1

MEMORANDUM

Date: November 22, 2013 

Subject: MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Unregulated Emission Sources in the 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production and Amino/Phenolic Resins Production 

Source Categories

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

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

______________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this memorandum is to present analyses related to the MACT “floor” and 

“beyond-the-floor” (BTF) control options for unregulated emission sources identified in the 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production (AMF) and Amino/Phenolic Resins Production (APR) 

source categories. This memorandum will also present the potential risk reduction of the BTF 

control options to the maximum source category risk. Section 1 provides background 

information, followed by Section 2, which presents the results of the MACT floor and BTF 

analyses for the following unregulated emission sources: (1) fiber spinning lines that use a spin 

dope produced from a solution polymerization process in the AMF source category (Section 2.1); 

(2) continuous process vents in the APR source category (Section 2.2); and (3) storage vessels in 

the APR source category (Section 2.3). Section 3 provides an analysis of the potential risk 

reductions of the BTF control options. 

1.0 Background 

CAA section 112(d)(2) calls for the EPA to promulgate national technology-based emission 

standards for each category or subcategory of sources that is listed in accordance with 112(c). 

For “major sources” that emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or 

more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year, these 

technology-based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. 

The MACT “floor” is the minimum control level allowed for MACT standards promulgated 

under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based on cost considerations. The MACT floor for 

existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (both the 

AMF and APR source categories have fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, 

the EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, commonly 

referred to as BTF options. The EPA may establish standards more stringent than the floor based 

on considerations of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy requirements. 
2

Where the EPA identifies emission points that were erroneously not previously regulated under a 

MACT rule, the EPA may identify MACT floor and BTF control options for existing and new 

sources, and set standards for these sources under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Here, both the 

AMF and APR MACT standards, as originally promulgated, did not regulate HAP emissions for 

certain emissions points, as identified above.

2.0 MACT Floor and Beyond-the Floor Analyses 

2.1 Fiber spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a solution polymerization 

process at existing sources in the AMF source category

Determination of the MACT floor 

The AMF MACT standard currently provides a compliance option to reduce emissions to less 

than or equal to a specified emission factor for fiber spinning lines that use a spin dope produced 

from a suspension polymerization process at existing sources and all fiber spinning lines at new 

sources. The emission factor is in the format of pounds of acrylonitrile (AN) per tons of acrylic 

and modacrylic fiber produced (lbs AN per ton product). A similar emission factor will be 

developed for fiber spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a solution polymerization 

process. This emission factor will be considered the MACT floor, which is representative of 

uncontrolled spinning line emissions at the one facility in the AMF source category – Cytec 

Carbon Fibers in Piedmont, SC. 

On July 3, 2012, Cytec provided the EPA with an emission factor analysis containing six years 

of historical production information and estimated emissions. This analysis included an emission 

rate (in pounds per hour) that was determined from an emission source test conducted at one of 

their fiber spinning lines on February 28, 2012. The measured emission rate was converted to an 

emission factor (lb AN per ton product) by dividing the emission rate by the ‘pound per hour’ 

production rate observed during the emission test. In their analysis, Cytec notes that the emission 

rate determined from the test is an instantaneous rate that does not account for normal process 

variability. In order to account for variability, Cytec scaled the emission factor to both the 

average coagulation bath AN concentration in 2011 and to the highest percentage the facility 

determined the AN concentration would reach in the coagulation bath with normal process 

variability. This generated a range of emission factors; the lowest corresponding to the emissions 

observed during the test, and the highest corresponding to the emissions scaled to highest AN 

emissions expected with normal process variability. The facility also provided an analysis of the 

emissions from their two spinning lines separately, considering the average AN coagulation bath 

concentrations and the different air flow rates of the two lines. The emission factors arrived at 

using this method were slightly less than in the facility’s other analysis, but these emission 

factors did not consider the full range of process variability. 

The emission factor that will be considered the MACT floor for fiber spinning lines that use a 

spin dope produced from a solution polymerization process is 40 pounds of organic HAP per ton 

of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced. This emissions factor is based on all organic HAP 

rather than just AN to account for other possible organic HAP that could be emitted, although 

currently the only organic HAP used or emitted by the process is AN. This emission factor is at 
3

the upper end of the emission factor range provided by Cytec and accounts for process 

variability. 

Beyond-the-floor control options 

The BTF control options identified for fiber spinning lines that use a spin dope produced from a 

solution polymerization process are a scrubber that achieves an 85 percent emission reduction 

and a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) that achieves a 95 percent emission reduction. The 

cost effectiveness of each control option is provided in Table 1. Baseline emissions were taken 

from Cytec’s July 3, 2012 submittal, and include a low and high baseline emission rate for each 

control option based on whether emissions were scaled to the variability in the coagulation bath 

AN concentration (i.e., the higher emission rate is scaled to include variability). See Appendix A 

for detailed cost calculations for each option. 

Table 1. Cost Effectiveness of Beyond-the-Floor Options for AMF Fiber Spinning Lines 

that Use a Spin Dope Produced from a Solution Polymerization Process 

Control 

Technology

Emission 

Variability

Baseline 

Emissions 

(tpy)

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy)

Capital 

Cost 

(million $)

Annual 

Cost 

($/yr)

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton HAP)

Incremental 

Cost 

Effectiveness

($/ton HAP)

MACT Floor

None – 58.83 – – – – 

Beyond-the-Floor Options

Scrubber 

(85%) Low 31.80 27.03 2.6 621,843 23,000 – 

Scrubber 

(85%) High 58.83 50.01 2.6 621,843 12,400 – 

RTO 

(95%) Low 31.80 30.21 3.4 1,453,672 48,000 262,000 

RTO 

(95%) High 58.83 55.89 3.4 1,453,672 26,000 141,000 

2.2 Continuous process vents at existing sources in the APR source category

Determination of the MACT floor 

Two facilities that operate continuous process vents in the APR source category have been 

identified:

• Georgia Pacific in Crossett, Arkansas

• BTL Specialty Resins in Toledo, Ohio 

Currently, continuous process vents at existing APR sources do not have emissions control 

requirements and represent a potentially significant source of HAP emissions. Under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3), the proposed MACT floor level of control is to reduce organic HAP 
4

either by 85 percent or to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv), when using 

a combustion control device, or to a concentration of 50 ppmv when using a non-combustion 

control device. This MACT floor level of control is based on available data from the original 

development of the APR MACT standards.a The estimated HAP emission reduction and 

associated cost per ton of HAP removed is shown in Table 2. 

Beyond-the-floor control options 

Two BTF control options have been identified for continuous process vents in the APR source 

category that would be more stringent than the MACT floor: 

• Option 1 - Require control efficiency of 95 percent, assuming a scrubber would be used 

to achieve this efficiency, and

• Option 2 – Require control efficiency of 98 percent, assuming a thermal oxidizer would 

be used to achieve this efficiency.

The cost effectiveness of each control option is provided in Table 2. The baseline emissions are 

from the 2005 NEI, and are the combined emissions for the two known facilities in the source 

category that operate continuous process vents. The costs are also the combined costs for the two 

facilities, and represent the cost of one scrubber or thermal oxidizer at each facility. Note that 

because of the difference in magnitude in the process vent flowrate between the two facilities, a 

regenerative thermal oxidizer system was assumed for one facility and a recuperative thermal 

oxidizer system was assumed for the other facility. The cost of a regenerative thermal oxidizer 

was estimated for the Georgia Pacific facility, which had a flowrate close to 60,000 ft3/min. The 

cost of a recuperative thermal oxidizer was estimated for Tembec, which had a flowrate of about 

5,000 ft3

/min. See Appendix B for detailed cost calculations for each option for these two 

facilities.

