United States Office ot Air Quality
Environmental Protection P'anmng and Standards
Agency Research Trangie Park, NC 2771 1
EPA-450/3-39-27b
August 1989
Municipal Waste
Combustors-
Background
Information for
Proposed Standards:
111(b) Model Plant
Description and
Cost Report
This document ts printed on recycled paper.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA j
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before compieiinjt) j
,n^OT/3-89-27b I2"
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NC j
4. title and subtitle
Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information
for Proposed Standards: 111(b) Model Plant
Description and Cost Report
5 REPORT DATS
August 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
1. AUTHORIS!
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
t
j
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM bltVLT NO. |
1
1 1 . CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4378
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
200/04
1S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Twelve model plants are developed to represent the projected municipal waste
combustor (MWC) industry. The model plants selected represent new M.WC's expected
to be constructed in the United States between 1990 and 1994. The T.odel plants
differ with respect to unit size and design, waste feed characteristics, heat recovery
method, and flue gas emissions. The model plants provide a basis for estimating
emission reductions, costs, and other impacts for various control alternatives.
Information is provided on capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of
the model plants and control equipment. For each model plant, an assessment of
baseline and three emission control options based on costs, emission reduction, cost
effectiveness, and energy and environmental impacts is provided. Baseline capital
and 0&M costs for each combustor type include costs of good combustion and PM control
with electrostatic precipitators (ESP's). The costs of three emission control options
are also presented. All costs are presented in December 1987 dollars.
17, KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT AN ALvSlS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b iOENTIFIE RS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI F.eld.'Group
Air Pollution
Municipal Waste Combustors
Ini"neration
Pollution Control
Costs
Air Pollution Control
13B
18. DSSTRiauTION statement
-2r
19. SECURITY ASS iThr. Ri-puri,'
Unclassi fied
'21 NO 0-~ PAGES
20. security class iTttis page,
Unclassified
22. PRiCS:
EPA Form 2220-1 (R»». 4-77) previous ed'^onis obsolete
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS --
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR
PROPOSED STANDARDS: 111(b) MODEL PLANT
DESCRIPTION AND COST REPORT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Michael G. Johnston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Studies Branch (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy.
Post Office Box 13000
August 14, 1989
/
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available
through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC 27711, or from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield VA 22161.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR MODEL PLANT SELECTION 2-1
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE AND THREE CONTROL OPTIONS .... 2-2
2.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR COSTING BASELINE AND CONTROL OPTIONS. . 2-5
3.0 MASS BURN MODEL PLANTS 3-1
3.1 MASS BURN/WATERWALL AND MASS BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANTS 3-1
3.2 MASS BURN/ROTARY COMBUSTOR (WATER-COOLED) MODEL PLANT . . .3-5
4.0 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) MODEL PLANTS 4-1
4.1 DESCRIPTION 4-1
4.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 4-1
4.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN
5-YEAR PERIOD AFTER PROPOSAL 4-4
4.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS 4-4
5.0 MODULAR MODEL PLANTS 5-1
5.1 MODULAR/EXCESS AIR 5-1
5.2 MODULAR/STARVED AIR 5-4
6.0 FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION (FBC) MODEL PLANTS 6-1
6.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZES AND OPERATING
CHARACTERISTICS 6-1
6.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN
5-YEAR PERIOD AFTER PROPOSAL 6-1
6.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS 6-4
i i i
-------
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
7.0 MODEL PLANT COSTS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7-1
7.1 MASS BURN 7-1
7.2 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL 7-21
7.3 MODULAR 7-26
7.4 FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION 7-41
7.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND ENERGY IMPACTS 7-47
8.0 REFERENCES 8-1
APPENDIX A - COST EQUATIONS FOR CONTROL OF NEW MWC'S
i v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Model Plant Selection for 111(b) 1-2
1-2 Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas Composition
Data 1-3
1-3 Feed Waste Composition Data 1-5
2-1 Summary of Number of Facilities and Number of Combustors
Subject to the NSPS in 5-year Period after Proposal. . . 2-3
2-2 Summary of Control Options for New Facilities 2-6
2-3 Design parameters for New MWC Model Plant Control
Systems 2-9
3-1 Mass Burn (Waterwall and Refractory) Facility Information. 3-2
3-2 Mass Burn (Waterwall and Refractory) Model Plant
Specifications and Flue Gas Composition Data ...... 3-6
3-3 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Facility Information 3-9
3-4 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Model Plant Specifications
and Flue Gas Composition Data 3-11
4-1 RDF Facility Information 4-3
4-2 RDF Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas Composition
Data 4-5
5-1 Modular/Excess Air Facility Information 5-3
5-2 Modular/Excess Air Model Plant Specifications and Flue
Gas Composition Data 5-5
5-3 Modular/Starved Air Facility Information 5-6
5-4 Modular/Starved Air Model Plant Specifications and Flue
Gas Composition Data 5-10
6-1 FBC Facility Information 6-2
6-2 FBC Model Plant Specifications and Flue Gas Composition
Data 6-5
7-1 Capital Costs for 200 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall Model
Plant (No. 1) 7-2
7-2 Capital Costs for 800 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall Model
Plant (No. 2) 7-3
7-3 Capital Costs for 2,250 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall Model
Plant (No. 3) 7-4
7-4 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 200 TPD Mass
Burn/Waterwall Model Plant (No. 1) 7-6
7-5 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 800 TPD Mass
Burn/Waterwall Model Plant (No. 2) 7-7
7-6 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 2,250 TPD
Mass Burn/Waterwall Model (Plant No. 3) 7-8
7-7 Environmental Impacts for 200 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall
Model Plant (No. 1). . 7-9
7-8 Environmental Impacts for 800 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwall
Model Plant (No. 2) 7-10
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
7-9 Environmental Impacts for 2,250 TPD Mass Burn/Waterwal1
Model Plant (No. 3) 7-11
7-10 Capital Costs for 500 TPD Mass Burn/Refractory Model
Plant (No. 4) 7-13
7-11 Annualized Costs for 500 TPD Mass Burn/Refractory Model
Plant (No. 4) 7-14
7-12 Environmental Impacts for 500 TPD Mass Burn/Refractory
Model Plant (No. 4) 7-16
7-13 Capital Costs for 1,050 TPD Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor
Model Plant (No. 5) 7-17
7-14 Annualized Costs for 1,050 TPD Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor
Model Plant (No. 5) 7-18
7-15 Environmental Impacts for 1,050 TPD Mass Burn/Rotary
Combustor Model Plant (No. 5) 7-20
7-16 Capital Costs for 2,000 TPD RDF Model Plant (No. 6). . . . 7-22
7-17 Capital Costs for 2,000 TPD RDF Co-fired Model Plant
(No. 7) 7-23
7-18 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 2,000
TPD RDF Model Plant (No. 6) 7-24
7-19 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 2,000
TPD RDF Co-fired Model Plant (No. 7) 7-25
7-20 Environmental Impacts for 2,000 TPD RDF Model Plant
(No. 6) 7-27
7-21 Environmental Impacts for 2,000 TPD RDF Co-fired Model
Plant (No. 7) 7-28
7-22 Capital Costs for 240 TPD Modular/Excess Air Model
Plant (No. 8) 7-30
7-23 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 240 TPD
Modular/Excess Air Model Plant (No. 8) 7-31
7-24 Environmental Impacts for 240 TPD Modular/Excess Air
Model Plant (No. 8) 7-32
7-25 Capital Costs for 50 TPD Modular/Starved Air Model
Plant (No. 9) 7-34
7-26 Capital Costs for 100 TPD Modular/Starved Air Model
Plant (No. 10) 7-35
7-27 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 50 TPD
Modular/Starved Air Model Plant (No. 9) 7-36
7-28 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 100 TPD
Modular/Starved Air Model Plant (No. 10) 7-37
7-29 Environmental Impacts for 50 TPD Modular/Starved Air
Model Plant (No. 9) 7-39
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
7-30 Environmental Impacts for 100 TPD Modular/Starved Air
Model Plant (No. 10) 7-40
7-31 Capital Costs for 900 TPD FBC (Bubbling Bed) Model
Plant (No. 11) 7-42
7-32 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 900 TPD FBC
(Bubbling Bed) Model Plant (No. 11) 7-43
7-33 Environmental Impacts fpr 900 TPD FBC (Bubbling Bed)
Model Plant (No. 11) 7-44
7-34 Capital Costs for 900 TPD FBC (Circulating Fluidized-Bed)
Model Plant (No. 12) 7-46
7-35 Annualized Costs and Energy Requirements for 900 TPD
FBC (Circulating Fluidized-Bed) Model Plant (No. 12) . . 7-48
7-36 Environmental Impacts for 900 TPD FBC (Circulating
Fluidized-Bed) Model Plant (No. 12) 7-49
7-37 Summary of Capital Costs for New MWC Model Plants 7-50
7-38 Summary of Annualized Costs for New MWC Model Plants . . . 7-51
7-39 Summary of Electrical and Auxiliary Fuel Requirements
for New MWC Model Plants 7-52
vi i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3-1 Mass Burn Combustor (Waterwall and Refractory) Unit
Sizes 3-3
3-2 Mass Burn (Waterwall and Refractory) Facility Sizes. . . . 3-3
3-3 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Unit Sizes 3-10
3-4 Mass Burn/Rotary Combustor Facility Sizes 3-10
4-1 RDF Facility Sizes 4-2
4-2 RDF Combustor Unit Sizes 4-2
5-1 Modular/Excess Air Combustor Unit Sizes 5-2
5-2 Modular/Excess Air Facility Sizes 5-2
5-3 Modular/Starved Air Combustor Unit Sizes 5-7
5-4 Modular/Starved Air Facility Sizes 5-7
6-1 FBC Combustor Unit Sizes 6-3
6-1 FBC Facility Sizes 6-3
vi i i
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the operating and emission parameters, and costs
for new municipal waste combustor (MWC) model plants developed to support the
impacts analysis of new source performance standards (NSPS) for this source
category. Twelve different model plants were selected to represent the MWC
industry based on differences in unit size and design, waste feed
characteristics, heat recovery method, and flue gas emissions. The model
plants were selected to represent new MWC's expected to be constructed in the
United States between 1990 and 1994. These plants were developed to provide a
basis for estimating emission reductions, costs, and other impacts of the
various control alternatives under consideration.
The model plants include three mass burn/waterwal1 (MB/WW), one mass
burn/refractory (MB/REF), one mass burn/rotary combustor (MB/RC), one
modular/excess air (MI/EA), two modular/starved air (MI/SA), two
refuse-derived fuel (RDF), and two fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) facilities.
These model plants are summarized in Table 1-1. It is assumed that all of the
model plants except the 50 ton per day (TPD) MI/SA plant will generate
electricity. Most plants will fire 100 percent municipal waste or RDF, but
one of the RDF model plants will cofire a 50/50 mixture of RDF and wood.
Primary design parameters specified for each model plant are listed in
Table 1-2 and include: combustor type, plant size, number of combustors per
plant, excess air level, waste feed ash content, flue gas flowrate and
temperature, and particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO,,), hydrochloric
acid (HC1), carbon monoxide (CO) and total dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF)
concentrations and annual emission rates exiting the combustor. All flue gas
concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0^, dry basis.
Acid gas (HC1 and SOj) emissions and flue gas flowrates were calculated
based on the feed waste composition specified in Table 1-3 and the excess air
rates given in Table 1-2 using a software package developed by Pacific
Environmental Services (PES).^ The acid gas emission estimates assume that
the entire sulfur and chlorine components of the incoming feed are converted
to SO2 and HC1, respectively, upon combustion. Excess air levels, flue gas
temperatures, and PM, CO, and total CDD/CDF emissions were developed and
2
documented in a separate report.
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. MODEL PLANT SELECTION FOR 111(b)
Mode I
pi ant
number
Combustor type
Unit size,
(TPD)
Number of
combustors
Total plant
capacity, (TPD)
Annual operating
hours
Heat
recovery
Fuel
1
Mass burn/uaterualI
100
2
200
5,000
Steam
100X MSW
2
Mass burn/waterwalI
400
2
800
8,000
Electrici ty
100% MSW
3
Mass burn/waterwalI
750
3
2,250
8,000
Electricity
100X MSW
U
Mass burn/refractory
250
2
500
8,000
Electrici ty
100% MSW
5
Mass burn/rotary
combustor (waterwall)
350
3
1,050
8,000
Elect rici ty
100X MSW
6
Refuse-derived fuel
500b
U
2,000
8,000
Electricity
100% RDF
7
Refuse-derived fuel
500b
U
2,000
8,000
Electrici ty
50% RDF/
50X wood
8
Modular excess air
120
2
240
8,000
Electrici ty
100X MSW
9
Modular/starved air
25
2
50
5,000
None
100% MSW
10
Modular/starved air
50
2
100
8,000
Electrici ty
100X MSW
11
Fluidized-bed combustion
(BB)
«50b
2
900
8,000
Electrici ty
100X RDF
12
Fluidized-bed combustion
(CFB)
«50b
2
900
8,000
Electrici ty
100% RDF
a2A hrs/day x 333 days/yr = 8,000 hrs/yr
100 hrs/wk x 50 wk/yr = 5,000 hr/yr
''unit size represents TPD RDF for Model Numbers 6, 11 and 12 and represents combined RDF and wood for Model Number 7.
CBB = Bubbling bed
^CFB = Circulating fluidized-bed
-------
TABLE 1-2. MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Itein
Small
MB/WW
(No. 1)
Model Plants
Medium
MB/WW
(No. 2)
Large
MB/WW
(No. 3)
MB/REF
(No. 4)
MB/RC
(No. 5)
RDF
(No. 6)
RDF
(Cofired)
(No. 7)
MI/EA
(No. 8)
MI/SA
(No Heat
Rec.)
(No. 9)
MI/SA
(No. 10)
FBC/BB
(No. 11)
FBC/CFB
(No. 12)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model 22 32 34 422 22
Total daily charge rate, TPD 200 800 2,250 500 1,050 2,000 2,000 240 50 100 900
Annual operating hours 5,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 5,000 8,000 8,000
Ash content of feed waste, Xb 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 7.5 4.3 22.2 22.2 22.2 7.5
Excess combustion air, X of
theoretical 80 80 80 200 50 50 50 100 100 100 60
PM emission factor, X of
feed waste ashb 10 10 10 10 10 80 80 0.50 0.50 0.50 80
Baseline PM emission rate,
gr/dscf: 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.08 001
Stack height, ft 140 200 230 150 125 200 200 70 60 60 200
Stack diameter, ft 4.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 5.0 0.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0
Number of stacks 223 2 34 4 1112
Flue Ga9 Data Per CombustorC
2
900
8,000
7.5
60
80
0.01
200
6.0
2
Volume flovrate:
dscfm
scfm
acfm
o
Out Let temperature F
11,500
13,300
22,800
450
46,000
53,100
91,100
4 50
86,200
99,500
171,000
450
48,100
52,500
90,200
4 50
33,400 58,700
39,600 68,500
68,100 110,000
450 450
52,000
62,600
107,000
450
15,300
17,500
30,000
450
3,200
3,600
14,100
1,600
6,400
7,300
12,500
450
56,400
65,200
99,700
350
56,400
65,200
99,700
350
Cont Lnued
-------
TABLE 1-2 (CONCLUDED). MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants
MI/SA
Small Medium Large RDF (No Heat
MB/WW MB/WW MB/WW MB/REF MB/RC RDF (Coflred) MI/EA Rec.) MI/SA FBC/BB FBC/CFB
Item (No. 1) (No. 2) (No. 3) (No. 4) (No. 5) (No. 6) (No. 7) (No. 8) (No. 9) (No. 10) (No. 11) (No. 12)
Emission Concentrations per
combustor at IX 0^ (dry)**:
Particulate Matter:
mg/dscm
4,600
4,600
4 ,600
4,600
4 ,600
9,200
9,200
4 ,600
230
230
9,200
9,200
(gr/dscf)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(<¦)
(<¦)
(2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(<•)
(<¦)
CO, ppmv
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
100
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
200
200
200
300
300
1000
1000
200
300
300
20
400
Acid gas:
HCl, ppmv
500
500
500
500
500
500
250
500
500
500
350
350
S02, ppmv
200
200
200
200
200
300
150
200
200
200
240
240
Annual Emissions per
combustor
PM, tons/yr
4 08
2,610
4 ,890
1,630
2,200
8,030
7,130
783
5
16
7,220
7, 220
CO, tons/yr
5
33
62
41
58
102
90
22
2
4
22.8
46.
CDD/CDF (x 10"2), lbs/yr
3.56
22.8
42.8
21.4
29.8
176
156
6.84
1.34
N)
CO
3.16
63.
HCl, tons/yr
69
439
823
274
383
669
326
132
17
55
503
503
SO^, tons/yr
50
320
601
200
280
666
368
96
13
40
417
417
a
MB/WW - mass burn/vaterval1, MB/REF - mass burn/refractory, MB/RC - mass burn/rotary combustor, MI/EA - modular/excess air, MI/SA - modular/starved air,
RDF - refuse-derived fuel, and FBC - fluidized-bed combustion.
^From Report to Congress,
c
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed waste composition data from Table 1-3.
d
Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in Section 7.0. At baseline, excluding Model Plant No. 9, stack emissions of PM are
assumed to comply with the 0.05 gr/dscf or 0.08 gr/dscf limits as required by 40 CFR 60, Subparts Db or E. (Model Plant 9 is smaller than the 50 TPD combustor
size cutoff in Subpart E.) Baseline controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack emissions would be the same as listed above.
-------
TABLE 1-3. FEED WASTE COMPOSITION DATA1
(Weight Percent)
Constituent
MB and MOD
plants
RDF and FBC
plants
RDF Cofired
pi ant
Carbon
26.7
33.8
30.4
Hydrogen
3.6
4.5
3.7
Oxygen
19.7
27.9
23.5
Sulfur
0.1
0.2
0.1
Nitrogen
0.2
0.5
0.3
Water
27.1
25.2
37.6
Chiorine
0.3
0.4
0.2
Inerts
22.2
7.5
4.3
a50/50 mixture (mass basis) RDF and wood; calculated using following equation:
constituent (mixture) = (constitutent (RDF) + constituent (wood))
2
where,
wood composition (weight percent) is as follows: 26.9 percent carbon,
2.9 percent hydrogen, 19.1 percent oxygen, 0.02 percent sulfur,
0.08 percent nitrogen, 50 percent water, 0 percent chlorine and 1 percent
inerts.
1-5
-------
The emission estimates are representative of typical combustors in each sub-
category of MWC's.
In addition, annual operating hours and heat recovery capabilities are
presented in Table 1-1. These parameters were selected to be representative
of new plants in each subcategory based on the available information.
Representative stack heights and diameters presented in Table 1-2 were derived
from information contained in a survey of all existing MWC's.3 These
parameters are discussed further in subsequent sections.
Information is provided in this report on capital and operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs of the model plants and control equipment included in
the baseline. For each model plant, an assessment of baseline and three
emission control options based on costs, emission reduction, cost
effectiveness, and energy and environmental impacts is provided. Baseline
capital and O&M costs for each combustor type include costs of good combustion
and PM control with electrostatic precipitators (ESP's), except for the
smallest modular plant (no. 9), which is assumed not to have an ESP at
baseline. The costs of three emission control options are also presented.
All costs are presented in December 1987 dollars.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Section 2.0
presents background information and methodology for model plant selection, a
description of baseline emissions control and the three other control options,
and an overview of costing procedures; Sections 3.0 through 6.0 present a
brief description of the model plant parameters and the projected number of
new MWC facilities subject to the NSPS in the 5-year period after proposal for
each model plant listed above; and Section 7.0 presents costs, emission
reduction, and cost effectiveness of the emission controls for each model
plant selected; Section 8.0 lists the references.
1-6
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR MODEL PLANT SELECTION
Model plants were developed for the purpose of calculating emission
reduction and control cost information for new MWC's expected to commence
construction within 5 years after the proposal date of the NSPS, scheduled for
November 1989. The number of combustors and total capacity of facilities
expected to be subject to the NSPS nationally were estimated from market
predictions of waste generation and disposal practices. Based on this
approach, it was estimated that total annual waste combusted in the fifth year
after proposal of the NSPS will be 16.5 million tons/yr, and total design
4
capacity will be 19.6 million tons/yr. This equates to a total design
capacity of 54,000 TPD subject to the NSPS in the 5-year period after
proposal. However, because these facilities will not commence construction
for several years, in many instances, the combustor type, size, or number is
not known. Therefore, in developing model plants, it was assumed that recent
trends in combustor type, size, and number of combustors per plant will
continue through 1994 (5 years after NSPS proposal). This is a reasonable
assumption since, for the NSPS facilities for which information is available,
the distribution of the number of facilities and total design capacity appears
similar to those facilities commencing construction prior to 1989.
