COUNTDOWN ACID RAIN FUTURE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
APRIL 1991
Ç Environment Environnement
Ontario
| > LS
ISBN 0-7729-5986-2
COUNTDOWN ACID RAIN
FUTURE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
Summary Report
Report prepared for:
Air Resources Branch Ontario Ministry of the Environment
APRIL 1991
Co PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER IMPRIMÉ SUR DU PAPIER RECYCLÉ Cette publication technique n’est disponible qu’en anglais
Copyright: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1991 This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes with appropriate attribution
PIBS 1545
Wren GDA MEDETVUCL
> ATTIT EN NEMNTAR, FATT
Tout Teas =
wo rites sariagiiaog 622808
sinre .né'Up [100 rota 4
‘eZ. ,orzeiay + seiin® ensue ) TANT eq Lelrivemronon BT DSOURRTASs BS van'esi# no: *uabsate 2607 LUE"
COUNTDOWN ACID RAIN
FUTURE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
Summary Report
Report prepared by:
SENES Consultants Limited 52 West Beaver Creek Road
Unit No. 4 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 1G5
APRIL 1991
MILAN “IDA, HNOGT 09
on IEPA TS. TRAMARANMA IRATUT
ivi bétbatig 3040
ont igad egnediveno aa e bent AeesD> ave #18 se
» .oM 2h eleys@n® , L428 Bnoetosn 7 “Dot ab rect JL + 3 À : }
DISCLAIMER
The conclusions, opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In addition, the consultant is solely responsible for the accuracy of data and estimates presented in this report.
mi RL LpECr 10
1228B0911
1082 So VOST
aurait . AL PE
abuse.
3
ON? Of wT
Mrobs 20 z Le ibba al .fnesaroxlvaS el te Y finit ci183n0
143 403
~
ite sioiniga 11 te
100 s Mmesiveniod wi
aldtenog@me:z yleice
TOME MIG? fa
FOREWORD
This report presents a study of SO, and NO, emission sources in Ontario and proposed emission control strategies to achieve
further reductions of SO, and NO, after 1993. The report consists of a summary document supported by three appendices.
Summary The summary document describes the findizgs of 3
phases of the study and draws conclusions on abatement strategies.
Appendix 1 The Phase 1 Report sets out a 1985 base year emission inventory for SO, and NO,, examires past trends, and outlines five basic future scenarios.
Appendix 2 The Phase II Report identifies the sostis! (of reducing SO, and NO, using alternative emission control technologies required to meet the emission targets identified in the Phase I Report.
Appendix 3 The Phase III Report develops alternative COSES effective abatement strategies that achieve pre-specified aggregate emission targecs. The computer model developed for the foregoinz work is described.
This This document describes the Summary.
Document
a |
at 6esrocu polpelme .OF Saw 408 10, 4buts @ a2neeesg d:0q8: eveinos solgeeasez> [o25000 Achesios besodesg Sra
#20972 pct -CO@f «zeae Où bas g2% Fo seoksoubex sean? “gd oS J z2Oeqque ihoemyoag Visage :
= 36 epstbud® 611 sadizo8#4h gnesuogk vrennmue pdt ne i) Inet iv21b bas. ybasye wiz 10 esssdg ROLES. NG IaamoJade
sang sit @82f à Juco ese. - s30q0R 1 ec4n3 ony fs @9rieaxe , 0% bia xt 149 ytesnevnt soleates TOs eCSst SAMIUT Clete OVE litre fae ,shaeae: to. ese: 342 ssi ¥igeacbl isoqeN 15 easdi er acicein avljenszezta pA + ,OW Bae 5:00 Snisdbes tolsnime eds Jena ot Kesiva: aeig@tandsas Lozsnea = Isonema 2 pbea, sd € huir!onsbe 1390188; . 2 ’ = -J£05 11)cva046 QÙLsreN ‘Je0qgA ITIt eaeads s¥ainae jeds esloegs si 44r°aged evistoat "47 L4-5012;5 nolissimes + JEve QU bsitréseqgee er 3 2102 eft 1:07 Seqdleveb [ere sega veux Vraenvt afd radisoneb Sumcob & : Le LE À : . : 7 g 7 =
Summary Report
Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies
to control emissions that cause acid rain
The overall objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of alternative emission control technologies for sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in Ontario. This study is an initial examination which points the way to further investigations. It is part of a larger effort by the Government of Ontario to
determine how and where to control emissions that cause acid rain and other damaging effects.
4 reports
Four reports make up the documentation for this study. The "Phase 1 Report" sets out a 1985 emission inventory for SO2 and NOx by major point sources, industrial sectors and area sources. The "Phase 2 Report" identifies the costs and contaminant removal capabilities of alternative emission control technologies. The "Phase 3 Report" outlines alternative cost effective abatement strategies and sets out the user-friendly modelling framework for changing the assumptions and allowing for technological changes. This "Summary Report" presents an overview of findings contained in the preceding documents, draws conclusions and recommends an implementation plan.
4 major SO2 Emitters
In 1985 SO2 emissions in Ontario totaled 1.458 million tonnes. Of this volume
non-ferrous smelters contributed 53 per cent followed by electric utilities at 23 per cent, ferrous smelters at 10 per cent and area sources at 4 per cent (refer to Figure 1).
Figure 1 Total SO2 Emission 1985
Sources
7.30% Others
Non-Ferrous 52.90%
The 15 largest SO2 point source emitters are set ou Hydro, Algoma Ore and Falconbridge stand out as these INCO is the leader by a wide margin.
Table 1
9.70% Ferrous
3.80% Area Sources
Electric
23.00% 3:09 Utilities
3.30% Petroleum
Refineries
tin Table 1. Of these INCO, Ontario
the dominant emitters and among
15 Major Point Sources of SO2 in Ontario
(1985)
INCO (Sudbury)
Ontario Hydro
Algoma (Wawa)
Falconbridge (Sudbury)
Imperial Oil (Sarnia)
Shell Canada (Corruna)
Lake Ontario Cement (Picton) Algoma (Sault Ste. Marie)
Stelco (Nanticoke)
Courtauld's Canada Ltd. (Cornwall) Petrosar Ltd. (Corruna)
James River Marathon (Marathon) Texaco Canada (Nanticoke) Dofasco Inc. (Hamilton)
Kerr Addison (Virginiatown)
The largest area emitters as illustrated below are vehicles and industrial/commercial
Tonnes/Year
695,008 336,633 115,890 74,352 19,595 16,103 7,748 7,419 6,920 6,517 6,260 6,225 6,210 6,126 5,144
1,316,150
heating. Together they emit 3.80 per cent of the total SO2 in Ontario.
Figure 2 SO2 Area Sources 1985
Other Trans 1.40% Other Sources
12.50%
Licensed Vehicles
Marine 32.80%
11.80%
Res Heating 15.90%
25.60% Comnvind Heating
Figure 3 shows that between 1980 and 1985 SO2 emissions from industrial sources
declined by 17 per cent while emissions from area sources fell by 29 percent. The trend between 1982 and 1985 shows an increase in SO2 emissions.
Figure 3 SO2 Emissions Trends
1980-1985
1,800,000 g——~ 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 PS HS 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Year
Æ- Industry Sources
©- Area Sources
‘B- Aggregate
oor 3 © a4
area sources generate majority of anthropogenic NOx
NOx emissions in 1985 amounted to 612 kilotonnes. Of this total, transportation and area sources dominate at 71.1 per cent. Electric utilities are next at 15.4 per cent, followed by space heating at 6.8 per cent, non-ferrous / ferrous smelters at 3 per cent, refineries at 2.9 per cent, marine at 1.2 per cent and others at 7.5 per cent ( refer to Figure 4 ).
Figure 4 Total NOx Emission Sources 1985 Others 7 54% Non-Ferrous
3.00% / Ferrous
15.42% Electric
Utilities Vehicles 53 45% 2 90% Petroleum Refineries Other Area
17.72% Sources
The 10 largest point source emitters for NOx are identified in Table 2. Ontario Hydro
is the dominant generator.
Table 2 10 Major Point Sources of NOx in Ontario 1985 Tonnes/Y ear Ontario Hydro 94,437 Stelco (Hamilton) 5,567 Petrosar Ltd. (Corunna) 9925 INCO (Sudbury) 4,893 Imperial Oil (Sarnia) 3,629 Algoma Steel Corp (Sault Ste. Marie) 3,207 Dow Chemical (Sarnia) 3,080 Esso Chemicals (Sarnia) 2,920 Stelco (Nanticoke) 2,602 Gulf Canada Ltd. (Mississauga) 2,238 128,098
Among area sources, vehicles and other transportation account for 91.2 per cent of the emissions while heating accounts for 6.8 per cent, marine for 1.2 per cent and other sources for .8 per cent ( refer to Figure 5 ).
Figure 5 NOx Area Sources 1985
Other Sources 0.80% Other 16.10% Transportation
1.20% Marine 6.80% Heating
NOx emissions between 1980 and 1985, from all sources as shown in Figure 5, revealed a decline of 2 per cent from industrial sources and a growth of 8.5 per cent from area sources. The aggregate emissions between 1980 and 1985 showed an increase of 5.3 per cent excluding emissions from forest fires.
Figure 6 NOx Emission Trends
1980-1985
Resa coe case GP,
600,000 = = 3 500,000
© 400,000 Oe Oe
©- Area Sources 300,000 ere M- Aggregate 100,000 ee 0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Year
Æ- Industry Sources
oo 3 3 © 4
1994 emission targets specified for major point sources
In recognition of the serious environmental damage being caused by acid rain, the Government of Ontario recognized in 1985 that SO2 and NOx emissions must be reduced. Accordingly they encouraged all emitters to utilize abatement equipment and procedures and they legislated that the four major point sources, INCO, Ontario Hydro, Algoma and Falconbridge, must meet prescribed minimum emission limits for SO? and NOx by 1994. These limits are set out below.
Table 3 Company Regulation 1985 Emissions 1994 Emission Limits SO2 NOx SO2 SO2+NOx (Kilotonnes) (Kilotonnes) INCO 660/85 695.0 4.9 265.0 - Falconbridge 661/85 74.4 0 100.0 - Ontario Hydro 281/87 336.6 94.4 17520 215 Algoma (Wawa) 663/85 115.9 O0 125.0 -
* Estimated
10 industrial sectors emit large quantities of SO2 and NOx
There are ten industrial sectors that give rise to the majority of SO2 and 13.4 per cent of NOx emissions. These are:
+ Primary Metals + Transportation Equipment * + Non Metallic Mineral Products + Chemicals and Chemical Products + Food and Beverages ¢ Textile Industries + Metal Fabricating + Paper and Allied Products + Others - includes municipal and sewage sludge incinerators, commercial enterprises and institutions such as hospitals and universities * Rubber and Plastics - SO2 emissions only * Does not not include vehicles
many potential abatement technologies but only a few are well proven
A wide variety of abatement technologies is available to control SO2 and NOx emissions. Thirty-eight systems were identified and discussed during the course of this study. In the end it was concluded that only a few were proven and acceptable. The other technologies may be used, but those examined in this Study can serve as Surrogates, setting benchmark costs which would be incurred. Chief among the systems examined for SO2 were flue gas desulphurization, petroleum fuel desulphurization and fuel switching. For NOx control, the preferred means of abatement included catalytic converters for mobile sources, and for point sources, low NOx burners, lower excess air, selective non-catalytic reduction and selective catalytic reduction.
fuel desulphurization, fuel switching and flue gas desulphurization for SO2 9 né 22 EPR AON JOT 1907
As the name implies petroleum fuel desulphurization is accomplished by lowering the sulphur content of fuel oils. Fuel switching as used in this study involves changing from coal and oil to natural gas. In the case of flue gas desulphurization there are two basic types of systems - wet and dry. Wet scrubbing systems absorb SO? from the gas stream into a slurry of an alkaline chemical forming a sulphate. The most widely used Systems employ lime or limestone as the alkaline reactant. Dry scrubbing systems have not been used the same length of time as wet systems, but they are becoming prevalent with power utilities, industries and municipalities. In these systems, adsorption of SO2 and other acid gases takes place when the flue gas comes in contact with a sprayed dry or slurry sorbent.
Sulphur dioxide emissions are primarily generated by general industry during the use of boilers and in some processes. In the case of boilers the means of emission abatement that hold most promise are flue gas desulphurization and fuel changing to low sulphur fuel oils or natural gas. Abatement of SO2 emissions from industrial Processes appears to be best accomplished through the use of flue gas desulphurization technologies.
low NOx burners, lower excess air, selective non-catalytic and catalytic reduction for NOx Low NOx burners are seen to hold significant promise as a means for reducin g NOx
emissions. They are designed to control the air/fuel ratio in the burner area thereby retarding the formation of NOx from fuel bound nitrogen. Lower excess air involves
8
reducing NOx concentrations by lowering combustion air rates so that exhaust gases have a oxygen content of approximately 3 per cent. Both selective non-catalytic reduction and selective catalytic reduction are post combustion controls. The former reduces NOx through the addition of ammonia and very high temperatures. The latter relies on ammonia in the presence of a catalyst to reduce NOx to N2 and water vapour.
Nitrogen oxide emissions generated by general industry through the use of boilers can best be controlled by making changes to fuel burners or by modifying the actual boiler furnace operations. In the latter case the most commonly used technology is low excess air which involves reducing the amount of air supplied to the burner system. In the case of production processes, NOx abatement is best achieved through catalytic reduction technologies.
Small incremental fuel switching for NOx is not usually carried out. However, when fuel is switched to reduce SO2 by substituting natural gas there is a benefit in that lower NOx emissions are produced as a result of the elimination of fuel nitrogen in the
substituted natural gas.
catalytic convertors for mobile sources
NOx emissions are dominated by mobile source emissions ( which are now subject to Federal regulation ). Control options are (1) a catalytic convertor required on new cars by federal regulation limiting emission to one gram of NOx per mile and (2) a more efficient catalytic convertor that exceeds the federal requirement and reduces NOx
emissions to 0.4 grams per mile.
abatement controls considered by the model as illustrations for the 4 major point sources The four major point sources have been investigating a variety of abatement options in order to exceed their prescribed emission limits by 1994. The following processes appear to hold the most promise.
Falconbridge does not currently exceed the 1994 target emission limits for either SO2 or NOx. According to the model used in this study further reductions are possible if separate streams of exhaust gases are treated by dry lime injection using a spray-dryer. Implementation of this form of abatement control could reduce annual SO2 emissions by 50 kilotonnnes.
9
At INCO the remaining gas streams to be controlled involve a vast number of low strength sources. Despite what INCO is actually doing, for the purposes of this Study it was assumed they could be controlled at a single emission point by limestone scrubbing and that a suitable location for the resultin g limestone sludge could be found on the company property.
In the case of Algoma the abatement process that seems best suited to further lowering SO? emissions is wet flue gas desulphurization using limestone.
The most cost effective technology for controlling SO? from Ontario Hydro generating Stations appears to be a high efficiency wet flue gas desulphurization process using limestone. NOx emissions might be cost-effectively controlled by installing selective
catalytic reduction units at suitable locations.
abatement controls: How effective? How costly?
The cost effectiveness of selected SO? and NOx abatement technologies applied to the
four major point sources and the nine significant industrial sectors are briefly explained below.
In their 1988 Progress Report, INCO estimates that an annual production of 240 million pounds of nickel will allow them to achieve their 1994 emission limit for SO. À further 10 percent reduction below this limit would involve an annualized cost of $752 per tonne of SO2 removed (Appendix 2, Table 4-1). If a 50 per cent reduction is
pursued, economies of scale come into play and an annualized cost of $362 per tonne of SO2 removed would be incurred.
Ontario Hydro's coal and oil fired generating stations have a total rated generating capacity of 99.4 million megawatt hours per annum. Assuming full output from these Stations, the utility would face an annualized Cost per tonne of SO2 removed of
$848 if prescribed emission targets is exceeded by 10 per cent and $847 if itis surpassed by 50 per cent ( source Appendix 2,Table 4-1). For NOx the annualized
amount would be approximately $446 per tonne in both cases ( source Appendix 2, Table 4-3).
Based on a nickel production rate of 88 million pounds per year, Falconbridge will incur an annualized cost of $1,158 dollars per tonne for a further 10 per cent reduction
10
in SO2 emissions and a $1,566 per tonne annualized cost for a further 50 per cent reduction (Appendix 2, Table 4-1) .
Based on approximately 1.0 million tonnes of iron ore sinter production per year, Algoma will incur an annualized cost of $110 per tonne of SO2 removed given a 20 per cent reduction, and $835 for a 50 per cent reduction (Appendix 2, Table 4.1).
The annualized costs per tonne of SO2 removed in the nine industrial sectors which are significant emitters of SO2 and NOx show a considerable range from one sector to another. For SO2, costs range from $147 per tonne in the Chemical and Petroleum Products sector to $99,873 in Other Groups ( source Appendix 2, Table 4-2). The corresponding figures for NOx vary between annualized savings of $20,985 per tonne removed in the Non-Metallic Mineral Products sector to a cost of $21,551 per tonne in the Other Groups sector ( Appendix 2, Table 4-4). Cost effectiveness considerations would lead firms to choose abatement technologies in the lower cost range of those
indicated above. These cost effective technologies are discussed in the next section.
the implications of "what if for SO2"
In order to determine the most cost-effective strategy for SO2 abatement across all sectors and point sources, a series of "what if scenarios" was formulated and tested. Three scenarios examined the impact of different removal targets on the overall cost of SO2 abatement strategies. The three emission reduction scenarios that were examined included lowering an existing 1994 base case emission target of 900,885 tonnes by 10, 30 and 50 per cent ( scenarios 1,2,3 respectively).
It should be noted that Ontario will meet SO2 emission limits of 885,000 tonnes per year in 1994. The higher value of 900,885 tonnes per year arises from the implicit assumption that Algoma Steel Corp. ( Wawa ) and Falconbridge will increase emissions to their maximum acceptable levels.
Four other scenarios looked at the effect on base case conditions given the unlikely event that either INCO or Ontario Hydro fail to meet their 1994 emission targets.
These scenarios included the following: + INCO fails to meet the 1994 regulated target and remains at its 1985 emission level (Scenario 4 ).
+ INCO only gets half way towards the 1994 regulated target (Scenario 5 ).
11
+ Ontario Hydro fails to meet the 1994 regulated target and remains at its 1985 emission level (Scenario 6 ). + Ontario Hydro only gets half way towards the 1994 regulated target (Scenario 7).
Figure 7 sets out the tonnes of SO2 that would be emitted on an annual basis under each scenario. The same figure also shows the costs that would be incurred over 15 years to meet these emission levels.
Figure 7 Projected SO2 Emission Levels and Associated Costs For Alternative Scenarios (Source: Appendix 3, Table 4.1-4.4)
Emissions Present Value Costs (Kilctonnes) (] F (M 1987 $) $5,000 Bese Case EL arget $4,000 $3,000
$2,000
UE DE eee at nl a at Bal :
Scenarios
Based on the data contained in Figure 7, it is apparent from the first three scenarios that there is a disproportionately higher cost associated with successively greater levels of emission control. Reducing S02 by 50 per cent from 1994 levels would cost 30 times more than reducing by 10 per cent from 1994 levels. Similarly going from a 30 per cent cut to a 50 per cent cut escalates control costs 6 times.
If INCO fails to reduce its emissions and remains at its 1985 emission level, maximum costs are imposed on all other emitters and overall abatement costs are 5.6 times beyond those incurred in Scenario 2 and the 1994 base case emission target is exceeded by 13 per cent. If INCO meets 50% of its 1994 regulated emission target the cost burden
12
lincurred by other sectors to achieve the 1994 emission target is considerably reduced
relative to Scenario 4.
A failure by Ontario Hydro to meet its 1994 targeis has implications which are less severe although still costly. If Ontario Hydro fails to reduce its emissions and remains at 1985 emission levels (Scenario 6), the 1994 targets can be achieved by other sectors at a cost of $321 million . If Ontario Hydro achieves half of its 1994 regulated reductions (Scenario 7), other sectors incur a cost of $78 million.
the implications of "what if for NOx"
Similar to SO, a series of "what if scenarios" were formulated and tested for NOx to determine the most cost-effective across the board strategy for abatement. Scenarios 1,2 and 3 examined the impact of lowering an existing base case emissions/target of 578,135 tonnes per year by margins of 10, 30 and 50 per cent. Another two scenarios, 4 and 5 respectively examined what would happen if Ontario Hydro failed to reduce emissions below the 1985 levels and if it only reduced emissions by 50 per cent of the 1994 regulated target. Figure 8 shows the annual emissions and the costs that
would be incurred for each scenario. Figure 8 Projected NOx Emission Levels and Associated Costs (Source: Appendix 3, Table 4.6-4.8)
Emissions Present Value Costs (Kilotonnes) i
(M 1987 $)
$8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $8,000 $4,000 $3,000 2,000 $1,000
Base Case Emission Target $78
13
For the first three scenarios the results show that the costs of removal escalate dramatically as emission targets become lower. The 30 per cent NOx removal specified in Scenario 2 costs 5.5 times as much as the 10% cut specified in Scenario 1. Scenario 3 costs 30 times as much as Scenario 1 for a 50 per cent level of NOx removal.
The scenarios which look at total and partial failure of Ontario Hydro to meet its 1994 regulated emission targets reveal that the effects are readily offset by federally mandated mobile source controls which are now in effect for new vehicles.
conclusions
A failure on the part of either INCO or Ontario Hydro to achieve regulated SO? emission levels has significant implications for province wide emission control costs. If INCO emissions remain at 1985 levels, the $4,933 million expenditure by other sectors will leave the province at an emission level of 1.01 million tonnes per year or 13 per cent above the 1994 target. Failure by Ontario Hydro to reduce emissions below 1985 levels would cost other sectors $321 million but the 1994 targets would be met.
In the case of NOx, mobile emission control is the critical factor. Should Ontario Hydro, the major point source of NOx not reduce emissions below 1985 levels mobile
reductions would more than compensate for the shortfall.
Provided INCO and Ontario Hydro meet their 1994 targets, the Province can tum to regulating further reductions across the board or by specific point source and industry sector. Based on the Scenarios that were run for both SO2 and NOx a 10 per cent reduction incurs a relatively low cost. A reduction of 30 per cent increases costs five and a half times over those for the ten per cent reduction. Further control measures which would reduce emissions from the sectors to 50 per cent of the 1994 tar
get levels would increase the costs to about 30 times those for the 10 per cent reduction.
Based on the progress made by the regulated companies in the past three years, we expect that the four major point sources in Ontario will be able to meet their 1994 SO? and NOx emission targets.
Switching from other fuels to natural gas may reduce fuel costs and reduce SO? and NOx emissions. However, supply limitations due to pipeline capacity constraints preclude the widespread application of this abatement method.
14
Conservation was not examined.
Other assumptions not covered in this study can be easily added to the model to provide the policy-maker with new scenarios based on technological advances, changes in costs, or calculations based on social costs instead of private costs. The model itself has been revised to run on a P.C.
future issues
1. Investigate implications of switching fuel sources to natural gas.
2. Consider implications of more stringent emission limits on mobile sources, eg. transportation vehicles.
3. The incremental costs of further SO2 reductions at the four major point sources
should be examined in detail.
4. Explore implications of significant modal changes (eg. from automobile to public transit) on NOx emissions.
COUNTDOWN ACID RAIN FUTURE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES Phase I
For the Ministry of the Environment
Air Resources Branch
SENES Consultants Limited 52 West Beaver Creek Road Unit No. 4 Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4B 1G5
March 1989
ve 6 : 7 à =:
16 Core ia (kis ray le AT fly are 6 ab raked 00 U
de ol op user kh ow prié tel étages vel béni
ca! aa We. ctcx's! Come om! of prit chats the oundal a re 2a PC 9 = ‘ raat es ~~ —> PS i it: | calioghet i
1 Parte © rut gui ALAA atom MNOCUTMUOQ
QL RORUALTS TÉEMNESES, ILA
* geasdit
OUI LE vob
(ME Te 400 atlas Dre SO
SAT Ai = a%y, Lie, fore mi jihageanosivas -¢) te €2382n71
At e1 i - "00/8 24
ha pm Lara? {manag au 10 ace. Ads +11206 3208 1e x .où 210 | ejnaj00 , MAN baomiais
got oss | a ing
-_ = cho do: ; 7 | | 4 _ h ar Ms walt : : i : i ea !
DISCLAIMER
The conclusions, opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In addition, the consultant is solely responsible for the accuracy of data and estimates presented in this report.
LE SNL De
aid? ni Beaxetcxs anolsebcasssces Snes oiniqe:,s maatcet ¥{irAeesson Jen Oo Bin Sriszivance ais Yo tnecrotived add to var an: FR SEPM eit neivoos edgy Tot eldianogne (sion ai Sieger ati ni !
noîitiDDs fa
baie 8740 10 ¥
i or
This report presents a study of SO; and NO, emission sources in Ontario and proposed emission control strategies to achieve
further reductions of SO, and NO, after 1993. The report
consists of a summary document supported by three appendices. Summary The summary document describes the findings of 3
phases of the study and draws conclusions on
abatement strategies.
Appendix 1 The Phase 1 Report sets out a 1985 base year emission inventory for SO, and NO,, examines past
trends, and outlines five basic future scenarios.
Appendix 2 The Phase II Report identifies the costs of reducing SO; and NO, using alternative emission control technologies required to meet the emission
targets identified in the Phase I Report.
Appendix 3 The Phase III Report develops alternative cost- effective abatement strategies that achieve pre-specified aggregate emission targets. The computer model developed for the foregoing work is described.
This This document describes Phase I, Appendix 1.
Document
_
af seoiuGe nrieells.. Où Dns 08 20 inde x tue dia “018 of ANT VTT Lorine. wiesles © ‘beeoqota be Jto¢sx off -b@er 103% » OU bas “goa to taoisgube Less ya vFr1o04qu0 1usmu00E as amma
E %¢ epaibetd silt sedizoash gaemvoeh yrsemug edt e e i
719 énolsu!lsao ewsib cas yids ede 20 Geo nrg |
we resiays Jnemeisda.
LU
|
NO essed 2607 o Jue efos Stokes L sent) eff 7 1024 enimaxe ,,OK bin -O8 Got yrotiséwni noise ime - eolzans28 g1ysut olést met geal ites bow end
Le >
*o 6 edu ery aeltiziee Zona EL. ekang. sy #2
‘ Sal 9 = 1odauiss avizenietlia cilen ,OM bes LOS pEnéoubet.~ noëtelns aft seem où borivhsz spipclrodoes taxe oO
20! T eusd? oAy Gi Halt igeedi Py 1
~ Ome 1 A éi- £a t % - iz a -_ 100 .avidsiuwtla oqeleveb danger Lit add | me, evaiñné ‘si? seloeieris jneseegian sviapelie | sit .Sisv1e1 acieninme oaçattps boliiisec
ei Âzow paiopezoi ef? 407 beqotoesh Lebom weil
i rxibrequé ,T eaadd codivoned dewn>ob eda?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
SO, EMISSIONS
74 ol Zire
SO5 Emission in 1985 SO; Trends from 1980 to 1985
NO, EMISSIONS
3.1 Sine
NO, Emission in 1985 NO, Trends from 1980 to 1985
SO; AND NO, REGULATIONS
BASIC EMISSION SCENARIOS
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6
Introduction
Status Quo Scenario
Major Economic Upturn
Major Change in Industrial Feedstock Significant New Emission Source Large Source Not Meeting Legislative Control
REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
Table # Name Follows Page
a 15 Major Sources of S0, in Ontario 24 (1985)
2 Ontario SO, Emissions from Industrial 2=2 Sources from 1980 to 1985
3 Ontario SO; Area Emission from 1980 2-2 to 1985
4 10 Major Point Sources of NO, in Ontario 3-1 (1985)
5 Ontario NO, Emissions from Industrial 34 Sources from 1980 to 1985
6 Ontario NO, Area Emission from 1980 32 to 1985
7 Legislative Control Annual SO, and NO, 4-1 Emissions Status Quo Scenario - Option 1 5=2 Status Quo Scenario - Option 2 5-2
10 Annual Growth Rate 5-2
Figure #
OU Pm WD H
LIST OF FIGURES
Name
S0, Provincial Total (1985)
SO, Area Emissions (1985)
Total so, Emissions (1980-1985) NO, Provincial Total (1985)
NO, Area Emissions (1985)
Follows Page
£5 2 of ras [- Le r À . ¢- a LA a & r À Oo 0! he at ? NW ‘ >| at s > à » 0 LE va
té
| A
agi 14707, Letontyes’ gue
UE ce: (2eet) oaokseimt aah, ae edt agtrapes). ooggniea, 40%
— Jette £029 4 we À | anÿaa if aris gon
auÉ tr Cet dir ts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PHASE I
This report is Phase I (Emission Inventory Updates) of the project entitled "Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies". The information from Phase I will be used in Phase II (Alternative Technologies) and Phase III (Abatement Strategy Assessment). The overall objective of the study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of alternative emission control technologies for SO, and
NO, emissions.
The objective of Phase I was to develop an appropriate emission inventory of sulphur dioxide (SO5) and nitrogen oxides (NO,). The report presents summarized so, and NO, emission data for the major point sources of SO, and NO, for industrial sectors and area sources in Ontario for 1985, which is the new reference year for acid rain studies. "Area sources" include
transportation and fuel combustion.
Sulphur dioxide emissions decreased from 1980 to) 1985: The total anthropogenic (man-made) so, emissions in 1985 amounted to 1.458 million tonnes; a decrease of 16.6% from the 1980 emission levels. The Inco smelter was the largest contributor to the reduction. The largest emission sources in 1985 were non-ferrous smelters, 53%, electric utilities, 23% and ferrous smelters, 10%. Area sources accounted for approximately 4% of the total so, emissions; within this group, marine and residential heating dropped by
over half, while vehicle emissions increased by 15%.
Nitrogen oxide emissions increased from 1980 to 1985. Approximately 0.612 million tonnes of anthropogenic NO, were emitted in 1985, an approximate increase of 6% from the 1980 emission levels. The largest contributors were vehicles, 53% and electric utilities, 15%. Vehicle emissions increased by 17.6%. Ontario Hydro dominates the industrial sector, and its emissions fluctuated during 1980-1985. Low NO, burners have helped to reduce emissions. Legislated limits under the Count Down Acid Rain Programme are forcing emission reductions for the four major point sources. The schedules are shown. Five scenarios were developed with assumptions about future emissions, and will be employed in Phase II and Phase III to assess the effect of various
strategies on the cost and employment of abatement methods and technologies.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is Phase I (Emission Inventory Updates) of the project entitled "Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies". The objective of Phase I is to develop an appropriate emission source inventory for sulphur dioxide (SO) and nitrogen oxides (NO, ) - The inventory incorporates data from the 1985 Ontario Emission Inventory System (OEIS), a computerized data management
system and a previous MOE study, MOE 1986a.
The overall objective of the report is to use data from previously inventoried sources to evaluate various abatement scenarios in terms of the reduction in
so, and NO, emissions versus cost. The report summarizes:
é the SO, and NO, emissions for the major point sources, industrial
sectors and area sources in Ontario for 1985, 4 the trend in so, and NO, emissions during the period 1980 to 1985,
A the status quo inventory based on industries achieving regulated
limits,
- and several emission inventories based on a large source not being able to meet legislative control, a major economic upturn, a major change in industrial feedstock, and a significant new emission
source.
The data presented in this report refer to emissions from anthropogenic (man- made) origins. The emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO) are calculated as nitrogen dioxide in the inventory and in this report. It should be noted that
the regulation applying to Ontario Hydro refers to nitric oxide (NO).
2.0 SO: EMISSIONS 2.1 So, Emissions in 1985
The total 1985 so, emissions in Ontario were approximately 1,458 kilotonnes. Figure 1 presents the breakdown of SO, emissions in terms of industrial sectors and area sources. Non-ferrous smelters accounted for the largest source of emissions (53%), followed by electric utilities (23%), and ferrous
smelters, 10%.
In the following sections, point sources are defined as industrial facilities, electric utilities and institutions. Area sources include transportation equipment (vehicles, railroad, aircraft and marine), heating (residential,
commercial, industrial and institutional) and incineration. Point Sources
Table 1 presents the 15 largest point sources of so, emissions in 1985; the selection criteria was >5000 tonnes/year SO, . These sources account for 90.3% of the provincial total. The largest emitter was INCO with an annual emission rate of 695 kilotonnes. Ontario Hydro, i.e. cumulative sum from thermal generating stations, was second with an annual emission rate of 336.6
kilotonnes.
The top four point sources on Table 1 accounted for 84% of the total provincial emissions. Facility specific legislative control, described in
Chapter 4.0, has been placed on each of these sources.
Area Sources
Figure 2 presents the 1985 SO, emissions from area sources which account for 3.8% of the provincial total. The largest area source of so; emissions was
vehicles, 32.8%, and industrial/commercial heating, 25.6%.
FIGURE |
SO; PROVINCIAL TOTALS (1985)
Others (7.3%)
Ferrous (9.7%)
Area Sources (3.8%)
Non-Ferrous (52.9%)
Electric Utils. (23.0%)
Petroleum (3.3%)
FIGURE 2
SO2 AREA EMISSIONS (1985)
Other Sources (1.4%) Other Trans. (125%)
Licensed Vehicles (32.8%)
Marine (11.8%)
Resid. Heating (15.9%)
Comm/Ind. Heating (25.8%)
NOTE:
FIGURE 2 IS A BREAKDOWN OF 3.8 % SO; AREA SOURCES FROM FIGURE |
Table 1
15 MAJOR POINT SOURCES OF 80, IN ONTARIO* (1985)
Source
i LINCO (Sudbury)
2. Ontario Hydro**
3. Algoma Ore Div. (Wawa)
4. Falconbridge Nickel Mines (Sudbury)
5. Imperial Oil (Sarnia)
6. Shell Canada (Corunna)
7. Lake Ontario Cement (Picton)
8. Algoma Steel Corp. (Sault Ste. Marie)
9. Stelco (Nanticoke)
10. Courtauld’s Can. Ltd. (Cornwall)
11. Petrosar Ltd. (Corunna)
12. James River Marathon (Marathon)
13. Texaco Canada (Nanticoke)
14. Dofasco Inc. (Hamilton)
15. Kerr Addison (Virgniatown)
Note:
* Criteria >5000 tonnes/year SO
** Ontario Hydro includes: Nanticoke Lambton Lakeview Thunder Bay Atikokan
Reference:
MOE, 1988.
SO» (tonnes/year) 695,008
336, 633 115,890 74,352 19,595 16,103 7,748 7,419 6,920 6,517 6,260 6,225 6,210 6,126
5,144
1,316,150
90.3% of total SO; emissions from area and point sources
169,000 118,000 43,800 4,740 1,040
2,2 SO, Trends from 1980 to 1985
Point Sources
Table 2 presents the SO, emissions from industrial point sources for the period 1980 to 1985. Non-ferrous and ferrous smelters, i.e. iron ore (Wawa) and iron & steel, show depressed emissions during 1982/1983; a period of economic recession. Electric utilities, however, showed an inverse relationship to the aforementioned trend, i.e. peak production during 1982 and 1983. In 1982, electric utilities were the major source of so, emissions. The decrease in SO, emissions during the period of 1983 to 1985 may be at least partially attributable to the Pickering "B" nuclear generating station
coming on line.
Emissions from petroleum refineries have steadily decreased since 1980. This may be due primarily to a reduction in the sulphur content of feed stock and
some conversion to natural gas as a fuel at some refineries.
The total annual emissions of SO, from point sources during the review period (1980-85) are presented on Figure 3. During the period of 1980 to 1982, emission levels dropped significantly, approximately 36% compared to 1980. Overall, a 17% reduction occurred between the period 1980 and 1985; the most significant source of reduction is in emissions from non-ferrous smelters, in
particular INCO.
The 1984 data for so, emissions are presently unavailable. The MOE is currently processing this data, the 1985 data was processed before the 1984
data because it is the base year for the Countdown on Acid Rain study. Area Sources
The Ontario area source emissions of SO, from 1980 to 1985 are presented in Table 3. Significant decreases have occurred, in marine, 57%, and residential heating, 56% during this period. Total vehicle emissions have increased 15%
since 1980.
Table 2
ONTARIO SO, EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES FROM 1980 TO 1985”
(TONNES /YEAR) Category 1980 (1) 1981 (1 1982 (1 1983(1) 198542) ** Non-Ferrous Smelters 9357451 836,172 388,773 538,007 769,360 Electric Utilities 396,194 417,658 450,368 437,630 336,738 Iron Ore (Wawa) 160,583 132,337 70, 690 81,827 115,890 Petroleum Refineries 73, 627 72,348 64,785 59,465 59,698 Iron & Steel 29,909 25,143 21,910 21,760 26,028 Other Sources 90,887 91,611 90,508 84,643 95,056 TOTAL 1,686,651 1,575,269 1,087,034 1,223,332 1,402, 770
Note: 1984 data is presently unavailable. 1985 is the base year for planning future acid rain controls
in Canada and U.S.A.
Reference: (1) MOE, 1986a. (2) MOE, 1988; OEIS System.
CL XAG”
(1980 - 1985)
CC XW *
CL : VV *
VU
FIGURE 3 TOTAL SOz EMISSIONS
Table 3
ONTARIO SO, AREA EMISSIONS FROM 1980 TO 1985"
(TONNES / YEAR) Category 1980 (1) 1981 (1) 1982 (1) 1983(1) 1985(2)** License Vehicles 15,808 15,102 15,576 15,256 18,174 Off-Hwy. Engines 3,517 3,592 3,055 3,154 37335 Railroad 4,564 4,809 4,525 4,580 3,448 Aircraft 1973 173 165 163 188 Marine 15,360 12,299 8,714 11,429 6,530 Residential Heating 20,272 15,294 13,604 8,574 8,825 Comm./Inst./Indust. 16,910 18,870 10,704 10,880 14,183 Heating
Waste Incineration 646 642 611 609 671 TOTAL 77,250 70,781 56,954 54,645 55,354 Note:
à 1984 data is presently unavailable.
* 3 1985 is the base year for planning future acid rain controls
in Canada and U.S.A.
Reference: (1) MOE, 1986a. (2) MOE, 1988; OEIS System.
The total Ontario emissions of SO, from area sources have decreased from 77.3
kilotonnes to 55.3 kilotonnes, a reduction of 28%.
3.0 NOy EMISSIONS
JL NO, Emissions in 1985
The total 1985 NO, anthropogenic emissions for Ontario were approximately 612 kilotonnes. Figure 4 presents a breakdown of NO, emissions in terms of industrial sectors and area sources. In 1985, the largest contribution to NO,
emissions was area sources, 71.1%, with electric utilities contributing 15.4%.
Point Sources ae SOUrces:
Table 4 presents the ten highest point sources of emission of NO, in Ontario.
These sources account for 21% of the provincial total.
The largest source of industrial emissions of NO, was Ontario Hydro with a
cumulative total from its thermal generating plants of 94,437 tonnes.
Area Sources Sees Ces
Figure 5 presents the 1985 NO, emissions from area sources. The largest area Sources were licensed vehicles, 75.1%. Other forms of transportation
accounted for 16.1%.
Sree NO, Trends from 1980 to 1985 SS Se ees bee
Point Sources ==2r sources
Table 5 presents the Ontario NO, emissions from industrial sources for the period 1980-1985. Since 1985 is the basis for Planning future acid rain controls in Canada, the 1985 inventory has been finalized; the 1984 inventory will be finalized later. The sector with the greatest change was petroleum refineries which decreased NO, emissions from 23,214 tonnes to 17,730 tonnes
during the period of 1980 to 1985, a 24% reduction, a reduction which may be
FIGURE 4 NO, PROVINCIAL TOTALS (1985) Others (75%)
Non-Ferrous/Ferrous (3.0%)
Electric Utils. (15.4%)
Refineries (29%)
Area Sources (71.1%)
FIGURE 5
NO, AREA EMISSIONS (1985)
Other Sources (0.8%)
Other Trans. (16.1%)
Marine (1.2%)
Heating (6.8%)
Total Vehicles (75.1%)
NOTE:
FIGURE 5 IS A BREAKDOWN OF 71.1 % NO, AREA SOURCES FROM FIGURE 4
Table 4
10 MAJOR POINT SOURCES OF NO; IN ONTARIO* (1985)
Source
1. Ontario Hydro**
2. Stelco (Hamilton)
3. Petrosar Ltd. (Corunna)
4. INCO (Sudbury)
5. Imperial Oil (Sarnia)
6. Algoma Steel Division (Sault Ste. Marie)
7. Dow Chemical (Sarnia)
8. ESSO Chemicals (Sarnia)
9. Stelco (Nanticoke)
10. Gulf Canada Ltd. (Mississauga)
Note:
*
criteria >2000 tonnes/year NO, ** Ontario Hydro Includes:
Reference:
MOE, 1988, OEIS System.
Nanticoke Lambton Lakeview Thunder Bay Atikokan
NO, (tonnes/year)
94,437 5,567 5,225 4,893 3, 629
3,207
3,080 2,920 2,602 2,238
128,098
21% of total NO, emissions from point and area sources
59,799 18,400 13, 646 2,147
445
Table 5
ONTARIO NO, EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES FROM 1980 TO 1985"
Electric Utilities
Petroleum Refineries
Iron & Steel
Non-Ferrous Smelters
Other Sources
TOTAL
100, 976
23,214
12,118
2,530
36,192
175,030
(TONNES / YEAR)
1981(1) 1982(1) 1983(1) 1985(2)
108,992
19,380
15,705
2,930
39,131
186,138
1984 data is presently unavailable.
123,549
19/3815
15, 705
2,930
38,786
200,285
118,426
17,449
11,309%
2,930
35,202
185,316
1985 is the base year for planning future acid rain controls
in Canada and U.S.A.
Reference:
(1) MOE, 1986a.
(2) MOE, 1988; OEIS System.
94,437
17,730
13,676
4,914
45,929
176,686
xk
attributed to the conversion to natural gas as a fuel source within some
refineries.
As was the case with SO, emissions, the NO, emissions from electric utilities were highest during 1982 and 1983. The installation of low NO, burners at Nanticoke generating station and Pickering "B" nuclear generating station
coming on line in 1985 accounts for some of the NO, reduction.
The total NO, emission levels from industrial sources increased slightly in 1985, (176,686 tonnes) from the 1980 level (175,030 tonnes), i.e. an increase of 1%.
Area Sources
Table 6 presents the Ontario area source emissions of NO, from 1980 to 1985. The NO, emissions from licensed vehicles has increased significantly, a 17.6%
increase, from 277,836 tonnes in 1983 to 326,603 tonnes in 1985.
The overall area NO, emissions in 1985 has increased by 2.4% over the 1980 value. If fires are excluded, however, a much larger increase in NO,
emissions, 8.7%, occurred for the same period.
Category
Anthropogenic:
Licensed Vehicles
Off-Hwy. Engines
Railroad
Aircraft
Marine
Residential Heating
Commercial Heating
Industrial Heating
Waste Incineration
Sub Total
Non-anthropogenic:
Forest & Structural
Fires
TOTAL
Note:
*
Table 6
ONTARIO NO, AREA EMISSIONS FROM 1980 to 1985"
1980 (1)
277,836
49,191
29,533
1,679
8,449
18,626
10,007
2,187
2,662
400,170
25,151
425,321
(TONNES / YEAR)
1981(1) 1982(1) 265,866 279,421 50,584 42,360 31107 29,282 1,681 1,592 7,039 5,825 172297 16,837 11772 10,549 2,005 1,145 2,643 2,593 389,944 389,604 8,396 707 398,340 390,311
1984 data is presently unavailable.
1983 (1)
272,495
43,847
29, 633
1,576
7,702
14,711
10,210
2,356
2,580
385,109
20,073
405,182
1985 is the base year for planning future acid rain controls in Canada and U.S.A.
Reference:
(1) MOE, 1986a.
(2) MOE, 1988; OEIS System.
1985 (2) **
326, 603 46,140 22,308
1,828 5,435 15,556 9,629 4,574
2,743
434,816
508
435,324
4.0 SO> AND NO, REGULATIONS
Table 7 presents the four major sources, their 1985 emission rates and the 1994 emission limits. In order to achieve the 1994 emission limits, INCO and Ontario Hydro must reduce their emissions from 1985 rates by 61.9% (SO,) and 50% (SO, and NO), respectively. Because 1985 emission levels for Algoma Steel Corp (Wawa) and Falconbridge were below their 1994 SO, emission limits,
further reductions would not be required for these sources.