Table 2. Cost Effectiveness of Beyond-the-Floor Options for APR Continuous Process 

Vents

Control 

Technology

Baseline 

Emissions 

(tpy)

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy)

Capital 

Cost

(million $)

Annual

Cost

($/yr)

Cost 

Effectiveness

($/ton HAP)

Incremental 

Cost 

Effectiveness

($/ton HAP)

MACT Floor

Scrubber (85%) 23.7 20.1 1.1 340,544 16,933 --

Beyond-the-Floor Options

Option 1:

Scrubber (95%) 23.7 22.5 1.3 386,565 17,198 19,451 

Option 2:

Thermal Oxidizer

(98%)

23.7 23.2 3.7 1,183,403 51,038 1,122,622 

 

a US Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the Manufacture Of Amino and 

Phenolic Resins Basis and Purpose Document for Proposed Standards. May 1998.
5

2.3 Storage vessels at existing sources in the APR source category

Determination of the MACT floor 

Currently, storage vessels at existing APR sources do not have emissions control requirements 

and represent a potentially significant source of HAP emissions. Under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (3), the proposed MACT floor level of control is to either maintain and operate a storage 

vessel with an internal or an external floating roof, or use a fixed roof tank with emissions vented 

through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices that achieve a 95 percent 

emissions reduction or reduce emissions to specified control device outlet concentrations. This 

MACT floor level of control is based on available data from the original development of the 

APR MACT standards.b

These requirements would apply to storage vessels having a capacity of: 

• 50,000 gallons or greater and a vapor pressure of 2.45 pounds per square inch 

absolute (psia) or greater, or 

• 90,000 gallons or greater and a vapor pressure of 0.15 psia or greater. 

Based on information collected in 1999 in response to comments received on the proposed 1998 

APR MACT standards, as well as operating permits for facilities in the source category, the EPA 

believes that all existing storage vessels that meet these applicability thresholds are already 

controlled to 95 percent. c

Beyond-the-floor control options 

Two BTF control options have been identified for storage vessels in the APR source category 

that would be more stringent than the MACT floor: 

• Option 1 - Require control efficiency of 95 percent and lower the applicability thresholds 

for some smaller tanks to be in accordance with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP 

(HON), and

• Option 2 - Require control efficiency of 98 percent and lower the applicability thresholds 

for some smaller tanks to be in accordance with the HON.

The first option would replace the lower of the two current MACT floor applicability thresholds 

(tank capacity of 50,000 gallons and vapor pressure of 2.45 psia) with two thresholds from the 

HON (20,000 gallons / 1.9 psia and 40,000 gallons / 0.75 psia). The MACT floor threshold of 

90,000 gallon / 0.15 psia threshold would be retained, since it is more stringent than the HON for 

those large storage tanks (See Table 3). 

 

b US Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the Manufacture Of Amino and 

Phenolic Resins Basis and Purpose Document for Proposed Standards. May 1998.

c King, Bennett. Memorandum to Amino/Phenolic Resins NESHAP Project Docket. Reanalysis of Storage Vessel 

MACT Floor in Response to Public Comments and New Data. December 10, 1999. See Appendix C of this 

memorandum.
6

Table 3. Applicability Thresholds for Beyond-the-Floor Option for APR Storage Vessels

Regulatory 

Alternative

Applicability Threshold

Tank Size 

(gal)

Vapor Pressure @25°C

(psia)

MACT Floor 50,000 ≤ capacity ≥ 2.45

90,000 ≤ capacity ≥ 0.15

Beyond-the-Floor:

Option 1 (95%) 

Option 2 (98%) 

20,000 ≤ capacity < 40,000 ≥ 1.9

40,000 ≤ capacity < 90,000 ≥ 0.75

90,000 ≤ capacity ≥ 0.15

As with the thresholds for the MACT floor, based on the information collected in 1999 in 

response to comments received on the proposed 1998 APR MACT standards, as well as 

operating permits for facilities in the source category, it appears that all existing storage vessels 

that meet these BTF applicability thresholds are already controlled to 95 percent. Therefore, no 

costs or additional emission reductions are expected from the introduction of these more 

stringent applicability thresholds. However, in order to show the maximum potential impacts 

from this option, we performed an analysis with an APR model plant. The model plant includes 

two APR storage tanks and assumes one tank is already meeting the control requirements of the 

MACT floor and that one additional tank would require control under Option 1. The 

characteristics of this model plant are shown in Table 4. In this analysis, we assumed that the 

additional tank would be controlled with the same control device as the controlled tank but 

would require ductwork to route emissions there. 

Table 4. APR Model Plant1

Tank

Number 

of tanks 

present

Capacity 

 (gal) Content

Vapor 

Pressure 

@25 ̊C 

(psia)

Uncontrolled 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lb/yr)

Uncontrolled 

HAP 

Emissions 

(tpy)

Small Tank 1 40,000 Methanol/ 

Water (60/40) 1.63 2,220 1.11 

Medium 

Tank 1 75,000 Methanol 2.45 5,643 2.82 

Total 2 7,863 3.93 1 Model tank sizes and emissions taken from Tables 3 and 8 of “Survey of Control Technology for Storage 

Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control Options,” January 20, 2012, EPA Docket No. EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0871. Emissions for tank sizes not included in available model plants estimated via linear 

interpolation.

For the second BTF option, we considered the impacts of requiring a 98 percent emissions 

reduction for storage vessels meeting the capacity and vapor pressure thresholds under Option 1, 

assuming emissions would be vented through a closed vent system to a RTO to attain this 
7

increased level of control. For this analysis, we assumed the model plant described above would 

require ductwork and an RTO to control both storage tanks. The estimated emissions reductions 

and cost effectiveness for Options 1 and 2 are shown in Table 5. Since our data indicates that six 

facilities report emissions from storage vessels, we assumed that just these six facilities would be 

impacted by these regulatory options. See Appendix D for detailed cost calculations for each 

option. 

Table 5. APR Source Category Costs and Emissions Reductions for Storage Vessels at 

Existing APR Facilities1,2,3

Regulatory 

Alternative 

Baseline 

HAP 

Emissions 

(tpy)

HAP 

Emission 

Reduction

(tpy)

HAP 

Emission 

Reduction 

from 

baseline 

(tpy)

Capital 

Cost 

($) 

Annual 

Costs 

($/yr)

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton HAP)

Incremental 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton HAP)

Baseline

(MACT 

Floor) 0.85 95% 0 0 0 -- --

Option 1:

 (Beyondthe-floor, 

HON 

thresholds, 

95% control)

7.5 95% 6.3 67,000 15,000 2,400 2,400 

Option 2 

(Beyondthe-floor, 

HON 

thresholds, 

98% control)

7.5 98% 7.0 5,200,000 1,600,000 230,000 2,200,000 

1 MACT floor assumes scrubber to achieve 95% control and associated ductwork for a single tank. Option 1 assumes 

ductwork to an existing control device achieving 95% control for one additionally controlled tank. Option 2 assumes RTO 

to achieve 98% control and ductwork for two controlled tanks. 2 Assumes all emissions are from tanks exceed the applicability thresholds and therefore require control.

3 The potential costs and emissions reductions of Options 1 and 2 are presented here assuming six facilities would have 

storage tanks above the thresholds at which control would be required. However, available data indicate that there may be 

no existing facilities with uncontrolled tanks above the thresholds at which control would be required. In this case, there 

would be no costs or emissions reductions associated with Option 1. The costs and emissions reduction associated with 

Option 2 would still apply.
8

3.0 Risk Reductions of Beyond-the-Floor Control Options

To estimate the impacts of BTF control options on the maximum source category risk, the risk 

reductions associated with the BTF options for the uncontrolled emissions sources were 

examined, and the impact of those emissions points on the total source category risks were 

examined. This analysis assumes a linear relationship between emissions and risk; therefore, the 

percent decrease in emissions is assumed to equal the percent decrease in risk. 

For the AMF source category, the BTF options are an 85 percent HAP emissions reduction and a 

95 percent HAP emissions reduction from spinning lines using a spin dope produced from a 

solution polymerization process. These BTF options are assumed to also result in an 85 percent 

and a 95 percent risk reduction, respectively, from these spinning lines. In the context of the 

maximum risks from the source category, these spinning lines are the source of the maximum 

cancer and chronic non-cancer risks from the source category, and a decrease in emissions from 

these emissions sources leads to a decrease in the maximum source category risks. Table 6 

presents the actual and estimated risks for the AMF source category for each BTF control option. 