To estimate the distribution of new MWC's by combustor type, information
on facilities in advanced planning or early construction stages was used.
These distributions indicate that of the projected total design capacity of
54,000 TPD subject to the NSPS: 64 percent of capacity will be mass burn,
27 percent RDF, 3 percent modular, and 7 percent FBC or gasification
5
facilities.
To determine combustor and plant size, a list was prepared containing all
recently built facilities (start-up dates of 1985 or later) and those
facilities in the advanced planning or construction stages for which data on
combustor type, size, and number of combustors are available. Existing
combustors were added to provide a larger data base. These data were sorted
by combustor type, and combustor and plant size distribution lists and graphs
were prepared. Typical plant and combustor size for each combustor type as
2-1
-------
well as number of combustors per plant were then determined from reviewing
these lists and the unit and plant size distribution graphs. The number of
plants subject to the NSPS was then calculated by dividing the total national
capacity for each plant type by the size of the model plant. The number of
combustors was calculated by multiplying the number of plants by the number of
combustors in the model plant. A summary of the numbers of plants and
combustors is given in Table 2-1.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE AND THREE CONTROL OPTIONS
Four different control technologies were combined into three control
alternatives. The various control technologies address CDD/CDF, PM, SO^, and
HC1 emissions and include both combustion control methods which promote the
destruction and inhibit the formation of some pollutants (e.g., CDD/CDF), and
post-combustion exhaust gas control methods. The four control technologies
are:
(1) good combustion practices including exhaust gas cooling;
(2) electrostatic precipitator (ESP);
(3) dry sorbent injection with fabric filter (FF) (or ESP); and
(4) spray dryer with FF.
Good combustion practices (GCP) include the proper design, construction,
and operation of an MWC. The use of GCP can minimize CDD/CDF and HC
emissions, including CDD/CDF precursors, by complete combustion of these
pollutants. Current theory suggests that, following discharge from the
combustor, CDD/CDF and volatile metal emissions can be further reduced by
exhaust gas cooling, possibly by promoting condensation and adsorption of
these pollutants onto particulates and subsequent removal by the PM control
device. Furthermore, the data suggest that if MWC exhaust gases remain in the
480 to 600°F temperature region following discharge from the MWC, CDD/CDF can
form downstream of the combustor. Therefore, exhaust gas cooling to 450°F or
less is considered a part of GCP. Exhaust gas cooling can be achieved by
water sprays, dilution air, or by the addition of heat exchanger surface area.
All but one of the model plants have combustor exit temperatures of 450°F or
less at baseline.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND NUMBER OF COMBUSTORS
SUBJECT TO THE NSPS IN 5-YEAR PERIOD AFTER PROPOSAL
Model
Model
PI ant
Subject
to NSPS
Combustor Type3
PI ant
No.
Number of
Combustors
Total Plant
Size, (tpd)
Number of
Combustors
Number of
Facilities
Small MB/Wy
i
2
200
34
17
Medium MB/WW
2
2
800
14
7
Large MB/WW
3
3
2,250
24
8
MB/REF
4
2
500
6
3
MB/RC
5
3
1,050
9
3
RDF
6
4
2,000
20
5
RDF (cofired)
7
4
2,000
12
3
MI/EA
8
2
240
6
3
MI/SA (no heat
recovery)
9
2
50
4
2
MI/SA
10
2
100
12
6
FBC (B8)
11
2
900
6
3
FBC (CFB)
12
2
900
Total
6
153
_3
63
aMB/WW = Mass burn/waterwal1
MB/REF = Mass burn/refractory
MB/RC = Mass burn/rotary combustor
RDF = Refuse-derived fuel
MI/EA = Modular incinerator/excess air
MI/SA = Modular incinerator/starved air
F8C = Fluidized-bed combustor
BB = Bubbling bed
CFB - Circulating fluidized-bed
2-3
-------
Particulate matter control through the use of ESP's is a common practice
for existing MWC's. Available data suggest ESP's are effective for the
control of PM and most metals, but achieve little or no control of CDD/CDF and
acid gases. Exhaust gas cooling upstream of an ESP to 450°F or less will
prevent formation of CDD/CDF across the ESP.
Dry sorbent injection (DSI> has been applied at several MWC's in the
United States as well as in Japan and Europe. With DSI, powdered dry sorbent
is injected into either the combustor furnace (generally limestone or lime) or
into the combustor outlet duct (generally hydrated lime). A downstream ESP or
FF is used to collect flyash as well as reacted and unreacted sorbent. Dry
sorbent injection can reduce HC1 and SO^ emissions; at equal sorbent feed
rates, acid gas emissions are lower for DSI systems followed by a FF than if
an ESP is used due to additional removal that occurs across the filter cake.
When DSI is applied in conjunction with exhaust gas cooling to 300°F or less,
CDD/CDF reductions as well as increased acid gas removal are also achieved.
Because of the additional acid gas removal, it is expected that most new MWC's
using DSI will employ a FF. For this reason, the cost estimates for DSI
systems applied to the model MWC's in this report assume a FF. For estimating
model plant emissions, however, the design performance levels are achievable
with a simple DSI system, flue gas cooling to 350°F, and either an ESP or a
FF. A properly designed DSI system equipped with a FF and flue gas cooling to
300°F or less can achieve higher performance levels.
Spray dryer emission data from several MWC's show high CDD/CDF, HC1, and
SO^ removal efficiencies. A FF is most commonly used downstream for PM
control and enhanced acid gas and metals control. A spray dryer/FF
combination is used in the report to estimate the performance and cost for the
most stringent control option. As noted above, recent information indicates
that advanced sorbent injection systems (which include a reaction vessel)
followed by FF may achieve similar control to spray dryer/FF systems and may
have slightly lower costs; however, data on such systems are limited.
The baseline represents the level of control that would exist in the
absence of additional Federal regulation of MWC's. For new MWC units, it is
assumed that GCP and good PM control are already in place and represent
baseline conditions. This assumes a PM emission level of 0.08 gr/dscf for
2-4
-------
units larger than 50 TPD capacity but smaller than 100 million Btu/hr heat
input (about 270 TPD, assuming a refuse heating value of 4,500 Btu/lb) as
required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart E and 0.05 gr/dscF for units larger than
100 million Btu/hr heat input as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. It is
assumed new units smaller than the 50 TPD cutoff in Subpart E will not use
add-on controls and will emit about 0.1 gr/dscf.
The four control technologies were combined to produce the three control
options. They are presented below from the least to most stringent option
with respect to pollutant emissions.
Option 1:
- good combustion practices
- no acid gas control
- best PM control (by ESP) (0.01 gr/dscf)
Option 2:
- good combustion control
- good acid gas control (dry sorbent injection)
- best PM control (by FF or ESP) (0.01 gr/dscf)
Option 3:
- good combustion control
- best acid gas control (spray dryer)
- best PM control (by FF) (0.01 gr/dscf)
2.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR COSTING BASELINE AND CONTROL OPTIONS
This section presents the methodology for costing the baseline and the
three control options discussed in Section 2.2. Table 2-2 summarizes the
control options to be costed for the 12 model plants. Capital and annual
costs of both the combustor and air pollution control device (APCD) are
presented in December 1987 dollars. A 10 percent interest rate and a 15-year
economic life are assumed for both the combustors and APCD equipment. The
procedures, cost bases, and equipment specifications used to estimate capital
and annual operating costs associated with each control option in Table 2-2
are summarized in Appendix A .nd explained in more detail in a separate report
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR NEW FACILITIES
Control Options
Baseline
Control
Option 1
Control
Option 2
Control
Option 3
Good combustion
practices
X
X
X
X
Good PM control
X
Best PM control
X
X
X
Good acid gas
control
X
Best acid gas
control
X
Temperature
control
Xa
X
X
X
aOnly for 50 TPD modular/starved air plant (Model Plant No. 9).
2-6
-------
concerning MWC cost procedures.^ Emissions control efficiencies associated
with each control option are based upon information contained in a separate
report regarding post-combustion control technologies.^
Baseline costs include GCP, ESP's sized to achieve good PM control, and
opacity and CO monitors installed at the ESP outlet for continuous monitoring.
In addition, costs will also be provided for Model Plant No. 9 for reducing PM
emissions from 0.1 to 0.08 gr/dscf. These costs are based on a sidestream ESP
designed to remove 90 percent of the particulates from 22 percent of the total
plant flue gas. Costs for Control Option 1 are identical to that for
baseline, except that ESP costs are estimated for each model plant based on
the application of best PM control (0.01 gr/dscf). Temperature control costs
are estimated only for combustors without heat recovery (Model Plant No. 9 in
Table 1-2) based on cooling the flue gas to 450°F using humidification.
Costs for Control Option 2 are estimated for dry lime injection,
fabric filtration, and temperature control to 300°F. The dry hydrated lime
injection system is designed to remove 40 and 80 percent of the inlet SO^ and
HC1 emissions, respectively, based on a calcium-to-acid gas molar ratio of
2:1. A pulse-jet fabric filter is installed downstream of the dry sorbent
injection system to remove flyash and sorbent to 0.01 gr/dscf based on a net
air-to-cloth ratio of 4:1. A fabric filter is selected because of their more
widespread use with acid gas control systems applied to MWC's. A
humidification water spray chamber is added upstream of the lime injection
system and fabric filter to provide flue gas cooling to 300°F. To ensure that
both the acid gas reduction levels and the PM emission levels are achieved,
the following continuous emission monitors (CEM's) are installed:
o HC1, SO-, and O, CEM's at both the inlet and outlet of the acid gas
control device fi.e., the inlet CEM's are installed before the dry
lime injection nozzles and the outlet CEM's are installed at the
outlet of the fabric filter).
o An opacity monitor at the outlet of the fabric filter; and
o A data reduction system.
For Control Option 3, a lime spray dryer followed by a fabric filter
is used. The lime spray dryer is designed to remove 90 and 97 percent of SO,,
and HC1, respectively, from the flue gas leaving the combustor. Lime slurry
2-7
-------
is fed at a calcium-to-acid gas molar ratio of 2.5:1. The fabric filter is
designed with a net air-to-cloth ratio of 4:1 to decrease the flyash and spent
sorbent to 0.01 gr/dscf. The CEM's discussed for Control Option 2 also apply
to this option.
Table 2-3 presents the design parameters for each of the control systems
to be applied at each of the model plants. With the exception of the three
modular combustor model plants (Model Plant Nos. 8, 9, and 10), APCD's are
installed on each combustor. For the modular model plants, a single APCD
system is installed downstream of a waste heat boiler. With the exception of
Model Plant Nos. 9 and 10 at baseline, the APCD is sized to treat the total
flue gas flow from the waste heat boiler. No APCD was applied to Model Plant
No. 9 at baseline. In the case of Model Plant No. 10 at baseline, a
sidestream ESP is installed to remove 90 percent of the particulates from
22 percent of the total plant flue gas to reduce PM emissions from 0.1 to
0.08 gr/dscf.
The pressure drops across the APCD's are estimated to be 0.5 inches of
water for ESP's, 7 inches of water for dry lime injection and FF systems, and
12.5 inches of water for spray dryer and FF systems. It is assumed that the
pressure drop across humidification chambers used for flue gas cooling is
negligible. Ducting lengths for PM control and spray dryers for each model
plant in Table 2-3 are based on information contained in a separate document
O
regarding the costs of flue gas cleaning technologies. For dry sorbent
injection, duct length for flue gas humidification was added assuming the duct
length for flue gas humidification is the same as that used for PM control.
The APCD Capital costs for the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant (Model Plant No 7)
are based on burning 100 percent of RDF. This provides the flexibility for
the plant to burn 100 percent RDF and still meet the emission control levels
of the various control options, because the APCD equipment is designed for
this fuel.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-3. DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR NEW MWC MODEL PLANT CONTROL SYSTEMS
MI/SA
Small Medium Large RDF (No Heat
KB/WU MB/UW MB/WW MB/REF MB/RC RDF CofLred MI/EA Rec.) MI/SA FBC/BB FBC/BB
Parameter (No. 1) (No. 2) (No. 3) (No. 4) (No. 5) (No. 6) (No. 7) (No. 8) (No. 9) (No. 10) (No. 11) (No. 12)
1-^nt capacLty, TPD 200 800 2,250 500
(1000 TPY) (61.7) (267) (750) (167)
- Number of Combustors 2 2 3 2
- Number of control systems 2 2 3 2
Basvi:ue:
ESP System3
- Speciflc^collection plate 257 295 295 257
area, ft /1000 acfm
b
- Ducting length, ft 60 150 200 60
Best PM Control:
ESP SystemC
- Spec iflc^collection plate 423 423 423 423
area, ft /1000 acfm
- Duct length, ft^ 60 150 200 60
Good Acid Gas Control:
Dry Sorbent Injection/Fabric
Filter (DSI/Fn '
- Lime consumption, tons/yr 566 3,620 10,200 2,260
- Limestone consumption, tons/yr 0 0 0 0
- Uater consumption, gpm 7.1 28.4 79.9 29.7
- Compressed air, scfm 80 319 897 317
- Duct length, ftb 180 450 600 180
1,050 2,000 2,000 240 50 100 900 900
(350) (667) (667) (80) (10.4) (20.8) (300) (300)
3 4422222
3 4411122
295 350 350 257 0C,f 593f 3:lh 3:lh
150 150 150 250 0C'f 130 150 150
423 478 678 423 1848 186 3:lh 3:lh
150 150 150 250 140 130 150 150
4,750 12,870 6,700 1,090 142 453 I; r
0 0 0 0 0 0 6,CilO 1] ,010
31.0 72.6 75.0 9.5 17.1 6.0 0 0
357 823 856 105 29.7 43.8 400 4i;0
450 450 450 550 230 310 150 150
Continued
-------
TABLE 2-3 (CONCLUDED). DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR NEW MWC MODEL PLANT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Small
MB/WW
Parameter (No. 1)
Best Acid Gas Control:
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
(SD/FF) '
Lime consumption, tons/yr
320
2,060
5, 780
1,290
2,700
7, 310
3,860
616
80
256
1,740
1,740
Limestone consumption, tons/yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,010
8,010
Water consumption, gpm
7.1
ho
oo
79.9
29. 7
31.0
72.6
75.0
9.5
17.1
4 . 0
11.6
11 .
Compressed air, scfm
80
319
897
317
357
823
856
105
29. 7
43.8
380
380
b
Duct length, ft
120
300
400
120
300
300
300
300
160
180
300
300
aGood PM control: 0.08 gr/dscf at IX 0^> 450°F for model plants 1, 4, 8, 9, and 10; 0.05 gr/dscf at IX 0 , 450°F for model plants 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7;
and 0.01 gr/dscf at IX 0^ for model plants 11 and 12.
PO ^Duct lengths for model plants 1 to 7, 9, and 11 and 12 are for each combustor. Duct lengths for Model Plants 8 and 10 are for total plant. Duct
length In parentheses for model plant 9 represents duct needed to achieve particulate emission of 0.08 gr/dscf.
O
CBest PM control: 0.01 gr/dscf at IX 0^, 450°F.
d
For model plants 1 to 10, 40X, 80X, and 75X control of SO , HC1, and CDD/CDF, respectively; for model plant 11, 25X, 69X, and 71X control of SO^,
HC1, and CDD/CDF, respectively; and for model plant 12, 8IX, 947., and 867. control of SO^, HC1, and CDD/CDF, respectively.
e 3
Particulate emissions are uncontrolled at baseline. To control the plant particulate emission level to 0.08 gr/dscf, the SCA would be 593 ft /10G' acfm
and the ducting length required would be 140 ft .
This SCA Is for a packaged ESP removing 90 percent of the particulates from 22 percent of the plant's flue gas. This ESP Is designed specifically
for small modular Incinerators (less than 50 tpd). The other ESP*s are field-constructed units.
g o
To cool the flue gas to 450 F, water is Injected in the flue gas at a rate of about 15 gpm.
The FBC model plants use a FF for PM control under baseline and Control Option 1 (best PM control). The gross air to cloth ratio for the FF
system is 3:1.
LFor model plants 1 to 10, 70X, 90X, and 992 control of SO , HC1, and CDD/CDF, respectively. For model plant 11, 75X, 88Z, and 977. control of SO , HC1,
and CDD/CDF, respectively; and for model plane 12, 997., 887., and 977, control of HC1 , and CDD/CDF, respectively.
MI/SA
Medium Large RDF (No Heat
MB/WW MB/WW MB/REF MB/RC RDF Cofired MI/EA Rec.) MI/SA FBC/BB FBC/CFB
(No. 2) (No. 3) (No. 4) (No. 5) (No. 6) (No. 7) (No. 8) (No. 9) (No. 10) (No. 11) (No. 12)
-------
3.0 MASS BURN MODEL PLANTS
Mass burn facilities account for approximately 32,000 TPD (about
60 percent) of the projected MWC capacity expected to be subject to the NSPS
(54,000 TPD). This equates to an annual waste flow of 10 million tons/year.
There are three main types of mass burn plants: waterwall, refractory, and
rotary combustor. All three types combust waste without any preprocessing
other than the removal of items too large to go through the feed system.
The majority (85 percent) of the mass burn units are expected to have
waterwall furnaces. This equals a capacity of 27,000 TPD, or annual waste
flow of 8.4 million tons/year. Approximately 10 percent (3,200 TPD capacity.
1 million tons/year waste flow) are expected to have rotary combustors, and
about 5 percent (1,500 TPD capacity, 0.5 million tons/year waste flow) are
projected to have refractory-walled furnaces.
3.1 MASS BURN/WATERWALL AND MASS BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANTS
3.1.1 Description
As stated above, MB/WW and MB/REF combustors burn unprocessed waste.
Typical units use hydraulic rams or pusher grate sections to push the refuse
from the fuel chute onto the grate. The grates are designed to move the waste
through the combustor and to promote complete combustion by agitation of the
fuel bed. In the waterwall units, tubes are located in the walls of the
furnaces for heat recovery. Refractory units have downstream waste heat
boilers for heat recovery.
3.1.2 Selection of Model Plant Sizes and Operating Characteristics
Table 3-1 lists waterwall and refractory mass burn plants that were
either recently built (startup after 1984) or are currently in the advanced
planning or construction stage for which information on combustor type, size,
and number is available. The facilities are listed in order of increasing
combustor size. Although information is not available to classify these
facilities as waterwall or refractory combustors, the majority of MB
facilities are expected to be waterwall units. Figure 3-1 shows the
distribution of combustor sizes for the waterwall and refractory mass burn
units contained in Table 3-1. Figure 3-2 shows the facility distribution for
all waterwall and refractory mass burn facilities either recently built or
3-1
-------
TABLE 31. MASS BUSH (UATERUAll A» QCFACTORY) FACILITY tHFQRMAT 100°
TOTAL
PLANT
UNIT
EPA
CGMBUSTOB
CAPACITY
0 OF
SIZE
HEAT
COBTRGL
STARTUP
REG CIIV
STATE
TYP€
(TPO)
C0MMT0BS
(TPO) C0-FIRIBG
RECOVERY
TYPE
DATE
REFEREBCES
6 ST. TAMMMY PARISH (MABDEVILLE)
LA
m
120
2
60
YES
DS/BH
1990
TELEPBOME COBTACT TO CITY 4/88
1 Clareoont
BH
MB/Of
200
2
100
YES
OSI/BH
1987
CITY CURREBTS 10/87
5 Jacfcaon
Ml
Hi/Off
200
2
100
YES
ds/bh
1987
HASTE AGE 11/87
2 WRREB COUBTV
NJ
mm
400
2
200
YES
OS/BB
1999
CITY CURREBTS 10/87, MCILVAIBE 2/88
2 U>SOD FALLS CUASBIMGTfB C0.>
BV
mm
400
2
200
YES
OS/ESP
1990
HASTE ACE 11/87, CITY CURREBTS 10/67
5 BodiMtar
m
no
200
1
200
YE8
ESP
1987
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, OIRECT CALL TO FACILITY 1/88
2 PtmSAUSB
BJ
«
900
2
250
YES
1990
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, RCILVAIKf 2/8U
2 NURTIBGT09I (LQSK ISLAND)
BY
m
750
3
250
YES
OS/OH
1990
HASTE AGE 11/87, (SILVAINE 2/fiB
9 STANISLAUS CO.(CUOWS lANDItSG)
CA
Mi/OP
800
3
267
YE9
DS/BB/NGK
1989
nClLVAIIS 2/88, EPA REGION IK OFFICE 1/60
10 Bar Ion Coutty
OQ
Hi/or
550
2
275
YES
SO/BH
1986
CITY CURREBTS 10/87
9 CooBtfca (lea Angela# Co.)
CA
mm
300
1
W0
YES
DS/BH
1987
CITY CURRENTS 10/87
3 Ataiiarak'la/Arltngton
VA
mm
975
3
325
YES
ESP
1987
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, EPA 8EGIQ3 III 9J3NITTAL 2/88
6 lulaa
ax
mm
1125
3
375
YES
ESP
1986
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, EPA QEGIOH VI SUBMITTAL
10 trautt COUNTY/CITY
mm
800
2
400
MO
os/oa
1990
MASIE AGE 11/87, KCILVAIKS 2/69
6 Itovle tam(y
UT
MB
400
1
400
YES
1987
CITY CURREBTS 10/87
5 Scveee
M9
mm
900
2
450
YES
ESP
1989
EPA REGIOM V SUBMITTAL 2/89 . DIRECT CALL TO FAClLITT 2/88
5 ME BMP 10 COUNTY (MINNEAPOLIS)
m
m
1212
2
606
YES
DS/FF
1909
CITY CURREBTS 10/87, CALL TO IPCA 4/68
1 Rltltourp
NA
mm
1500
2
750
YES
SD/ESP
1988
MCILVAIBE 2/88, EPA REGION 1 SUOITTAL 2/88
1 Borth Antovar
ma
mm
1500
2
750
YES
ESP
1985
CITY CURREBTS 10/66
1 Rrt^aport
CT
MS
2250
3
750
YES
DS/BH
1988
MCILVAIBE 2/88
2 BROOKLYN BAVY YACO
BY
MB
3000
4
750
,YES
1992
DIRECT CALL TO FACILITY 1/88, MCILVAIBE 2/ftB
9 SAB 0IEG0 (SANDED)
CA
mm
2250
3
750
YES
DS/BH/NOX
1989
MCILVAIBE 2/88. EPA REGION IX OfFICC 1/JSfi
3 Baltiaora (Bmco)
NO
mm
2250
3
750
YES
ESP
1985
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, UASTE AGE 11/87
J FAIRFAX
VA
m
3000
4
750
YES
OS/OH
1990
UASTE AGE 11/87, MCILVAIBE 2/88
2 HEIPSTEMt
BV
MB
2250
3
750
YES
DS/DH
1909
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, UASTE AGE 11/87, RCILVAIE* 2/80
6 PASADENA
TH
MB/OF
1540
2
770
YES
ESP
1988
EPA QEGION VI OFFICE 2/88
1 ICS! HAVERHILL
NA
mm
1650
2
825
YES
1959
KCILVAIUE 2/86
6 SAH ABTOBIO (LCQH Ct€(K)
TD
m
1800
2
900
OS
1938
CXILVAINE 2/88
'conuim (ilitlng ficilltltt built elnco 1985 end f*ci11cI«s In the advanced itegeo of plenning.
