulate (<1 urn) in the combusti.)n process.
In order to include Il/S systems as a design alternat)ve in the
capital and O&N cost estimation model for hazardous waste
incilleratlon, the study reported herein ias performed. This study
provides a methodology to estimate:
(1) Capital cost vs. capacity/particulate efficiercy
relationships removal for IWS systems, and,
iv
-------
(2) IWS operating requirements, primarily power consumption
and makeup water.
These estimates can be used in cr nJunction with Reference 1
to project overall capital and O&M costs for incineration
facilities incorporating IWS’s for air emissions control.
This report is submitted in partial fdlfillment of Contract
No. 68—02—3176 by Acurex Corporation, Energy & Environmental
Division, urder the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. ThLs report covers the period December 1, 1983
to June 1, l ?84 and work was completed as of August 5, 1984.
V
-------
CON TEN IS
Fereword . iii
A bstract ...
Figures ••••••••..........
Conversion factors v i i i
1. Introduction •••• •••,••• 1
2. Input data requirements 4
3. Capital Costs .. _I•St••••se••••ss. 5
Appl cabi1ity ••s••eI•• • ••t... 5
Basisforcostestimates ....• 5
Costs •••S••••Is• • • ... 8
4. Operating requirements ...•••••••• .••••••• 9
Scrubbing system power consumptl,n 9
I i ) fan power consumption • 10
Biowdowr rate and makeup
water requirement 10
Pseferences •• . .••• . •• . •••••• • • ••••••,• •••• . . .. .11
vi
-------
F I C U RE S
Number Pane
1 Generalized flow diagram for quench!
scrubber system • • • • . . . . . . . . 3
2 Generalized flow ‘Jiagra i for quench/IWS
System . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • 6
3 IWS system purchased costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
vi ] .
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from To Multiply by
Btu kcal 0.2520
(°F—32)/1.8
ft m 0.3048
ft 2 m 2 0.09290
ft m 3 0.02832
gal lit 3.785
gr mg 64.80
hp kw 0.7457
in. cm 2.540
n.W.C. kPa 0.2487
lb kg 0.4536
psi kPa 6.895
viii
-------
SECTION 1
IN UCTIO N
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, is currently conducting a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
of performance standards for hazarthus waste incinerators. The
RIA is tritended to determine both the costs and benefits of
various regulatnry standards. The benefits of hazardous waste
incinerator regulations are being evaluated through risk
ansessm-’nt studies conducted by other investigators. The iork
reported heri addresses certain co ,t aspects of hazardous waste
inclacration; specifically, capital and operating costs [ or
ionizing wet sciubber (IWS) systems used to control air emissions
in some incineration facilities.
This report serves as an addendum to a much more
comprehensive report, ent tled “Capital and O&H Cost Relationships
for Hazardous Waste Incineration”, (Reference 1). The referenced
report was the result of a two year study to develop parametric
cost estimating methods for hazardous waste incineration, enabling
the user to project potential economic impacts of regulation over
various segments of the incineration industry. The parametric
relationships developed in that study illow capital and annual
operating costs for inc1nera ion facilities to be estimated as a
function of waste characterist..cs and quantities, facility size or
capacity, encric incinerator system design, energy recovery
utilizat. en, air pollution control requirements, facility
operating schedule, and facility location in the U.S.
The capital cost relationsnips in the origi’ial study
encompass all fa.:ets o hazardous waste incineration facilities,
includirg waste storage and handling equipment, combust-ion
equipment and instrumentation, air pollution controls, flue gas
handling equipment, and auxilliary structures. Installation costs
and indirect costs for design and construction, air discharge
p rmitting, and startup are also addressed. The annual operating
cost relationships encompass variable costs such as fuel,
utilities, chemicals, and waste disposal; semi—variable costs such
as labor ant maintenance; and fixed charges to capital——
depreciation, insurance, and taxes.
1
-------
Due to the broad scope of the original study, a number of
assumptions concerning facility design and operation were needed
to limit the user input requirements and ensuing engineering/cost
-calculat-ions. One of the major design assumptions was that
particulate/11C1 emissions are controlled using venturi
scrubber/packed bed absorber systems such as that shown in Figure
1. With minor variations, this is the system of choice for the
vast majority of hazardous waste incineration facilities, where
efficient particulate/HC1 removal from combustion gas is required.
