SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 1 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, 2006SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 

### FERMENTER AND STORAG E TANK USE

I. SUMMARY

Appendix C presents cost effectiveness estima tes 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 addend um 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 sev eral 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 o f 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 solid s 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 pa ttern 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 storag e 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 repr esentatives,

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

– A 3 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.

• O f 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 ex clusively 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 fe rmentation 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, fermen ters 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

lb/ton 2000 B NV EF X

X X Emissions

=

Where,

Emissions = tons of VOC released during fermentation

EF = th e 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 (8 0% 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

– A 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 Survey data provided by the Wine Institute 1 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 pat terns.

• 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 repre sent 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 prod uced.

• 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 Repor t 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% 4,77 7,500 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 6 82

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

Tota l 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/galSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 6 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

pumpe d, 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

– A 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM COST INFORMAT ION

As noted above, EPA and A RB 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 th e information on c atalytic 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 pro cess. 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 (Appe ndix

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 Institute 2

. 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 s pecific 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/ton

VOC 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 D istrict, July 19, 2005SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 types of con trol 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 dif ficult. Scenario

1 likely overstates the cost of control because the estimate includes significant site

specific costs, and the control system design is not optimized. Scenario

- 2 corrects for

Scenario

- 1 cost assumptions. Staff considers Scenario

- 2 to re present the more

accurate cost of controlling fermentation emissions. Scenario

- 3 is the most

conservative cost estimate compared to S c enario

- 1 and Scenario

- 2.

II. BACKGROUND

General information on available control technologies is presented in the Dra ft 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, whi ch converts the VOC to CO 2 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 V OC 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, c atalytic thermal

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

emission reduction. Subs equently, 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 b e 90% and 30% respectively. Deleted: $109,000

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

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 III. WINE FERMENTATION CO ST EFFECTIVENESS EST IMATES

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 presen ted 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 t anks 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 th e 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 c osts 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 s ize 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 effec tiveness 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

co st 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 NumberingSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 types of control devices analyzed for red wines, the scrubber was the most cost

effectiv e 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 $37,12 8

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 ESTIMA TE

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

me asure assessment for wine fermentation processes 3 . 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

estimate s 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 adsorbe r with a thermal oxidizer, a

3 Control Technology Evaluation: Wineries

– Fermentation Processes, Sonoma Technology, Inc, October 21, 2003SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 11 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 anal ysis 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 pres ented 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

ass uming 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 anal ysis 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 Calculati on 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 ty pes 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 fermented 4

.

4. In general, it is more cos t 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, 1 982SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 12 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 assu mptions 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 purchas e 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 pur chase 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 d ocument. 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, pu rchase 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 fa ctor.

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 d uctwork 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 foundati ons.

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

– A 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 • Control Device: 1.3

• Separator/Pu mp: 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 equipme nt,

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

– A 14 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 respectively 5

.

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 e ffectiveness

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

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

Addendum to Appendix C: Rule 4694

- Tank Use and Control Costs May 24, 2006

C

– A 15 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 Pu mp Cost $5,000 @ 500 cfm

Direct Cost Factor Control Device 1.3

Direct Cost Factor Duct 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/B ulk 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 C osts

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

– A 16 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 Table 3A. Cost Effectiveness 6 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 D irect 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 C ost 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 Reducti on, 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

– A 17 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 Table 3B. Cost Effectiveness 7 For Red Wine Fermentation, Scenario

- 3, Condenser

Nominal Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) System Parameters

50 10 0 200 300

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

Tot al 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

– A 18 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)

RT O 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 4.0 0 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

– A 19 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 Indirec t 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

– A 20 Final Staff Report with Appendices

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694 Table 4. Cost Effectiveness 10 For White Wine Fermentat ion 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 Cost s $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 $1 70

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

Capit al 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 Tan k Use May 22, 2006

C

– A2 1 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

Indu stry Average Production

Cost Item Capital

Investment Annual Cost

Impact Cost

Effectiveness

Impact Based

on Gallo

Livingston

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