KB = aast burn
MB/OF = M$6 burn/overfeed
-------
900
C0MBUST0R SIZE (TPD) -
Figure 3-1. Mass burn comtoustor
(waterwa" and refactory) unit sizes.
C—300 501-900 1201-1500 2200-2*00
301-600 3 01 -'200 '50'-'300 3000
TQTal CAPACITY (~PD)
Figure 3-2. Mass bun
(waterwaii and rafactory) facility sizes.
3-3
-------
currently in the advanced planning or construction stage, even if
facility-specific information on combustor size and number is not available.
Because of the large number and size distribution of projected mass burn
waterwall combustors, three combustor size categories (small, medium, and
large) were chosen to characterize the MB/WW facility population. Using the
data in Table 3-1, these categories were defined as small (60-250 TPD), medium
(267-606 TPD), and large (750-900 TPD). The small and medium size categories
have 1 to 3 units per plant with 2 units being the median. The large
combustor size category has 2 to 4 units per plant with a median value of 3
units.
From these data, representative model plants based on the typical number
of combustors and combustor sizes were selected for each combustor size
category. These model plants are as follows:
• 2 combustors at 100 TPD
• 2 combustors at 400 TPD
• 3 combustors at 750 TPD
Based solely on the distribution of combustor unit sizes presented in
Figure 3-1, a combustor size of 200 TPD might have been selected to represent
small facilities. However, the 100 TPD MB/WW model combustor size was
selected to represent the smallest combustors, since there is particular
interest in assessing the economic impacts of controls on small units. The
800 and 2,250 TPD model plants are representative of medium and large MB/WW
facilities, respectively.
Since there are substantially fewer MB/REF plants than MB/WW projected
and the size range is much narrower, one model plant is considered adequate to
represent the MB/REF subcategory. Several manufacturers are building MB/REF
units in the 150 to 500 TPD size range. Based on these data, the model plant
selected to represent MB/REF plants is:
• 2 combustors at 250 TPD
3.1.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Sub.iect to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
Considering the recently built and planned combustors in Table 3-1, on a
total capacity basis, about 8 percent of total MB/WW capacity is represented
3-4
-------
by small combustors, 22 percent is represented by medium ccmbustors, and
70 percent is represented by large combustors. Applying these percentages to
total annual waste flow at MB/WW combustors (8.4 million tons/year) and
dividing by the waste flow per model plant yielded the following estimates of
4
number of combustors subject to the NSPS :
• 17 plants (34 combustors) in the small size category (annual waste
flow = 0.66 million tons/year)
e 7 plants (14 combustos) in the medium size category (annual waste
flow =1.8 million tons/year)
• 8 plants (24 combustors) in the large size category (annual waste
flow = 5.9 million tons/year)
The projected MB/REF capacity of 1,500 TPD (waste flow of 0.5 million
4
tons/year), equates to 3 plants with a total of 6 combutors that are expected
to be subject to.the NSPS.
3.1.4 Model Plant Parameters
Table 3-2 lists the parameters for the MB/WW and MB/REF model plants.
The table lists specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for
PM, HC1, SO2» CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate
basis. The estimated uncontrolled PM, HC1, SO2> CO, and total CDD/CDF
emission rates are 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 50 ppmv, and 200 ng/dscm,
respectively, for MB/WW units and 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, and 100 ppmv,
and 300 ng/dscm, respectively for MB/REF units. All flue gas concentrations
are reported on a 7 percent dry basis. All of the MB/WW (except the
200 TPD plant) and MB/REF model plants are expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr
and generate electricity. The 200 TPD MB/WW plant is expected to operate
5,000 hours/yr and have steam production only.
3.2 MASS BURN/ROTARY C0MBUST0R (WATER-COOLED) MODEL PLANT
3.2.1 Description
A mass burn/rotary combustor (MB/RC) consists of a rotary cylinder with
alternating watertubes and perforated steel plates. Municipal solid waste
(MSW) is metered into the combustor through a feed chute and ram feeder.
Preheated combustion air enters the combustor through the perforated plates
forming the walls of the cylinder. The combustor turns slowly and is oriented
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2. MASS BURN (WATERWALL AND REFRACTORY) MODEL
PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants3
Item
Small
MB/WW
(No. 1)
Medium
MB/WW
(No. 2)
Large
MB/WW
(No. 3)
MB/REF
(No. 4)
Facility SDecification
No. of combustors per model
2
2
3
2
Total daily charge rate, TPD
200
800
2,250
500
Annual operating hours
5,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
Ash content of feed waste,
22.2
22.2
22.
2
22.2
Excess combustion air, % of
theoretical
80
80
80
200
PM emission factor, % of
feed waste ash
10
10
10
10
Baseline PM emission rate,
gr/dscf:
0.08
0.05
0.
.05
0.08
Stack height, ft
140
200
230
150
Stack diameter, ft
4.0
6.0
7.
,0
9.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustorc
Volume flowrate:
dscfm
11,500
46,000
86,200
48,100
scfm
13,300
53,100
99,500
52,500
acfm
22,800
91,100
171,000
90,200
Outlet temperature°F
450
450
450
450
Emission Concentrations pec
combustor at 7% O2 (dry) :
Particulate Matter:
gr/dscf
2
2
2
2
CO, ppmv
50
50
50
100
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
200
200
200
300
(continued)
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-2. MASS BURN (WATERWALL AND REFRACTORY) MODEL
PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Item
"Small
MB/WW
(No. 1)
Model Plants'
Medium
MB/WW
(No. 2)
Large
MB/WW
(No. 3)
MB/REF
(No. 4)
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv 500 500 500 500
S02, ppmv 200 200 200 200
Annual Emissions per
combustor:
PM, tons/yr 408 2,610 4,890 1,630
CO, tons/yr 5 33 62 41
CDD/CDF (xl0"Z), lbs/yr 3.56 22.8 42.8 21.4
HC1, tons/yr 69 439 823 274
S09, tons/yr 50 320 601 200
aMB/WW - mass burn/waterwal1; MB/REF - mass burn/refractory.
^From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
^Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.05 gr/dscf or 0.08 gr/dscf limits as required by 40 CFR 60, Subparts Db
or E. Baseline controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants
listed, and stack emissions would be the same as listed above.
3-7
-------
with a slight downward tilt. The rotary section ends within a waterwall
boiler allowing the residue to fall into an ash removal system.
3.2.2 Selection of Model Plant Sizes and Operating Characteristics
Table 3-3 lists the existing population of MB/RC plants built since 1985
and those in the advanced stages of planning for which information on
combustor type, size, and number is available. Figure 3-3 presents the MB/RC
size distribution from the information given in Table 3-3. Figure 3-4 shows
the facility size distribution for all recently built (after 1984) facilities
and those in the advanced planning or construction stages, even if
facility-specific information on combustor size and number is not available.
Since only about 10 percent of the total mass burn capacity is represented by
rotary combustors, only one model plant is selected.
Although Table 3-3 shows a median combustor size of 300 TPD, the trend of
recent sales of these units indicates that combustor sizes at newer plants are
expected to be larger than at existing plants. The MB/RC unit sizes at the
two facilities listed in Table 3-3 that are expected to startup in 1990 are
about 350 TPD and 450 TPD; each facility has three combustors. Assuming these
sizes and number of combustors per facility are indicative of newer plants, a
1,050 TPD plant consisting of three 350 TPD combustors was selected as the
MB/RC model plant.
3-2.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Sub.iect to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
As stated previously, approximately 10 percent (or 3,200 TPD) of the mass
burn population is expected to be MB/RC. Dividing this capacity by the model
plant size (1,050 TPD) and multiplying by the number of combustors per plant
(3), yields a projection of 3 MB/RC plants with a total of 29 combustors
subject to the NSPS.
3.2.4 Model Plant Parameters
Table 3-4 lists the parameters for the MB/RC model plant selected. The
table lists specifications for the model plant and emission estimates for PM,
HCl, SO^, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate basis.
The estimated uncontrolled PM, HCl, SO2, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission rates
for MB/RC units are 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and 300 ng/dscm,
3-8
-------
\
TABLE 5 5. MASS MM/ROTARY CONRUSTOR FACILITY INFORMATION*
TOTAL
EPA
REfi CITT
STATE
COMUSTOR
1*Pf
PLANT
CAPACITY
(!»)
• Of
00MUST0RS
UNIT
SIZE
(IPO) CO-FIRING
MEAT
RECOVERY
OMTtOI.
TYPE
STARTUP
DATE
REFERENCES
10 SKAGIT COUNTY (NT. VERNON)
UA
N6/RC
178
2
09
VIS
DS/RN
1968
UASTE AGE 11/87. MCILVAINE 2/68
4 T«pt
K
MI/RC
1000
4
2*0
YES
ESP
1965
CIIY CURRENTS 10/87
4 PtftM City (toy Corty)
IL
M/RC
*10
2
255
YES
ESP
1987
CITY CURRENTS 10/87
SAM JUAN rr
Pt
MI/RC
10(0
3
347
YES
OS/BM
1990
MCILVAINE 2/86
2 Dutchmt Cointy (PonWmp>l»)
Mr
NB/ftC
400
1
400
YES
•N
1987
CITY CURRENTS 10/87
3 YORK CO. (HAMCMES1IR TNSMP)
PA
M/RC
1344
3
44ft
YES
DS/BN
1990
CUV CURRENTS 10/87. UASTE Afif 11/67, MCILVAINE 2/66
'contain* Miitlng facllltiM built ilnM 1965 and focl!UI«t In tht •tK«nc®d itaeM of planning.
MB/AC • mi burn/rotary co^uitor
-------
2SG J4.7 4C0
:0MBJsros size (tpd;
Figixe 3-3. Mass/burn rotary combustor unit sizes.
¦iCC-550 "IC 1 COD - 1050
"CT^u :apac TV (rpo;
Figure 3-4. iVtass/burn rotary facity sizes.
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-4. MASS BURN/ROTARY COMBUSTOR MODEL PLANT
SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plant3
Item
MB/RC (No. 5)
Facility SDecification
No. of combustors per model
3
Total daily charge rate, TPD
1,050
Annual operating hours .
8,000
Ash content of feed waste, %
22.2
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical.
50
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash
10
Baseline PM emission rate:
gr/dscf
0.05
Stack height, ft
125
Stack diameter, ft
5.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustor0
Volume flowrate:
dscfm
33,400
scfm
39,600
acfm
68,100
Outlet temperature F
450
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% O- (dry)^:
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf
2
CO, ppmv
100
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
300
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv
500
SO^, ppmv
200
Annual Emissions per combustor:^
PM, tons/yr
2,280
CO, tons/yr -
58
CDD/CDF (xlO ), lbs/yr
29.8
HC1, tons/yr
383
SO^, tons/yr
280
aMB/RC - mass burn/rotary combustor.
^From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
^Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.05 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack
emissions would be the same as listed above.
3-11
-------
respectively, reported on a 7 percent 0^, dry basis. The excess air level is
50 percent and the waste feed composition similar to that for MB/WW or
refractory units. The MB/RC model plant is expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr
and generate electricity.
3-12
-------
4.0 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) MODEL PLANTS
4.1 DESCRIPTION
Processed municipal waste, regardless of the degree of processing
performed, is broadly referred to as RDF. The degree of processing can vary
from simple removal of bulky items accompanied by shredding, to extensive
processing to produce a finely divided fuel suitable for cofiring in
pulverized coal-fired boilers. The general types of boilers used to combust
RDF can include suspension, stoker, and fluidized-bed designs.
4.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Figure 4-1 shows information on facility sizes for all RDF plants
(20 facilities) that were either recently built (startup after 1984) or are
currently in the advanced planning or construction stage. As is shown in
Figure 4-1, the majority of the RDF plants are between 1,000 and 2,000 TPD.
Table 4-1 presents information for the four existing plants for which data on
combustor type, size, and number are available. Figure 4-2 shows the
connbustor size distribution for these plants. From the information in
Table 4-1, individual combustors at these plants form a relatively narrow size
range of 250 to 500 TPD RDF, and the plants generally have two to four
combustors.
Therefore, due to the narrow range in combustor and plant size, only one
model plant was selected to represent this subset of the MWC industry. As
shown in Figure 4-1 compared to Table 4-1, the newer facilities are generally
larger than existing facilities. Therefore, the combustor size and number of
combustors for the model plant were selected at the high end of the range for
the available data (i.e., 500 TPD capacity and four combustors). Therefore,
the following model plant was selected:
o 4 combustors at 500 TPD each
In addition, since some RDF plants cofire multiple fuels, another model
plant was selected to represent a cofired facility. This model plant is
identical to the model above except that it fires a 50/50 mixture (on a mass
basis) of RDF and wood. Wood was selected because it is the most common fuel
cofired in existing RDF units.
4-1
-------
:oc-*cc
-SCO .300--COO ' CO '¦ -20C0 200'-3000 300-'-4.Q00 *00' -5000
~0TAL ;aPACI!"v :"D)
Figwe 4-1. RDF facity sizes.
ocyB'JsroR s
-------
TA8LE 4-1. RDF FACILITY INFORMATION*
(PA
KEG
CUT
CCMUSIOfl
STATE TYPE
TOTAL
PLANT
CAPACITY
(IPO)
• Of
COMBUSTOSS
UMIT
SIZE
(TPO)
HEAT
RECOVERY
CONTROL
TYPE
STARTUP
DATE
REFERENCES
1 Biddelord/SKO
m.
RDF
500
2
no
UOQD/OI L/SiUCXtf
YES
OS/SH
1907
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, WASTE AGE 11/87, TRIP REPORT 2/88
1 8ANGQ3 (PCRC) (ORR1NGTQN)
ME
RDF
800
2
400
uooo
YES
DS/BH
1980
DIRECT CALL TO FACILITY 3/88
4 Nanfcaco
MM
RDF
940
2
470
YES
ESP
1987
DIRECT CONTACT TO CITY 1/88
3 Portasouth (Norfolk Navy Yard)
VA
RDF
2000
4
too
COAL
YES
ESP
1986
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, EPA REGION 111 SU8MUTAL 3/88
aAl I i«m« ar« axiaiing.
RDF ¦ refuitderived fuai
-------
4.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN 5-YEAR PERIOD
AFTER PROPOSAL
Refuse-derived fuel plants account for 27 percent (33,300 TPD) of the
total design capacity for NSPS plants (16,000 TPD capacity, 4.2 million
tons/year total MSW flow). Based on the percentage of existing and projected
RDF facilities that cofire fuels, it is assumed 35 percent of the new plants
will cofire and 65 percent will fire RDF only. Dividing this by the model
plant and combustor sizes of 2,000 TPD and 500 TPD, respectively, yields
3 cofired RDF plants with a total of 12 combustors and 5 non-cofired RDF
plants with a total of 20 combustors subject to the NSPS in the 5-year period
after proposal.
4.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
The parameters for the two RDF model plants are listed in Table 4-2. The
table lists specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for PM,
HC1, SO^, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate basis.
The estimated uncontrolled PM, HC1, SO^, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission
rates for the RDF model plant are 4 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 300 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and
1000 ng/dscm, respectively. Uncontrolled estimates of PM, HC1, SO^, CO, and
total CDD/CDF emission rates for the RDF cofired model plant are 4 gr/dscf,
250 ppmv, 150 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and 1000 ng/dscm, respectively. All flue gas
concentrations are reported on a 7 percent O^, dry basis. The higher
particulate rates from RDF facilities are due to the more concentrated fuel.
The excess air level for the RDF and RDF cofired model plant is 50 percent.
The waste feed composition for the RDF/wood mixture was calculated by
averaging the ultimate analysis compositions of RDF and wood. Both RDF model
plants are expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate electricity.
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-2. RDF MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants3
RDF
RDF Cofired
Item (No.6) (No. 7)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model 4 4
Total daily charge rate, TPD 2,000 2,000
Annual operating hours . 8,000 8,000
Ash content of feed waste, % 7.5 4.3
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical. 50 50
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash 80 80
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf 0.05 0.05
Stack height, ft 200 200
Stack diameter, ft 8.0 8.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustor0
Volume flowrate:
dscfm 58,700 52,000
scfm 68,500 62,600
acfm 118,000 107,000
Outlet temperature F 450 450
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% 0? (dry)0':
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf 4 4
CO, ppmv 100 100
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm 1000 1000
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv 500 250
S0~, ppmv 300 150
t i
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr 8,030 7,130
CO, tons/yr 9 102 90
CDD/CDF (xlO ), lbs/yr 176 156
HC1, tons/yr 669 326
SO,,, tons/yr 666 368
aRDF - refuse-derived fuel.
^From Reference No. 8.
cCalculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
"^Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included
in Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply
with the 0.05 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and
stack emissions would be the same as listed above.
tmg.019
secti on.4
4-5
-------
5.0 MODULAR MODEL PLANTS
5.1 MODULAR/EXCESS AIR
5.1.1 Description
Similar to mass burn units, modular combustors also burn waste without
preprocessing, but are usually smaller and have two combustion chambers. In
the excess air design, primary combustion air is supplied in excess of the
stoichiometric amount required for complete combustion. No additional air is
added to the secondary chamber, it simply provides additional residence time
for the completion of combustion. This is functionally similar to larger mass
burn units.
5.1.2 Selection of Model Plant Size and Operating Characteristics
Table 5-1 lists existing MI/EA plants built since 1985 and those in
advanced planning or construction stages for which information on combustor
type, size, and number is available. Figure 5-1 shows the combustor size
distribution for the information given in Table 5-1. Figure 5-2 shows the
facility size distribution for all MI/EA facilities either recently built
(startup after 1984) or in the advanced planning or construction stages,
even if facility-specific information on combustor size and number is not
available. As indicated in Table 5-1, most of the plants have two or three
combustors and most of the combustor sizes are between 100 and 140 TPD. Based
on this information, a model plant was selected to be representative of MI/EA
facilities. The selected model plant consists of:
o 2 combustors at 120 TPD
5.1.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Subject to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
The total projected capacity of modular incinerators is 1,400 TPD, or a
4
waste flow of 1 million tons/year. Of this capacity, approximately half
(700 TPD) is expected to be of the excess air design based on current
projections. Dividing the estimated MI/EA capacity of 700 TPD by the MI/EA
model plant capacity (240 TPD) and multiplying by the number of combustors per
model plant, yields a projection of 3 plants with a total of 6 combustors that
are subject to the NSPS.