In recent years, however, 1%/S systems have increased in
popularity relative to the more conventional venturi
scrubber/packed Ded absorber systems. This is particularly true
for large incineration facilties which generate extremely fine
particualte (
-------
in
a trinsr’ ,ere
In 1 Ct
t 3c
rH
Caustic SoluPon
H (1 tiOwfl
disposal
Flgure 1 . Generalized flow diaqram for quench/scrubber system.
-------
SECTION 2
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS
Cec uge this report is an addendum to the basic cost
estimation aodel for hazardous waste incineration, Reference 1
should be Co.iisultcd for all preliminary user data specifications
and matcria balance/design calculations. The engineering
quantities needed for IWS ccst estimation are listed below, along
with the sections in Reference 1 In which these quantities are
Calculated.
• Dry gas flow rate (Section 3.4.7),
q _______sctm
DG
‘Particulate loading in combustion gas (Section- 3.4.8),
(Cpart) I ________gr/dscf
•Saturatjon temperature (Section 3.5.3 or 3.6.1),
T =
sat
‘Saturated gas flow rate (Section 3.5.5 or 3.6.3)
(q ) ___________scfm
TG sat
I Quench outlet pressure (Section 3.5.5 or 3.6.3
P ___________ psia
particulate Collection requirement (Section
3.7.1),
n =
part —
4
-------
SECTION 3
CAPITAL COSTS
APPLICABILITY
IWS systems are technically feasible and potentially
economical alternatives to venturi scrubber/packed bed absorber
systems for partic jlate or combined particulate/}IC1 control.
IWS ’s ore prinarily limited to large, > 50 H Btu/hr incinerator
applications, however, they may be economical for smaller
facilities if high loadings of extremely fine, submicron
particulate must be removed from the combustion gas.
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
• Because the vast majority of IWS system applications are
large incineration facilites handling a variety of wastes,
chlorinated and non—chlorinated, combined p Irc1cujate/flLj
removal capability is assumed in all cases.
o Therefore, vendor price quotations reflect the inclusion of
a crossflow prescrubber for quantitative HC1 removal upstream
from the basic fl /S. Figure 2 depicts the fl/S system
configuration, along with the upstream quench and downstream
fan and stack which are, common to both IL ’S and venturi/packed
bed absorber systems.
• For 9O—93 particulate removal, a single stage IL’S is con-
sidered adequate for most applicatiofls. The actual vendor
quotations for single—stag IL’S systems are based on 92%
removal at an inlet particulate loading of 2.0 gr/dscf.
• For very high efficiency (> 99%) particulate removal, a
two—stage IWS is required (two IL’S nodules in series).
• The vendor price quotations are based on water scrubbing
for HCl removal. To maintain consistency with Reference 1,
however, caustic recycle scrubbing is also assumed in this
study.
o Thus, the IL’S system costs prescnred in Figure 3 reflect the
incremental costs for addition of a caustic recycle system——
5
-------
C’
‘4,
0 )
Co
0
Co
Figure 2.
(enerallzed 1ow diagram for quench/Iws system.
-------
Inlet ga fiowrate, (1,000 acfm)
Figure 3. IWS system purcha5ed Costs.
0
0
0
4-,
(I ’
0
-. U
w
U
I-
0.
a,
C
a,
2,000
1 ,000
5 00
400
300
200
100
7
-------
pumps, piping, recycle tank, and ph controls. These incre-
mental costs are based on the information provided in Section
4.2.3.3 of Reference 1.
• The costs for other flue gas treatment/handling system corn—
ponent —— quench, ID fan, and stack —— are not included in
the Figure 3 estimates. Costs for these components should
be estimated using the methods presented in Reference 1 or
2.
• The IWS/prescrubber system cost estimates ara representative
of first quarter, 1984 prices. These costs were provided by
one vendor with a dominant (if not exclusive) market share in
IWS technology.
COSTS
• Figure 3 presents graphical representations and regression
equations for purchased cost versus inlet gas flow rate for
two nominal particulate removal efficiencies. The lower
• curve (92% efficiency) represents a 1—stage IWS/crossflow
pre crubber/caustjc recycle system. The upper curve (99
effici ncv) reflects the Costs for two in—series IUS modules,
p1t s prescrubber and caustic recycle system.
• The appropriate curve in Figure 3 is determined by the
fractional collection etficiency requirement, calculated
in Reference 1.
