1

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 7, 2014

Subject: National Impacts Associated with the Final NESHAP for Existing Amino and Phenolic 

Resins Continuous Process Vents

From: Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/RCG

To: EPA Docket File (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012–0133)

______________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this memorandum is to present information on the nationwide costs of the control 

technology required for reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from unregulated 

existing process vents identified in the Amino and Phenolic Resins (APR) Production source 

category. 

1.0 Background

On January 20, 2000, the EPA finalized National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for the APR source category based on the requirements of section 112(d) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to control HAP emissions from both new and existing sources. The 

EPA proposed amendments to the source category on January 9, 2014, based on residual risk and 

technology reviews. At the time of the 2014 proposal, the presence of uncontrolled continuous 

process vents at two facilities in the APR source category (Georgia Pacific in Crossett, AR, and 

Tembec in Toledo, OH) had been identified. Following the January 2014 proposal, the EPA 

received information that there are additional facilities with uncontrolled process vents in the 

APR source category. The facilities identified that have continuous process vents are shown in 

Table 1. The four facilities listed in the below table have a total of seven continuous process 

vents combined.

Table 1. Existing APR Facilities with Uncontrolled Continuous Process Vents

Facility Location Control Device

Georgia Pacific Crossett, Arkansas No HAP Control

Georgia Pacific Conway, North Carolina No HAP Control

Georgia Pacific Taylorsville, Mississippi No HAP Control

Tembec Toledo, Ohio No HAP Control
2

As discussed in the memorandum entitled “MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor for Existing 

Unregulated Emission Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” 

available from the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133), the MACT floor for existing 

APR process vents was established at 0.95 kilograms of HAP per megagram (1.9 lb of HAP/ton)

of resin produced. The urea formaldehyde concentrate (UFC) process vent at Georgia Pacific’s 

Crossett facility was not included in the MACT floor. The main reason for excluding the UFC 

process vent from the MACT floor analysis is because reliable and accurate emissions 

information are not available. Also, the UFC process vent is significantly different than the other 

spray dryer process vents and is a non-dryer production unit subject to another regulation when 

producing formaldehyde. Further, the UFC process vents and several other process vents are 

simultaneously controlled by a regenerative thermal oxidizer. These factors were also reasons for 

not including the UFC process vent in the MACT floor analysis, and more details on this 

decision can be found in the MACT floor memorandum. As mentioned, the MACT floor was 

established at 0.95 kg HAP/Mg (1.9 lb of HAP/ton) of resin produced. Four of the seven process 

vents will be able to meet the standard without any additional controls. The other three process 

vents will need to have HAP controls installed in order to meet the standard. Carbon adsorbers 

are highly effective at reducing HAP emissions, and it is expected that this technology will be 

used to reduce HAP emissions from uncontrolled process vents in order to meet the final 

standard for existing sources.

2.0 National Impacts

The final standard for existing process vents will require sources to meet a standard of 0.95 kg 

HAP/Mg (1.9 lb of HAP/ton) of resin produced. As discussed, three process vents will 

necessitate controls in order to meet this standard, each located at one of the three Georgia 

Pacific facilities. It is expected that a carbon adsorber will be used to meet the standard for 

existing sources, which is capable of achieving a HAP reduction of at least 95 percent. Based on 

uncontrolled levels, the three process vents will have to reduce their HAP emissions by 78, 82, 

and 86 percent in order to meet the standard. 

In order to estimate the impacts associated with the final standard, cost methodologies from 

EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (CCM) were used. Also, it was assumed that the 

process vents would operate on a continuous basis for 8,760 hours per year (hrs/yr). Costs were 

scaled up to 2013 prices using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index where appropriate. 

The control costs were estimated per facility and also as a combined cost of each option for the 

entire source category (i.e., national impact). The methodology for estimating the capital and 

annual control costs of a carbon adsorber and necessary duct work was conducted according to 

the CCM. 

Emissions data representing total HAP emissions over a period of 5 years were received from 

Georgia Pacific.1In order to estimate the emissions reductions that would be achieved under the 

final standard, the total baseline emissions for each facility were calculated by averaging the total 

HAP emissions over the 5-yr period. Additional information and assumptions used to estimate 

 

1Email from Paul Vasquez, Georgia Pacific to Nick Parsons, EPA. Response to EPA Additional Questions. 

