SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A1 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

ADDENDUM 

APPENDIX C

Fermenter and Storage Tank Use 

and

Cost of Control Systems

Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks)

May 24, 2006
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A2 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

FERMENTER AND STORAGE TANK USE 

I. SUMMARY

Appendix C presents cost effectiveness estimates in terms of dollars spent per ton of 

VOC controlled. During the rule making and adoption process, the US EPA and ARB 

requested additional information about fermentation tank usage patterns and cost of 

alternative emission control systems. This addendum provides that additional 

information based on data that was either considered by the District during rule 

development or which been gathered since rule adoption through the District’s 

permitting process.

II. FERMENTER USAGE

Large wineries in the SJV have annual wine production capacities of tens of millions of 

gallons. Fermenters at these facilities are typically designed to serve as both 

fermenters and storage tanks. Selection of a given tank for a given fermentation batch 

may be dependent upon several operational parameters, i.e., type of wine being 

produce (white versus red), production of varietal wines, or appellations, availability of 

tanks, and anticipated storage volume requirements .

Fermentation tank design and use is dictated by the type of wine being produced (red 

versus white wine). When producing red wines, juice is fermented in contact with the 

seeds, pulp and skin, accounting for the color and taste of red wine. After fermentation, 

free-run red wine is drained from the tank and solids are transferred to presses where 

entrained wine is separated from the solids. Tanks used to ferment red wines and their 

connection to presses must be equipped to handle solids. The layout of large wineries 

visited by District staff followed a common pattern where red wine fermenters were 

located in close proximity to pressing equipment and fermenters were located in close 

proximity to one another, forming a distinct processing unit.

White wine production differs from red wine production in that grapes are pressed and 

juice separated from solids before fermentation. Only juice is fermented, thus white 

wine fermenters and their connections to presses need not be equipped to handle 

solids. White wine fermenters are essentially similar in design to storage tanks and are 

commonly used for both white wine fermentation and storage. At the large wineries 

visited by District staff, white wine fermenters were not organized into distinct 

processing units like red wine fermenters. According to wine industry representatives, 

any tank at a winery may be used to ferment white wines.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A3 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

The District is now permitting wine fermentation and storage tanks, beginning with the 

thirteen largest wineries in the District. Table 1 presents information on the permitted 

tanks.

• Of the 4,533 total permitted tanks, about 32% or 1,457 tanks are used 

exclusively for wine storage; about 10% or 448 tanks are used exclusively for 

wine fermentation; and 58% or 2,628 tanks are used as both fermentation and 

storage.

• Of the 448 tanks used exclusively for wine fermentation, about 42% are 

dedicated to red wine fermentation and about 20% are dedicated to white wine 

fermentation. The remaining 38% are used for both red and white wine 

fermentation. 

• Comparing the total volume of all permitted fermentation tanks for these thirteen 

wineries (484,356,533 gallons) to the total volume of wine produced in the 

District during 2002 (337,968,011 gallons) indicates that the wine industry in the 

Valley potentially has an additional 43% of fermentation tank capacity.

Table-1: Permitted Wine Tanks for the 13 Largest Wineries in the San Joaquin Valley

Total 

Tanks

Tanks Used 

Exclusively 

for Storage

Tanks Used 

Exclusively for 

Fermentation

Tanks Used for 

Both Storage 

and 

Fermentation

Total Volume 

of all Tanks 

(gal)

Average 

Volume of 

all Tanks 

(gal)

4,533 1,457 448 2,628 700,169,726 243,938

III. FERMENTER EMISSIONS

In addition to the type of wine being produced, red versus white wine, fermenter 

emissions are a function of tank volume and the number of batche s of must fermented 

within the fermenter. The working volume of a tank is also limited by the type of wine 

being produced. When fermenting white wines, fermenters are typically filled to about 

80% of the nominal volume. When fermenting red wines, fermenters are typically filled 

to about 70% of the nominal volume. Average seasonal emission for a fermenter of 

known size can be calculated by the following formula:

%Fill

2000 lb/ton

EF NV B

X

X X

Emissions=

Where,

Emissions = tons of VOC released during fermentation

EF = the VOC emission factor for wine fermentation, in lb/1000 gal

 (2.5 lb/1,000 gal for white wine and 6.2 lb/1,000 gal for red wine)

NV = Nominal tank volume, in gallons

B = Average number of batches of wine fermented per season

% Fill = Percent tank fill (80% for white wine and 70% for red wine)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A4 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Survey data provided by the Wine Institute1 was used to profile fermentation tank use 

patterns and emissions within the San Joaquin Valley. Annual wine production 

estimated from the survey data were compared to ann ual wine production data obtained 

from the United States Tobacco Tax Bureau for the same period. Estimated production, 

using survey data, was within 3% of the TTB production data.