In order for INCO to achieve the legislative control, the annual emission rate from its Sudbury operations must be reduced 61.9% from the 1985 rate to 265
kilotonnes SO, .
Ontario Hydro, however, has several thermal generating stations which emit SO, and NO, - The criteria employed by Ontario Hydro for the selection of preferred candidate sites for installing Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD)
equipment includes (Ontario Hydro, 1988):
5 sulphur content of coal that the station is designed to burn; = expected future use of the station; and
: station size, remaining operating life, and expected reliability
The number of FGD units required to achieve the 1994 emission limit will be discussed in Phase II (Alternative Technologies) and Phase III (Abatement Strategy Assessment). For Phase I, it has been assumed that Ontario Hydro will meet the Regulation by emitting 175 kilotonnes So; and 40 kilotonnes NO (61.3 kilotonnes NO, ) -
Company
INCO
Ontario Hydro Algoma (Wawa) Falconbridge * Estimated Reference:
MOE, 1986b.
Table 7
LEGISLATIVE (1994) CONTROL ANNUAL SO, AND NO, EMISSIONS (KILOTONNES)
Current (1985) Emission (1994) Limits Regulation wer NO, S02 SO, + NO, 660/85 695.0 4.9 265 - 281/87 336.6 94.4 175 215 663/85 11519 053% 125 - 661/85 74.4 <0). 5* 100 -
5.0 BASIC EMISSION SCENARIOS
51e Introduction
Five basic emission scenarios were developed for the Phase I study: - Status Quo
- Major Economic Upturn
Major Change in Industrial Feedstock
- Significant New Emission Sources
nO BP W N FF !
- Large Source Not Meeting Legislative Control
These scenarios will be employed during Phases II and III to assess the effect
of various abatement strategies.
In Phases II and III, the first four inventories will be evaluated under the
following two scenarios:
C All industries reducing SO» and NO, emissions by 10%, 30% and 50%. The emissions of the four largest SO, sources meeting current regulatory constraints while other industries reduce So; and NO,
emissions by 10%, 30% and 50%.
The last scenario, scenario 5, will be evaluated by assuming that INCO will reduce SO, emissions to 525,000 tonnes per year and maintain NO, emissions at 4900 tonnes per year. The SO, and NO, emissions from all other industries
will be reduced to achieve overall reductions of 10%, 30% and 50%. 5.2 Status Quo Scenario Two potential options exist for the status quo scenario. Under the first
option, Ontario Hydro would comply with the regulation by reducing So,
emissions to 175,000 tonnes per year and NO, emissions to 40,000 tonnes NO per
year. Regulation 281/87 also suggests a second new NO, scenario where Ontario Hydro would probably double its NO, emissions to 80,000 tonnes NO per year, but complies with the regulation by reducing SO, emissions by additional
scrubbing of 40,000 tonnes per year.
The status quo scenario utilizes emission data for the four largest so; emission sources, 11 industrial sectors and four area sources (see Table 8). The emission rates for the four largest sources are those required by the specific regulations, (see Chapter 4.0). The industrial sectors are as
defined by Statistics Canada (1983,1984, and 1985)
The first two area sources represent major transportation regions in Ontario. The marine sources were isolated because fuel used for lake freighters is not
covered by provincial jurisdiction.
The total SO, emissions in the status quo scenario exceeds the Provincial objective, 885,000 tonnes/yr after 1993, by 15,862 tonnes/yr. In the status quo scenario, it is implicitly assumed that Algoma Steel Corp. (Wawa) and Falconbridge Nickel Mines will increase emissions from the 1985 level to their maximum acceptable levels as stated in the regulations, (see Section 4.0) even
though this may not occur.
In option 2, Ontario Hydro would emit 80 kilotonnes of NO and 135 kilotonnes
of SO, per year. Table 9 presents the status quo scenario for option 2.
5.3 Major Economic Upturn
Table 10 presents an estimate of growth in the various industrial sectors, derived from the forecast Manufacturing Gross Domestic Product at Factor Cost data for the period 1994 to 2000 in Ontario (Informetrica, 1987). It has been assumed that industrial emissions of SO, and NO, will increase linearly with these growth terms to evaluate the effect of a major economic upturn in the
economy.
STATUS QUO SCENARIO - OPTION 1
Source SO; NO, (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) INCO 265,000 4,900 Ontario Hydro 175,000 61,333 Algoma Ore Division (Wawa) 125,000 260 Falconbridge Nickel Mines 100,000 20
Industrial Sectors:
Food/Beverage/Tobacco 1,647 2,881 Rubber Plastics 185 386 Leather/Textile/Clothing Tp 309 1,254 Paper Products & Allied Industries. 30,621 12,179 Primary Metals 14,219 672 Metal Fabricating/Machinery Industries 29,038 14,662 Transportation Equipment Industries 1,801 2,099 Non-Metallic Mineral Products 20,249 9,756 Chemical & Petroleum Products 69,902 27,892 Misc. Manufacturing 192 267 Other Major Groups 5,318 4,250 Industry Sub Total 845,531 142,811
Area Sources:
Metro Toronto area 18,603 101,812 Niagara-Hamilton-Toronto Corridor 24,154 202,954 Balance of Ontario 6,067 125,124 Marine Sources 6,530 5,434 Area Source Sub Total 55,354 435,324 TOTAL 9300, 665" 578,135
Reference:
MOE, 1988; OEIS System à Ontario will meet SO, emission limits of 885,000 tonnes/year in 1994. The higher value, 900,885 tonnes/year arises from the implicit assumption that Algoma Steel Corp. (Wawa) and Falconbridge Nickel Mines will increase emissions to their
Table 9
STATUS QUO SCENARIO - OPTION 2
Source so, NO, (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) INCO 265,000 4,900 Ontario Hydro 135,000 122, 666 Algoma Ore Division (Wawa) 125,000 260 Falconbridge Nickel Mines 100,000 20
Industrial Sectors:
Food/Beverage/Tobacco 1,647 2,881 Rubber Plastics 185 386 Leather/Textile/Clothing 7,359 1,254 Paper Products & Allied Industries. 30,621 12,179 Primary Metals 14,219 672 Metal Fabricating/Machinery Industries 29,038 14, 662 Transportation Equipment Industries 1,801 2,099 Non-Metallic Mineral Products 20,249 9,756 Chemical & Petroleum Products 69,902 27,892 Misc. Manufacturing 192 267 Other Major Groups 5,318 4,250 Industry Sub Total 805,531 204,144
Area Sources:
Metro Toronto area 18,603 101,812 Niagara-Hamilton-Toronto Corridor 24,154 202,954 Balance of Ontario 6,067 1257124 Marine Sources 6,530 5,434 Area Source Sub Total AE 435,324 TOTAL 860,885 639,468
Reference:
MOE, 1988; OEIS System
Table 10
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
Average Annual
Industrial Sector Growth Rate (%)
Food/Beverage 2.4 Rubber & Plastics 3.5 Leather/Textile/Clothing 2.6 Paper and Allied Industries 3:20 Primary Metals 336 Metal Fabricating/Machinery Industries 6-1 Transportation Equipment (manufacturing) 3.4 Non-Metallic Mineral Products 4.2 Chemical & Petroleum Products 30 0 Misc. Manufacturing So Note:
Based on Forecasted Growth from 1994 to 2000.
Reference:
Informetrica Limited, 1987
Production data for Ontario in 1982, 1983 and 1984, a period of high growth following the 1982 recession, was also examined but yielded very high and perhaps unrepresentative growth rates in some industrial sectors, i.e. primary
metals (Statistics Canada, 1983, 1984 and 1985).
5.4 Major Change in Industrial Feedstock
The desulphurization of petroleum products was assumed as the major change in industrial feedstock. Changes which would only affect the top four SO, emitters, e.g. the use of low sulphur coal from western Canada by Ontario Hydro, will not be examined as specific methods by which these companies
choose to meet legislative control are not critical to this study.
Ses) Significant New Emissions Source
In this scenario, the effect of a significant new emission source or sources will be assessed. All of the new sources with significant SO,/NO, emissions will be assumed to have Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The source(s) will be treated separately from the existing inventory and with BACT, are assumed to emit no more than 5% of the overall industrial So; (42,276 tonnes) and NO, (8796 tonnes) emissions shown in the Status Quo
Inventory, Option 1.
5.6 Large Source Not Meeting Legislative Control
In order to assess the impact on total emissions if a currently legislated source can not meet legislative control, it will be assumed for the purposes of this study that INCO will not be able to meet the 1994 legislative control,
but is able to reach a level of 525 kilotonnes So, per year.
The aforementioned assumptions are for the purpose of assessing large changes in SO, emissions and are not meant to reflect the current status of INCO’s or
any other abatement program.
REFERENCE
Informetrica Limited, 1987. "Informetrica Limited - Post II - 87, Reference
Forecast", April.
Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1986a. "Inventoried Air Pollution Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds for the Province of Ontario (1980-1983)", Report No. ARB-187- 86-AQM, May.
Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1986b. "Countdown Acid Rain: Ontario’s
Acid Gas Control Program for 1986-1994."
Ministry of the Environment (MOE), 1988. "Ontario Emission Inventory Source
(OEIS) Database." Air Quality Management, Air Resources Branche
Ontario Hydro, 1988. "Flue Gas Desulphurization Program: Environmental Assessment". February. Statistics Canada, 1983. "Manufacturing Industries of Canada: Sub-Provincial
Areas (1983)", Statistics Canada, Ministry of Supply and Services.
Statistics Canada, 1984. "Manufacturing Industries of Canada: Sub-Provincial
Areas (1984)", Statistics Canada, Ministry of Supply and Services.
Statistics Canada, 1985. "Manufacturing Industries of Canada: Sub-Provincial
Areas (1985)", Statistics Canada, Ministry of Supply and Services.
Re I I I eee
COUNTDOWN ACID RAIN FUTURE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
PHASE II
For the Ministry of the Environment
Air Resources Branch
SENES Consultants Limited 52 West Beaver Creek Road Unit No. 4 Richmond Hill, Ontario
LAB 1L9
DISCLAIMER
The conclusions, opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In addition, the consultant is solely responsible for the accuracy of data and estimates presented in this report.
renee ed) Re L
ris ni bouseiqui anotsenrathasanx fine enoiniqu Jrsns 141 vLtrsunavtt Jon où bin'dnsyivencs ait 19 4 nolsibbe nt .dheayoezivas eds to yrse wis oiresad ; bis stab Jo yosTuaos at A0 Sldiadogamt yleloa et
sacgos «tf? xt be
This
report presents a study of SO, and NO, emission sources in
Ontario and proposed emission control strategies to achieve
further reductions of SO; and NO, after 1993. The report
consists of a summary document supported by three appendices. Summary The summary document describes the findings of 3
phases of the study and draws conclusions on
abatement strategies.
Appendix 1 The Phase 1 Report sets out a 1985 base year
emission inventory for SO, and NO,, examines past
trends, and outlines five basic future scenérios.
Appendix 2 The Phase II Report identifies the costs of
reducing SO; and NO, using alternative emission control technologies required to meet the emission
targets identified in the Phase I Report.
Appendix 3 The Phase III Report develops alternative cost-
This
effective abatement strategies that achieve pre-specified aggregate emission targets. The computer model developed for the foregoing work is
described.
This document describes Phase II, Appendix 2.
Document
The numerical information contained in the Tables o£ this Phase II document differ slightly from the data in Tatbies 8 and 9 (Scenario 1 and 2) of the Phase I document. When detailed cost estimates were being made it was found that some entries in the emission inventory were assigrei to incorrect ST. Cr Codes). They were reallocated for cSsting purposes and the total emissions for each sector were correspondingly adjusted for this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
a Sal
2.0 ALTERNATIVE EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
2-1 2e 2
Overall Objective
Introduction
Industrial Sectors
Zee S0, Control
Zi line NO, Control
Major Point Sources
2-93. Falconbridge
2-32 IENCO
2.3.3 Algoma Ore Division 2.3.4 Ontario Hydro
3.0 SELECTION AND COSTING PROCEDURES
SU See
Introduction
Industrial Sectors 3.2.1 Boilers
3.2.2 Processes
3.2.3 Specific Sectors Major Point Sources 323.1 Falconbridge 3-32 /INCO
3.3.3 Algoma
3.3.4 Ontario Hydro
2510 2-14 2=14 2215 215 2-17
Table of Contents (Continued)
4.0 COST OF EMISSION CONTROL AND DISCUSSION
4.1 4.2
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D:
Introduction
Industrial Sectors
4.2.1 Industrial Sector Costs
4.2.2 Petroleum Fuel Desulphurization Major Point Sources
4.3.1 Falconbridge
43:2 NCO
4.3.3 Algoma
4.3.4 Ontario Hydro
COST ESTIMATES
COSTING PROCEDURES, FUEL DATA, QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON CONTROLS GLOSSARY
EXAMPLES OF COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
Page #
LIST OF TABLES
Follows Page
2.1A Available Abatement Controls - SO; 2-1 2.1B Available Abatement Controls - NO, 2-1 4.1 Summary of Sulphur Dioxide Reductions 4-1
: for Major Sources
4.2 Summary of Sulphur Dioxide Reductions 4-1 for Industry Class
4.3 Summary of Nitrogen Dioxide Reductions 4-1 for Major Sources
4.4 Summary of Nitrogen Dioxide Reductions 4-1 for Industry Class
4.5 Control Technologies and Their Technical 4-2
Characteristics
Lest i an emule wo TET
?
apes «vollot A “hand ED». 2" à.
t- 20 +» ekosson? tomes ad elas. 2 ML ! Orie Mato nae, ea CA, sd ;
Ro t rod æn0imubaf sb.xoid 2101:fqEue 201 rt 1292008 20€
dique 10, 29440 ; yateunal, nogor: it 30 EM
(nivehclés uit eb (res
F2" 1 lo]
Y iy wid pret ahivo 2 +s2:u0R 2000 on
Ce rer LR , r-p° ; air i iu rendait 29 L ( , velo
DE i igpeuntoes®egtedT ca 64 coleotost Ge 0238
= (à y ‘5 { Le rie Re ‘ ‘a i os : PPS wey, Pu ‘ TTY F = UMERT |: d ma. , Witvrk « Os 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PHASE II
This report is Phase II (Alternative Technology Inventory and Costs) of the project entitled "Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies". The information collected in Phase II will be used in Phase III (Abatement Strategy Assessment) to evaluate the cost/effectiveness of selected
alternative emission control technologies for SO, and NO, emissions.
The objective of Phase II is to identify and determine the costs and contaminant removal Capability of alternative emission control technologies. The gross cost data presented includes Capital, Operating, and annualized costs. The costs are approximate estimates which can vary by a factor of two Or more depending on the specific design needs, installation costs and
operating mode.
The emissions from industrial sectors and large point sources are subdivided into process and boiler emissions. For the large point sources, the alternative abatement technologies presented are specific for the process emissions. With the exception of Ontario Hydro, the technologies for the boilers are generic. Alternative abatement Strategies for the industrial
sectors are generic.
Costs for the control technologies applied to each sector have been estimated by calculating costs for a representative unit and multiplying that cost by the number of sources which might be controlled by the technology used. The programmes used to develop costs were based on algorithms and procedures which
have been verified by use in other studies.
The costs for SO, removal vary over such a wide range that the application of Some technologies would not be practical. The high costs in certain Situations point out the site-specific nature of the problem. Costs were found to range from $110 to $99,873 per tonne of SO, removed. At the other extremem, an apparent saving would result from the replacement of sulphur
bearing fuels with Natural gas, although practical and marketing problems
S-1
prevent a wide spread application of the approach. In general the least costly strategies result from control of high SO, content from high volume
sources.
Costs for the control of NO, were found to vary between a savings of $20,985 and a cost of $21,551 per tonne removed. The least costly methods are those which require combustion process changes and result in low removal
efficiencies.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overall Objective
This report presents the results of Phase II work in the project entitled "Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies". It identifies the gross costs and performance effectiveness of alternative emission control
technologies for post 1994 SO, and NO, abatement in Ontario.
Although transportation is a key source of NO, emissions in the Province, it is not dealt with in this document. A separate report that looks at abatement technologies and costs associated with emission reduction in this sector is being prepared independently. When complete, the results of the transportation study and this document will be combined in Phase III to present an aggregate picture of abatement strategies for SO, and NO, in
Ontario. Three chapters follow. They respectively present:
2.0 . alternative emission control technologies for SO, and NO, emissions
from large point sources and industrial sectors
3.0 . descriptions of the costing procedures used for sources of NO, and SO, emissions 4.0 - estimates of the operating and capital costs associated with
alternative emission control technologies
The analyses contained in this document are founded on three assumptions.
These are:
1) Ontario Hydro will achieve its 1994 emission limits, and potentially additional reductions of SO, and NO, by adding flue gas desulphurization (FGD) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) abatement equipment to its
fossil fuel fired generation facilities.
2)
3)
INCO, Falconbridge and Algoma will achieve their 1994 SO, emission limits by employing process changes and abatement technology, but will need to employ different technology to achieve additional reductions of so, after
1994.
Individual industrial sectors will achieve reductions in SO, and NO, emissions as a result of an increasing number of companies utilizing the
selected abatement equipment.
2.0 ALTERNATIVE EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out alternative control technologies for SO, and NO, abatement in a generic form for broad-industrial sectors and in a specific context for the four largest SO, emission sources namely INCO, Ontario Hydro,
Falconbridge and Algoma.
The control technologies which have been examined by the four largest so, emitters will enable them to comply with 1994 targets prescribed in government
regulations.
Alternative emission control technologies presented in this chapter and throughout the remainder of the text refer to both process changes and the
installation of control equipment.
Tables 2-1 (A and B) present an inventory of SO, and NO, emission control technologies and respectively indicate which are applicable to industry in general and each of the four largest emitters. (The text which follows
provides a general description of these technologies.)
2.2 Industrial Sectors
The Phase I inventory data base contained eighteen sectors giving rise to so, and NO, emissions. The emissions from eight of these sectors amount to less than 1% of the total No, and So; emissions and were excluded from the study. In addition, the Rubber and Plastics Industry sector was included only with
respect to SO, emissions. The sectors of concern are:
Included Excluded
Primary Metals Tobacco Industries
Transportation Equipment Leather Industries 2
—— EE oo eae ‘OR Éupauer TOS S873 02 pesn uTFY
Suct {Ve 38 Jzenod DF190eTe uo bpesn ATuoumos medin of ®IFPFIO uwo - sessesoid Aenvnoryy x x = x x
‘eZys eTOFjrud emt uo Spuedep
Kouepotzsza “exeurmq TuUOD pezFieapnd 107 pesa x ‘Aouepor3Je etqeyxea pue not - Teng PTTos zo S1OAUIeUFOUT PUS si1eTtoq Tuoo uo esn zo x x
sjunoue ebzrvr
"UOFAUIeUFOUT eJsunM PTTos 207
‘pesn exe seatatppe
SseTun exze
eatsuedre Jo
STATÉFTEeN x
uoF3snquoo peq PFnTJ
‘Axjenput snozzxezuou Xq ueyu3repun Bureg x x x ‘ (uorauzranzinsep Tro) ‘seyieuFJer 107 pessessu ÂTuo x x x x Apnje sty ut pessessu 20N x *Bbuyqoatas Tenz 03 queTeatnbe ‘Kreutzer 3% per tddy x x “eTqeoFQoerd jou sy ATTesxeatun sey -3eN Jo esn ‘uoFauzFinJTnsep A,u,jex 03 QueTeatnbe Buty ytas Tro 3 x *emobTy 38 pesn eq ptnoo leBPFIQUOSTUI pu OONI 3e pesn x ry # “Tens qJuequoo § ASMCT 02 3502 UT queTeatnbe ‘oyfrequOQ UF JjuuasTer J0N x SLNZHNOD seyie oxPAR vuobTy OONT ebpt3zq -UFJeu OFiuquo -uooTeys z
OS - BS IOWLROD LOL zIGVOWAyY
WT'? eTqui
#1032e$ Az jenpur Tuzeues
‘sxeumaq perzypou
butqqnzos Suc jseuTT/emrpy - eweaekg as 304 *sToOrAU0D uotes tug
uoFpefuy emp] Tens 03 YoTI;ppe eet Arg
SOATAFPPX Tend
STorQu0D) = oT Asnqmo5 sebusyo juemdtnbgz sebuuy> but ezedo
sebuwyo Juyiejum Avy
sebusy> see D0ig UOFAUzFINJINSeP Tenz we>jor.ed BuFqgo3yns Teng
uOFAuFoFJeueq e710
buyueeta TED
sTorj;uo) uot Qenqwo5-e1g
z TOU LNOD os
etauorrdde jou - sejouep xuuwrq - een uy ÂtTauezans - # ‘Aueqiosqu Texzeutm zo Atddns juerueauoo 107 Peeu 03 enp ATuo sesuo nez vu UT PBN JO - 4 “szeTFOQ [Temes uo enTua ÂtTexFTun 3nq SOFTIAENPUT ewuos 107 eTquatns eq aqhyu - xx
"SOOUVASUT JeOwW UF pesn eq ptnoo - x -i SILON ‘TureuFu zo Atddns Aqzeeu speen TeZzFTF3107 epexrh AOT wx0Z 03 X201 UIFA Pe ROvVer “EOS 03 Peyieauoo ‘pejereuebex zos - 4001 e jeydsoyd uo sqiosqu - wejsks eat jereushey x x x fi, ##se201d -FI0d4 - »36Âs Arp uuy3 Aoueropzje 1e33eq - 193TFJ uo pe325eTTo2 — 3983005 uo seFip - pejoefCuy FTexTe xo eut zo Keads x x x x x x #se2o1d BuyAzp Auzds - (QUFT JO SZTS PUS ZOS/eWTT oFauz UO spuedep ÂoueF2F373 — TITS UF Pe3006TT00 - uorne (ur ewuFT PerepAog z x x x x x uoFioe(ur eur Arg -
suejsÂs aoa Arg “pe qerjzsuocmep jou eTeos ebzveT -juemdoTesep
azepun SUOFAIUFPUIIF AN pus mveq uorRoeTS ‘Aux vuues x x x x x x setboTouyoe 3 uocTAeTpeszzy
“STT}TM Tee 3s PUR seTreUuTzJerT uo pesn - eTAuTFeau sessecoid Arujerzdozd zo A3erivA x x x iL Buyruwero seb Tru - “TOZFTFIASZ 107 JoxreM pus Texeutm zo Atddns Aqzueu Speeu - 1eZFTF3197 eonpord of TuieuFu ejeydsoud ses x x =. & sse2ooid Y2e4-uosiuex -
‘sesse2oid Azxuwjerzdozd
- InjzTNns IuTNOeTOW PFTTOS 194028 x x x x x x sesseooid zezyzynejs 3 e3u13F2 - ‘29e €0S ‘’ZOS eonpord 03 pesn eq uo peonpozd s3Tes wntuouny x x x x x x sse2oid ooutMmoD - ‘INJTNS SeTZ OCF PeATeaUCD eq uw2 ZOS “ZOOS 210 £OS ‘PFOu oOTanydtns s1e402e8% x x x z x x sse201d pioT-uuurTeu - Ajasoo qjuebuezr untseuben - Zos s168402e8% x x x x x xx sseooid xobuy - *eseooid Aq pepeeu s31us untpos Atqaeoo - AvAunoïy3 - J30npozrd etqntos =x x x x x x Suyqqnzos ejwuoqgzue2 untTpos - *Xeavanorzy Q - peonpozd s3tus NFOTUO - HOUN #1840281 - HOUN UF sqiosqy x x x x x x FTVATV Teng - SLNZHNOD serie ozP4AH emobty O2NI eBprFzq s1030ef$ -uFJeu ofFiuwauo -uooTus Az3snpu] Tuzeues
penuFauos ’VIT'Z AT8VL
erquoyprdde jou sejouep xuwtg - suopquiedo Bupummq Tenz PYTOS 107 erquipng - os *wesboad UOFHONpeI Uuotes;we. TIN1840 Jo yxed sw peep - , “szeTFOQ TTvVes uo entes Atextrun ang seyr3enpuy emose 107 eTquipns eq aybye “MOOUSJEUT 908 Ut pesn eq prnoo - x
=
-! SALON "eTAUTFUAS UOFJUUIOJUT 3602 pus Seeuest peje Que FO FJJNEUT x x x x seyÉotouyoez peusqmoo 14130 “Tescwer XON UO uoFjvurogu eTAUETeZ ON ‘quemlotesep azepun - Teacuex OS/XON pPeurquo> x x x x x x setbotouyoe, uoy3wypuzz] ®TAUTFUAS UOFJVUIOJUF 3800 Que rorJJneu] x x x x uoFadrosqe epyxo zsddo- “MONS usyQ ÂAoueporzze zeubrq pue ebuex ezxmjureduæ zepuozg x x x x uot Ionpey OF IATeQWD BAT —OTES SeeuTnyesn ejrwyT ebuuz uot papey eanjeredwe3 AOIIUU j3nq eTquottdde AT Texreues x x = x OFAATeQAwOUCKN BAT OTOR
#Tor4U05 ucytesTeg "Pen seatatppe eatsuedxe jo
SAUNONS eAtsseoxre ssetun Aouepotzyze efqrhtTben x x (oFaATe3e9) seatatppe Teng "XON 2107 Âoueyoyjje wot Area - S10JuI1euFOUT pue ‘’sejuif UJFA ‘exeTToq pextzy Te0D 104 x os Ten 03 GsoTITPPpe esr Â:q ‘uFuseoun sopouepoyj]Je pur s3502 - quemdoresep Jepun - SJIeumgq [TeoD perfrzeatnd uo pesn x os zeumq petstpoe uoy3e(ur em uoFjenqmon sub 10 TFO 107 eTqeams x x x x szeummq XON ACI Bufurnq sub 107 eTqeatns 30N x x x x uct3enqmoo pebuig SI0)UIeuFOUT pus siejveu ‘exzeTtoq JO ebuexr PeJFuyT uo eTqeyms x x x x uoyaswtquozpoez sub ents *edf3 Tenz uo juepuedep uofjonpex xon x x x x ZIFX sse0org ACT
sTorQU0D uot 3enqum0 7
- yuo seoznos z1o{ww Aq perrdde eq uw2 x UOFANOFJFPOS Tens *eTqeotaqoezd jou st ATTeszeatun sey ‘JUN JO een ‘uot juztanzytnsep A,u,zer 03 jueruapnbe buy Rtas TFO x x x Bayqoatas Tens sTozauo2 uoF3snqmoD-614 x
104 LNOD ON
S LNAHAO D serie orpAy waoStTy OONT ebptzq s102005 -uFJeu oFzuaquo -wooTes Axqenpur Tuzeues
Fou - SIOULROO LODCLIVUT ¥TEVITWY
gT'z e°Tqui
Nonmetallic Mineral Product Clothing Industries
Chemicals and Chemical Products Machinery Industries
Food and Beverages Printing and Publishing Textile Industries Wood Industries
Metal Fabricating Electrical Production Paper and Allied Products Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Other Major Groups?
LES Rubber and Plastics
The sector listed as other major groups includes municipal and sewage sludge incinerators,commercial enterprises and institutions such as hospitals and universities.
ee SO, emissions only
22-71 SO; Control
Pre-Combustion Control
Coal cleaning, petroleum fuel desulphurization, fuel Switching, ore beneficiation and process and operating changes (see p. 2-4) are pre- combustion control methods of reducing SO, emissions. The techniques of petroleum fuel desulphurization and fuel switching are the methods of control
considered in this report.
Coal Cleaning
The use of coal cleaning although a viable option on the large scale is not a relevant option for Ontario, except perhaps for its use by Ontario Hydro. The costs are comparable to the increased cost of purchasing lower sulphur coal but both are very dependent on the availability of suitable coals under the existing marketing and purchasing conditions. In turn both are comparable to the costs of wet scrubbing of flue gases (which are sensitive to specific site conditions) . Efforts to distinguish between the costs of these three
techniques would be subject to errors which would be equal to or greater than
2-2
the estimated differences in costs (See also MOE Source Book 1983 and an MOE
internal study (Barrow - Air Resources Branch).
Since the flue gas cleaning technologies are suitable for use on a wide variety of sources, these methods have been selected for the purposes of this study. These technologies can also be used to achieve a range of sulphur removal efficiencies and are more flexible than either coal switching or coal cleaning. Costs for coal switching are difficult to estimate and cannot be
considered on a long-term basis.
Petroleum Fuel Desulphurization
Petroleum fuel desulphurization would likely be achieved by regulating the sulphur content of fuel oils. The necessary increased availability of low sulphur fuels would be achieved, in practice, by refinery fuel desulphurization. The cost of switching to low sulphur oils would be very dependent on market forces and difficult to assess. The costs of fuel desulphurization can be more directly evaluated, and has been selected as the more reliable method of estimating costs. As a side benefit low sulphur
diesel fuels would also increase engine life and achieve some cost savings.
In this report the costs of fuel desulphurization are based on a study by MGH International (1983) (see Section 3.2.1) which describes technologies to treat crude oil to obtain a sulphur level of 0.3% in Light Fuel Oils (LFO) and 0.5% in a reduced output of Heavy Fuel Oils (HFO). Of a number of studies on fuel desulphurization, including studies by MHG and number of studies related to sections of refineries, the selected study was chosen as being directly
applicable to Canadian refineries. It encompassed all of the refinery operations. The above specifications were assumed to be achieved by the
following processes:
fixed bed hydrotreating followed by an amine treatment plant and sulphur recovery unit
residual thinning of atmospheric and vacuum still bottoms
2-3
. desulphurization of middle distillate to 0.3% sulphur
residual oil desulphurization using H-oil or equivalent process.
Fuel Switching
Fuel switching from coal or oil to natural gas would achieve a major reduction in SO, emissions and costs have been estimated for this method of emission reduction. As noted later in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2.1), the method has severe practical limitations and the possibility of its widespread use needs careful
consideration. Ore Beneficiation
Techniques similar to those employed for coal cleaning can be used for the reduction of SO, emissions from metallurgical processes. These are
beneficiation processes which result in the removal of unwanted sulphur bearing compounds from the ores, before they are subjected to the various smelting, sintering and refining processes. They are currently being used at the nonferrous smelters and could be of value at the Algoma plant in Wawa.
Costs have been estimated for this process in Section C.3.3.
Process and Operating Changes
Process changes are specific not only to the types of processes in use, but to actual process details. They may affect product quality as well as process costs. Except for those combustion modifications to boiler operations which have been identified and to refinery operations influenced by fuel desulphurization it has not been possible to determine the costs of process
changes because of limited process information in the inventory.
Combustion Control
A number of methods have been proposed for the introduction of chemicals into the fuels or onto the grates for the control of SO, emissions. These may
generally be defined as low efficiency systems. They are described below.
Fuel Additives
Additives, usually intended to possess catalytic qualities, have for many years been used to reduce fouling problems, promote combustion, and ensure the complete oxidation of some heavy metals, such as vanadium, so that the volatile compounds or elements are converted to nonvolatile forms which remain
in the boiler rather than being emitted as fly ash.
In recent years it has been claimed by some suppliers that these materials will serve to convert SO, to SO3 which will react with the fly ash and be retained in the particulate emission control system. Examination of supporting data indicates that the SO, containment is directly related to
reaction with the additive.
These additives are intended for addition at rates of under 0.1% of the fuel rate. At these rates they are ineffective for SO, control. If they are used in quantities that are effective the cost of the additive becomes extremely high and expanded particulate emission collection systems will also be required. SO; may have to be used as an additive to maintain high ESP particulate removal efficiency when low sulphur western (Canadian) coal is
used as fuel. It is not however used to reduce So, directly.
Dry Lime Addition to the Fuel
Tests have been made of adding lime to solid fuels in coal boilers and incinerators. Efficiencies of above 20% have been recorded but the problem of distributing the lime evenly amongst the fuels and ensuring that the necessary intimate mixing of lime and fuel is achieved result in variable and generally
poor efficiency of control.
Lime Injection Modified Burners
Furnace injection is a developmental process in which limestone, or hydrated lime, is injected directly into the furnace of a coal-fired boiler. The
reagent is calcined to calcium oxide (CaO) which reacts with sulphur dioxide
to form calcium sulfate (CaSO,). The unreacted lime (CaO), CaSO,, and fly ash are then collected together in a fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator. Ontario Hydro and others have programs underway to further develop this
process.
The drawback to the process is that it has limited SO, removal efficiency.
Its main advantage is that it can easily be retrofitted to existing plants at relatively low cost. A number of problems exist which require to be resolved for each installation. These include the possibilities of fusion of the lime, deposition of the lime on furnaces walls and deposition on boiler tubes. This method of control is therefore not yet suitable for consideration as a
generally applicable process.
Some of the problems associated with the addition of lime to fuel beds have been partly overcome, for pulverized coal burners, by the addition of lime to the fuel at modified burners. The lime is thus introduced directly into the flame zone, resulting in improved removal efficiencies of above 20%. Ontario Hydro has achieved between 40 and 50 percent so, removal in full scale testing
and there seems to be potential for even higher efficiencies.
Fluidized Bed Systems
These systems burn solid fuels in a heated bed of sand which is agitated by a stream of air applied in such a manner as to maintain the bed in a semi- fluidized state. The fuel is injected into the bed of sand where it is burnt in the air stream. Although the fluidized bed needs to be preheated with a gaseous or liquid fuel, the heat of combustion of the solid fuel maintains the bed temperature during its normal operations. The agitated bed serves to grind the ash and other noncombustibles preventing clinker formation in the
bed.
These systems are also used for the incineration of solid wastes. However,
operating costs are high, and although the injection of lime to reduce
emissions of SO, has been shown to be feasible the ash carryover rate is high
and a high efficiency of ash removal is necessary.
A change to a fluidized bed boiler would require a complete change of the furnace involving high capital and operating costs. Some reduction in costs might be obtained by the use of pressurized units, which would be smaller and more efficient but considerable development work remains before these systems
become commercially viable.
The fluidized bed systems are therefore considered to be of value when new installations are contemplated but too expensive for the reduction of existing
emissions since a complete boiler replacement would be required.
Emission Controls
Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD)
Wet scrubbing FGD systems absorb the SO, from the gas stream into a solution or a slurry of an alkaline chemical forming a sulphate. The most widely used systems employ lime or limestone as the alkaline reactant. Other processes
use magnesium, sodium or ammonia (Cominco process) to react with the SO>-
Once a salt has been formed the material can be discarded (throwaway processes) or a recoverable product can be obtained. This may take the form
of SO, (regenerative processes), sulphur or another sulphur containing
material.
The processes resulting in a recovery of the sulphur are generally more costly than the majority of the throw away processes since they require additional treatment stages and often use more expensive chemicals. They are normally economically better than the systems which discard the product only if: waste disposal costs are significant; the recovered material can be used, on-site, to reduce the purchase of a raw material; or if a ready and economically
favourable market for the product is available.
2-7
Unfortunately the markets for sulphur, sulphuric acid and other products are cyclical and volatile in their activities. To remain economically preferable to the throwaway systems a firm contract for purchase of the product must be obtained or else the storage costs of holding the product, until a suitable market opportunity, arises become uncertain or prohibitive. On the other hand, the cost of acceptable waste disposal has increased significantly and is likely to increase further in the future; leachate from inadequately constructed landfill may allow hazardous trace metals such as lead solubilized by alkali in the ash to reach the environment. Stringent new waste disposal measures would significantly increase costs. This issue has not been
considered in the process costing.
Apart from the use of recovery processes at locations such as pulp mills, (where the recovered so, can be used in the process), and the nonferrous smelters, (which produce emissions with an So, content above >2.5% suitable for making sulphuric acid) the use of throw away systems has been identified
as the most suitable wet control method for SO, reduction.
These processes use slurries of lime or limestone and the problems of scaling corrosion and erosion, originally associated with them, have been amenable to variety of process improvements. Within the accuracy of the estimates, the use of one or other of the reactants cannot be demonstrated to be economically preferable. This study has therefore used the more widely applied limestone process as a basis of the cost estimates for the throw away systems. They are capable of over 95% removal of SO, although they are generally designed for
operation at that efficiency.
Special processes such as the Pearson-Peck process (MOE 1983) have been proposed for specific applications but their requirements of minerals as absorbents limits their usefulness for general application. The costs of installing and operating these processes can only be assessed for specific
locations. They have not been evaluated for this study.
a
Tail gas cleaning is employed at petroleum refineries and steel mills. Several proprietary processes (including the Beavon, Bureau of Mines Citrate and Scot processes) are available, but their application for the purposes of this study would require a more detailed identification of the sources and the existing operation at the various plants being considered than is available from the inventory. These processes have therefore been excluded from the
options being considered.
Dry FGD Systems
Dry scrubbing FGD systems have not been used the same length of time as wet systems, but, they are becoming prevalent with power utilities, industries and municipalities. In these systems, absorption of SO, and other acid gases takes place when the flue gas comes in contact with a sprayed dry or slurry sorbent. The water content of the slurry evaporates and the mixed salts and flyash are removed in a particulate collector downstream. If a baghouse is used to collect the particulate some additional chemical reaction between collected dusts and unreacted acid gases may take place, thereby further
enhancing acid gas removal.
For the dry spray systems both sodium and calcium-based sorbents can be used. Common sorbent materials include nahcolite (natural sodium bicarbonate), trona (sodium sesquicarbonate), synthetic carbonate/bicarbonate mixtures, and pressure hydrated lime. Compared to wet systems, the advantages of dry spray systems include simplicity, increased reliability, lower cost and and easier
retrofit.
A process for the absorption of so, on phosphate rock is available in the U.S.A. The process, known as the Poli-process (MOE 1983), has been suggested
for use at Algoma. The absorbed So, is regenerated and converted to SO, which
3 can then be used to produce sulphuric acid or to form a phosphate fertilizer. The fertilizer is not considered to be suitable for use in Ontario, and the costs are similar to those for wet scrubbing FGD systems. Its economic
applicability is also related to the availability of cheap phosphate rock. It
2=9
can therefore only be considered as suitable for use at locations adjacent to
phosphate deposits. It has not been considered in this study.
Irradiation technologies, using a variety of particle and ultra-violet radiations, have been investigated for the conversion of SO, and NO, emissions to solid compounds in the presence of ammonia. The chemistry is not well established but ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate are two of the products. Large scale applications of these processes still needs to be
demonstrated before adequate design and cost information is available. 2272 NO, Controls
Pre-Combustion Controls
Fuel Switching
The use of nitrogen free fuels such as natural gas or distillate oils results in reduced emissions of NO, by eliminating the fuel derived component of the emissions. The thermally produce NO, would still be formed. The high flame temperature obtained using these fuels would offset some of the reduction if
coal or residual oil were to be replaced by these fuels.
Conversion of combustion sources to natural gas could be carried out for some sources, but the province wide conversion of all sources is impracticable due to logistical problems and the economic impacts, which would follow. Switching from residual oil to distillate oils could be accomplished by the desulphurization of refinery fuels. The conversion of coal burning units to
oil burners would require major changes to the units.
Fuel Modifications
In addition to the fuel modifications obtained by refinery fuel desulphurization treatment, processes exist for the conversion of coals to
liquid or gaseous fuels. These processes require complex and large plants;
2-10
they cannot therefore be applied to the smail commercial and industrial
sources individually.
Ontario Hydro could conceivably install such a plant but the costs and the reliability of these processes have not been well established on the
intermediate scale required for a power generating station.
Combustion Control
In combustion, two mechanisms are at work creating NO, "Thermal" NO, is created when atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen combine at the very high flame temperatures. "Fuel" NO, is produced by a second mechanism, the reaction of
fixed fuel nitrogen and oxygen in the combustion air.
Each of these NO, producing mechanisms requires somewhat different methods of control. Thermal NO, production rates are affected by the flame temperature, the amount of excess oxygen available and the residence time in the peak flame zone. Fuel NO, production is more dependent upon the amount of fixed nitrogen in the fuel, the amount of oxygen available for oxidation of the fixed fuel nitrogen and on the presence of local oxygen-rich pockets within the fuel/air mixture. Unlike thermal NO,, fuel NO, is not very dependent upon flame
temperature.
Combustion modifications can reduce NO, emissions by: limiting the residence time in the primary flame zone; reducing the flame temperature, and by reducing the rapid mixing of fuel and secondary air. Several combustion
modification methods are available and these are described below. Lower Excess Air (LEA) One method of reducing NO, concentrations involves lowering excess air rates
to result in about 1 percent O5 in the exhaust gas. To date this method has
not been as effective as two-stage combustion; it also increases the risk of
explosions. For practical reasons the cost studies have used 3% excess 9,
(15% excess air) Low NO, Burners
Low NO, burners hold promise as a means for significantly reducing NO, emissions. They are designed to control the air/fuel ratio in the burner area thereby retarding the formation of NO, from fuel bound nitrogen and partly reducing thermal NO, . Their use under the most advantageous conditions permits NO, emission reduction of up to 60 percent without compromising burner efficiency. They are relatively easy to retrofit and existing burners can be modified or replaced without major changes to a furnace. However, their effectiveness is dependent on boiler configuration and generalizations are
difficult to make.
Staged Combustion (SCA)
An effective NO, -reducing method applied to steam generators involves the splitting of combustion air. With this method, only 90 to 95 percent of the combustion air requirement is injected at the burner while the remaining air is introduced a few feet downstream. This delayed air introduction is found to reduce NO, concentrations in flue gases by 40 to 50 percent. Staged combustion has been limited to large sources. It has not been demonstrated on
small units.
Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)
In order to reduce the concentration of oxygen and to lower the temperature in the combustion zone of boilers and incinerators a side stream of the flue gases is recirculated to the combustion air inlet ports. This results ina reduction in the quantity of NO, produced by thermal reactions. The efficiency is dependent on the boiler or incinerator configuration but is in the range of
10-30%. Costs are also dependent on the specific installation. When other
control techniques are applied its effectiveness is diminished; it is
therefore used only when other methods are not applicable.
Emission Controls SPESS TON CONELOLS:
Numerous flue gas (post combustion control systems) NO, control processes have been developed but only two have reached commercial development - selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR).
Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR)
The SNCR (thermal deNno,) Process relies on NO, reduction by ammonia addition and the application of high temperatures (1600°F to 2000°F). It is a good method for reducing NO, beyond the range achievable by combustion modifications. Its advantages include the fact that control equipment does not become fouled when dirty fuel is used, there is no catalyst which can be poisoned by dirt and sulphur compounds, boiler changes are not required and there is no increase in the incidence of tube corrosion or incomplete
combustion.
Compared to SCR, SNCR has a lower NO, removal efficiency because of lower selectivity and greater sensitivity to furnace load changes. SNCR has a lower
capital cost than SCR.
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
The SCR process relies on ammonia, in the presence of a catalyst, to reduce NO, to N, and water vapour. Its reactions are basically the same as for SNCR, however, there are many more process variations due to the effects of different amounts of flyash in the process equipment. Compared to SNCR, SCR attains higher NO, removal but is more costly, is affected by dirty fuels and
is more difficult to retrofit.
Combined NO, and SO, Control
The FGD systems which result in the removal of SO, generally will result in the simultaneous reduction of NO, emissions. Unfortunately studies of these systems have been confined to the measurement of SO, reduction efficiencies and the NO, removal capabilities have not usually been publicly reported. This study has therefore not used combined SO,/NO,, technologies but a brief
description is given for one of these technologies.
Fluidized-bed Copper Oxide Process
The U.S. Department of Energy has developed a fluidized-bed copper oxide process for cleaning SO, and NO,. It involves passing hot flue gases into a fluidized bed containing a thin layer of copper oxide supported on aluminum oxide pellets. The copper oxide reacts with the sulphur in the gas stream, trapping it as a copper sulfate in the pellets. Regeneration permits elemental sulphur to be recovered and nitrogen oxides are destroyed by reacting them with ammonia injected into the combustion gases. Water and
nitrogen are the primary by-products.
Other Technologies
Combined SO,/NO, control methods include the use of lime injection, lime addition to the fuel and the use of fuel additives. Primarily aimed at SO, control their efficiencies for NO, removal have not been recorded although lime injection through the burners may have some effect by absorbing NO, as it is formed. The reactivity is low and these methods are not considered to be
suitable for NO, reductions. 2.3 Major Point Sources
2.3.1 Falconbridge
In the late 1970’s, Falconbridge undertook a major smelter modernization with
2-14
associated pollution control components. As of 1985, the company so,
emissions were below the 1994 Ontario Regulation of 100 kilotonnes per year. SO, Controls
The methodology proposed for sulphur dioxide abatement by Falconbridge Limited
includes:
increased degrees of roasting in fluid bed roasters to produce additional sulphuric acid converter slag cleaning increased pyrrhotite rejection in the Strathcona Mill The methods for control of future SO, emissions at this location are described in section 3.3. They would be based on throwaway or regenerable FGD
technology. NO, Emissions
The major sources of NO, emissions at Falconbridge in 1987 were reverberatory
furnaces and converters.