For the APR source category, there are BTF options for storage vessels and for continuous 

process vents. The BTF options for storage vessels are a 95 percent HAP emissions reduction for 

additional storage tanks meeting certain capacity and vapor pressure thresholds and a 98 percent 

HAP emissions reduction for all storage tanks meeting certain capacity and vapor pressure 

thresholds. The BTF options for continuous process vents are an 85 percent HAP emissions 

reduction and a 95 percent HAP emissions reduction. These BTF options are assumed to also 

result in a risk reduction proportional to the emissions reductions from these emission points. In 

the context of the emissions and risks from the source category, emissions from equipment leaks 

drive the cancer risks and emissions from storage vessels drive the non-cancer risks. Since 

equipment leaks drive the cancer risks, reductions in emissions from neither continuous process 

vents nor storage tanks have an impact on the maximum source category cancer risks. Similarly, 

continuous process vent emissions do not have an impact on the maximum source category noncancer risks, but the storage vessel emissions do impact these risks. Assuming the storage 

emissions driving the maximum non-cancer risks are from an uncontrolled storage tank, under 

both BTF options, the maximum non-cancer risk would be reduced to less than the risk caused 

by other emission point types (i.e., equipment leaks). The maximum non-cancer risk considering 

either BTF option for storage vessels would be reduced from 0.2 to 0.07. Table 7 presents the 

actual and estimated risks for the APR source category for each BTF control option.
9

Table 6. Actual and Estimated Beyond-the-Floor Risks for the AMF Source Category

Unregulated 

Emission Source 

(BTF option)

Actual 

maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in a million)

Actual 

maximum 

chronic 

noncancer 

TOSHI

BTF Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk (in 

a million)

BTF Maximum 

chronic 

noncancer 

TOSHI

AMF Spinning Lines 

(85% BTF control) 20 0.1 

3 0.02 

AMF Spinning Lines 

(95% BTF control) 1 0.01 

Table 7. Actual and Estimated Beyond-the-Floor (BTF) Risks for the APR Source 

Category 

Unregulated 

Emission Source 

(BTF option)

Actual 

maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in a million)

Actual 

maximum 

chronic 

noncancer 

TOSHI

BTF Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk (in a 

million)

BTF Maximum 

chronic 

noncancer 

TOSHI

APR Storage Tanks 

(95% BTF control) 

9 0.2 

9 0.07 

APR Storage Tanks 

(98% BTF control) 9 0.07 

APR Continuous 

Process Vents (85% 

BTF control)

9 0.2 

APR Continuous 

Process Vents (95% 

BTF control)

9 0.2 
A-1 

Appendix A

Cost Calculations for AMF Fiber Spinning Lines that Use a Spin Dope Produced from a 

Solution Polymerization Process - Scrubber

(Page 1)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--GAS ABSORBERS [1]

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1991 361.3

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2011 585.7

INPUT PARAMETERS:

Stream parameters:

Inlet waste gas flowrate (acfm): 190,671

Inlet waste gas flowrate (scfm): 185,080 Assume ambient (standard) temperature of 70 degrees F (529.67 R)

-- Inlet waste gas temperature (oF): 86 Temp Rankine: 545.67

-- Inlet waste gas pressure (atm.): 1

-- Process operating hours, hr/yr 8760

-- Pollutant in waste gas: Acrylonitrile

 AN emissions, tpy 58.83

-- AN emissions, lb/yr 117660

-- AN concentration, ppmv 500 Assume minimum value of 500 ppm

-- AN molecular weight 53.1

-- Inlet gas poll. conc., yi (mole fraction): 0.0005

-- Pollutant removal efficiency (fraction): 0.85

-- Absorbent: Water

-- Inlet pollutant conc. in absorbent: 0

-- Waste gas molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 33.796 Assume 80% air, 20% acrylonitrile

-- Absorbent molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 18

-- Inlet waste gas density (lb/ft3): 0.08870984 Assume 80% air, 20% acrylonitrile

-- Absorbent density (lb/ft3): 62.4

-- Absorbent specific gravity: 1

-- Waste gas viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 0.044 Assume acrylonitrile same as air

-- Absorbent viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 2.16

-- Minimum wetting rate (ft2/hr): 1.3 Default from CCM

-- Pollutant diffusivity in air (ft2/hr): 0.472750946

-- Pollutant diffusivity in absorbent (ft2/hr): 5.19E-05

Packing parameters:

-- Packing type: 2-in. Ceramic Raschig rings

-- Packing factor, Fp: 65

-- Packing constant, alpha: 3.82

-- Packing constant, beta: 0.41

-- Packing constant, gamma: 0.45

-- Packing constant, phi: 0.0125

-- Packing constant, b: 0.22

-- Packing constant, c: 0.24

-- Packing constant, j: 0.17

-- Surface area-to-volume ratio, a (ft2/ft3): 28

-- Packing cost ($/ft3): 20
A-2 

Appendix A

Cost Calculations for AMF Fiber Spinning Lines that Use a Spin Dope Produced from a 

Solution Polymerization Process - Scrubber

(Page 2)

DESIGN PARAMETERS:

-- Material of construction (see list below):[2] 1

-- Inlet pollutant concentration (free basis): 0.00050025

-- Outlet pollutant concentration (free basis): 7.50375E-05

-- Out. eq. poll. conc. in absorbent., Xo* (op. line): 0.16 Assume same as HCL example in CCM

-- Theoretical operating line slope (Ls/Gs,min.): 0.002657579

-- Ls/Gs adjustment factor: 1.5 Typical value from CCM

-- Actual operating line slope (Ls/Gs, act.): 0.003986368

-- Gas flowrate, Gs (free basis, lb-moles/hr): 29134.0248

-- Absorbent flowrate, Ls (free basis, lb-mol/hr): 116.1389495

-- Gas flowrate, Gmol,i (lb-moles/hr): 29148.5991

-- Absorbent flowrate, Lmol,i (lb-moles/hr): 116.1389495

-- Outlet actual pollutant conc. in absorbent, Xo: 0.106666667

-- Gas poll. conc. in eq. w/Xo (Yo*): 0.0001 Assume same as HCL example in CCM

-- Outlet absorbent poll. conc. (mole fract. basis): 0.096385542

-- Gas poll. conc., Yo* (mole fract. basis): 9.999E-05

-- Outlet gas poll. conc., yo (mole fract.): 7.50319E-05

-- Slope of equilibrium line (m): 0.001037396

-- Absorption factor (AF): 3.842666815

-- ABSCISSA (column diameter calculation): 8.00531E-05

-- ORDINATE (column diameter calculation): 0.206062991

-- Superficial gas flowrate, Gsfr,i (lb/sec-ft2) 0.759994072

-- Flooding factor, f: 0.675 Median value from CCM

-- Column cross-sectional area, A (ft2): 533.1498713

-- Superficial liquid flowrate (lb/hr-ft2): 3.92103835

-- Minimum liquid flowrate (lb/hr-ft2): 2271.36

-- Column diameter, D (ft2): 26.05431825

-- Number of transfer units, Ntu: 2.225999587

-- Gas film transfer coefficient, Hg (ft): 2.638697881

-- Liquid film transfer coefficient, Hl (ft): 1.49162274

-- Height of a transfer unit (ft): 3.026871722

-- Packing depth (ft): 6.737815203

-- Column total height (ft): 38.8183459

-- Column surface area (ft2): 4243.661118

-- Column gas pressure drop (in. w.c./ft packing): 0.911435767

-- Column liquid pressure drop (ft of H2O): 60

-- Packing volume (ft3): 3592.265308

CAPITAL COSTS:

Equipment costs ($):

-- Gas absorber $488,021

-- Pump (assumes $16/gpm) $38,720

-- Packing $71,845

-- Auxiliaries (ductwork, etc.) $0

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

-- Total (base) $598,587

 ' (escalated) $970,363

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): $1,145,028

Total Capital Investment ($): $2,519,062

=========================================================== ===========================
A-3 

Appendix A

Cost Calculations for AMF Fiber Spinning Lines that Use a Spin Dope Produced from a 

Solution Polymerization Process - Scrubber

(Page 3)

ANNUAL COST INPUTS:

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): 26.81

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): 23.07

Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Electricity price ($/kWhr): 0.0662

Absorbent material (caustic) price ($/ton): 0

Absorbent carrier ( water) price ($/1000 gal): 0.2

Wastewater trtmt cost ($/1000 gal): 3.8

Overhead rate (fraction): 0.6

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor (system): 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

 ANNUAL COSTS:

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

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

Operating labor $14,678 0.02393075 ----

Supervisory labor $2,202 0.003589613 ----

Maintenance labor $12,631 0.020592406 ----

Maintenance materials $12,631 0.020592406 ----

Electricity $132,783 0.216479389 ----

Absorbent material (caustic) $0 0 ----

Absorbent carrier (water) $1,791 0.002920028 ----

Wastewater treatment $34,030 0.055480528 ----

Overhead $25,285 0.041223105 0.109928279

Taxes, insurance, administrative $100,762 0.164276062 ----

Capital recovery $276,580 0.450915714 0.615191776

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

Total Annual Cost $613,373 1 1

NOTES:

[1] This program has been based on data and procedures in Section 5.2, Chapter 1 of the

OAQPS CONTROL COST MANUAL (6th edition).