Table-2 summarizes the red wine emissions based on tank size and usage patterns.

• 39% of the total red wine emissions were from tanks having a nominal volume of 

150,000 gallons, 25% were from tanks having a nominal volume of 250,000 

gallons, and 26% of were from tanks having a nominal volume of 450,000 

gallons. These tanks represent 43%, 16% and 9%, respectively, of the total 

number of batches of red wine produced.

• Red wine fermenters in the 150,000 and 250,000-gallon range were used to 

process an average of four and five batches per tank per season, respectively. 

Red wine ferme nters in the 450,000-gallon size range were used to process an 

average of only two batches per tank.

Table-3 summarizes the white wine emissions based on tank size and usage patterns.

• 14% of the total white wine emissions were from tanks having a nominal volume 

of 150,000 gallons, 35% were from tanks having a nominal volume of 250,000 

gallons, and 42% of were from tanks having a nominal volume of 450,000 

gallons. These tanks represent 17%, 25% and 17%, respectively, of the total 

batches of white wine produced. 

• White wine fermenters, regardless of size, were used to process an average of 

two batches per tank.

 

1

 Fermenter Tank Usage Patterns for Nine Large Wineries in the Central Valley. The Wine Institute, June 21, 2004
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A5 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table-2: Summary of Red Wine Fermentation Tank Use in Nine Large Wineries in the San Joaquin Valley

Nominal 

Tank 

Volume 

(gal)

No. of 

Tanks Per 

Category

% of 

Total No. 

of Tanks

No. of 

Batches 

Per 

Category

% of 

Total No. 

Batches

Total 

Gallons

% of 

Total 

Gallons

Estimated 

Emissions 

(Tons)

% of Total 

Red Wine 

Emissions

Max No. 

Batches 

Per 

Category

Avg. 

Batches 

Per 

Category

25,000 68 12% 273 14% 4,777,500 2% 15 2% 11 5

75,000 72 13% 335 17% 17,587,500 8% 55 8% 7 5

150,000 245 44% 823 43% 86,415,000 39% 268 39% 18 4

250,000 71 13% 309 16% 54,075,000 25% 168 25% 11 5

450,000 98 18% 181 9% 57,015,000 26% 177 26% 4 2

Totals 554 1,921 219,870,000 682

Assumes 70% of Tank Fill and a VOC Emissions Factor of 0.0062 lb/gal

Table-3: Summary of White Wine Fermentation Tank Use in Nine Large Wineries in the San Joaquin Valley

Nominal 

Tank 

Volume 

(gal)

No. of 

Tanks Per 

Category

% of 

Total No. 

of Tanks

No. of 

Batches 

Per 

Category

% of 

Total No. 

Batches

Total 

Gallons

% of 

Total 

Gallons

Estimated 

Emissions 

(Tons)

% Total 

White Wine 

Emissions

Max No. 

Batches 

Per 

Category

Avg. 

Batches 

Per 

Category

25,000 186 29% 270 30% 5,400,000 4% 7 4% 8 2

75,000 86 14% 110 12% 6,600,000 5% 8 5% 6 2

150,000 88 14% 149 17% 17,880,000 14% 22 14% 6 2

250,000 146 23% 222 25% 44,400,000 35% 56 35% 6 2

450,000 129 20% 151 17% 54,360,000 42% 68 42% 4 2

Totals 635 902 128,640,000 161

Assumes 80% of Tank Fill and a VOC Emissions Factor of 0.0025 lb/gal
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A6 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

IV. SANITATION

Modern wine production occurs in steel fermenters fitted with a variety of process 

controls, i.e., temperature controls, including jackets through which refrigerant can be 

pumped, thermostats, and computerized controls that can maintain the temperature of 

the must within one or two degrees. Wine is a food product and fermenters are 

operated consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) food safety 

requirements. To maintain proper food grade standards, sanitation procedures include 

sterilization of fermenters between each batch. In the case of red wine fermenters, 

equipment used to transport solids to the presses, and the presses themselves are 

sterilized consistent with US FDA requirements. Industry representatives have stated 

that sterilization of fermenters is mainly a manual process, using portable equipment 

that is moved from tank to tank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A7 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM COST INFORMATION

As noted above, EPA and ARB requested additional information during the rule making 

and adoption process about the cost of alternative control systems. The following cost 

effectiveness analysis includes adsorption vapor recovery, condensation, and wet 

scrubbers, in addition to the information on catalytic thermal oxidation, which was 

originally presented. The analysis is based on data that was either considered by the 

District during rule development or which been gathered since rule adoption through the 

District’s permitting process. Because of the interconnection with previously presented 

information, the discussion of the additional control systems has been incorporated into 

the original analysis, although background information that was not relevant to the 

added analyses was deleted.