Appendix B. June 12, 2014.
3

the costs are presented in Appendix A. To prevent repetition, the cost calculations are presented 

for Spray Dryer F only, but the methodology presented is the same for the other dryers. 

The estimated emissions reductions and capital and annual costs for carbon adsorbers are shown 

in Table 2. As Table 2 shows, the total national capital cost for this rule for existing APR process 

vents is $3.6 million, with a total national annual control cost of $862,000 per year. 

Table 2. National Impacts for Existing Uncontrolled APR Continuous Process Vents 

Process Vent

Baseline 

Emissions 

(tpy)

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy)

Capital

Cost 

Annual 

Cost

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton HAP)

Spray Dryer D 64 50 $1,224,348 $285,929 $5,700

Spray Dryer E 24 20 $1,146,777 $282,219 $14,200

Spray Dryer F 76 65 $1,248,739 $294,077 $4,500

Total 164 135 $3,619,865 $862,224 $6,400

*Minor discrepancies are due to rounding.

3.0 Beyond-the-Floor

The MACT floor was established at 0.95 kg HAP/Mg (1.9 lb of HAP/ton) of resin produced and 

is expected to be met using a carbon adsorber at 95 percent efficiency. The beyond-the-floor 

(BTF) control option identified for spray dryers in the APR source category that would be more 

stringent than the MACT floor is a thermal oxidizer that achieves a 98 percent emission 

reduction. The continuous process vents for Spray Dryers A-F were all included in this BTF 

analysis. The methodology for estimating the capital and annual control costs of a thermal 

oxidizer and necessary duct work was performed according to the CCM. Due to the magnitude in 

the process vent flowrate for the spray dryers (56,000 to 66,000 cubic feet per minute (ft3/min)), 

a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) system was assumed as opposed to a recuperative thermal 

oxidizer (RCO), because the cost correlations range for an RTO is 10,000 to 100,000 ft3/min. 

The range for an RCO is 500 to 50,000 ft3/min. The estimated reductions, costs, and cost 

effectiveness associated with the BTF option is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Cost Effectiveness of BTF Option for APR Spray Dryers1

Process Vent

Baseline 

Emissions 

(tpy)

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy)

Capital

Cost 

Annual 

Cost

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton HAP)

Spray Dryers A-C 19.8 19.4 $2.2 million $773,000/yr $40,000

Spray Dryer D 63.9 62.7 $2.2 million $784,000/yr $12,500

Spray Dryer E 24.3 23.8 $2.1 million $723,000/yr $30,000

Spray Dryer F 76 74.5 $2.3 million $822,000/yr $11,000

Total 184.0 180.5 $8.8 million $3.1 million/yr $17,000

1Some discrepancies are due to rounding. 
4

The incremental cost effectiveness associated with requiring an RTO instead of a carbon 

adsorber on the spray dryers is presented in Table 4. As the table shows, the incremental cost 

effectiveness of requiring an RTO instead of a carbon adsorber on Spray Dryers A-C is 

800,000/ton HAP. For Spray Dryers D-F the incremental cost effectiveness associated with using 

an RTO instead of a carbon adsorber ranges from approximately $40,000 to $115,000.

Table 4. Incremental Cost Effectiveness of BTF Option for APR Spray Dryers1

Process Vent

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy)

Annual 

Cost

Incremental 

Cost 

Effectiveness

($/ton HAP) Carbon 2

Adsorber RTO Carbon Adsorber RTO

Spray Dryers A-C 18.8 19.4 $294,000/yr $773,000/yr $800,000

Spray Dryer D 49.9 62.7 $286,000/yr $784,000/yr $39,000

Spray Dryer E 19.9 23.8 $282,000/yr $723,000/yr $114,000

Spray Dryer F 65.4 74.5 $294,000/yr $822,000/yr $58,000

Total 154.0 180.5 $1.2 million/yr $3.1 million/yr $74,000

1Some discrepancies are due to rounding. 