[2] Enter one of the following: fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP)--'1'; 304 stainless steel--'1.4';

 polypropylene--'0.95'; polyvinyl chloride (PVC)--'0.70'.
A-4 

Appendix A

Cost Calculations for AMF Fiber Spinning Lines that Use a Spin Dope Produced from a 

Solution Polymerization Process – RTO

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

Cytec Carbon Fibers - Spinning Line GP1

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1999 390.6

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2011 585.7

INPUT PARAMETERS ICR (V-127 & V-131

-- Gas flowrate (scfm): 185,080

-- Reference temperature (oF): 70

-- Inlet gas temperature (oF): 86

-- Inlet gas density (lb/scf): 0.074877229

-- Primary heat recovery (fraction): 0.95 High end of range from CCM

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/scf): 0.004

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/lb): 0.05

-- Gas heat capacity (BTU/lb-oF): 0.255 Standard value form CCM

-- Combustion temperature (oF): 1240 Assume

-- Heat loss (fraction): 0.01 High end of range from CCM

-- Exit temperature (oF): 143.7

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

-- Fuel density (lb/ft3): 0.0408 Assume

DESIGN PARAMETERS

Auxiliary Fuel Requirement (lb/min): 11.38293439

 (scfm): 278.9934901

Total Gas Flowrate (scfm): 185359.1859

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT ($)

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

Total Capital Investment - Base $2,217,614 For equipment cost , assume max flowrate of 100,000 scfm

Total Capital Investment - Escalated $3,325,286

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): 26.81

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): 23.07

Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Electricity price ($/kwh): 0.0662

Natural gas price ($/mscf): 3.14 April 2012 industrial price of natural gas in dollars per thousand cubic feet; US Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor: 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

Pressure drop (in. w.c.): 20 Assume

ANNUAL COSTS

 Item Cost ($/yr)

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

Operating labor $14,678.48

Supervisory labor $2,201.77

Maintenance labor $12,630.83

Maintenance materials $12,630.83

Natural gas $460,446.39

Electricity $419,218.86

Overhead $25,285.14

Taxes, insurance, administrative $133,011.42

Capital recovery $365,098.47

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

Total Annual Cost $1,445,202

Chemical plant and system operators; US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, May 2011 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates; NAICS 325200 - Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing

Maintenance and repair workers, general; US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, May 2011 National Industry-Specific 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates; NAICS 325200 - Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and 

Filaments Manufacturing

Average Retail Price of Electricity for the Industrial Sector for the United States, Year-to-Date through April 2012 and 2011; US 

Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power Monthly.
A-5 

Appendix A

Cost Calculations for AMF Fiber Spinning Lines that Use a Spin Dope Produced from a 

Solution Polymerization Process – Ducts

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

ICR

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1993 359.2

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2011 585.7

INPUT PARAMETERS [2,3]

-- Inlet stream flowrate (acfm): 190,671

-- Duct velocity (ft/min): [4] 3,500 Average Industrial dusts 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.): 99.90762744

-- Pressure drop (in. w.c.): [12] 0.10635768

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Cost ($)--base: $15,586

 ' ' ' --escalated: $25,413

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): $27,446

Total Capital Investment ($): [13] $41,170

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

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hours/year): 8760

Electricity price ($/kWhr): 0.0662

Annual interest rate (fractional): 0.07

Ductwork economic life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor (system): 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

ANNUAL COSTS

Item Cost ($/yr) Wt.Fact.

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

Electricity $2,303 0.271904856

Taxes, insurance, administrative $1,647 0.194424906

Capital recovery $4,520 0.533670239

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

Total Annual Cost $8,470 1

Notes:

Average Retail Price of Electricity for the Industrial Sector for the United States, 

Year-to-Date through April 2012 and 2011; US Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), Electric Power Monthly.

[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 

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

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

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

[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.

[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.
A-6 

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Scrubber 85% (Tembec)

(Page 1)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--GAS ABSORBERS [1]

Tembec BTLSR Amino/Phenolic Resins Plan

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1991 361.3 Use CE plant cost indexes to extrapolate to 2012

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

EPR

INPUT PARAMETERS:

Stream parameters:

 Process gas flow, scf/s 79

-- Process operating hours, hr/yr 8760 Assumed

-- Inlet waste gas temperature (oF): 215

-- Inlet waste gas pressure (atm.): 1

-- Pollutants in waste gas: Formaldehyde

 Pollutant emissions, tpy 4.5

-- Total Pollutant emissions, lb/yr 9000

-- Pollutant concentration, ppmv 46.53

-- Pollutant molecular weight 30.00

-- Waste gas molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 29

-- Solvent molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 18

-- Inlet waste gas flowrate (acfm): 6035

-- Inlet gas poll. conc., yi (mole fraction): 4.65345E-05

-- Pollutant removal efficiency (fraction): 0.85

-- Solvent: Water

-- Inlet pollutant conc. in solvent: 0

-- Inlet waste gas density (lb/ft3): 0.0589

-- Solvent density (lb/ft3): 62.4 Table 1.5 of CCM

-- Solvent specific gravity: 1

-- Waste gas viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 0.044 Table 1.5 of CCM

-- Solvent viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 2.16 Table 1.5 of CCM

-- Minimum wetting rate (ft2/hr): 1.3 Page 1-18 of CCM

-- Pollutant diffusivity in air (ft2/hr): 0.697 Diffusivity of formaldehyde in air is 0.18 cm2/sec 

-- Pollutant diffusivity in solvent (ft2/hr): 0.000077 Diffusivity of formaldehyde in water 2.0 x10-5 

Packing parameters:

-- Packing type: ceramic Raschig rings 2" dia

-- Packing factor, Fp: 65

-- Packing constant, alpha: 3.82

-- Packing constant, beta: 0.41

-- Packing constant, gamma: 0.45

-- Packing constant, phi: 0.0125

-- Packing constant, b: 0.22

-- Packing constant, c: 0.24

-- Packing constant, j: 0.17

-- Surface area-to-volume ratio, a (ft2/ft3): 28

-- Packing cost ($/ft3): 20
A-7 

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Scrubber 85% (Tembec)

(Page 2)

 DESIGN PARAMETERS:

-- Material of construction (see list below): 1

-- Inlet pollutant concentration (free basis) (Yi): 4.65366E-05

-- Outlet pollutant concentration (free basis) (Yo): 6.9805E-06

-- Out. eq. poll. conc. in solv., Xo* (op. line): 0.09

check for each 

model

-- Theoretical operating line slope (Ls/Gs,min.): 0.000439513

-- Ls/Gs adjustment factor: 1.5

-- Actual operating line slope (Ls/Gs, act.): 0.000659269

-- Gas flowrate, Gs (free basis, lb-moles/hr): 735.0655565

-- Solvent flowrate, Ls (free basis, lb-mol/hr): 0.484605982

-- Gas flowrate, Gmol,i (lb-moles/hr): 735.099764

-- Solvent flowrate, Lmol,i (lb-moles/hr): 0.484605982

-- Outlet actual pollutant conc. in solv., Xo: 0.06

-- Gas poll. conc. in eq. with Xo (Yo*): 0.0001

check for each 

model 

-- Outlet solv. poll. conc. (mol frac basis,xo): 0.056603774

-- Gas poll. conc., yo* (mole fract. basis): 9.999E-05

-- Outlet gas poll. conc., yo (mole fract.): 6.98045E-06

-- Slope of equilibrium line (m): 0.00176649

-- Absorption factor (AF)--first calculation: 0.373208486

-- ABSCISSA (column diameter calculation): 1.25689E-05

-- ORDINATE (column diameter calculation): 0.206062991

-- Superficial gas flowrate, Gsfr,i (lb/sec-ft2) 0.619123458

-- Flooding factor, f: 0.7

-- Column cross-sectional area, A (ft2): 13.66300638

-- Superficial liq flowrate (lb/hr-ft2) (Lsfr,i): 0.638432526

If the superficial 

liq flowrate is less 

than the

-- Minimum liquid flowrate (lb/hr-ft2): 2271.36

minimum flowrate 

you need to iterate 

below.