I. SUMMARY

The District Governing Board adopted Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage 

Tanks) in December 2005. Rule 4694 requires operators of any winery to achieve 

Required Annual Emissions Reductions equal to at least 35% of the winery’s Baseline 

Fermentation Emissions. As presented in Appendix B of this Draft Staff Report, total 

annual VOC emissions from all Valley wine fermentation are estimated to range from 

673 to 788 tons. Exemptions in Rule 4694 would result in only 639 to 748 tons of the 

total VOC emissions being subject to control requirements. Annual achievable VOC 

emission reductions from non-exempted wine fermentation are estimated to range from 

224 to 262 tons, for a daily reduction in VOC emissions of 0.61 to 0.72 tons (Appendix 

B).

This report presents cost effectiveness estimates in terms of dollars spent per ton of 

VOC controlled. Three cost effectiveness scenarios were analyzed in Appendix C: 

• Scenario-1: A cost effectiveness analysis presented by the Wine Institute2. 

Scenario-1 estimates cost effectiveness for controlling VOC emissions from red wine 

fermentation at $120,479/ton-VOC reduced. 

• Scenario-2: A cost effectiveness analysis prepared by District staff after adjusting 

the Wine Institute’s estimate making specific assumptions about design optimization 

and eliminating site-specific costs. Scenario-2 estimates average cost effectiveness 

for controlling VOC emissions from red wine fermentation ranges from $42,200/tonVOC to $52,900/ton-VOC reduced. 

• Scenario-3: A cost effectiveness analysis prepared by District staff, consistent with 

District procedures for determining cost effectiveness. This scenario, as amended 

by this analysis, shows that the scrubber was the most cost effective of the four 

 

2 Robert P. Koch, Wine Institute, Letter to the District, July 19, 2005
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A8 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

types of control devices for controlling VOC emissions from red wine fermentation. 

Scenario-3 estimates cost effectiveness for the scrubber ranges from $29,000 per 

ton to $109,000 per ton. Because of lower emission factors and reduced average 

batches per tank, the white wine costs would be about six times as high as a 

similarly sized red wine tank. 

There are no known examples of the application of VOC emission controls to wine 

fermentation, so making accurate determination of cost effectiveness difficult. Scenario1 likely overstates the cost of control because the estimate includes significant sitespecific costs, and the control system design is not optimized. Scenario-2 corrects for 

Scenario-1 cost assumptions. Staff considers Scenario-2 to represent the more 

accurate cost of controlling fermentation emissions. Scenario-3 is the most 

conservative cost estimate compared to Scenario-1 and Scenario-2. 

II. BACKGROUND

General information on available control technologies is presented in the Draft Staff 

Report for Rule 4694, Section IV. Ethanol is the primary VOC produced during wine 

fermentation. Many different types of established technologies can be used to control 

ethanol emissions. Five types of VOC controls are:

1. Thermal Oxidation, which converts the VOC to CO2 and water;

2. Absorption by a wet media in a scrubbers, which captures the VOC in air 

emissions and produces a liquid waste stream for treatment or disposal;

3. Adsorption, typically using activated carbon, which transfers the VOC in the air 

onto a solid substrate for treatment or disposal;

4. Condensation using refrigeration, which converst the VOC gases into liquids for 

disposal, treatment, or reuse; and 

5. Biological control systems such as bio-filters or bio-scrubbers, which use organic 

material and processes to convert the VOC into CO and water.

During 1988 to 1991, research specific to evaluating methods of controlling ethanol 

emissions during wine fermentation was conducted by ARB, with cooperation from the 

Wine Institute. Three possible emission control technologies were evaluated: 

adsorption vapor recovery using activated carbon adsorption, catalytic thermal 

oxidation, and wet scrubbers. All three technologies demonstrated at least 90% ethanol 

emission reduction. Subsequently, estimates of ethanol emission reductions associated 

with two control technologies, vapor condensation and fermentation temperature 

control, were prepared in 1993. Theoretical control efficiencies for these two control 

methods were estimated to be 90% and 30% respectively.

Deleted: $109,000

Deleted: 29,000
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A9 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

III. WINE FERMENTATION COST EFFECTIVENESS ESTIMATES

Adopted Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks) requires operators of any 

winery to achieve Required Annual Emissions Reductions equal to at least 35% of the 

winery’s Baseline Fermentation Emissions. Operators could achieve compliance by 

equipping and operating their red wine fermenters with VOC control systems achieving 

at least 86% VOC capture and control efficiency. 

Three cost effectiveness analyses were presented in Appendix C: 

A. Scenario-1

The Wine Institute contracted with Eichleay Engineering to develop total capital 

investment and annual operating costs associated with installation of RTO-based VOC 

control technology on the west side red fermentation tanks at Gallo’s Livingston facility. 

