p. 1



# OARBa

Prepped byKeeia Richards 

# x 1877

Document

Nun 

# 5)11

-
Docket Numbei 

# A

ber: 

# B- 2
90-1 9

Printed 12/2/200810:36:

6 AM Sheet 5of 46

# r 

# i

RADIA N <oi»giiario N P. 2 

# A-90-1 9 ll-B-2

MEMORANDU M

Datfi : Septembe r19 , 199 0 To : Lesl i e Evans , EPA/CP B From : Davi d Ocamb , Radia n / Subject : Methodolog yfor Incrementa l Ga

s cJstEflfo-AMftlPQ£fe)jTverl t
an d HO N Transfe r 

# d e n w

Thi s memorandu mpresent s th e propose d methodolog yfo r estimatin g incrementa l ga s cost s t o upgrad e a therma l incinerato r t o operat e a t
a destructio n efficienc yo f 9 8 percent
. Th e incinerato r upgrad e i s
necessar yfo r completin g th e economi c impact s fo r th e HO NProces s Vent s
an d HO NTransfe r NESHAPs
.

A s par t o f th e HO NNESHAP s effort , contro l cost s ar e generate d t o represen t th e monetar yinvestmen t necessar yt o achiev e th e contro l leve l t o b e dictate d b

yth e NESHAPs
. (The propose d contro l leve l i s 9 8 percent D y combustio n fo r Proces s Vent s and Transfer. ) Existin g (baseline ) contro l level s ar e determine d fro mStat e regulation s and i n som e case s th e baselin e devic e i s a therma l incinerator

. Fo r HO NProces s Vents , Illinoi s require s therma l incinerato r contro l a t a leve l o f 8 5 percent destructio n efficiency

. Fo r HONTransfer , Louisian a and Pennsylvani a requir e 9 0 percen t contro l b y therna l incineration

. A s a resul t i n orde r t o reac hth e NESHA P contro l level , a cos t mus t b e estimate dt o increas e th e Stat e contro l level s t o 9 8 percen t destructio nefficiency .

Th e desig no f a therma l incinerato r i s dependen t o n thre e importan t variables : combustio ntemperature , residenc e time,andturbulence . Th e combinatio no f thes e variable s dictate s th e destructio nefficienc yo f th e inciierator

. A s par t o f th e HO N Proces s Vent s an

dTransfer , th e therma l incinerato r i s designe dt o operat e a t 1,60 0 F fo r combustin g nonhalogenate d material s o r 2,000° F fo r halogenate dmaterials . Bot hdesign s represen t a residenc e time o f 0.7 5 second s wit hturbulen t flo w conditions . Thes e desig n constraint s correspon dt o th e destructio nefficienc y o f 9 8 percent .P. 3

A s par t o f th e HO

N Transfe r an

dProces s Vent s analysis , th e Stat e incinerator s ar e assume dt o be designe dt o operat e a t 0.7 5 residenc e tim e
an dwit hturbulen t flo w conditions . Th e combustio ntemperatur e i s the remainin g paramete r availabl e t o manipulat e t o achiev e th e 9 8 percen t destrjctio nefficiency .

The purpos e o f thi s memorandum i s provid e th e methodolog y t o determin e the operatio ntemperatur e fo r th e Stat e incinerator s an dt o estimat e the natura l ga s cos t t o increas e th e combustio ntemperatur e t o reac hth e 9 8 percen t destructio nlevel . Sectio n1. 0 present s th e methodolog y t o generat e th e Stat e incinerato r operatin g temperatures . Sectio n2. 0 present s th e methodolog y

t o estimat e th e natura l ga s cos t t o achiev e th e combustio n temperatur e at 9 8 percen t destructio nefficiency .