2For Spray Dryers A-C the incremental cost effectiveness is the $/ton of HAP reduced associated 

with increasing the control efficiency from 95 to 98%. For Spray Dryers D-F it is the difference 

between 78/82/86% to 98%.
5

Appendix A-1

Summary of Process Vent Emission Rates

HAP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

MeOH 44.4 37.6 36.1 48.1 53.9 29.1 27.3 9.7 16.7 9.6 64.4 67.0 54.2 60.6 80.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

HCHO 13.7 11.6 11.1 14.8 16.6 4.2 4.0 1.4 2.5 1.4 9.3 9.6 7.5 7.6 7.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Phenol 6.4 5.4 5.2 7.0 7.8 2.1 1.9 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Acetaldehyde -- -- -- -- -- 3.4 3.2 0.9 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.7 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Cresols -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Epichlorohydrin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

HCl -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 64.5 54.6 52.5 69.9 78.2 38.7 36.3 12.6 21.5 12.4 76.3 79.5 64.5 70.8 89.2 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.53 0.55 0.44 0.57 0.43 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.03

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Production CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI 1,153 1,816 2,169 1,941 1,887 1,436 1,493 1,183 1,532 1,168 1,152 1,059 2,105 1,607 730

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Emission Rate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07

Average 8.7 10.4 13.4 0.2 0.7 0.1

Conway, NC Crossett, AR Taylorsville, MS Toledo, OH (P001) Toledo, OH (P002)

Emissions (tons/yr) Emissions (tons/yr) Emissions (tons/yr) Emissions (tons/yr) Emissions (tons/yr)

Production (tpy) Production (tpy) Production (tpy) Production (tpy) Production (tpy)

Rate (lb/ton) Rate (lb/ton) Rate (lb/ton) Rate (lb/ton) Rate (lb/ton)

5-Yr Avg Emission Rate (lb/ton) 5-Yr Avg Emission Rate (lb/ton) 5-Yr Avg Emission Rate (lb/ton) 5-Yr Avg Emission Rate (lb/ton) 5-Yr Avg Emission Rate (lb/ton) 5-Yr Avg Emission Rate (lb/ton)

Rate (lb/ton)

Production (tpy)

Emissions (tons/yr)

Toledo, OH (P003)
6

Appendix A-2

Calculation of Carbon Adsorber Costs – Spray Dryer F (page 1)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--CARBON ADSORBERS [1]

COST BASE DATE: Third Quarter 1989 [2]

VAPCCI (Fourth Quarter 1998--FINAL): [3] 102.5

CE Plant Index 1998 389.5 to extrapolate to 2013

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2013 567.3

 INPUT PARAMETERS:

-- Inlet stream flowrate (acfm): 66080 Average flow rate of multiple test runs at source

-- Inlet stream temperature (oF): 160

-- Inlet stream pressure (atm): 1

-- VOC to be condensed: Methanol

-- Inlet VOC flowrate (lb/hr): 29.7 This is the flowrate of all pollutants with data

-- VOC molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 32.04 This is the MW of methanol

-- VOC inlet volume fraction: 1.058169E-04

-- VOC inlet concentration (ppmv): 106

-- VOC inlet partial pressure (psia): 0.0016

-- Required VOC removal (fraction): 0.860

-- Freundlich isotherm equation constants for VOC (see Table 1 below):

 VOC number (enter Table 1 # or zero, if no data): 1005 Constants for toluene were used in lieu of methanol

 K: 0.855

 M: 0.153

-- Yaws isotherm equation constants (see Table 2 below):

 VOC number (enter Table 2 #or zero, if no data): 345 Constants for toluene were used in lieu of methanol

 A: 1.45599

 B: 0.10349

 C: -0.01086

-- Adsorption time (hr): 8.0

-- Desorption time (hr): 4.0

-- Number of adsorbing vessels: 7

-- Superficial carbon bed velocity (ft/min): 75

-- Carbon price ($/lb): 2.00

-- Material of construction (see list below):[4] 1

DESIGN PARAMETERS:

-- Carbon equilibrium capacity--Freundlich (lb VOC/lb carb): 0.3179

 " " " -- Yaws et al " " " " 0.4178

-- Carbon working capacity (lb VOC/lb carbon): 0.1590

-- Number of desorbing vessels: 4

-- Total number of vessels: 11

-- Carbon requirement, total (lb): 2349

-- Carbon requirement per vessel (lb): 214

-- Gas flowrate per vessel (acfm): 9440

-- Adsorber vessel diameter (ft): 12.659

-- Adsorber vessel length (ft): 4.057

-- Adsorber vessel surface area (ft2): 413.07

-- Carbon bed thickness (ft): 0.057

-- Carbon bed pressure drop (in. w.c.): [5] 0.191

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Costs ($):