This area has 60 red wine fermenters with capacities of 50,000, 100,000, and 200,000 

gallons. The cost estimate was for installation and operation of four RTO systems. The 

Eichleay report estimates a cost of $31,325,000 for the proposed installation and 

estimates cost effectiveness at $120,479/ton-VOC on that basis. The Wine Institute 

submitted the Eichleay report as part of their public comments to the second workshop.

B. Scenario-2

District staff believes that the Eichleay report significantly overstates the cost of 

controlling fermentation emissions. The District’s analysis of the Eichleay report is 

presented as Scenario-2. District staff’s review of the Eichleay report concludes that 

because of site-specific costs and lack of design optimization, the report likely over 

estimates the cost of control. 

After adjusting the Wine Institute’s estimate, the District estimates that an optimized, 

non-site specific VOC capture and control system for a facility of this size could be 

potentially installed for approximately $14,838,000. Based on the adjusted estimate, 

the capacity of the 60 tanks included in the Eichleay report, and the industry’s reported 

4 to 5 turns per tank per season, the District estimates cost effectiveness ranging from 

$42,200/ton-VOC to $52,900/ton-VOC for an optimized, non-site specific installation of 

this size. Details of how each adjustment to the Eichleay report affects cost 

effectiveness are presented in Table 5.

C. Scenario-3

As presented in Section IV below, District staff prepared a cost of control analysis for 

red wines and white wines, that is consistent with the adopted rule requirements. The 

cost effectiveness results of the analysis for red wines are summarized in Table 1. For 

cost analysis purposes, Scenario-3 was used to provide the most conservative cost 

analyses of the four control systems. That analysis shows that of the four different 

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A10 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

types of control devices analyzed for red wines, the scrubber was the most cost 

effective for controlling VOC emissions from red wine fermentation. The cost 

effectiveness for the scrubber ranges from $29,000 per ton to $109,000 per ton, 

depending on the tank size. 

Table 1. Cost Effectiveness Estimates for Red Wines for Scenario-3

Nominal Tank Capacity (1000 gal)

50 100 200 300

Control Device

Cost Effectiveness $/ton for Red Wines

Adsorber with Thermal Oxidizer $337,593 $236,900 $169,864 $140,950

Condenser $364,277 $257,123 $185,190 $153,981

RTO $133,776 $76,296 $44,533 $37,128

Scrubber $108,953 $63,170 $37,869 $28,752

For white wines, Appendix C estimates cost effectiveness for a 60-day fermentation 

season ranged from $40,000 to $192,000 per ton. Cost effectiveness for a 90-day 

fermentation ranged from $27,000 to $128,000 per ton. These estimates were based 

on a turnover rate of six or nine turns per year, respectively. Using the industry average 

of two turns per season results in a cost effectiveness ranging from $576,000 for a 

50,000 gallon volume fermenter to $122,000 per ton for a 300,000 gallon volume 

fermenter. Table 4 summaries the details of the new white wine calculations.

IV. CALCULATION OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ESTIMATE 

In 2003, the District contracted with Sonoma Technology, Inc. (STI) to prepare a control 

measure assessment for wine fermentation processes3. STI’s report presented cost 

estimates for designs based on the use of various VOC control devices to control 

fermenter emissions. This analysis presents cost and corresponding cost effectiveness 

estimates based on the use of an adsorber with a thermal oxidizer, a condenser, a 

scrubber and a RTO to control fermenter emissions. This analysis incorporates many of 

the cost estimates and assumptions presented in STI’s report. A significant departure 

from STI’s cost analysis is that the District’s analysis is based on the concept of 

connecting multiple fermenters to a single control device such as a RTO. STI’s 

assessment assumed a design of one fermentation tank per each RTO. The District’s 

analysis also inc ludes additional project costs not considered in the STI report.

A. Cost Effectiveness Estimates for Red Wine

Cost and corresponding cost effectiveness estimates were calculated for red wines for 

each one of the four different control devices (an adsorber with a thermal oxidizer, a 

 

3 Control Technology Evaluation: Wineries – Fermentation Processes, Sonoma Technology, Inc, October 21, 2003
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A11 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

condenser, a scrubber and a RTO). Cost effectiveness estimates for red wines are 

based on five batches per fermentation period. For red wines, tank volumes ranged 

from 50,000 to 300,000 gallons. Base assumptions for the analysis are summarized in 

Table 2. Using those base costs and system-specific cost, an analyses was performed 

for each of the four control systems. The cost and corresponding cost effectiveness for 

the four control systems for red wine fermentation are presented in Tables 3A to 3D. 

B. Cost Effectiveness Estimates for White Wine

Cost and corresponding cost effectiveness estimates were calculated for white wines for 

only the RTO control device. The cost effectiveness for white wines was calculated for 

assuming a turn rate of two batches per tank per year. For white wines, tank volumes 

ranged from 50,000 to 300,000 gallons. 