The company currently employs electric furnaces and hence its NO, emissions have been reduced by approximately 64 percent. Therefore no additional controls were considered for this source.
2.3.2 INCO
SO, Controls
The regulated 1994 emission level for Inco is 265 kilotonnes. To achieve this
limit the proposed methodologies for SO, reduction include:
increased pyrrhotite rejection
oxygen flash smelting/matte processing
vf is)
- the capture of fluidized bed roaster off-gases
upgrading of the existing acid plant or building a new acid plant The methods available for control of SO, emissions to below the 1994 target level are described in section 3.3.2. They would be based on throwaway or
regenerable FGD treatments.
NO, Controls
The largest sources of NO, emissions at INCO are reverberatory furnaces which account for approximately 86% of the total. The remaining sources of NO,
emissions are boilers.
INCO is proposing the use of oxygen flash furnaces in place of reverberatory furnaces. With the implementation of this proposal furnace generated NO,
emissions would virtually be eliminated. 2.3.3 Algoma
According to the company progress report filed with the MOE in 1985, Algoma identified five control technologies which would help reduce its SO, emissions. At the time of filing this report however, the company noted that unless there was a major change in its economic circumstances the most likely method of achieving 1994 abatement requirements would be either reducing Production capacity or utilizing alternative ore sources. However, the
following technologies were reviewed in terms of post 1994 reductions.
So; Control
Pre-combustion, process changes and emission controls were considered. Of these ore beneficiation was used in this study but process changes were not
because of limited information. Most of the emission controls shown in Table
2.1, including:
. Limestone flue gas desulphurization . Bureau of Mines Citrate Process
. Pearson-Peck Process
. Poli Process; and
. Cominco Process
were considered. Limestone flue gas desulphurization was selected because it is a well established, proven technology for which there is good data. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, Emission Controls this system is appropriate for large emitting sources and has an efficiency upwards of 90 percent. The prime reason for not selecting regenerative systems was a lack of information on
markets for the by-products. NO, Control
The sinter strand process can be controlled for NO, emissions by the use of catalytic and non-catalytic reduction processes. Since the flue gases are exhausted through an electro-static precipitator, the likelihood of the catalyst being fouled by particulate matter, which has been experienced with
catalytic processes, is reduced.
Process modification such as partial recycling of the flue gases has very
limited value for a process such as this which is only partially enclosed.
Algoma’s sintering plant at Wawa is not one of the major NO, emitters in
Ontario. The costs of control have therefore not been included in this study. 2.3.4 Ontario Hydro so, Control
Several alternative Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) technologies are currently
being considered by Ontario Hydro. These include:
. Wet Limestone Slurry Process Limestone Dual Alkali Process Lime Spray Dryer Process
. Lime Injection Modified Burners (LIMB)
At the moment process selection studies are being conducted by Ontario Hydro along with an environmental assessment report on flue gas desulphurization. These processes are the same as those described in sub-section 2.2.1, Emission
Controls, and are not repeated here. NO. Control ER Vos
In coal-fired boilers, fuel generated NO, predominates over thermal NO, . NO, control strategies of potential value to Ontario Hydro are outlined below. Detailed discussions of these strategies are presented in Section 2.2.2 and
will not be repeated here.
Pre-combustion control techniques which may be used for fuel modification include fuel switching, fuel additives, and fuel denitrification. All of these are somewhat experimental at the moment and are not as yet proven to be
effective.
Several combustion modification techniques may also be used singly or in combination on coal-fired utility boilers. These include low excess air (LEA) firing; staged or off-stoichiometric combustion (SCA); low NO, burners (LNB) ; and flue gas recirculation (FGR). At present Ontario Hydro has replaced all burners at Nanticoke thermal power station with low NO, burners. Low NO,
burners are also considered for Lambton and Lakeview generating stations.
Of the two flue gas treatment processes (SNCR and SCR) the choice for Ontario Hydro will be dependent on the relative costs of controlling fewer sources using the more efficient SCR process and the cost of controlling more sources with the SNCR process. The various costs will be dictated by the increased
degree of control which can be achieved at each of the power stations. Site
2-18
specific conditions at the stations will have a significant bearing on the costs. Such a degree of sophistication is not possible under the terms of reference of this study and costs have been developed on a more generalized basis of using the more efficient SCR technology applied at 500 MW units. In part this decision was also influenced by the availability of cost information, which was more readily available for this technology and unit
size.
By controlling the emissions from individual units any desired level of control can be achieved up to the maximum obtainable reduction of about 90%, if all units are controlled by the use of SCR at high efficiency (SRI
International 1980).
3.0 SELECTION AND COSTING PROCEDURES
321) . Introduction
The procedures used in the estimation of control costs, which will be described in this chapter, have been derived from several sources. The basic programs have followed the general procedures shown in the U.S. EPA Economic Analysis Branch (EAB 1987) report, but the factors and exponents used have been modified to follow those in Calvert & Englund (1984) and Radian Corporation (1984). Where the data appeared to be inconsistent or lacking, comparisons were made with generalized information available in the literature. Use was made of AP 42 (1985) for comparing emission rates and flow quantities and Perry & Chilton (1984) and Fryling (1967) for information about
fuel heating values and sulphur content.
Capital and operating costs were estimated and annualized costs calculated for a per tonne basis of SO, and NO, - The algorithms used for estimating the
costs of control are given in Appendix B. 3.2 Industrial Sectors
For the purposes of this study sources which emitted less than 10 tonnes per year of the pollutants were excluded from the assessments. In addition, some sectors which contained only small sources of a pollutant were eliminated from the study for that pollutant. Less than two percent of the emissions were
thereby left out of the study’s evaluations.
To establish costs for an industrial sector the types of processes and boilers were sorted into representative groups within each sector. The geometric means of the emissions from the groups were determined and a representative flow rate was estimated from the available data and was augmented by use of the EPA emission factors. The costs of control of this representative source were obtained and the overall costs for the group obtained by multiplying
those cost by the number of sources in the group.
31
The costs for the industrial sector were then obtained by addition of the
costs of the groups within the sector.
In identifying suitable groupings, the boilers were separated from the process sectors and were subdivided according to the fuel used. The process sources were grouped in accordance with either the processes to be controlled or the
methods of control which could be applied to the process.
Some identified costing methods include the cost of retrofitting the technology, e.g. for combustion modifications on boilers no additional retrofit factors were used. In other cases retrofit factors are not included in the direct estimates. A factor of 1.2 was applied in these cases except that of Selective Catalytic Reduction for NO, control. This technology, which operates at about 800° C requires the installation of a large catalyst bed in the exhaust gas stream between a boiler and any downstream heat recovery or cooling system. To install this bed it is necessary to divert the gas flow from its normal duct to the catalyst bed and then return the treated gases to the normal channel. In the case of process streams the exhaust gases will generally need to be heated to the required catalyst operating temperatures. The costs for these modifications could be large. A retrofit factor of 1.4
has therefore been applied to these situations.
3.2.1 Boilers
Sulphur Dioxide
In addition to the use of flue gas desulphurization methods, the so, emissions from boilers can be reduced by changes to the fuels used and by injecting lime directly into the furnace. Two cases of fuel changes have been assessed; switching to natural gas and the use of low sulphur oil fuels to replace coal
and high sulphur oils.
The use of low sulphur fuel oils has been assumed to be achieved by means of
3=2
fuel oil desulphurization at the petroleum refineries since, as described earlier, widespread demands for low sulphur fuels would require that the refineries responded in the proposed manner or a similar one. The costs for each case have been allocated to the sectors on the basis that the emissions presently inventoried, when ratioed to the total emissions from the oils now produced by the refineries, result in the fractions of the total so, reductions (Table A-4.11) which can be applied to the sector. The cost to the
sector can then be obtained from the cost/tonne so, removed (Table A.4.12).
The cost equation used for HFO being changed to light fuel oil under case 6
is: Cost = Emissions from sector (HFO) x SO, reduction for x Cost total emissions from (HFO) Saleable (HFO) tonne SO, removed [TABLE A.4.11] [TABLE A.4.11] [TABLE A.4.12)
= Emissions from sector (Residual) x 123,426 x 510.1 139,323
The costs to the refineries are based on the reduction at the refineries (Table A.4.12) multiplied by the cost per tonne SO, removed. It should be noted that some of the costs of the overall reduction in emissions may be borne by sales
outside the Province.
The study from which the cost data were taken assumed a nominal 0.3% sulphur content for the light fuel oil fraction currently produced. Although the present situation is that oils containing up to 0.5% sulphur are being produced, the refineries are capable of supplying 0.3% sulphur contents and this value has been used in this study and, in the past, by MOE when it was necessary to estimate emissions, from oil consumption, for inclusion in the
inventory. The costs developed by MHG have therefore been used for this section of the study. It should be noted that in Case 5 the study by MHG indicates a slight increase in the sulphur content of LFO, due to increased
loading of the H-Oil process.
Although it is not considered to be feasible for widespread application, costs have been developed for fuel switching to natural gas based on the fuel used and heat content of the fuel (Appendix B). An additional benefit of this substitution would be somewhat lower NO, emissions for the sources considered because of the elimination of fuel nitrogen. The annualized costs generally indicate that the switch can be made at an overall surplus. However this indication is based on general fuel costs for 1987 supplied by the fuel industries (Appendix B). The actual value or cost of switching could be Significantly different if fuel prices change either under external market forces or because of the direct impact of a regulated change of fuel on the markets or on the distribution costs of the fuels. The supply of natural gas in the quantities needed for a province wide change would require a major
increase in the distribution pipeline system.
The FGD systems used in the evaluation have been dry lime scrubbing, spray dry lime scrubbing and wet scrubbing with limestone using the algorithms shown in
Appendix B.
Nitrogen Oxide
Reductions in emissions of NO, can be achieved by changes to the boiler furnace operations or to the fuel burners. The simplest to install are burner changes from the older systems to the more efficient low excess air burners. This change is limited in its application to gas and oil burners, it cannot be applied to coal, wood or refuse burning installations. However reductions in the amount of excess air supplied to the system can be made in all cases and the emissions reduced thereby. In order to carry this out, some changes need to be made to the boiler control system and costs apply to these modifications. The extent of the emission reduction will be dependent on the
boiler type, the assumed levels are shown in the table below:
Boiler type Original Modified
Excess Air Excess Air Natural gas 40% 15% Fuel oil 40% 15% Coal (pulverized) 50% 30% Coal (stoker boilers) 50% 35%
Modifications to the combustion chamber and the manner in which the combustion air is introduced to the burning area can be applied to all types of boilers and involves the redistribution of the air between the ports and in most cases a change in the position of the ports. It may also include the use of flue gas recirculation. The costs are therefore extremely variable between the different boilers which exist. A generalized boiler design was used in the estimates which was based on the heat input to the boilers, average heating values of the fuels, and the excess air levels shown above. These values in turn were based on the data from the inventory, where it was available, or on estimates based on those values which were inventoried. In making these estimates reliance was placed on the use of normal heat and mass balance
calculations and "emission estimates" from the U.S. EPA (1985).
It has been assumed that none of the existing boilers have been upgraded and the cost estimates include changes for all of the boilers within the appropriate groupings. For this purpose the boilers within each sector were
grouped according to the fuels used.
Tail end control systems for boilers which were examined included SCR, SNCR, copper oxide and carbon catalyzed systems. Since they have been sufficiently well tested for reasonably good cost estimating procedures to be developed,
the SCR and SNCR processes were used for this study.
The cost models used for estimating SNCR and SCR costs were based on
algorithms given by SRI International (1980). The input to the calculation
rather than on the directly available information. Flow rates or heat input were used to obtain equivalent MW capacities and the costs were then prorated
from the SRI report.
The approach taken did not vary between the sectors, hence although errors may exist in the estimates, direct comparisons between the sectors should be
valid. The algorithm used is given in Appendix B.
3.2.2 Processes
Sulphur Dioxide
The process sectors emitting sulphur dioxide are frequently combustion sources using waste gases from the process sectors for process heating or steam Production. In those cases assumptions have been made based on reported compositions, heat contents (Appendix B) and fuel usage rates calculated from the SO, emissions. Fuel switching has not been used nor has the use of natural gas for the process streams since the impacts on the Process operations could not be readily assessed. FGD processes have been used for control of process emissions throughout this part of the study. Regenerative so, scrubbing has been applied to the pulp and paper sulphite mills where the liquors can be collected and reused in the pulping process. Throwaway Scrubbing processes have been applied to all other sources. The algorithms for
these control technologies are shown in Appendix B.
Nitrogen Oxides
NO, emissions from Processes arise mainly from combustion sources, but can in
a few instances occur as a result of chemical reactions. The combustion
emissions from boilers. The major difficulty in estimating the costs of controls arises from a lack of information about the manner in which the combustion is carried out and the heat content of the fuel used for combustion. The sources are varied, and the emissions may occur as the result of using normal fuels or fuels produced in the processes. The combustion of coke oven gas, CO gas and the incineration of wastes all result in emissions of NO,. It was not always possible to identify the source of the fuel used directly from the inventory and in many cases the exact composition of the
fuel could not be established.
In order to indicate the assumptions made and the accuracy of the estimates more clearly the industry sectors will be described separately in the
following segments of this section.
3.2.3 Specific Sectors
Primary Metals
Sulphur dioxide emissions from these sources arise as a result of the reduction of ore by combusting the metal sulphides. In view of the high emission rates which such processes give rise to, an efficient control method will be needed if acceptable levels of SO, are to be achieved. The lack of detailed knowledge of the processes involved and the complex nature of the metallurgical operations prohibited the evaluation of process changes being used to control the emissions. Wet limestone scrubbing was therefore costed
as the means of achieving the desirable emission control efficiency.
The only source of NO, listed under this category was Kidd Creek Mines Ltd., which, although recorded as emitting 669.5 tonnes/ year has instituted
controls and is now considered to be a negligible source of this pollutant.
Food, Beverages and Textiles
Sulphur dioxide emissions arose from only one process source, Canada Malting
(Tor) Ltd. which used residual oil for its barley malting heat source.
Only two significant process sources of NO, emissions were listed in the inventory for this sector. These both used fuels for drying foodstuffs, they were therefore treated as if the emissions were from boilers and were
subjected to the same NO, control systems.
A large inventory of boilers gave rise to NO, and SO, sources. There were 24 sources using natural gas 4 using distillate oil and 14 which employed
residual oil.
One other source of so, and NO, was included in this inventory, probably due to a coding error, which appears to be anomalous. Cyanamid of Canada which was recorded as using CO gas is included in the NO, boiler tables as the source using "other" fuels. Cyanamid was omitted from consideration in
costing SO, controls. Rubber and Plastics
There were no process sources which emitted sulphur dioxide. Hence the only
sources emitting this pollutant were the two oil consuming boilers.
The sources in this sector have no processes which give rise to NO, emissions and only four boilers of significance. Two of the boilers used natural gas as a fuel, one used residual fuel oil, the fourth used distillate.
Textile Industries
Of the 11 boilers in this sector which emitted 10 or more tonnes/year so, ten
were using residual oil the other used distillate.
There were only eight of these boilers which gave rise to 10 or more tonnes/year NO, emissions. Seven used residual oil and the other used natural
gas.
The processes which emitted SO, were viscose rayon sources, while NO, was emitted
from a nitric acid plant.
Paper and Allied Products
The processes used in this industry were entirely from Pulp and Paper mill operations. Nitrogen oxides arose from the recovery boilers and the lime kilns while So; was also emitted from the digesters, black liquor treatment plants, absorption towers and smelt dissolving tanks. Each type of source was treated individually, in particular the sulphite mill emissions from the lime kiln and the digester blow pits were assumed to be recoverable for return to the process and were controlled by wet scrubbing using caustic soda scrubbing. A number of "Miscellaneous" sources of So, were assumed to be treatable by
non-regenerable FGD technologies.
In addition to the use of natural gas and oil, the boilers in this sector used coal and wood wastes as sources of fuel. For the coal sources, the fuel was assumed (as it was throughout this study) to have a heating value of 30218 kJ/kg (13,000 BTU/1b) and 2.8% sulphur content. Wood waste properties were assumed to be 10,228 kJ/kg (4,400 BTU/1b) as fired and 0.05% sulphur.
Metal Fabricating
The processes in this sector were primarily those from which emissions occurred as a result of the combustion of fuels used to heat the metals, or ores. A major exception are the coke oven emissions where the process is a partial combustion of coal from which the coke is produced. The fuels are varied, and frequently are gases arising from other stages of the operations. These include coke oven gas and blast furnace gas. The fuel heat contents
used in preparing data for estimating control costs were based on literature
references and on the ratios of SO,/NO, emissions. The fuel characteristics
used are listed in Appendix B.
Transportation Equipment
No processes were found for this sector in the emission inventory. The boilers used natural gas, oil, and coal. In total there were 19 sources emitting 10 or more tonnes/year. Ten NO, and nine so, sources are of concern.
Non-Metallic Mineral Products
This industry sector included 23 processes which emitted NO, and 16 sources of SO, in excess of the 10 tonnes/year levels. These were mostly cement kilns
but included melting furnaces and cupolas, as well as two asphalt plants.
Since these were high temperature sources similar to boilers they were assumed to be adaptable to the same type of control technologies as were the boilers. The 16 boilers assessed included one which burned coal and one using
coke as its fuel. Chemical and Chemical Products
Comprising mostly petroleum refineries, the process emissions from this sector were mainly from the combustion of fuels used for process heating. In addition there were emissions from the sulphur plants and carbon black manufacture which gave rise to emissions of both pollutants and two nitric
acid plants which emitted only NO, -
The sector used a variety of fuels for the boilers most of which were identified in the inventory. In other cases it was possible to establish that Process off gases had been used. Where the fuel source of the emissions was listed as undetermined, it was assumed that the fuels were oil fuels which
were categorized into residual or distillate in accordance with the relative
3-10
levels of the SO and NO, emissions.
Other Major Groups
/ Incinerators and wood waste boilers were the components of this industrial
sector which gave rise to process emissions. Included amongst them were
municipal, sewage sludge, industrial waste and hospital incinerators.
In many cases the emissions of NO, and SO, were too small to be included in the cost estimates, either because the installations were small or the
emissions were already being controlled.
The boiler emissions included heating plants at hospitals, major commercial institutions and universities as well as the emissions from boilers associated
with the incinerators.
3.3 Major Point Sources
3.3.1 Falconbridge SO, Emissions
Although the proposed process changes may reduce the SO, emissions to below 100 kilotonnes/year, it has been assumed, for the purpose of costing further staged reductions of S05, that a reduction from 100 ktonnes/year will be required. The needed reductions have been costed on the assumption that it will be possible to treat separate streams of the exhaust gases by dry lime injection, using a spray-dryer, in order to finally achieve an overall reduction to 50 tonnes/year. For estimating costs it was assumed that concentrations of SO, in the exhaust gases, which range between 1% and 3%,
would average 2.5% and the flow rate be that which would result in this
concentration.
Sell
NO, Emissions
The modifications proposed for the reduction of SO, emissions at Falconbridge will also result in the reductions of oxides of nitrogen to below 10 tonnes/year. Further reductions, of unknown extent, will also accrue
from the installation of any control equipment which may be installed to reduce the SO, emissions to below the regulated levels. No further control of
NO, has therefore been proposed. 353 2mEINCO so, Emissions
The remaining gas streams to be controlled at INCO are low strength sources ranging from acid plant tail gas to many sources of fugitive emissions. The task of identifying the conditions for the control of the individual streams was considered to be intractable within the bounds of this study. The sizes of the effluent streams and the length of the ductwork needed to capture fugitive emissions and direct them to a control system would have required an extensive study. For costing purposes the gas streams were treated as being the same as if they all arose from a power generating station and would be controlled by limestone scrubbing. A concentration of 25,000 ppm was assumed for this purpose. The estimation of operating costs included the assumption that a suitable location for sludge disposal could be found on the company property: the costs of transport and disposal of the sludges were therefore
relatively low.
NO, Emissions
As in the case of the Falconbridge operations, emissions of NO, will be minimal after the changes at the INCO smelter are completed. No further
control is proposed for this plant. 3.3.3 Algoma so, Emissions
Although numerous methods of controlling SO, emissions have been proposed for the Algoma sinter plant at Wawa, including the Cominco, Mag-Ox and the Pearson-Peck processes they are more costly than the limestone scrubbing process and or involve problems of disposing of the recovered products. Limestone wet scrubbing is efficient and cost estimates (MOE, 1983) indicate that, within the error of the estimates, it can be used at Wawa as cost
effectively as the other processes.
For the purpose of this study a high degree of control was not necessary as reductions of up to 50% of the "status quo" emissions were required to be costed. Scrubbing half of the exhaust gas using the lime spray drying method was selected as the most suitable method of removing SO, for achieving an emission reduction of up to 30%. Scrubbing of the full stream would be needed
to achieve higher degrees of control.
For low efficiency reductions in emissions, ore beneficiation is the most attractive method. Costs for this process were estimated from published costs of coal treatment plants, on the assumption that similar degrees of beneficiation could be achieved on ore and on coal. The coal cleaning process uses similar methods of treatment, viz. crushing, screening, flotation dense media separation and oil agglomeration, as those used in the metallurgical
mining processes.
NO, Emissions
Iron ore sintering at the plant is not considered to be a major source of NO, emissions. Therefore, no further control is proposed for this plant in this study.
3.3.4 Ontario Hydro
so; Emissions
After all options for conservation have been exhausted, the options for reducing emissions of SO, lie between fuel switching to lower sulphur coals and the increased use of nuclear power to various flue gas desulphurization techniques. The costs of fuel Switching on the scale needed for Ontario Hydro are dependent on the contracts which can be established for the supply of the lower sulphur content fuels. These costs cannot readily be established until the necessary negotiations have been virtually completed, neither can the quality of the coals be identified. This option has therefore not been considered for Ontario Hydro, neither has a switch to nuclear power been considered since the time frame to build more stations far exceeds the study
period.
FGD systems can be based on scrubbing many units at low efficiencies or fewer units at high efficiency. A quick review of the options has indicated that the higher capital and operating costs associated with many units makes the
use of low efficiency Systems undesirable.
A single technique of control, using limestone scrubbing, was selected for the reduction of emissions to regulated levels as well as for further reductions
to 50% of those levels.
NO, Emissions SS eee
Reductions of emissions to the regulated levels were estimated on the basis of
3-14
of SCR units being installed at suitable locations. Further step-wise reductions, to a level of 50% of the regulated quantity, were assessed using the most efficient reduction method of installing SCR units on an additional
500 MW of generating capacity.
4.0 COST OF EMISSION CONTROL AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction
Cost estimates for the industrial sector sources have been estimated for
various groupings of the companies within each of the eleven selected industrial sectors (section 2.2). The groups were chosen by selecting processes which were controllable by one emission control method. In each group overall costs were estimated by first determining the geometric mean of the emissions within the group, estimating the cost for control of a source exhibiting the mean emission rate and then multiplying the cost of controlling a source with the mean emission rate by the number of sources within the group. By the use of this procedure one or more methods of control were costed for every source in the eleven sectors with emissions of SO, and NO, of 10 tonnes per year or more. Sources from which the emissions were less than 10 tonnes constitute less than 2% of the total emissions from the selected industrial sectors and were not considered. The detailed list of sources was provided in the emission inventory which forms part of Interim Report No. 1. This inventory differs from the ones used for other similar studies related to the CAP program in that the SIC codes are different, estimates made for those studies were based on information obtained from industrial source and were extended on the basis of employment statistics
applicable to the sectors being studied.
The cost of controls on the four major industrial sources have been derived from information in the MOE "Source Book" (1983) and the Report of the Ontario/Canada Task Force (1982). This information has been supplemented by studies carried out by Ontario Hydro (1987, 1988) and the Progress reports on their abatement studies issued by INCO (1988) and Falconbridge (1988). Costs
have been estimated for further emission reductions which might be achieved.
Cost summaries are shown in Table 4.1 to 4.4 for the major sources and the
industry sectors. These are derived from data shown in the Tables of Appendix
A.
O1OTS 269€ SL°9L - 016 = 4902 60CZH] g 99e) ‘ 06 “LSS 90°12 20°11 - LES XT GT 191261 ç 29e) uoFyeryinqd092q! 0L°66L 08°2€ 06° POT - ECL) x00) 20991 } 29e) [ang Laup}oq! Of 18 +622 09°16 - ee A 682951 £ age) po! OL ye 40°01 66°9 - 10°2 19° +61691 4 29) qorday} ! : : - - - 12611 290) ogg A TU ST'19 61°15 0°8) 212 10S 00629 { ‘ 66° 9T0T 0S "ue dec 9°S¢ 612 roe 00618 ! : ST O1I 00°S2 SL'2 10 5°22 102 000001 : ; 20 Ce] 05°21 99°T 10 rel to! 006211 ‘ - = = - - 298) 9984 000SZT euo31y; : 00° 99ST 00°05 0f°8L PIL S'a 106 00005 ; \ 09'6LET 00°0€ 601} soc coe roe 00002 ; À GL L621 00°02 ' gB°s2 t'a C2 102 00008 ‘ H IT'8SII 00°01 8S'II c'6 cpl 101 00006 ; y 298) 2824 000001 CE TA ET LUE LI E ‘ 08°98 05°18 OT bL rez Sie 106 00628 : H 40°98 09°25 AM} 0‘? 6981 x0€ 006221 ' : 60° 60 00°6£ 95°62 c'6 g'yeI x02 000001 ‘ { (8861 ‘SHRHS) 4}ToORdeo G6 LBS 0S°LT 18°51 Ly £29 x01 OOSLST o1pey} 1 Pay YR AM VOTTT TS p'66. 29e) 2984 00011 028409} : g1°z9¢ 0$°2e1 66° LY re Lee 10S 00S2¢1 } vo 8b 0$°6L y9°Se AT 2°49 t0£ 006681 ' H C1 "ees 00°¢s 25°92 0°02 n'as 102 000212 H : (8961 ‘09H1). 02°2S1 09°92 10°02 6'el gle 201 vossez : 1 AIL/TAYOU QT QUOT TT TT OFZ 298) 2924 00092 ou]! gi 22 eae”) Ue ass ae H Ayqordeg (auuoy/$) (14/1 000.) ($uoptTte) ($ uoyiqpu) ($ VOTTT TE) uoronpay (ivot/souuo]) uoridp 210$ | ‘ 10} joNpolg poaoway 708 paaouay 20S 3209 330) 480) jeytden 54 gu0 satay ‘ : yeouuy auu0y Jad JO qunouy pozqrenuuy Buy yRaadg 10S
9390) pazy]enuuy 1830] SE eee ae eee i ee ee RE ee
S39800S 4OfVR 802 SHOTLIOGH8 011010 80Hd10S 40 LAVRROS
1-1 318
TABLE 4-2 SUMHARY OF SOLPHOR DIOXIDE REDUCTION BY INDUSTRY CLASS
D Total Annualized Costs! H Control 50x Capital Operating Annualized Auount of per tonne =! ' Option Kniseions 1 Cost Cost Cost 502 Removed S02 Bemoved ! 1 Source (¥) (Tonnes/year) Reduction (million $) (million $) (million $) (T/yr) ($/tonne) } i Primary 14219 1985 Level - - - = a iMetals i : 2-P 725 94.9 Za 722 1.47 13493.83 554 | ‘Food/Beverage 1421 1985 Level : 1-P 1401 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.28 19.89 14266 | H 2-B 614 56.8 161.2 50.1 71.29 806.90 88349 ! 4 5-B 570 59.9 11.9 52 6.76 850.94 7948 | x 1-P 420 70.4 0.6 -4.5 -4.43 1000.10 -4425 ! ‘Textile 7359 1985 Level à i 1-B 4894 33.5 9.2 3.1 4.30 2465.27 1743 | ' 2-B 4621 37.2 90.8 28.2 40.17 2737.55 14675 | ' 5-B 4460 39.4 0.3 -3.2 -3.18 2899. 45 -1097 | ‘ 1-P 3569 51.5 8.1 1.8842 2.95 3789.89 178 ! iPaper Products 30516 1985 Level - and Allied 3,4-P 29173 4.4 14.4 1.5 3.39 1342.70 2527 | Products 2-P 22673 25.1 104.4 32.1 45.84 1842.61 5845 ; : 2-B 18371 39.8 565.5 165.4 239.72 12145.37 19738 | + 1-B 18828 38.3 16.6 5.4 1.59 11687.63 650 | 1-P 17547 42.5 6.2 1.8681 2.68 12969.30 207 | | 5-B 16784 45.0 0.6 -8.3 -8.25 13732.20 -601 | iNetal 29480 1985 Level - - - = = iFabrication 1-B 26326 10.7 18.0 7.0 9.36 3154.35 2966 ; h 2-B 26149 11.3 215.6 67.0 95.36 3331.23 28626 | à 5-B 25765 12.6 0.8 -6.1 -6.00 3714.47 -1615 | ' 1-P 19663 33.3 41.6 10.2 15.71 9816.81 1601 } | Transportation 1801 1985 Level - - - = = ; Equipment 2-B 281 84.4 268.9 18.4 113.73 1520.04 74820 | i Industries 1-B 279 84.5 6.9 2.4 3.35 1521.85 2198 } i 5-B 1! 99.4 0.3 -2.1 -2.62 1790.19 -1462 |
St VOS
(3) CONTROL OPTIONS: 1) Line Spray Dryer 2) Linestone Flue Gas Desulphurisation 3,4) Wet Processes - Caustic Absorption/Scrubbing 5) Fuel Switch to Natural Gas B) Control on Boilers P) Control on Process
TABLE 4-2 cont‘d SUMMARY OF SOLPHOR DIOXIDE REDUCTION BY INDUSTRY CLASS
d Total Annualized Costs! : Control SOX Capital Operating Annualized Anount of per tonne |} : Option Enissions 1 Cost Cost Cost 502 Bepoved S02 Renoved | : Source (*) (Tonnes/year) Reduction (million $) (million $) (million $) (T/yr) ($/tonne) } SS a a Non-Metallic 20248 1985 Level ; iNineral 1-B 19478 3.8 8.4 3.6 4.70 177.92 6038 Products 2-B 19397 4.2 187.8 56.6 81.33 843.00 96475 | } 5-B 19337 4.5 0.4 -1.8 -1.72 911.16 -1886 ; : 1-P 4029 80.1 21.1 Ta 11.39 16218.57 702 ! iCherical & 69384 1985 Level i iPetroleur 1-P 53009 23.6 3.3 2.0 2.41 16374.62 147 ! Products 2-B 49887 28.1 209.1 65.2 92.69 19496 90 4754 ! i 1-B ~ 45238 34.8 30.4 10.7 14.65 24145.63 607 ! : 5-B 41006 40.9 1.4 -36.2 -36.00 28378. 06 -1263 ; : 2-P 35108 49.4 246.9 79.0 111.42 34275.70 3251 ; Other 4805 1985 Level i {Groups 2-B 1552 67.7 750.4 226.2 324.86 3252.71 99873 ' 1-B 1158 15.9 40.9 17.2 22.59 3646.69 6196 | 5-B 168 89.2 2.0 -1.9 -1.67 4285.70 -390 |
(3) CONTROL OPTIONS: 1) Line Spray Dryer 2) Linestone Flue Gas Desulphurisation 3,4) Wet Processes - Caustic Absorption/Scrubbing 5) Fuel Switch to Natural Gas B) Control on Boilers P) Control on Process
uosaonpes zo eus qove eneyyou © pepeeu ew eayun 03 perrdde p worado :3L101i
BoFonpey OF{AATeQwD eafQ>eTSS (Pp uopjonpey oF Ayequa-uoyy sapijoereg (€ mopasnqua pebeas (Zz
ZFX cee2x4 A01 (I NOILdO TOULNOD (eh
Le9 ep'9e 66°97 06° DT Tee n°65 006°8z » I
Le9 L9°0€ So'tz os*zt t's9 sos $99°oc , '
Leo ov'er 9° ZT os°L T'éc aoe 1e6°z , 1
169 LT TT cr'e o0o"s T'9z +07 990°6) , '
Les ets 12°» os*z o-et sot L6t°SS 0 i
(ect ‘sanas) S3Fowdu0 (veer) ozpig | @evd eovg C£°19 oy2v300 |
1
\
Zazyoudey (euuor/g) (24/5 000) ($ VOTTTTH) ($ UOFTITH) «= (6 UOFITTH) woyaompeu (°24/1000') (+) eoinos | uoF3onpozsq Peaoum] XON Pea0uwmwy XON 3805 9009 909 Tvarde2 8 suoyespey uoya3do ! Tenouy euuor/3509 30 3umomg posprenuuy Éuyauredo T1V2020 TON 1°33u09 I
!
I
'
I
1
4
1
I
!
| peaez 2° EAN SOTTIT™ 9°66 '
4
'
4
J
(| posFrenuuy I
SÆIUN0S VOLVH wos SNOILONASU AAIXOIG NIDOULIN JO XUVHHNS
€-» S1GVvL
TABLE 4-4
SUMMARY OF NITROGEN DIOXIDE REDOCTIONS BY INDUSTRY CLASS
: Annualized Cost | 4 Control NOx Overall Operating Annualized Anount of per tonne : 1 Source Option Knissions x Capital Cost Cost Cost NOx Bemoved KNOx Regoved ! 4 (+) (Tonnes/year) Reduction (million $) (million $) (million $) (T/yr) ($/tonne) : iFood/Beverage 2873 1985 Level A - - | } ! 2729 5 0.6 -1.3 -1.2 144.21 -847! i 2 2585 10 389 0.8 193 288.14 4343 | 1 3 1255 56 30.0 6.6 10.5 1607.62 6555 | 4 595 19 137.1 24.! 42.1 2277.56 18496 | Bubber & 386 1985 Level - - i iPlastics 1 343 il 0.1 -0.4 0.4 43.11 -19113 | i 2 390 22 0.7 0.1 0.2 86.25 2324 } 3 154 60 4.) 0.9 1.4 231.54 6109 | 4 58 85 18.9 359 5.8 328.02 titel: Textile 1180 1985 Level - = - = = i 1 1058 10 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 121.65 29120 2 937 21 1.8 0.1 0.3 243.30 1299 | 3 508 57 Sat 0.8 1.3 671.84 1926 | i 4 228 81 eZ 3.0 5.3 951.71 5552 | ‘Paper Products 11429 1985 Level - - - - = À and Allied 1 10225 il 1.5 -2.8 -2.6 1203.44 -2179 | \Products 2 9021 21 5.0 2.0 2.6 2408.03 1075 | ; 3 4682 59 88.4 19.4 31.0 6746.36 4601 | h 4 1871 84 413.5 72.1 127.1 9557.82 13297 | Metal 14812 1985 Level - - - 0.0 = À Fabrication 1 14207 4 189 -4.3 -4.0 605.83 -6669 | : 2 13602 8 8.3 1.3 2.3 1210.17 1898 | : 3 6328 57 76.5 16.8 26.9 8484.54 3166 ; « 4 2792 81 273.4 48.1 84.0 12020. 26 6990 |
a, eee eee eee
() CONTROL OPTIONS 1) Low Excess dir 2) Staged Combustion 3) Selective Kon-Catalytic Reduction 4) Selective Catalytic Reduction
TABLE 4-4 cont‘d
SUMMARY OF HITROGEN DIOXIDE REDUCTIONS BY INDUSTRY CLASS
Annualized Cost !
: Control NOx Overall Operating Annualized Amount of per tonne } i Industry Option Enissions 1 Capital Cost Cost Cost NOx Removed NOx Benoved | 1 Class (x) (Tonnes/year) Reduction (million $) (million $) (million $) (T/yr) ($/tonne) ! transportation 2099 1985 Level - - - 0.99 ou \Squipeent 1 1972 6 0.3 -2.4 -2.3 127.63 -18219 | ‘Industries 2 1844 i 9.9 0.7 1.8 255.26 6944 | : 3 860 59 13.9 3.1 4.9 1239.37 3944 | ; § 343 84 65.2 11.5 20.9 1755.77 11411 | Non-Metallic 9826 1985 Level - - 0.00 ‘ ‘Mineral l 9406 4 0.8 -8.9 -8.8 429.57 -20985 | Products 2 8986 9 Jel 2.5 2.9 840.16 3471 ; } 3 4523 54 46.9 10.6 16.! 5303.31 3031 | 4 2313 16 315.5 56.7 93.8 1513.27 12490 |
Chenical & 28587 1985 Level - - - 0.00 =
iPetroleus l 27149 5 ja -17.6 -17.3 1437.90 -12061 |
Products 2 25708 10 8.6 5.0 6.0 2878.66 2085 |
; 3 12958 55 95.3 20.9 33.5 15628.24 2141 |
' 4 6446 77 437.7 17.0 134.5 22140.24 6076 }
‘Other 4298 1985 Level - - - 0.00 =;
:Groups l 3814 1! 31 -5.4 -5.1 483.90 -10489 |
1 2 3330 23 9.1 1.6 2.1 967.37 2749 |
3 2285 47 65.8 14.4 23.1 2012.09 11481 }
4 1447 66 196.6 35.6 61.4 2850.53 21551 |
(*) CONTROL OPTIONS 1) Low Ercess Air 2) Staged Combustion 3) Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 4) Selective Catalytic Reduction
4.2 Industrial Sectors 4.2.1 Industrial Sector Costs
For the purposes of this study specific control methods were applied to selected source types; these choices would not necessarily be those chosen by
the companies should controls be imposed by regulatory action.
The technologies used for costing purposes are listed in Table 4.5 which also indicates their characteristics. The technologies imposed were those considered to be the most suitable for the types of process being assessed, based on the level of detail available from the inventory data. The costs are approximate estimates which can vary by a factor of two or more depending
on the specific design needs, installation costs and operation mode.
Sulphur Dioxide Control
Sulphur dioxide control costs are summarized in Table 4.1 for the major point sources and Table 4.2 for the industrial sectors. The data from which these tables were derived are displayed in Appendix A. Table A-4.1 indicates the
sources and the quantities of emission for each sector.
The types of industrial processes and the number of sources of each type are identified in Table A-4.3.0 while Tables A-4.4.2 to A-4.4.5 present the costs for control methods for the specific processes listed in Table A-4.3.0. These costs are summarized for all processes in Table A-4.4.1. Capital costs are listed in the top section of the tables and operating costs are in the lower section. The costs of applying selected technologies to boilers are shown
Similarly in Tables A-4.4.6 to A-4.4.8.
Tables, A-4.5.1 to A-4.5.6, present capital, operating and annualized costs, as well as the the quantities of SO, removed, removal efficiencies and the
cost of removal per tonne for each sector. The overall summary of these
4-2
(524) TTeisuI OF
auTL
ST ST ST ST ST 02 0Z ST ST
(522)
awrr393 TT
S6 S6 S6 S8 6°66 Ov 02 09 S8
(%)
Teaousey FO
peqeutrqysqg AOUSTOTFFA
40825 Zos
42826 Zos 40826 Zos 40836 Zos s62901d Zos ssa00id XON 669901d XON s52901d XON A0e35 XON uOT3e90T punoduio9
TO1U09 = peTTor3uo|
doi suo jseuryT Butqqnios oTrqseneg - uotjdazosqy otTqsned - Bbutqqnzss 324 1941q Aeadg our (se5 03 TTO) ebueyd Teng uot yenquog pabe3s ITW 6690X4 MOT (HONS) uOtTI3onpay OTWJATeQIeD-UON 241999195S
(42S) uot IONpey 2tAtTRI3e2 2419309 195$
ABoTouyosaL
SOILSIUDLOVYVHD TWOINHOGL UIFHL AUNY S4190'IONHOZL TOULNOD
S°b a'Tavl
estimates is displayed in Table A-4.2 which also shows the costs for achieving
various levels of control for each sector.
Nitrogen Oxide Control
The costs for controlling NO, are summarized for major sources in Table 4.3 and for industrial sectors in Table 4.4. Tables A-4.7.1 to A-4.7.4 contain the costs for the control of processes and Tables A-4.7.5 to 8, the costs for boilers by four different methods; SCR, SNCR, combustion modifications and the use of a low excess air supply. The costs for each process and fuel type within each industrial sector are shown for the four methods and the total for each sector is given in the last column of these tables. The totals for each industry were then transferred to Tables A-4.8.1 to A-4.8.4, in which the annualized costs and the costs per tonne of NO, removed are calculated, also
shown are the total tonnes of NO, removed and the efficiency of removal.
The most effective methods of control, as shown by the overall efficiencies of 78.7% (Table 4.8.4) and 55.5% (Table 4.8.3), are the SCR and SNCR processes, although the costs per tonne removed are higher than the costs for combustion modification and low excess air. These two emission reduction methods are, however applicable to a wider range of sources than the combustion control
methods.
4.2.2 Petroleum Fuel Desulphurization.
The costs of fuel desulphurization vary with the method of obtaining the lower sulphur content fuels and the extent to which the desulphurization is carried out. The basis of the costs used in this study is the unpublished report by MHG International Ltd. (1983).
The MHG (1983) report considers six cases of sulphur reduction, which may
briefly be described as:
Case 1. Sulphur in Light Fuel Oil (LFO) reduced to 0.3%.
4-3
Case 2. Sulphur in LFO reduced to 0.1%.
Case 3. Sulphur in LFO limited to 0.3%, with a reduction in the quantity of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) as 66% of the vacuum column bottom
stream treated in an H-Oil unit to produce LFO.
Case 4. Asis ‘Casey 3: except that the LFO is limited to 0.1% sulphur. Case 5. As Case 3. except that 90% of the vacuum bottoms are
converted in the H-Oil unit.
Case 6. As Case 4. except that 90% of the vacuum bottoms are
converted in the H-Oil unit.
Although the MHG study indicates that Case 1 can be met, under current refinery operating practices, it is noted that the refineries do produce distillate oil with sulphur content in excess of 0.3%. However, when it is necessary, for inventory purposes, to estimate SO, emission from other available data, MOE (telephone communication between S. Wong and B. Powers) in the past have assumed 0.3% sulphur content for distillate consuming boilers and heaters. For the purposes of the current study it has been assumed that the 0.3% sulphur content could be achieved with no extra capital expenditure, and Case 1 is therefore the base case. The costs of carrying out the other five cases are displayed at the bottom of Table 4.1. The lowest cost per tonne of so, removed ($304.7) is a result of applying Case 2, but the reduction in emissions amounts to only 5% (10,040 T/yr). The major reduction of 20% of the total emissions would cost $510.1/tonne and remove 36,920 tonnes
per year of emissions.
The overall reductions in the emissions by industry and from the refineries are shown in Table A-4.11 which, based on the process heat requirements, also
shows how the fuels produced would be distributed between consumption in the
4-4
refinery itself and sales to consumers. The impact of these changes on the industrial sectors has been determined by ratioing the costs to the fraction of the total SO, emissions in the province which arise from the oil consuming processes and boilers in the specified sectors. The emission reduction resulting from use of the fuels by the industrial sectors, and the allocated costs are given in Table A-4.10 and A-4.11, respectively. The costs per tonne
so; removed are listed in Table A-4.12.
4.3 Major Point Sources
4.3.1 Falconbridge
The costs of controlling emissions from the major point sources are summarized
in Tables 4.1 and 4.3.
Sulphur Dioxide Control
The estimates are based on the decision that reductions should be achieved by the use of dry lime scrubbing on all or part of the remaining emissions. The sources, residual emissions from processes, contain over 2% SO, and therefore do not require wet processes to ensure high removal efficiency. The use of wet scrubbing technologies are more costly unless recovery of the sulphur values is practicable. At the low SO, concentrations the cost of recoveries generally will outweigh the value of the product. The wet processes have
therefore not been costed for Falconbridge.
Annualized costs for these additional controls range from $11.6 million for a reduction of 10% to $78.3 million for a 50% reduction in emissions. These costs are mainly due to operating the control equipment. Because of the low quantities of emissions being controlled the costs per tonne of SO, range from
$1160 to $1566.