-- If Superficial liquid flowrate is < minimum

 needed, the minimum must be used to calculate 

 tower area and diameter (iteratively):

 -- guess A iteratively until the two 14.8 Iterate A

 ORDINATE values below agree, ft2

 -- recalculate Lmol,i 1867.562667

 -- calculate ABSCISSA for Fig. 9.5 0.048435531

 -- calculate Gsfr,i from Eq. 9-21 0.571586582

 -- calculate ORDINATE for Fig. 9.5 using eq 9.54 0.175492563

Need to iterate A 

until these values 

agree.

 -- calculate ORDINATE from eq. 9-19 0.175851189

-- Absorption factor--based on min liq flowrate

 -- Xo 2.88133E-11

 -- xo 2.88133E-11

 -- AF infinity

-- Values to use in subsequent calculations

 -- Lsfr,i 2271.36

 -- A 14.8

 -- Gsfr,i 0.571586582

 -- AF infinity

-- Column diameter, D (ft): 4.340961329

-- Number of transfer units, Ntu: 1.89708043

-- Gas film transfer coefficient, Hg (ft): 2.408483427

-- Liquid film transfer coefficient, Hl (ft): 1.221030991

-- Height of a transfer unit (ft): 2.408483427

-- Packing depth (ft): 4.569086776

-- Column total height (ft): 13.63450204

-- Column surface area (ft2): 215.5409609

-- Column gas pressure drop (in. w.c./ft packing): 0.83545706

-- Column liquid pressure drop (ft of H2O): 60

-- Packing volume (ft3): 67.62248428
A-8 

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Scrubber 85% (Tembec)

(Page 3)

CAPITAL COSTS:

Equipment costs ($):

-- Gas absorber $24,787 Cost equation valid for surface area >69 ft2 and <1500 ft2

-- Pump (assumes $16/gpm) $1,075

-- Packing $1,352

Total Scrubber Equimpment Cost - Base ($1991) $27,215 Sum of gas absorber, pump, and packing from the EPA Control Cost Manual.

Total Scrubber Equimpment Cost - Escalated ($2012) $44,034 Escalates the equipment cost from $1991 to $2012

Purchased Equipment Cost ($2012) $51,961 Includes costs for the equipment, instrumentation, sales tax, and freight.

Direct Installation Cost ($2012) $44,166 Includes costs for foundations & supports, handling & erection, electrical, piping, insulation for duct work, and painting.

Indirect Costs ($2012) $18,186 Includes costs for engineering, construction & field expenses, contractor fees, start-up, performance test, and contingencies.

Total Capital Investment ($2012) $114,313 Sum of the purchased equipment cost, direct installation cost, and indirect costs.

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

ANNUAL COST INPUTS:

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): 26.36 May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
NAICS 325000 - Chemical Manufacturing http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_325000.htm

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): 28.996

Operator labor 

rate*1.1

Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Electricity price ($/kWhr): 0.067 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

Solvent (water) price ($/1000 gal): 0.30 0.2 is from page 1-42 of CCM, scaled up from 2002 (395.6 index)

Wastewater trtmt cost ($/1000 gal): 5.6 3.8 is from page 1-42 of CCM, scaled up from 2002 (395.6 index)

Overhead rate (fraction): 0.6

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor (system): 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

 ANNUAL COSTS:

 Item Cost ($/yr)

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

Operating labor $0

Supervisory labor $0

Maintenance labor $15,875

Maintenance materials $15,875

Electricity $2,847

Solvent (water) $6

Wastewater treatment $118

Overhead $19,050

Taxes, insurance, administrative $4,573

Capital recovery $12,550.97

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

Total Annual Cost $70,895

NOTES:

------

[1] This program has been based on data and procedures in Chapter 9 of the OAQPS CONTROL COST MANUAL (4th edition).

*Thermal diffusivity: 1 ft2/hr = 2.581 x10-5 m2/s http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/unit-converter-d_185.html#Thermal_diffusivity

Physical properties of pollutants: http://www.gsi-net.com/en/publications/gsi-chemical-database/single/441.html
A-9 

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Heat Content (Tembec)

Average Pollutant Heat Content Calculations

Tembec BTLSR Amino/Phenolic Resins Plan

Component

NEI Emissions 

(lb/hr)

Molecular 

Weight (lb/lbmole)

Volumetric 

Flow Rate 

(scf/min) -ΔHc (KJ/mole)

Heat of 

Combustion 

(Btu/lb)

Heat of 

Combustion 

(Btu/scf)

Volume 

Fraction of 

Component in 

Exhaust Gas

Vent Heat 

Content 

(Btu/scf)

VOC 44.09 0.0 2220 21,665 2,479 0.00E+00 0.0000

Methane 16.04 0.00 890.4 23,884 994 0.00E+00 0.0000

Ethane 30.07 0.00 1559.9 22,321 1,742 0.00E+00 0.0000

Other HAP 44.09 0.00 2220 21,665 2,479 0.00E+00 0.0000

Hexanes 86.17 0.000 4194.8 20,946 4,684 0.00E+00 0.0000

Benzene 78.11 0.00 3301.5 18,187 3,687 0.00E+00 0.0000

Toluene 92.13 0.00 3947.9 18,438 4,409 0.00E+00 0.0000

Ethylbenzene 106.16 0.00 4607.1 18,673 5,145 0.00E+00 0.0000

Xylenes 106.16 0.00 4595.2 18,625 5,132 0.00E+00 0.0000

Methanol 32.04 0.00 715 9,602 798 0.00E+00 0.0000

Formaldehyde 1.0274 30.031 0.22 561.1 8,039 627 4.65E-05 0.0292

Phenol 94.11124 0.00 3055.6 13,970 3,412 0.00E+00 0.0000

Air 4,722 0 0 0 1.00E+00 0.0000

Total 1.03 4,722 1.00E+00 0.0292
A-10

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Ducts (Tembec)

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

Tembec BTLSR Amino/Phenolic Resins Plan

ICR

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1993 359.2

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

INPUT PARAMETERS [2, 3]

-- Inlet stream flowrate (acfm): 4722

-- Duct velocity (ft/min): [4] 3,500

-- 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.): 15.72288476

-- Pressure drop (in. w.c.): [12] 0.942729779

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Cost ($)--base: $2,453

 ' ' ' --escalated: $3,992

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): $4,311

Total Capital Investment ($): [13] $6,467

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

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): 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

ANNUAL COSTS

Item Cost ($/yr) Wt.Fact.

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

Electricity $512 0.345643519

Taxes, insurance, administrative $259 0.174734302

Capital recovery $710 0.479622179

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

Total Annual Cost $1,480 1

Notes:

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

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

[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

[2] Base ductwork costs reflect this date.

[4] Average Industrial dusts from CCM. See 'Manual,' pp. 10-30 to 10-33. 

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

[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).