1. 0 METHODOLOG YFORESTIMATINGSTAT E INCINERATO ROPERATINGTEMPERATURE S

Sinc e th e state s liste dabov e requir e combustio ncontro l a t les s than 9 8 percent , th e Stat e incinerato r desig nmus t b e improve dt o mee t th e desig n constraint s o f th e HON incinerator . Therefore , a mode l desig nwa s developed . Th e assumptio nwa s mad e tha t th e incinerator s inthes e state s woul dbe operatin g a t 0.7 5 second s residenc e time wit hturbulen t flow conditions . Th e remainin g variabl e inth e incinerato r desig navailabl e t o improv e wa s t o increas e th e combustio ntemperatur e t o 1,600° F o r 2,000° F an d achiev e 9 8 percen t destruction . Assumin g th e Stat e incinerato r desig ncoul d operat e safel y

a t a highe r combustio ntemperature , a contro l cos t woul dthe n represen t a highe r natura l ga s requiremen t t o reac hth e HON desig n temperature .

Combustio ntemperature s require dt o achiev e variou s destructio n efficiencie s var y

base donth e compoun dinquestion . Tabl e 1- 1 present s the combustio ntemperatur e requirement s fo r variou s compound s a t 9 0 percent , 9 5 percent , an

d9 9 percen t destructio nefficiencie s an da t thre e residenc e time s (0.5 , 1. 0 an

d2. 0 seconds) . Eac hcompoundi s identifie da s a hazardou s ai r pollutan t (HAP ) andth e temperatur e dat a i s availabl e i nth e Marc h199 0 editio no f Pollutio nEngineering .Tabl e 11 . Incinerato r Combustio nTemperature s

Cocnpoun

d Haloge n Statu s HA

P (Y/N ) Residenc e Tim e = O. S sec Residenc e Tim e = 1. 0 se c

DE=90 X0E=95 XDE=99 XDE=90 XDE=95 X0E=99 X Residenc e Tim e - 2. 0 sec

DE=90 XDE=95 XDE=99 X

u > Methano l N Y Ethylen e H M N-Buty l Alcoho l N N Styren e N Y Glyco l Ether s N Y Methy l Isobutyl Keton e M Y Toluene H Y Pheno l N Y Xylen e N Y Aceton e N N Benzen e M Y Methy l Ethy l Keton e N Y Propylen e N N 1,1,1-Trichloroethane YN Dichloroethan e YY Trichloroethylen e YY Chlorofor

m YY CarbonTetrachlorid e YY Tetrachloroethylen e YY Freo n11 3 YN Dichloromethan e YY 2,09 2 1,42 4 1,39 2 1,42 4 1,42 4 1,77 2 1.33 8 2,48 9 2,09 2 2,48 9 1,46 0 1,77 2 1,42 4 1,19 3 1.77 2 1,54 5 1,17 4 1,42 4 1,79 7 1,45 7 1,50 5 2,11 6

1.44 5 1,40 7 1,44 5 1,44 5 1,79 3 1,35 1 2.52 5 2.11 6 2.52 5 1,48 9 1,79 3 1.44 5 1,21 8 1,79 3 1.59 2 1.19 0 1,44 5 1,84 2 1,47 3 1.52 2 2,15 8

1,48 0 1,43 3 1,48 0 1,48 0 1,82 8 1,37 2 2,58 7 2,15 8 2,58 7 1,53 7 1,82 8 1,48 0 1,26 1 1,82 8 1,67 5 1,21 6 1,48 0 1,92 1 1,49 9 1,55 2 2,02 9

1,37 2 1.35 3 1.37 2 1,37 2 1,71 9 1,30 4 2,39 6 2,02 9 2,39 6 1,38 9 1,71 9 1,37 2 1,13 0 1.71 9 1.42 9 1,13 3 1,37 2 1,68 4 1,41 7 1,45 9 2,05 3

1,39 1 1,36 8 1,39 1 1,39 1 1,73 8 1,31 7 2,43 1 2,05 3 2,43 1 1,41 5 1,73 8 1,39 1 1.15 3 1.73 8 1,47 2 1.14 8 1,39 1 1.72 6 1,43 2 1.47 6 2,09 2