4.3.2 INCO
Sulphur Dioxide Control
Since the requirement in this case is to control relatively weak tail gases from the acid plants and from high flow fugitive emissions it has been assumed that wet limestone scrubbing is the preferred control technology. This method is capable of up to 95% recovery efficiency. Costs per tonne of pollutant removed varies with the concentration of the source gases and the gas flow rate. The capital, operating and annualized costs for specific reduction amounts are presented in Table A.4.1. Annualized costs for these additional controls range from $20 million for a reduction of 10% to $48 million for a 50% reduction in emissions. About 70% of these costs are for operating the control equipment. Because of the quantities of emissions being controlled
the costs per tonne of SO, range from $752 to $362.
4.3.3 Algoma
Sulphur Dioxide Control
Reductions in SO, emissions of up to 20% at Wawa could be obtained by ore beneficiation. Based on cost estimates of coal cleaning and making allowance for the size of the operation and the extent of ore cleaning required to produce a 10% reduction it is estimated that capital costs of $13,400,000 and operating costs of $90,000 would be required and result in annualized costs of
$1,660,000 and a cost of $133/tonne removed.
For a reduction of 20% the capital expenditure would need to be raised to $22,500,000 and operating expenses would increase to $111,000 per year. The
cost per tonne removed would be $110.
Further reductions would need to be made by the use of flue gas cleaning. It would be necessary to scrub one half of the exhaust gases from the sinter
Strands in order to carry out an effective reduction program rather than scrub
4-6
all of the stream to a lower efficiency. This procedure was estimated to require $21,940,000 of capital with operating costs of $35,600,000 for an annualized cost of $38,140,000. It would remove 37,500 tonnes at a cost of $1,020 per tonne. A 50% reduction would result in operating costs of $48,000,000 and a capital expenditure of $27,200,000 for an annualized cost of $51,200,000 and remove 61,250 tonnes a year at a cost of $835.8 per tonne of SO, . Nitrogen Oxide Control
This operation is not a major source of NO, emissions and the sintering
process is not readily amenable for NO, control.
4.3.4 Ontario Hydro
Sulphur Dioxide Control
Ontario Hydro has carried out detailed studies on the use of limestone scrubbing for the control of its acid gas emissions. The costs developed have been used in these estimates after comparison with estimates made by MOE and
others who have indicated that they are acceptable for this purpose.
In order to meet the requirements of the Ontario Regulation 281/87 a capital expenditure of $560,000,000 will be required. With operating costs of $42,000,000 per year this results in annualized costs of $133,000,000.
As shown in Table 4.1, further reductions of up to 50% require capital expenditures of 62.3 to 311.5 million dollars, and annualized costs of 14.8 to 74.1 million dollars. The costs per tonne of SO, removed range from $845 to $848, compared with $573 per tonne for the initial approach to the target emission level. Although it was assumed that further reductions would be achieved by the installation of a similar technology, the variations arise from the overall size of the installations and the number and size of the
scrubbing units required in the different circumstances.
4-7
Nitrogen Oxide Control
Costs for the control of nitrogen oxides at Ontario Hydro have been based on the costs of controls, using Selective Catalytic Reduction at generating stations in the United States. The effectiveness of SCR is such that it permits the required overall removal efficiencies with the least number of
installations.
Costs have been developed for this study based on the data for 36 generating stations in the U.S.A., with overall collection efficiencies ranging from 8
tO 40 % (Calvert and Englund, 1984).
From the list the fourteen stations which reduced emissions by 40% were selected and the average costs for these stations were developed. The average capital costs amounted to $856.2 (US, 1980)/ton removed, this equates to $1442/tonne removed (Cdn.1986) for a plant which has no controls installed.
The annual operating costs were equivalent to $215 (Cdn. 1986) tonne removed.
These costs appear to be low when compared with costs developed by many authors, for specific generating stations or for a detailed but generalised design of station. However it was felt that the actual experience of a number of stations would be the most suitable for use in this current study where the explicit details of designs could not be developed in the absence of details
about the existing state of controls at any one station.
The emissions from the Ontario Hydro stations will have been reduced from 94,400 tonnes/year (current conditions) to 61,330 tonnes/year in 1994 (Base case). At that emission rate capital costs are estimated to be $13,000,000 or $1337/tonne for the removal of 10% of the emissions while annual operating costs, after making an allowance for increased Canadian labour and materials costs would be $2,500,000. The annualised cost then becomes $4,210,000/year based on a 25 year plant life and 12.5% interest on capital for a cost of
$687./tonne NO, removed.
It has been assumed that further reductions will be achieved by the installation of modular units of equal size and the costs per tonne of removal will be constant. Capital costs will then range from $13,000,000 for a 10% reduction in emissions from 61,330 tonnes/year to 55,197 tonnes/yr. Operating costs will amount to $2,500,000/year and the annualised costs will be $4,210,000/year. For each additional reduction of 6,133 tonnes costs will increase proportionately until at a reduction of 59.4%, the annualised costs
will amount to $77,100,000/year (Table 4-3)
The use of combustion modifications has not been addressed in this study. The experimental work at Nanticoke has indicated that NO, reduction of up to 60% may be achievable, however results have not been fully assessed and published. The technologies covered are dependent on the boiler design and are unlikely to be applicable to the same degree at other stations. Further confirmation of the effectiveness and the cost is desirable before these modifications can
be considered in this study for the large Ontario Hydro boilers.
REFERENCES
Calvert, C. and Englund, H.M. (eds). "Handbook of Air Pollution Technology."
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1984.
Economic Analysis Branch (EAB). "EAB Control Cost Manuals." 3rd Edition. EPA 450/5-87-001A, February 1987.
Falconbridge Limited. "Progress Report No. 4 SO, Abatement Program: Period
July - December, 1987." January 1988.
Pryling, iGsR. (ed). "Combustion Engineering." Revised Edition, The
Riverside Press, 1967.
INCO. "Progress Report, INCO Limited Sudbury Smelter Complex, SO, Emission Control -Regulation 660/85 - 12 December 1985." January 1988.
MHG International Ltd.. "Study on Petroleum Fuel Desulphurization in the Petroleum Industry. Volume 1 of aan Prepared for Environment Canada,
DSS File 5355.KE145-2-0734, 1983.
Ontario Hydro. "Production and Statistics Manual." Thermal and Hydraulic
Generation Division, TG 09101, March 1987.
Ontario/Canada Task Force for the Development and Evaluation. of Air Pollution Abatement Options for Inco Limited and Falconbridge Nickel Mines, Limited
in the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, Ontario, Fall 1982.
Ontario Hydro. "Flue Gas Desulphurization Program Environmental Assesment."
February 1988.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) . "Source Book." Revision D. Air
Resources Branch, March 1983.
Perry, R.H. and Chilton, C.H. (eds). "Chemical Engineers’ Handbook." 6th
ed., McGraw-Hill, 1984.
Radian Corporation. "Industrial Boiler SO, Cost Report." Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-450/3-85-011, November 1984.
SRI International. "Nitrogen Oxides: Reduction in Flue Gases." Prepared for
the Engery Technology Economics Program, Report No. 17, October 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, volumn 1: Stationary point and Area Sources." 4th
ed., AP-42. EPA, September 1985.
Woods Gordon Management Consultants. "Petroleum Refinery Sector Profile." Prepared for the Policy and Planning Branch, M.I.S.A., Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1987.
_ a
=
A a
PE PUG ash sersentpas Lestmet label 19. ars Ana (ae , 2s LhewstoM 4 he,
lobe ‘en: ds
vof, le. ie Clim of Alt rulimienf s dt Seat ® ceprséde 469) 208 Wied fetarsemert® moles &
batt sodmmuot ,1'0=É 0-20): ANS JUMeuA noLiDe IS La mennosiv
% OMe 4 , ap 4280) "E48 Cart « be mi À bd soit HATLEECES dotations ottautet te-Tiu0 NrODSÉENT. danas uel sodéied .YL .o0 3200 MST .- No COMLOMEDAT yz
bririre Rieived | mé « . crées 9, “VIT Fomerbonnri TAR ghee)! @ A 7, wh NON EEE + rer ‘30 * esu7H70R 6414 te dnben YLtaesser2 a) Me FL
: ban jad © ‘chad —_ TU es 29050408, VA ,
$ CL ice ai © 1.7 * «Celos®? 10)008 yore & diglse4" à ine! iwead ia se GPA ade SQ yale. EA meh ts, WEAF "Oncol <eeslael ¢ L se . mh, ue = tpeahicopai 4 Gee ©: De a 7% (>leus Sd As et > © 6 6 es» 4 er te 123 File j seia’r—, ng CRE ka * ivifhosie ef af id@ < si." ne À à . è lon iv ‘a 9 Ga we. oes elo. Notes Tesh Force = Fr PSS « “11-91 4 ane wtiees wre - 2e, o@ toto rit ie)
+
1" Lhe Poegicins Mud mr +p SOS, Matte, 65 59
ee fis CR] son 160: ewe ia "UT 4 a” ste af Sie SS 4 Ge i Be, {
AA “ee, ° cut
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATES
it
> bwN + bo
APPENDIX A - LIST OF TABLES
Sulphur Dioxide Emissions - 1985 Level
Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions - 1985 Level
Process Identification for Sulphur Dioxide Sources
SO; Reduction Costs
Control Strategies
SO; Reduction Costs
Spray Dryer
SO, Reduction
FGD
SO, Reduction
Absorption
SO; Reduction
Scrubbing
SO; Reduction SO; Reduction SO; Reduction
Natural Gas SO, Removal SO, Removal SO, Removal Natural Gas SO; Removal Spray Dryer SO, Removal SO, Removal
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
for Process Streams
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
Process
Process
Process
Process
Boilers
Boilers
Boilers
Streams
Streams
Streams
Streams
All
Lime
Limestone
Caustic
Caustic
- Lime Spray Dryer
- Limestone FGD - Fuel Switch to
Costs Costs Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
for for
for
for
for
for
Boilers Boilers
Boilers
Process
Process
Process
- Lime Spray Dryer - Limestone FGD - Fuel Switch to
Streams - Lime
Stream - Limestone FGD Stream - Wet Scrubbing
Identification for NO, Process Streams
NO, Reduction Costs for Process Streams - Low
Excess Air
NO, Reduction Costs for Process Streams - Staged
Combustion
APPENDIX A -
A-4. A-4. A-4.
m OO NN M OI HD UW à W ra AE AE en a ET OBO TOTO RO ROO OO M M |
D i P=) H H © © ®© @© ®© J NY YAY NN Z Oo
= >)
LIST OF TABLES,
Reduction Costs Reduction Costs Reduction Costs Reduction Costs Reduction Costs
Reduction Costs
continued
for Process for Process for Boilers for Boilers for Boilers
for Boilers
Streams - SNCR Streams - SCR
Removal Costs for All Streams
Removal Costs for All Streams
Removal Costs for All Streams
From Fuel Usage A-4.12 Per Tonne Cost of Fuel Oil Desulphurization
== Removal Costs for All Streams
Costs of Fuel Oil Desulphurization
Low Excess Air Staged Combustion SNCR
SCR
- Low Excess Air
- Staged Combustion - SNCR
= OCR
Effects of Fuel Oil Desulphurization on SO, Emissions
Estimated Overall Emissions Reduction of SO;
“£104UIAUT 944 UT _s[ang, se Po8II 808 []e} 4UeTY angd[ns pue se¥ vaso
940) ‘B'9 STany se pasn syonposd sapntouy 19939, -: a,0y +
00°00T 00 1£26LI ~: BUOTSSTMS [RYO]
09 2} 1 9S'OT Lr'9 00°LT 868 il i SIVLOL 1181940 Jo y; 00001 OL'S6E9L à 822601 B'OGSIT 2°S9v0e C'LLEST ts O0 001 6‘h28201 : S1#101; gLl'ç C'O0br ; 00 6197 9g'S6TE 8°96 11 600 Ca LL ' sdn01n 10[eÿ 19440; Coch G'OICCE : 6219 00 VLL8ST G'OQLZT 1 LOSE C'ELOSE : 9YONpOIZ HU) B ‘M; EI 9° 606 1 0°0 £09 €°828 01S in LL'8T C'OUC6T : 949np014 2F[18Y28-U0ÿ; SCC 1661] 1 0°0 S'al8 6 L8L L'y6l ii 10°0 i 1 Waudyoby woyyRylodsuel] | WD Een, (ORSTSLIE 1.8 S32hT. 0:0 8 19Te 62 i ÉSIT |= 6 98TT ; BUTAROTIQRY TRIB, GL'8T =O STET à 09% TOSv0T 2 9087 L'266 in GL'ST D'I0297 : 9Y9np01g parT Ty 4 Jadeg; 08€ GEO à: 00 0°0 12882 8°02 11 Se") CPU 1 99F190pU] 214191; (LA 0'2907 1 00 0°0 9°$68 pv iy C0 gece 1 age1aaag ÿ PO0j; 10°0 L'6 i 00 0°0 0°0 L'6 ts T8"€T = GS 602bT STR} oR LURE
i} 11 1
1830] 912710
£1yo0pu] Jo x 18301 ;
+ 19910 180) TRMPTS9g RTT TIIIG); 1IR30J SUOTS9 TG
SUOT99TEG 121104
389 [e1nyeN JO 2AT9NIOXY (1V94/]) SUOT9SFU apyxXoTp ANYdINS
19497 GQ6T-SHOISSIRY 3011010 808410$
To-¥ TN
"AIOSUOAUT 944 UT .STong. se Pa8IT se3 [fe JUEI4 Anqd[ng pue se8 u240 940) ‘B'a STON] Se pasn syonpold S2PNIOUT 1240. -: 2108 ¢ 00007 Lb 68h61 -:SU0T33TR9 [870]
¥1 91 ee) 517104 1181940 Jo 4; |
9'6E9ZT 11 O0°00T Tozeee à S19101
699 CESSE ©! Se ee ee a) |) ) NET as 2 940019 10feg 1270! 629 = Soest À L'IZSS 00 D'SIOP LOST G'SIZ SES LOGE Z'ÉBZET «| 91o0po1g “wayy à “aaqg! (02 AT 6001 Ar a Il eZ S'tb Ga $$ 6292 OD'ISLR À! 910poi OFT TRyaN-voy! ge) 2660 À OO LS 6222 OL‘ OCZ !! 000 0e | quaudyoby uofyey1odaue1]! 922 S'ICZ01 ! 100K 0°0 Cost 600 O"Z'egt «8 shen «= Goose! HopyRopIGeg [e399 pov] = £0265 | ZAR O2 O6 L'I82 S'S002 ol! CSOT Db'BOSS ! Sonpo1g PATII à dade! TE To un. MSP is ert Tr | 99F1Y90pU] 217310]! 2 NN MeO Ai) yell 29 go =H} 000 00 S9F}98T4 à 13904! gg BNR} SO 00 i a a ! NO FR | aÿt19124 9 poo]! ' 1, '
[®}O] S1aT Tog Aiyanpay
JO ¥ = [840]
1301 © 9uoToaT Eg
à 19770 180) IRNpIS9g BRT TTIST 989 ‘AN 5: ‘Joy 992001]
! ' \ QUOTSSTay 12110f } ' '
‘ 1 291 8° 289 '
‘(a8e4/1) SHOISSIAY AOIIOIQ N39081IA
SHAR) 6861 -(1R24/1) SHOISSINE AOIIOIQ #9508218
T'h-V 5IEVI
{pny9 ayy WoIy payyqtwo 2194 2107219qy pue 1e9L/99U004 QT WeYy 9997 2194 dno13 Uy 9901008 12730 TN à GET= 9999990017 TUT1Y9NPU] woIy 9201006 705 [RIO] +
+ Sdn019 10feg 12430!
2301949g ÿ pooj! STey9p deatag}
8 S10ye1autou] | LT Se 999901] 0] "J9G 9p01) | 9Y90p017 “wayy p ‘way! @ 88) N-33875 7 TO 391Q ‘O88ID L RIauay -uTTy ¢ UTFY TOD à = 94onporg OFT Tezau-aoy! } Waudynby voyyeqrodsuery! } UTTY oat] € TTO PIS 8 50) a4 11 929 0) | BUFAROTIQUE TRI! 1 9490P02g payT Ty 9 dedeg; z “OOTR ; BOTAYINPU] 2TF410];
T= poag *faqaeg } LA ELEC
999106 8291006 8991006 399108 999106 9991006
t 9990019 JO g 999001g JO g s9900l7 Jog 9829014 JO # 9990017 Jog 992001] ne ee 0 gee Ve HT À
5498008 3011010 80Hd10S BOs NOTLVOTATAMIOI SS¥D0Rd
D OUI OMS 6 UTTY OUT IT 9101109 ‘où 1 OSIR b 1ONbTT yoRTG JT 1980 ‘d109q7
Of y-¥ 1140
BUTAQNIdg o748ne) (y (9d 900480077 (7
LOVCTC2Y1 1840] Worydsosqy oyyene) (¢ Buy41Q herds off (I :89p07 [013009 # De titel I SOO6LET ; 840017 10[e4 19440; 1 DLEBPLL t GAZLSIZE 2 0869619) | 9390porg ‘U37) y “waqD; à ] 2805S I 216119 ] S292) ] GEGECEZ Oo: 840Npodg ITT] eyee-UoR, : ‘ | Juoud{nbg wopyeylodeael]} CTSb20T I POLSLLT = Scooztt =o peTpel2 =o ILIS19Y ; UELUETU BLEC"E TIY6L0€ € 0966 € CS88LG Z BOOTHE? OT] 0608991 2 00S0I2, =F O00K0L | 9Y90p014 pat] y ¥ Jedeg; 9029881 J 902»881 : 9971390pu] 2113191; 118622 I ZL8S22 Oo: 2Ët1949% % PO0j; LOZ96TL à z 1029611 ! 918199 41eu11q! 1 430) “do | po) FL po) St po) vt apo) Ct apo) A} po) Listes £14 90p0] : 18101 : 101400) 999201] [0110 992901] [013009 6599901] [013009 992901] [013009 992901] 1013009 9929014 | ;
99990014 -: ($) S1S09 SHILVEHdO 9PZB0L0Cd 1840] 1 L12690€ \ ] L12697€ : 9dn01) lof ey 19430, i LS02069¢2 : (A 82628926 © RZ1b222bT 1 © 8900P0Tg HAG) F HAY), 1 10919927 à J 06HZ0ST =I ZLS8812 =I S9CLL8St ] O8IC608 =: 220p01J 2FITRY2N-U0ÿ; ; ; | queudinbg uoyv310d90e1]; 1 Stvesslb i J gisth2g TI SEOSTY I 968819IT =I ICGI8ZIZ : BUpYROP QRZ 13h; à bTZO0L0TT | Û yyo99S € BCESTRT 2 86661069 T 69029 = 2 80861012 =F 008H9EZT à 9Y90p014 PaTTTY à 19484; 1 +6)0908 \ I 360809 : 9971480p0] 91F419]; 1 160) ' i ISO : 98019494 ÿ poo), 1 90)'de) 2p0) ot 2p0) PL apo) vs po) tt po) A # °p0) lf © MasnpaTs
[RYO] [014U0} 9939019 01400) 992001] 101300) 9990027 — J0IYWO) 9990019 [O1YU0) 9990019 101300) 8920014
899990014 -: ($) S1S09 TWLId¥)
(HV OL 2°b°b-¥ SHIGVL WI 04117 SV) SUIDGLVEIS 108LH0D IV dO AAVANOS -: 9929014 102400) SWVIGLS SSHOOHd 404 SLSOD ROTLINGHE 20S
Ty o-¥ 36
LLLIS6E2 -:1810] 5006261
TRyay Laveqay!
8 glelb2 | sdno19 10[ey 19949)! Ll gl | SYONPOI] “wayg p ‘aq AUTRES 2 IS 2 98600€ L 619909 18199 | 93onpo1g op] e4au-nog! + quoad{uby} uor}ey10daue1]! SIGN à b gpéci € specie à S9LTE UT I9S6l) BUyyRoqaqeg [uyop 8808981 ! h 6 1] L 018997 > 91 | SYONPOIJ payTTY y aadeg! 902+881 = ? GIZ! 99113900] 217422]! una I zueszz 98018499 9 pooj!
3991006 ge gaoIn0g gg Ssaoimos te $99IN0S th 9991006 21 8291006 It
' (1y9npu] 1810] À f 9990024 t 9920014 ¢ 9890014 t 999901] t 899901] $ 989901
59999001 -: ($) S1S09 SUILVEIAO
82LLG LR 1810] TE ga just À ssobieliteiéire 10
9dnoly Jofeg 19430!
1 L12g92¢ H 8 2ST 80d ' LI gl i SY20pOIY ‘U2U) p “eqD! 1 0919922 1 a GYCTGL (A 9829601 2 6618922 = § 9€9879I i SY90PO1] 2FIRY28-00ÿ | à | WWaudyoby uoyey10d9uv1]! 1 BCdESSTD H } y680902 =f Selec 8 C9f2SeT 1 1210061 ' Bay YRopAgey [eyap; 1 $990929 1 } 6 I] L S6»168 } 9] 1 9490p0lg pat{Ty 9 Jadeg} 9690809 i î 1200 : 9971980pU] 91F419/; 1160} ' | T1900) | 22019494 y PO0j; H } ! OTR Livuyiq! ' ! !
80)'de) | 9201008 gg sa0inog ¢g sa01noc TL 9991106 te 9991006 Zf 9291006 If : £1yonpu] 1 |
1810] f 992901] f 552901} t 9999014 t 9999017 t 9990017 ' 9990014 eee = Te AR ENNE
999999014 -: ($) S4S00 TWLId¥)
oS © OU. ep tat
(1 3009) 83180 = AVGdS MRI] -: 9999014 101300) SWVHALS SSH08d 408 SLS0D HOTLIOIE 20S ee Pe ee ih
6088828911 10] i ————————————————————————— — | ' ' : 8 : sd0015 1ofeg 19949! + GLTPSBRL : LT $0968 ST $08NZ6Z Oo: 9Yo0poiy ‘wo | “WAND; ) ; (A t L $ i 9990p017 2F[1V98-00ÿ; ' | Juoudyobg uoyyey10daue1]' ' } £ 8 Il ' CLEO LB CEE ¥0S8190¢ } 6 Il BAL0ETZ LL } STIOI8T 81 | 9300polg pay{Ty à 1283; 2 vayayanpay 417112 I + 23819494 9 poo]! 1029611 } ZS066LT = CLÉ CIE ELL IEEE ————— eee CEE TE 1 490) "dQ | 999108 gg Sa91nog Gp saoamog jt 9991006 tt 9991006 tt 9991006 If ; (ayg0p0y TOC EC) CN t 9999014 t 992901] t 9999014 t 999901] î 992901] 1 9999017} i
9999290014 -: ($) S1S09 SHILVEAdO 62626062 -:1v40]
ce PT me ee ae ee ee il H Q 240019 1ofeg 19440! 1 LS0L069¢2 | LI 3866966 91 8006889 : 9490p01J “way B Haq); 10 1 Q (4 L § i YODPOT OFT RYAU-UOy | 10 H | Weudpnby vopyeyodgaely} 10 ' Ù 5 8 Il ' BOY AROIGRT [RR 1 P9LT6006 =: > 6 Il 8119129 LL } 2668926 91 i 9490p01J PaTIIN 9 Jaded; 0 ' Z i 9271390pU] 211419]; 10 \ I i 28v1949 y poo], i 801607 à } LIrcTS i RT) RE ELLE TE 1909 den | 9291nN0$ gg S221N06 cg sedans re 9921006 ts 3991006 tt 9921006 If : (2, a0pay! HACAUE UC) UNE t 9999014 t 999901] ¢ 9999014 t 999001] t 9990019 t 9920014 | ;
8999290014 -: ($) S1S09 IWLId¥)
à 51509 H01390088 20S
(28 2p0)) WOTAVZIMOHUTOSHC SVD 301d AROISHRIT -: 5920019 [01700) SRYAAIS 5512084
Cy b-¥ AIN
$18928 -‘1810]
| Sdn015 10[eÿ 1930! i 9490p01] ‘u2q) y “Waqy! 4 3490p014 OTT [Ryau-uop! 1 ywaudynby Uopzeylodguely! } € 8 IT ' BUYAROTIGR| Teyop!
991139Npu] a] {xa} 93819424 ÿ pooj!
918394 (ieut1]!
619928 } 0629 6 L1EY9 II L } 9] 9990p014 PaITIY 9 rede! }
480) “dQ; S304m0$ gg soomos Gp saoanos 7) 890IN0S te 9291006 ze 999IN0S It
0
'
'
| Lysnpu] |
# 992901] f 9599017 t 3990014 t 999901] t 999901] r 9990014 ! i
89899903] -:($) S1S09 SHILVEIdO 81€002 -:1840]
L Sdn015 1ofeg 19730!
i S400p017 ‘427 p ‘aq!
H 8490p013 Of] [eyee-uoR!
1 Woudyoby woyyez20dsueay!
} 6 8 Il ' BUPYROT AGRA [e39p;
} IT193T 6 HLEIST TI L } 9] | 9Y90P01] patT Ty 9 1odeq! 0 1
~ — o oc —
9971}90pU] 911319]! 2381949 ÿ poog! 918,94 (10u71]!
"À a
= ao — Le = oa Ns
9901006 gg S291N0S G# 9a1nog i 3991006 Ce 9291006 zt 8991006 It ! Lyonpur! ! ! 1
! ' Teyoy | f 392901] t 953901] t 9920014 t 9929014 i 9920017 t 9990014 ‘ SSS ee et ee
9999990014 -:($) $1500 TWLId¥)
(£# 2po)) NOIL48OSY ILSAV) -: 2929014 [o1yu0) SHVABLS 5512044 403 SAS) HOILONONE 20S
VYY-Y TI
00002 180] 940019 1ofep 1240! # 9190019 way) g ‘uaqo 93909014 91]18390-u0ÿ! uaud{nbg voFyey10daue1]! t BUY{ROFIGRT Tv36g! 9320p014 PaTTTP 9 1odeq! 341139npu] 917112]! 22419196 y pooj! 21894 Lieu]1]!
$1 000)
o ee = = = ~ ~ Le — al — — - © — —
990100$ = gf Saonog Gp saoanos it 9991006 th 9991006 Zt 9291006 If # 9929014 $ 359001] t 999901] t 9990017 t 999901] ! 9999014
Lyonpur!
999990017 -: ($) SISO) SHILFEIAO
0089EZT 1840] Le ee ee '
8 9d0019 10feg 12730!
LI 9] 4 5390p01J Haq) ‘H2q); 8490p014 OT[[R320-00ÿ! Juoud}nby uofyv310daue1] 1 UFAROTIQRE [Rp aR) 9490p014 PaTT TF dedeg} 99F148npU] 217319; 23019499 y poog!
81839 (1eu71]!
7 oc à AU ee a
} £ 8 IT i 1 9] 008211 1
4 — =
z
990IN0S = gg S20In0S Gp 322106 jt 3991006 ct 9291006 28 9921n06 It ayanpuy 3399014 t
' ' [ol ! f 9952001] f 952001] t 9890014 f 952001] $ 952201]
89999014 -: ($) SLS09 TWLId¥)
(r# 2p0)) JRIAGNEIS JILSOVD -: 8929014 [01,009 SRVIALS SSH908d HA S1S0 HOTLINGTA 20S
Sb y-¥ A1
LLOCOSHS 1810]
SC 9171 } T6re202 = gb 2°66S2b2 07 G'OITZEZ = ' adnoly 10fvp aa; 62906901 =} I 22 2966912 8I L'OSTESZ 2 ' 2490p014 Way) p “eaqy! B90C6SE = I S9226¢2 © aT 2268202 2 196122 i 3}20p0IY OF[TRyou-uoy! LSSBEDZ ; ¢ 2090162 € $°B69G12 € 9° £61602 1 Woedynby woyyeydodgueay! 8186869 =| ay LA t'ObLZSZ ob T'ÉTOIEZ = T ' BUFAROFAQRE Teyag! 826806 =| 9 G persee 6 L'E0L96Z ob 8° 900112 1 9490PO1g PayTTy 9 dedeg! 1 Te980e =} 01 9°912982 1 2°S98b22 ' S9F1Y9NPU 977310] TL6861S gl L'169€7 + L'SJCEEZ = | i 93819494 9 poy} 810399 Civuyi]! | 990) “dg 8991006 19439 Ba0an0g [809 © 9291N0$ TRNpIS2ÿ 9901006 9JRIFISIQ 5201006 ge) “yey | 10499 f149npuy! ' ! '
1810] f f t 8 t '
BIST FOE -: ($) S1SOD SHILVESAO
CICL622b1 1810]
CPE EL LICPE
42098) | S221n0S 13710 9494n0ç TF0) © 93010$ TROPEZ 9aoIN0g 2YUIITISIQ 9201008 9e) “yey | 103996 4139npu]!
1830] f t t S t ' ' Ne es
S19T FOG -: ($) S1SO9 TWLIdVI
1 CGCpesoy | } 166206 8} 80»686 02 622145 I ' gdn01) 10fep 12439; 1 ÉBGSLEOE : I (44 162618 8T 192989 (4 ' 97OnpOTg Way) ÿ ‘2; 1 LSEOO)8 = I 925825 A OSL185 (4 814604 i SOPOT OTTTRYIU-Uog; 1 021689 = € 526676 Ê O€YIT8 £ ZULSES 1 Juaud{nbg uopyeyiodsuei] 1 OPbL86LT | 21 v2 0C»199 } 192825 I ' BUY YROTIGRA TRp9q, a) ; 9 L9GLbIT 6 811689 } 9C6018 | 8}9nporg peryyy y zedeq! 1 9990618 = | Ol 261018 I 16926 \ 39F1390U] 2173121;
GIOCCGIT =| 81 62r6CS } 528666 I 2301949g 9 pooj;
(T8 ®P0D) SALHQ AVEdS BRIT - 2920024 Jozquo) SENTIO 107 S1SOD HOILIOONS 0S J'YD-V AN
TOS90TLEL 1830 RE, SR a, eee
{ S901n0S 19939 9221n00 120) 9291n06 JUNPIS2ÿ 9901006 2YRIITSIQ 9201006 925 “yey TRO) i} 8 t t 0)
—_—_—_—_—_—
103996 (1,9npu]
SIC102927 | } O° LOTe22E2 Bb S'892LL12 02 I H 940015 10[e7 124) 62169169 i | OM bSOLbZe 22 9 6099182 81 t ' 3390p014 “esq Ab 1921996 ; I O'TOCCZEZ ZI 0°S89C812 2 i 3990p013 OF] [Rpoe-Toy | ZI66LE8L =| £ O'YIGTICEZ € D'OGCET9Z € 1 Waudyoby uoyyvy1odauei]; pevyTOl9 =: 21 IA 18922612 Ÿ J ' CLEO ET UT RLECI'E SOLSLESST | 9 0° 9T689CC2 6 01085612 + | —- 940NPOIg Pay Ty 9 19484, 1 OGILEZ8Z : 01 02110782 1 ' 99F1}90p0] 217312; 12956006 =| 8] b°0600812 + ] ' 92019124 ¥ poo]; , 910399 £1eut1j! Ce '
siaTyog -: ($) SISO) SHILVEIdO CCT LPB LOY 1810,
1 08689C0SL | } 609CCCO8 6h 0228068 02 i H gdnoly 1ofeg 19430; 1 2269SPL02 à 1 £C90128 [AA 2260506 8I [A H 9390p014 “Hayy ÿ Haq); 1 PLO6SSLET | 1 22L¢9¢08 ZI 108668 2 i 9490p014 9F[18128-00ÿ; 1 9S11¢6992 | 9ggcesog € £50006 € 1 Uaudynby Wopyeylodsawly} 1 gpoegst2 à ZI 14 9090868 + i } BU YWOTIGRA [RIAP; 1 6EMCZ6696 | 9 61609108 6 3666668 ph H 99np014 PayT TY 9 Jaded; 1 06202806 | ol 6202806 ]! h 92f1490p0] 2174191; 1 CI6SSZI9T à: 8] 2998568 ph I H aBe1aaeg ÿ poo]; 4 i 1 STR pep (lee 17} 490) de) | S291n06 1aqyQ 3291006 180) 9991006 TRNPTSag 9291n06 9Y8[[FY91Q 2291006 sey “yey | 103996 41Y90p0]; 1 IRL ; t t $ ! t ' }
slatyog -: ($) $1900 IWLId¥O
(74 2p0)) MOILVZ190d70S90 S¥D 4014 IROLSIRIT -:2829017 701400) S431104 107 SiSO) HOILDOON 10S
Ly y-¥ IV
SOWTAVS S09 TH0d ALVOIGHT $1500 GALLON :HLON (+)
a] ey ag Aleetag!
480) “dg | geoanog 12430 9201006 TRO) S291n0S = |FRNPTI9Y S991n06 ayRTTT4BTq 9291006 sey “yey IRL | t 8 ! t $
¥L008128- 1870] tik AT OLA RS UE <n ie. Se 269CC6I- | } C10b2 8} WEITOT- 02 82681- I gdno1n 1ofey 1240; 1 GLIPOT9C- =| ] a LOCBEZ- A1 OL88TLT- 2 5990p01J Way) 7 Wag); 1 S2beLlI- ; ] CS1S6 (A 86€201- 2 10661€- 9490p01q 2FTTUY2u-U0Y; 1 OS6CS92- : € 6102» £ 269€€Z- =e TTTL07- 1 yuaudTnby WoT yeyJodguedy| 1 2688609- | 21 02 CZCObT- à 11289 TT BUFAOTIQUE 1249p, i IS6OEE8- à 9 Cr92C9 6 9€09S1- ph 221 8892- i BYONPOIg PaTTTV 9 1edvq; 1 6OBGIZE- Ol 8STI817- I OC98Eb- \ 9971350pu] ITP 4Xa] L86186+- 8] 99508- } Ov0eel- TI 2019494 9 poo],
101926 (190pu]!
229rhC9 1840]
i FO9L661 ' } $9062 8} C1192 02 667€ J ' sdno1n 10[8p 19440; 1 69668CT | (44 TETLZ 8] 1900) (4 \ 9420p01q #24) F UG), 1 G09T6E 1 I T9952 al 68167 (4 y9C82 BYOUPOIY IF TTRPIU-TOR, 1 95012 i € 60812 ¢ +807 Û 619€ i Yueudpnbg op yeyrodgaesy; 1 L6SLSL 1 2] ¥2 19192 } ence I BuFAROTIQUE TRI, 1 618269 9 18062 6 91092 } 8060S \ 9490p014 PaTTTP ? Jadtq; i O€6b0E ol 92512 I 66967 \ 99F1Y80pu] ST: 1 616065 81 16662 U 09se¢ I | 93819494 POOj; i i | ST ROR LIeUT Ig, i ' i \ E 190) den | S9291n08 12340 9291006 80) 9991n0$ JENpIS2ÿ 8991006 97R][1491Q 9201006 97 “yey | 101996 41, 9npuy} be LUI f f t $ t i
Jato" -: ($) SES0 IWLIdV)
(S# 2p09) S¥D TWHOLYR OL HONVED 80g - 592001d 101700) S437104 107 S1S09 HOILINONE 0S
er e-v Wav)
46°97 Paaowad SUOTSSTMa 70S 1E10Y jo Y 00°OOT O°TEZ6LT -:9¥0yeayaa [eyo]
Mie PaT[O14WOS SUOTSSTRS 706 07 Jo x 9°) OLS
14692 J'6IST = 6228 01296 ChECEZCL LLGCASHS ZICL622h
adnoiy 10feg 12430!
gyonporg Way) ÿ ‘u2q)! 9Y20p014 2F118Y28-u0ÿ!
146 SL =k 8619 LPSC O0 8 D'68Z) SI 11186622 LIC9IZLT CSCHC60p 1X8 € L'909 S'BCTHZ 400 68 EG SI LZbbSbI 62906901 CBBSLCOC 18 € S°8€09 = BALL 00 68 SIG SI 66+L69+ 690C6SC BSCOUpB SPS) S'2GIZ O'ZZST 00 68 «9 BLT SI PLSbHEE OLGGBCHZ «= OZ T B89
in 9L°S C000) iML'OT 91962 2°2STE O0 68 SOLE SI G696E6 8186869 JhpLBGLT |
€g'€h GOT | C21 869606 : LL'8T C'R0C6I SZ I'SELT 5 100 O'S Juswdyubg uoyyey1odoue1], LO'EZ O'ST9LT ; EST 6'H98II AuTROTIQRE TRIARy
i
!
1
'
\
i 60 ee |) ; ! 1 ‘ ' + SLOT O°STRHT à SL'ST T'IOZ9T à 949004 payT Ty à 19484;
LOG C'CL09€
1XC 8€ 6'6p9 6 9L9SIT X00 68 S'LELET SI YCC68SL L2680)S = BPE HOSIT ixS'Cl OG'IPLT 992 00 8 S'I062 SI 66662) ICS280€ 9950616 14669 Z'8S6L = OSB XO0 68 S'O00 61 0681919 IL68GIS GIOCCEIT
08€ $062 9971490p0] 2114191; OPT O'L901 1 HOO) = eS 10°06 Teel = $ 60201
— ee
yyy Upo$ poaouag yx A JJÿ PaITO1YUO0 a31] up$ upo$ upos 1810 912170g ; TROL SuOF9sFeg, {1390p0] IIN1940 20004/490) SUUOL [0100] SaUU0] JUEIZ TeNUUy Sutelodg ex{dey Jo Y vol JO xy 922001]
CC Sy aBeleaeg y pooj!
a] ejay dieu1]!
(985 [elnyeg JO 24901014) : (11/9auu0y)auots8tey aptxotg angdyos}
(Up)) L6BIS :23905 1017009
(14 2p0)) 43180 AVEdS AIT -:POUYER 101700) 5831108 107 SISOD ‘VAONSE 3011010 #08410$
VS°b-¥ W100)
19°92 ~ Pesouat — guoysatea 706 [e204 Jo y 00°00T O'TEZGLT -:suoyuoque exo]
1¥6°$2 ~ PATT014U0d suotsstee 299 [e404 Jo 1
9°) 1 OLS ' STVLOL 1181940 Jo 4;
'CGr9r S961ST6SOT OOS90TLEL goncoseDDz!! 00°001
14992 £°000b2 = L OCT T9509) + 00°001 6‘+19201 | S1V101;
adnory Jofeg 12710! Syonporg “way) | “waqy!
L'19 C'ZL866 = -L’asze 100 66 «BLE = GTS aT ganze ITÉTOZ9Z2 0868902 1) 94°S C'oovp
il 6€°0 C'ror 1X1 82 2°0SLb =O" LGBT 20066 L'ECSOZ OST wb T 9926 SCT69IS9 BHOTITGO2 $1 C9 Ch Borger 11
LOSE = fg Loge
‘ !
! '
! 0 12°? 08096 O'Cr8 %00 6 ob gg ST BOBSELTS = 19220995 HL86SOL8I ET 69°66} LOT C'eo6r ! 9490p0Ig OTT Tey aa-Uoy} IMS GHZBbL O'OZSI X00°S6 O0'009 += ST._—SsLogeeuert CIBSLEBL 9STTe6892 +; Sez T'S6LI : 100 + 1Woudyoby uo7ey10doue1] ! iMCIT Z'95902 gaze 40066 O'HOSE ST 161906 WEPPTOLS 9H60C9STZ :! LO CZ O'sTgLT | CST G'hg8IT | BUTAROTIQR [ey ap} 11960 G'9SL6T 6'CEIZI x00°G6 S'ZLIUT ST 02121662 Sousucsgr 0DDE2SS9S 55 SL'BT O'SICHT ! SL°6I V'TOZST : 99npozg party Ty y 1odu! iXZ'LE I'I9hT = 912 X00 "66 L'2882 ST I691110h OZTLEZ8Z OSb22006 1) OBS S'co6e ! EC ee) ; SFI90pUT 217310]; 14896 l'9LC80 L'908 100 66 Z'6h8 ST 19596212 22966006 21662191 !! ovr O'LSOT + pC'O g'ese ! 2019494 p pO0j; 100 L'6 1 IST S'602bI Qi LE" oe
11 ! !
{1yo0pu]
140) 9191709 | 810] suopospug
(yy UPJ$ = paaowag y 4.339 payporyuoo 2717 upo$ upo$ up) i
JOY TROL | Joy s2001] ! 1
1181940 90004/390) sauuoy Joluo) gauu0y yueTq Tenuay SuTye1ad) feypde)
(98) Teinyeÿ Jo oapontoxg) (14/99000}) 900} 997 ay 2pPFX07Q snqdyos
' 11 ' ‘1 ' ‘1 ' 1 ! ‘1 ' 11 ! 11 ' ! 11 '
(UP) L86T$ #33909 yoI4u09
(Z $ 2p0)) NOTLNSIEORATOSA S¥D HOT BNO1SANIT -:Poqyag ToryU0y SHH1108 107 $150) VARIE HOIIOIG 808410S
D'S'b-V AIG
STVLOL 1181940 Jo y,
S1¥L01;
f gdnoly 1ofey 19449! 1 830Dp01g “Wagy ÿ #29); | 890p01] 9F[[R398-00f! jYuoudyobg uoyyey10dauv1]! ' A0FAROTIQRE [Rp ap, 1 9390019 pay Ty à Jaded; 99f1420pu] 211419]; 22019494 Y p00j!
918399 dieut1q!
191€ - P9AOKGI SUOTSSTMa 206 [8407 JO x 00°00] O'ICZ6LI -:9¥oyeaqus [Ryo] isl Te ~ PaT[OI4UOD SuoTssTMs 720$ 18404 Jo x 11 9'2) 1 OLS ix9'Te TStht- f° b8995 0° 19195 COMSHETS- HSGBLTZO- ZZ9vbL9 +; OO O0T 1°9SC9L | 00°001 6°bL9Z01 142 68 = L'IGhb- L'hOZr XOG 66 O'682 SI T62bL06T- DZ69CCGT- HO9LEBT 1) 9L°S C'O0b | GeO Crop ‘X60 =O 69ZT- 6'69C87 106 66 =e RELRe SI OLPIOO9E- bLIRT9C- B966RCT 1) C9 ER Gioleee | Lose eveLoge EC V'E88T- C'HIG X06 66 2'S16 sl GEGIZLI- SZbCLLI- BOSTGE i, C2 T 966 =f LL'OU C'80C6I 1466 D'EghI- S'OBLI 06 66 9'O6LT SI L8LL19Z- OS6ES92- 950522 1) SC TS6LT 100 ps 14920 f° BT9T- B'HOLE O6 66 S'8O SI 6226666- CCAB6O9- LESLSL 1 LO'CZ O'STSLT | EST 6 h98IT 1406) =O T09- B'EZLET 406 66 S'LCLET SI PhLLb28- TGGOCCE- GLO2C9 ts SLOT O'SICRI à SL'ST L'I0Z91 16€ 8'960T- $8682 106 66 S'I062 SI BIZBLIE- GOCGIZE- OCDE 1 O'S SCO 1 cob Sse 1K) OL = 0° 90S- S'666 406 66 S'OD0 SI POLCOSH- BBGTAGD- GLOVES 11 OWT O'LJOT 1 PE O J'CSC 11100 L'6 1 18ST S'602)1 ‘1 0
[830] suo; ooq" J0 % 9990024
upo$ upo$s
is TRYOL 32121104 Buyyvlodp [uydu) !!
upos \ J0% = TROL |
yenay
paaowag x £.JJq P9TI01YU00 9771 99010] Yu]]
LS upos [T¥I9AN 30004/490) 93000] 7014004
(985 Jeinyeÿ JO 2419019175) (14/aouuoy)auoyaaquÿ eppxoqq 104d[0s
(UPD) L861$ +9490) 01700)
1y8npu]
($ # 9P0D) S¥D IVEOLYN OL HOLINS T¥Od -:Poqyey 101400) S411104 107 S1509 ‘IVAORIE 1011010
C'S'h-V 114V1
4084705
10°Ce ~ Pedowad SUOTSSTE9 7295 [e40% Jo x 00°00T O'TEZGLT -:9u07s9çu Te4o
148° 9¢ ~_P8TT01}U09 suorsstu 706 jeton Jo x 11 9°Ob 1 OF'LS STVLOL 1181940 Jo 4;
mm | 1
1XO'CE 9°866 2° 89166 L'60969 VASLTHSE SUL9HGEZ BZLLb2L8 |! 00°00T 1'9SE9L + 00°00 6°»L8201 ! 510101: !