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Scrubber 85% (GPR) 

(Page 1)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--GAS ABSORBERS [1]

Georgia Pacific Amino/Phenolic Resins Plant

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1991 361.3

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

INPUT PARAMETERS: [2,3]

 Process gas flow, scf/s 1052

-- Process operating hours, hr/yr 8760 Assumed

-- Inlet waste gas temperature (oF): 234.1603248

-- Inlet waste gas pressure (atm.): 1

-- Pollutants in waste gas: Methanol, Formaldehyde and Phenol

 Total Pollutant emissions, tpy 19.16

Methanol emissions, tpy 11.57

Formaldehyde emissions, tpy 6.74

Phenol emissions, tpy 0.85

-- Total Pollutant emissions, lb/yr 38320

-- Pollutant concentration, ppmv 13.04

-- Weighted Average Pollutant molecular weight 34.09

-- Waste gas molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 29

-- Solvent molecular weight (lb/lb-mole): 18

-- Inlet waste gas flowrate (acfm): 83005

-- Inlet gas poll. conc., yi (mole fraction): 1.30425E-05

-- Pollutant removal efficiency (fraction): 0.85

-- Solvent: Water

-- Inlet pollutant conc. in solvent: 0

-- Inlet waste gas density (lb/ft3): 0.0572

-- Solvent density (lb/ft3): 62.4 Table 1.5 of CCM

-- Solvent specific gravity: 1

-- Waste gas viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 0.044 Table 1.5 of CCM

-- Solvent viscosity @ inlet temp. (lb/ft-hr): 2.16 Table 1.5 of CCM

-- Minimum wetting rate (ft2/hr): 1.3 Page 1-18 of CCM

-- Pollutant diffusivity in air (ft2/hr): [4] 0.631

Weighted diffusivity of methanol (ft2/hr) 0.372

Weighted diffusivity of formaldehyde (ft2/hr) 0.245

Weighted diffusivity of phenol (ft2/hr) 0.014

-- Pollutant diffusivity in solvent (ft2/hr): [4] 0.000164

Weighted diffusivity of methanol (ft2/hr) 0.000050

Weighted diffusivity of formaldehyde (ft2/hr) 0.000077

Weighted diffusivity of phenol (ft2/hr) 0.000037

Packing parameters:

-- Packing type: ceramic Raschig rings 2" dia

-- Packing factor, Fp: 65

-- Packing constant, alpha: 3.82

-- Packing constant, beta: 0.41

-- Packing constant, gamma: 0.45

-- Packing constant, phi: 0.0125

-- Packing constant, b: 0.22

-- Packing constant, c: 0.24

-- Packing constant, j: 0.17

-- Surface area-to-volume ratio, a (ft2/ft3): 28

-- Packing cost ($/ft3): 20
A-12

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Scrubber 85% (GPR) 

(Page 2)

 DESIGN PARAMETERS:

-- Material of construction (see list below): 1

-- Inlet pollutant concentration (free basis) (Yi): 1.30427E-05

-- Outlet pollutant concentration (free basis) (Yo): 1.9564E-06

-- Out. eq. poll. conc. in solv., Xo* (op. line): 0.09

-- Theoretical operating line slope (Ls/Gs,min.): 0.000123181

-- Ls/Gs adjustment factor: 1.5

-- Actual operating line slope (Ls/Gs, act.): 0.000184772

-- Gas flowrate, Gs (free basis, lb-moles/hr): 9828.099323

-- Solvent flowrate, Ls (free basis, lb-mol/hr): 1.815953201

-- Gas flowrate, Gmol,i (lb-moles/hr): 9828.227508

-- Solvent flowrate, Lmol,i (lb-moles/hr): 1.815953201

-- Outlet actual pollutant conc. in solv., Xo: 0.06

-- Gas poll. conc. in eq. with Xo (Yo*): 0.0001

-- Outlet solv. poll. conc. (mol frac basis,xo): 0.056603774

-- Gas poll. conc., yo* (mole fract. basis): 9.999E-05

-- Outlet gas poll. conc., yo (mole fract.): 1.9564E-06

-- Slope of equilibrium line (m): 0.00176649

-- Absorption factor (AF)--first calculation: 0.104598132

-- ABSCISSA (column diameter calculation): 3.47316E-06

-- ORDINATE (column diameter calculation): 0.206062991

-- Superficial gas flowrate, Gsfr,i (lb/sec-ft2) 0.610424536

-- Flooding factor, f: 0.7

-- Column cross-sectional area, A (ft2): 185.2827603

-- Superficial liq flowrate (lb/hr-ft2) (Lsfr,i): 0.176417696

-- Minimum liquid flowrate (lb/hr-ft2): 2271.36

-- If Superficial liquid flowrate is < minimum

 needed, the minimum must be used to calculate 

 tower area and diameter (iteratively):

 -- guess A iteratively until the two 200 Iterate A

 ORDINATE values below agree, ft2

 -- recalculate Lmol,i 25237.33333

 -- calculate ABSCISSA for Fig. 9.5 0.048267872

 -- calculate Gsfr,i from Eq. 9-21 0.565513091

 -- calculate ORDINATE for Fig. 9.5 using eq 9.54 0.176713833

 -- calculate ORDINATE from eq. 9-19 0.176036374 See Appendix C

-- Absorption factor--based on min liq flowrate

 -- Xo 4.46959E-14

 -- xo 4.46959E-14

 -- AF infinity

-- Values to use in subsequent calculations

 -- Lsfr,i 2271.36

 -- A 200

 -- Gsfr,i 0.565513091

 -- AF infinity

-- Column diameter, D (ft): 15.95769122

-- Number of transfer units, Ntu: 1.897108899

-- Gas film transfer coefficient, Hg (ft): 2.55603912

-- Liquid film transfer coefficient, Hl (ft): 0.838508653

-- Height of a transfer unit (ft): 2.55603912

-- Packing depth (ft): 4.849084559

-- Column total height (ft): 25.87556342

-- Column surface area (ft2): 1697.208378

-- Column gas pressure drop (in. w.c./ft packing): 0.841271087

-- Column liquid pressure drop (ft of H2O): 60

-- Packing volume (ft3): 969.8169118

If the superficial liq flowrate is less 

minimum flowrate you need to iterate 

Need to iterate A until these values 

check for each model

check for each model 
A-13

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Scrubber 85% (GPR)

(Page 3)

CAPITAL COSTS:

Equipment costs ($):

-- Gas absorber $195,179

-- Pump (assumes $16/gpm) $14,525

-- Packing $19,396

Total Scrubber Equimpment Cost - Base ($1991) $229,100 Sum of gas absorber, pump, and packing from the EPA Control Cost Manual.

Total Scrubber Equimpment Cost - Escalated ($2012) $370,695 Escalates the equipment cost from $1991 to $2012

Purchased Equipment Cost ($2012) $437,420 Includes costs for the equipment, instrumentation, sales tax, and freight.

Direct Installation Cost ($2012) $371,807

Indirect Costs ($2012) $153,097

Total Capital Investment ($2012) $962,324 Sum of the purchased equipment cost, direct installation cost, and indirect costs.

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

ANNUAL COST INPUTS:

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): [5] 26.36

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): 28.996

Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Electricity price ($/kWhr): [6] 0.067

Solvent (water) price ($/1000 gal): 0.30 0.2 is from page 1-42 of CCM, scaled up from 2002 (395.6 index)

Wastewater trtmt cost ($/1000 gal): 5.6 3.8 is from page 1-42 of CCM, scaled up from 2002 (395.6 index)

Overhead rate (fraction): 0.6

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor (system): 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

 ANNUAL COSTS:

 Item Cost ($/yr)

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

Operating labor $14,432

Supervisory labor $2,165

Maintenance labor $15,875

Maintenance materials $15,875

Electricity $41,172

Solvent (water) $23

Wastewater treatment $442

Overhead $29,009

Taxes, insurance, administrative $38,493

Capital recovery $105,658

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

Total Annual Cost $263,144

NOTES:

------

[1] This program has been based on data and procedures in Chapter 9 of the OAQPS CONTROL COST MANUAL (4th edition).

[2] Base equipment costs reflect $2009.

[3] Enter one of the following: fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP)--'1'; 304 stainless steel--'1.4'; polypropylene--'0.95'; polyvinyl chloride (PVC)--'0.70'.

Diffusivity of methanol in air is 0.159 cm2/sec (Table 1.8 in CCM)

Diffusivity of formaldehyde in air is 0.18 cm2/sec 

Diffusivity of phenol in air is 0.082 cm2/sec

Diffusivity of methanol in water 1.28 x10-5 (Table 1.8 in CCM)

Diffusivity of formaldehyde in water 2.0 x10-5 

Diffusivity of phenol in water 9.61 x10-6

Includes costs for foundations & supports, handling & erection, 

electrical, piping, insulation for duct work, and painting.

Cost equation valid for surface area 

[5] May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

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

Includes costs for engineering, construction & field expenses, 

contractor fees, start-up, performance test, and contingencies.