1,42 4 1.39 2 1,42 4 1,42 4 1,77 2 1,33 8 2,48 9 2,09 2 2,48 9 1,46 0 1,77 2 1,42 4 1,19 3 1,77 2 1.54 5 1.17 4 1.42 4 1,79 7 1,45 7 1.50 5 1,97 0

1.32 2 1,31 6 1,32 2 1,32 2 1,66 8 1,27 2 2,31 0 1,97 0 2,31 0 1,32 2 1,66 8 1,32 2 1,07 2 1,66 8 1,32 6 1,09 4 1,32 2 1,58 3 1,37 9 1,41 6 1,99 2

1,34 0 1.33 0 1,34 0 1,34 0 1,68 7 1,28 4 2.34 2 1,99 2 2,34 2 1,34 7 1.68 7 1.34 0 1,09 3 1,68 7 1,36 4 1.10 9 1.34 0 1.62 0 1,39 3 1.44 3 2,02 9

1.37 2 1,35 3 1.37 2 1,37 2 1,71 9 1,30 4 2,39 6 2,02 9 2.39 6 1,38 9 1,71 9 1,37 2 1.13 0 1.71 9 1.42 9 1.13 5 1,37 2 1.68 4 1.41 7 1,45 9

Note : Al l temperature s ar e i nFahrenheit .P. 5

A s show nonTable 1-1 , th e combustio ntemperatur e varie s widely . I nsom e
cases , th e combustio ntemperatur e at 9 9 percen t exceed s th e HON desig n temperatur e a t 9 8 percen t an dinothe r case s th e temperatur e a t 9 9 percen t destructio ni s muc hles s thanthe HO N desig ntemperature .

"h e dat a o

nTabl e 1- 1 wa s use dt o generat e combustio ntemperature s a t 0.7 5 second s residenc e time (HO N residenc e time) . Th e combustio n temperatur e at 0.7 5 second s wa s calculate db y selectin g th e midpoin t betwee n th e 0. 5 secondan

d1. 0 secondresidenc e time s fo r eac hefficiency . Th e combustio ntemperature s at 0.7 5 secondresidenc e time i s show no nTabl e 1- 2 fo r onl y HA P compounds . Overall , th e temperature s vary widel y at 0.7 5
seconc s residenc e time . A naverag e temperatur e wa s generate dfo r eac h destructio nefficienc y an da s show

nonTabl e 1-2 , th e averag e temperature s fo r th e nonhalogenate dHAP s al l excee d1,60 0 F an dth e averag e temperature s fo r halogenate dHAP s ar e muc hlowe r tha n2,000°F . No clea r correlatio nwa s • apparen t fo r usin g th e averag e temperatur e t o determin e th e relationshi po f HON desig ntemperatur e t o destructio nefficienc y usin g th e Pollutio n Engineerin g data .

I norde r t o develo pa correlatio no f combustio ntemperatur e t o destructio nefficienc y relativ e t o th e HON desig ntemperatures , a temperatur e incremen t wa s calculate dt o us e inestimatin g th e Stat e operatin g temperatures . Th e engineerin g assumptio ni s tha t eve nthroug hthe averag e temperature s diffe r fro m th e HON

desig ntemperatures , th e incrementa l temperatur e i s applicable . A temperatur e chang e fro m 9 0 percen t t o 9 5 percen t wa s calculate da s wel l a s th e temperatur e chang e fo r 9 5 percen t t o 9 9 percent . Th e temperatur e chang e fo r eac hHA P stream i s show

n
onTabl e 1-3 . Next , a nincrementa l temperatur e chang e wa s calculate d representin g th e temperatur e increas e pe r uni t o f efficiency . Thi s wa s performe db

y takin g th e temperatur e chang e fro m 9 0 t o 9 5 percen t rang e an d dividin g b

y 5 . Thi s represent s th e temperatur e increas e pe r 1 percen t increas e inefficiency . Similarly , a temperatur e chang e pe r 1 percen t increas e wa s generate dfo r th e 9 5 percen t t o 9 9 percen t efficienc y range . Th e temperatur e increment s ar e als o presente donTabl e 1-3 .P. 6