1400 ST 91'S C'O0b ! 6£°0 [0 Sdn019 10f ep 19730! 39°02 T° LbT b°899T XO0 68 69526 61 562002 GSOOGLST 1126970 !! cg'cp G'OTCCE + 10'E C'CLOSC | oyonpozz ‘uoyn 9 HQ); 1108 ÿ'201 8'OT29T 400 68 S'ILO6T 61 BH2SBEIT PLbEbLL CO919922 !! CZ 9666 i LL'OT C'80C6T ! syonpozy 2FTTR9u-U04; 140 "0 00 ST 1 SZ T'SEL : 100 ps 1JU90dF0bg u07ye310doue1]! ‘M008 OS'EGST I'I206 00 68 OZ'HGSIT SI LOT6OLST TCISHZOT 8CH6SSIh ti LOC? O'STOLT 1 OSIT 6°49RTT | BUTAROTIQUE Teyapi 1492) 0202 L°T962T %00°S8 O'6hZST 61 9HSE897 —BROL98T 99H79 !! reer O'SICHI 1 SL'ST T'T0Z97 ! 8y9npoag pay 9 dedeg; STG 2° GUL C°9BLE X00°S8 Sp I 6199362 90ZH88T 60908 |! 08€ S'co6z | cob Shhh S9T19npu] 97] 4xa]} 1 1 GSHIT OZ %x00 68 gee ST BOLENZ = 210522 OISObb OS} OFT 01901 ! LR ET PS 92019494 9 po0j; i i 100 L6 18°C S'602p STR Yay ili ‘ '
18101 9191109 | [R40] suofssqey! (ay 9npu]
Ayy Up)$ = paaowag x 433g payporquoo aj1q upat ups upg i J0% «TROY | Joy 920017
0
'
1
t1Te1949 2000/1909 auto] ToIyu0) gauu0, yueTg envoy Huyyeladg juypde) ! (98) TRinyeg Jo aatonqory) ! ! (14/9auu0y)auorsoqeg apzxoyq angdqns!
(Up9) L861$ :2309 ozyuo)
(T # 9P0)) BH18d VAS RIT Poyzag To1yu0) SWVHBIS SSHI08d 107 S150) IVAORHE HOIIOIO 08410S
eS °b-¥ NIV
19°0¢ - Padouad SUOFISTES JaTTog 18107 Jo À 00°001 O'IEZGLT -:900qs9;"a [R30]
12 2€ ~ PaTTO1YU09 SUOTSSTAR Jat Tog 1307 Jo x 11 J'2h 1 OLS \ 519404 1181940 Jo y;
149 0€ S'2262 L'6LLS 8 29916 9265600917 6888289711 92626062L:: 00 001 T°9SC9L | OO O0T 6'hLGZON | 519101; |
sdnoay 1ofeg 12930!
’ 91S C'O0vr : C90)
AN GP L'hIZE T'ENZHE X00 66 L'ISOS GI CHZTOTOTT 8LIbG68Z 9S0L069CZ1; C9 CP 6'OILEC “Ge C'ELO9C 9420p01J “Haq 4 HU); CGT 9'606 “Ol C'80C6I 9920p014 9FTI8Y98-004; SC’? l'S6LI : Ss quoudtobg vopyeylodguel)!
6 P98TT BOYAROTIGRT TRAP,
LO°€2 = O°ST9LI \ 10297 5 8300podg paFTIP à dedeg;
WC? = GLH09 S'ICOL XO0 6 J'IObL SI 8OCCZSZh bOGRL90E 9116006 1! SL'8T =O STENT 11 i
.
Dr er © oor wom OO! © — —
—
EPL 9F180p0] 011310]; g'ese 28819494 9 pooj! 60201 CL C'EECLLIE TE
08€ $ £062 OT = 0°L90T 100 L'6
A M CON CD tt oO
366 SC O'66HET X00 S6 OS '6OZRT SI YLYILhL 1079611 802607
mm me me me ee em
[RYO] 919110 | [RIO] suoyssqug! fiyanpay!
oe 8) Upy$ = paaowag x A FI payporyuod aytq = upyg upo$ up2$ i JO Y eyo, ! Joy 9920017
TIR1940 904/490) SAUUOL [019009 SaUUOL yueTY OJenuuy Sulyelodp Jjeytde)
(985 Jeinyeg JO 24191074)
(up) LBBI$ +9390) [013009 (14/99000})900T99Tag 2PIX0FQ angdyns
(28 2p0)) Dd ANOLSHAIT POYIW 101700) SRY34IS SSH)084 107 S1S09 TWAOMT 011010 308d10$
S'S'r-V 310
10°) - padowal suotsstua Jaq tog [2403 70 x 00°001 O°TC26L1 -:900yasqua {Ryo}
x} = PATT01NU09 suotSS TRS 121104 18409 Jo x g'a
1 OWLS i STVLOL T1#1940 Jo 4;
S2BTZbe = ST B2EGT
1409 619) O°T0TL L’vLbl PS6LSCHT 11 00°00T 1°9S091 | 00°00T 6'HLBZOT ! S1¥L0L:
gdn01n 1ofep 23910!
Te) C'O0b à CO Co : ' in C9°CH G'OICEC | LOSE C'CLOSE | syonpoag “way 9 HY); 1 CT «9666 | LL'8T C'SOCGT | syoupouy 21T18428-00f; i nn SC D'SGLT 5 100 ps |Waudtnby Woy 4ey10dsued] | ' in LOC? O'STSLT StS TT 6 pgeTT ! BUTAROTIQRI ep; 1€ 618) O'TOTL 00 66 Lb, SI BUATUHE = GTBZEST HAGLACHT si SL'8T O'SICDT $ SL'ST T'I0291 | syonpouy POTTTY 9 Jaded; i in 08" S'EO6Z à CC Sr ! 39T180pU] 217410]; ' 11 OT O'LJOT HO ese 9301942 9 poo}; 11100 L'6 1 IST S'602H ; 0 LE C7 REC) 67 ‘1 1 ' !
11 0 1
830] 9121104 ! [40] 9u0/98]
I ' 1 yonpu] J0% TRIO) | Joy 992001] H
ITR1940 907/490) SaUUOJ [O13U0) sao] jUe]J [entuy Autye1od) [Ryde
(929 [einyeg Jo 94F20[01ÿ) H
(UP)) L861$ +9390) 014009 (14/990004) uo; oo, ag apyxoyg Ingdyas
i i i 4,773 UpJ$ = paaowag x 4 JJH payToryuos 937] upaf upo$ upo$ EM psa eR OP TLONT ARNAQUE Fc
(y 3 € # 99p0)) DNIGANADS LIK pOYIAR 10100) SMVHHLS SSHIOKd 107 S1S09 IVAONIE BOIIOIO HONd10S
9°S'h-V 31002
g 10ye1aupou]! 80011 10fry 1390!
T efeioys “4aq ¢ S19)2f Z PIOY OUR OT 1098) 7 YORI) “4R) 07 "98 9990024; syonporg “wayyy ‘ua!
BUPUT}AG TRS 2 ye UdSP/BBy Z 49074 yuaKad | “poud Qhd 6 =U Y quon) g JUS NRT) 2 4Ryp ‘A g9eT! —syoupory oFTTeyaE-uog!
| Waudynby u0]30310d2ue1]
ç se3 4g | 3189 uadg ] poid ‘laquis ¢ 480) ue) g U940 9409 } 92 0)! BUY ZR IGe, [Ry 9p!
OT 28] Jog 1240924 D] UIT] eq]; syonpozy Pat If à radeg!
I Pro Opdypy! 3713000] 211312];
30739014 9 12qq04!
1 CLIN 7ELE D VACERVELEE aBelaaag 9 pooj}
et UR et
1006 it 8921n06 ot 8991n06 ct $90IN0S bt 999IN0S tt §901N0S it 8291n06 If . 41yzanpay} 5 999001] t 9929014 t 8920017 ft 9999014 n 9920014 t 9920017 t 9929017 !
S39800$ SSHI08d TON 808 HOTLVIIAIINICI
0'J'H-V F002
112668- : 1890]
NN- |
q 8r9L1- i Sdnol) 1ofen 1240!
IeSe- I i 69€62- € (4 01 (A 07 i 9yonpozg it i ul
120268- (4 6»669- 2 I 6 9 t +69661»- | 9190p014 OTT [Ry aa-Toy}
| Woudynby woFyv110d9uv1]!
Li ç I I Sb0IS- ç 8 26Sb2- } H BUFAVOTIQRE [eyap!
ol 01 1 9400p01g PAFTIY y 1odeq!
: I 1 99F199npUI 277310];
H 99F4381q y Jaqqng;
SyI- I ] CCShI- ' 93019494 ÿ po}
1 WML Sn | '
94904 } 98dIN0S it 8991n06 oF 3991n06 CE 3391006 et 9901N0g tf 9901n0S tt 9201006 It ! 41y30puy! PSC OT 4! t 999001] t 9999014 t 893901, Î 899901] t 9999014 f 999001] t 999001] !
SASSHIOU -: ($) SLSOD OWT L¥aadO
19687 : [RYO] A ig
8 ogguez | 20019 10feÿ 1310; 81 ' I YOO8T € i OT 7 07 i 84npodg “wagD p “waqy! 109 JU z ICO 2 1 6 ÿ 2 bLECGZ =| BY ONpoAg OTT TRyau-voQ! ' 0 | audynby woryeytodguezy! 262 ' ç I I 09084 ç 8 66»0€ } 5 AUTALOTIQRE [e32p; ' OT 01 | 9300p01g PATTIY à Jadeg} I 93F1}20p0] 211412! 9019014 1qqnp! Li ' I I 8801 H 92019499 9 poo ie (= ft 2 ft a, f kt — MZ: qe aa 7 op, os 8390) | S991N0$ Jp 9201008 = sgg=—sBaDINOS G# 9201009 bf 9a2nos £t sa0anog Z# 9901m06 len fay9npoy! 8) ‘10] ! # 992901] ¢ 992201] $ 99201] + 999001] t 9990014 t 999001] r 9990014 ! À NS, 7 ANT 0 ent sale
SASSHIO8 -: ($) SLSO 1WLIdVI ATW 92991 07 -:] g 9929014 [013009 SHSSH008d 107 S1S09 WO1LI00R8 XON ;
Vlo-¥ 318
iSSPILZ : [RYO]
ae : 8 0066 ' adnoly 10f ey 19440} À ' LT £ 2 01 t 07 ï 220p017 ‘M9 B 20); 1220 1 z AS 1) 2 I 6 9 z LLYY6IT =| 9190p014 21[V398-00ÿ; } ! qUaudynby woyyezsodouel! seer § I 1 chest = G 8 69061 0 MYAUITIQR [RBI OT 01 1 990p01J pay{ Ty ÿ 19484; ' 9911490p0] 2173121; 29f49014 ? 22qq04! 62) I I 062) i 92813498 % O04; 9490) ! 920108 4g S201n0$ gg saoinog cg 8291006 ÿf Sa91nos te 9291006 Zf 5221006 If cysopu]! S4SS29084 -: ($) S1S09 9NILFAGd0 599912 : 1810] 129€ H g cocsh : gdno1n 1ofeg 19430! 1012 H ] O8IETZ € ( OT t 07 1 9490p01J Way) FUNG, SCT 1 z COLIS 2 I 6 9 1 yerszh | Byanporg O77] eya"-Uoy; 1 | quaudynbg uo1yr110d9ue1]; 578 H ç ] I 62996 ç 8 29109 } H BUFYROTIQRE 1k39R; \ 01 01 1 9390p014 PaTIIF 9 12487, ' I H 9971490p0] 211319]; ' H 99719819 à 249909; 8961 \ I I 16861 : 91v1949g DO0j; \ H 9490) 9291008 = jg 929N0$ gp 9201008 Gf SANS pt 9201006 Cf 9221006 Zt 9221006 (0! kayenpay! dey yo) ! 992901] $ 999901] $ 992001J + 9999024 t 999001] t 999001] t 992001] !
SaSS4)08 -: ($) S1S09 IWLId¥9 uoyyenquo) pageys -:Z # WOTyd) 101400) SaSS3908d 107 SSO) MOTLINGIY TON
CL bY JAN
T929L11¢ : 1840]
GSC2IL Q 44068 ' adnoiy 1ofep 1710! 86C9»0L I 61406 € 6L)26> Z 916812 01 11129 (A 812091 02 TSSObT =|, 849Nporg ‘og y ‘way! 9116688 I 698967 2 LUCE8 2 9898 1 B2LLESe 6 9898 9 999092 [A 126808 à‘ 9Y90po13 TTT Ryau-coy! 1 Waadtnby wotyvy1odguei]' CCOC9ps ç PILE =| 9T0L8b I 66612 ç 55612 8 O62bST } Ee) Bay ywopageg [exap! 919218 ûl 55612 01 HILYES =|: 84ONPOIY payT Ty y sadeg! 1 L668b1 I 1668) | 99F1}90pU] 2114x2] 99143814 BP aqqng,
999102 I Z6YLI I LICE v301949 y PO0;,
' ' ' 1 1 i ! ‘ ! ' | ' 1 ‘ i D —"——— "à ees 2 reo | ‘ ' ' i ' ! 1 ' ' ' '
94.90)
9991006 = Jp 9921008 = gg Saag Gf 9291n06 yf —- 9a9IN0g te 9991006 tt 5201006 It # 999901] g 999001 y 383001 t 9999014 t 9999014 t 9999014 t 9999014
kaygenpuy
ASSH00dd -: ($) $4809 JHILVHTAO
SLTGLETRT : e10] i
9390) 9901006 jf 9991006 = gg 3201000 Gt 9291n06 pf 9201006 ft 3991006 Zf 9201n0ç It (ayanpay!
{ 1 “dey 30] | 992001] $g 632901] + 9999014 t 999901] t 9990014 ' 9929017 t 9990014 I a ee SS EEE Ee ee ee eee
S¥SSdo0dd -: ($) S1S09 1VL14N9
1 BI bHZE | 8 GISSO Sy 540015 1of eg 19440; i 8196802€ à 1 916822 € L8L2¥22 © GLHOLET O1 668282 Z C8608»€ 0 180009 © 9Y90p014 “way) p ‘w2q)| i JLTLZEO) à ] 28L6911 2 6690027 2 18666€ 1 COOITIST 6 18666€ 9 COCHSIT Z 060C89€ =; SY2npO1Z OTT TRyaU-coy} : ' 1 Woudtnby voyyeylodsuray! i 180618b2 | ç 2868)! I 1162122 oT CLOnS2T = § GOTELZT 8 069201 } 18626 ; BUTAROTIQRE [RYOR, 1 CBDIBGE = | Ol BOICLZT 01 SLE8OLZ «= « 94ONpOIg payy TF y radeg; 1 SPS8L9 ' I SbS819 991Y9npU] 2112]! 90149014 9 2204! H ; 22019499 pooj!
121846 1 D lost ! a — ee
dOF}20pag OFAATRAR)-Toy 94F42219S -:£f U0TYdQ [017009 SASSHIOEd 107 S1S09 MOILIOGH 10H
CL b-¥ 9100)
O9L02dLd- ‘ [80]
[a 1 SESENS- : 1 9192- o100y- LI 996922- de AUS 90019 10fe 1310! | 9Z4896L1- 1 § SOIL6- 91 8p0616- ZE 1 $90G2- | SAONpOIZ “way) | ‘aq, el gye- ] 691 - tggbe- | IGN 9 1 LAZEZSB- 1 SYOnpO1J ITT eA aE-UOg MNIOGSEZ- à t 60582- Orgtol- € 910069- TT | Vaud}nby Uop4R4L0dgued | ‘ yyo0ezh- 1 I BOD LLI- S606ST- +h bL6bl2- 81 \ WBLLb2- Hoyyeoyaqeg 184 9y + 6CL2082- + LI 669€ 9 69L67- gocell- € 916969- 17 | 9390p024 payIIy ¥ 22487; QE : 96926- I #oyayanpoy 17416]; A a ZLeBST- 2 9O499RTd 9 14904; chee 1 2elth- ETOIST- 17 1 CESHT- : s181949€ 9 PO0j; ' Nf ee 1 82899901] | i + } 9291006 19430 S991n06 180) 3991006 J[ENPIS2H 8991006 9YRI[TYSTQ 2201N06 ge) “yey | 94909 ; 103996 {139np1]; 1 SAIT : ; ' ' s 1 9990014 ; OE) i: ae 2 ta | «à “Sa à oO sss, er 1 "d0 1240) | $831108
($) SAS09 9NIL440 9 HSCCCOOT + 140)
' i NT LIT A ee. I ge80Z ge gcg8l LI JOIE he ! 0821061 | sdn015 lof eg 13910! 1 6SA9ILT !S 02 18022 91 ACTE | pO08T ! SY90po1J “wagy ‘HU! ‘$0198, = tT pecez = 1 L g2ge1 1 09967 9 | 190109 ©! SYO0po1y 2F{IRY2u-uoÿ! 1 106987 | 5 2 geezz, £ 0509 II | quaudyoby uoryey1odaue1] | 1 6609287 !1 921616 91 6919 D yore I 1260767 | Huyyeoqageg [e399 1 QOIE)ST =F LT 66IEL 9 eA gpeez, € 99909 12 | 9490p01 PaTIIY à 12484! ANT TT L 99961 I Saf1390p0] af} 32a]; ACT | ogtze gel2 2 COTE EUTUTE 100806 1 v1 cosy = 908$ Le RUES 2H1A43G 4 O0! ‘ 9929999017 | ; : ; ! + ; 9901N0S 19440 89921n06 1809 8991006 TeNpts9g 8991006 9Y8[[1191{ 399106 Oe) “yep i 94909 ; 104995 Alyanpuy} 1 9121109 ; ! $ ! 8 1 9999014 | ' ARNO) of Tanto ne SZ "usm, Ce pete ta 5 virer, H H { ‘dep quo] | 5891108 |
($) susoo TWLIATI
1} 99991] 40] -:] g 9990029 [013009 SRVGGIS 119 20} SASOD HOI900HE X08
S'LY-V Favs
CLST6TPI + 10101 a NU eee eee ee nuls fin à ait
1C068SI ] AE gf Chl il L699 ve 1 00092 1 sdn01n 10(eÿ 12430! ESYC66b § 02 26992 gl 092812 = ae 1 Lol 1 99NPOIg “W9Q) BP “HaqD} 060662 Cheb) ] 6S12 L 9996 I GTO1? 9 | C6L6202 1 «= B4ONPOLY OTT RYo"-UOH, 692612 1 £ 19122 2 9S612 £ L10L61 Il 1 1 WaedTnby Woyyeyrodguer) | LS9S2¢1 iT 100€ gl SE gp } L¥98L 81 1 20W9T2 Oo: BUY {ROT IQR, [RyRy §S88661 LT 1099 g OL ç C6L2e € 686161 2 H 1 9400polg PaTII à radeg; 109201 ' L 9S9b1 I ' ‘ SaTIYINPU] 211412]! 1 £86221 1 1 ALT) J 09817 è 1 1 30F4314 F 19qqng; C£986L I ¥] 66611 } 609961 12 1 0625 i aBe1aaag 4 poog; 1 99999901] | ‘ 4 1 9991N0$ 124jQ 9291006 140) S9291n0G JRnpiS9ÿ 9921006 94RI[1Y91Q 3991006 sey “yey ! 9390) | 103996 £1ysnpu]! 1 S19/10f | 4 8 8 C t 1 9999029 ; ' i 120) ; H ' ' 1 “do 1810] | 5831108 ' i i
LL
($) $£s09 OUILV4440
EEE ae a ST SET RE De — 7-1 mes ||
gdnol 1ofeg 12040;
1 SbL2bT6 ' I $2107 ge 806122 il 991 13 1 b2pz9e à:
1 Cr00668 1 07 LOCYEC CA 029601 Ad 1 OBTCTZ 1 19001] ‘27) B “89ND; 1 S2pezte | 8209 = oT 7296¢ L 012827 I pee? 9 1 DLOCTOT 5: 949Np01g 2F[TUY28-u0ÿ; 1 281006 £ PCrc9 è G8p6IbE € COvLL Il H 1 Waudpnby wopyeylodsuray| 1 €1S2128 11 Gp600Z 9] 88166} } 829€ 81 1 bb) =} BUFYVOTIQUE TRAP, + LLLEZ0S LI S0£6»1 9 $699 ç LLGTLE £ Tell 12 ' } 9490p014 PATIIF Jedeg; 1 SP9LTST H L 999652 1 ' ' 39714900] a7] 4X]; 1 610669 5 I 108ee9 I 61662 2 H ' 99F42014 P 194qng, 1 TLOSSEE il tI BLIENZ } 6169 12 16eh6l : 2201949 ÿ Pood, 1 ' ' t | =! ———— | 9929999014 } ' | ' ‘ 4 ' 9291n06 12430 9291006 [RO 320100S [Unpl92f 9291006 AIYRT[TIITq 9201N0$ seh “yep; 9490) | 103996 419npu]! 1 919110 | t $ ! t t 1 9990017 | H agent 1 ma H H i 1 ‘dR) TRIO] | 6431108 H H i
See ee 7 à à 2 PR —
($) S1S09 TNLIAV) uoyysnquo) pageys -:7 g 2229019 101300) SMVEBLS TV 107 SISO) HOLLIE TON
J'L'Y-V 3180)
LS1C26C6 : [010] a,
490)
“dey 10101 S831104 ET —
($) SAS09 TFLI4N)
CR 1 900ty 9f YOCETZ il 92001 ve ISZZT =| 2982tL St sdnoiy 10[eÿ 12430! Cv20602 ç CSSSii 02 HOT gl SLb162 A T1Q181 os OLP9POL Oo: 9Y90p01Z “wayD gy #24)! 1 199s9s0r ! 1 g109. | bee COTES 1929.9 OICLET | S9zssee ! S1onpo1g o7TTe4aN-nog! UT t STIS8T 2 zene] € 161927 Il TT | | yaaudynby voy yequodgueay! C1CL0891 tl OCh6TY 91 828991 } 620021 fl C6CSET : 880€» Boyywoyaqeg [eyay) rete il 1»069T 9 985161 5 TU £ 925622 12 990961 1 P9LZbL8 Oo: 9Y90p014 payTTY à dedeg} ' ' L 12628 J CLLLL 1 666001 ' 9271950p0] 211319]; 699888 I 696092 ] 71698 ? 99H Oo; ' 89119814 y 19qqn4; YICr669 I 16612C ÿ] 19021 } GCC96T 12 62E9ST =; 899107 St aBR1aaag ÿ p00j; SU A 1 S| PME | ' 9299239014 | ‘ { 1 929108 12419 9291009 JO] GadINOG [RNPTSaY 9291008 2YRI[1181Q 9202008 ge “yey! 9490) | 103995 4180pu]! 1 9191108 | f i $ ! ! 1 999901] ; ' \ 350) H ; ' - 1 “dQ [RYO] | S831108 H H 1 ($) 0 8»9169»2h : 1840] + 69620869 : I 0S8S61 ge C6CTL6 LI 86961» LE chasgs à» OZIDPZE CS 240019 Jofeg 1270; 1 L00LZE66 : S 9LY661 02 L2es1s 9] L8CLZET ZE GL6LZ8 = | BL9GBOZE =; SY20POIZ M2) 4 “URGD; 1 $666689) : 1 NC86E = 99LLhT L 112282 I SBCLYE ÿ LIES29 =} QLTLZCOb : S390p01J 2TI[R328-00f; A à: £ CLSL¥8 t 619C66 £ 8Y61P0T IT 168009 : 1 Waudyoby uoFyey1odaue1]; 1 6901P69L : ET 8600161 9] $92998 } C86195 81 986919 = | L806L8)Z : HUY ROT IGRA 194; 1 20262088 à LI 6291S) 9 689218 ç £81999 £ 9LZSYOT 22 952069 à ChODISGE 9190p014 PaFIIP ? 12d87, 1 9829198 L 1S9LLE I Z81NSE » ShS819 st 99/1990p0] 211312]; 1 SII9PO) : ] 2299811 =I 99698¢ a p9z9ezT | H 99F48RTq ? 104008: i $2Locooe 1 9502691 }l OLI82e } 91168 12 Of6ITL LTLSY6 22v1940g 9 Pood 99999002] H ‘ + 1 9991009 13ÿ)9 9291n0$ RO) 999100$ JenpIS2H 9201008 BARTTTITq Seounog RD “yee; 9390) | 103229 41390pu]! { 9197 10g Sutil tens Ce “var Aho eee monte oatpopers seein ove “ge 992901] ' 1 H 1
WoPponpay OTyATRe)-Toy 24742919 -:£ g 5399019 [019009 SWV8LS 11¥ 10} SISOD HOILIOONS 108
L'LY-V Wav
LOTT S60¢e ‘ [80]
"QPUOSNE à I TLOIST 9e 600962 LT AUDE ae 29cS9h 5 900997 | adnoag 10feg 1210! aaa g 106269 02 90201) 9] 4 (41) Sr S¥6089 à GOL26C92 | Syonpouz ‘uay) CARLCL'HE ' 9996 I 111187 I gestel L 191202 1 169582 9 bLZbIS à LEOLGZOS =| syonpouy 2FTTRY28-00ÿ, PSTCOPTT € 290169 2 152885 € 126968 IT BTS6ZS | 1 Woudynby uoryey1odoue1] LCTO808 fl 629681 9] 186569 } C1905) 8] 6005 à: [8100861 | BOY WeOAGey v0p! 6CT92271 LI LSTQT9 9 YSGLTL g 6C29p6 c 859650 1? BSHSEL os OT9HhLZC | SYonposg part Ty y dadeg; 66hCZ0C l 68SOTE I 182162 : 060866 ' 9113800] 91} 4x9) | ! S19L2¢¢ ] Y066L6 I OS28Te g IC29TOT ; i OTIS BP 1aqqng; 60160192 I CSTGET }l 68692 } These 12 LOSS8S =} 096681 ' 9381949 pooj} RE renee } 92992901] | ; 4 1 9291006 12710 8391n06 180) S99100$ TENPIS9Z 9201006 ayeT{1491q 8991006 sey ‘eg ! 9490) } 107996 414 9npay} | 92110 ! + ' ' ' t | 999001 | | 1 90) enh se NÉ landes BE We Sn © Se To a ' ' ' ! ' ! !
SAVAULS T1¥ -: ($) SS09 OUILVHAO
CSLOLOSL8T : Tryo, FN it ah 6 SUR NN eme un + a & Bi VIRE ? à RNA
1 C2SSb9961 | 1 9¢8516 9¢ BSCLSET OUT 86 be C009H9Z = SETOLIST =| Sdno1y 10[eg 12430; 1 2BT99Leh : Ç ATOS 02 9090692 91 BEL669S ZE -- GOLTLEC 1 96C99005T- | 9y0nporg “wayy p “waqy! 1 LISZGH9TE 1 8685091 1 £86069 L 9866TET I Gp 9 DITH262 ©» 101951682 | — 940Npodg OTT] eya"-uog! 1 9681159 | Lepegee OZ 619112 € T1e218b II T6LoT0e =} 1 Waudpoby uoyyey10douv1] | 1 £9061¢C12 | EI CTOL9Y 91 LIgLsée ob 68»2962 81 9820002 ICLIH860 ; QUE LEO) EU UT LECT'E 1 SLCIGEIR : LI TSLb1S¢ 9 S66L0b S 9esolg € SC6189) 12 PHLIGTD «= 2281981 | S4onporg pat] Ty à 1odvq! i OOTITLT ; L 8166921 I 1629691 Os IZOELIC | 99F1490pU] spp yxay} 1 20602681 | 1 9688p66 = 8CS608T = 2 veorels =| i 3979014 9 19qq0g; 1 S6DSBOLET 1 I 802161 1 6SHEST + GLOTSTb 12 SCIG2CE 0282101 2201919q % po 1 1 ' ' ' ee ee re UE | 99992901] ! ' : + ! 9291006 12430 9221006 TRO) S20100S = FRNPyIay 9221006 a4RT]]49Tq 9201008 sey “yey! 9490) |! 103996 {1390pu]! 1 9121709 |g $ f $ § 1 9920017 | OO! 0 2 à ee 7 a aal i 1 de) Tk4O] | 5831108 i ' i
SHVALLS 118 -: ($) SASO TWLT AVI dOF49npag 2F4ÉTRYR) 24F400T9S -:} # 007140 101700) SRVAALS TV 107 S1S0) HOILO0OHE TON
BL b-¥ W100)
x80°9 :POAON1 SUOT99TWa [e40] Jo x 0°001 S'68SL ~:9U0}99]4g [R40]
146€ "0€ :PéTIO1AU02 SUOFSSTHS [240] Jo x 6°55 Vb STVLOL 1182340 Jo x! Tt SOS TrezAA0 Jo v iX1°9)LTT26- C'o86r L°1¥622 629922b- QboLbeCb- CLZ6SOOT 3: O0°00T v'691Z2b | O°'OOT T'ozece } 701! ff ' NC TT «=P TGOT- 8° CRD 02 8° 812 02 CTeS10s- SE9ZPPS- EZZLZIC 11 69 8 C'E99E » (OB T t'rc9 H sdn01 10feR 19440; 1306 S'690ZI- 6'BCT 0 Y'r6ll 02 8L6G9CLT- 92289611- 6SL9TLI nn 629€ S'ÉDEST à LOGE Z'EBZET | # 2Y9nPO1Z ‘#29 ÿ “Hayy! XCD 8'90012- 102% 07 L'OOIZ 02 9086288- 2Y18168- G0198L 11 ÊS'2 0°S90T =| 62 92 +'1918 H 9320p014 9T118y28-00ÿ; iX1 9 C'92281- 9'LI 07 6 LES 02 O1LS2e2- PIO6SEZ- 166982 11 86°F a 6602 : 0°0 1 Waudynby VoTyeylodguel)} XT) 9°»199- £°909 02 ¥°9200 02 9666C0b- 626162h- BL6ISOT in 92 02 S'ICZOT à» SL'CT 608$ 1s BUY ROT IGRy [RYAy) SOT 9'LLIZ- 8'COZT 02 1°6109 02 98%1292- 6£12082- SOIL eS] 11 0‘?! C'0266 à: ES'aI » 8066 + 9490p01J pay] Ty 9 Jedeg} INC OT L'II62- 9 12T 02 2°809 02 CBlese- 2120Le- LL69ET 11 29'T 8° 289 1 6] 1°L6) H 2F190pU] 97} 4x91} M211 L'8OI0I- «Teh 02 9°41? 02 988setp- 8682) 6rC66 11 66 0 6 68€ H 0°0 ! 99139814 ÿ 12Qq04, 1%0 8 Z'LLb8- PT 02 9021 02 SCLI221- 2E»98ZI- 008066 11 899 6 1182 Oo: 910 6°95 H 2201949 y poo]; EE ot osc peace A. AM En RC ri Nid dee 8 1% LJJH MUO] paaoway ÿ 4 JJH payporyuog 2711 “upg $ ‘up $ Up) $ os TRIOL S1aTJog | TROY Suoyasteg | {14 90pu] | 11181940 = /4909 Sauu0] 014004 gauu0] quel yenuay Buyye19d0 Teyydey fi Joy 18301 :; y 999901] ; : 1! (1ra4/]) guoysotea 2PI10 u28011f 4
“UPD L861$ 9190) 01700)
4IV SSHOXY 01 # Pop 101700) “S2509 ‘IWAOHHE FINO HIDOUIE
V'e'r-V Wav
191 21 ‘P9AOWOL SUOFSSTES XQ" Jo x
O°00T S'686L -*#007931u7 [30] 16008 ‘PeTT014U0D SUOFSSTES xON Jo y i 6°55 STVLO] T1R1940 70 ui XI G'6LIZ L'9LI6 L'1h622 €8140002 CLSTBIBT 920986 D'O0T = '69TZ) + ODOT §=sT'ozeee | s1¥u0 4922 28h S196 8'8Tr 02 $068592 1£0S96T SbL2v16 69°8 C'C99e 061 2° 4e9 sdn01) 1ofeg 13430!
XT'OT = 8°S802 8'1182 Ob bv6TL 02 9£42009 CS+C66 £b00658
98 ZOLHE kOe 10012 02 9965162 0606662 B2beZTe weet 69069 = 2552 0h 6109 02 SLSZLLT S926TL 2841006
679 S'COCST
0 i 19"6€ Z'ESZCI 1 05°2 0°S90T
62°92 =F T9L8
9700polg ‘#99 y “Haq! 8490p01 OFT [ey au-uoy!
86} & 6602 Auoud{nbg uoyyry1odouez]'
18 81601 J'OIZI 0 920€ 02 CHEL622 L69GZET C1$2128 92h S'ICZ0I SL'ET 6°096V BUFAVOTIQRE [RY0N, (T2 É‘SLOT 9'L0»2 0 1°6109 07 9468852 68866 LLLCZ0G VONT C'0266
1902 ODp'6621 «=f thet 2°809 02 8OTATE 109201 GbOLTOT 29°] 9°299 | 116) SOTIYS0PUT VTP AXA; O22 OO'NZEZ 298 0b 9°S12 02 929002 C8621 GTC6S9 26°0 6 See 9718014 9 Aeqqng; O°OT «=k Ieee Z'082 0 9°02) 02 LL ETA CC986L TLOSSBE 89°9 6° L182 91°0 2301949Q ¥ poo],
| TRIO] B1aT Tog | IU10L suoTooTag ! Aay90puy!
\ ! 0 ÉS'ST = BOSS à SYNPOIZ PaTIIY p 1odvq! ! |
SSS SS moe
5 LJJA UOL poaouy yg 4 yyy P9I101900) = ay Tq ‘up $ ‘upd $ “upd $ Te1949 /190) = SaUOY Jo1u0) = 9euuoL juey Tenuuy BUyyw1adg =] YT dw
“UPD 1861$ 93190) = [01 4U0g
(avot/]) guopsaque 2pT10 UaHo14 Ty
MOTLSOGWOD CHDVLS -:24 uoTydO jozquo) "5509 ‘IWAOWHE ACIYO HY08LIE
2°8°b-¥ F102
PRE *P9AON91 OUOPIITHS [RYO] Jo yx 0'O0T S'6861 -:900799F8j 130]
1416 26 ‘PaTT019009 GWOT SaTHS TRAOL Jo x 11 6°SS ' Vy S1¥L01 1181940 Jo x, ———— © © SO TTT Pr LE SS Dp'29SC p'J61) C'LL869 ZL68GEGDT LSICZSES Gb9169bZh 1, O'OOT F'69TZ) à O'OOT Tozeee | UT 148 9p D'ISYIT 02102 09 psc ST SbLOOTE? I8C6bPT S9620869 11 69°8 C'E99E 06°1 Z'¥e9 adno1) 10f ey 19430; MLS Z'INI2 S'62961 09 & 6»092 SI ELA PET DENZC6OZ © LOOLZES6 1 62 9€ S'COEST 186€ 2 Cg2ET 9190p01J “Way 9 HU); 10 NS O'SSIE C'COES 09 8° 8088 SI 989TC29T L9SS9SOT © S666689b 1 £5°2 0°S901 62°92 = 1918 9120p01q 9F[1R498-00ÿ;
14066 COREE C'6CZT 09 5 5907 SI +91C68) 9990908 DOZBCGET os 86 D 2° 6602 CLS G6'9JIE L'H8e 09 (a) SI LSb01892 CTELO89T 6901»69L 922 S'ICZOI
yUaudyoby uoyyey10daue1]! SL'ET 6086) ; QUE LETTRE CECI
1%0°66 S'I09h S'Jig 09 a) SI L6BEYOTE SLLLIFET 20262)88 VONT C'0766 €S'9T 8066 9490p014 PaTITY # Jaded; 169$ I'I261 = 8 TL9 09 L'ETIT sl 660621 662108 982919€ 131 8°789 a 1°16) 991490p0] 91] 479]; 140 09 L'HEIS S'IEZ 09 6 S8e $l L2v02¥1 699888 LIT9¥0¥ 26°0 6 See 99719814 9 19qq0g; 140 96 S'1669 L'LO9T 09 66192 $l 99529501 CTCH669 S2L0€00€ 89°9 6° L182 91°0 64S aFelaaeg y poo
me me we me mm ee
yA JJy Budo] = paaowagy ÿ {JJH PATI01400) 2711 up) $ up) $ up) $ f1y90pu]
111940 /3909 «= GMM] [o1yu0) Sa] == yueTY yenuuy guryelod) jeyide)
1810] 919109 | [RYO] SuoF9squy J0% [RYOY | JOYZ 992001 (1e9f/]) guoyaoqua apyxo u901[f
1 ' ' ' ' ' 1 i ' ' ' '‘
“UPD 861$ 93909 101900)
“POTLONGTE DILLIVAVO-HOR HATLOVTIS -:£ # YOTIdD 101400) “$4509 ‘IWAOWHE YOO BYDONLTE
C8 y-¥ SIGN
189°81 ‘PRAONII BU0TISTUS —XOK JO x 0°00T S'686L LL LES Le E LE UN
14069 D'OZLLT O0‘92€ Se 6° See $I 6916186 GT9L2e¢ 10602681 iMC°6L O'66HOT «9° L122 0 G°6192 $I LOGZET 2b 60L6OTHZ B6HSBOLET
39F4901q 9 19404;
16 0 6°68€ 00°0 2881949 y pooj!
0 89°9 6° L182 91°0 64S = "|
INY0L 9121109 ! [U30] suoTooTey ! Layonpu]!
“UPD L861$ 33309 [o1yu0y 11 (1894/]) 9u0Ta2qua pyro uaB013fN ess a "eee
“WOWLINGTE OTLATVLVD HAILONIAS -:} # UOTydp 101700) "S1S09 ‘WAORTE FXO HY908LIN
1416" 26 ‘PeTTO1{WOD SUOSSTU OR Jo y i 6°SS i Th ' S1V10J 1181940 Jo %, OL L'HL6 L'S6CES C'L1869 VEZSOGLIS IBTISGOE ESLOLOSLAT 1: O'OOT b'ESIZ ! ‘O0 = Tozeee i S1WL0L ' ix0°99 6 LOZTZ C'0682 6e reese’ ST 69»8Cp09 OPLHBG)E == CASGH99ET ts 69° 8 C'E99E à: 061 beg \ sdn01 10feÿ 19440; iXS°LL 2'SL09 @'IbI22 Sa 264092 SI CObHISHE BCSCL691 © 2BTP99LEH 1s 62 9€ S'ÉOCST à LOG Z'ERZET ! sYonpoy ‘un 9 HY), 14692 S'OSOET = O'CTSL Ge 8° 8088 $I GLICLZS 56929996 = LT9Z6O9TE 11 S°2 O°S90T + 62°92 = HT9LB =| BY OMpOI az TT Rya"-Uog! iM9°C8 T'OINIT L'SSLT Ge 56907 sl 0920002 WSTESDIT = SBLBLTS9 5 86D 26602 : | Waudyoby woyyeyrodgueay | iX1'T8 270669 O‘0Z021 68 1h) I GICZ20b8 LETOSO8 = C90BLEELZ 4 922 S'IEZOT ! SL'ET 6085 ! HUYAWOT AGRI [Rap 14908 OLBZET «91956 G8 A) See) | GSECO0L2T © GETGZLZL == ZLRLTSCTD $1 HORT C'0Z66 À EST be «=| oyonpoy POTTTY 9 Jedeg, 1408 J'ISSS l'ISS 68 L'6TII SI BEGCR2S 66ÿC20€ OOTTGTLT 1 29°T 8289 | hI 116) i 99F1390p0T af yxaL |
! ! i]
‘ '
' !
' '‘
$$$
TTel9ag /390) 9900] 0100) © SauNOY Juve] Tenuug BUTJUI9dD Juyfde) !
V'Or-V NIV
041 WO1J GuOTSotMs 2ugdqns 194814 AT AYRTTS UF 9Y[N921 4nq ¢ age 909194 (jf 01} GUOTS9TRs 900p91 QJ] 04 OA JO WOYSAeauod PaSUIIIU] :20ÿ à
00"00T 0'1C261 GUTTA; 106 TR30] + 9°02 1 0°ST 1 L'8T 1 Lal 19'S 1 9°S2 1 9°S2 9u0F991uÿ []R19AQ JO 4 1030] 9061 866 | 90ST G0'0- | 192 29 FLOAT = LO 000 666 1100 8662 s OOTLT 88 à: SUOTASFEZ [1V1940 Jo x 2°26692 2 S666 à 1°98692 6°08- à B'hILLZ 0°9900T: B'BOLZZ 92: DO B°BTOOT: 86 62 S°2vRSb: Z°S9bOe C'LLEST | 51910! 1 C°1C82 6909 + L°OC82 GB b- 1 9°2BC2 2 CTS à O'ZBEZ 18 00 POO | Te? PI: OSETe Bote à 940015 Jofeg 14440 à T'L90bT 9°F628 à G'CQODT T°L9- à O'BERTT C°CGER à B'HEBIT O'OTT: OO O'SICS à 86 SU O'BC9RZ: T°LLOST G°O9LZT ; SY20pO1Y “Way P MU) 16 Cth ZE OO L'ECL CO- 1H LI9 pee LHLt9 PO +00 ZE 1 BO CELE 1 C°82B OTS «| SY20POIQ OFT TeYou-Uog 117969 9921 | 6169 O'T- 1 S'L8S S'LZT à CLOS L'U 100 6921 : SS 0 9206 : 6 LBL L'h6T suoud{nbg uoyyey10dauei] 1 D 1082 G°SST à L°0082 C°I- | p'LGEZ 9°9GT à B°9GC2 12 à OO GS | OBT T'IODE à B'I9Te C'6EZ BUFANOTIQRI [V3 1 6°21S2 C°Sb9 | C'AIGZ Z'S- LL viz 669 à T'PTTZ 98 00 «B'9V9 1 OTS 6'OZ0C à 29082 1°266 à SYONPOIZ PAFIIN à 1948] M TONGS SCT À S'ESSZ T'O- i C'ONIZ OCT 1 BOT 20 à 00 «OCT 29 S'EO6Z à L'2002 ee : 99119n0p0] 214191 LOL SP TIT SREY BU fT BROT! Z'2TT 0 8100 Sethe PLAIT ONU LROTN 9" 668 PLT ft 2801919 ÿ poo] 100 ted 1 0°0 ree 1 00 t'9 100 Te doper STIR LÉ 0 18 H 910399 1eu11q H H ' H ' ' H ‘PI998 ‘1910 | PI298 ‘1310 ! "PIS98 ‘VAIO à ‘PISE STC à PIS9N “VTC à TROL 9121109: TRapyoagey | 497d; 1190p0] H g 998) 1 (+) ¢ 990) ; y 930) ' eae) ; 2 99%) | JOY I; 'QUOTYONPaY NOS {9UOTJONPaYy XOG ! AU0TAONPAY LOS |9UOTZoNPay OS AUOTYONPAE 106 ! 'guoyaotag 121104
' ' ! 1 ‘ ' ' '
SUOTI9T US ap{XOTp sngdy Ns
ee
NOIANSI80Bd10SAQ 190d LEBNIANE -: 9929014 [01yu0) (1804/1) SHOISSINY HINO 408410S
SROISSIRA 20S NO NOTAVSI808d10S10 110 TdOd LUSHIAÏE 40 SLORMT
6 b-¥ NN
' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 1 0 0 ! ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' 0 ' i] ' ' 1 ' ' ! ‘ ! 1 ' 1
9°02 VSI C° 81 90°ST 8656 90°ST +00 89°21 29'S
8°21 99°21
80°0
a]
00°0 65°S
L'ASLET 9° 8605 1 S°SCOST I°Sb à C'EBZLT 2°199L | 2 'LOTGT CHIT $ 00 o‘esot S1¥J01 EE 11350 TOT 6 SI 6 ES) aU
GS PPT TOOTS à CZ GLST SL'2 à Ch CTAT CL°99b : 22 002 Bug ! CO'SLIL 10 TCZ: La SNL Sh' LE: 88 6006 69 LSC9: 6L'LS66 bC'26 | SEHLE IG OT + bC'60P STO: PO OP I S2 | 6) 6IS Leo | 6096€ 9659 + LEGRE LS'O : TT Lb) 00 16 à: ST'b6b PT ! 16"82hT DC 6L à 25°29ST OL 0 à SZ HOLT 22 GTI + 20 CSG CLT | 281821 PT 62€ à 29 TObT 16°2 à 8h 6091 BS POH: 19 BLLT SIL | C8" 200 06 9 à O9'HZHT 900 + 98 GEST JC'OT + L6 LO8T STO | LL'vOd CB°9G 4 662 0S'O à CZ 8OS 6€ S8 à OL'I9S ZT | 000 22€ 000 €E00:000 cg» 00°0 10°0 “PES@G 391d à PISE 49Td à PISE ‘YSIQ : ‘PISSE ‘1910 |
ÿ 298) MG EE 29) i ¢ agen !