Operator labor rate*1.1

[6] 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

[4]Thermal diffusivity: 1 ft2/hr = 2.581 x10-5 m2/s http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/unit-converter-d_185.html#Thermal_diffusivity. Physical properties of 

pollutants: http://www.gsi-net.com/en/publications/gsi-chemical-database/single/441.html
A-14

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Heat Content (GPR) 

RTO Average Pollutant Heat Content Calculations

Georgia Pacific Amino/Phenolic Resins Plant

Component

NEI Emissions 

(lb/hr)

Molecular 

Weight (lb/lbmole)

Volumetric 

Flow Rate 

(scf/min) -ΔHc (KJ/mole)

Heat of 

Combustion 

(Btu/lb)

Heat of 

Combustion 

(Btu/scf)

Volume 

Fraction of 

Component in 

Exhaust Gas

Vent Heat 

Content 

(Btu/scf)

VOC 44.09 0.0 2220 21,665 2,479 0.00E+00 0.0000

Methane 16.04 0.00 890.4 23,884 994 0.00E+00 0.0000

Ethane 30.07 0.00 1559.9 22,321 1,742 0.00E+00 0.0000

Other HAP 44.09 0.00 2220 21,665 2,479 0.00E+00 0.0000

Hexanes 86.17 0.000 4194.8 20,946 4,684 0.00E+00 0.0000

Benzene 78.11 0.00 3301.5 18,187 3,687 0.00E+00 0.0000

Toluene 92.13 0.00 3947.9 18,438 4,409 0.00E+00 0.0000

Ethylbenzene 106.16 0.00 4607.1 18,673 5,145 0.00E+00 0.0000

Xylenes 106.16 0.00 4595.2 18,625 5,132 0.00E+00 0.0000

Methanol 2.64 32.04 0.53 715 9,602 798 8.39E-06 0.0067

Formaldehyde 1.54 30.031 0.33 561.1 8,039 627 5.21E-06 0.0033

Phenol 0.19 94.11124 0.01 3055.6 13,970 3,412 2.10E-07 0.0007

Air 63,136 0 0 0 1.00E+00 0.0000

Total 4.37 63,137 1.00E+00 0.0107
A-15

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – Ducts (GPR)

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

Georgia Pacific Amino/Phenolic Resins Plant

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1993 359.2

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

INPUT PARAMETERS [2,3]

-- Inlet stream flowrate (acfm): 63137

-- 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.): 57.49058002

-- Pressure drop (in. w.c.): [12] 0.204160238

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Cost ($)--base: $8,969

 ' ' ' --escalated: $14,596

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): $15,764

Total Capital Investment ($): [13] $23,646

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

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): 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

ANNUAL COSTS

Item Cost ($/yr) Wt.Fact.

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

Electricity $1,482 0.294918361

Taxes, insurance, administrative $946 0.188279557

Capital recovery $2,596 0.516802082

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

Total Annual Cost $5,024 1

Notes:

[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

[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.

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

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

[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).

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

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

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

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

[13] Product of installation factor and Purchased Equipment Cost. Costs are presented both in terms of 2nd quarter '93 
A-16

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – RCO 98% (Tembec)

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SPREADSHEET PROGRAM--RECUPERATIVE THERMAL OXIDIZERS (RCO)

Tembec BTLSR Amino/Phenolic Resins Plan

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1988 342.5

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

INPUT PARAMETERS

-- Gas flowrate (scfm): 4,722

-- Reference temperature (oF): 77

-- Inlet gas temperature (oF): 215

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

-- Primary heat recovery (fraction): 0.7 Standard value from CCM

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/scf): 0.029

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/lb): 0.39

-- Gas heat capacity (BTU/lb-oF): 0.255 Standard value from CCM

-- Combustion temperature (oF): 1600 From CCM

-- Heat loss (fraction): 0.01 High end of range from CCM

-- Exit temperature (oF): 630.3536469

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

-- Fuel density (lb/ft3): 0.0408 Assume

DESIGN PARAMETERS

Auxiliary Fuel Requirement (lb/min): 1.788582401

 (scfm): 43.83780393

Total Gas Flowrate (scfm): 4766.118688

RECUPERATIVE THERMAL OXIDIZER COST

(Cost correlations range: 500 to 50,000 scfm, 70% Heat Recovery)

RCO Equimpment Cost - Base ($1988) $177,328 Calculated using equipment cost equation from the EPA Control Cost Manual.

RCO Equimpment Cost - Escalated ($2012) $302,674 Escalates the equipment cost from $1988 to $2012

Purchased Equipment Cost ($2012) $357,155 Includes costs for the equipment, instrumentation, sales tax, and freight.

Direct Installation Cost ($2012) $107,146 Includes costs for foundations & supports, handling & erection, electrical, piping, insulation for duct work, and painting.

Indirect Costs ($2012) $110,718 Includes costs for engineering, construction & field expenses, contractor fees, start-up, performance test, and contingencies.

Total Capital Investment ($2012) $575,019 Sum of the purchased equipment cost, direct installation cost, and indirect costs.

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): [1] 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): [2] 0.067

Natural gas price ($/mscf): [3] 3.86

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor: 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

Pressure drop (in. w.c.): 20 Assume

ANNUAL COSTS

 Item Cost ($/yr)

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

Operating labor $14,432.10 (annual operating hours)/(hours per shift)*(operating labor hours per shift)*(labor cost per hour)

Supervisory labor $2,164.82 15% of operating labor cost

Maintenance labor $15,875.31 (annual operating hours)/(hours per shift)*(maintenance labor hours per shift)*(labor cost per hour)

Maintenance materials $15,875.31 100% of maintenance labor cost

Natural gas $88,938.84 Qng * Natural gas price * Annual hours of operation

Electricity $10,909.59 Powerfan * Electricity price * Annual hours of operation

Overhead $29,008.52 60% of total operating labor & materials and maintenance labor & materials

Taxes, insurance, administrative $23,000.77 4% of Total Capital Investment

Capital recovery $63,134.03 Capital recovery factor (CRF) * Total Capital Investment

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

Total Annual Cost $263,339

Notes:

[2] 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

[1] May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

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

[3] 2012 Natural Gas Prices: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng pri sum dcu nus a.htm
A-17

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – RTO 98% (GPR)

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

Georgia Pacific Amino/Phenolic Resins Plant

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1988 342.5

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

INPUT PARAMETERS

-- Gas flowrate (scfm): 63,137

-- Reference temperature (oF): 77

-- Inlet gas temperature (oF): 234.1603248

-- Inlet gas density (lb/scf): 0.073901176

-- Primary heat recovery (fraction): 0.95 (28.97 is molecular weight of air)

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/scf): 0.011

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/lb): 0.14

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

-- Combustion temperature (oF): 1600

-- Heat loss (fraction): 0.01 From CCM

-- Exit temperature (oF): 302.4523085

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

-- Fuel density (lb/ft3): 0.0408

DESIGN PARAMETERS

Auxiliary Fuel Requirement (lb/min): 4.603408712

 (scfm): 112.8286449

Total Gas Flowrate (scfm): 63249.36215

REGENERATIVE THERMAL OXIDIZER COST

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

RTO Equimpment Cost - Base ($1988) $952,195 Calculated using equipment cost equation from the EPA Control Cost Manual.

RTO Equimpment Cost - Escalated ($2012) $1,625,265 Escalates the equipment cost from $1988 to $2012

Purchased Equipment Cost ($2012) $1,917,813 Includes costs for the equipment, instrumentation, sales tax, and freight.

Direct Installation Cost ($2012) $575,344 Includes costs for foundations & supports, handling & erection, electrical, piping, insulation for duct work, and painting.

Indirect Costs ($2012) $594,522 Includes costs for engineering, construction & field expenses, contractor fees, start-up, performance test, and contingencies.

Total Capital Investment ($2012) $3,087,678 Sum of the purchased equipment cost, direct installation cost, and indirect costs.