Base assumptions for the analysis are summarized in Table 2. The analysis for white 

wines differs from the red wine fermenter analysis in that it uses an emissions factor of 

2.5 lb/1000 gallons, assumes tanks are filled to 80% of capacity. Cost and 

corresponding cost effectiveness for white wine fermentation are presented in detail in 

Table 4. 

C. Assumptions Used in the Calculation of Cost Effectiveness

The following assumptions were made in the analysis and are summarized in Table 2:

1. This cost analysis considers red and white wine fermentations separately, because 

of the different emissions characteristics of the two wine types and differences in 

the design and operation of their respective fermenters.

2. While red wine fermenters can be used to ferment white wines, white wine 

fermenters are not equipped to handle the additional solids associated with 

producing a red wine. Thus, for simplicity, the analysis assumes that a fermenter 

will only be used to ferment either red or white wines. 

3. Control system design capacity with a peak fermenter exhaust flow of 9.75 

acfm/1000 gallons fermented4.

4. In general, it is more cost effective to vent multiple tanks to a single control device. 

For this analysis, it was assumed that four fermenters are connected to and 

controlled by a single control device. Connecting more than four tanks per control 

device may technically feasible and could further improve cost effectiveness, 

depending on a facility's existing tank layout.

 

4 120% of flow reported in “Characterization of Ethanol Emissions From Wineries”, Fielder, D. and Bumala, P., July 

19, 1982 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A12 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

5. To simplify calculations, all tanks manifolded together were assumed to have the 

same capacity and to operate at peak flow simultaneously.

The following assumptions were made about capital costs:

1. For the Adsorber with Thermal Oxidizer system, the base purchase cost is from the 

STI control assessment document. It was assumed that the cost of the stationary 

thermal oxidizer was $100,000 and that the purchase costs of an adsorber were 

proportional to control equipment size (measured in terms of airflow capacity) to an 

exponent of 0.6.

2. For the Condenser system, the base purchase cost is from the STI control 

assessment document. It was assumed that the purchase costs of a condenser 

were proportional to control equipment size (measured in terms of airflow capacity) 

to an exponent of 0.6.

3. For the Scrubber system, the base purchase cost and the wastewater hauling 

costs are from the STI control assessment document. It was assumed that the 

purchase costs of a scrubber were proportional to control equipment size 

(measured in terms of airflow capacity) to an exponent of 0.34. It was also 

assumed that wastewater would be hauled away.

4. For the RTO system, purchase cost is based on interpolation or extrapolation of 

the RTO pricing data presented in the control technology assessment prepared by 

STI for system capacities under 8,000 cfm. RTO pricing for capacities above 

8,000 cfm is based on quotations obtained from Air-Clear LLC by Eichleay 

Engineering for the Wine Institute, and provided to the District, March 1, 2005.

5. Allowances were included for a separator tank and pump and the allowances were 

adjusted for system capacity based on a capacity exponent factor.

6. Ductwork purchase cost is based on interpolation or extrapolation of the ductwork 

pricing data presented in the control technology assessment prepared by STI, 

using calculated capacity exponent factors.

7. Structural steel supports for the new ductwork and associated foundations were 

estimated by including an allowance of 40 tons of medium weight steel and four 

drilled pier foundations for each pair of tanks (regardless of tank size), estimated at 

$4,500/ton for steel and $3,000/pier for foundations.

8. No costs were included for infrastructure improvements, such as electrical supply 

or natural gas.

9. Factors were applied as follows to the bare equipment and ductwork costs to arrive 

at an installed direct cost:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A13 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

• Control Device: 1.3

• Separator/Pump: 3

• Ductwork: 6

In the case of the Control Device and separator/pump, these factors are intended 

to cover the material and labor costs for site preparation, concrete, structural steel, 

equipment installation, electrical instrumentation, and all other bulk materials as 

required to physically complete and pre-commission the facility. The factor applied 

to the ductwork covers installation of the ductwork, supply and installation of tank 

nozzles, valves, connected instrumentation, and miscellaneous minor supports.

10. Sales tax was estimated at 8.25% of equipment and material costs (it was 

assumed that 1/3 of the installed direct cost, less equipment cost, covered bulk 

materials). 

11. Freight was included at 1.5% of the equipment and material cost.

12. Total direct cost was estimated as the sum of the installed direct costs, sales tax, 

and freight.

13. Indirect construction costs were estimated at 20% of total direct cost.

14. Indirect cost includes contractor’s fee, field staff, construction equipment, 

temporary facilities, and indirect craft labor.

15. Engineering was estimated at 25% of the total direct cost.

16. Cost of building permits was estimated at 2% of total direct cost.

17. Owner’s cost was included at 10% of total direct cost to cover owner’s project 

management, training, and commissioning costs.