9430) 9380) | 3930) \ 93909 |
eee
ee ee
66°S8T QS feS7
60° 161 tly
ee ee 2 eee 4 — ~ =
Pysay ‘1910
Z ase’) 94.90%)
eee
MOTLVSTGOHd1NSHC 14
(L861 HG) ‘S2eTTOP 70 2000.)
Laan aya -
9929014 [013009
00"007 0'TCZGLT
00 BSS? OL 8958
BUOTIITET IOS [RIO]
ET VUOPRO TAY TIU1940 JO x TRO] 00°
1 SUOFSSTUÿ [[R1940 Jo y
1 0662 S'ZHBSp: 2°S9bOC C'LLEST |
' t 0 i] ' ! ' 1 ‘ ' i] ' ' ! ' ' ‘ ‘ ' ' 1 ’ !
ET Op'aClp à O'GETE 8° 9e6 86"ST O0'8C987: L'LLOST 6'O9LZI 6»0 C'6L9 s C828 OTS 60 9296 : G'LBL L'h6I 061 TOKE | Q'INIC C'6C2 TZ 6°820€ : 2°92 L'Z66 9'T S'CO6Z | L'2887 «8°02 09°0 O°L901 + 9668 D'ILT 100 L'6 0'0 L'6 ‘
t ' 1 ! i] ' ‘ ‘ ! 0 ! ' ! 0 ! i] ! ' ! ‘
18101 91ST FOG, TRnpTIeY9y | 497d;
u JOY TRIO] | 'guoTSoTuy 121104
(14/]) 8008889 apyxoyp angdyns
S011W51808d10530 110 190d 3° 5150)
OT'?-V 114
940019 lofeg 12430 9190p01] “way “W949 8Y90p01] IM [[Rpoa-o0g quoud}obg wopyezlodgues) BUPAROPIGRA TRIP 9420p01q PayTTV 9 Jedeg 99F190PU] 217412 28819499 ÿ poog
91899 Livur1]
Ss ee ee
(ay 90pu]
! ' i] 1 ! 0 ! ! ' ‘ ! ' ! 1 ' 0 ! ' ' ' ! ! ! '
Ont. OS SUN CN aT wopyonpaa y LeLOT =O HOTET §=—O'9ZHEZT OST O'JBIR OS UF UOFONpEE 9290) reo "So 9°88 BL uoF40np91 x BLbL2T O'JOT- O° TPCT Q'OLI) FOS UY Wopyonpag SG 290) gg G9 OS ED STR uoyyonpal y 960221 0°202CT 0°998C0T 0°91 O'HIOS XOS UF Voyyonpay hp 258) 965 60 sh $12 vopyonpad x 210601 O° bLT O‘O8C0T 0°66 XOS UY UopyOnpay ¢ 208) ZL US c'e uoTonpa1 x 8SIET O'ZpIEl 0°91 XOS UF UOpyoupay 7 298) (ASVO aSva) dé ere IQS UF UOFY20p9 | 220) "108281 99102 EZEGET SZ 18202 (aval aad J) payqyee 105 1820 GS T 1820 SCOTT x 20qdns TLLI9S@ 299CTSC SSIZEZr «90H GYSIIS vet 194 auu0] V9 0 0660 +990 6660 {ATARI op] Toads
G9LE2T6 L590 9C90b2) L60S SLTETS tal Jad 59198 21409 23e9n paye [nets
81840] 041 O4E 041 Oda [T0 atqeares Alaut joy 4e 93099
HOTLYS TAMA 10SC 10d LEMAIAAU -: 959001d [0I}00) (2094/1) SHOISSINY HOIIOIQ #0Hd10S
adesy [ang BOI] TOG JO SUOTZONPay SUOSSTET [21240 P2281354
1o-¥ Wav)
eseo oseg (,)
S9F4T}0enb WoTyonped VOLS T0 UY papnTouy 918 9yonpord 20990197 pur 199214 (?) “PaPATOUT Uaaq 9487 94909 [es0d9Fp 49414 Tenpysag pue ogg (€) “pasn [qq ded peg ‘saoy1d apnio uo VWapuedap 918 94909 Fup yesedg (2)
32509 TENUE UT PaPNTOUT 918 y GZ Jo 928180 TRyde) (1) -:SÿLON
ee
1 101g i U819bT ©9924 1 DSL SL'9L 0C'LTh CN ‘ 1 ‘ 1 1 6°15 + U21e2T LTP + 99909 = 20°TL LC'STh $ 4 ' ‘ ' ! 1 L'S6L 1 BEL9ZT 9605 1 1669 06H01 Tele es 0 0 i] ‘ 1 £18 | DL8COT 666» + SC)»S 0916 00'2L€ Cone 1 L'v0¢ 1 99822 08 i LbIT 66'9 10°2 gt 1 ‘ ' ' i 0°0 i 0 0 i 0 00°0 00°0 J i 1 ' ! * ! i) i) 1 0 i RE RP NC GC ET 1 X08 i 9198900) LIsUTJay | (92000]) (900, TT TH) (SuoTITFu) ; 2000] Jed |} (x9) 1 peaowal 90) 3909 Jaqung | ; 490) | UOLyonpag uopestag ! Inqdqns Jenuuy Jeypde) oe) !
o_O
(paaowar 106 auuo] Jad $) MOTLVSTAOHAIOSHC 110 190d JO SiS09
1b-¥ JON
a satrtiene oo!) ON
à . a
ais 2 datent ent tom ster)” Cas ?r
APPENDIX B
COSTING PROCEDURES, FUEL DATA QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON CONTROLS
a <img
ea? art po A ONE edoreno HO MONA 20 LFÉMES
APPENDIX B - LIST OF TABLES
Quality of Information on Controls - So; Quality of Information on Controls - NO, Annualized Cost Equation
Nomenclature Used in Cost Algorithms
Capital Cost Components
Operating and Maintenance Costs Components
Calculations Common to Cost Algorithms
Cost Equations for Low Excess Air Applied to
Industrial Boilers
Cost Equations for Staged Combustion Air Applied
to Pulverized Coal-Fired Boilers
Cost Equations for Staged Combustion Air Applied to Residual Oil-Fired Boilers
Cost Equations for Lime Spray Drying FGD Systems with PM Removal
Cost Equations for Sodium Scrubbing FGD Systems
General Design Specifications for FGD System for
SO; Control
Estimated Capital Investment for Selective Catalytic Reduction
Estimated Operating Costs for Selective Catalytic Reduction
Estimated Capital Investment for Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
Estimated Operating Costs for Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
Costing Algorithm for SCR/SNCR
Fuel Switching Cost Algorithm
Limestone Flue Gas Desulphurization Algorithm
Fuel Characteristics
Characteristics of "Unconventional" Fuels
APPENDIX B: COSTING PROCEDURES, FUEL DATA, QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON CONTROLS
B.1 Introduction
Costing algorithms and fuel characteristics used in the economic analysis of control strategies are presented in this Appendix. With the exception of the fuel switching algorithm, basic cost equations follow those outlined by the Radian Corporation (1984) and SRI International (1980). The quality of information respecting various control technologies is summarized in Tables
Bea. and Baw. 2:.
Algorithms in this Appendix are grouped according to source with those developed by the EPA used for costing both NO, and SO, control strategies, those based on SRI International (1980) on ETEP strictly for NO, control, and fuel switching for so, control only. All costs are converted to 1987 Canadian dollars based on Statistics Canada escalation factors. The calculation of
annualized costs is shown in Table B.1.3.
B.2 Radian Corporation Costing Algorithms
Cost correlations developed by the Radian Corporation (1980) consist of a set of generic equations common to all control strategies and empirical relationships developed on a process by process basis. Nomenclature is common
throughout all algorithms and is summarized in Table B.2.1.
Generic cost equations are outlined in Tables B.2.2 and B.2.3 and summarized algebraically in Table B.2.4. Process specific algorithms are summarized in
Tables B.2.5 to B.2.9 for the following control processes:
low excess air, coal, oil and gas boilers (NO, control) low excess air, pulverized coal (NO, control)
staged combustion (NO, control)
sodium scrubbing FGD system (SO, control)
. spray drying/dry scrubbing (SO, and particulate control)
General design specifications for FGD systems are shown in Table C.2.10..
B.3 SRI International Costing Algorithms
Costing algorithms for NO, control by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) are based on data by SRI (1980). A
power law correlation of the form:
2 O27 COST, = COST, er x | capacity, |
capacityper
was used to calculate capital and operating costs for facilities. For costing purposes, volumetric flowrate was chosen as a representative measure of capacity with a value of 1.8 million acfm calculated for the reference
facility.
Cost estimates as developed by SRI for the reference facility are shown in Tables B.3.1 and B.3.2 for SCR and Tables B.3.3 and B.3.4 for SNCR controls respectively. The algorithms used for costing purposes are shown in Table BeSeo. This table also summarizes estimates of operating costs component
costs according to the equation:
component cost = OC; i |
where OC; = operating cost of facility being costed; CCREr = component cost of reference facility, and
OCper = operating cost of the reference facility
B.4 Fuel Switch Algorithm
Capital costs for fuel switching were estimated using the Radian Corporation’s "Cost Equations for Low Excess Air Applied to Industrial Boilers" as presented in Table B.2.5.- Capital costs were calculated based on a natural gas feed rate which provides an equivalent heat input as the process under evaluation. The calculated capital cost was then multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to account
for equipment modification costs.
Operating costs, calculated using the algorithm outlined in Table B.4.1, represent the savings (increase) in fuel costs resulting from the fuel switch.
All other operating costs were assumed constant.
The costs, of the fuels, used were obtained from suppliers and industry associations by telephone conversations. The values represent the best estimates which could be made from the ranges of costs disclosed by those sources. None of the information sources were prepared to quote firm costs
unless a specific situation was under consideration.
B.5 Fuel Characteristics
Data pertaining to fuel characteristics are shown in Tables B.3.1 and B.3.2 for conventional and unconventional fuels respectively. Heat and sulphur (S or S05) content data were used to calculate heat inputs and/or gas flowrates
required in the costing algorithms.
QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON CONTROLS - SO»
Tech- SO, Control Rating+ nology” Cost? Coal cleaning NA Ore beneficiation G T; Cy Fuel switching G Ty Cy Petroleum fuel desulphurization G T; Cy Raw material change NA Operating changes NA Equipment changes NA Fuel additives P T3 C3 Dry lime addition to fuel P To C3 Lime injection modified burners F Ty Cy Lime/limestone scrubbing G Ty Cy Duel alkali scrubbing G Ty Cy Sodium carbonate scrubbing G Ty Cy Major process changes F T; Cy Wellman-Lord process G Ty Cy Cominco process G T, Cy Citrate & Stauffer process G Ti Cy Pearson-Peck process F To Co Tail gas cleaning G Ty C1 Irradiation technology E T3 C3 Dry lime injection G T; Cy Spray drying process G Ty Cy Poli process F To Cy 1. Rating: G - Good; F - Fair; P - Poor, NA - Not Available. 2. Technology: T, - Proven; T> - Tentative; T3 - Unproven.
Se Cost: C1 - Established; Cz - Approximate; C3 - Unknown.
+QuVLiS D,1.4
QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON CONTROLS - NOx
Tech-
NO, C 1 Rating? logy? 2
x Contro ating nology Cost Fuel switching G T Cy Fuel modification NA (except refineries) Low excess air G T; Cy Flue Gas recirculation G T; Cy Staged combustion G T; Cy Low NO, Burners G Ty Cy Lime injection modified burner F To Co Dry lime addition to fuel P T3 C3 Fuel additives P T3 C3 Selective catalytic reduction G T; Cy Selective non-catalytic reduction G T; Cy Copper oxide absorption = T3 C3 Irradiation technology E T3 C3 Other combined technologies P T3 C3 aks Rating: G - Good; F - Fair; P - Poor, NA - Not Available.
van Technology: T, - Proven; T> - Tentative; T3 - Unproven.
Se Cost: C, - Established; Cy - Approximate; C3 — Unknown.
ANNUALIZED COST EQUATION
CRF = i (1 + ij” eh Ce ae Ba
Clone t)) gt
AC = OC + CRF * CC
annualized cost
capital cost
capital recovery factor
interest rate, assumed to be 10% yearly Operating costs
control system life
TABLE B-2.1 NOMENCLATURE USED IN COST ALGORITHMS
1. Capital Costs (1978 dollars) EQUP = Equipment INST = Installation TD = Total Direct IND = Indirect (Engineering, Field, Construction, Start-up, and other miscellaneous costs) TOI = Total Direct and Indirect CONT = Contingencies TK = Turnkey LAND = Land WC = Working Capital TOTL = Total Capital 2. Operation and Maintenance Costs (1978 dollars/year) DL = Direct Labor SPRY = Supervision Labor MANT = Maintenance Labor SP = Spare Parts ELEC... = ÆElectricitye UC = Utilities and Chemicals WTR = Water SW = Solid Waste Disposal SLG = Sludge Waste Disposal LW = Liquid Waste Disposal SC = Sodium Carbonate LMS = Limestone LIME = Lime FUEL = Fuel TOOM = Total Direct Operation and Maintenance OH = Overhead TOTL = Total Operation and Maintenance 3. Annualized Costs (1978 dollars/year)
CR = Capital Recovery
WCC = Working Capital Charges
MISC = Miscellaneous (G & A, Taxes, Insurance) TCC = Total Capital Charges
TOTL = Total Annualized Charges
nn
TABLE B-2,1 (Continued)
a eee
4. Boiler Soecifications 17 UEC IT ICAtIONS
Q = Thermal Input (106 Btu/hr) wi)?
FLW = Flue Gas Flowrate (acfm) (m”/s)
GF = Capacity Factor (-)
BCRF = Capital Recovery Factor for Boiler System
5 Fuel Scecifications ae SECC TICaCions
FC = Fuel Cost ($/10° Btu) (sm)?
H = Heating Value (Btu/1b) (kJ/kg)
S = Sulfur Content (percent by weight) A = Ash Content (percent by weight)
Fuel Nitrogen Content (percent by weight)
O\
SO, Control Soecifications ee EET ications
UNCSO2 = Uncontrolled $0, Emissions (1b/10° 8tu) (ng/g)? CTRSO2 = Controlled SO, Emissions (1b/10° Btu) (ng/J) EFFSO2 = SO, Removal Efficiency (percent)
CRFSO2 = Cafital Recovery Factor for SO, Contro! System
The PM Control Soecifications ——— ec irications
UNCPM = Uncontrolled PM Emissions (1b/06 Btu) (ngyy)? CTRPM = Controlled PM Emissions (1b/10" Btu) (ng/J) EFFPM = PM Removal Efficiency (percent)
CRFPM = Capital Recovery Factor for PM Control System
8. Cost Rates
ELEC = Electricity Rate §$/kw-hr) 3.b WIR = Water Rate ($/10 gal) {S/m ) ALIME = Lime Rate ($/ton) ($/kg) b ALS = Limestone Rate ($/ton) ($/kg) b SASH = Sodium Carbonate Rate ($/ton) (S/kg = SLOG = Sludge Disposal Rate ($/ton) ($/kg) b SHD = Solid Waste Disposal Rate ($/ton} ($/kg) ue LWD = Liquid Waste Disposal Rate ($/10 gal) ($/m~) OLR = Direct Labor Rate ($/man-hr) SLR = Supervision Labor Rate ($/man-hr) AMLR = Maintenance Labor Rate ($/man-hr)
ee ee
TABLE B-2.1 (Continued)
9. Miscellaneous $1 = Heat Specific Sulfur Removal (kg S/1000 MJ) $2 = Time Specific Sulfur Removal (kg S/hr) LF = Labor Factor (-)
10. NO Control Specifications
FFAC = F-Factor (dscf/10° Btu)
UNCEA = Uncontrolled Excess Air (%)
CTREA = Controlled Excess Air (2%)
PRCT = Percent Flame Extension Due to Staging
DELT = Change in the “lue gas exit temperature due to the
elimination of the air preheater or a reduction in its effectiveness. CRFNO = Capital Recovery Factor for NO. Control System
cost categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, some costing routines include electricity and waste cost in the utilities category while other calculate these cost separately.
Deco algorithms use metric units.
ce) factor presented as fraction not as percent.
enw ee dt te © de
CAPITAL COST COMPONENTS@
(1) Direct Costs Equipment + Installation = Total Direct Costs
(2) Indirect Costs
Engineering (10% of total direct costs)
+ Construction and Field Expenses (10% of total direct costs)
+ Construction Fees (10% of total direct costs) + Start Up Costs ( 2% of total direct costs) + Performance Costs ( 1% of total direct costs)
= Total Indirect Costs
(3) Contingencies = 20% of (Total Indirect + Total Direct Costs)
(4) Total Turnkey Cost = Total Indirect Cost + Total Direct Cost
+ Contingencies
(5) Working Capital
(6) Total Capital Cost = Total Turnkey + Working Capital
Boiler and each control system costed separately; factors
the engineering cost for the SO, control system is 10% of
apply to cost of boiler or control system considered; i.e., the direct cost of the SO; control system.
TABLE B-2.3 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS COMPONENTS®
(1). Direct Operating Costs
Operating Labor Supervision Maintenance Labor, Replacement Parts and Supplies Electricity Water Steam Waste Disposal Solids (Fly ash and bottom ash) Sludge Liquid + Chemicals Total Non-Fuel O&M + Fuel
+ + + + + +
= Total Direct Operating Cests
(2) Indirect Operating Costs (Overhead)
Payroll (30% Operating Labor) + Plant (26% of Operating Labor + Supervision + Maintenance Costs + Replacement Parts)
(3) Total Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs = Total Direct + Total Indirect Costs
*Boilers and control systems are costed separately; factors apply to boiler or control system being considered, (i.e., payroll overhead for FGD system is 30% of the labor requirement for the FGD system).
~V~ Om mom. 3
CALCULATIONS COMMON TO COST ALGORITHMS
1. Capital Costs
TD EQUP + INST
IND = 0.333 * TD?
TDI = TD + IND
CONT = 0.20 * TDI
WC© = 0.25 * TDOM
TK = EQUIP + INST + IND TOTL = TK + WC
2. Operation and Maintenance Costs
FUEL = CF * Q * FC * 8760
TDO = Sum of all O&M Costs other than OH
OH 0.30 * DL + 0.26 * (DL + SPRV + MANT + SP) TOTL = TDOM + OH
i}
3. Annualized Costs
CR = CRF * TK
WCC = 0.10 * WC
MISC 0.04 * TK
TCC = CR + WCC + MISC TOTL TCC + TOTL O&M Costs
4. Labour Factors
Eee) = 1 ifiCr > 0.7 LF = 0.5 + 2.5 * (CF - 0.5) if 0.5 < CF < 0.7 Ee = 0.5 if CF < 0:5
Note:
= Feb system cost algorithms compute TD without prior computation of EQUP
and INST.
b Some algorithms compute IND explicitly as a function of
boiler and/or control device specifications.
Assumes 3 months of direct annual operating costs.
TABLE B-2.5 COST EQUATIONS FOR LOW EXCESS AIR APPLIED TO INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
—_e_—_____—
ee ee ee
Routine Code: LEA Capital Costs:
Coal: EQUIP = 46.22(Q) + 6496 INST and IND = 21.50(Q) + 1123
Oil and Gas: EQUIP = 31.38(Q) + 5185 INST and IND = 11.37(Q) + 1161
Annual Costs:
sp? FUEL
O05; (M -.00055
K) (FC)(Q)(CF)(FFAC)(UNCEA - CTREA)
ee eo
algorithm assumes a flue gas temperature of 400°F and ‘he ambient air temperature to be 77°F,
Ospare parts costs consist of the costs for spare parts, maintenance labor, and maintenance materials.
TABLE B-2.6 COST EQUATIONS FOR STAGED COMBUSTION AIR APPLIED TO PULVERIZED COAL-FIRED BOILERS
i
Routine Code: SCA Caoital Cos+s:
EQUIP = 65 (Q) + 13000 INST and IND = 66 (Q) + 2000
Annual Costs: RE USTES"
SP? = 0.05 (TK) ELEC = 105 (Q)(CF) FUEL = 21.9 (FC)(Q)(CF)
à =? A : L Spare parts costs consist of the costs for spare parts, maintenance labor, and maintenance materials.
TABLE B-2.7 COST EQUATIONS FOR STAGED COMBUSTION AIR APPLIED TO RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED BOILERS (fuel N >0.23 wt. percent)
(30 - 250 x 10° Btu/hr)
Routine Code: SCA Capital Costs:
TK = 1000 [(Q)(PRCT) 0.0536 + 2.56 (PRCT)]
where:
PRCT = 30; when N >0.6
PRCT = 81.1(N) - 18.7 when 0.23 <N <0.6 Annual Costs:
sp? = 0.05 (TK)
ELEC = 102 (Q)(CF)
FUEL = 21.9 (FC)(Q)(CF)
OC err nw
a , ; Spare parts costs consists of the costs for spare parts, maintenance labor, and maintenance maerials.
TABLE B-2.8 COST EQUATIONS FOR LIME SPRAY DRYING FGD SYSTEMS WITH PM REMOVAL
oO
Routine Code: DS
Capital Costs: PȢ
TD
Cl + C2 + C3 + C4 55,600 (FLW)0-51
32,900 (52)0-40 18,400 + 8,260 (FLW) + 6,420 (FLy)0+50
256,320 [u1 + w2]?-6
Q * S/H * [0.626 EFFSO2 - 79.9 1n (1-EFFS02/100) - 10.1] 3.96 x 107° (UNCPM - CTRPM)
1.48 TD + 110,400 if Q < 58.6
1.60 TD if Q > 58.6
Annual Costs, $/Year "ts, _3/ 1ear
OL SPRV MANT M1 M2 ELEC WTR SW W3 Wa LIME
8,760 * DLW * LF
1,314 * SPRV * LF
(0.08 [55,600 (FLW)°-°! + 32,900(s2)9-40) 4 m1 + m2 * Le 834 FLW
MANT * (4.04 FLW + 1,086)
8,760 CF * ELEC [6.14 (FLW)°-82]
8,760 CF * WTR [0.144 FLW]
8,760 CF * SUD [W3 + WA]
(Q S/H) * [569 EFFSO2 - 72,700 In (1-EFFS02/100) - 9,230] 3.6 x 10799 (UNCPM - CTRPM)
ue * ALIME * (-48,500) * Q * S/H * [in (1-EFFS02/100) + 0.127
àFG0 algorithms use metric units as noted in Table p-2.] Sl = S * EFFSO2 * 100/H. ES = SI g + 3:6.
TABLE B-2.9 COST EQUATIONS FOR SODIUM SCRUBBING FGD SYSTEMS
—SsSsSsSs0@9e@0<_«S—s Ooo
Routine Code: sop? "©
Capital Costs:4 TK, = 39,900 (FLW)-985 + 1,370 (52)0-727 TK = 26,500 s, 0-39 w 2 TK = Ke tk S W Annual Costs DL = 1,100*DLY SPRY = 165*SPRV MANT = 0.08*TK
ELEC = Si 760*CF*ELSC (3.61 (ELN) - 2215] ELEC = 8760*CF*ELEC [0.23(S2) + 1.32]
ELEC = ELEC, + ELEC,
WTR = 8760*CF*UTR [0.600(FLW) - 2.08] [0.527(S1) + 0.364] SC = 8760*CF*SASH [3.33(S2) + 0.082]
LH = 8760*CF*LHD [0.0616(S2) + 0.298]°
8A11 FGD algorithms are in metric units as noted in Table B-2.1 PS1 = S*EFFSO,*100/H “s2 = $1*Q*3.6
The Subscript "s" denotes scrubber costs and the subscript "w" denotes wastewater costs.
SThis equation assumes that the wastewater stream has a total dissolved solids concentration (TDS) of 5%.
; me CERN CR Ce OR Ou D ut nm ss SO OS ‘us — ~ 2h 0
TABLE B-2.10 GENERAL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR FGD SYSTEM FOR so, CONTROL
Control Device lteu Specification a —_—_—_—_—— Sodium eran Fe Scrubber type, Spray baffle y
$0, removal on Pressure drop O tu. te 0, ob) L/G 40 yal/{0? acf Disposal method Oxldation and screrage Dry Scrubbing (spray Halerlal of construction Carbon stee) spra dryer and fabric drying, 50, and PH fllter Cinsutated) renwoval) (0s) Reagent Pluie; with sollds recycle at 2 kg recycle sollds/ky fresh lime feed Fabric filter Pulse Jet; alr-lo-cloth ratio of 4 aclu/ft Pressure drop? 6 In. 11,0 L/G 0.3 yal/acf
‘Sullds disposal Trucked Lo off-site landf111 lectrice pow Aa Pressure drofs'refer to yas side pressure drop across entire contro) systew.
TABLE B-3.1
ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
Basis: 500-MW net grass-roots unit firing bituminous coal. 0.54 1b NOj/million Btu before SCR treatment.
Millions of
Capital Investment 1979 Dollars
Plant facilities investment
Reactors 9.10 Ducts, dampers, and expansion joints 1.98 Incremental FD fan cost 0.03 Incremental ID fan cost 0.91 Ammonia injection 1.26 Ammonia storage 0.81 General facilities 0.42 Paid-up royalties 0.11 Total plant facilities investment 14.62
+ Interest during construction 2515 Organization and start-up costs 0:73 Korking capital 0.49 Initial catalyst 6.50 Total capital investment 24.49
* For nonregulated financing.
TABLE B-3.2
ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
Basis: 500 MW net unit, 0.54 1b NO2/million Btu before SCR treatment, 1.05 average stoichiometric ratio, 6,132 h/y.
First-Year Operating Costs
(1979 dollars) Million $/y
Raw materials
Ammonia at $130/st 0.41 Catalyst 3525 Maintenance materials 0.29 Total raw materials 3495 Labor Operating labor 0.00 Operating labor supervision 0.00 Maintenance labor 0:22 Administrative and support labor 0.04 Payroll burden 0.09 Total labor 0.35 Electric power 0.49 Fixed costs G&A costs 0.29 Property taxes and insurance 0.37 Plant depreciation 0.58 Total fixed costs 1.24
Total operating costs 6.03
TABLE B-3.3
ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR SELECTIVE NON-CATALYTIC REDUCTION
Basis: 500-MW net grass-roots unit firing bituminous coal. 0.54 lb NO, /million Btu before SNR treatment,
Capital Investment
Plant facilities investment
Air compressor
Incremental ID fan cost
Ammonia storage
Double-grid injector system
General facilities
Paid-up royalties
Total plant facilities investment
Interest during construction” Organization and start-up costs Working capital
Total capital investment
* For nonregulated financing.
Millions of
1979 Dollars
TABLE B-3.4
ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR SELECTIVE NON-CATALYTIC REDUCTION
Basis: 500-MW net unit, 0.54 1b NOy/million Btu before SNR treatment, 1.2 average stoichiometric ratio, 6,132 h/y.
First-Year Operating Costs
(1979 dollars) Million $/y
Raw materials
Ammonia at $130/st 0.48 Maintenance materials (rg Ho) Total raw materials 0.58 Labor Operating labor 0.00 Supervision 0.00 Maintenance labor 0.07 Administrative and support labor 0.02 Payroil burden 0.03 Total labor 0.12 Electric power 0.48 Fixed costs G&A costs 0.10 Property taxes and insurance 0.13 Plant depreciation 0.20 Total fixed costs 0.43
Total operating costs 1.61
SCR
Capcst Opcost Totlab Elpwr Mtce Ammcst
Fixcst
SNCR
Capcst Cpcost Totlab Elpwr Mtce Ammcst
Fixcst
=
+Qnut DeI- DT
COSTING ALGORITHM FOR SCR/SNCR
24.49E6 * (Q/1,800,000) : ?
6.03E6 * (Q/1,800,000) : ?
Opcost Opcost Opcost Opcost
Opcost
6.11E6 1.61E6 Opcost Opcost Opcost Opcost
Opcost
where Q = flow rate
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-351/00-03 .49 / 6.03 .29 / 6.03 .41 / 6.03 1.24 / 6.03
(9/1, 800,000) : ? (0/1,800, 000): ? bags /1:61 Meet" 1.61 ae fod. 61 38) 1.61 £430/61.61
(acfm)
FUEL SWITCHING COST ALGORITHM
Operating cost of change = Q(49Sgry) x Cost of new ($/:068ru) —2Cost'of old ($/:068ru) Fuel Costs (obtained from suppliers) Natural Gas 15 #/m = 0.4248 ¢/ft? = $4.248/10° Bru
= $4.0304/10° g
Distillate 23.6 ¢/L = $6.868/10° BTU = $6.516/10° J
Residual 31.75 ¢/L = $8.6573/10° Bru = $8.214/109 g
Coal $55/T delivered = $1.89/10° Bru = $1.793/10° g
Refuse $45/T = $1.546/10° Bru = $1.467/109 J
, |
tt un
FixCh Elec Water Direct Super Labmat Supply Plant Pay Overhd Labor Mntce Uta) Sludge Rawmat ESO2
TABLE B-4.2
Flue Gas Desulphurisation.
8025 * S + 248600
4794 * S + 32816
16050 * S + 375000
11640 * S + 4000 * N + 30500
4588 * S + 16630 * SQRT(S) * N +234 * S* (2/3)
4.2824 * TotG
0.53 * TotG SL
02 * TotG + 24000 * N
0.089 * TotG + 108.6 * SQRT (N * TotG) 0.360 * TotG + 25100 * N
417.6 * SQRT(N * TotG) * DF
0.268 * TotG
37475 * SORT (3.14 * s1 + AR)
23540 * S + 7496 * AR + 310400
236.48 * (3.14 * g + AR)" (2/3) + 1618.6 *
1582 * S + 22000 0.0184 * TotG + 3600 * S + 1146 * AR + 12000 64155 * SQRT((3.14 * § + AR) * Cr 1000 BLRY) 1883 * S + 22000
30000 * N
Conv + Silo + Ball + PandML + Stge
Abs + FandMA + PandMA + Tank + Heat + Soot + Duct + Valv
Clar + VacF + TandM + Fixstr + PandMS + Spond+ Mob + RR
18747 * S * LSCO * CF
29200 * (3.14 * § + AR) * CF
0.04 * TotG * ELCO * CF
0.049 * (0.129 * TotG + 2520 * S) * ELCO * CF 17520 * LBCO
0.15 * Direct
0.04 * GrandTotal
0.006 * GrandTotal
0.5 * (Direct + Super + Labmat + Supply) 0.2 * (Direct + Super)
Plant + Pay
Direct + Super
Labmat + Supply
Elec + Water
(3.14 * S + AR) * 29200 * TMGE * cr
LS + FixCh
Sfctr * (100 - LSE) / 100
(3.14 * See AR) * (1/3)
TABLE B-4.2 FLUE GAS DESULPHURIZATION (CONT’D)
Depr = GrandTotal / BLRY
Interim = 0.0035 * GrandTotal
Taxes = 0.04 * GrandTotal
Insur = 0.003 * GrandTotal
CapCh = 0.15 * GrandTotal
TotOp = Rawmat + Util + Labor + Mntce + Overhd TotFix = Depr + Interim + Taxes + Insur + Capch
OVERALL CAPITAL COSTS,
Total = At Bo =5C
Ad jDC = Esc * | Total
IndCst = 0.5125 * aAdjpCc
Cont = 0.2 * (AdjDC + IndCst) TOTANN = Totop + Totfix + Sludge
GrandTotal = 1.2 * (AdjDC + IndCst)
FUEL CHARACTERISTICS
Fuel
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Coal
Wood waste (dry)
Municipal waste
Coke
Natural gas
Heat Cont.
KJ/kg
(BTU/1b)
45,300 (19,500)
43,000 (18,500)
30,200 (13,000)
18,600 (8,000)
11, 600 (5,000)
33,700 (14,500)
37,200 KJ/m°
-—~ ewe
(1,000 BTU/£t3)
S-Content %
Excess
40
40
50
100
100
10
Lo
LEA
15
15
30
50
50
LS
FCCU gas (no CO boiler)
FCCU gas (regenerated)
CHARACTERISTICS OF "UNCONVENTIONAL" FUELS
with CO boiler
Black liquor
Coke oven gas
Refinery gas
Propane
(1) (2)
Reference:
Calvert & Englund Fryling (1967).
i<anie 5.9.4
Heat Content
6,210 BTU/1b
dry solids
550 BTU/£t> 14,430 BTU/1b
1,200 BTU/£t>
86,560 KJ/m° LHV 2,322 BTU/ft>
(1984).
SO; Content
1,000 (v/v) ppm
1,350 (v/v) ppm
250 v/v ppm
2% v/v
Ref.
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
i. Qe, —— auf me a EE D” em mme NC > See cae of a ay
APPENDIX C:
ACID GASES
ANNUALIZED COST
BAGHOUSE
BLAST FURNACE GAS — BF GAS
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR = CRE
COKE OVEN GAS - CO GAS
DRY SCRUBBING
FLUE GAS
GLOSSARY
gaseous emissions which are acidic or through chemical reactions, may Produce acidic compounds,
e.g. SO,, HCl
the yearly cost of a system including both direct and indirect operating costs and an amortized portion of the initial capital cost of the system
a large chamber in which bag filters used to remove particulate from a gas stream are housed
the gas product from iron ore smelting when hot air Passes over coke in blast furnaces; contains carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen and nitrogen
a factor which when multiplied by the initial capital cost yields
an annualized charge which "spreads" the cost of initial investment over the life of a project
2 gas produced during carbonization Of coal to form coke
a process in which SO, and other
acid gases are removed from a gas stream
by adsorption onto a sprayed dry or Slurry sorbent, and subsequent removal of the sorbent bound SO, ina downstream particulate filter
gaseous products from a combustion process
FLUE GAS DESULPHURIZATION = EGD
FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION = EGR
FLUIDIZED BED
FLY ASH
FUEL NO x
LIME
LIME INJECTION MODIFIED BURNER
LIME SPRAY DRYER
LIMESTONE
LOW NO, BURNER
a process by which sulphur is removed from a gas stream. The two basic methods of desulphurization
are wet and dry scrubbing. Processes can be further classified as either saleable or throwaway depending
upon whether sulphur compounds are recovered or discarded
a thermal NO, reduction strategy whereby a portion of the flue gas is recirculated to the air inlet ports. The process is designed to reduce the oxygen concentration and temperature in the combustion zone
an operation in which a bed of fine particles is held in suspension by an upward flowing gas stream
fine noncombustible particulate matter found in combustion gases
nitrogen dioxide produced from the reaction of fuel bound nitrogen and oxygen in the combustion
gas
calcium oxide (CaO)
a burner which has been redesigned to allow the direct injection of lime at the burner port of a coal fired boiler with the objective of providing a precombustion method of minimizing SO, generation
a dry scrubbing process in which lime is used as the SO, removal agent
calcium carbonate (Caco3)
burners designed to control the air fuel and mix in the burner area with the objective of retarding formation of fuel NO,
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC a post-combustion process in which
REDUCTION NO, in a gas stream is converted to
-SCR nitrogen by reduction with ammonia in the presence of a catalyst. The advantage over the SNCR Process is a less restrictive range on operating temperatures.
SELECTIVE NON-CATALYTIC a post combustion process in which
REDUCTION NO, in a gas stream is converted
— SNCR to nitrogen by reduction with ammonia
STAGED COMBUSTION a NO, reduction Strategy in which a
SCA Ù portion of combustion air is
injected at the burner with the remainder introduced downstream of the burner
THERMAL NO, nitrogen dioxide derived from the combination of atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen during combustion processes carried out at high flame temperatures
WET SCRUBBER a device which uses a liquid to clean a gas. In this report the term refers to a device in which SO, is removed from a gas stream by absorption into an alkaline solution or slurry, typically of lime or limestone
Ve Gas war phon! pa ] i — A” a ds fuite di #00 api save? »:, 7 Ber
42 624289 ot mack 107 00 - fe om 0 alnoerns 1320 nos Jone of igs NO Bee
eit |. twytetag 8 € Big a CNT.
ul er10032 RCA “(2 nr rs a
do ecues va feshtes et y tee aon 2 SD alia
é< ee AN 1 rotin LL | actomtdmon soon % 2 ‘boise 002 eh ha are oi = it PEN everett ss! i a ich ri mi à oa es 7 » + ” , es dote Gs soove? ey ALI à spline LED = 2 a Ar i FN ‘yo RE. L "is ; erate Sts Vay 223" if A2
1 mAvrie mit Boge os ds i ¥Hi wast . 1 teased’ at? A ,
¢ 1 i
1: aoe nevi eh lee bp We," se 2 al pos Isa oise a Sa no ae “ado id: cos saute aise vou: | gosutaxsqgmrs em : D Se Jo bei 7s
= eneie? 400-8 Beik Anvoess Of JA aAifetio 06 OS, Y PEL EL) Re | “a, to Ylin er wae “A Vw ete
tie te . rear Bae teendt à wed a : + e 5 a . La ae ae 1 ot ad » & LA 2 pe 7 | pb on. | 7 é a oF à de => <a s 47 k à ? ¢ \#e6b
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLES OF COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
c KUGUIe UA
OTCOTuMERE BaTyaMey a Barvanws
WN BF OH WD FE
APPENDIX D - LIST OF TABLES
Lime Spray Dryer
Limestone Flue Gas Desulphurization Caustic Absorption
Fuel Switch to Natural Gas
Low Excess Air and Staged Combustion Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
Selective Catalytic Reduction
TABLE D-1.1: LIME SPRAY DRYER
St Input—— Name— Output— Unit— Comment——————_—___ ———— — Lime spray dryer with TSP removal File :- LSD-FF.TK
13 sept. 1988 Food & Bev. -Boilers Resid. Oil 2 Tyre number Type of fuel : Pulv. coal=1, other=2 Program calculates in metric units 2722 F Flue gas rate Nm 3/min Flw .74393162 m 3/sec Flue gas flow rate 4.46 Q 1E6 BTU/h Thermal input 19000 H BTU/1b Heating value of fuel Sd S 4 Sulphur content of fuel % .93 À % Ash content of fuel 75 ELzSo2 % Efficiency of £02 removal . 005 -C&:am ng/J Controlled TSP emisesicns 1 Uncem ng/J Uncontrolled TSP emisssions .85 CF fraction Capacity factor LF 1 number Labour factor 14 Air $1933 Maintenance labour rate S/man.hour 14 Sprv S1983/hr Labour zupervigicn rate 12 Dir 51983/hr Direct iabour rate .0165 Sud 31983,kg Solid vaste disposal rats 3/kg .018 Alime 51983/kg Lime rate 3 / xg .02 Elec $1983/kWh Electricity rate .96 Wtr $1983/m°3 Water rate S/m © gat Crf $1983 Capital recovery factor Capital costs TD 229137 .92 $1983 Total direct costs
Ind 76302.927 $1983 Indirect costs Tdi 305440.85 $1983 Total direct and indirect costs
TK 449524.12 $1983 Turnkey cost Cont 61088.169 $1983 Contingencies costs aC 41542.446 $1983 Working capital
Operating and Maintenance costs
Totop 236972.7 $1983 Total operating costs inc. Overheads T 166169.78 $1983 Total direct Cp. & Mtce costs
SPRV 18396 $1983 Labour Supervision costs
DL 105120 $1983 Direct labour costs
Mant 27510.599 31983 Maintenance labour costs
ELEC 717.42825 $1983 Annual Electricity cost
WTR 56.305506 $1983 Annual water cost
SW 9292.5793 $1983 Solid waste disposal costs
Lime 5076.3706 $1983 Annual lime supply costs
OH 70802.916 $1983 Overhead
Annualised costs. Total 304060.32 $1983 Total Annualised Costs
Totann 304C060.32 $1983 Total annualized charges CR 44952.412 $1983 Capital recovery cost
TABLE D-1.1:
4154.2446 $1983 17980.965 $1983 67087 .621 $1983
47814.171 $1983 97736.865 $1983 30082.22 $1983 53504.564 31983 15.210947 - 08316158 1.7575E-5 . 94736842 620.43897 15246.077 75.620154 .01597572
Working capital charges Miscellaneous costs ( taxes ins. etc.) Total Capital charges
Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate intermediate Intermediate Intermediate
LIME SPRAY DRYER (CONT’D)
value value value value value value value value value value value value
TABLE D-1.2 LIMESTONE FLUE GAS DESULPHURIZATION 4
St Input Name—— Output—— Unit Comment Flue Gas Desulphurisation - Limestone File :- FGDLS1.TK 13 Sept 1988 Food & Bev. Ind Boilers-Reeid oil
95 LSE % Efficiency of L/S scrubber ESO2 .000015 1b/MBTU Allowable SO2 rate - 1b/10°6 BTU(39*S)
WAR 4 LBCO $1988 Labour wages $/hr
18:75 LSCO $1988 Limestone cost $ / ton
15 TMGE miles Sludge trucking distance
179 Esc number Escalation factor to current date
49.5 ELCO Mills Electricity cost mills/ kWh
50 DF ft Estimated Duct run
20 BLRY yr Average boiler life remaining. =< S .00036765 ton/hr SO2 removal rate - ton /hr AR . 14989095 ton/hr Ash removal rate ton - /hr MCR 200 MW Plant maximum continuous rating Gtot 960 acfm Total actual gas flow from plant TotG 1586.087 cfm300 Plant flue gas rate - cfm at 300 F CF 96 number Average capacity factor
a N number Total number of trains needed
Sfetr .0003 ton/ton SO2 emission rate from plant -
OUTPUT Units Description
GrandTo 7465551.5 $1988 Grand Total of costs
TOTANN 2783090.4 $1988 Total Annual costs
Total 2164869.2 $1980 Total system cost
AdjDC 4113251.5 $1988 Adjusted direct cost (escalated to dat: IndCst 2108041.4 $1988 Indirect cost (Int., Eng. spares etc.) Cont 1244258.6 $1988 Contingency allowance
Conv 248602.95 $1980 Conveyor cost
Silo 32817.763 $1980 Storage Silo cost
Ball 375005.9 $1980 Ball mill cost
Stge 2.8876747 $1980 Storage tank cost
PandML 30504.279 $1980 Pumps and motors cost for L-S preparat A 686933.78 $1980 Total L-S preparation cost
Abs 6792.2588 $1980 Absorbers cost
FandMA $1980 Fans and motors cost for absorbers onl: FandMV 1336.2783 $1980 Fans & motors cost for abs. with ventu: PandMA 367.97217 $1980 Pumps and motors cost
Tank 141.16174 $1980 Tank cost
Soot 571.78435 $1980 Sootblower cost
Duct 0 $1980 Ducting cost
Valv 425.0713 $1980 Valves cost |
TABLE D-1.2
LIMESTONE FLUE GAS DESULPHURIZATION (CONT’ D)
B
Clar VacF TandH Fixetr PandMS Spond Mob
RR
9634.5266
14564.492 311532.24 929.07348 10940.582 12196.573 1092533.7 22000.692 0
1464697 .3
124.06202 4234.1038 3316.3175 47.857644 0
213744 298622.06 44793.309 294610.49 32061.6 49161.12 940714.92 3364.1751 245805.6 343415.37 343771.61 373277.58 26129.43 298622.06
| 22396.655
1119832.7 1840258.5 2117.0519
$1980
$1980 $1980 $1980 $1980 $1980 $1980 $1980 $1980
$1980
$1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1983 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988 $1988
Total SO2 scrubbing cost
Clarifiers cost
Vacuum filters cost
Tanks and mixers cost
Fixation chemical storage cost Sludge pumps and motors cost Sludge pond cost
Mobile equipment cost
RR siding roads etc
Total sludge handling euipment cost
Total Limestone cost Fixation chemical cost Total electricity cost Total cost of water Flue gas reheating cost Direct labour cost Labour and materials cost Cost of supplies
Plant overheads Supervisory costs Payroll overheads
Total operating cost Total utilities cost Total labour cost
Total maintenance cost Total overhead cost Depreciation
Interim replacement costs Cost of taxes
Cost of insurance Capital Charges
Total fixed costs Sludge trucking costs
TABLE D-1.3:
VARIABLE SHEET
CAUSTIC ABSORPTION
St Input—— Name—— Output— Unit— Comment— x c—
coves cc [JT =)
468300
"07e 62.4 .1428504 160
.225
. 90002 ve
n CLR
2080 .0203 3741
nn “ee
13.45 eles .125 1.9
=
a) 2402 .5783 133. 47657 .25
43.24
1 5224. 4898
ft°3/hr
number
1b/z% 3 (Spee
ose CE lost* 3 1b/£2 3 1b/£*.hr
lb/hr lb.mol/hr in 1b/ft°2
Caustic Absorption
June 1 1988
Paper & Allied - Process Lime Kiln
Gage rate acin
Temperature of gas ppm at inlet (base) ppm at outlet (top)
thimber of Transi=r "Inits required
Mol Wt of gas (air = 20)
Density of Liguid
Liquid visessisy
Liquid vismeity at bac-
Density of gas at hase
Density of liquid az Lace
Viscosity of gas(Alr =.):312cpee @ 200) Packing factor (= 2/8 2} Dizzsivisy en air (Assim: Diffus y in H20 (assum = 22-5) Slope cf equilibrium curve Acceleranicn due to. gravity
Operating f2cssr hr. vr
Unis ost :2 2lactricisy
Coss of water $/1000 gai
Cost/hr of operator
Cost/hr of maint=nabcs
Fraction of shif* zorked by operator Erac*ion of shift worked by engineering Factor for overheads
Factor to Keep ls flooding (.6 -.8) Liquid flow at base of solum
Liquid rate lb.mole/hr at base
Plate thickness
Functicn of zeight /ft°2 of mtal used for plate. 43.24 for 1/4 plate Function of metal of column see below Pump pressure: ‘lozsle press. + head Length of piping
Cost / 100 % of pifing see below
PI
Packing type
Constant for packing typs Constant for packing typs Constant for packing type
Constant for packing Constant for packing
Constant for packing Constant for packing
NEC Ge pene ee | Sa | Sa dl se a
sdb ss tpl a Gill etfs Mf 5)
J
EUGENE
TABLE D-1.3:
a Ni
1D ETES NE he
20
. 0808
. 468300
37823.98 1304.2752 25153 .878 4.5297663 22.648822 5.3125363 3.6616417 45.014552
1304.2752 1297 . 4377 37325 .98
123293046 - 43207905
. 06344743 !