-- Adsorber vessels 323,314

-- Carbon 4,698

-- Other equipment (condenser, decanter, etc.) 108,246

Total equipment cost ($)--base: 436,258

 ' ' ' ' --escalated: 704,661

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): 761,034

Total Capital Investment ($): 1,225,264

 " " " ($/acfm): 18.5

Available data did not include process temps. This is the OUTLET temperature from available NEI 

data for a representative source (GA/PAC Crosset)
7

Appendix A-2

Calculation of Carbon Adsorber Costs – Spray Dryer F (page 2)

ANNUAL COST INPUTS:

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): 26.36

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): 29.00

Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Electricity price ($/kWhr): 0.067

Recovered VOC value ($/lb): 0.1000

Steam price ($/1000 lb): 8.74 Scaled up

Cooling water price ($/1000 gal): 0.29 0.2 is from page 1-42 of CCM, scaled up from 2002 (395.6 index)

Carbon replacement labor ($/lb): 0.07 Scaled up

Overhead rate (fraction): 0.6

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 10

Capital recovery factor (system): 0.1424

Carbon life (years): 5

Capital recovery factor (carbon): 0.2439

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

 ANNUAL COSTS:

 Item Cost ($/yr) Wt. Factor W.F.(cond.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------

Operating labor 14,432 0.046 ----

Supervisory labor 2,165 0.007 ----

Maintenance labor 15,875 0.051 ----

Maintenance materials 15,875 0.051 ----

Electricity 1,494 0.005 ----

Steam 7,958 0.026 ----

Cooling water 625 0.002 ----

Carbon replacement 1,279 0.004 ----

Overhead 29,009 0.093 0.248

Taxes, insurance, administrative 49,011 0.157 ----

Capital recovery 173,703 0.558 0.715

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

Total Annual Cost (without credits) 311,425 1.000 0.968

Recovery credits -22,375

Total Annual Cost (with credits) 289,051

 " " " ($/million acf) 8.32

Notes:

------

[1] This program has been based on data and procedures in Chapter 4

of the OAQPS CONTROL COST MANUAL (5th edition).

[2] Base equipment costs reflect this date.

[3] VAPCCI = Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Index (for carbon

adsorbers) corresponding to year and quarter shown. Base equipment

cost, purchased equipment cost, and total capital investment have been

escalated to this date via the VAPCCI and control equipment vendor data.

[4] Enter one of the following: carbon steel--'1'; 316 stainless steel--

'1.3'; Carpenter 20 (CB-3)--'1.9'; Monel-400--'2.3'; Nickel-200--'3.2';

titanium--'4.5'.

[5] This is the carbon bed pressure drop ONLY. There will be additional pressure drop

through the ductwork . For estimating ductwork pressure losses, see Chapter 10 

of the OAQPS CONTROL COST MANUAL (5th edition).

May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

NAICS 325000 - Chemical Manufacturing http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_325000.htm

2012 Table 5.3. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Industrial 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_3
8

Appendix A-2

Calculation of Carbon Adsorber Costs – Spray Dryer F (page 3)

Table 1. Freundlich Constants for Selected Compounds [6]

 Correlation Range (psia)

 VOC name VOC number K M Temperature (F) Minimum Maximum

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benzene 1001 0.597 0.176 77 0.0001 0.05

Chlorobenzene 1002 1.05 0.188 77 0.0001 0.01

Cyclohexane 1003 0.508 0.210 100 0.0001 0.05

Dichloroethane 1004 0.976 0.281 77 0.0001 0.04

Phenol 1005 0.855 0.153 104 0.0001 0.03

Trichloroethane 1006 1.06 0.161 77 0.0001 0.04

Vinyl chloride 1007 0.200 0.477 100 0.0001 0.05

m-Xylene (low-pressure range) 1008 0.708 0.113 77 0.0001 0.001

m-Xylene (high-pressure range) 1009 0.527 0.0703 77 0.001 0.05

Acrylonitrile 1010 0.935 0.424 100 0.0001 0.015

Acetone 1011 0.412 0.389 100 0.0001 0.05

Toluene 1012 0.551 0.110 77 0.0001 0.05

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[6] These constants fit the following equation: 

Q = K(P)^M

where: Q = equilibrium adsorption capacity (lb/lb carbon)

 P = VOC partial pressure (psia at 1 atm & listed temperature)