5-1
-------
Figure 5-1. Modular/excess air comtoustor uiit sizes
Figure 5-2. Modular/excess air facility sizes.
5-2
-------
TAIL! 5 1. NODULAR/EXCESS All FACILITY INFORMATION*
CPA
RC6 CITT
STATE
DMUSTOR
TYPf
TOTAL
PLANT
CAPACITY
-------
5.1.4 Model Plant Parameters
The plant parameters for the MI/EA model plant are listed in Table 5-2.
The table lists specifications for the model plant and emission estimates for
PM, HC1, SO^, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate
basi s.
The uncontrolled PM, HC1, SC^, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission rates for
MI/EA combustors are 2 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 100 ppmv, 200 ng/dscm,
respectively, reported on a 7 percent 0^, dry basis. The excess air level is
100 percent and the waste feed composition is similar to the mass burn units.
The MI/EA model plant is expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate
electricity.
5.2 MODULAR/STARVED AIR
5.2.1 Description
The MI/SA combustors are similar to the excess air units except that
excess air is introduced at substoichiometric levels in the primary chamber.
The lower air velocity in the primary combustion chamber minimizes entrainment
of fuel particles and ash in the flue gas. The incomplete combustion products
then pass into a secondary combustion chamber where excess air is added and
combustion is completed.
5.2.2 Selection of Model Plant Sizes and Operating Characteristics
Table 5-3 lists the existing MI/SA plants built since 1985 and those in
the advanced planning or construction stages for which information on
combustor type, size, and number is available. Although MI/SA plants
represent only a small subset of the MWC industry by capacity, they represent
approximately six percent of all planned MWC facilities. Figure 5-3 presents
the combustor unit size distribution for the information in Table 5-3.
Figure 5-4 shows all facilities either recently built or in the advanced
planning or construction stages, even if facility-specific information on
combustor size and number is not available. As can be seen from comparing
Figures 5-1 and 5-3, MI/SA combustors tend to be smaller in size than the
MI/EA combustors, with the most common MI/SA combustor size being 50 TPD.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-2. MODULAR/EXCESS AIR MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS
AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plant3
Item MI/EA (No. 8)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model 2
Total daily charge rate, TPD 240
Annual operating hours . 8,000
Ash content of feed waste, % 22.2
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical. 100
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash 0.50
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf 0.08
Stack height, ft 70
Stack diameter, ft 6.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustorc
Volume flowrate:
dscfm 15,300
scfm 17,500
acfm 30,000
Outlet temperature F 450
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% 0- (dry)^:
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf 2
CO, ppmv 100
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm 200
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv 500
SO-, ppmv 200
t- -i
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr 783
CO, tons/yr 9 22
CDD/CDF (xlO ), lbs/yr 6.84
HC1, tons/yr 132
SO^, tons/yr 96
aMI/EA - modular/excess air.
^From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
^Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.08 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart E. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack
emissions would be the same as listed above.
5-5
-------
IMIF 5 3. NOtUiAI/tlAIVfD *1* fttllITT INFaHWIIOM*
TOTAL
PLANT
CM 1T
EPA
camusim
CAPACITY
§ Of
size
NEAT
CONTROL
STARTUP
KEG tin
STATE
IVPE
(TPD)
OMUSTOBS
(ipo) co-firing
IECMIT
TVPf
DAIE
REFERENCES
6 Cantar
TK
NI/SA
16
1
36
TES
KMC
1985
STATE
OP TEXAS, DIRECT CALL 10 CITT 1/66
6 Carthaga City
TX
NI/SA
16
1
36
VES
mm
1965
STATE
OP TEXAS, CITT CURRENTS 10/67
5 (Quadrant)
Ml
NI/SA
n
2
3 7.5
US
ESP
1987
HASTE
AGE 11/87, CITT CURRENTS 10/67, NPCA SU6NITTAL 3/31/66
5 lirron Couity
Ml
NI/SA
so
2
A
ESP
1966
STATE
OP UISOMSIN, UASTE AGE 11/67
5 Foaaton (Polk Co.)
Ml
NI/SA
90
2
45
VES
ESP
1968
UASTE
AGE 11/67, DIRECT CONTACT 10 COUNTT 1/68
10 Mllln^uB
UA
NI/SA
100
2
V)
TES
¦ONE
1966
UASTE
AGE 11/67, CITT CURRENTS 10/67
2 Oawajo cowty (Volney)
HI
NI/SA
200
4
*0
TES
ESP
1966
CITT
CURRENTS 10/67
3 Gracnatairs (Ueataoroland Co.)
PA
NI/SA
*0
1
50
TES
1967
CITT
CUI RENTS 10/67
2 Ckwlda Co. (Roac)
NT
NI/SA
200
4
50
TES
ESP
1965
CITT
CUMENTS 10/87
4 Pfcafoula
MS
NI/SA
IV)
2
75
TES
ESP
1965
CITT
OARENIS 10/87
4 Norton
sc
NI/SA
270
3
90
TES
ESP
1985
CONSUMT, HASTE AGE 11/67
S Cdgtuood (Harford Couity)
NI/SA
360
4
90
VES
ESP
1967
EPA REGION III SUMITTAL 2/68 . UASTE AGE 11/67
I
O*
*Contalna •sitting lac Ilitln bul1t ilnce 1965 and facllttfe* in the nhvc«l itigei of planning.
NI/SA * nkilar/stirvcd air
-------
CCvSuSTOR SIZE :*P01
Figir® 5-3. Modular/starved air comtmstor unit sizes.
TC'AL CAPACITY (TPD)
Figir® 5-4. Mo&jlar/starved air fa city sizes.
K.J
w *
-------
MI/SA plant capacities are also smaller than MI/EA plants with a median MI/SA
plant size near 100 TPD. The number of combustors per plant ranges from one
to four, with two combustors being the most common.
As is shown in Table 5-3, almost all of the recently built facilities
have heat recovery. However, information from a major MI/SA manufacturer
indicates that approximately half of the smaller MI/SA plants to be built in
g
the next several years will not have heat recovery. Therefore, two MI/SA
model plants were selected, one of which does not employ heat recovery and one
which does. This will allow differentiation between small plants that do not
realize the economic benefit of producing steam or electricity and simply burn
the waste to reduce landfill costs.
Based on the finding that 50 TPD is the most common combustor size and
that two combustors per plant is common, the model plant selected to represent
the MI/SA facility that employs heat recovery consists of two combustors at
50 TPD each for a total plant capacity of 100 TPD. Since the facilities that
do not employ heat recovery are expected to be smaller in size than the
facilities that employ heat recovery, two combustors at 25 TPD each were
selected as the model plant that does not employ heat recovery. This is at
the low end of the combustor and plant size ranges but will allow estimation
of impacts for the smallest plants expected to be built for this category of
MWC's.
The model plants selected are:
• 2 combustors at 25 TPD, no heat recovery; and
• 2 combustors at 50 TPD, with heat recovery.
5.2.3 Projected Number of Each Model Plant Subject to NSPS in 5-Year Period
After Proposal
As is shown in Table 5-3, three of the twelve facilities (25 percent) are
small (< 75 TPD) and the remainder of the facilities (75 percent) are large.
On the basis of total capacity, small plants represent only 9 percent of the
total capacity (150 TPD out of 1,650 TPD total capacity for plants in
Table 5-3). Dividing the projected MI/SA capacity of 700 TPD by the combustor
size and multiplying by the number of combustors per model plant yields 2
small plants (with a total of 4 combustors) without heat recovery and 6 large
plants (with a total of 12 combustors) with heat recovery which are subject to
the NSPS.
5-8
-------
5.2.4 Model Plant Parameters
Table 5-4 presents the parameters for both of the MI/SA model plants.
The table lists specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for
PM, HC1, SO^, CO, and total CDD/CDF on a concentration and mass rate basis.
Uncontrolled estimates of PM, HC1, SO^, CO, and total CDD/CDF emission rates
for both MI/SA model plants are 0.1 gr/dscf, 500 ppmv, 200 ppmv, 50 ppmv,
300 ng/dscm, respectively, reported on a 7 percent 0^, dry basis. An excess
air level of 100 percent was used; the waste feed composition was similar to
that for mass burn units. The 50 TPD MI/SA model plant is expected to operate
5,000 hours/yr and have no heat recovery. The 100 TPD MI/SA model plant is
expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate electricity.
5-9
-------
TABLE 5-4. MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND
FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants
a
MI/SA
no heat rec.
MI/SA
Item
(No. 9)
(No. 10)
Facility Soecification
No. of combustors per model
2
2
Total daily charge rate, TPD
50
100
Annual operating hours ^
5,000
8,000
Ash content of feed waste, %
22.
2
22.2
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical.
100
100
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash
0.
50
0.50
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf
0.
1
0.08
Stack height, ft
60
60
Stack diameter, ft
5.
0
5.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustorc
Volume flowrate:
dscfm
3,200
6,400
scfm
3,600
7,300
acfm
14,100
12,500
Outlet temperature F
1,600
450
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 7% 0-
(dry)d:
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf
0.
1
0.1
CO, ppmv
50
50
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm
300
300
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv
500
500
SO^, ppmv
200
200
Annual Emissions per combustor:^
PM, tons/yr
5
16
CO, tons/yr ?
2
4
CDD/CDF (x10 ), lbs/yr
1.
34
4.28
HC1, tons/yr
17
55
SO^, tons/yr
13
40
aMI/SA - modular/starved air.
^From Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
^Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM for Model Plant 10 are
assumed to comply with the 0.08 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60,
Subpart E. Model Plant 9 is below the size cutoff for Subpart E and is not
expected to have air pollution control at baseline. Baseline controls would
not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack emissions
would be the same as listed above.
5-10
-------
6.0 FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION (FBC) MODEL PLANTS
6.1 DESCRIPTION
With FBC, the waste burns in a turbulent bed of heated noncombustible
material, such as limestone, sand, silica, or alumina. Typical bed
temperatures are 1,450 to 1,700°F. As with conventional combustors, primary
combustion air is introduced underneath the bed, but at a flowrate high enough
to suspend or "fluidize" the solid particles in the bed. The ability to
achieve good fluidization depends on the uniformity of fuel particle size and
density produced during fuel preprocessing. Secondary combustion air is
introduced through ports in the upper part of the combustor to complete the
combustion process. If good mixing between air and combustible waste is
achieved, the amount of excess air required for complete combustion can be
reduced. In addition, by adding limestone to the bed, SO^ and HC1 can be
removed from the flue gas to reduce acid gas emissions.
6.2 SELECTION OF MODEL PLANT SIZES AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Table 6-1 lists existing FBC plants built since 1985 and those in the
advanced planning or construction stage for which information on combustion
type, size, and number is available. Figure 6-1 shows the combustor size
distribution for these facilities. Figure 6-2 shows the facility size
distribution for all facilities either recently built or in the advanced
planning or construction stage. Two different design types of FBC's are
expected to predominate the FBC population, bubbling bed FBC's and circulating
fluidized-bed FBC's. Therefore, two model plants were selected; both combust
100 percent RDF. As is shown 1n Table 6-1, the newer and planned FBC's are
larger than the first two FBC's built, the median combustor size is about
450 TPD, and the majority of the plants have two combustors. Therefore, the
two model plants selected are:
s 2 bubbling bed combustors at 450 TPD firing 100 percent RDF
• 2 circulating fluidized-bed combustors at 450 TPD firing
100 percent RDF
6.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF EACH MODEL PLANT SUBJECT TO NSPS IN 5-YEAR PERIOD
AFTER PROPOSAL
Approximately 5,400 TPD of the total projected capacity (on an annual
4
waste flow of 1.8 million tons/year) is represented by FBC's. Of the
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1. F8C FACILITY INFORMATION0
EPA
REGI CITY
STATE
COMBUSTOt
TYPE
TOTAL
PLANT
CAPACITY
(TPO)
0 Of
COMBUSTORS
UNIT
SIZE
(TPO)
CO-FIRING
HEAT
RECOVERY
CONTROL
TYPE
STARTUP
DATE
REFERENCES
5 DULUTH
NN
FBC (BB)
400
2
200
SLIME /WOOD
YES
C/VWS
1986
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, WASTE AGE 11/87, HPCA SUBMITTAL 3/31/87
5 IA CROSSE COUNTY
Wl
FBC (BB)
400
2
200
WOOD
TES
EGB
1987
CITY CURRENTS 10/87, DIRECT CALL TO COUNTY 3/88
10 IAC0NA
UA
FBC (BB)
1000
2
500
COAL /WOOD
YES
BH
1989
WASTE AGE 11/87. MCILVAINE 2/88
3 ERIE COUNTY
PA
FBC (CFB)
850
2
425
NO
YES
FI/BN
UNKNOUN
CITT CURRENTS 10/87, MCILVAINE 2/88, DIRECT CALL TO CITY 1/88
10 COEUR D'ALENE
ID
FBC (BB)
350
1
350
WOOD
YES
FI/BH
UNKNOWN
DIRECT CALL TO CITY 5/89
5 BOBBINS
IL
FBC (CFB)
1200
2
600
NO
TES
FI/BH
1989
DIRECT CALL TO CITY 5/89
aCont*ins existing facilities built since 1985 and facilities in the advanced stage* of planning.
FBC = f(uidiied-bed coafeustor
BB = txAbl ing bed
-------
303 390 439 900 TOO
COMBUSTOR SIZE (TPD)
Figure 6-1. FSC combustor unit sizes.
33G-4G3 eoo-tcoo 1200
TOTAL CAPACfTY (TPD)
Figure 6-2. FBC fadlKy sizes.
6=3
-------
plants planned to start up in 1989 or later, half are bubbling bed and half
are circulating fluidized bed. Dividing the total FBC capacities by the model
plant size yields a projection of 3 bubbling bed FBC plants with a total of
6 combustors and 3 circulating fluidized-bed plants with a total of
6 combustors that are subject to the NSPS.
6.4 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
Table 6-2 lists the parameters for the FBC model plants. The table lists
the specifications for each model plant and emission estimates for PM, HC1,
SOj, CO, and total CDD/CDF on both a concentration and mass rate basis.
Estimated emission rates of PM, HC1, SO^, CO, and total CDD/CDF from the
bubbling bed FBC model plant are 0.01 gr/dscf, 350 ppmv, 240 ppmv, 50 ppmv,
and 20 ng/dscm, respectively. Emission rates of PM, HC1, SO2, CO, and total
CDD/CDF from the circulating fluidized-bed model plant are 0.01 gr/dscf,
350 ppmv, 240 ppmv, 100 ppmv, and 400 ng/dscm, respectively. All flue gas
concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0£, dry basis. The excess air
level for the bubbling bed and circulating fluidized-bed units is 60 percent.
Both FBC model plants are expected to operate 8,000 hours/yr and generate
electricity.
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2. FBC MODEL PLANT SPECIFICATIONS AND FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Model Plants3
FBC (BB) FBC (CFB)
Item (No. 11) (No. 12)
Facility Specification
No. of combustors per model 2 2
Total daily charge rate, TPD 900 900
Annual operating hours . 8,000 8,000
Ash content of feed waste, % 7.5 7.5
Excess combustion air, % of theoretical. 60 60
PM emission factor, % of feed waste ash 80 80
Baseline PM emission rate, gr/dscf 0.01 0.01
Stack height, ft 200 200
Stack diameter, ft 6.0 6.0
Flue Gas Data Per Combustor0
Volume flowrate:
dscfm 56,400 56,400
scfm 65,200 65,200
acfm 99,700 99,700
Outlet temperature F 350 350
Emission Concentrations per combustor at 1% 0? (dry)^:
Particulate Matter, gr/dscf 4 4
CO, ppmv 50 100
CDD/CDF, ng/dscm 20 400
Acid gas:
HC1, ppmv 350 350
SO-, ppmv . 240 240
Annual Emissions per combustor:
PM, tons/yr 7,220 7,220
CO, tons/yr - 22.8 46.2
CDD/CDF (xlO ), Ibs/yr 3.16 63.3
HC1, tons/yr 503 503
SO2, tons/yr 417 417
FBC - fluidized-bed combustion.
BB - bubbling bed
CFB - circulating fluidized-bed
bFrom Reference No. 8.
Calculated based on the facility specifications in this table and the feed
waste composition data from Table 1-3.
^Emissions at combustor exit. Annual emissions from the stack are included in
Section 7.0. At baseline, stack emissions of PM are assumed to comply with
the 0.05 gr/dscf limit as required by 40 CFR 60, Subpart Db. Baseline
controls would not affect emissions of the other pollutants listed, and stack
emissions would be the same as listed above.
6-5
-------
7.0 MODEL PLANT COSTS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section presents costs, energy, and environmental impacts associated
with the application of the emission control options for the 12 model plants.
The procedures used to estimate capital and operating costs for both the
combustors and the APCD's are summarized in Appendix A and discussed in detail
in a separate document concerning MWC cost procedures.^ Energy impacts are
presented for electricity consumed by the APCD's and for auxiliary fuel fired
in the combustor. Environmental impacts are presented for CDD/CDF, CO, PM,
SO^, and HC1. Also presented are impacts on total solid waste disposal.
7.1 MASS BURN
Based on design and operating parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
five mass burn model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and three
control options. Section 7.1.1 presents the costs, energy, and
environmental impacts for the mass burn waterwall model plants.
Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 present similar information for the mass burn
refractory and mass burn rotary combustor models, respectively.
7.1.1 Mass Burn Waterwall
7.1.1.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 present the
capital costs for the 200, 800, and 2,250 TPD mass burn waterwall model
plants, respectively. These tables show combustor capital costs as well as
the itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option.
For baseline, total APCD capital costs range from $1,860,000 for the 200 TPD
plant to $6,870,000 for the 2,250 TPD plant. The increase in APCD total
capital costs for Control Option 1 compared to the baseline ranges from
9 percent for the 200 TPD plant to 20 percent for the 2,250 TPD plant. The
increase in APCD capital cost for Control Option 2 compared to baseline
ranges from 59 percent for the 200 TPD plant to 114 percent for the 2,250 TPD
plant. The increase in APCD capital cost over baseline for Control
Option 3 ranges from 219 percent for the 200 TPD plant to 280 percent for
the 800 TPD plant. Total plant capital costs for Control Option 3, the
most expensive option, are 16 to 20 percent more than the baseline total
plant capital costs for the three model plants.
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 200 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 1)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseli ne
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
17,860
17,860
17,860
17,860
APCD CaDital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM controlb
1,200
1,320
636
J
Acid gas control
0
0
292
3,230
Temperature control
0
0
289
0
- Total APCD control
1,200
1,320
1,220
3,230
- Flue gas ducting and fan
99
99
154
127
Total Direct Costs
1,300
1,420
1,370
3,360
Indirect Costs and
444
483
1,020
2,000
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
120
120
573
573
Total APCD Capital Cost
1,860
2,020
2,960
5,940
Total Plant CaDital Cost
19,720
19,880
20,820
23,800
aIncludes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, CO monitor
per combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
r
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO^, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet O- monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-2
-------
TABLE 7-2. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 800 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 2)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control^
Acid gas control
Temperature control
1,850
0
0
2,210
0
0
1,690
556
406
6,620d
0
- Total APCD control
1,850
2,210
2,650
6,620
- Flue gas ducting and fan
410
410
688
549
Total Direct Costs
2,260
2,620
3,340
7,170
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
771
894
2,600
4,290
Monitoring Equipment0
120
120
573
573
Total APCD Capital Cost
3,150
3,630
6,520
12,020
Total Plant CaDital Cost
53,150
53,630
56,520
62,020
Includes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet O^ monitors and
a data reduction system.
'^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-3. "CAPITAL COSTS FOR 2,250 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 3)
($3000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Costa
110,000
110,000
110,000
110,000
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control*3
3,860
4,870
3,950
A
Acid gas control
0
0
1,100
13,700
Temperature control
0
0
814
0
- Total APCD control
3,860
4,870
5,860
13,700
- Flue gas ducting and fan
1.130
1.130
1.890
1.500
Total Direct Costs
4,990
6,000
7,750
15,200
Indirect Costs and
1,700
2,050
6,060
9,090
Conti ngencies
Monitoring Equipment0
180
180
859
859
Total APCD Capital Cost
6,870
8,220
14,700
25,200
Total Plant Capital Cost
116,900
118,200
124,700
135,200
a
Includes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
c
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-4
-------
Tables 7-4, 7-5, and 7-6 present the annualized costs for the 200, 800,
and 2,250 TPD mass burn waterwall model plants, respectively. These tables
show the total combustor annualized costs as well as the itemized APCD
annualized costs associated with each control option. Total APCD
annualized costs for baseline range from $425,000 for the 200 TPD plant to
$1,860,000 for the 2,250 TPD plant. The increase in APCD annualized costs for
Control Option 1 compared to baseline ranges from 8 percent for the
200 TPD plant to 16 percent for the 2,250 TPD plant. The APCD annualized cost
increase for Control Option 2 over baseline ranges from 161 percent for
the 200 TPD plant to 220 percent for the 2,250 TPD plant. For Control
Option 3, the APCD cost increase over baseline ranges from 280 percent for the
200 TPD plant to 330 percent for the 800 TPD plant. Total plant annualized
costs for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, are 18 to 23 percent
more than the total plant annualized costs for the three model plants at
baseline.