26322159 .Q0229572 . 42302659 2.8293968 . 28381596 - 15044568 -00013045 -90010001 1.0001E-7 3.535498
2426:12€
14585.041 348.411075 9566. 4064 1.2060977 2.2995889 801.28205
25.601378 29676.517 5870.5005 11642.718 32935 .613 33.7
8910 1697. 1391 1795.68 149.64 149.64 448.92 886 .33545 11.538217 15.36931 8.230631 893.36173 2446.6171 6041.62 5644.3
117991.51
. $124.3431
1b/ft°3 ft 3/Mr lb/hr
CAUSTIC ABSORPTION (CONT’D)
Density of gas Gas rate at standard temp and pressure Gas flow at base of colum
lb.mol/hr Gas rate lb.mole/hr at bage
lb/hr
ft
£t
ft
in. vater lb/ft 2
mol/hr mol/hr lb/hr
ft
$1986 $1986 $1986 $1986
$1986 $1986
Liquid rate lb/nr
Overall gas tranefer unit Height of packed tower Diameter of column
Column pregsure drop (in. vater) Colum pressure drop {lb/ft°2)
Gag rate lb.mle-hr
Liquid rate ib.nole/hr
Gas rate lb/hr
Intermediate factor £ir cep of colum Superficial mage gas velocity
Useful superficial gas velocity Colum cross sectional area at top Intermdiate facter for base .:£ column Superficial masz gas velocity at base Column cross sectiznal area at base Useful superficial gas velecity at base Holes at inlet (base)
Moles at cutlet (top)
Mol ratio SOC, ‘air at inlet (bac=)
Hol ratio 2,25 at cutler ‘ten?
Gas ‘ransfer :mitz
Intermediate facter
Intermediate factor (alternative! Intermediate factor
Intermediate factor (altemative) Liquid transfer coefficient
Overall columm eight
Basic cost of column shell + grids etc. Weight of column
Cost of laddere and platforms
Cost of packirg
Cost/ ft°3 of packing
Coss of pipe sork
Cost of pump
Cost of fan
Cost of pump motor
Cost of fan motor
Cost of motor starters
Vol. of recire.tank (appr. 2.5hr hold up) Volume of metal in, tank Fan HP needed
Pump HP needed
Total coset of electricity Cost of water to scrubber Cost of Labour
Cost of ntce.
Intermediate cost Cost of recirculating sank
TABLE D-1.3:
CAUSTIC ABSORPTION (CONT’D)
Totcost 131142.53 51986 Total overall costs
Totopes
$1986 Total operating cost Function of metal = fm
S/S 304 S/S 316 Monel 400 Inconel 600 Titanium
0 0 nt nt nt — © CG 19
NOM —
TABLE D-1.4:
FUEL SWITCH TO NATURAL GAS
St Input—— Name— Output— Unit—— Coment——___
1G. 1271.5182 1635 . 2695
2166. 1572 :
2059. 1428 1328.2772
11714.901 2665 .7624 2655.7624 352.32127 17046.425
-5093.763
-115153.2 960.79104
29237." 4989.72
MBTU/hr BTU/1b number fraction
S/MBTU
of st et
dscf,/MBTU
$1987 $1987 $1987 $1987 $1987
$1987
$1987 $1987
$1987 $1987
Low Excess air costs File :- LEAOIL.TK
Fuel Switch Calculations 09 Sept. 1988
Food & Bev. - Boilers Resid oil
Thermal input - 10°6 BTU/hr Fuel heating value
Enter 0 1£ not LEA, 1 for LEA Capacity factor
For socal = 1, for 511 or gas = 2. Fuel cost 3/METU in 51991 Nitrogen content of fuel Uncentrellad sxcese air - vos bleu Controlled excess air - se beiew
Fuel factor
LEA = 15% excess air (oil or gas) LEA = 35% excess air (stoker) LEA = 39% excess air (palverised)
Non-LEA = 40% excese air (oi) or gaz) Non-LEA = 50% sxcece air tonal)
ffac :- Natural Gas = 9000 Efac == O11°= 9393 fac :- Coal = 9260
Percent flame extension due to etaging Flue gas flow rate for natural £22 Fluegas flowrate for oil
Eluegas flowrate for stoker boiler Flue gas flow rate for Pulverised soal Flue gas flow rate for FEC
Equipment cost
Installation cost
Indirect cost
Spars parts costs
Turnkey cost
LOW EXCESS AIR
Annual fuel cost
STAGED COMBUSTION (OI1)
Turnkey cost for staged combustion Electricity cost ser annum “STAGED COMBUSTION (Pulverised coal)
Equipment cost (pulverised coal) Inetallation cost ( pulverised coal)
TABLE D-1.4: FUEL SWITCH TO NATURAL GAS (CONT’D)
Indp 4988.72 $1987 SPP 852.32127 $1987 ELECP 989.0496 $1987 FuelP 863.72571 $1987 FUELSCO 863.72571 $1987
Indirect costs (pulverised coal) Spare parts (pulverised coal) Electricity cost (pulverised coal) Fuel costs (pulverised coal)
Fuel costs staged combustion
memes VARIABLE SHEET Name—— Output—— Unit
St Input
TABLE D-2.1:
Uncea Corcea
Ffac
PRCT FLW FLAO FLAC FLWP FLAFB
Equip Inst Ind SP
TK
FUEL
TKSC ELEC
Equipp Instp Indp
30
29060. 24927. 33261 31789. 24147.
17004.
772 493
3973
101 246
439
4582.3351 4582.3351 1308.4555 26169.109
-170362.7
455788.61 17466.578
40194. 15102: 15102:
MBTU/hr BTU/1b number fraction
$/HBTU d
scf,/MBTU
it
acfn acin actn acfn acfm
$1987 $1987 $1987 $1987 $1987
$1987
$1987 $1987
$1987 $1987 31987
LOW EXCESS AIR AND STAGED COMBUSTION
Low Excegs air costs
File :- LEAOIL.TK 09 Sept. 1983 Metal Fab- Boilers Resid. oil
Thermal input - 10°6 BTU/hr Fuel heating value Enter 0 if not LEA, Capacity factor
Foricoal = 1%, £Zor ot] or gas = 2. Fuel cost $5/MBTU in 5:981
Nitrogen content of fuel Uncontrolled <z5esz air - ges below Controlled =“c¢s2 air - see below
1 for LEA
Fuel factor
LEA = 15% excess air (ofl or gas)
LEA = 35% excess air (stoker)
LEA = 30% excess air (pulverised) Non-LEA = 40% excess air (oil or gas) Non-LiA = 59% excees air (<oal)
Brac =CNasural Gas = 9000
Ney 9 Or LOB 90295
Sac: Soak = 925C
percent Zlame #xtenzion due to staging Flue gas flow rate for natural gas Fluegas flowrate for oil
Fluegas flowrate for stoker boiler Flue gas flow rate for pulverised coal Flue gas flow rate for FBC
Equipment cost Installation cost Indirect cost Spare parts costs Turnkey cost
LOW EXCESS AIR
Annual fuel sost
STAGED COMBUSTION (OI1)
Turnkey cost for staged combustion Electricity cost per annum
“STAGED COMBUSTION (Pulverised coal) Equipment cost (pulyerised coal) TInetallation cost ( pulverised coal) indirect costs (pulverized coal)
TABLE D-2.1:
SPP 1308.4555 $1987 ELECP 17980.301 $1987 FuelP 28887.614 $1987 FUELSCO 28887.614 $1987
LOW EXCESS AIR AND STAGED COMBUSTION (CONT’D)
Spare parts (pulverised coal) Electricity cost (pulverised coal) Fuel costs (pulverised coal) Fuel costs staged combustion
TABLE D-2.2: SELECTIVE NON-CATALYTIC REDUCTION
VARIABLE SHEET -excex:
St Input Name—— Output—— Unit Comment NOx Removal - SNCR. 09 Sept. 1988 Metal & Fab- Boilers Resid oil 16270 Qn Ncfm Flue gas volume Ncfn 175 aly C Flue gas temperature Q 26699.487 acfm Flue gas flou rate - acfm Capezst 705220.91 $1987 Capital cost Opcost 185827.44 $1987 Total Operating costs Totlab 13850.493 31987 Labour costs Elpwr 55401.97 $1987 Electricity cost Mtcs 11542.077 $1987 Maintenance cost Anmcst 43859.893 $1987 Ammonia cost Fixest 49630.932 $1987 Fixed operating cost
279 san K Normal Temperatura
TABLE D-2.3:
St Input
16270 175
Name—— Output—— Unit
Qn T Q
Capest Opcost Totlab Elper mice Annest Fixes*%
15023.59
1890002.2 465561.92 27011.057 37815.479 2233059
J1F641.52
95696.315
Ncfm Cc acfm
$1987 $1987 $1987 51937 $1937 $1937 31987 K
Comment
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
NOx Removal - SCR
09 Sept Metal F Resid o
Flue ga Flue ga Flue ga
Capital
1988 ab- boilers il
s volume Ncfn ¢ temperature s flow rate - acfn
cost
Total Operating costs Labour costz Electricity cogs Maintenance cost
Ammonia
cost
Fixed operating cost
Normal
temperature
COUNTDOWN ACID RAIN FUTURE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
PHASE III
"Abatement Strategy Assessment"
Prepared by: ECOLOGISTICS LIMITED
Waterloo, Ontario
Prepared for: SENES CONSULTANTS LTD.
Richmond Hill, Ontario
rAges 3 ai IVARCREET (He a
contingent BRIE SATE. 0? logt e tt —_ S+ttut mi: (oe
TL rit Va | Me de -e TETE v 7 ¢ Pe è a E Lee frogt ete > n > at ae 7
“tm A ryokan Jantes: f°
“i beta HTML) EAU
cea? ootanw
vor beet TE EVA TAUENUN ELA do ANH hou
DISCLAIMER
The conclusions, opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent the views of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In addition, the consultant is solely responsible for the accuracy of data and estimates presented in this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.0 METHODOLOGY
3.0 PREPARATION OF DATA INPUTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Development of an Abatement Cost Curve Development of a Convex Abatement Cost Curve Aggregate Abatement Cost Curve
Flow Chart for "COMPARE AND CHECK" Procedure
12 18
Table Table Table Table Table Table
Table Table Table Table Table Table
Table
LIST OF TABLES
Sector and Sources Considered for Abatement Strategies Base Case Emissions Status Quo Scenario - Option 1 SO, Emission Control Cost Data Emission Control Cost Data Primary SO, Abatement Strategy Scenarios SO. Abatement Strategies for 30%, 10% and 50% Emission ctions SO, Abatement Strategies with INC Not Meeting 1994 Regulated Reductions SO, Abatement Strategies with Hydro Not Meeting 1994 Regulated Reductions SO, Equity-Based Abatement Strategy Primary NO, Abatement Strategy Scenarios Abatement Strategies for 30%, 10% and 50% Emission ctions Abatement Strategies with Hydro Not Meeting 1994 Regulated Reductions NO, Equity-Based Abatement Strategy
st
FORWARD
This report presents a study of SO, and NO; emission sources in Ontario and proposed emission control strategies to achieve Ontario's commitment for SO, and NO, reductions
after 1993.
The report consists of a summary document
supported by three appendices.
Summar
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
This Document
The summary document describes the findings of 2 phases of the study and draws conclusions on abatement strategies.
The Phase I Report sets out a 1985 base year emission inventory for SO, and NO, examines past trends, and outlines five basic future scenarios.
The Phase II Report identifies the costs of reducing SO, and NO, emissions using alternative emission targets identified in the Phase I Report.
The Phase III Report develops alternative cost-effectiveness abatement strategies that achieve pre-specified aggregate emission targets. The strategies are based on control technologies, described in Phase II, that are presently considered suitable for SO, and NO, emission control. The computer model developed for the foregoing work is described.
This document describes Phase III, Appendix 3.
PHASE III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
abatement strategies. Emission controls for the following sources were used in the analysis:
SECTOR or SOURCE So, SCENARTOS SCENARTOS TT SCERIOS SCENARIO
Primary Metals Yes No
Food and Beverages Yes Yes Rubber and Plastics No Yes Leather, Textile and Clothing Yes Yes Paper and Allied Products Yes Yes Metal Fabrication Machinery Industries Yes Yes Transportation Equipment Industries Yes Yes Non-Metallic Mineral Products Yes Yes Chemical and Petroleum Products Yes Yes Other Groups Yes Yes INCO Yes No Ontario Hydro Yes Yes Falconbridge Yes No Algoma Yes No Mobile Sources No Yes
Note: No, emissions for Falconbridge and Algoma were judged not to be significant for purposes of this study. These data were incorporated into a computer spreadsheet model designed to
identify the least cost combination of control options that will achieve a pre-specified level of Provincial emission reductio - Only existing
iv
The starting point in formulating alternative abatement strategies was assumed to be the level of provincial emissions that will remain in 1994 after the implementation of emission controls mandated by Regulations covering the major point sources: INO, Ontario Hydro, Algoma and Falconbridge.
Only two or three discrete control technologies were considered for each major point source or sector, and no interpolations of the data were made to allow for emission control reduction levels falling between the levels corresponding to these technologies. Due to the discrete nature of the emission control data, aggregate emission reduction levels developed with the model may exceed or be lower than target reduction levels for specific scenarios.
Summary results from the analysis are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Emission control costs and resulting emission reductions in these tables represent province-wide aggregates covering all controllable sources. Emission control cost estimates in these tables do not include those costs that must be incurred to satisfy the 1994 emission targets mandated by the regulations for INO, Hydro, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel at Wawa.
NO, Seulseone are doniret en DNS POS ee eee ject to Federal regulation. Federally mandated controls for new vehicles can readily make up for any failure on the part of Ontario Hydro to achieve its 1994 Regulation levels for NO,. The maximum potential emission reduction is 267,000 tonnes at a present value cost of $6,476 M. Mobile source controls account for 64% of this reduction.
SO, emissions on the other hand are dominated by the large point sources. For example, the scenario involving a failure by INO to meet 1994 regulated SO, targets causes all other sources to be pushed to maximim control levels. Target emission reductions for this scenario exceed the achievable reductions by 118,000 tonnes.
Abatement costs rise rapidly with the degree of emission reduction. Moving from the 10% reduction level to the 50% reduction level for either SO, or (a five-fold increase), causes costs in both cases to increase thirty -fold in present value terms.
It can be concluded that emission reductions at INC© are critical if Ontario is to meet its SO, emission reduction commitments at a reasonable cost. If INC does not reduce its emissions to 1994 target levels, then the aggregate provincial targets may not be achievable even if all other sources implement their maximm SO, control levels.
TABLE 1:
SUMMARY OF 505 ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
EMISSION CONTROL
ABATEMENT EMISSION CONTROL COSTS (M 1987 eee (1000’s_ TONNES/YR) STRATEGY OPERATING CAPITAL TARGET MODELED SCENARIO 1 rat REDUCTION 2 REDUCTION > 10% Reduction $12 $ 43 $ 159 90 103 30% Reduction S$ 63 $ 299 S$ 887 274 278 50% Reduction $342 $2,146 $5,338 450 445 Reduction to 1994 $307 $2,062 $4,933 430 319 target level,
INC remains at
1985 emission levels
Reduction to 1994 $ 57 $ 390 S927: 215 208 target level,
INO achieves 1/2
of its 1994 target
reduction
Reduction to 1994 $ 26 S 76 S 321 162 156 target level,
Hydro remains at
1985 emission levels
Reduction to 1994 $ 6 $ 26 $ 78 81 TF1 target level,
Hydro achieves 1/2 of its 1994 target reduction
NOTES :
1. Percent reduction relates to 1994 base case emissions after Regulations are met, which are 900,885 tonnes/yr. This figure exceeds the 1994 MOE objective (885, 000 tonnes) because it assumes that Algoma and Falconbridge will
increase emissions to maximm acceptable levels.
2. “Target Reduction" is the percent reduction referenced in colum 1 or the shortfall arising as a result of any failure to meet 1994 Regulations.
3. Discrepancies between target and modeled emission reduction levels are due to discrete nature of the control options.
4. All sectors are at maximm emission control levels.
vi
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF NO, ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
EMISSION CONTROL
ABATEMENT EMISSION CONTROL COSTS (M 1987 $) (1000's TONNES/YR) STRATEGY OPERATING CAPITAL PRESENT TARGET MODELED SCENARTO 1 VALUE REDUCTION 2 REDUCTION > 10% Reduction $ 15 Sad S$ 216 58 36
30% Reduction $ 15 $1,051 $1,190 173 189
50% Reduction $347 $3,236 $6,476 289 267 4 Reduction to 1994 Sune Sie 024: cn. HA 33 149 >
target level with
Hydro remaining at 1985 emission levels
NOTES :
Percent reduction relates to base case emissions after Regulations are met, which are 578,135 tonnes/yr.
"Target Reduction" is the percent reduction referenced in colum 1 or the shortfall arising as a result of any failure to meet 1994 Regulations.
Discrepancies between target and modeled emission reduction levels are due to discrete nature of the control options.
All sectors are at maximm emission control levels.
A reduction of 149,000 tonnes NO, is achieved by means of Federally
mandated controls on mobile sources. Only a portion of these are actually required to meet the 1994 Provincial emission reduction target for NO,.
Costs are for 3-way catalytic converters on mobile sources. Only capital cost
data were provided for this option (See Scenario 12 in Table 4.8 and Appendix D of this report).
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project study team included:
M. Fortin Ecologistics Limited E.A. McBean University of Waterloo S. Tang Ecologistics Limited
Senes Consultants Ltd. provided data used in the study and reviewed draft
reports. P. Complin, A. Deshpande, J. Donnan, and G. Endicott with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, also provided careful and thorough reviews of draft reports.
viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Extensive information has been developed regarding the causes and effects of acid rain and the technologies available for reducing the emissions responsible for acid rain. However, this knowledge by itself does not solve the policy- ’s problem of determining the emission reduction levels required at individual sources to achieve overall environmental objectives. À
Many approaches exist to determine alternative abatement strategies for acid rain, including, an emission-driven approach, a deposition-targeted approach and a cost-effective or least-cost targeted approach [McBean et al, 1985]. The latter two approaches relate the impact of controls at emissions sources to sensitive receptor areas. A linear programing screening model was developed by McBean et al [1985] that utilized a source/receptor linkage. It reduces the total number of abatement scenarios to be considered by identifying those strategies which are both efficient in terms of minimizing control costs, and effective in terms of achieving the desired deposition objectives.
This screening model provided valuable technical support in early discussions of national and trans-national abatement requirements by addressing the problem at a continental scale. Its particular strength lay in its ability to evaluate emission control requirements at the provincial/state level and at the national level.
The broad scale of this model however, had two major implications: first, only major sources could readily be accommodated within the model structure, and second, detailed information was required related to source inventories, abatement cost functions and long-range transport relationships. As the provinces’ acid-rain control policy evolves, it must focus increasingly, and in more detail, on the issues of how and
where to control emissions. A larger number of provincial sources must be considered and greater attention must be paid to the cost implications of alternative abatement strategies.
In keeping with these changing policy interests, the analytic approach employed must also change. To this end, the Ministry of the Environment has commissioned a study entitled "Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies". The first two Phases of this study produced an updated inventory of emission control data describing the removal efficiencies and associated costs of alternative control technologies for major point sources and for industrial sectors which are also Significant in aggregate. A parallel study by Maclaren Plansearch Ltd. (1988) produced NO,, emission reduction and control cost data for mobile sources. The third Phase, which is the subject of this report, incorporates this data into an analytic framework for developing and evaluating alternative acid rain abatement strategies.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The objective of this third phase of the study was to develop alternative,
cost-effective abatement strategies that achieve pre-specified aggregate
emission targets. This objective entailed three primary tasks:
1) development of a simple and efficient approach to the analysis of cost-effective acid-rain abatement strategies;
2) implementation of the approach as a computer model; 3) application of the model to a set of predetermined policy scenarios.
1.3 Scope À number of features defined the Scope of this study, namely:
— only Ontario sources were to be considered;
1.4
the analysis addressed both SO, and NO, emission reduction targets;
the impact of emission reductions on receptor deposition were not addressed;
emission reductions considered here move the Province beyond those emission reductions already required for 1994 by Regulations imposed on Ontario Hydro, INOO, Falconbridge and Algama ;
only existing sources were to be considered (though the approach should provide the opportunity to add new sources in subsequent analyses) ;
emission controls are assumed to be implemented by 1994;
emission control cost data of a generic nature were used, and, with the exception of those four major sources cited above, emission sources were aggregated by sector.
Product
The principal end product of this phase of the "Countdown" study is a set of abatement scenarios that evaluate the implication of future uncertainty in the emission control performance of the four regulated sources. In particular, an evaluation is made of the SO; and NO,, emission controls required to move beyond the 1994 Regulation levels and of how these requirements are affected if the 1994 Regulation levels are not achieved.
2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Overview
Cost-effectiveness provides the underlying approach to strategy development in this study. Each abatement strategy is based on a scenario comprising:
- an emission reduction target,
- assumptions regarding the interest rate, the planning horizon and starting or base case emission levels,
- constraints requiring that certain technologies or sectors be forced into the strategy or conversely be left out.
A cost-effective abatement strategy is defined as one that conforms to the requirements of a scenario while minimizing the total abatement cost to the polluters.
Various approaches can be used to identify cost-effective abatement strategies from among the complete set of strategies that would fulfill the requirements of a scenario. The simplest involves generating every conceivable strategy and then picking the least expensive one. This may be feasible in very limited cases involving only a few control options, but is not otherwise practical. At the other end of the spectrum, there are sophisticated decision algorithms such as linear programming which go further than required for this study.
The approach that was most reasonable, given the nature of the study entailed an analysis of the incremental or marginal costs associated with the alternative control technologies available at each source or in each
- sector. In essence, this approach simply requires that technologies be sorted in order of increasing marginal cost; then, for any given scenario, options must be selected progressively from this list until the aggregate emission target is achieved.
This chapter goes on to describe how the marginal cost approach is applied, moving progressively through the topics of total cost estimation, abatement cost function development, strategy development and the generation of scenarios. A numerical example is provided in the last section to further clarify the discussion. The computer model developed to implement this approach is documented in Appendix C.
Zee Total Costs
Abatement costs include both the capital costs associated with installing control equipment and the recurrent annual operating costs for running and maintaining that equipment. In this application, the cost data correspond to distinct and mutually exclusive control options. Where two discrete technologies, such as a fuel adjustment and a flue gas scrubbing system can be used separately or in combination, the combination is therefore identified as a third control option.
In order to place all cost data - both near-term capital expenditures and future operating costs - on the same footing for purposes of comparison it is necessary to express these in terms of dollar values in a single reference year. A present value calculation is used to do this. This calculation, in effect, expresses all capital and future operating costs in terms of a capital fund that, if invested at prevailing market interest rates in the first year of implementation of a control technology, would completely finance that technology over the full planning horizon.*
* By assuming a market interest rate measured net of inflation, we are measuring the cost of capital funds in the private sector. This cost may vary from the social cost of capital funds due to taxation and other factors that affect the market for capital funds. The analytic approach described below enables the user to select market or social values for the interest rate.
Present values are calculated using the following equation: PV = CC + 0C,(1 + R) 1 + OC,(1 + R) 2 + ... + OC (1 + R) 7
SAT)
where
Present Value of Total Costs; = Initial Capital Cost: Operating Cost in year t;
= Real Interest Rate;
= time horizon in years.
ROUE Il
Market interest rates incorporate a factor accounting for the impact of inflation on the value of savings.
The real interest rate is measured net of this inflation factor and is calculated as follows:
R= ((1 + i)/(1 + I))-1 .- (2)
where i = Nominal or Market Interest Rate: Inflation Rate.
253 Abatement Cost Functions
Once abatement cost data are expressed in present value forn, it is necessary to develop an abatement cost function for each discrete source or sector. An abatement cost function describes the relationship between total cost and removal efficiency over a range of removal efficiencies. The feature that distinguishes the abatement cost function from a simple schedule of all available control technologies is that any inefficient control technologies are omitted from the abatement cost function. These
are technologies that are technically inferior because they offer a lower removal efficiency at a higher total cost than alternative efficient technologies (control technology 1 in Figure 2.1). Thus, when total costs are plotted against removal efficiencies for all control technologies for a given source or sector, the abatement cost function comprises the: lower envelope of points representing the least cost alternatives - shown as control technologies 2, 3, and 4 in Figure 2.1.
The marginal cost for a control technology on the abatement cost function is defined as the increase in cost divided by the increase in emission removals with increases measured relative to the next lower option. In other words, it is the slope of the line segment joining a data point to the next lower data point, or conversely it is the unit cost or average cost per tonne removed defined over that line segment (see Figure 2.1). In calculating marginal costs, the emission reductions must be expressed in present value terms in order to be commensurate with the present value cost data. To do otherwise (i.e. to divide by the simple sum of emission removals over time) would entail mixing values with different time scales and would produce meaningless unit cost data.
The total cost will always increase as one moves up an abatement cost function, but the marginal cost may increase or decrease depending on whether the slope of the function is increasing (a convex function) or decreasing (a concave function). Typically, however, marginal costs increase as removal efficiency increases for a given source since it is usually more difficult, and consequently more costly, to remove increasing amounts of a contaminant from an emission stream.
For reasons that will be developed in the next section, the use of an algorithm based on marginal costs necessitates that all abatement cost functions be either linear or convex. Thus, where a section of an abatement cost function was found to be concave, the offending data point was dropped and the line segment then connected to the next data point in the function as with control technology 3 in Figure 2.2.
SAIND JSOD juoueyeqy ue Jo jueuudojsA9Q |. ‘Zz ani
IBAOWS} JUDUIWID}UOD
juawabsas eur Jo
d
adojs sti Aq z ABojouysa, à PS1NSDSWN ¢ ‘ys5a] 191}U07 JO }S09 jpuibio
¢ ABojouyss] JO4}U09 yp ABojouysa; |o1}u07
ABojouysa| joijuos juaroiyyaul REA
O
| ABojouysa; [043U009
3SV9 3Svg
$}SOD |D}0] JO anJDA juasa)
SAINO JSOD JUBWd}eEQyY XBAUOD E jo JUsWdoO|aAeq Z°z eNbi4
JOAOWAY JUDUIWID}UOD
4SVO 3Sva GAIND }S09 = X2AUOT joUl4 a Z ABojouysa; ” |1013U009
RAS BY € Abojouusal 5 Fos [01}U07 + ABojouuss] [01}Uu09
oO | 4Bojouysa]
Lg ie ae th
AbBojouy33] |01}U09 yuaIdyjau;
S}SOD |D}O] JO SNIDA YUasaig
2.4 Strategy Development
The abatement cost functions are the primary data inputs used in developing an abatement strategy. The other prerequisite is the scenario Which stipulates conditions to be satisfied by the strategy and assumptions that modify the input data (see Section LES 1 I
The next step in the analysis essentially involves the development of an aggregate abatement cost function for the entire province comprising all of the individual source and sector control options sorted in order of increasing marginal cost. Once sorted, the aggregate function is derived as a schedule or plot of cumulative control option costs against cumulative emission reductions. The values to be amulated are the incremental costs and incremental emission reductions used to define marginal costs for each control option.
Since control options are first sorted based on increasing marginal cost, the slope of the aggregate function mist increase as total emission reduction increases. The function is therefore also convex.
The abatement strategy is determined by selecting the discrete data point on the aggregate abatement cost function that most closely matches the target emission reduction for the scenario in question. (Since only discrete control options are considered here, a continuous interpolation between data points to provide an exact match to the target is not made.)
All control options represented by data points lying between a zero reduction level and the selected control option on the aggregate function mast then be evaluated in order to determine the emission reduction level required for each source or sector. Any source or sector not represented in this set of control options is obviously excluded from the strategy.
The analysis of included sources or sectors relies critically on the convexity of their individual abatement cost functions. Due to this convexity, data points from each of these individual curves will appear in
10
the aggregate abatement cost function in the same order as is found in the individual curve (although individual data points may be separated by data points drawn from other sources or sectors). This is the case because the aggregate curve is also convex.
Thus, if only one point is found for a source or sector in the selected set of data points, it mst be the first or lowest level control option for that source or sector. If two or more data points for a single source or sector occur in the selected set, however, these will represent consecutive control options starting with the first. Since these are mutually exclusive (see Section 2.3) it is the last or highest level option that represents the required removal level for that source or sector (see Figure 2.3).
2.5 Generation of Scenarios As noted in Section 2.1, factors that define a scenario are:
- the aggregate emission reduction target,
- assumptions regarding interest and inflation rates, the planning horizon and the base case emissions, and
- constraints related to controls for specific sources or sectors.
When the aggregate emission reduction target is increased, new emission controls will be required. Depending on the size of the increase, changes in removal levels may be required for all sources and sectors or for only some of them. If the latter is the case, then the control technologies and consequently the marginal costs will change only for those sources and sectors for which higher removal levels are prescribed in the new scenario.
When financial assumptions or base case emissions are changed, the costs for individual control options change, in the former case due to a change
in the present value calculation and in the latter case as a result of a
all
SAIND JSOD Juswayeqy sjebaibby ©° z ounbi4
IDAOWSY JUDUILUD}UOD
3
ana dl jure | \/ oss
ANYOAT
J 12197 jOAoway UOISSIW 10} sjo4yU05 JUBWIB}OQGY 841)98)j3 1S09 payajas
$}SOD |D}JOL JO SnIDA quasaiy
12
modelling assumption that operating and maintenance costs vary in direct proportion to base case emission levels. These Changes in costs can cause the abatement cost function for a source or sector to become concave. Results mst therefore be reviewed carefully to identify problems with concavity.
It is also possible to conduct a "what if" analysis focussing on sector-specific contingencies. This entails pre-specifying a level of control for a given source or sector. The options here include:
— excluding a specific source, sector or control option (causing data points to be omitted when defining the aggregate abatement cost function) ;
- forcing certain control options into the strategy (Corresponding SO, or NO,, removals are subtracted from the provincial removal target and the selection of remaining control options is based on this net figure) ; — assuming that 1994 Regulatory emission reductions are not achieved by
the big four sources (the shortfall is manually added to the target and must be made up by removals from other sectors).
2.6 Sample Calculations
A two sector example is used for Purposes of illustration here. Base Case emissions for sector A and sector B are 2,099 Tonnes/yr and
14,821 Tonnes/yr, respectively and the data points for their abatement cost functions are:
13
Sector A
Control Emission Emission Capital Cost Operating Cost Option (Tonnes/yr) Reduction (million $) (million $) Ne 7 BCE 2,099 0% 0 0
SNCR 860 59% $13.90 S3-10
SCR 335 84% $65.20 $11.46
Sector B <<. Control Emission Percent Capital Cost Operation Cost Option (Tonnes/yr) Reduction (million $) (million $) RE ee eee BCE 14,821 0 0 0 SC 13,627 8 S "8:30 SH1530 SNCR 6,369 57 $ 76.50 $16.80 SCR 2,814 81 $273.40 $48.08
where: BCE = Base Case Emission for the Sector; SC = Stage Combustion-Boiler; SNCR = Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction-All Streams: SCR = Selective Catalytic Reduction-All Streams.
The incremental or discrete contaminant removal for control option "A" are calculated as:
DCR; = (RED; X BCE) - DCR;_, where: DCR; = Discrete Contaminant Removal for jth technology ;
RED; = Percent Reduction for ith technology.
14
The marginal costs are calculated by employing the following equation:
MC; = (EV;- PV;_3)/ (DCR; Xx PF)
where MC; = Marginal Cost for it? technology;
j= Present Value of cost for jth technology;
PV;_, = Present Value of costs for i-1t technology; DCR; = Discrete Contaminant Removal for i technology; PF = Present Value factor.
(The denominator in this equation is the present value of emission removals as described on page 7 above.)
The results for industrial sectors A and B are given as follows:
Industrial Sector A
eee
Control Present Value Discrete Removal Marginal Cost Option (code) (million $) (Tomnes/yr) ($/Tonne) 8 —————— ee ee ae BCE (A1) 0 0 () SNCR (A2) $ 42.00 1238 S3,170 SCR (A3) $172.27 525 $26,400
—_—_--eo
Industrial Sector B — ee eee eS ee eee
Technologies Present Value Discrete Removal Marginal Cost
(million $) (Tonnes/yr) ($/Tonne) SN CU SP Ee BCE (B1) 0 0 0 sc (B2) $ 20.44 1185 $ 1,850 SNCR (B3) $233.42 7258 $ 3,140 SCR (B4) $722.48 3555 $14,700
eee
A nominal interest rate of 13%, an inflation rate of 6% and a time horizon of 15 years were used in the above calculations.
15
The next step involves ranking the marginal costs from both sectors in ascending order and summing the discrete removals:
Sorted Increasing Cumulative Control Marginal Cost Discrete Removal Removals Options ($/Tonnes) (Tomnes/yr) (Tonnes/yr)
eS
Al 0 0 0
Bl 0 | 0 0
B2 $ 1,850 1,185 1,185 B3 $ 3,140 7,258 8,443 A2 $3,170 1,238 9,681 B4 $14,700 3,555 13,236 A3 $26,400 525 13% 761
—————————————————]—_]_]_]__—_—_—_—_
The target removal (TR = 9500 Tonnes/yr) level is compared with the cumulative removal using a "compare and check" procedure which is summarized in a flow chart in Figure 2.4. The results are given as follows:
Cummilative
Control Removals (S;)Is Summation Is abs(S;~TR) Model Options (Tonnes/yr) less than TR? >abs (S;_,—TR) ? Selection sd 15. Al 0 YES NA IN Bl 0 YES NA IN B2 1,185 YES NA IN B3 8,443 YES YES IN A2 9,681 NO NO IN B4 13,236 STOP = == A3 13761 — — —
where: abs (S;-TR) = absolute value of summation i - target removal; abs (S; ,1-TR) = absolute value of summation i-1 - target removal; NA Not Applicable.
16
Since only the technology with the highest removal efficiency in each
industrial sector is reported for that sector (see Section 2.4), the final choice is:
Control Enission Model Is % reduction Final Options Reduction Selection highest in the sector Choice RS à RES
Al 0 IN NO —
Bl 0 IN NO —
B2 8% IN NO ==
B3 57% IN YES IN
A2 59% IN YES IN
B4 81% == = —
A3 84% = = —=
The abatement strategy includes technology B3 [SCR] for sector B and technology A2 [SCR] for sector A based on the target removal of 9500
Tonnes/year. The aggregate emission removal level is equal to 9681 tonnes per year (0 + 0 + 1185 + 7258 + 1238 = 9681).
ay
911P89014 ,HOIHO CNV IHVdNOO, 40} WeYD MOl4 v' g 91n6I4
L+! NOLVAWAS Pig (OTS
! NOILVWAWAS tVgd0lS
| WAOW3Y 139HVL — ! NOLVANNS | >
IWAOWSY 139HVL — L+! NOILVARNNS |
ON
TWAOWSY 1394v1 > ! NOILVWNNS
S|
SEPA
JS
18
3.0 PREPARATION OF DATA INPUTS | 3751 Base Case Emissions
There are ten major industrial sectors and four individual corporations that are identified as significant sources of SO, and NO, emissions (Table 3.1). Primary data describing base case emission levels, as well as the costs and removal efficiencies of alternative control technologies were generated by Senes Consultants Limited in Phase II of this study. (See "Phase II - Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies", Senes, 1989(b) .)
Detailed data tables for industrial sectors and major sources are provided in the Phase I and II reports by Senes. Data extracted from this report for Phase III work included emission levels, control technologies, removal efficiencies and their capital and operating costs. Base case emissions are indicated in Table 3.2.
Table 3.1 Sector and Sources Considered for Abatement Strategies
INCLUDED IN INCIUDED IN
CODE SECTOR or SOURCE SO, NOy SCENARTOS SCENARTOS
A Primary Metals Yes No
B Food and Beverages Yes Yes
C Rubber and Plastics No Yes
D Leather, Textile and Clothing Yes Yes
E Paper and Allied Products Yes Yes
F Metal Fabrication Machinery Industries Yes Yes
G Transportation Equipment Industries Yes Yes
H Non-Metallic Mineral Products Yes Yes
I Chemical and Petroleum Products Yes Yes
J Other Groups Yes Yes
K INCO Yes No
L Ontario Hydro Yes Yes
M Falconbridge Yes No
N Algoma Yes No
O Mobile Sources No Yes Note: No, emissions for Falconbridge and Algoma were not considered to
be significant for purposes of this study.
19
TABLE 3.2 BASE CASE EMISSIONS
STATUS QUO SCENARIO - OPTION 1
SOURCE OR SECTOR SO, NO, (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year) INCO 265,000 4,900 Ontario Hydro 175,000 61,333 2 Algoma Ore Division (Wawa) 125,000 260 Falconbridge Nickel Mines 100,000 20 Industrial Sectors: Food/Beverage/Tobacco 1,647 2,881 Rubber Plastics 185 386 Leather/Textile/Clothing 7,359 1,254 Paper Products & Allied Industries 30,621 12,179 Primary Metals 14,219 672 Metal Fabricating/Machinery Industries 29,038 14,662 Transportation Equipment Industries 1,801 2,099 Non-Metallic Mineral Products 20,249 9,756 Chemical & Petroleum Products 69,902 27,892 Misc. Manufacturing 192 267 Other Major Groups 5,318 4,250 Industry Sub Total 845,531 142,811 Area Sources: Metro Toronto area 18,603 101,812 Niagara-Hamilton-Toronto Corridor 24,154 202,954 Balance of Ontario 6,067 125,124 Marine Sources 6,530 5,434 Area Source Sub Total 55,354 435,324 TOTAL 900,885 578,135
Source: Senes, 1989(a). "Phase I Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies" (Table 8).
Note: 1. Equivalent to 40,000 tonnes of NO,/year as per Regulation 281/87
20
It should be noted that Ontario will meet SO; emission limits of 885,000 tonnes per year in 1994. The higher value of 900,885 tonnes per year arises from the implicit assumption that Algoma Steel Corp. (Wawa) and Falconbridge will increase emissions to their maximm acceptable levels.
302 Emission Control Costs
Data for the following emission control options are presented by Senes (1989 (b) ) :
SO, Control technologies - fuel oil cleaning (fuel desulfurization) - fuel switching to natural gas - lime spray dryer treatment of emissions - limestone flue gas desulfurization (FGD) of emissions
NO, Control technologies - low excess air feed to burners - staged combustion in burners - selective non-catalytic reduction of emissions - selective catalytic reduction of emissions - catalytic converters (mobile sources only)
Treatment processes for emissions are applied to boiler emissions, process emissions or both.
Senes data for fuel oil cleaning and for fuel switching to natural gas required some further refinement prior to being used in the analysis of abatement strategies.
Desulfurization of fuel oil reduces SO; emissions from boilers while
increasing emissions of the petroleum refining sector. Data describing desulfurization were provided by Senes in aggregate form for the
21
petroleum-refining industry. These data were converted into average costs per net kilogram of sulfur removed and then distributed across the individual sources and sectors using desulfurized fuel oil. In so doing, it was assumed that desulfurized fuel oil could be supplied by the petroleum industry in quantities corresponding to the demand from individual manufacturing sectors and that an all or nothing conversion to desulfurization by the refinery industry was not necessary. Two data points were created with the desulfurization data, one for fuel desulfurization alone and one for fuel desulfurization combined with limestone flue gas desulfurization. Details of the fuel desulfurization calculations are provided in Appendix B3.
In evaluating fuel switching from fuel oil to natural gas, Senes assumed that there would be no bottle necks in the capacity to supply additional natural gas. Given the short time frame to implementation by 1994, it is likely that conversion will only be feasible along existing gas pipelines. In the absence of specific information regarding access of establishments in each sector or source to natural gas supply lines, it was assumed that conversion to natural gas would be limited to 10% of the maximm conceivable level (i.e. complete conversion).
In the case of NO, control options, the low excess air option is estimated to actually reduce boiler operating and maintenance costs. The cost savings are sufficient to suggest overall cost savings in net present value terms after accounting for capital costs; however, removal efficiencies are relatively modest with this option. In light of these low removal efficiencies and in order to be conservative in the assumptions regarding control costs, the low excess air option was not incorporated into the final abatement cost functions used in the model.
NO,, controls for mobile sources, provided by Maclaren Plansearch (1988),
included two options, (1) a 3-way catalytic converter required on new cars by federal regulation, and (2) a more effecient catalytic converter that
22
exceeds federal standards. Assumptions and calculations made to generate control option data from the Maclaren results in the format required for this study are documented in Appendix D.