### Tabl e 1-2 . Incinerato r Temperature s at 0.7 5 Second s Residenc e Time

Haloge nHA

P Residenc e Tim

e = 0.7 5 se c CompoundStatu s (Y/N ) 0E=90 XDE=95 XDE=99 X

Benzen e Methy l Ethy l Keton e Methy l Isobuty l Xylen e Glyco l Ether s Methano l Toluen e Styren e Pheno l Keton e N N H H H N N H H Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

- Y Y 1,42 5

1,74 6 1,74 6 2,06 1 1,39 8 2,06 1 1,32 1 1,39 8 2,44 3 1,45 2

1,76 6 1,76 6 2,08 5 1,41 8 2,08 5 1,33 4 1,41 8 2,47 8 1,49 9

1,80 0 1,80 0 2,12 5 1,45 2 2,12 5 1.35 5 1,45 2 2,53 8
Avg . for Nonhaloge n1,73 3 1,75 6 1,79 4
Dichloroethan e Tetrachloroethylen e Carbo nTetrachlorid e Chlorofor

m Trichloroethylen e Dichloromethan e Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1,74 6

1,74 1 1,39 8 1,15 4 1,48 7 1,48 2 1,76 6

1,78 4 1,41 8 1,16 9 1,53 2 1,49 9 1,80 0

1,85 9 1,45 2 1,19 5 1,61 0 1,52 9

Avg . for Haloge n 1,53 4 1,56 0 1,60 5

Note : Al l temperature s ar e inFahrenheit .P. 7

Tabl e 1-3 . Temperatur e Increment s

Haloge nHA

P Temperatur e Chang e a R T = 0.7 5 se c Incrementa l Tem pChang e a R

T ** * 0.7 5 se c CompoundStatu s (Y/N ) 90%->95 X0E=95X->99 X90X->95 XDE=95%->99 %

Benzen e Methy l Ethy l Keton e Methy l Isobuty

l Xylen e Glyco l Ether s Methano l Toluen e Styren e Pheno l Keton e N N N N H N N N N Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 27. 5 20. 0 20. 0 24. 0 20. 0 24. 0 13. 0 20. 0 35. 5 46. 5

34. 5 34. 5 40. 5 34. 0 40. 5 21. 0 34. 0 60. 0 5. 5 4. 0 4. 0 4. 8 4. 0 4. 8 2. 6 4. 0 7. 1 11. 6

8. 6 8. 6 10. 1 8. 5 10. 1 5. 3 8. 5 15. 0
Avg . for Nonhaloge n 22. 7 38. 4 4. 5 9. 6

Dichloroethan

e Tetrachloroethylen

e Carbo nTetrachlorid

e Chlorofor

m Trichloroethylene * Dichloromethan

e Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y 20. 0 43. 5 20. 0 15. 5 45. 0 17. 0 34. 5

75. 0 34. 0 26. 0 78. 0 29. 5 4. 0 8. 7 4. 0 3. 1 9. 0 3. 4 8. 6

18. 8 8. 5 6. 5 19. 5 7. 4

Avg . for Haloge n 26. 2 45. 1 5. 2 11. 3

Note : Al l temperatur e range s ar e inFahrenheit .P. 8

Th e temperatur e increment s wer e average dfo r th e rang e 9 0 percen t t o 9 5 percen t an

dth e rang e 9 5 t o 9 9 percen t fo r th e nonhalogenate dan d halogenate dHAPs . Fo r nonhalogenate dHAPs , th e averag e temperatur e incremen t fo r th e 9 0 t o 9 5 percen t rang e i s 4. 5 degree s an d9. 6 degree s fo r 9 5 t o 9 9 percent . Fo r halogenate dHAPs , th e averag e temperatur e incremen t fo r 9 0 t o 9 5 percen t i s 5. 2 an dth e incrementa l fo r 9 5 t o 9 9 i s 11.3 . Clearly , th e Pollutio nEngineerin g dat a i s no t provid e a consisten t temperatur e increas e pe r uni t increas e i ndestructio nefficiency .