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760

Operating labor rate ($/hr): [1] 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): [2] 0.067

Natural gas price ($/mscf): [3] 3.86

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor: 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

Pressure drop (in. w.c.): 20

ANNUAL COSTS

 Item Cost ($/yr)

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

Operating labor $14,432 (annual operating hours)/(hours per shift)*(operating labor hours per shift)*(labor cost per hour)

Supervisory labor $2,165 15% of operating labor cost

Maintenance labor $15,875 (annual operating hours)/(hours per shift)*(maintenance labor hours per shift)*(labor cost per hour)

Maintenance materials $15,875 100% of mainteance labor cost

Natural gas $228,909 Qng * Natural gas price * Annual hours of operation

Electricity $144,777 Powerfan * Electricity price * Annual hours of operation

Overhead $29,009 60% of total operating labor & materials and maintenance labor & materials

Taxes, insurance, administrative $123,507 4% of Total Capital Investment

Capital recovery $339,010 Capital recovery factor (CRF) * Total Capital Investment

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

Total Annual Cost $913,559

Notes:

[2] 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

[1] May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

[3] 2012 Natural Gas Prices: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm
A-18

Appendix B

Cost Calculations for APR Process Vents – NEI Emissions

FACILITY_NAME SCC POLLUTANT_CODE EMISSIONS_TPY LOCATION_ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIPCODE EXIT_GAS_TEMPERATURE EXIT_GAS_FLOW_RATE

GEORGIA-PACIFIC RESINS, INC 30101820 Polymer Drying Phenol 0.63 HWY 82 & PAPER CROSSETT AR 71635 160 998.1

GEORGIA-PACIFIC RESINS, INC 30101820 Polymer Drying Formaldehyde 6.13 HWY 82 & PAPER CROSSETT AR 71635 160 998.1

GEORGIA-PACIFIC RESINS, INC 30101820 Polymer Drying Methanol 7.07 HWY 82 & PAPER CROSSETT AR 71635 160 998.1

GEORGIA-PACIFIC RESINS, INC 30101832 Urea-Formaldehyde Resins Formaldehyde 0.61 HWY 82 & PAPER CROSSETT AR 71635 1600 54.2

GEORGIA-PACIFIC RESINS, INC 30101832 Urea-Formaldehyde Resins Methanol 4.5 HWY 82 & PAPER CROSSETT AR 71635 1600 54.2

GEORGIA-PACIFIC RESINS, INC 30101832 Urea-Formaldehyde Resins Phenol 0.22 HWY 82 & PAPER CROSSETT AR 71635 1600 54.2

Total (GPR) 19.2

TEMBEC BTLSR INC. 39999999 Formaldehyde 4.5 2112 SYLVAN AVE TOLEDO OH 214.8 78.7











A-30

Appendix D

Cost Calculations for APR Storage Vessels – RTO

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1999 390.6

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

INPUT PARAMETERS

-- Gas flowrate (scfm): 11,417

-- Reference temperature (oF): 78

-- Inlet gas temperature (oF): 78 Assumed value for temp from storage tanks

-- Inlet gas density (lb/scf): 0.0753 Assume density of air

-- Primary heat recovery (fraction): 0.95

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/scf): 0.01 Calculated on Heat Content Spreadsheet

-- Waste gas heat content (BTU/lb): 0.17

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

-- Combustion temperature (oF): 1600 EPA CCM

-- Heat loss (fraction): 0.01

-- Exit temperature (oF): 154.1

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

-- Fuel density (lb/ft3): 0.0408

DESIGN PARAMETERS

Auxiliary Fuel Requirement (lb/min): 0.92539057

 (scfm): 22.68114141

Total Gas Flowrate (scfm): 11439.88207

TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT ($)

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

Total Capital Investment - Base $567,943

Total Capital Investment - Escalated $850,024

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hr/yr): 8760 Assumed

Operating labor rate ($/hr): [1] 26.81

Maintenance labor rate ($/hr): [2] 23.07

Operating labor factor (hr/sh): 0.5

Maintenance labor factor (hr/wk): 0.5

Electricity price ($/kwh): [3] 0.0682

Natural gas price ($/mscf): [4] 3.14

Annual interest rate (fraction): 0.07

Control system life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor: 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

Pressure drop (in. w.c.): 20

ANNUAL COSTS

 Item Cost ($/yr)

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

Operating labor $14,678.48

Supervisory labor $2,201.77

Maintenance labor $12,630.83

Maintenance materials $12,630.83

Natural gas $37,432.59

Electricity $26,654.75

Overhead $25,285.14

Taxes, insurance, administrative $34,000.95

Capital recovery $93,328.04

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

Total Annual Cost $258,843

Notes:

[4] April 2012 industrial price of natural gas in dollars per thousand cubic feet; US Energy Information Administration (EIA)

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

[1] Chemical plant and system operators; US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, May 2011 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates; NAICS 

325200 - Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing

[2] Maintenance and repair workers, general; US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, May 2011 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates; NAICS 

325200 - Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing

[3] Electricity price for Industrial sector in 2011 - taken from Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sectors 2001 through 2011 

Average of reported nonzero flowrates from tanks at APR facilities contained in 

the APR emissions dataset. See emissions spreadsheet
A-31

Appendix D

Cost Calculations for APR Storage Vessels – Ducts

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

COST BASE DATE: CEPCI 1993 359.2

COST ESCALATION: CEPCI 2012 584.6

INPUT PARAMETERS [2,3]

-- Inlet stream flowrate (scfm): 11417

-- Inlet stream flowrate (acfm): 14194

-- 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.): 27.2586151

-- Pressure drop (in. w.c.): [12] 0.492493825

CAPITAL COSTS

Equipment Cost ($)--base: $4,252

 ' ' ' --escalated: $6,921

Purchased Equipment Cost ($): $7,474

Total Capital Investment ($): [13] $11,212

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

ANNUAL COST INPUTS

Operating factor (hours/year): 8760

Electricity price ($/kWhr): [14] 0.0682

Annual interest rate (fractional): 0.07

Ductwork economic life (years): 15

Capital recovery factor (system): 0.109794625

Taxes, insurance, admin. factor: 0.04

ANNUAL COSTS

Item Cost ($/yr) Wt.Fact.

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

Electricity $818 0.327494769

Taxes, insurance, administrative $448 0.179580604

Capital recovery $1,231 0.492924626

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

Total Annual Cost $2,497 1

Notes:

Average of reported nonzero flowrates from tanks 

at APR facilities contained in the APR emissions 

dataset. See emissions spreadsheet

Assumes atmospheric pressure Pact = 12.23 psia, 

Temp is ambient (78F, 537.7 R), saturation 

pressure Psat = 0.5069 psia, relative humidity Φ = 

80%

[14]Electricity price for Industrial sector in 2011 - taken from Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sectors 2001 through 2011 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#sales

[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')

[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.

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.
A-32

Appendix D

Cost Calculations for APR Storage Vessels – Heat Content

RTO Average Pollutant Heat Content Calculations

Model Amino/Phenolic Resins Plant

Component

NEI Emissions 

(lb/hr)

Molecular 

Weight (lb/lbmole)

Volumetric 

Flow Rate 

(scf/min) -ΔHc (KJ/mole)

Heat of 

Combustion 

(Btu/lb)

Heat of 

Combustion 

(Btu/scf)

Volume 

Fraction of 

Component in 

Exhaust Gas

Vent Heat 

Content 

(Btu/scf)

VOC 44.09 0.0 2220 21,665 2,479 0.00E+00 0.0000

Methane 16.04 0.00 890.4 23,884 994 0.00E+00 0.0000

Ethane 30.07 0.00 1559.9 22,321 1,742 0.00E+00 0.0000

Other HAP 44.09 0.00 2220 21,665 2,479 0.00E+00 0.0000

Hexanes 86.17 0.000 4194.8 20,946 4,684 0.00E+00 0.0000

Benzene 78.11 0.00 3301.5 18,187 3,687 0.00E+00 0.0000

Toluene 92.13 0.00 3947.9 18,438 4,409 0.00E+00 0.0000

Ethylbenzene 106.16 0.00 4607.1 18,673 5,145 0.00E+00 0.0000

Xylenes 106.16 0.00 4595.2 18,625 5,132 0.00E+00 0.0000

Methanol 0.89760274 32.04 0.18 715 9,602 798 1.58E-05 0.0126

Formaldehyde 30.031 0.00 561.1 8,039 627 0.00E+00 0.0000

Phenol 94.11124 0.00 3055.6 13,970 3,412 0.00E+00 0.0000

Air 11,417 0 0 0 1.00E+00 0.0000

Total 0.90 11,417 1.00E+00 0.0126

Assume molar volume = 385.3 dscf/lbmol

400 ppmv methanol = 2.943721775 lb/hr (500/106

)(1 lbmol/385.3 dscf)(32.04 lb PO/lbmol)(1475 scf/min)(60 min/hr)