18. Contingency was included at 15% of total cost to arrive at Total Installed Costs.

The following assumptions were made about annual costs:

1. Operating labor was estimated at 0.5 hour per shift at $30/hour, assuming 24 hour 

operation for 60 or 90 days.

2. Maintenance was estimated at 3% of the bare equipment costs.

3. Utilities were estimated using the utility costs presented in the STI control 

assessment document.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A14 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

4. Overhead, insuranc e, and other administrative costs were included at 2% of total 

installed costs.

5. Capital recovery was estimated as 0.163 x Total Installed Cost (10% interest rate, 

10 year life) per District practice.

The following assumptions were made about emissions estimates:

1. Emissions were calculated using emission factors of 6.2 lbs/1000 gallons and 2.5 

lbs/1000 gallons for red and white wine respectively5.

2. Emission estimates were calculated for working volumes of 75% of nominal tank 

capacity for red wines and 80% for white wines.

3. Calculations for red wines were based on five batches processed per fermentation 

period.

4. Calculations for white wines were based on total annual fermentation periods of 60 

and 90 days.

5. An 86% capture and control effici ency of the VOC control systems was assumed.

D. Scenario-3 Cost and Cost Effectiveness Results 

Cost and corresponding cost effectiveness for red wine fermentation are presented in 

detail in Table 3A through Table 3D below. Cost and corresponding cost effectiveness 

for white wine fermentation are presented in detail in Table 4 below. 

 

5

 Emissions Inventory Procedural Manual, Section 5.1, Air Resources Board, 2005
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A15 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table 2. Base Assumptions for Wine Fermentation Estimates, Scenario-3

Activity Assumed Value

System Capacity 9.75 acfm/1000 gallons

Adsorber with Thermal Oxidizer Base Cost $550,000 @ 500 cfm

Condenser Base Cost $500,000 @ 500 cfm

RTO Base Cost $108,500 @ 500 cfm

Scrubber Base Cost $20,600 @ 500 cfm

Duct Work Base Cost $3,500 @ 500 cfm

Base Utility Cost $1,100 @ 500 cfm

Base Separator Cost $5,000 @ 500 cfm

Base Pump Cost $5,000 @ 500 cfm

Direct Cost FactorControl Device 1.3

Direct Cost FactorDuct 6

Direct Cost Fact.Sep/Pump 3

Capital Recovery Factor 0.163

Maintenance 3.0% Of Equipment Cost

Insurance, O.H., Administration 2.0% Of Total Installed Cost

Labor/Bulk Material Ratio 2

Ductwork Support Steel Cost $90,000/tank

Ductwork Support Foundation $6,000/tank

Construction Indirect Costs 20% Of Direct Costs

Engineering 25% Of Direct Costs

Building Permits 2.0% Of Direct Costs

Owner's Cost 10% Of Direct Costs

Contingency 15%

Operating Parameters

Red Wine Emission Factor 6.2 lbs/1000 gal 

White Wine Emission Factor 2.5 lbs/1000 gal

Control Efficiency 86.0%
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A16 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table 3A. Cost Effectiveness6 For Red Wine Fermentation, Scenario-3, Adsorber with 

Thermal Oxidizer

Nominal Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) System Parameters 50 100 200 300

Design Flowrate/Tank cfm 450 899 1,799 2,698 

System Flowrate cfm 1,799 3,598 7,196 10,793 

Costs (x $1000)

Adsorber with Thermal Oxidizer Cost $970 $1,470 $2,229 $2,843

Duct Cost $24 $33 $45 $53

Separator $8 $11 $15 $17

Pump $5 $5 $5 $5

Fixed Steel Cost $360 $360 $360 $360

Fixed Concrete $24 $24 $24 $24

Labor & Bulk Materials $425 $623 $915 $1,148

Sales Tax $94 $141 $213 $270

Freight $17 $26 $39 $49

Total Direct Cost $1,927 $2,693 $3,844 $4,769

Construction Indirect Costs $385 $539 $769 $954

Direct + Indirect Cost $2,313 $3,232 $4,612 $5,723

Engineering $482 $673 $961 $1,192

Building Permits $39 $54 $77 $95

Owner's Cost $193 $269 $384 $477

Installed Cost W/O Contingency $3,026 $4,228 $6,034 $7,487

Contingency @ 15% $454 $634 $905 $1,123

Total Installed Cost (TIC) $3,480 $4,863 $6,940 $8,610

Annualized TIC $567 $793 $1,131 $1,403

Operating Cost $4 $4 $4 $4

Maintenance $30 $46 $69 $88

Utilities $4 $8 $16 $24

Total Direct Annual Cost $38 $57 $89 $115

O.H./Insurance/Admin. $70 $97 $139 $172

Capital Recovery $567 $793 $1,131 $1,403

Total Indirect Annual Cost $637 $890 $1,270 $1,576

Total Annualized Cost $675 $947 $1,359 $1,691

Emission Reduction, Tons/year 2.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 