Fo r th e nonhalogenate dHAPs , th e increment s fo r 9 0 t o 9 5 percen t an d9 5 t o 9 9 percen t wer e use dt o calculat e th e averag e incremen t pe r uni t destructio nefficiency . Thi s averag e fo r nonhalogenate dHAP s i s 7.0° F temperatur e increas e pe r uni t destructio nefficiency . A naverag e temperatur e incremen t wa s als o calculate dfo r th e halogenate dstream s whic h
wa s 8.25° F pe r uni t destructio nefficiency .

I i orde r t o calculat e th e operatin g temperatur e fo r a Stat e incinerator , th e Stat e contro l efficienc y i s subtracte dfro

m 9 8 percent . Thi s differenc e i s multiplie db y th e temperatur e incremen t pe r uni t destructio nefficienc y t o calculat e th e temperatur e differenc e fo r th e Stat e incinerators . Thi s differenc e i s subtracte dfro m th e HON

desig ntemperatur e t o calculat e th e Stat e operatin g temperature . Th e engineerin g assumptio ni s tha t th e temperatur e chang e pe r increas e indestructio nefficienc y i s constan t an

dtha t th e increment s calculate dfro m th e Pollutio nEngineerin g dat a c;» nbe extrapolate dbelow 9 0 percen t destructio nefficiency .

2. 0 METHODOLOG YFORINCREMENTAL GA S COS T ESTIMATION

Base dupo nth e averag e temperatur e increment s fo r th e halogenate dan d nonhalogenate dHAP s presente dabove , th e Stat e operatin g temperature s can
now be estimated . Th e annua l contro l cos t fo r upgradin g th e Stat e incinerator s require s onl y th e cos t o f th e natura l ga s require dt o increas e th e combustio ntemperatur e from th e Stat e operatin g temperatur e t o th e HON operatin g temperature .P. 9

Th e curren t SOCM I CT Gprojec t provide d HO Nwit ha costin g algorithm fo r estimatin g incinerato r and flar e contro l costs
. Fo r source s no t controlle d

a t th e baselin e b

ycombustion , thi s routin e i s use d t o calculat e th e cos t fo r combustio n control

. Fo r th e State s wit hincinerator s a t baseline , th e
sam e algorithmi s use d t o calculat e th e natura l ga s cos t t o increas e th e operatin g temperatur e t o th e HO Nlevel

. T o calculat e th e incrementa l ga s cost , th e incinerato r algorithmi s use d t o calculat e th e natura l ga s cos t a t th e Stit e and HO Noperatin g temperature s base d o n th e actua l ven t strea m characteristics

. Th e differenc e i n thes e tw o cost s i s th e annua l ga s cos t t o increas e th e contro l efficienc yt o 9 8 percent
.

Tabl e 2- 1 present s a numbe r o f HONProces s Ven t mode l stream s use d a s example s i n developin g incrementa l natura l ga s costs
. Th e mode l stream s represen t halogenate d and nonhalogenate d stream s a s wel l a s ven t stream s wit hhig hand lo wflowrate s and hea t contents
. Th e contro l scenari o use d in thi s exampl e i s an incinerato r locate d a t a plan t i n Illinoi s operatin g a t 8 5 percen t destructio n efficiency

. T o calculat e th e operatin g temperature s fo r halogenate d and nonhalogenate d streams , th e followin g calculatio n i s performed :

Contro l Incremen t = 98 % - 85 % = 13 % Haloge n Combustio n Temper * at 8 5 Percen t Destructio n Ncnhaloge n Combustio n Term ; a t 8 5 Percen t Destructio n Hcloge n Combustio n Temperature = 2,00 0 - (1 3 X8.25 ) = 1,890° F

Ncnhaloge n Combustio n Temperature = 1,600 0 - (1 3 X7.0 ) = 1,510° F

Th e incrementa l contro l leve l i s calculate d and multiplie d time s th e averag e temperatur e increment

. Thi s quantit yi s subtracte d fro mth e HO Ndesig n temperatur e t o determin e th e Stat e operatin g temperature
.