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

 Table 2. Correlation Constants for Yaws Isotherm Equation [7] Correlation Ranges (ppmv)

==============================================================================================================

 VOC name VOC number A B C Minimum Maximum

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phosgene 6 -0.64469 0.60428 -0.02986 10 10000

Carbon tetrachloride 9 1.07481 0.28186 -0.02273 10 10000

Chloroform 11 0.67102 0.36148 -0.02288 10 10000

Formaldehyde 18 -2.48524 0.69123 -0.00375 10 10000

Methyl chloride 21 -1.91871 0.62053 -0.00549 10 10000

Carbon disulfide 35 -0.18899 0.47093 -0.01481 10 10000

Tetrachloroethylene 39 1.40596 0.20802 -0.02097 10 10000

Vinyl chloride 55 -0.98889 0.66564 -0.04320 10 10000

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 59 1.17163 0.27791 -0.02746 10 10000

Acetonitrile 60 -0.79666 0.63512 -0.02598 10 10000

Methyl isocyanate 61 -1.07579 0.85881 -0.06876 10 10000

Acetaldehyde 69 -1.17047 0.62766 -0.02475 10 10000

Ethylene glycol 84 1.40474 0.18738 -0.02663 10 121

Ethyl mercaptan 87 0.00552 0.40506 -0.01802 10 10000

Acrylonitrile 93 0.07669 0.49986 -0.03500 10 10000

Acrolein 97 -0.29632 0.49437 -0.02471 10 10000

1,3-Butadiene 168 -0.03359 0.34764 -0.01297 10 10000

Methyl ethyl ketone 194 0.46525 0.37688 -0.02801 10 10000

n-Butane 213 0.03071 0.34304 -0.01596 10 10000

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 331 1.68304 0.09456 -0.00998 10 566

Chlorobenzene 336 1.02705 0.30619 -0.03353 10 10000

Nitrobenzene 340 1.64859 0.06109 0 10 329

Benzene 341 0.81119 0.28864 -0.02378 10 10000

Phenol 345 1.45599 0.10349 -0.01086 10 10000

Toluene 466 1.11466 0.20795 -0.02016 10 10000

m-Cresol 469 1.61982 0.04926 0 10 149

o-Toluidine 474 1.58104 0.05475 0 10 339

Styrene 528 1.35701 0.13495 -0.01451 10 8044

m-Xylene 533 1.31522 0.14019 -0.01457 10 10000

o-Xylene 534 1.33404 0.13931 -0.01494 10 8722

p-Xylene 535 1.31115 0.14069 -0.01458 10 10000

[7] Constants fit the following equation: Q = 0.01*10^{A + B(log[y]) + C(log[y])^2}

where: Q = equilibrium adsorption capacity (lb/lb carbon)

 y = VOC concentration (ppmv at 77 F, 1 atm)

Source: Yaws, Carl L. et al., "Determining VOC Adsorption Capacity," Pollution Engineering, February 1995, pp. 34-37.
9

Appendix A-3

Calculation of Duct Costs – Spray Dryer F

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--STRAIGHT DUCTWORK [1]

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1993 359.2

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2013 567.3

INPUT PARAMETERS

-- Inlet stream flowrate (acfm): 66,080 Average flow rate of multiple test runs at source

-- Duct velocity (ft/min): [4] 3,500 Average Industrial ducts from CCM

-- Duct length (ft): [5] 100

-- Material of construction: [6] 304 SS Sheet

-- Insulation thickness (in.): (text input) [7] 0

-- Duct design: [8] Circ.-spiral

-- Cost equation parameters: [9]

 a: 1.56

 b: 1

-- Cost equation form: [10] 1

-- Control system installation factor: [11] 1.5

 (if no system, enter '0')

-- Fan-motor combined efficiency (fraction): 0.6

DESIGN PARAMETERS

-- Duct diameter (in.): 58.82

-- Pressure drop (in. w.c.): [12] 0.20

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Cost ($)--base: $9,175

 ' ' ' --escalated: $14,491

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): $15,650

Total Capital Investment ($): [13] $23,475

====================================================================

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hours/year): 8760

Electricity price ($/kWhr): [14] 0.067

Annual interest rate (fractional): 0.07

Ductwork economic life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor (system): 0.110

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

ANNUAL COSTS

Item Cost ($/yr) Wt.Fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electricity $1,509 0.300340518

Taxes, insurance, administrative $939 0.186831666

Capital recovery $2,577 0.512827816

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Annual Cost $5,026 1

Notes:

[1] Data used to develop this program were taken from 'OAQPS Control Cost Manual', 5th edition, Chapter 10. Prices are for 

CIRCULAR straight ductwork, only.