Tables 7-4, 7-5, and 7-6 also present estimates of electrical and
auxiliary fuel requirements for the APCD's and combustors at each model plant.
The APCD electrical requirements for baseline range from 110 MWh/yr for the
200 TPD plant to 2,210 MWh/yr for the 2,250 TPD plant. These electrical
requirements are based on 5,000 hours of operation for the 200 TPD plant and
8,000 hours of operation for both the 800 and 2,250 TPD plants. The APCD's
associated with Control Option 1 consume between 36 and 52 percent more
electricity than that for baseline. Similarly, APCD's associated with Control
Option 2 consume between 340 and 610 percent more electricity and the
APCD's for Control Option 3 consume between 460 and 640 percent more
electricity than baseline. Auxiliary fuel use for each control option is
the same as that for baseline. Auxiliary fuel consumption on a heat basis
ranges from 3.24 billion Btu/yr for the 200 TPD plant to 36.5 billion Btu/yr
for the 2,250 TPD plant.
7.1.1.2 Environmental Impacts. Tables 7-7, 7-8, and 7-9 present
estimates of environmental impacts for each control option for the
200, 800, and 2,250 TPD mass burn waterwall model plants, respectively. Shown
are emission reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, S0£, and HC1, and the increase in
solid waste disposal associated with each control option.
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-4. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 200 TPD
MASS BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 1)
(Sl.OOO's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
2,190
2,190
2,190
2,190
- Ash Disposal
313
313
313
313
- Capital Recovery
?,350
2.350
2,350
2,350
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
4,850
4,850
4,850
4,850
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
15
15
68
60
- Supervision
2
2
15
9
- Maintenance labor
8
8
33b
33,
- Maintenance materials
17
19
70
80
- Electricity
5
8
36
38
- Compressed air
0
0
4
5
- Lime
0
0
45
37
- Water
0
0
1
1
- Waste disposal
20
20
39
44
- Monitoring equipment
16
16
215
215
Total Direct Costs
84
89
526
522
Indirect Costs;
- Overhead
26
27
103
102
- Taxes, insurance, and administration
70
76
96
215
- Capital recovery
245
266
390
781
Total Indirect Costs
341
369
589
1,100
Total APCD Annualized Costs
425
457
1,110
1,620
Total Plant Annualized Costs
5,280
5,310
5,950
6,470
Enerav Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
110
167
785
820
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
3,240
3,240
3,240
3,240
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO^, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0,, monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include annual cost of $13,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-6
-------
TABLE 7-5. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 800 TPD
MASS BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 2)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
5,790
5,790
5,790
6,570
- Ash Disposal
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
- Capital Recovery
6.570
6.570
6.570
6.570
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
14,370
14,370
14,370
14,370
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
24
24
108
96
- Supervision
4
4
24
14
- Maintenance labor
13
13
52b
53l
- Maintenance materials
30
35
197
195
- Electricity
37
49
168
208
- Compressed air
0
0
26
29
- Lime
0
0
290
240
- Water
0
0
7
7
- Waste disposal
127
130
246
284
- Monitoring equipment
16
16
215
215
Total Direct Costs
251
271
1,330
1,340
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
43
46
198
184
- Taxes, insurance, and administration
121
140
237
458
- Capital recovery
414
478
857
1.580
Total Indirect Costs
578
664
1,290
2,220
Total APCD Annualized Costs
829
935
2,630
3,560
Total Plant Annualized Costs
15,200
15,310
17,000
17,930
Enerav Retirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MUh/yr)
787
1,070
3,640
4,530
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
12,960
12,960
12,960
12,960
aFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOp, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include annual cost of $52,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-7
-------
TABLE 7-6. ANNUALIZED- COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2,250 TPD
MASS BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 3)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
10,910
10,910
10,910
10,910
- Ash Disposal
5,630
5,630
5,630
5,630
- Capital Recovery
14.470
14.470
14.470
14,470
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
31,000
31,000
31,000
31,000
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
36
36
162
144
- Supervision
5
5
46
22
- Maintenance labor
20
20
80.
79l
- Maintenance materials
67
80
486
451
- Electricity
101
138
443
571
- Compressed air
0
0
72
83
- Lime
0
0
815
675
- Water
0
0
19
19
- Waste disposal
358
365
693
798
- Monitoring equipment
25
25
322
322
Total Direct Costs
612
669
3,140
3,160
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
77
85
376
330
- Taxes, insurance, and administration
267
322
553
974
- Capital recovery
903
1.080
1.930
3.310
Total Indirect Costs
1,250
1,490
2,860
4,610
Total APCD Annualized Costs
1,860
2,160
6,000
7,780
Total Plant Annualized Costs
32,860
33,160
37,000
38,780
Enerqy Reauirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MUh/yr)
2,210
3,000
9,640
12,430
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
36,450
36,450
36,450
36,450
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO^, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet Oj monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include annual cost of S146,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-8
-------
TABLE 7-7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 200 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 1)
Pol 1utant
a,b
Baseline
Control Options
1
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
Mg/yr
% Reduction
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
200
3.2E-5
50
9
200
3.2E-5
0
50
9
0
50
8.1E-6
75
50
9
0
5
8.
98
50
9
0
1E - 7
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
0.08
30
0.01
4
88
0.01
4
88
0.01
4
88
SO^ Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
200
91
200
91
0
120
54
40
20
9
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
500
124
500
124
0
100
25
80
15
4
97
Total Sol id Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
64
12,100
64
12,100
0.2
67
12,700
6
67
12,700
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 09, dry basis.
u t
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
°From baseline.
7-9
-------
TABLE 7-8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 800 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 2)
Pollutanta,b
Control
Options
Baseline
1
2
3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
200
200
50
5
Mg/yr
2.1E-4
2.1E-4
5.2E-5
5.2E-6
% Reduction
-
0
75
98
CO Emissions:
ppmv
50
50
50
50
Mg/yr
60
60
60
60
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
Mg/yr
118
24
24
24
% Reduction
-
80
80
80
SO2 Emissions:
ppmv
200
200
120
20
Mg/yr
581
581
348
58
% Reduction
-
0
40
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
500
500
100
15
Mg/yr
796
796
159
24
% Reduction
-
0
80
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
255
256
270
268
Mg/yr
77,200
77,300
81,500
81,000
% Increase
•
0.1
6
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0?, dry basis.
u t
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-10
-------
TABLE 7-9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 2,250 TPD MASS
BURN/WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 3)
Pol 1utanta,b
Control ODtions
Baseline
1 2
3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
200
200 50
5
Mg/yr
5.8E-4
5.8E-4 1.
5E-4
1.
5E-5
% Reduction
-
0 75
98
CO Emissions:
ppmv
50
50 50
50
Mg/yr
169
169 169
169
% Reduction
-
0 0
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
0.05
0.01 0.
¦01.
0.
01
Mg/yr
333
67 67
67
% Reduction
-
80 80
80
SO2 Emissions:
ppmv
200
200 120
20
Mg/yr
1,630
1,630 980
163
% Reduction
-
0 40
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
500
500 100
15
Mg/yr
2,240
2,240 448
67
% Reduction
-
0 80
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
718
719 758
753
Mg/yr
217,100
217,400 229,300
227,800
% Increase
~
0.1 6
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0?, dry basis.
u £
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom base!ine.
7-11
-------
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options, because good
combustion is assumed to be practiced at baseline. Particulate matter
emissions are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control
option for the 200 TPD plant and 80 percent for each control option
for the 800 and 2,250 TPD plants. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same as
baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same
as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by 80 and 97 percent under
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, the increase in total solid
waste disposal over baseline for each model plant is less than 0.5 percent for
Control Option ], 6 percent for Control Option 2, and 5 percent for Control
Option 3.
7.1.2 Mass Burn Refractory
7.1.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-10 presents combustor and
APCD capital costs for the 500 TPD mass burn refractory model plant for each
control option. Total APCD capital cost for baseline is 52,880,000. The
increases in APCD total capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3
over baseline are 20, 100, and 310 percent, respectively. Total plant capital
cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 20 percent
more than the total plant capital costs at baseline.
Table 7-11 presents the annualized costs for the 500 TPD mass burn
refractory model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized costs as
well as itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control
option. Total APCD annualized cost for baseline is $726,000. The
increases over baseline in the total APCD annualized costs for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3 are 20, 210, and 350 percent, respectively. Total
annualized cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 20 percent
more than the total plant annualized costs at baseline.
Table 7-11 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor, respectively, for each control
7-12
-------
TABLE 7-10. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 500 TPD MASS BURN/
REFRACTORY MODEL PLANT (NO. 4)
($1000's in December 1987}
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Costa
37,550
37,550
37,550
37,550
APCD CaDital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control'5
Acid gas control
Temperature control
1,740
0
0
2,200
0
0
1,680
350
405
6,590d
0
- Total APCD control
1,740
2,200
2,440
6,590
- Flue gas ducting and fan
323
323
425
378
APCD Direct Costs
2,060
2,520
2,860
6,970
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
703
860
2,220
4,150
Monitoring Equipment0
120
120
573
573
Total APCD Capital Cost
2,880
3,500
5,660
11,700
Total Plant CaDital Cost
40,430
41,050
43,210
49,250
aIncludes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet Op monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-13
-------
TABLE 7-11. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 500 TPD
MASS BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANT (NO. 4)
(51,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
5,680
5,680
5,680
5,680
- Ash Disposal
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,250
- Capital Recovery
4.940
4.940
4.940
4.940
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
11,870
11,870
11,870
11,870
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
24
24
108
96
- Supervision
4
4
23
14
- Maintenance labor
13
13
52b
53,
- Maintenance materials
28
34
177°
190
- Electricity
32
48
166
207
- Compressed air
0
0
26
29
- Lime
0
0
181
150
- Water
0
0
7
7
- Waste disposal
78
81
154
. 177
- Monitoring equipment
16
1§
215
215
Total Direct Costs
196
221
1,110
1,140
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
41
45
186
182
- Taxes, insurance, and
111
135
204
445
administration
- Capital recovery
379
460
744
1.540
Total Indirect Costs
531
640
1,130
2,170
Total APCD Annualized Costs
726
861
2,240
3,300
Total Plant Annualized Costs
12,600
12,730
14,110
15,170
Enerav Retirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
698
1,060
3,600
4,510
8,100
8,100
8,100
8,100
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO2, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include annual cost of $51,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-14
-------
option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is 698 MWh/yr. The
APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2, and 3 consume 50, 420, and
550 percent more electricity than baseline, respectively. Auxiliary fuel
consumed for baseline and all three control options is
8.1 billion Btu/year.
7.1.2.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-12 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to a
model 500 TPD mass burn refractory plant. Shown are emissions and emission
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, SO^, and HC1, and increases in solid waste
disposal associated with each control option.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options because good
combustion is assumed to be practiced at baseline. Particulate matter
emissions are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control
option. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Finally, the increase in total solid waste disposal over
baseline is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1, 6 percent for Control
Option 2, and 5 percent for Control Option 3.
7.1.3 Mass Burn Rotary Combustor
7.1.3.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-13 presents combustor and
APCD capital costs for the 1,050 TPD mass burn rotary combustor model plant.
Total APCD capital cost for baseline is $4,130,000. The increases in the APCD
total capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3 over baseline are 13,
90, and 280 percent, respectively. Total plant capital cost for Control
Option 3, the most expensive control option, is 16 percent more than
the total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-14 presents the annualized costs for the 1,080 TPD mass burn
refractory model plant. Shown are total combustor annualized costs as well as
itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control option.
7-15
-------
TABLE 7-12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 500 TPD MASS
BURN/REFRACTORY MODEL PLANT (NO. 4)
. Control Options
Pollutant ' Baseline 1 2 3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
Mg/yr
% Reduction
300
1.
9E-4
300
1.9E-4
0
75
4.
75
, 9E-5
5
3.
98
2E-6
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
100
75
100
75
0
100
75
0
100
75
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
0.
119
08
0.01
15
88
0.
15
88
01
0,
15
88
.01
SO^ Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
200
364
200
364
0
120
218
40
20
36
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
500
497
500
497
0
100
99
80
15
15
97
Total Sol id Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
154
48,200
160
48,300
0.2
168
51,000
6
167
50,600
5
aAl7 flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 07, dry basis.
u £
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
°Froin baseline.
7-16
-------
TABLE 7-13. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 1,050 TPD MASS BURN/
ROTARY COMBUSTOR MODEL PLANT (NO. 5)
($ 1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor CaDital Cost3
69,140
69,140
69,140
69,140
APCD Caoital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control^
2,460
2,860
2,060
A
Acid gas control
0
0
555
8, 540
Temperature control
0
0
550
0
- Total APCD control
2,460
2,860
3,170
8,540
- Flue gas ducting and fan
488
488
851
668
Total Direct Costs
2,950
3,350
4,020
9,210
Indirect Costs and
1,010
1,140
3,070
5,490
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
180
180
859
859
Total APCD Capital Cost
4,130
4,670
7,950
15,600
Total Plant Caoital Cost
73,270
73,810
77,090
84,740
aIncludes costs for combustors, ash handling system, cooling tower, turbine,
CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO^, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0£ monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-17
-------
TABLE 7-14. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 1,050 TPD MASS BURN/
ROTARY WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 5)
($ 1,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1 2 3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
administration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annualized Costs
Total Plant Annualized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
7,810
7,810
7,810
7,810
2,630
2,630
2,630
2,630
9.090
9.09Q
9,090
9.090
19,520
19,520
19,520
19,520
36
36
162
144
5
5
46
22
20
20
80h
79
40
45
221
242
40
55
196
237
0
0
29
33
0
0
380
315
0
0
8
8
167
170
323
372
25
25
322
322
333
356
1,770
1,770
60
64
276
257
158
180
284
588
543
615
1.050
2.050
761
859
1,610
2,900
1,100
1,210
3,380
4,660
20,620
20,730
22,900
24,180
882
1,200
4,260
5,160
17,010
17,010
17,010
17,010
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0^ monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include annual cost of $58,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-18
-------
Total APCD annualized costs for baseline is $1,100,000. The increases in APCO
annualized costs over baseline are 10, 210, and 320 percent for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Total plant annualized cost for Control
Option 3, the most expensive option, is 17 percent more than the total plant
annualized costs at baseline.
Table 7-14 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustors, respectively, for each control
option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is 882 MWh/yr for
this plant. The APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2, and 3
consume about 40, 380, and 480 percent more electricity than baseline,
respectively. Auxiliary fuel consumed for baseline and each control
option is 17 billion Btu/year.
7.1.3.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-15 presents estimates of
environmental impacts of each control option for the 1,050 TPD mass burn
rotary combustor model plant. Shown are emissions and emission reductions for
CDD/CDF, CO, PM, SO^ and HC1, and increases in solid waste disposal associated
with each control options.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced by 75 and
98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed
to be practiced at baseline. Particulate matter emissions are reduced by
80 percent over baseline for each control option. Sulfur dioxide
emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced
by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly,
HC1 emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by
80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, the
increase in total solid waste disposal over baseline is less than 0.5 percent
for Control Option 1, 5 percent for Control Option 2, and 5 percent for
Control Option 3.
7-19
-------
TABLE 7-15. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 1,050 TPD MASS
BURN/ROTARY WATERWALL MODEL PLANT (NO. 5)
Pol 1utanta,b
Control
ODtions
Baseline
1
2
3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nra^
300
300
75
5
Mg/yr
4.1E-4
4.1E-4
1.0E-4
6.8E-6
% Reduction
-
0
75
98
CO Emissions:
ppmv
100
100
100
100
Mg/yr
157
157
157
157
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
Mg/yr
155
31
31
31
% Reduction
-
80
80
80
S02 Emissions:
ppmv
200
200
120
20
Mg/yr
763
763
457
76
% Reduction
-
0
40
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
500
500
100
15
Mg/yr
1,040
1,040
209
31
% Reduction
-
0
80
97
Total Sol id Waste:
Tons/day
335
335
354
352
Mg/yr
101,300
101,400
107,000
106,300
% Increase
~
0.1
6
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0-, dry basis.
h
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-20
-------
7.2 REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
Based on design and operating parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
two RDF model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and the three control
options using cost procedures specifically for MWC applications.
7.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts
Tables 7-16 and 7-17 present the capital costs for the 2,000 TPD RDF and
the 2,000 TPD cofired RDF/wood model plants, respectively. Combustor capital
costs and itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control
option are presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is
$7,740,000 for both the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired
plant. The increases in APCD total capital costs over baseline for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3 are about 16, 100, and 250 percent for each model
plant, respectively. Total plant capital costs for Control Option 3, the
most expensive option, are about 14 percent more than the total plant capital
costs for both model plants at baseline.
Tables 7-18 and 7-19 present the annualized costs for both RDF plants.
These tables show total combustor annualized costs as well as itemized APCD
annualized costs associated with each control option. Total APCD
annualized costs for baseline are $2,500,000 for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and
$2,400,000 for the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant. The increase in APCD
annualized costs over baseline for Control Option 1 is about 10 percent
for both model plants. The increase in APCD annualized cost over baseline for
Control Option 2 is 180 percent for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and
160 percent for the RDF cofired plant. For Control Option 3, the
increase in APCD annualized costs over baseline is 260 percent for the
2,000 TPD RDF plant and 240 percent for the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant.
Total plant annualized costs for Control Option 3, the most expensive option,
are 16 and 18 percent more than the total plant annualized baseline costs for
the 2,000 TPD RDF and 2,000 TPD cofired RDF plants, respectively.
Tables 7-18 and 7-19 also present estimates of electrical and auxiliary
fuel requirements for the APCD's and combustors, respectively, for each
control option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is
2,340 MWh/yr for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant and 2,140 MWh/yr for the 2,000 TPD
7-21
-------
TABLE 7-16. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF MODEL PLANT (NO. 6)
(SlOOO's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Caoital Costa
135,000
135,000
135,000
135,000
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control'3
Acid gas control
Temperature control
4,580
0
0
5,510
0
0
4,040
1,390
903
15,100d
0
- Total APCD control
4,580
5,510
6,340
15,100
- Flue gas ducting and fan
1,010
1.010
1.640
1.320
Total Direct Costs
5,590
6,520
7,980
16,400
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
1,910
2,220
6,280
9,800
Monitoring Equipment0
240
240
1.150
1.150
Total APCD Capital Cost
7,740
8,980
15,400
27,400
Total Plant Capital Cost
142,740
143,980
150,400
162,400
aIncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet O2 monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-22
-------
TABLE 7-17. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF COFIRED MODEL PLANT (NO. 7)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
143,800
143,800
143,800
143,800
APCD Caoital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control'3
Acid gas control
Temperature control
4,580
0
0
5,510
0
0
4,040
1,390
903
15,10 0d
0
- Total APCD control
4,580
5,510
6,340
15,100
- Flue gas ducting and fan
1,010
1.010
1.640
1.320
Total Direct Costs
5,590
6,520
7,980
16,400
Indirect Costs and
Conti ngencies
1,910
2,220
6,280
9,800
Monitoring Equipment0
240
240
1.150
1.150
Total APCD Capital Cost
7,740
8,980
15,400
27,400
Total Plant Capital Cost
151,540
152,780
159,200
171,200
aIncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, CO monitor per combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0- monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-23
-------
TABLE 7-18. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2,000 TPD
RDF MODEL PLANT (NO. 6)
($],000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline 1 2 3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
- Supervision
- Maintenance labor
- Maintenance materials
- Electricity
- Compressed air
- Lime
- Water
- Waste disposal
- Monitoring equipment
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
- Taxes, insurance, and
admini stration
- Capital recovery
Total Indirect Costs
Total APCD Annualized Costs
Total Plant Annualized Costs
Energy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
13,800
13,800
13,800
13,800
1,670
1,670
1,670
1,670
17,800
17,800
17.800
17,800
33,200
33,200
33,200
33,200
48
48
216
192
7
7
76
29
26
26
105.