Cost Effectiveness, $/ton $337,593 $236,900 $169,864 $140,950 

 

6

 Table values developed from spreadsheets. Displayed values have been rounded.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A17 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table 3B. Cost Effectiveness7 For Red Wine Fermentation, Scenario-3, Condenser

Nominal Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) System Parameters 50 100 200 300

Design Flowrate/Tank cfm 450 899 1,799 2,698 

System Flowrate cfm 1,799 3,598 7,196 10,793 

Costs (x $1000)

Condenser Cost $1,078 $1,634 $2,476 $3,158 

Duct Cost $24 $33 $45 $53 

Separator $8 $11 $15 $17 

Pump $5 $5 $5 $5 

Fixed Steel Cost $360 $360 $360 $360 

Fixed Concrete $24 $24 $24 $24 

Labor & Bulk Materials $457 $672 $990 $1,242 

Sales Tax $104 $156 $235 $299 

Freight $19 $28 $43 $54 

Total Direct Cost $2,079 $2,923 $4,192 $5,213 

Construction Indirect Costs $416 $585 $838 $1,043 

Direct + Indirect Cost $2,495 $3,508 $5,031 $6,256 

Engineering $520 $731 $1,048 $1,303 

Building Permits $42 $58 $84 $104 

Owner's Cost $208 $292 $419 $521 

Installed Cost W/O Contingency $3,264 $4,589 $6,582 $8,185 

Contingency @ 15% $490 $688 $987 $1,228 

Total Installed Cost (TIC) $3,754 $5,278 $7,569 $9,413 

Annualized TIC $612 $860 $1,234 $1,534 

Operating Cost $4 $4 $4 $4 

Maintenance $33 $50 $76 $97 

Utilities $4 $8 $16 $24 

Total Direct Annual Cost $41 $62 $96 $125 

O.H./Insurance/Admin. $75 $106 $151 $188 

Capital Recovery $612 $860 $1,234 $1,534 

Total Indirect Annual Cost $687 $966 $1,385 $1,723 

Total Annualized Cost $728 $1,028 $1,481 $1,847 

Emission Reduction, Tons/year 2.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 

Cost Effectiveness, $/ton $364,277 $257,123 $185,190 $153,981 

 

7

 Table values developed from spreadsheets. Displayed values have been rounded.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A18 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table 3C. Cost Effectiveness 8 For Red Wine Fermentation, Scenario-3, RTO

Nominal Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) System Parameters 50 100 200 300

Design Flowrate/Tank cfm 450 899 1,799 2,698 

System Flowrate cfm 1,799 3,598 7,196 10,793 

Costs (x $1000)

RTO Cost $147 $173 $204 $326

Duct Cost $24 $33 $45 $53

Separator $8 $11 $15 $17

Pump $5 $5 $5 $5

Fixed Steel Cost $360 $360 $360 $360

Fixed Concrete $24 $24 $24 $24

Labor & Bulk Materials $178 $234 $308 $393

Sales Tax $19 $23 $29 $42

Freight $3 $4 $5 $8

Total Direct Cost $769 $867 $994 $1,228

Construction Indirect Costs $154 $173 $199 $246

Direct + Indirect Cost $922 $1,041 $1,192 $1,473

Engineering $192 $217 $248 $307

Building Permits $15 $17 $20 $25

Owner's Cost $77 $87 $99 $123

Installed Cost W/O Contingency $1,207 $1,362 $1,560 $1,927

Contingency @ 15% $181 $204 $234 $289

Total Installed Cost (TIC) $1,388 $1,566 $1,794 $2,217

Annualized TIC $226 $255 $292 $361

Operating Cost $4 $4 $4 $4

Maintenance $6 $7 $8 $12

Utilities $4 $8 $16 $24

Total Direct Annual Cost $13 $19 $28 $40

O.H./Insurance/Admin. $28 $31 $36 $44

Capital Recovery $226 $255 $292 $361

Total Indirect Annual Cost $254 $287 $328 $406

Total Annualized Cost $267 $305 $356 $445

Emission Reduction, Tons/year 2.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 

Cost Effectiveness, $/ton $133,776 $76,296 $44,533 $37,128

 

8

 Table values developed from spreadsheets. Displayed values have been rounded.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A19 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table 3D. Cost Effectiveness 9 For Red Wine Fermentation, Scenario-3, Scrubber

Nominal Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) System Parameters 50 100 200 300

Design Flowrate/Tank cfm 450 899 1,799 2,698 

System Flowrate cfm 1,799 3,598 7,196 10,793 

Costs (x $1000)