[3] PPI = Producer Price Index PCU 3444#1 ('Air-conditioning ducts and stove pipe') for year and quarter shown. Ductwork 

equipment cost has been escalated to this date via this PPI.

[6] Choices available are: carbon steel sheet (galv. CS sh.), stainless steel sheet (304 SS sh.), coated carbon steel plate (coat. CS pl.), 

304 stainless steel plate (304 SS pl.), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP)

[9] Equation type and parameters depend on duct material of construction. Parameters reflect 2nd quarter 1993 costs. See 

'Manual,' pp. 10-44 to 10-49.

[11] Installation factor depends on control device ductwork is supporting. This factor, when multiplied by Purchased Equipment 

Cost, yields Total Capital Investment (TCI). If ductwork is installed alone, factor is 1.25 to 1.50. (Default = 1.50.) See 'Manual'.

[12] Pressure drop applies ONLY to circular, spiral-wound galvanized duct with 10 joints per 100 feet. For pressure drop data for 

other duct types, see 'Manual,' Chapter 10.

[13] Product of installation factor and Purchased Equipment Cost. Costs are presented both in terms of 2nd quarter '93 and above 

escalation date. Latter costs are based on Producer Price Index PCU 3444#1 ('Air-conditioning ducts and stove pipe')

[14] 2012 Table 5.3. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Industrial 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_3

[7] Choices are: 0, 1, and 3.

[8] Choices are: circular spiral (circ.-spiral) and circular longitudinal (circ.-long.)

[10] Choices are: power function (1) and exponential (2).

[2] Base ductwork costs reflect this date.

[4] See 'Manual,' pp. 10-30 to 10-33.

[5] Duct length is a site-specific parameter that can vary from < 10 to > 1000 ft.
10

Appendix A-4

Calculation of Thermal Oxidizer Costs – Spray Dryer F

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--REGENERATIVE THERMAL OXIDIZERS (RTO)

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1999 390.6

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2009 521.9

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2013 567.3

INPUT PARAMETERS

-- Gas flowrate (scfm): 66,080 Average flow rate of multiple test runs at source

-- Reference temperature (oF): 7 7

-- Inlet gas temperature (oF): 160

-- Inlet gas density (lb/scf): 0.073901176 (28.97 is molecular weight of air)

-- Primary heat recovery (fraction): 0.95

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/scf): 0.058

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/lb): 0.78

-- Gas heat capacity (BTU/lb-oF): 0.255

-- Combustion temperature (oF): 1600 From CCM

-- Heat loss (fraction): 0.01

-- Exit temperature (oF): 232

-- Fuel heat of combustion (BTU/lb): 21502

-- Fuel density (lb/ft3): 0.0408

DESIGN PARAMETERS

Auxiliary Fuel Requirement (lb/min): 4.883506255

 (scfm): 119.6937808

Total Gas Flowrate (scfm): 66200.02711

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT ($)

(Cost correlations range: 10,000 to 100,000 scfm)

Total Capital Investment - Base $1,587,998

Total Capital Investment - Escalated $2,306,378

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): 26.36

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): 28.996 Operator labor rate*1.1

Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Electricity price ($/kwh): 0.067

Natural gas price ($/mscf): 3.86 2012 Natural Gas Prices: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 1 5

Capital recovery factor: 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

Pressure drop (in. w.c.): 2 0

ANNUAL COSTS

 Item Cost ($/yr)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operating labor $14,432.10

Supervisory labor $2,164.82

Maintenance labor $15,875.31 $32,472.23

Maintenance materials $15,875.31

Natural gas $242,836.66

Electricity $151,531.07

Overhead $29,008.52

Taxes, insurance, administrative $92,255.14

Capital recovery $253,227.95

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Annual Cost $817,207

Available data did not include process temps. This is the OUTLET temperature from available NEI data for a 

representative source (GA/PAC Crossett)

May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

NAICS 325000 - Chemical Manufacturing http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_325000.htm

2012 Table 5.3. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Industrial 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_3