106,
75
87
485
463
108
141
421
532
0
0
66
76
0
0
1,030
853
0
0
18
18
793
801
1,210
1,349
33
33
429
429
1,090
1,150
4,060
4,050
94
101
450
393
300
350
570
1,050
1,020
1,190
2.030
3.600
1,410
1,630
3,050
5,040
2,500
2,780
7,100
9,090
35,700
35,980
40,300
42,290
2,340
3,060
9,170
11,580
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S0«, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0- monitors and
a data reduction system.
bCosts include annual cost of $134,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-24
-------
TABLE 7-19. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2,000 TPD
RDF COFIRED MODEL PLANT (NO. 7}
'51,000's in December 1987)
Control Potions
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
14,300
14,300
14,300
14,300
- Ash Disposal
1,850
1,850
1,850
1,850
- Capital Recovery
I9.9J0
19,910
18.910
18.910
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
35,070
35,070
35,070
35,070
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
48
48
216
192
- Supervision
7
7
76
29
- Maintenance labor
26
26
105.
106,
- Maintenance materials
75
87
473
451
- Electricity
98
128
385
484
- Compressed air
0
0
60
69
- Lime
0
0
536
445
- Water
0
0
16
16
- Waste disposal
704
711
924
997
- Monitoring equipment
33
33
429
429
Total Direct Costs
992
1,040
3,220
3,200
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
94
100
450
394
- Taxes, insurance, and
300
350
570
1,050
admini stration
- Capital recovery
1,0?0
1.180
2,030
3.600
Total Indirect Costs
1,410
1,630
3,050
5,040
Total APCD Annualized Costs
2,400
2,670
6,270
8,240
Total Plant Annualized Costs
37,470
37,740
41,340
43,310
Enerav Reauirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MVjh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
2,140
2,800
8,380
10,510
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include annual cost of $122,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-25
-------
RDF cofired plant. The APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2,
and 3 for each plant consume about 30, 290, and 390 percent more electricity
than those for baseline. Auxiliary fuel use for each control option is
the same as that for baseline. Auxiliary fuel consumption on a heat basis is
32.4 billion Btu/yr for both plants.
7.2.2 Environmental Impacts
Tables 7-20 and 7-21 present estimates of environmental impacts for the
control options for the 2,000 TPD RDF and the RDF cofired model plants,
respectively. Shown are emissions and emission reductions for CDD/CDF, CO,
PM, SOg, and HC1, and the increase in solid waste disposal associated with the
three control options.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced by 75 and
99 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed at
baseline. Particulate matter emissions are reduced by 80 percent over
baseline for each control option. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same
as baseline for Control Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same
as baseline for Control Option 1 and are are reduced by 80 and 97 percent
under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, the increase in total
solid waste from baseline is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1 for
both model plants. Total solid waste disposal for Control Options 2 and 3
increase by 17 and 15 percent over baseline for the 2,000 TPD RDF plant,
respectively. For the 2,000 TPD RDF cofired plant, total solid waste disposal
increases by 9 and 8 percent for Control Options 2 and 3 over baseline,
respectively.
7.3 MODULAR
Based on design and operating parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
three modular model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and the three
control options using cost procedures specifically for MWC applications.
7-26
-------
TABLE 7-20. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF MODEL PLANT (NO. 6)
. Control Options
Pollutant ' Baseline 1 2 3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
Mg/yr
% Reduction
1000
3.2E-3
1000
3.2E-3
0
250
8.0E-4
75
10
3.2E-5
99
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
100
369
100
369
0
100
369
0
100
369
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
0.05
364
0.01
73
80
0.01
73
80
0.01
73
80
SO^ Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
300
2,420
300
2,420
0
180
1,450
40
30
242
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
500
2,430
500
2,430
0
100
485
80
15
73
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
295
89,300
296
89,600
0.3
345
104,000
17
340
103,000
15
All flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0,,, dry basis.
3Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
"From baseline.
7-27
-------
TABLE 7-21. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 2,000 TPD RDF
COFIRED MODEL PLANT (NO. 7)
. Control Options
Pollutant ' Baseline 1
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3 1000 1000 250 10
Mg/yr 2.8E-3 2.8E-3 7.0E-4 2.8E-5
% Reduction - 0 75 99
CO Emissions:
ppmv 100 100 100 100
Mg/yr 328 328 328 328
% Reduction -000
PM Emissions;
gr/dscf 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mg/yr 323 65 65 65
% Reduction - 80 80 80
SO2 Emissions:
ppmv 150 150 90 15
Mg/yr 1,330 1,330 798 133
% Reduction0 - 0 40 90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv 250 250 50 8
Mg/yr 1,180 1,180 236 35
% Reduction - 0 80 97
Total Sol id Waste:
Tons/day 284 285 311 308
Mg/yr _ 86,000 86,300 94,000 93,200
% Increase - 0.3 9 8
aAl1 flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0,, dry basis.
h
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-28
-------
7.3.1 Modular/Excess Air
7.3.1.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-22 presents the capital costs
for the 240 TPD modular/excess air model plant. Combustor capital costs and
itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option are
presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is $1,310,000. The
increases in APCD total capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3
over baseline are 16, 100, and 270 percent, respectively. Total plant capital
cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 25 percent
more than the total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-23 presents the annualized costs for the 240 TPD modular/excess
air model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized costs as well
as itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control option.
Total APCD annualized cost for baseline is $332,000. The increases in APCD
annualized costs over baseline for Control Options 1, 2, and 3 are 14,
200, and 320 percent, respectively. Total plant annualized cost for Control
Option 3, the most expensive option, is 23 percent more than the total plant
annualized cost at baseline.
Table 7-23 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor, respectively, for each control
option. The APCD electrical requirement for baseline is 232 MWh/yr. The
APCD's associated with Control Options 1, 2, and 3 consume 50, 450, and
560 percent more electricity than baseline, respectively. Auxiliary fuel
consumed for baseline and all three control options is
3.9 billion Btu/year.
7.3.1.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-24 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to a
model 240 TPD modular/excess air plant. Shown are emissions and emission
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, SO^, and HC1, and increases in solid waste
disposal associated with each control option.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options because good
combustion is assumed to be practiced at baseline. Particulate emissions
7-29
-------
TABLE 7-22. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 240 TPD MODULAR/EXCESS
AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 8)
(SI000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseli ne
1
2
3
Total Combustor CaDital Costa
13,150
13,150
13,150
13,150
APCD CaDital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control^
Acid gas control
Temperature control
748
0
0
901
0
0
630
196
176
2,670d
0
- Total APCD control
748
901
1,000
2,670
- Flue gas ducting and fan
185
185
304
204
Total Direct Costs
930
1,090
1,310
2,870
Indirect Costs and
Contingencies
319
371
976
1,710
Monitoring Equipment*"
60
60
286
286
Total APCD Capital Cost
1,310
1,520
2,570
4,870
Total Plant CaDital Cost
14,460
14,670
15,720
18,020
includes costs for combustors, waste heat boiler, turbine, CO monitor per
combustor, and balance of plant.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO^, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0- monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-30
-------
TA8LE 7-23. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 240 TPD
MODULAR/EXCESS AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 8)
($1,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
2,030
2,030
2,030
2,030
- Ash Disposal
600
600
600
600
- Capital Recovery
1.730
1,730
1.730
1.730
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
4,360
4,360
4,360
4,360
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
12
12
54
48
- Supervision
2
2
8
7
- Maintenance labor
7
7
27h
26,
- Maintenance materials
13
15
71
74
- Electricity
11
16
59
71
- Compressed air
0
0
9
10
- Lime
0
0
87
72
- Water
0
0
2
2
- Waste disposal
38
39
74
85
- Monitoring equipment
8
8
107
107
Total Direct Costs
89
98
498
503
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
20
21
86
83
- Taxes, insurance, and
50
58
92
183
administration
- Capital recovery
173
200
337
640
Total Indirect Costs
243
279
515
906
Total APCD Annualized Costs
332
377
1,010
1,410
Total Plant Annualized Costs
4,690
4,740
5,370
5,770
Enerav Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
232
351
1,280
1,530
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
3,890
3,890
3,890
3,890
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02> inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0« monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include annual cost of $17,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-31
-------
TABLE 7-24. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 240 TPD
MODULAR/EXCESS AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 8)
Pollutanta,b
Control
Options
Baseline
1
2
3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
200
200
50
5
Mg/yr
6.2E-5
6.2E-5
1.6E-5
1.6E-6
% Reduction
-
0
75
98
CO Emissions:
ppmv
100
100
100
100
Mg/yr
40
40
40
40
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
Mg/yr
57
7
7
7
% Reduction
-
88
88
88
SOg Emissions:
ppmv
200
200
120
20
Mg/yr
174
174
105
17
% Reduction
-
0
40
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
500
500
100
15
Mg/yr
239
239
48
7
% Reduction
-
0
80
97
Total Sol id Waste:
Tons/day
77
77
81
80
Mg/yr
23,100
23,200
24,500
24,300
% Increase
•
0.2
6
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0-, dry basis.
L t
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-32
-------
emissions are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control
option. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Similarly, HC1 emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1 and are reduced by 80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3,
respectively. Finally, the increase in total solid waste disposal over
baseline is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1, 6 percent for Control
Option 2, and 5 percent for Control Option 3.
7.3.2 Modular/Starved Air
7.3.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Tables 7-25 and 7-26 present the
capital costs for the 50 and 100 TPD modular/starved air model plants,
respectively. Combustor capital costs and itemized capital costs for the
APCD's associated with each control option are presented. For the
50 TPD plant, no capital cost for APCD's is incurred at baseline. Total APCD
capital costs for Control Options 1, 2, and 3 are $819,000, $1,400,000,
and $2,790,000, respectively. Total APCD capital cost for PM control to
0.08 gr/dscf and temperature control to 450°F is $532,000. This is a level
less stringent than Option 1 which the other model plants meet at baseline.
Total plant capital cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is
220 percent more than the baseline total plant capital cost for the 50 TPD
plant at baseline. For the 100 TPD model plant, total APCD capital cost is
$372,000 at baseline. The increases in total APCD capital costs for Control
Options 1, 2, and 3 over baseline are 150, 340, and 740 percent,
respectively. Total plant capital cost for Control Option 3, the most
expensive option, is 50 percent more than the total plant capital cost
for the 100 TPD plant at baseline.
Tables 7-27 and 7-28 present the annualized costs for the 50 and 100 TPD
model plants, respectively. These tables show the total combustor annualized
costs as well as the itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each
control option. For the 50 TPD plant, no annualized cost for APCD's is
incurred at baseline. Total APCD annualized costs for Control Options 1,
2, and 3 are $197,000, $506,000, and $759,000, respectively. Total APCD
annualized cost for PM control to 0.08 gr/dscf and temperature control to
450°F is $142,000. Total plant annualized cost for Control Option 3, the
most expensive option, is 120 percent more than the total plant
7-33
-------
TABLE 7-25. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 50 TPD MODULAR/STARVED
AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 9)
(51000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
1,270
(l,270)d
1,270
1,270
1,270
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control^
0
(232 )d
482
258
Acid gas control
0
(0)
0
158
1,400e
Temperature control
0
(149)
149
149
149
- Total APCD control
0
(381)
631
565
1,550
- Flue gas ducting and fan
0
(33)
61
77
65
Total Direct Costs
0
(414)
692
642
1,610
Indirect Costs and
0
(57)
67
469
897
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
0
(60)
60
286
286
Total APCD Capital Cost
0
(532)
819
1,400
2,790
Total Plant Capital Cost
1,270
(1,800)
2,090
2,670
4,060
aIncludes the costs of a CO monitor per combustor and combustors.
kpM control equipment used for Control Option 1 is an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control Options 2
and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet Op monitors and
a data reduction system.
dCosts in parenthesis correspond to PM control at 0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent
O2 using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F using humidification. Other
model plants meet this control level at baseline.
Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-34
-------
TABLE 7-26. CAPITAL PLANT COSTS FOR 100 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 10)
($1000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
5,510
5,510
5,510
5,510
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control'1
265
581
340
A
Acid gas control
0
0
169
1,700°
Temperature control
0
0
147
0
- Total APCD control
265
581
656
1,700
- Flue gas ducting and fan
24
71
115
83
Total Direct Costs
289
652
771
1,780
Indirect Costs and
23
223
574
1,060
Contingencies
Monitoring Equipment0
60
60
286
286
Total APCD Capital Cost
372
935
1,630
3,130
Total Plant Capital Cost
5,880
6,450
7,140
8,640
alncludes the costs of a CO monitor per combustor, combustors, waste heat
boiler, and turbine.
kpM control equipment used for baseline and Control Option 1 is an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). PM control equipment used for Control
Options 2 and 3 is a fabric filter (FF).
cFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SOg, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-35
-------
TABLE 7-27. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 50 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 9)
(Sl.OOO's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
361
(361)
361
361
361
- Ash Disposal
78
(78)
78
78
78
- Capital Recovery
166
(166)
166
166
156
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
605
(605)
605
605
605
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
0
(12)b
12
34
34
- Supervision
0
(2)
2
6
6
- Maintenance labor
0
(8)
8
16r
21r
- Maintenance materials
0
(5)
8
31
36
- Electricity
0
(0)
1
15
15
- Compressed air
0
(0)
0
2
2
- Lime
0
(0)
0
11
9
- Water
0
(2)
2
3
3
- Waste disposal
0
(0)
0
5
6
- Monitoring equipment
0
(8)
8
107
107
Total Direct Costs
0
(37)
41
230
238
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
0
(15)
17
48
54
- Taxes, insurance, and
0
(19)
30
44
100
administration
- Capital recovery
0
(70)
108
184
367
Total Indirect Costs
0
(104)
155
276
521
Total APCD Annualized Costs
0
(142)
197
506
759
Total Plant Annualized Costs
605
(747)
802
1,110
1.350
Enerav Reauirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
0
(13)
38
334
322
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
810
(810)
810
810
810
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet O2 monitors and
a data reduction system.
^Costs in parenthesis correspond to PH control at 0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent
0- using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F using humidification. Othe>-
model plants meet this control level at baseline.
cCosts include annual cost of $5,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-36
-------
TABLE 7-28. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 100 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 10}
(SI,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance
- Ash Disposal
- Capital Recovery
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
859
250
725
1,830
859
250
725
1,830
859
250
725
1,830
859
250
725
1,830
- Operating labor
12
12
54
48
- Supervision
2
2
8
7
- Maintenance labor
7
7
ll
26,
- Maintenance materials
3
9
38
43
- Electricity
1
4
31
32
- Compressed air
0
0
4
4
- Lime
0
0
36
30
- Water
0
0
1
1
- Waste disposal
0
1
15
20
- Monitoring equipment
8
9
107
107
Total Direct Costs
33
42
321
319
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
14
17
72
70
- Taxes, insurance, and
12
35
54
114
administration
- Capital recovery
49
123
214
411
Total Indirect Costs
75
175
340
595
Total APCD Annualized Costs
108
217
661
914
Total Plant Annualized Costs
1,940
2,050
2,490
2,740
Enerav Reauirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
17
75
666
709
1,620
1,620
1,620
1,620
For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0~ monitors and
a data reduction system.
5Costs include annual cost of $7,000 for bag replacement (2-year life).
7-37
-------
annualized cost for the 50 TPD plant at baseline. For the 100 TPD model
plant, total APCD annualized cost is $108,000 at baseline. The increases in
total APCD annualized costs over baseline for Control Options 1, 2, and 3
are 100, 510, and 750 percent, respectively. Total plant annualized cost for
Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 41 percent more than the total
plant capital cost for the 100 TPD plant at baseline.
Tables 7-27 and 7-28 also present estimates of electrical and auxiliary
fuel requirements for the APCD's and combustors, respectively, for baseline
and each control option. The APCD electrical requirements for baseline
for the 50 and 100 TPD plants are 0 and 17 MWh/yr, respectively. The APCD's
associated with Control Options 2 and 3 consume about the same amount of
electricity for both model plants. Auxiliary fuel use for each control
option is the same as that for baseline for each model plant. Auxiliary
fuel consumed for the 50 and 100 TPD plants is 0.8 and 1.6 billion Btu/yr,
respectively.
7.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts. Tables 7-29 and 7-30 present estimates
of environmental impacts for each control option for the 50 and 100 TPD
modular/starved air model plants, respectively. Shown are emissions and
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, SO^, and HC1, and the increase in solid waste
disposal associated with the control options.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control
Option 1. For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are
reduced by 75 and 98 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond
baseline are expected for the three control options since all are assumed
to operate with good combustion practices. Particulate emissions emissions
are reduced by 88 percent over baseline for each control option. Sulfur
dioxide emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are
reduced by 40 and 90 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
Similarly, HCl emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1 and are
reduced by 80 and 97 percent under Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
Finally, the increase in total solid waste disposal over baseline for each
model plant is less than 0.5 percent for Control Option 1, 6 percent for
Control Option 2, and 5 percent for Control Option 3.
7-38
-------
TABLE 7-29. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 50 TPD
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO, 9)
Control Potions
Pollutant '
Baseline
I
2
3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm3
300
300
75
5
Mg/yr
1.2E-5
1.2E-5
3.0E-6
2.0E-7
% Reduction
-
0
75
98
CO Emissions:
ppmv
50
10
50
50
Mg/yr
3
3
3
3
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
0.10 (0.08)d
0.01
0.01
0.01
Mg/yr
9 (7)
1
I
1
% Reduction
-
88
88
88
SOg Emissions:
ppmv
200
200
120
20
Mg/yr
23
23
14
2
% Reduction
-
0
40
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
500
500
100
15
Mg/yr
31
31
6
1
% Reduction
-
0
80
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
15
15
16
15
Mg/yr
2,840
2,840
3,010
2,990
% Increase
**
0.3
6
5
aAl1 flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0,, dry basis.
h
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
^Numbers in parantheses for the intermediate control option of PM control to
0,08 gr/dscf at 7 percent 0« using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F
using humidification. Emissions for pollutants other than PM are the same
as baseline for this option.
7-39
-------
TABLE 7-30. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 100 TPO
MODULAR/STARVED AIR MODEL PLANT (NO. 10)
. Control Options
Pollutant ' Baseline 12 3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm"'
Mg/yr
7, Reduction
300
3.
9E-5
300
3.
0
9E-5
75
9.
75
7E-6
5
6.
98
5 E - 7
CO Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
50
8
50
8
0
50
8
0
50
8
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
Mg/yr
% Reduction
0.
24
.08
0.
3
88
.01
0.
3
88
.01
0.
3
88
01
SO^ Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
200
72
200
72
0
120
44
40
20
7
90
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
Mg/yr
% Reduction
500
100
500
100
0
100
20
80
15
3
97
Total Sol id Waste:
Tons/day
Mg/yr
% Increase
30
9,080
30
9,100
0.
, 2
32
9,630
6
32
9,560
5
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0-, dry basis.
Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom base!ine.
7-40
-------
7.4 F LUIDI ZED- BED COMBUSTION
Based on design and operation parameters presented in Table 2-3 for the
two FBC model plants, costs were estimated for baseline and the three control
options using cost procedures specifically for MWC applications.
7.4.1 Bubbling Bed F1uidized-Bed Combustor
7.4.1.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-31 presents the capital costs
for the 900 TPD bubbling bed FBC model plant. Combustor capital costs and
itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option are
presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is $3,780,000. The APCD
total capital cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases
12 and 230 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Total plant
capital cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 12 percent
more than the total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-32 presents the annualized costs for the 900 TPD bubbling bed FBC
model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized costs as well as
itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control option. Total
APCD annualized cost for baseline is 1,260,000. The total APCD annualized
cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases by 85 and
210 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Total plant annualized
cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 14 percent more than
the total plant annualized cost at baseline.
Table 7-32 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor for each control option. The APCD
electrical requirement for baseline is 3,900 MWh/year. The electrical
requirement for the APCD's associated with Control Options 1 and 2 are the
same as for baseline, and the APCD's for Control Option 3 use 14 percent more
electricity than baseline. Auxiliary fuel consumed for baseline and all three
control options is 14.6 billion Btu/year.
7.4.1.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-33 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to the
900 TPD bubbling bed FBC model plant. Shown are emissions and emission
reductions for CDD/CDF, CO, PM, S0£ and HC1, and solid waste disposal amounts
associated with each control option.
7-41
-------
TABLE 7-31. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 900 TPO FBC (BUBBLING BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 11)
($l,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Cabital Cost3
70,090
70,090
70,090
70,090
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control
1,980
1,980
1,980
C
Acid gas control (spray dryer)
0
0
0
6,940'
- Total APCD control
1,980
1,980
1,980
6,940
- Flue gas ducting and fan
470
470
470
439
Total Direct Costs
2,450
2,450
2,450
7,380
Indirect Costs and
1,210
1,210
1,210
4,400
Contingencies .