Onc e th e Stat e operatin g temperatur e i s determined , th e natura l ga s
cos t fo r ven t strea m i s estimate d a t th e bot hth e Stat e an d HO Noperatin g temperatures
. Th e annua l natura l ga s cos t i s th e differenc e i n th e ga s costs
. Tabl e 2- 2 present s th e ga s cost s fo r eac hdestructio n efficienc yan d th e incrementa l ga s cos t fo r the exampl e streams .



### 8P.1 0



### Tabl e 2-1 . Exampl e Ven t Stream s

Stream 1 0

======= =

1 2 3 4

. 5 6

7 8 9 1 0 Hazardou s

Ai r Pollutan t

======================= =
Adipon i tr i l e Isopthali c Aci d Methano l Methy l Methacrylat e N-Buty l Alcoho l Styren e

Dichlorobenzen e Ethy l Chlorid e Ethy l Oichorid e Ethylen e Dichlorid e Haloge n Statu s

======== =

N N N N N N

Y Y Y Y Flowrt e (scfm )

======== =

1,08 0 123 63. 4 2. 6 5.42 9 57 4

2. 6 2 0 3,05 0 4 0 Hea t Valu e (8tu/scf )

•====*====== =
70 1 9 44 9 287 0 77 6 30 0

6 2 128 6 80 4 4 0

ssssssssss : HA

P Concentratio n (ppmv )

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

1,51 2 7,60 0 204,61 7 1,000,00 0 55.20 0 17,62 0

22,22 0 850,85 0 375,87 0 5,94 0

Note : Eac hstream

i s a t 7 7 F , zer o percen t oxygen , an di s release d 8,76 0 hour s pe r year .P.11



### Tabl e 2-2

. Incrementa l Ga s Cos t fo ra Illinoi s Incinerato r

Strea m I D

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 1 0 Hazardous

Ai r PoUutan t

Adiponitril e Isopthal c Aci d Methano l Methy l Methacrylat e N-Butyl Alcoho l Styren e

Dichlorofcenzen

e Ethy l Chlorid

e Ethy l Dichoride Ethylen e Dichlorid

e Haloge

n Status

N N N N N N

Y Y Y Y Flowrt e (scfm )

1,08 0 123 63. 4 2. 6 5,42 9 57 4

2. 6 2 0 3,05 0 4 0 Heat Valu e (Btu/scf )

7 0 19 44 9 287 0 77 6 30 0

6 2 128 6 80 4 4 0 HA

P Concentratio

n (ppmv )

1,51 2 7,60 0 204,61 7 1,000,00 0 55,20 0 17,62 0

22,22 0 850,85 0 375,87 0 5,94 0 Ga

s Cos t
a t 9 8 Percen

t (S/yr )

3,67 7 29,73 3 1,02 2 21 6 121,96 6 4,98 5

3,71 5 1,43 2 18,19 0 95 3 Ga

s
a t 8 5 Cos t Percen t ($/yr )

3,46 0 26,50 2 96 2 20 3 114,57 9 4,69 1

3,47 9 1,35 0 17,15 0 71 1 Incrementa l Ga s Cos t (S/yr )

21 7 3,23 1 6 0 1 3 7,38 7 29 4

23 6 8 2 1,04 0 24 2

Note : Eachstrea

m i s at 7 7 F , zero percen t oxygen , an di s released 8,76 0 hour s pe 1 year .



### 1 0