Scrubber Cost $32 $40 $51 $59

Duct Cost $24 $33 $45 $53

Separator $8 $11 $15 $17

Pump $5 $5 $5 $5

Fixed Steel Cost $360 $360 $360 $360

Fixed Concrete $24 $24 $24 $24

Labor & Bulk Materials $153 $206 $277 $330

Sales Tax $9 $12 $16 $18

Freight $2 $2 $3 $3

Total Direct Cost $617 $693 $795 $869

Construction Indirect Costs $123 $139 $159 $174

Direct + Indirect Cost $740 $832 $954 $1,043

Engineering $154 $173 $199 $217

Building Permits $12 $14 $16 $17

Owner's Cost $62 $69 $79 $87

Installed Cost W/O Contingency $968 $1,088 $1,248 $1,365

Contingency @ 15% $145 $163 $187 $205

Total Installed Cost (TIC) $1,114 $1,251 $1,435 $1,569

Annualized TIC $182 $204 $234 $256

Operating Cost $4 $4 $4 $4

Maintenance $2 $3 $3 $4

Utilities $4 $8 $16 $24

Wastewater Hauling $4 $9 $17 $26

Total Direct Annual Cost $14 $24 $40 $58

O.H./Insurance/Admin. $22 $25 $29 $31

Capital Recovery $182 $204 $234 $256

Total Indirect Annual Cost $204 $229 $263 $287

Total Annualized Cost $218 $253 $303 $345

Emission Reduction, Tons/year 2.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 

Cost Effectiveness, $/ton $108,953 $63,170 $37,869 $28,752

 

9

 Table values developed from spreadsheets. Displayed values have been rounded.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C – A20 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table 4. Cost Effectiveness10 For White Wine Fermentation Scenario-3, RTO

Nominal Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) System Parameters 50 100 200 300

Design Flowrate/Tank cfm 50 100 201 301

System Flowrate cfm 201 401 803 1,204

Costs (x $1000)

RTO Cost $87 $103 $121 $134

Duct Cost $9 $13 $17 $21

Separator $3 $5 $6 $7

Pump $5 $5 $5 $5

Fixed Steel Cost $360 $360 $360 $360

Fixed Concrete $24 $24 $24 $24

Labor & Bulk Materials $75 $99 $129 $152

Sales Tax $10 $12 $15 $17

Freight $2 $2 $3 $3

Total Direct Cost $577 $623 $681 $722

Construction Indirect Costs $115 $125 $136 $144

Direct + Indirect Cost $692 $747 $817 $866

Engineering $144 $156 $170 $180

Building Permits $12 $12 $14 $14

Owner's Cost $58 $62 $68 $72

Installed Cost W/O Contingency $905 $977 $1,069 $1,133

Contingency @ 15% $136 $147 $160 $170

Total Installed Cost (TIC) $1,041 $1,124 $1,229 $1,303

Annualized TIC $170 $183 $200 $212

Operating Cost $4 $4 $4 $4

Maintenance $3 $4 $4 $5

Utilities $0 $1 $2 $3

Total Direct Annual Cost $8 $9 $10 $12

O.H./Insurance/Admin. $21 $22 $25 $26

Capital Recovery $170 $183 $200 $212

Total Indirect Annual Cost $190 $206 $225 $239

Total Annualized Cost $198 $214 $235 $250

Emission Reduction Tons/year

2 batches .34 2.06 4.13 6.19

Cost Effectiveness $/ton

2 batches $575,873 $311,529 $170,914 $121,193

 

10 Table values developed from spreadsheets. Displayed values have been rounded.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694 - Fermenter & Storage Tank Use May 22, 2006

C – A21 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Table 5. District Adjustments to the Eichleay Report for an Optimized Generic Winery Without Site Specific Costs 

Scenario-2

Industry Average Production

Cost Item Capital 

Investment

Annual Cost 

Impact 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

Impact Based 

on GalloLivingston 

Production in 

2004

Cost 

Effectiveness 

Impact at 4 

Tank Turns Per 

Season

Cost 

Effectiveness 

Impact at 5 Tank 

Turns Per 

Season

 Eichleay Estimate $31,325,000 $5,858,975 $120,481 $107,111 $85,532 

 District Adjustments

 Site-Specific Costs ($6,817,000) ($1,111,171) ($22,849) ($20,314) ($16,221)

 Optimize and Simplify the CIP System ($7,319,000) ($1,192,997) ($24,532) ($21,810) ($17,416)

 Other Design Optimization ($2,351,000) ($383,213) ($7,880) ($7,006) ($5,594)

 Optimize Annual Operating Costs ---- ($280,000) ($5,758) ($5,119) ($4,088)

 Subtotal District Adjustments ($16,487,000) ($2,967,381) ($61,020) ($54,248) ($43,319)

 District Analysis Result for 

Optimized Gene ric Facility w/o Site 

Specific Costs 

$14,838,000 $2,891,594 $59,461 $52,863 $42,213