Monitoring Equipment
120
120
573
573
Total APCD Capital Cost
3,780
3,780
4,230
12,340
Total Plant Capital Cost
73,870
73,870
74,320
82,430
aIncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, and balance of plant.
^For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO-, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0? monitors and
a data reduction system.
cCosts include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-42
-------
TABLE 7-32. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 900 TPD FBC
(BUBBLING BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 11)
(SI,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenance*
8,260
8,260
8,260
8,260
- Ash Disposal
568
568
568
568
- Capital Recovery
9.220
9.220
9.220
9,220
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
18,050
18.,050
18,050
18,050
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
48
48
48
96
- Supervision
7
7
7
14
- Maintenance labor
26
26
26
53
- Maintenance materials
187
187
187
210'
- Electricity
179
179
179
204
- Compressed air
32
32
32
32
- Lime
0
0
0
122
- Limestone
0
0
480
320
- Water
0
0
0
3
- Waste disposal b
0
0
337
311
- Monitoring equipment
16
15
215
215
Total Direct Costs
496
496
1,510
1,580
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
122
122
122
186
- Taxes, insurance, and
146
146
146
471
administration
- Capital recovery
496
496
555
1 .620
Total Indirect Costs
764
764
823
2,280
Total APCD Annualized Costs
1,260
1,260
2,330
3,860
Total Plant Annualized Costs
19,300
19,300
20,380
21,910
Enerqy Requirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
3,900
3,900
3,900
4,440
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
14,580
14,580
14,580
14,580
aAlso includes the costs for electricity, water, overhead, and taxes,
insurance, and administrative charges.
^For PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet S02, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet O- monitors and
a data reduction system.
cCosts include annual cost of $65,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
^Costs include annual cost of $62,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
eFor baseline, and Control Option 1 cost of waste disposal attributed to the
APCD is included in the combustor ash disposal costs. Incremental waste
disposal costs beyond baseline are shown for Options 2 and 3.
7-43
-------
TABLE 7-33. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 900 TPD FBC
(BUBBLING BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 11)
Control Options
Pollutant '
Baseline
1
2
3
CDD/COF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
20
20
15
5
Mg/yr
2.87E-05
2.87E-05
2.15E-05
7.17E-06
% Reduction
-
0
25
75
CO Emissions:
ppmv
50
50
50
50
Mg/yr
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.5
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Mg/yr
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
SO2 Emissions:
ppmv
240
240
75
30
Mg/yr
914
914
286
114
% Reduction
-
0
69
89
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
350
350
100
10
Mg/yr
759
759
217
23
% Reduction
-
0
71
97
Total Solid Waste:
Tons/day
68
68
109
105
Mg/yr
20,600
20,600
32,850
31,880
% Increase
•
0
59
55
aAll flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent 0^, dry basis.
^Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-44
-------
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced only 25 and
3
75 percent, respectively; however the baseline level (20 ng/Nm ) is so low
relative to other model plants that only a 75 percent reduction is needed to
3
meet the 5 ng/Nm level associated with the most stringent option (Option 3)
for the other model plants. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed to
be practiced at baseline. Particulate emissions are the same for the three
control options as for baseline since for this plant, PM emissions are
controlled to 0.01 gr/dscf at baseline. Sulfur dioxide emissions are the sane
as baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced about 70 and 90 percent for
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. The percent SO2 control for Option 2
is higher than for other model plants (70 versus 40 percent) because the
furnance limestone injection technology used for FBC's under Option 2 removes
a greater proportion of SO2 than the duct sorbent injection technology used
for the other model plants under Option 2. Hydrogen chloride emissions are
the same as baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced by 70 and
97 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Finally, solid waste
disposal for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases by 59 and
55 percent over baseline for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
7.4.2 Circulating F1uidized-Bed Combustor
7.4.2.1 Costs and Energy Impacts. Table 7-34 presents the capital costs
for the 900 TPD circulating fluidized-bed FBC model plant. Combustor capital
costs and itemized costs for the APCD's associated with each control option
are presented. For baseline, total APCD capital cost is $3,780,000. The APCD
total capital cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and increases
by 12 and 230 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. Total plant
capital cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option, is 12 percent
more than total plant capital cost at baseline.
Table 7-35 presents the annualized costs for the 900 TPD circulating
fluidized-bed FBC model plant. This table shows total combustor annualized
costs as well as itemized APCD annualized costs associated with each control
option. Total APCD annualized cost for baseline is $1,260,000. The total
APCD annualized cost for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline, and
7-45
-------
TABLE 7-34. CAPITAL COSTS FOR 900 TPD FBC (CIRCULATING FLU IDIZ£D-BED)
MODEL PLANT (NO. 12) (Sl.OOO's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Total Combustor Capital Cost3
70,090
70,090
70,090
70,090
APCD Capital Cost
Direct Costs:
PM control
1,980
1,980
1,980
0
Acid gas control (spray dryer)
0
0
0
6,940'
- Total APCD control
1,980
1,980
1,980
6,940
- Flue gas ducting and fan
470
470
470
439
Total Direct Costs
2,450
2,450
2,450
7,380
Indirect Costs and
1,210
1,210
1,210
4,400
Contingencies .
Monitoring Equipment
120
m
573
573
Total APCD Capital Cost
3,780
3,780
4,230
12,340
Total Plant Capital Cost
73,870
73,870
74,320
82,430
aIncludes costs for combustors, primary shredders, magnetic separators,
cooling tower, turbine, and balance of plant.
^For PH control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO™, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 0- monitors and
a data reduction system.
cCosts include both a spray dryer system and a fabric filter for PM control.
7-46
-------
increases by 140 and 210 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
Total plant annualized cost for Control Option 3, the most expensive option,
is 14 percent more than the total plant annualized cost at baseline.
Table 7-35 also presents estimates of electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for the APCD's and combustor for each control option. The APCD
electrical requirement for baseline is 3,900 MWh/year. The APCD electrical
requirement for Control Options 1 and 2 are the same as baseline, and increase
by 14 percent for Control Option 3. Auxiliary fuel consumed for baseline and
all three control options is 14.6 billion Btu/year.
7.4.2.2 Environmental Impacts. Table 7-36 presents estimates of
environmental impacts for each of the three control options applied to the
900 TPD circulating fluidized-bed FBC model plant. Shown are emissions and
emission reductions for CDD/CDF, CO PM, SO2, and HC1 and solid waste disposal
amounts associated with each control option.
Total CDD/CDF emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1.
For Control Options 2 and 3, CDD/CDF emissions are reduced by 81 and
99 percent, respectively. No CO emission reductions beyond baseline are
expected for the three control options because good combustion is assumed to
be practiced at baseline. As with the bubbling bed FBC, particulate emissions
are the same for the three control options as for baseline. Sulfur dioxide
emissions are the same as baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced 94
and 88 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively, and are at or below
30 ppmv for both options. Hydrogen chloride emissions are the same as
baseline for Control Option 1, and are reduced by 86 and 97 percent for
Control Options 2 and 3, respectively. The high SO^ and HC1 percent
reductions for Option 2 (relative to other model plants) are due to the high
stoichiometric ratio of sorbent (limestone) to acid gas needed to achieve a
CDD/CDF level of 75 ng/Nm"' at the circulating fluidized-bed model plant.
Finally, solid waste disposal for Control Option 1 is the same as baseline,
and increases by 105 and 55 percent for Control Options 2 and 3, respectively.
7.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND ENERGY IMPACTS
Tables 7-37, 7-38, and 7-39 summarize the information on capital costs,
annualized costs, and electrical and auxiliary fuel requirements,
respectively, for the 12 model plants. Also shown are annual tonnages of
waste combusted by each model plant.
7-47
-------
TABLE 7-35. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR 900 TPD FBC
(CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED-BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 12)
(51,000's in December 1987)
Control Options
Baseline
1
2
3
Combustor Annualized Cost
- Operating and Maintenancea
8,260
8,260
8,260
8,260
- Ash Disposal
568
568
568
568
- Capital Recovery
9.220
9.220
9.220
9.220
- Total Combustor Annualized Costs
18,050
18,050
18,050
18,05C
APCD Annualized Cost
Direct Costs:
- Operating labor
48
48
48
96
- Supervision
7
7
7
14
- Maintenance labor
26
26
26
53
- Maintenance materials
187
187
187
210(
- Electricity
179
179
179
204
- Compressed air
32
32
32
32
- Lime
0
0
0
122
- Limestone
0
0
881
320
- Water
0
0
0
3
- Waste disposal b
0
0
595
311
- Monitoring equipment
1$
16
215
215
Total Direct Costs
496
496
2,170
1,580
Indirect Costs:
- Overhead
122
122
122
186
- Taxes, insurance, and
146
146
146
471
admini stration
- Capital recovery
496
496
555
1.620
Total Indirect Costs
764
764
823
2,280
Total APCD Annualized Costs
1,260
1,260
2,990
3,850
Total Plant Annualized Costs
19,300
19,300
21,040
21,910
Enerav Retirements
- APCD Electrical Use (MWh/yr)
3,900
3,900
3,900
4,440
- Auxiliary Fuel Use (10 Btu/yr)
14,580
14,580
14,580
14,580
aAlso includes the costs for electricity, water, overhead, and taxes,
insurance, and administrative charges.
bFor PM control, monitoring equipment includes opacity monitor and data
reduction system. For PM/acid gas control, monitoring equipment Includes
opacity, inlet/outlet SO^, inlet/outlet HC1, and inlet/outlet 02 monitors and
a data reduction system.
cCosts include annual cost of $65,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
^Costs include annual cost of $62,000 for bag replacement (2 year life).
eFor baseline, and Control Option 1 cost of waste disposal attributed to the
APCD is included in the combustor ash disposal costs. Incremental waste
disposal costs beyond baseline are shown for Options 2 and 3.
7-48
-------
TABLE 7-36. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR 900 TPO FBC
(CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED-BED) MODEL PLANT (NO. 12)
Control Options
Pollutant '
Baseline
]
2
3
CDD/CDF Emissions:
ng/Nm^
400
400
75
5
Mg/y r
5.74E-4
5.74E-4
1.08E-4
7.17E-6
% Reduction
-
0
81
99
CO Emissions:
ppmv
100
100
100
100
Mg/yr
83
83
83
83
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
PM Emissions:
gr/dscf
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Mg/yr
33
33
33
33
% Reduction
-
0
0
0
SOj Emissions:
ppmv
240
240
15
30
Mg/yr
914
914
57
114
% Reduction
-
0
94
88
HC1 Emissions:
ppmv
350
350
50
10
Mg/yr
759
759
108
23
% Reduction
-
0
86
97
Total Sol id Waste:
Tons/day
68
68
140
105
Mg/yr
20,600
20,600
42,210
31,880
% Increase
0
105
55
aA11 flue gas concentrations are reported on a 7 percent O2, dry basis.
^Mass emission rates are for entire model plant.
cFrom baseline.
7-49
-------
TABLE 7-37. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR NEW MWC MODEL PLANTS
Model Plant Capital Cost (S1000)
No.
Type3
TPYb
Baseline
1
2
3
1
MB/WW
41,700
19,720
19,880
20,820
23,800
2
MB/WW
267,000
53,150
53,630
56,520
62,020
3
MB/WW
750,000
116,900
118,200
124,700
135,200
4
MB/REF
167,000
40,430
41,050
43,210
49,250
5
MB/RC
350,000
73,270
73,810
77,090
84,740
6
RDF
667,000
142,740
143,980
150,400
162,400
7
RDF (Cofired)
667,000
151,540
152,780
159,200
171,200
8
MI/EA
80,000
14,460
14,670
15,720
18,020
9
MI/SA
10,400
u
0 0
K 0
CM GO
2,090
2,670
4,060
10
MI/SA
33,000
5,880
6,450
7,140
8,640
11
FBC (BB)
300,000
73,870
73,870
74,320
82,430
12
FBC (CFB)
300,000
73,870
73,870
74,430
82,430
MB/WW = mass burn/waterwal1.
MB/REF = mass burn/refractory.
MB/RC - mass burn/rotary combustor.
RDF - refuse-derived fuel.
MI/EA =¦ modular incinerator/excess air.
MI/SA * modular incinerator/starved air.
FBC = fluidized bed combustion.
BB 3 bubbling bed
CFB = circulating fluidized-bed
^TPY = tons per year.
cCost in parentheses corresponds to PM control at 0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent
0£ using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F using humidification.
7-50
-------
TABLE 7-38. SUMMARY OF ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR NEW MWC MODEL PLANTS
Model Plant Annualized Cost ($1,000)
No.
Type*
TPYb
Baseline
1
2
3
1
MB/WW
41,700
5,280
5,310
5,950
6,470
2
MB/WW
0
267,000
15,200
15,310
17,000
17,930
3
MB/WW
750,000
32,860
33,160
37,000
38,780
4
MB/REF
167,000
12,600
12,730
14,110
15,170
5
MB/RC
350,000
20,620
20,730
22,900
24,180
6
RDF
667,000
35,700
35,980
40,300
42,290
7
RDF (Cofired)
667,000
37,470
37,740
41,340
43,310
8
MI/EA
80,000
4,690
4,740
5,370
5,770
9
Ml/SA
10,400
605
(747)
802
1,110
1,360
10
MI/SA
33,000
1,940
2,050
2,490
2,740
11
FBC (BB)
300,000
19,300
19,300
20,380
21,910
12
FBC (CFB)
300,000
19,300
19,300
21,040
21,910
MB/WW ¦ mass burn/waterwal1.
MB/REF = mass burn/refractory.
MB/RC - mass burn/rotary combustor.
RDF - refuse-derived fuel.
MI/EA - modular incinerator/excess air.
MI/SA - modular incinerator/starved air.
FBC - fluidized bed combustion.
BB - bubbling bed
CFB » circulating fluidized-bed
^TPY = tons per year.
cCost in parentheses corresponds to PM control at 0.08 gr/dscf at 7 percent
O^ using an ESP and temperature control to 450 F using humidification.
7-51
-------
TABIE
7-39. SUMMARY
OF ELECTRICAL
. AND AUXILIARY FUEL
REQUIREMENTS FOR NEU MUC MODEL
PLANTS
Model Plant
Electrical Requirement (MUh/vr)
Aux iIi ary
Fuel Requirement (10^
Btu/yr)
No.
. a
Type
TPYb
Baseline
1
2
3
Baseline
1
2
3
1
MB/UU
41,700
110
167
785
820
3,240
3,240
3,240
3,240
2
MB/UU
267,000
787
1,070
3,640
4,560
12,960
12,960
12,960
12,960
3
MB/UU
750,000
2,210
3,000
9,640
12,430
36,450
36,450
36,450
36,450
4
MB/REF
167,000
698
1,060
3,600
4,510
8,100
8,100
8,100
8,100
5
HB/RC
350,000
882
1,200
4,260
5,160
17,010
17,010
17,010
17,010
6
ROF
667,000
2,340
3,060
9,170
11,580
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
7
ROF (Co-fired)
667.000
2,140
2,800
8,380
10,510
32,400
32,400
32,400
32,400
8
HI/EA
80,000
232
351
1,280
1,530
3,890
3,890
3,890
3,890
9
MI/SA
10,400
0
(13)C
38
334
322
810
(810)C
810
810
810
10
MI/SA
33,000
17
75
666
709
1,620
1,620
1,620
1,620
11
FBC (BB)
300,000
3,900
3,900
3,900
4,440
14,580
14,580
14,580
14,580
12
FBC (CFB)
300,000
3,900
3,900
3,900
4,440
14,580
14.580
14,580
14,580
aMB/UU = mass burn/waterual I.
MB/REF = mass burn/refractory.
MB/RC = mass burn/rotary combustor.
RDF = refuse-derived fuel.
HI/EA = modular incinerator/excess air.
HI/SA = modular incinerator/starved air.
FBC = fluidized bed combustion.
BB = bubbling bed
CFB = circulating fluidized-bed
TPY = tons per year.
cElectrical and auxiliary fu.i requirements correspond to PH control at 0.08 gr/dscf using an ESP and temperature control to
450 F using humidification.
-------
8. REFERENCES
1. Seeker, W.R., W. S. Lanier and M.P. Heap. (EERC). Municipal Waste
Combustion Study: Combustion Control of MSW Combustors to Minimize
Emission of Trace Organics. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1987. EPA/530-SW-87-021c.
2. Energy and Environmental Research Corporation. Municipal Waste
Combustion Assessment: Combustion Control at New Facilities. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
August, 1989. EPA-600/8-89-057.
3. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 114 Survey Responses Received
from Existing MWC Facilities. 1988.
4. Morris, Glenn E., et. al. (Research Triangle Institute). Economic
Impact of Air Pollutant Emission Regulations for New Municipal Waste
Combustors. (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). August, 1989.
5. Wertz, K. L. (Radian Corporation). Planned and Projected Municipal Waste
Combustors Profile Update. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Task 11/Subtask 02. May 18, 1988.
27 pp.
6. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information
for Proposed Standards: Cost Procedures. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
July, 1989. EPA-450/3-89-27a.
7. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustors - Background Information
for Proposed Standards: Post Combustion Technology Performance.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC. August, 1989. EPA-450/3-89-27c.
8. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Cost of Flue Gas Cleaning
Technologies. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA/530-SW-87-021o. June 1987.
9. Telecon. Stevenson, W., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with
William Wiley, Consumat. 111(b) Model Plants. May 23, 1988.
8-1
-------
TABLE A-]. CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COST PROCEDURES FOR MODULAR MWC'sa'b
Capital Costs
1. Modular MWC without heat recovery:
Unit Capital Cost - $24,300 per ton/day of MSW processed
2. Modular MWC producing steam (without generating electricity):
Unit Capital Cost = $32,500 per ton/day of MSW processed
3. Modular MWC generating electricity:
Unit Capital Cost = $54,600 per ton/day of MSW processed
4. Total Capital Costs = Unit Capital Costs * TPD
Annualized Costs
1. Operating and Maintenance Costs excluding waste disposal:
For TPD < 150 and HRS < 6,000,
Costs - (10 - 0.23 TPD + 0.006 HRS) * Total Capital Costs/100
Otherwi se,
Costs = (15.7 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
2. Capital Recovery:
Costs = CRF * Total Capital Costs
3. Waste Disposal of Bottom Ash:
Costs = 1_ * |100I'QWR ] * TPD * HRS * WDC
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
^TPD = plant MSW feed rate, tons/day
HRS = hours of operation
CRF = capital recovery factor, 0.1315 based on 10 percent interest rate and
15-year economic life
WR - weight reduction of MSW in the combustor, percent
WDC = waste disposal cost rate, dollars per ton (typically $25/ton)
A-1
-------
TABLE A-2. CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS PROCEDURES FOR MASS BURN MWC'sa,b
Capital Costs (dollars per ton/day of MSW processed)
1. Mass burn MWC without electrical generation:
3. Total Capital Costs = Unit Capital Cost * TPD
Annualized Costs
1. Operating and Maintenance Costs excluding waste disposal:
For mass burn refractory wall MWC,
Costs - (15.7 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
For mass burn waterwall MWC,
Costs = (12.5 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
2. Capital Recovery
Costs = CRF * Total Capital Costs
3. Waste Disposal of Bottom Ash:
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
L.