• Because an upstream quench is assu ied, the inlet gas f1o
rate, q iws is given by,
= sat Tsatf 460)/520] (l 4 . 696 /PQ) = acfm
• Baced on this information, the IWS system purchased cost
from Figuze 3 is,
Crws = $_____
• Installation costs for IWS systems are approximately 23—30%
of the purchased costs, based on vendor estimates. For
conservative cost est]rnating purposes, owever, a 50% in-
stallation cost factor for the entire nc1neration and air
pollution c-Q,nLrol system may still be assumed, particularly
if the incinerator is a rotary kiln. For other incineration
systen s, a 40% overall 1nstallat on ost factor may be more
appropriate if IWS systems rather tI an venturi
scrubber/packed bed absorber s tea are util zed. The 5%
overall factor for incineration system equipment delivery
assumed in Refere9ce 1 is still applicable.
8
-------
SECTION 4
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
Overall incineration facility operating requirements and
costs inciLde fuel, power, water, caustic for IIC1 scrubbing,
residue disposal, labor, maintenance, and in—coming waste
characterization. however, most of these operating requirements
are not affected by IWS system versus venturi/packed bed system
utilz tion. In most cases, the only significant difference will
be in the areas of:
(I) Scrubbing system- power consumption
(2) ID fan power consumption, and
(3) Scrubbing system blowdown rate and makeup water
requirement.
SCRUBBING SYSTE I POWER CONSUI4PTION
o In venturi/packed bed scrubber operation, the major sources
of power consumption are the two scrubbing fluid recycle
pumps. In Reference 1, these two power demands are
symbolized by ( pump )VSWa1 pump Abw , with units of
horsepower. Power requ1rement tar the quench system and ID
fan are addressed separately,
o In IWS/crossflow prescruaber operation, pcwer is needed for
high voltage particle chargirg, heating purge air for the fl/S
insulator conpartments, and operating the scrubber fluid re-
cycle puaps.
3 Based on vendor—specified estimate cf power consumption,
these requirements are related to the inlet gas flow rate by,
= 13.8 + 7.8 X 10 = _____hp
for single stage IWS systems, and,
= 33.4 + 6.4 X 10 _____hp
for two stage fl/S systems.
q
-------
This quantity, Pi c, is equivalent to the quantity
1 pump ?vsw pump 3 Abw for venturi/packed bed scrubber
operation.
ID FAN POWER CONSUMPTION
• As discussed in Section 1 of this report., reduced ID fan
power consumption is the major advantage of IWS versus
venturi scrubber/packed bed absorber system utilization.
• Estimated pressure drops for the IWS systems addressed in
Section 3 are 5 in. WC for the single—stage unit.
• Based on these values and the information presented in
Reference 1, Section 3.8, total system pressure drops vs.
qvipment configuration are as follows:
Quench/l—stage IWS, = 11 in WC
Quench/2—stage ItJS, 14 in WC
WIIB/quer.ch/l—stage IWS, = 15 in WC
WIIB/quench/2—stage, IWS, P = 18 in WC
• Following selections of the appropriate system pressure drop
estimate, the fan horsepower requirement, fan , c-an be
calculated using the equation presented in Section 3.8 of
Reference 1.
BLO DOWN RATE AND MAKEUP WATER REQUIREMENT
• Based on vendor specifications, the IWS system recycle flow
and blowdown streams are limited to suspended solids con-
centrations of 6000ppm.
• Particulate is the only major source of suspended solids in
the recycle loop.
• Thus, based oi sirnpln material balance, the blowdown rate is
given by,
q = 0.003 (C ) q n = _____gm
I3dw part I t , part
o ThIs blowdown rate, can be used in Section 3.7.9 of
Reference 1 to estimate the total quench/scrubbing system
makeup water requirement.
10
-------
REFERENCES
1. NcCormick, R.J., and R.J. DeRosier. Capital and O&M Cost
Relationships for Hazardous Waste Incineration. EPA Contracts
8—O2—3176 and 68—03—3043, U.S. Environniental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, July, 1983, 199 pp.
2. Lim, K., DeRosier, R., Larkin, R., and R. McCormick.
Retrofit Cost Relationships for Hazardous Waste Incineration.
EPA Contract 68—03—3043, U.S. Environmental/Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, July, 19i3, 61 p . I — -
11
-------
------- |