Size = combustor MSW feed rate, tons/day
TPD = plant MSW feed rate, tons/day
HRS = hours of operation
CRF = Capital recovery factor, 0.1315 based on 10 percent interest rate and
15-year economic 1ife
WR * weight reduction MSW in the combustor percent
WDC = waste disposal cost rate, dollars per ton (typically $25/ton)
Unit Capital Costs = 50,420 (430/Size)0"^
2. Mass burn MWC with electrical generation:
Unit Capital Costs = 60,700 (430/Size)^'^
A-2
-------
TABLE A-3. CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COST PROCEDURES FOR RDF FACILITIES*'5
Capital Costs (dollars per ton/day of RDF processed)
1. Coarse RD facility:
Unit Capital Costs = 73,600 (400/Size)0'39
2. Fluff RDF facility:
Unit Capital Costs = 161,880 (315/Size)^'^
3. Total Capital Costs = Unit Capital Costs * TPD
Annuali zed Costs
1. Operating and Maintenance Costs excluding waste disposal
Costs = (12.5 - 0.00115 TPD) * Total Capital Costs/100
2. Capital Recovery:
Costs = CRF * Total Capital Costs
3. Waste Disposal of Bottom Ash:
Costs = i_ * |l00_z_WR j * TPD * hrs * WDC
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
^Size = combustor RDF feed rate, tons/day
TPD = plant MSW feed rate, tons/day
CRF = capital recovery factor, 0.1315 based on 10 percent interest rate and
15-year economic life
WR = weight reduction of MSW in the combustor, percent
HRS = hours of operation
WDC « waste disposal cost rate, dollars per ton (typically $25/ton)
A-3
-------
TABLE A-4. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL COSTS FOR NEW FBC'S
(December 1987 dollars)
Total Direct and Indirect Costs:a
Costs, 103$ - 64,900 * TPD * (900/TPD)0-39
Process Contingency: 20% of total direct and indirect costs
Total Capital FBC Costs: Total direct and indirect costs + process
conti ngency
aTPD ¦ plant municipal waste feed rate, tons/day.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-5. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR FBC'S
(December 1987 dollars)
Combustor and Balance of Plant (excludes coarse RDF processing area):
Operating labor (based on 10 man-years. 40 hours/week. S12/hr):
OL = 10 * 40 * 52 * 12 * (TPD/900) = 277.3 * TPD
Supervision (based on 3 man-years/year. 40 hours/week. 30% wage rate
premium over the operating labor wage):
SPRV - 3 * 40 * 52 * 12 * 1.3 * (TPD/900) = 108.2 * TPD
Maintenance labor (based on 3 man-years/year. 40 hours/week. 10% wage
rate premium over the operating labor wage):
ML = 3 * 40 * 52 * 12 * 1.1 * (TPD/900) - 91.5 * TPD
Maintenance materials: 3% of the total capital costs
Electricity (based on 3 MM power consumption, and electricity rate of
S0.046/kwh):
ELEC = 0.153 * TPD * HRS
Limestone (based on S40/ton for limestone):
LIMESTONE =* 0.02 * LFEED * HRS * N
Water (based on 3% blowdown rate and $0.05/1.000 gal):
WC = 1.86 x 10"6 * STM * HRS
Waste disposal (based on tipping fee of $25/hr):
AD « 1.25 x 10"2 * N * HRS * WDR
Overhead: 60% of the sum of all labor costs (operating, supervisory,
and maintenance) plus 60% of maintenance materials costs
Continued
-------
TABLE A-5. (CONCLUDED). PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
FOR FBC'S (December 1987 dollars)
Coarse RDF Processing Area:
Total Operating and Maintenance Costs (TOT O&M):
TOT O&M - 4.4 x 10"4 * (12.5 - 0.00115 * TPD) * TDI
Taxes, Insurance, and Administrative Charges:
4% of the total capital cost
Capital Recovery (based on 15 year life and 10% interest rate):
13.15% of the total capital cost
OL = operating labor costs, S/yr
SPRV - supervision costs, $/yr
ML = maintenance labor costs, $/yr
ELEC = electricity costs, $/yr
HRS = hours of operation per year
LIMESTONE = limestone costs, $/yr
LFEED = limestone feed rate per unit, Ib/hr
N = number of combustors
WC = water costs, S/yr
STM = plant steam production, Ib/hr
AD = waste disposal costs, $/yr
WDR = waste disposal rate per unit (bottom and fly ash collected), Ib/hr
TPD * plant municipal waste feed rate, tons/day
TDI = total direct and indirect capital costs for FBC plant, $
A-6
-------
TABLE A-6. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL. COSTS
FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS (ESP'S)a'°
Design Equation for Massburn and RDF Facilities:
SCA - -189.29 In
HOP - PMEFF)
101.09
Design Equation for Modular Units:
• Use above design equation for large modular units whose flue gas
flowrate (Q) is greater than or equal to 30,000 acfm
• For small modular units whose Q < 30,000
SCA = -285.7 In
(100 - PMEFF)
79.6
Purchased Equipment Costs
ESP for Massbuicn and RDF plants and large modular plants'
Costs, 10J $ = (305.2 + 0.00738 * TPA) * N
ESP for small modular plants (Q < 30,000)c:
Costs, 10J $ = 1.08 * (96.3 + 0.015 * TPA) * N
Ductwork: - n c
Costs, 10* $ = 0.7964 * N * Qu,:3
Fan:
Costs, 103 $ = 1.077 * N * Q0,96
Installation Direct Costs
= 67% of purchased equipment costs for new ESP
(continued)
A-7
-------
TABLE A-6. (Continued)
Indirect Costs
= 54% of purchased equipment costs for massburn, RDF, and large modular
units with new ESP
« $14,000 for small modular units with new ESP
Conti nqencv
= 3% of purchased equipment costs
Total Capital Costs
= Purchased equipment costs + installation direct costs +
indirect costs + contingency costs
aCosts are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
kpMEFF - particulate matter removal efficiency, percent
SCA « specific collection area, ft /I,000 acfm
Q = 125 percent of the actual flue gas flowrate per ESP unit, acfm
TPA = total plate area, ft
N = number of ESP units
L » duct length, feet
clncludes taxes and freight of eight percent of the ESP equipment costs.
A-8
-------
3. b
TABLE A-7. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR ESP's
Operating Labor (Based on 1 manhour/shift. labor wage of S12/hr): OL = 1.5 * N * HRS
Supervision: 15% of the operating labor cost (OL)
Maintenance Labor (Based on 0.5 manhour/shift. 10% wage rate premium over the operating labor wage): ML = 0.825 * N * HRS
Maintenance Materials: 1% of the direct capital costsc
Electricity for I.p. fan (Based on 0.5 inch pressure drop U.C. and electricity rate of t0.0A6/kwh): FANELEC = A.50 * 10 ' * FLU * N * HRS
2 -8
Electricity Consumed by ESP (Based on 1.5 watts/ft collection area and electricity rate of t0.0A6/kwh): ESPELEC = 6.9 x 10 * TPA * N * HRS
Ash Disposal (Based on tipping fee of t25/ton): AD = 1.25 x 10 ^ * N * HRS * WDR
j, Overhead: 60X of the sum of all labor costs (operating, supervisory, and maintenance) plus 60X of maintenance materials costs
i
iO
Taxes. Insurance, and Administrative Charges: 4% of the total capital costs
Capital Recovery (Based on 15 year life and IPX interest rate): 13.15X of the total capital costs
aAll costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
OL = operating labor costs, $/yr
N = number of ESP units
HRS = hours of operation
ML = maintenance labor costs, $/yr
FANELEC = electricity costs for I.D. fan, $/yr
ESPELEC = electricity costs for ESP, $/yr
FLU = actual flue gas flourate per unit, acfm
AD = ash disposal costs, $/yr
UDR = waste disposal rate per unit, (b/hr
cDirect capital costs are the sum of purchase equipment costs and installation direct costs.
-------
TABLE A-8.
Purchased Equipment Costs. 103 $
1. Lime Storage Silo with Vibrator. Baghouse. and Flow Control Value (Based on 15-day lime supply)
o For storage volumes (V) less than or equal to 2,300 ft3 (one storage silo per plant).
Costs = 1.05 * (34.2 ~ 0.016V)
o For storage volumes between 2,300 and 4,600 ft3 (two storage silos per plant).
Costs = 2.10 * (34.2 ~ 0.016V)
o For storage volume greater than 4,600 ft3 (two storage silos per plant).
Costs = 2.10 * (63 ~ 0.0038V)
2. Feed Bins
o For duct sorbent injection (one feed bin per combustor).
Costs = 0.0906 * N * (SF)0"61'15
o For furnace sorbent injection (two feed bins per combustor),
2 Costs = 0.1812 * N * (SF)0-6U5
3. Gravimetric Feeders
o For duct sorbent injection (one feeder per combustor).
Costs = 1.024 * (0.000289 SF ~ 9.293) * N
o For furnace sorbent injection (two feeders per combustor).
Costs = 2.048 * (0.000289 SF ~ 9.293) * N
4. Pneumatic Conveyor (Based on 400 Feet Length)
Costs = 1.05 * (26.4 ~ 0.0073 SF ~ 0.4 * [12.8 * 11.23 SF0'23]) N
5. Injection Ports
o For duct sorbent injection (one injection port per combustor),
Costs = 1.05 * (22.2 ~ 0.0014 SF) * N
o For furnace sorbent injection (two injection ports per combustor).
Costs = 2.10 * (22.2 ~ 0.0014 SF) * N
(cont i nued)
-------
TABIF A-8. (Continued)
6. Reactor Vessel (optional for duct sorbent injection to increase flue gas and sorbent contact): Costs = 34 * (0 • 1.25/6,150)"'^
7. Fabr i c F iIterC
Costs = 0.1482 * N * qO.7043
8. Induced Draft Fan
Costs = (1.167 • N * O°-96)/1,000
9. Ductwork
Costs = (0.8627 * N * L * 0°"5)/1,000
Installation Direct Costs
= 30% of dry sorbent injection equipment costs ~ 72* of fabric filter and auxiliary equipment costs
Indirect Costs
x>
i = 33% of direct costs (equipment ~ installation costs) for dry sorbent injection ~
^ 42% of equipment cost for the fabric filter and auxiliary equipment
Cont i nqency
= 50* of the sum of direct and indirect costs
Total Capital Costs
= Total Direct Costs ~ Indirect Costs ~ Contingency Costs
aA11 costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
^SF = lime feed rate per unit, Ib/hr
0 = 125 percent of the actual flue gas flowrat^ to the fabric filter per unit, acfm
V = lime storage silo volume for the plant, ft
N = number of units
L = duct length, feet
CFabric filters are used for new applications.
-------
a, b
TABLE A-9. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR DRY SORBENT INJECTION
Operating Labor (Based on 2 manhours/shift. wage of S12/hr): OL = 3.0 * N * HRS
Supervi s i on: 15X of the operating labor cost (OL)
Maintenance Labor: (Based on 0.5 manhour/shift. 10X wage rate premium over the operating labor wage): ML = 0.825 * N * HRS
Maintenance Materials: 5% of the direct capital costs of the sorbent injection equipment0
Electricity (Based on electricity rate of $0.0A6/kwh): ELEC = 5.25 * 10 ' * (251,850 ~ 52.56 * SF) * N * HRS
Lime: (Based on $80/ton for hydrated lime and acid gas stoichiometric ratio of 2:1): LIME = 0.04 * SF * N * HRS
Overhead: 60X of the sum of all labor costs (operating, supervisory, and maintenance) plus 60X of maintenance materials costs
Taxes. Insurance, and Administrative Charges: 4X of the total capital costs
i—•
ro
Capital Recovery (Based on 15 year life and 10X interest rate): 13.15X of the total capital costs
aAll costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
OL = operating labor costs, $/yr
N = number of units
HRS = hours of operation
ML = maintenance labor costs, $/yr
ELEC = dry sorbent injection electricity costs, $/yr
SF = lime feed rate per unit, Ib/hr
LIME = lime costs, $/yr
cDirect capital costs are the sum of purchase equipment costs and installation direct costs.
-------
a, b
TABLE A-10. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR FABRIC FILTERS
Operating Labor (Based on 2 manhours/shift. uage of S12/hr): OL = 3.0 * N * HRS
Supervision: 15X of the operating labor cost (OL)
Haintenance Labor: (Based on 1 manhour/shift. 10X wage rate premium over the operating labor wage): ML = 1.65 * N * HRS
Maintenance Materials: 5X of the direct capital costs of both the fabric filter and auxiliary equipment0
Bag Replacement: (Based on t1.35/ft^. gross air-to-cloth ratio of 3:1. 2 year bag life, and 10X interest rate): BAG = 0.2593 * 0 * N
-L
Electricity (Based on 12.5 inches U.C. pressure drop and electricity rate of t0.046/kwh): ELEC = 1.12 x 10 * FLU * N * HRS
Compressed Air (Based on 2 scfm of air/1.000 acfm flue gas and tO.17/1.000 scfm for compressed air): AIR = 2.01 x 10 * FLU * N * HRS
^ - 2
Ash Disposal (Based on tipping fee of t25/ton): AD = 1.25 x 10 * N * HRS * UDR
CO
Overhead: 60X of the sum of all labor costs (operating, supervisory, and maintenance) plus 60X of maintenance materials costs
Taxes. Insurance, and Administrative Charges: 4X of the total capital costs
Capital Recovery (Based on 15 year life and 10% interest rate): 13.15% of the total capital costs
SA11 costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
OL = operating labor costs, S/yr
N = number of units
HRS = hours of operation
ML = maintenance labor costs, $/yr
BAG = bag replacement costs, t/yr
0 = 125 percent of the inlet flue gas flourate per unit, acfm
FLU = actual flue gas flourate per unit, acfm
ELEC = electricity costs, $/yr
AIR = compressed air costs, t/yr
UDR = ash disposal rate from fabric filter per unit, Ib/hr
Q
Direct capital costs are the sum of the purchase equipment costs and installation direct costs.
-------
TABLE A-11. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL COSTS OF STANDALONE
SPRAY DRYER AND SPRAY DRYER/FABRIC FILTERS3,D
Direct Costs
SD/FF Unitc: Costs, 103 $ - 8.053 * N * (Q)0,517
Stand-Alone SD Unit: Costs, 103 $ - 8.428 * N * (Q)0,460
Ductwork0: Costs, 103 $ = (1.3868 * N * L * Q°* 5)/l,000
Fanc: Costs, 103 $ - (1.8754 * N * Q°-96)/l,000
Indirect Costs = 33% of direct costs
Contingency = 20% of sum of direct and indirect costs
Total Capital Investment = Direct Costs + Indirect Costs + Contingency Costs
aAll costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
bQ - 125% of the actual flue gas flowrate, acfm
N = number of units
L = Duct length per unit, feet
cThe total installed costs are assumed to be 133 percent of the direct capital
costs.
A-14
-------
TABLE A-12. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR ST^ND- ALONE SPRAY DRYERS
AND SPRAY DRYER/FABRIC FILTERS '
Operating Labor for SD/FF (Based on A manhours/shift. labor wage of $12/hr): OL = 6.0 * N * HRS
Operating Labor for SD (Based on 2 manhours/shift. labor wage of $12/hr): OL = 3.0 * N * HRS
Supervision: 15X of the operating labor cost (OL)
Maintenance Labor for SD/FF: (Based on 2 manhours/shift. 10% wage rate premium over the operating labor wage): ML = 3.3 * N * HRS
Maintenance Labor for SD: (Based on 1 manhour/shift. 10% wage rate premium over the operating labor wage): ML = 1.7 • N • HRS
Maintenance Materials: 2% of the total direct capital costs
Bag Replacement for SD/FF: (Based on $1.35/ft^. gross air-to-cloth ratio of 3:1. 2 year bag life, and 10% interest rate): BAG = 0.2593 * Q * N
J»
I
tn Electricity for I.D. Fan for SD/FF (Based on 12.5 inches U.C. pressure drop and electricity rate of $0.046/kwh): FANELEC = 1.12 x 10 ^ * FLU
• N • HRS
Electricity for I.D. Fan for SD (Based on 5.5 inches U.C. pressure drop and electricity rate of $0.046/kwh): FANELEC = 4.93 k 10 ^ * FLU * N * HRS
Electricity for Atomizer (Based on 6 kw per 1,000 Ib/hr
of slurry feed ~ 15 kw and electricity rate of $0.046/kuh): ATELEC = 0.046 * (0.006 * (SF ~ UTR) ~ 15) * N * HRS
Electricity for Pump (Based on 20 feet of pumping height, .
10 psi discharge pressure. 10 ft/sec velocity in piping): PUMPELEC = 1.291 X 10 * (SF ~ UTR) * N * HRS
Compressed Air for SD/FF (Based on 2 scfm of air/1.000 acfm flue gas and $0.17/1.000 scfm for compressed air): AIR = 2.01 x 10 * FLU " N * HRS
Uater: (Based on Flue gas cooling to 300°F and $0.50/1.000 gal): UC = 6.00 * 10 ^ ' UTR * N * HRS
Lime: (Based on $70/ton for quick lime and acid qas stoichiometric ratio of 2.5:1): LIME = 0.035 * SF * H * HRS
Where SF = 56 * (SO IN/64 ~ HCLIN/74) * CARAT 10
0.9
7cont i nucd)
-------
TABLE A-12. (Continued)
Ash Disposal for SD/FF (Based on tipping fee of S25/ton): AD = 1.25 x 10 ^ * N * HRS * WDR
Overhead: 60X of the sum of all labor costs (operating, supervisory, and maintenance) plus 60X of maintenance materials costs
Taxes. Insurance, and Administrative Charges: UX of the total capital costs
Capital Recovery (Based on 15 year life and 10% interest rate): 13.1SX of the total capital costs
aAll costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
OL
= operating labor costs, S/yr
N
= number of units
HRS
= hours of operation
HL
= maintenance labor costs, $/yr
BAG
= bag replacement costs, $/yr
0
= 125 percent of the actual flue gas flowrate to the fabric filter per unit, acfm
FLW
= actual flue gas flowrate to the fabric filter per unit, acfm
SF
= lime feed rate per unit, Ib/hr
UTR
= water rate per unit, Ib/hr
FANELEC
= electricity costs for the fan, $/yr
ATELEC
= electricity costs for the atomizer, $/yr
PUMPELEC
= electricity costs for the the pumps, S/yr
AIR
= compressed air costs, $/yr
UC
= water costs, S/yr
LIME
= lime costs, $/yr
AD
- ash disposal costs, S/yr
UDR
= waste disposal rate, Ib/hr
SO. 1 N
HCTIN
= inlet spray dryer S0? emissions, Ib/hr
= inlet spray dryer HCT emissions, Ib/hr
CARATIO
= acid gas stoichiometric ratio (2.5)
-------
TABLE A-13. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL COSTS FOR HUMIDIFI CATIONa'b
Purchased Equipment Costs. 10^ S
1. Humidification Chamber and Pumps:
Costs = (0.438 * Q + 80,220) N/1,000
2. Ductwork:
Costs = (1.16 * L * Q0,5) * N/1,000
Installation Direct Costs = 56% of Purchase Equipment Costs
Indirect Costs = 32% of Purchase Equipment Costs
Contingency = 3% of the Purchase Equipment Costs
Total Capital Costs = Purchased Equipment Costs +
Installation Direct Costs + Indirect Costs
= 191% of Purchase Equipment Costs
aAll costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
= 125% of the actual flue gas flowrate, acfm
L = duct length per unit, feet
N = number of units
A-17
-------
a b
TABLE A-K. PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR HUMID I F I CAT I ON
Operating Labor (Based on 0.5 manhours/shift. labor wage of $12/hr): OL = 0.75 * N * MRS
Supervision: 15% of the operating labor cost (OL)
Maintenance Labor: (Based on 0.5 manhour/shift. 10% wage premium over the operating tabor wage): Ml = 0.825 * N * MRS
Maintenance Materials: IX of the total capital costs
Electricity for Pumps0 (Based on 20 feet of pumping height, 100 psi discharge .
pressure. 10 ft/sec velocity in piping, and electrical rate of $0.046/lcwh): ElEC = 7.3 X 10 * N * HRS * WTR
Water (Based on $0.50/1.000 gal)c: UC = 6.0 x 10'5 * WTR * N * HRS
Overhead: 60X of the sum of all labor costs (operating, supervisory, and maintenance) plus 60% of maintenance materials costs
Taxes. Insurance, and Administrative Charges: 4X of the total capital costs
Capital Recovery (Based on 15 year life and 10X interest rate): 13.15% of the total capital costs
aA11 costs are estimated in December 1987 dollars.
^OL = operating labor costs, $/yr
N = number of units
HRS = hours of operation
ML = maintenance labor costs, $/yr
WTR = water injection rate, Ib/hr
ELEC = electricity costs, S/yr
WC = water costs, S/yr
CWTR = (Tin-Tout) * Qs * (1-MOIST/100)/940
where
Tin = inlet flue gas temperature, F
Tout = outlet flue gas temperature, F
Qs = flue gas flow rate per unit, scfm
MOIST = moisture content in flue gas, volume percent
-------
TABLE A-15. CONTINUOUS MONITORING COST SUMMARY3
Pollutant
compli ance
options
Method
Capital
costs
($1,000)
Operati ng
costs
($1,000/yr)
Annualized
costs
($1,000/yr)'
PM only
Opacity*1
61
8
16
Acid gas only
SO, (inlet and outlet)
HCt (inlet and outlet)
°2/C02
Data Reduction Svstem
67
140
19
10
74
15
4
19
92
18
8
Total
256
103
137
PM + acid gas
Opacity'3
SOj (inlet and outlet)
HCt (inlet and outlet)
02ZC02
61
67
140
19
8
10
74
_15
16
19
92
18
Total
286
107
145
aAll costs are reported in December 1987 dollars. For multiple control units,
multiply these costs by the number of units.
^Includes costs for automatic data reduction system.
cBased on 2 certifications/year and maintenance requirements of
0.5 manhour/day for both opacity and O2/CO- monitors and I manhour/day for
SO, and HC1 monitors.
j t
Annualized costs include annual operating costs and capital charges on
equipment and installation costs. Capital charges are based on a 15-year
equipment life at 10 percent interest rate.
A-19
------- |