Final data for S0, and NO, are provided in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. These data were plotted and analyzed as discussed in Section 2.3 in order to generate abatement cost functions. Control technologies included in the abatement cost function are noted in Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
23
TABLE 3.3: SO2 EMISSION CONTROL COST DATA
Cost Emissions Emission Capital Operating Control Source or Sector Function of S02 Reduction Costs Costs Technology Code (T/yr) ---- (M 1987 $) ----- Code PRIMARY METALS Al 14,129 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 A2 725 95% $2.10 $7.20 4 FOOD & BEVERAGE B1 1,421 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 out 1,401 1% $0.40 $0.20 2 out 1,364 4% $0.00 $0.46 6 B2 1,322 TX $0.06 $0.00 1 out 614 57% $161.20 $50.10 5 b3 570 60% $11.90 $5.20 3 bé 398 72% $161.20 $7.52 7 TEXTILE INDUSTRIES D1 7,359 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 D2 7,072 4% $0.03 $0.00 1 D3 5,004 32% $0.00 $1.31 6 out 4,894 33% $9.20 $3.10 3 out 4,621 37% $90.80 $28.20 5 out 4,489 39% $90.80 $3.38 7 D4 3,569 52% $8.10 $1.88 2 PAPER & ALLIED PRODUCTS E1 30,516 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 E2 29,143 5% $0.06 $0.00 1 out 22,673 26% $104.40 $32.10 4 out 18,828 38% $16.60 $5.40 3 out 18,371 40% $565.50 $165.40 5 out 17,547 43% $6.20 $1.87 2 out 16,601 46% $565.50 $29.77 7 E3 8,545 72% $0.00 $1.61 6 METAL FABRICATION Fi 29,480 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 F2 29,109 1% $0.08 $0.00 1 out 26,326 11% $18.00 $7.00 3 out 26,149 11% $215.60 $67.00 5 out 19,663 33% $41.60 $10.20 2 F3 19,162 35% $0.00 $1.50 é F4 13,738 53% $215.60 $8.71 7 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT G1 1,801 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 G2 1,622 10% $0.03 $0.00 1 G3 648 64% $0.00 $0.42 6 - out 281 84% $268.90 $78.40 5 G4 279 85% $6.90 $2.44 3 GS 50 97% $268.90 $12.50 7 NON-METALLIC MINERAL H1 20,248 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 PROOUCTS out 19,478 4% $8.40 $3.60 3 out 19,397 4% $187.80 $56.60 5 out 19,316 5% $187.80 $7.36 tl H2 18,223 10% $0.00 $0.39 6 H3 4,029 80% $27.70 $7.70 2 (continued)
24
TABLE 3.3 (continued)
Cost Emissions Emission Capital Operating Control Source or Sector Function of S02 Reduction Costs Costs Technology Code (T/yr) ---- (M 1987 $) ----- Code CHEMICAL & PETROLEUM 11 69,384 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 PRODUCTS 12 66,539 4% $0.14 $0.00 1 out 62,446 10% $0.00 $11.41 6 13 53,009 24% $3.30 $2.00 2 out 49,887 28% $209.10 $65.20 5 14 45,238 35% $30.40 $10.70 3 15 39,133 44% $209.10 $14.34 7 16 35,108 49% $246.90 $79.00 4 OTHER GROUPS J1 4,805 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 J2 4,377 % $0.20 $0.00 1 J3 2,595 46% $0.00 $1.75 6 out 1,552 68% $750.40 $226.20 5 Jé 1,158 76% $40.90 $17.20 3 J5 577 88% $750.40 $38.40 7 INCO K1 265,000 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 K2 238,500 10% $37.80 $13.90 4 K3 212,000 20% $52.40 $20.00 4 K4 185,500 30% $64.20 $25.20 4 K5 132,500 50% $83.70 $34.40 4 ONTARIO HYDRO L1 175,000 0x $0.00 $0.00 0 L2 157,500 10% $62.30 $4.70 5 L3 140,000 20% $124.60 $9.40 5 L4 122,500 30% $186.90 $14.10 5 LS 87,500 50% $311.50 $23.50 5 FALCONBRIDGE M1 100,000 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 M2 90,000 10% $14.30 $9.30 2 M3 80,000 20% $23.40 $22.20 2 M4 70,000 30% $30.30 $36.50 2 MS 50,000 50% $42.50 $71.40 2 ALGOMA N1 125,000 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 out 112,500 10% $13.40 $0.10 2 N2 100,000 20% $22.50 $0.10 2 out 87,500 30% $21.90 $35.60 2 N3 62,500 50% $27.20 $48.00 2
SOURCE: Adapted from Senes, 1989(b) NOTES: Cost Function Codes: out - Control option is not used in the cost function. A1,A2,... - First, second,... point in the cost function for sector "A". Control Technology Codes: 0 Base Case 1 Fuel Switched to Natural Gas -- Boilers 2 Lime Spray Dryer -- Process Stream 3 Lime Spray Dryer -- Boilers 4 Limestone Flue Gas Desulphurization -- Process Streams 5 Limestone Flue Gas Desulphurization -- Boilers 6 Fuel Desulphurization 7 Fuel Desulphurization Plus Limestone Flue Gas Desulphurization
25
TABLE 3.4: NOX EMISSION CONTROL COST DATA
Cost Emissions Emission Capital Operating Control Source or Sector Function of NOX Reduction Costs Costs Technology Code (Tyr) wee ee (MH 1987 $) ----- Code ee eee FOOD & BEVERAGE B1 2,873 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 C B2 2,729 5% $0.60 ($1.30) 1 B3 2,585 10% $3.90 $0.80 2 out 1,265 56% $30.00 $6.60 3 B4 595 79% $137.10 $24.10 4 RUBBER & PLASTIC c1 386 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 PRODUCTS out 343 11% $0.10 ($0.40) 1 c2 300 22% $0.70 $0.10 2 c3 154 60% $4.00 $0.90 3 C4 58 85% $18.90 $3.33 4 TEXTILE INDUSTRY D1 1,180 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 out 1,058 10% $0.10 ($0.40) 1 D2 937 21% $1.80 $0.10 2 D3 508 57% $3.70 $0.80 3 Dé 228 81% $17.20 $3.00 6 PAPER & ALLIED PRODUCTS E1 11,429 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 out 10,225 11% $1.50 ($2.80) 1 E2 9,021 21% $5.00 $2.00 2 E3 4,682 59% $88.40 $19.40 3 E4 1,871 84% $413.50 $72.70 4 METAL FABRICATION Fi 14,812 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 out 14,207 4% $1.90 ($4.30) 1 Four 13,602 8% $8.30 $1.30 2 F3 6,328 57% $76.50 $16.80 3 F4 2,792 81% $273.40 $48.10 4 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT Gi 2,099 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 out 1,972 6% $0.30 ($2.40) 1 out 1,844 12% $9.00 $0.70 2 G2 860 59% $13.90 $3.10 3 G3 343 84% $65.20 $11.50 4 NON-METALLIC MINERAL H1 9,826 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 PROOUCTS out 9,406 4% $0.80 ($8.90) 1 out 8,986 9x $3.10 $2.50 2 H2 4,523 54% $46.90 $10.60 3 H3 2,313 76% $316.50 $56.70 4
2 (continued)
26
TABLE 3.4 (continued)
Cost Emissions Emission Capital Operating Controt Source or Sector Function of NOX Reduction Costs Costs Technology Code (T/yr) ---- (M 1987 $) ---- Code RE eee a ee CHEMICAL & PETROLEUM 11 28,587 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 PRODUCTS out 27,149 5% $1.70 ($17.60) 1 out 25,708 10% $8.60 $5.00 2 12 12,958 55% $95.30 $20.90 3 13 6,446 77% $437.70 $77.00 4 OTHER GROUPS Ji 4,298 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 out © 3,814 11% $3.10 ($5.40) 1 J2 3,330 23% $9.10 $1.60 2 J3 2,285 47% $65.80 $14.40 3 J4 1,447 66% $196.60 $35.60 4 ONTARIO HYDRO L1 61,333 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 L2 55,200 10% $13.00 $2.50 4 L3 49,066 20% $26.10 $5.00 4 L4 42,933 30% $39.10 $7.50 4 L5 30,667 50% $65.10 $12.50 4 L6 24,884 59% $77.10 $14.90 4 MOBILE SOURCES 01 244,952 0% $0.00 $0.00 0 02 95,531 61% $974.37 $0.00 5 03 73,486 70% $1,282.91 $0.00 5
En eee, eS ee 4
SOURCE: Adapted from Senes, 1989(b) and MacLaren Plansearch, (1988).
NOTES: Cost Function Codes:
out - Control option is not used in the cost function. Al,A2,... - First, second,... point in the cost function for sector " Control Technology Codes: 0 Base Case
1 Low Excess Air
2 Staged Combustion
3 Selective Non-Catalytic Combustion 4 Selective Catalytic Reduction
5 Catalytic Converter
27
4.0 ANALYSIS OF ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
4.1 Overview
This chapter discusses the modelling results for the "Phase III - Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies" exercise.
The first set of results, generated by the SO, abatement strategy model, comprise seven principal SO, emission reduction scenarios. The second set of results, generated by the NO, abatement strategy model, comprises five principal NO, emission reduction scenarios.
These SO; and the NO, emission reduction scenarios show:
1) The impact of different removal targets on the abatement strategies; 2) The impact when large sources (such as INO and Hydro) fail to fulfill their 1994 regulated targets for abatement;
Additional analyses investigated the impact of forming a more equitable distribution of emission reductions across sectors and of alternative assumptions regarding variables like the interest rate.
4.2 650, Abatement Strategies
The primary analysis of SO, abatement scenarios concerned the
implications of reducing total emissions from the base case 1994 level of 900,885 t/yr (from Table 3.2). A range of conditions were examined including different levels of reduction as well as higher initial starting emission levels resulting from a failure to meet 1994 targets; these are outlined in Table 4.1. Additional scenarios examine the implications of Changing financial variables and of forcing all emitters to cut back by the same percentage (an equity scenario). These analyses are briefly summarized below.
28
The first three scenarios reveal how sensitive overall emission control costs are to the required level of reduction (Table 4.2). The 30% reduction, representing a reference case, entails a total cost, measured in present value terms, of $887 M. A third of this is for start-up investments. Dropping the target reduction by 20 points to 10% (Scenario 2), reduces total costs by 82% to $159 M, while a comparable increase to a 50% targeted reduction increases overall costs six-fold to $5,338 M.
Table 4.1 Primary 505 Abatement Strategy Scenarios
eee
SO, Starting Emission Reduction From Target Remaining Scenario level 1994 Base Case Reduction Emissions Number É level it 12
1 900,885 30% 270,266 630,619 2 900,885 10% 90,089 810,796 3 900,885 50% 450,443 450,442 122 : 1,330,885 0% 430,000 900,885 132 1,115,885 0% 215,000 900,885 143 1,062,518 0% 161,633 900,885 153 981,702 0% 80,817 900,885
eee NOTES:
1 The 1994 base case emission is 900,885 tonnes/yr.
2 INO fails to meet its 1994 target and remains at its 1985 emission level (Scenario 12) or achieves 1/2 of its 1994 reduction (Scenario 13). It does not contribute to reduction beyond 1994. 3 Hydro fails to meet its 1994 target and remains at its 1985 emission level (Scenario 14) or achieves 1/2 of its 1994 reduction (Scenario 15).
29
TABLE 4.2: SO2 ABATEMENT STRATEGIES FOR 30%, 10% AND 50% EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost S02 Removal Reduct’n --------------- (M 1987 $) --------------- (1987 $/T) (T/yr)
SCENARIO 1 - 30% REDUCTION
(Target reduction = 270,266 tonnes/yr)
À - FGD(process) 94.9% $2.10 $7.20 $69.35 $550 13,494 B - Lime Spray Dry(process) 6.9% $0.06 $0.00 $0.06 $65 99 D - Fuel Clean’g 32.0% $0.00 $1.31 $12.24 $632 2,355 E - FGD(process) 72.0% * $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 $78 21,972 F - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 35.0% $0.00 $1.50 $14.01 $150 10,318 G - Fuel Clean’g 64.0% $0.00 $0.42 $3.93 $429 1,153 H - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 10.0% $0.00 $0.39 53.64 $193 2,025 I - Fuel Clean’g 23.6% $3.30 $2.00 $21.98 $173 16,375 J - N.Gas 8.9% $0.20 $0.00 $0.20 $50 427 K - FGD(process) 50.0% $83.70 $34.40 $405.01 $327 132,500 L - FGD(boilers) 30.0% $186.90 $14.00 $317.66 $650 52,500 N - Lime Spray Dry(process) 20.0% $22.50 $0.10 $23.43 $100 25,000
TOTAL $298.76 $62.93 $886.55 278,217
SCENARIO 2 - 10% REDUCTION
(Target reduction = 90,089 tonnes/yr)
B - Lime Spray Dry(process) 6.9% $0.06 $0.00 $0.06 $65 99 D - N.Gas 3.9% $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 $11 287 E - FGD(process) 72.0% $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 $78 21,972 F - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 35.0% $0.00 $1.50 $14.01 $150 10,318 G - N.Gas 9.9% $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 $18 179 H - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 10.0% $0.00 $0.39 $3.64 $193 2,025 I - Fuel Clean’g 23.6% $3.30 $2.00 $21.48 $173 16,375 J - N.Gas 8.9% $0.20 $0.00 $0.20 $50 427 K - FGD(process) 10.0% $16.74 $6.88 $81.00 $327 26,500 N - Lime Spray Dry(process) 20.0% $22.50 $0.10 $23.43 $100 25,000
TOTAL $42.86 $12.48 $159.43 103,181
me
(cont inued)
30
TABLE 4.2 (continued)
a
Control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost SO2 Removal Reduct‘ni) i-----=<-<<<--<= CHIN987/'S)) cee SES SE (1987 $/T) (T/yr) i SCENARIO 3 - 50% REDUCTION (Target reduction = 450,443 tonnes/yr)
A - FGD(process) 94.9% $2.10 $7.20 $69.35 $550 13,494 B - N.Gas 72.0% $161.20 $7.52 $231.44 $106,421 1,023 D - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 51.5% $8.10 $1.88 $25.66 $1,002 3,790 E - FGD(process) 72.0% $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 $78 21,972 F - FGD(boilers) 53.4% $215.60 $8.71 $296.95 $5,585 15,742 G - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 97.2% $268.90 $12.50 $385.65 $166,157 1rai H - FGD(boilers) 80.1% $27.70 $7.70 599.62 $724 16,219 1 - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 49.4% $246.90 $79.00 $984.78 $17,070 34,276 J - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 88.0% $750.40 $38.40 $1,109.07 $167,231 4,228 K - FGD(process) 50.0% $83.70 $34.40 $405.01 $327 132,500 L - FGD(boilers) 50.0% $311.50 $23.40 $530.06 $650 87,500 M - Lime Spray Dry(process) 50.0% $42.50 $71.40 $709.40 $1,810 50,000 N - Lime Spray Dry(process) 50.0% $27.20 $48.00 $475.54 $1,291 62,500
TOTAL $2,145.80 $341.72 $5,337.57 444,994
a
NOTE: Total base case provincial SO2 emissions assumed for this analysis are 900,885 tonnes/year. Total percentage reduction is calculated with this as a reference value.
Additional assumptions include: 15 yr equip. life 6% inflation; and 13% interest rate.
Sector designations are as follows: A Primary Metals H Non-Metallic Products Food & Beverage 1 Chem. & Petroleum Products Rubber & Plastic Products J Other Groups Textile Industries K INCO Paper & Allied Products L Ontario Hydro M N
Metal Fabrication Faconbr idge
DO nmOon
Transportation Equipment Algoma
31
These results indicate a strong non-linear response with higher reduction targets forcing reliance on removal technologies having higher costs per tonne of SO, removed. This is shown by the marginal costs data in
Table 4.2 which increase by four orders of magnitude for some sectors as removal levels increase. The only exceptions to this are the marginal costs for INC and Hydro - these are constant as removal efficiencies increase (see Table 4.2). Their cost functions display constant average and marginal costs over the range of removal efficiencies considered here.
Without INGO emission control options the maximm attainable reduction in emissions is 312,500 tonnes/yr at a present value cost of $4,933 M. If INCO remains at 1985 emission levels (Scenario 12) this limit is reached and the 1994 reduction targets can not be achieved (Table 4.3). In fact, if Scenario 12 becomes reality, the $4,933 M expenditure will leave the province at an emission level of 1.01 M tonnes/yr. This exceeds the 1994 base case emission level by 13%. Partial (50%) success in controlling INGO emissions (Scenario 13, Table 4.3) can considerably alleviate the cost burden incurred by other sectors, and makes it possible to achieve the 1994 SO, target.
A failure by Hydro to meet its 1994 targets (Scenarios 14 and 15) has implications which are less severe though still costly. If Hydro fails to act at all, remaining therefore at 1985 emission levels, the 1994 targets can be achieved by other sectors at a cost of $321 m (Table 4.4). If Hydro achieves half of its 1994 regulated reductions, other sectors incur a cost of $78 M.
Variations in the financial assumptions had no effect on the choice of control options for the four major emitters unless a very high capital cost scenario was chosen (25% interest rate, 5 year planning horizon). In this scenario Hydro control options, having the highest capital costs, are dropped in favour of additional controls by INOCO, Algoma and some of the smaller sectors. Among the smaller sectors, variations in financial variables cause some switching among control options.
32
TABLE 4.3: SO2 ABATEMENT STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE 1994 EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS WITHOUT INCO
a Control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost S02 Removal
Reduct’/n --------------- (M 1987 $) ------------. - (1987 $/T) (Tyr)
SCENARIO 12 - INCO REMAINS AT ITS 1985 EMISSION LEVEL (ALL other sectors are at their maximum control levels.) (Target reduction = 430,000 tonnes/yr)
A - FGD(process) 94.9% $2.10 $7.20 $69.35 $550 13,494 B - N.Gas 72.0% $161.20 $7.52 $231.44 $106,421 1,023 D - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 51.5% $8.10 $1.88 $25.66 $1,002 3,790 E - FGD(process) 72.0% $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 $78 21,972 F - FGD(boilers) 53.4% $215.60 $8.71 $296.95 $5,585 15,762 G - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 97.2% $268.90 $12.50 $385.65 $166,157 1,751 H - FGD(boilers) 80.1% $27.70 $7.70 $99.62 $724 16,219 1 - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 49.4% $246.90 $79.00 5984.78 $17,070 34,276 J - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 88.0% $750.40 $38.40 $1,109.07 $167,231 4,228 L - FGD(boilers) 50.0% $311.50 $23.40 $530.06 $650 87,500 M - Lime Spray Dry(process) 50.0% $42.50 $71.40 $709.40 $1,810 50,000 N - Lime Spray Dry(process) 50.0% $27.20 $48.00 $475.54 $1,291 62,500
TOTAL $2,062.10 $307.32 $4,932.56 312,494
SCENARIO 13 - INCO ACHIEVES ONE HALF OF ITS 1994 REGULATED REDUCTION (Target reduction = 215,000 tonnes/yr)
A - FGD(process) 94.9% $2.10 $7.20 $69.35 $550 13,494 B - Lime Spray Dry(process) 6.9% $0.06 $0.00 $0.06 $65 9 D - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 51.5% $8.10 $1.88 $25.66 $1,002 3,790 E - FGD(process) 72.0% $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 $78 21,972 F - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 35.0% $0.00 $1.50 $14.01 $150 10,318 G - Fuel Clean’g 64.0% $0.00 $0.42 $3.93 $429 1,153 H - FGD(boilers) 80.1% $27.70 $7.70 599.62 s724 16,219 I - Fuel Clean’g 23.6% $3.30 $2.00 $21.98 $173 16,375 J - Fuel Clean’g 46.0% $0.00 $1.75 $16.35 $970 2,210 L - FGD(boilers) 50.0% $311.50 $23.40 $530.06 $650 87,500 M - Lime Spray Dry(process) 10.0% $14.30 $9.30 $101.17 $1,083 10,000 N - Lime Spray Dry(process) 20.0% $22.50 $0.10 $23.43 $100 25,000
TOTAL $389.56 $56.86 $920.66 208,128
NOTE: Total base case provincial SO2 emissions assumed for this analysis are 900,885 tonnes/year. Target reductions are based on achieving this Level in 1994 without the full participation of INCO.
Additional assumptions include: 15 yr equip. life 6% inflation; 13% interest rate.
Sector designations are as follows:
A Primary Metals H Non-Metallic Products
B Food & Beverage I Chem. & Petroleum Products C Rubber & Plastic Products J Other Groups
D Textile Industries K INCO
E Paper & Allied Products L Ontario Hydro
F Metal Fabrication M Faconbridge
G Transportation Equipment N Algoma
TABLE 4.4: SO2 ABATEMENT STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE 1994 EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS WITHOUT HYDRO
Control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost S02 Removal
Reduct’n -------------.- (M 1987 $) ------------..- (1987 $/T) (T/yr)
SCENARIO 14 - HYDRO REMAINS AT ITS 1985 EMISSION LEVEL
(Target reduction = 161,633 tonnes/yr)
B - Lime Spray Dry(process) 6.9% $0.06 $0.00 $0.06 $65 9 D - N.Gas 3.9% $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 $11 287 E - FGD(process) 72.0% $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 $78 21,972 F - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 35.0% $0.00 $1.50 $14.01 $150 10,318 G - N.Gas 9.9% $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 $18 179 H - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 10.0% $0.00 $0.39 $3.64 $193 2,025 I - Fuel Clean’g 23.6% $3.30 $2.00 $21.98 $173 16,375 J - N.Gas 8.9% $0.20 $0.00 $0.20 $50 427 K - FGD(process) 30.0% $50.22 $20.64 $243.00 $327 79,500 N - Lime Spray Dry(process) 20.0% $22.50 $0.10 $23.43 $100 25,000
TOTAL $76.34 $26.24 $321.43 156,181
SCENARIO 15 - HYDRO ACHIEVES ONE HALF OF ITS 1994 REGULATED REDUCTION
(Target reduction = 80,817 tonnes/yr)
B - Lime Spray Dry(process) 6.9% $0.06 $0.00 $0.06 $65 99 ) - N.Gas 3.9% $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 $11 287 = - FGD(process) 72.0% $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 $78 21,972 * - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 35.0% $0.00 $1.50 $14.01 $150 10,318 3 - N.Gas 9.9%x $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 $18 179 1 - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 10.0% $0.00 $0.39 53.64 $193 2,025 | Fuel Clean’g 23.6% $3.30 $2.00 $21.98 $173 16,375 | - N.Gas 8.9% $0.20 $0.00 $0.20 $50 427 | - Lime Spray Dry(process) 20.0% $22.50 $0.10 $23.43 $100 25,000
TOTAL $26.12 $5.60 $78.43 76,681
NOTE: Total base case provincial so2 emissions assumed for this analysis are 900,885 tonnes/year. Target reductions are based on achieving this level in 1994 without the full Participation of Hydro.
Additional assumptions include:
15 yr equip. life 6% inflation; 13% interest rate.
Sector designations are as follows: A Primary Metals H Non-Metallic Products
B Food & Beverage 1 Chem. & Petroleum Products
C Rubber & Plastic Products J Other Groups
D Textile Industries K INCO
E Paper & Allied Products L Ontario Hydro
F Metal Fabrication M Faconbridge
G Transportation Equipment N Algoma
34
TABLE 4.5: SO2 EQUITY-BASED ABATEMENT STRATEGY
control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost SO2 Removal Reductini-<o-< cen "°°° CHINS8 72S) hewn wn nnn nnn (1987 $/T) (T/yr)
SCENARIO 18 - 30% REDUCTION WITH UNIFORM CONTROL LEVELS IN EACH ESCTOR (Target reduction = 270,266 tonnes/yr)
A - (extrapolated) 32% n.a. n.a. $23.37 $550 4,550 3 - (extrapolated) 32% n.8. n.a. $28.66 $8,601 455 ) - Fuel Clean'g 32% $0.00 $1.31 $12.24 $632 2,355 = - (extrapolated) 32% n.8. n.a. $6.17 $78 9,765 F - Lime Spray Dry(boilers) 35% $0.00 $1.50 $14.01 $150 10,318 3 - (extrapolated) 32% n.a. n.a. $1.62 $429 576 H - (extrapolated) 32% n.a. n.8. $33.76 $724 6,479 | - Lime Spray Dry(process) 35% $30.40 $10.70 $130.34 $1,493 24,146 J - (extrapolated) 32% n.8. n.a. $10.26 $970 1,537 K - FGD(process) 30% $50.22 $20.64 $243.00 $327 79,500 . - FGD(boilers) 30% $186.90 $14.00 $317.66 $650 52,500 4 - Lime Spray Dry(process) 30% $30.30 $36.50 $371.22 $1,504 30,000 N - (extrapolated) 32% n.8. n.a. $204.30 $1,291 40,000
TOTAL n.a. n.8. $1,396.62 262, 182
NOTE: Total base case provincial SO2 emissions assumed for this analysis are 900,885 tonnes/year. Total percentage reduction is calculated with this as a reference value.
Additional assumptions include: 15 yr equip. life 6% inflation; and 13% interest rate.
Sector designations are as follows:
A Primary Metals H Non-Metallic Products
B Food & Beverage I Chem. & Petroleum Products C Rubber & Plastic Products J Other Groups
D Textile Industries K INCO
E Paper & Allied Products L Ontario Hydro
F Metal Fabrication M Faconbridge
G Transportation Equipment N Algoma
The equity-based scenario (Table 4.5) reveals that uniform across the Poard cuts in emissions entail higher overall costs due to a failure to take full advantage of low cost control options that are available in Certain sectors. In the case of the 30% targeted reduction, the total cost of $1,397 M includes a $510 M penalty over the cost-effective scenario cost of $887 M (Scenario 1, Table 4.2)
4.3 NO, Abatement Strategies
Considering alternative levels of reduction, failures to meet 1994 regulation levels, the impact of financial variables and the implications of an equity-based Strategy. The base case emission level is 578,135 tonnes/yr (Table 3.2). The main scenarios are described in Table 4.6
Table 4.6 Primary NO, Abatement Strategy Scenarios
er a Bes ee
Starting Emission Reduction From Target Remaining Level
NO, Scenario 1994 Base Case Reduction Emissions Number (t/yr) Level (t/yr) (t/yr)
1 578,135 30% 173,441 404,694
2 578,135 10% 57,814 520,321
3 578,135 50% 289,068 289,067
122 611,239 0% 33,104 578,135
132 594, 687 0% 16,552 578,135 ni Lois NOTES :
D De 1994 base casc-emission level is 578,135 tonnes/yr. 2 Hydro fails to meet its 1994 target and remains at its 1985 emission
level (Scenario 12) or achieves 1/2 of its 1994 reduction (Scenario 13).
36
With all sectors engaged, the maximm potential NO,, emission reduction is 266,677 tonnes/yr (46% of the base case). This level of reduction costs $6,476 M in present value terms (Scenario 3, Table 4.7). Moreover, 64% of the emission reduction comes from control of mobile sources.
AS was seen for the SO, abatement strategies, NO,, removal costs increase rapidly at the higher levels of emission control. The maximm reduction level (Scenario 3) costs 5.4 times more than a 30% reduction and 30 times more than a 10% reduction (Scenarios 1 and 2, Table 4.7). The lowest cost options are point source controls for Hydro and 3-way catalytic converters for mobile sources (see Scenario 1 marginal costs). The mobile source controls, required by Federal regulation on new vehicles after 1987, reduce emissions by 80% from 5.0 g NO,/mile to 1.0 g NO,/mile. NO, emissions will fall progressively
over time with this regulation as new cars replace old cars. The reduction levels considered here for mobile sources are expected to occur by 1994.
A partial or total failure on the part of Hydro to achieve its 1994 regulation level is readily offset by federally mandated mobile source controls which are now in effect for new vehicles (Scenario 12, Table 4.8). With the mobile source control option, emission reductions far exceed the target reduction level due to the modelling approach that precludes interpolations of the data to reflect partial implementation of options.
Variations in financial variables have minimal impact on Hydro and other sectors even with very high capital cost assumptions (see Appendix A for detailed results).
Scenario 1 requires that emission controls be implemented by only mobile sources and Hydro. Forcing all sectors into an equity-based scenario at an approximately uniform level of performance in order to meet the 30% reduction target, brings nine new sectors into the strategy and raises overall costs from $1,191 M to $2,275 M (Table 4.9).
37
TABLE 4.7: NOX ABATEMENT STRATEGIES FOR 30%, 10% AND 50% EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost NOx Removal : Reduct'n --------------- (M 1987 $) --------------- (1987 $/T) (T/yr)
SCENARIO 1 - 30% REDUCTION
(Target reduction = 173,441 tonnes/yr)
L - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 59% $77.10 $14.90 $216.27 $636 36,432 O - Catalytic Converter 61% $974.37 $0.00 5974.37 $698 149,421 TOTAL $1,051.47 $14.90 $1,190.64 185,853
SCENARIO 2 - 10% REDUCTION
(Target reduction = 57,814 tonnes/yr) L - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 59% $77.10 $14.90 $216.27 $636 36,432
SCENARIO 3 - 50% REDUCTION (ALL sectors are at their maximum control levels.) (Target reduction = 289,068 tonnes/yr)
B - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 79% $137.10 $24.10 $362.21 543,838 2,238 C - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 85% $18.90 $3.33 $49.99 $41,860 329 D - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 81% $17.20 $3.02 $45.44 $12,953 972 E - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 84% $413.50 $72.73 $1,092.78 $30,845 9,823 F - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 81% $273.40 $48.08 $722.48 $14,729 11,903 G - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 84% $65.20 $11.46 $172.27 $26,402 1,801 H - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 76% $316.50 $56.66 $845.75 $34,661 7,325 I - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 77% $437.70 $76.97 $1,156.66 $14,745 21,580 J - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 66% $196.60 $35.60 $529.12 $43,109 2,809 L - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 59% $77.10 $14.90 $216.27 $636 36,432 O - Catalytic Converter 70% $1,282.91 $0.00 $1,282.91 $1,498 171,466
TOTAL $3,236.11 $346.86 $6,475.87 266,677
ee des
NOTE: Total base case provincial NOx emissions assumed for this analysis are 578,135 tonnes/year. Total percentage reduction is calculated with this as a reference value.
Additional assumptions include: 15 yr life time: 6% inflation; 13% interest rate.
Sector designations are as follows:
B Food & Beverage H Non-Metallic Products
C Rubber & Plastic Products I Chem. & Petroleum Products D Textile Industries ! Other Groups
E Paper & Allied Products L Ontario Hydro
F Metal Fabrication O Mobile Sources
G Transportation Equipment
38
TABLE 4.8: NOX ABATEMENT STRATEGIES TO MEET 1994 REGULATED REDUCTION TARGETS WITHOUT HYDRO
Control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost NOx Removal Reduct’n --------------- CM 1987 $) --------------.- (1987 $/T) (T/yr) SCENARIO 12 - HYDRO REMAINING AT ITS 1985 EMISSION LEVEL (Target reduction = 33,104 tonnes/yr) 0 - Catalytic Converter 61% $974.37 $0.00 5974.37 $698 149,421
NOTE: Total base case provincial NOx emissions assumed for this analysis are
578,135 tonnes/year. Total percentage reduction is calculated with this as a reference value.
Additional assumptions include: 15 yr Life time: 6% inflation; 13% interest rate.
Sector designations are as follows:
B Food & Beverage H Non-Metallic Products
C Rubber & Plastic Products 1 Chem. & Petroleum Products D Textile Industries J Other Groups
E Paper & Allied Products L Ontario Hydro
F Metal Fabrication O Mobile Sources
G Transportation Equipment
39
TABLE 4.9: NOX EQUITY-BASED ABATEMENT STRATEGY
Control Option Percent Capital Cost Operat’g Cost Present Value Marginal Cost NOx Removal Reduct’n --------------- (M 1987 $) --------------- (1987 $/T) (T/yr)
SCENARIO 18 - 30% REDUCTION WITH UNIFORM CONTROL LEVELS IN EACH SECTOR (Target reduction = 173,441 tonnes/yr)
B - Selective Non-Cat’tic Comb’n 56.0% $30.00 $6.60 $91.65 $6,503 1,609 C - (extrapolated) 50.0% n.8. n.8. $9.47 $7,845 193 D - Selective Non-Cat’tic Comb’n 57.0% $3.70 $0.80 $11.17 $2,127 673 E - Selective Non-Cat’tic Comb’n 59.0% $88.40 $19.40 $269.60 $6,062 6,738 F - Selective Non-Cat’tic Comb’n 57.0% $76.50 $16.80 $233.42 $3,142 8,388 G - Selective Non-Cat’tic Com/n 59.0% $13.90 $3.10 $42.86 $3,705 1,238 H - Selective Non-Cat’tic Comb’n 54.0% $46.90 $10.60 $145.91 $2,944 5,310 1 - Selective Non-Cat’tic Comb’n 55.0% 595.30 $20.90 $290.51 $1,978 15,838 J - Selective Non-Cat’tic Comb’n 47.0% $65.80 $14.40 $200.30 $18,292 2,026 L - Selective Catalytic Reduc’n 50.0% $64.90 $12.54 $182.05 $635 30,667 O - (extrapolated) 50.0% n.a. n.a. $798.43 $698 122,476
TOTAL n.a. n.a. $2,275.37 195,155
——_ oe
NOTE: Total base case provincial NOx emissions assumed for this analysis are 578,135 tonnes/year. Total percentage reduction is calculated with this as a reference value.
Additional assumptions include: 15 yr life time: 6% inflation; 13% interest rate.
Sector designations are as follows:
B Food & Beverage K Non-Metallic Products
C Rubber & Plastic Products I Chem. & Petroleum Products D Textile Industries J Other Groups
E Paper & Allied Products L Ontario Hydro
F Metal Fabrication O Mobile Sources
G Transportation Equipment
40
REFERENCES
E.A. McBean and Associates Ltd., 1983. "Linear Programming Screening Model for Development and Evaluation of Acid Rain Abatement Strategies" Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Maclaren Plansearch, 1988. "Projected Emission Reductions and Costs of From Mobile Sources In Ontario: A Preliminary Report to the Ministry of the Environment."
Senes Consultants Ltd., 1989(a) . "Phase I - Countdown Acid Rain Future Abatement Strategies." Prepared for Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Senes Consultants Ltd., 1989(b) . "Phase II - Countdown Acid Rain Future
Abatement Strategies." Prepared for Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
APPENDIX A
SO, AND NO, ABATEMENT STRATEGIES - DETAILED RESULTS
OC Oe ite I eS Slee EERE
evobt}
abptsquorey
OupAy 0Tiejup
ON]
50019 144
34INPO4g wnatosyag 7 'eay) SY IMPOrg It[[eyay-uoN
"811 ysacaqur yey
ges Méte'ege 000'0ûI 000 ‘ça 00S‘a 006'aç 006'2EI 00G'2I LLE‘h i2h 600'ES LE ‘91 £2281 S20'a 8hq est] egl'6l 81E ‘01 56S‘B eLb'le t00's GGE ‘a ac] 66 Gal bbb'EI ==.) (JA/]) =----5---
N quaedinby UOlyeysodsues) g W UOlAE211Qe4 jeyay y 1 5YIMPOI party y sadey 7 A SAtsySsnpuy afiyxay g c SYIMPAJg 2115814 gy saqqny 9
| H
pue fuorgerjur xy
STUY WITH paqeinaqe2 st [erowas abeyuarsad tejel ase SISAÇEUE Sty) 107 pasnsse SUOISSIBa ang [eI ouI
abesaray 2 pooy q STPJaW Aseoriy y
FSMOT[9J Se ase Suoljeubisap 4042a5
fayty ‘dinba JA cy
#8PNTAUT suotydensse yeuoryippy
"anypea 22021394 BP Se
*seah/sauuoy cag‘ oo, A01Û ase) aseq 17991 :310N
2 Si ae 2 CIE
Ells 26" Eas 01'0$ 0S'ees 40°02 (552204d)41 Aeuds ae17 - N 1064 40° 206% 00°48 06°9818 10°0€ (512[109)94 - 7 SEES SL°99E$ Ob'hES OL'EBS *0°05 (558201d)994 - y 58 02°0$ 00°08 02°08 X68 Seg'h - [ 9418 CAT 00°es OE"ES x9'E2 b,ueay9 (any - | 41s 12°€$ 66'08 09°08 0°01 (519[10q)41q Aeids awty - 4 62h$ 9h°Es 2h'0$ 00°08 4049 b,uea13 jan - 9 0SI$ E218 Osis 00°0$ X0°GE (519[10q)41q Aesds 2817 - 4 als Ga'EIs 191$ 00'04 KO‘ ec (552201d)g94 - 3 269s BL" O18 IE‘IS 00°08 X0'2€ b,ueay) jans - ÿ ns 90°08 00°08 90'0$ ¥6'9 (552201d)A1g Aesds avt - g 25s$ HE‘ 197$ 02"Ls Olas X6"46 (552201€)94 - 4
HOT LUCE ON EN EE Rs uo142npay
0155103 20;
LPAUIY 206
dm
150) [EUIbJEY anje4 juasauy
1507 butyesadg 4509 [ryrde)
992" 042 =
yuadsag
uotjdg [01ju2)
(4471) 13431 T6A0N34 205 03139801
NOILVIANE Xh ‘NOTLINGIY XOE - à OIJHN3IS c0$
T'V d'IaVL
A-1
i pee Se = [i CSSS ee
ewobly N juavdinb3 uo1j2ysodsues) 9
abptsquorey y UO1}E211qP4 eyay 4
OupAH OL4eyuQ 1 S12np014 pattiy 7 sadeq 3
OJNI À Sa11}5NpU] [13421 Q
sdnoug 13439 f S12np014 2135814 7 saqqny J
S}INPOJY Una[oi}ag 9 ‘ways | 26833439 3 pooy q 5}2np0ïd 211[82h-U0)) H Sejay Asewtsy y
tSMO[[0J SE ase SuoTjeubISap 10225
*a}81 JSayaqul yey pue fuoryerjur yg fayty ‘dinba 4A 6] SapN[IuL suatydwnsse jeuolytppy
‘aN[PA auasajas P SP STUY} YYIM paje[n2[e2 St [eaowas abeyuadsad [P)0] ‘seadssauuoy ogg'nos 818 SISAÇEUE SIY} 10} pawnss® suolsstwa egs jerquiAosd ased aseq [830] :3L0N
£80'89+ bb 942 1L°hS6$ 27° 198 6L"Bbe$
000001 000'Se2 484 95'Ees 01"0$ 0S "22s 40'02 (55a301d)Asq Aesds ant] - N 005'ael 006 ‘eg £098 26°SEES 00°48 069818 40°0E (512[109)994 - 7 00S‘2E1 (0S'2EI bIES NTI Obes OL" EBS 40°0S (552204¢)q94 - 4 Lue ‘4 i2h hs 02°08 00°6$ 02°08 X68 seg'H- [ 600'ES GLb ‘91 OLIS 65° $2$ 00"2$ 0€ ‘ES 49°E2 b,uea]3 janj - | Ece'8l 5202 Cols Shs 66°08 00°08 0°01 {518110q)41q Aesds 3617 - H 89 Egl'i bch$ Bb’ hs 24°08 00°0$ X0° #9 b,ueatg [any - 5 e91'4l IE ‘OI OS1$ dé" sis OS's 00°0$ X0°SE (S4aqtoqjAsg Agsds aw17 - 4 (Tr aLb' 1e BLS IMAC 19°14 00°04 X0'eL (553201d)994 - 3 eu0' LBe ols €0'0$ 00°0$ £0°0$ Kb'E SEg'H - Q al 66 iss 90°08 60°0$ 90°08 46°9 (552291d)41q APsds aet] - & Gel bb‘ El Bos hl’ BLS 02°S oles 46°46 (553201d)q94 - ¥ ---------- (JA/]) --------- (9/$ L861) ---------- ($ LB6I HW) ------------ uoly2npay U91S133 205 [eaoway 205 350) [eurbsey anyey yuasasy 456) buryesadg 1509 1e31de7 3U32154 Dar _uoldg 1249405 992'0L2 = (44/1) 13431 THAQW3Y 20S 03139351
NOLLETINI KG 'NOILINOIH KOE - S OIHENIIS 20S
T'V alavl
vob N juawdinb3 Yoryeyiodsuesy g
abprsquorey y UOTJEDIAGE) Teyay 4
Q4PAH Otseyug 7 SYIMPOIY pat{1y 4 sadey 3
OONI 4 SAt4ysnpuy ayiyxay g
sdnosg seyyg p 599MPO4d 2145814 1aqqny 1
S20P014 ena[o1yag 9 "way | abesarag 7 pooy g SY2MPOsg ItTTeyay-uoy H STRAW Aer sq y
{SHO[[0J 5e aue SUdT}eUbISaP 1032a6
"8191 Ysasayur Ke] pue luorjepjur x9 fast “dinba 14 S OPN] IUt suatydonsse [euoty tppy
“AN[PA auasajau e se S14) YIIM payeqnazer st [eA0831 abequarsad eyo) "4eaA/SauUOy 688 006 942 SISAjEUR styy 40) paensse SUDISSI@a 295 [erauraoid ase) aseq [8301 :310N
6E5' 65h E69" 91e cB'ohGs 62°L9$ 96°E9e$
90000] 000 'Ga 1204 lé'ces 01"ot 052 *0°02 ($88304d)A4g Aesds awiy - y O00‘ Ob] 090 ‘se ecl'1$ CRC 0€'41 Oo bers 40°02 {513110q)q94 - 7 005 ‘eer 006 ‘Er e1h$ 92'9ces Ob hes OL'EBS x0'0S ($5a904d)q94 - y Gés'a Ole’ 548 2°48 Sc'Is 00'0$ 40°94 b,ueag jany - r 600'E3 LE‘ 91 boas 4S‘ 1I8 00's ces 49° E2 b,veayg jany - | 620+ éle‘ql 9864 19°658 d'L1 0L°L28 x1'08 (S181109)094 - H 849 est Sats SL's 2h'0s 00°08 0°49 b,ueayg jany - g 2916] BIE‘OI bbls 22'9$ sis 0°0$ 40°SE (S18110q)41q Aesds awry - y oho’ eL6' 1e lls 49°9$ 1914 00'0$ X0'aL - (552301d)g94 - 3 00'S G6E ‘a 0€9$ Eb'5$ Ie"Is 00°08 40°26 b,ueaj3 jan - q ze} 66 Lis 90°08 00°0$ 90°08 16°9 (S58201d)A1Q Aesds awty - 7 Scl bb 'ET 145 46° IES 02'L$ 0l'ès 46°6 ($5a201d)qgy - y ----- (14/1) ---==-"" (1/8 £861) ------ (4 1841 y) CERTES >= 101127 pay UOISS IE 296 TPAOU2Y 205 1509 Jeutbsey ares 1U95314 507 burjesadg 450) jeytde qUadJay uo1}dg jo1ju07
992" 01e = (44/1) 13437 WAOWIY 205 03139441
NOZIYOH SNINHYId HU3A ¢ ‘NOILINOIY XOE - 9 OIYYNIIS 295
A-3
ewobly N quaudinb uotzeyicdsuei 9
aiptsquazey y UOTZeITIQeY [eJaW 4
O4pAH OfseyuQ 1 S}2NpOsg parity 7 sadeg 3
OONI À Sa1445Npu] [13x92 Q
ednoug 12430 ¢ S12np0ig 2135814 ? Jaqqny J
5}2nF014 #na1[01)a4 7? “way | abesanag 7 pooy 4 S)INPOig 21[[EJ3H-U0N H Siejan Aseorig à
:SHO[[0} SE ase Suoljeubisap 103236
*3)8J ]5213q0I yey pue fUal}e[JUT y9 fayty ‘dinba 4A gg sapN]IUI SuOIydgnsse [euolyIppy
*an[eA auasajad EP Se S14} YIM payepnryer st peaowas abequarsad [839] ‘sead/sauuoy CEG'006 aie SISÂ[EUR SIy) 19} pawNsse SUOIESINA 206 [etIuIAosd ase? aseq [240] :3L0N
boetegy Santen neat atts 69° 9628 Wiol
000° 001 000'S2 998 Sb 'E2s 010s 0S‘ 2es 40"0e (553201d)41q Aesds 2817 - H 00S ‘eal 00s 'e3 bss 4c" O6ES 00° 41s 06" 981$ X0"0€ (5121109)094 - 7 00S ‘2eI 00S ‘2EI EES EE°EBSS 0b 4ES OL E8S 40° 0S (55a9010)q94 - } LLE‘h Let et 02°0$ 00°08 02°08 X68 seg'n - [ 600'ES GLE‘91 5918 SE" ees 00'2s 0€'ES 49°E2 B,ueay) {any - | Ec2'8l S20'2 £418 59°S$ E08 00°0$ 40'0I (s1a110q)41q Aesds avi] - H 49 est't Ochs 21'9$ 24'0$ 00°08 40°49 b,ueay) [ani - 9 eg1'6l BIE ‘OI SIS é'les os" Is 00°0$ 40°SE 15131109)41q Aesds aet] - 4 S4c‘8 2L6 ‘Te CA] BE" Es 191$ 00°0$ TEA (558201d){94 - 3 eLo'e LB Ls £0°0$ 00°08 £0°0$ X6°E Seg'N - 0 ce‘ | bb ets 99°08 00°9$ 90°08 46'9 (552201d)41q Aesds awry - 4
mm (JA/]) ===. (4/8 LOST) ---------- ($ BEI MH) ----------------------- UOT)2NPAY uorssit3 205 jeroway 29S 150) peutbsey anjen yuasasg 459) butyesadg 3599 peqidey = quanvag tnd 103909
972 '0L2 = (44/1) 13431 TWAQHIY 20S 03139841
NOZIYOH ONINNYTd YY3A 05 “NOILINGIY X0E - 6 DIHN3IS c05
wv ATaVL
A-4
Pwobly | juawdinby uoryeztodsues] g
abptaquorey y UOTyRITIGeY [Pyay 4
01pAH otsequp 7 S12nP01g pat|{y 7 sadey 7
OONT À Sä113SNPU] ë[13xa1 q
Sdn01g 134) ç S42NP014 2135814 7 saqqny 7
SNPCIQ BNA] OIJag 7 sways I abesarag 3 pooy q 312°P014 ITP PEYAW-UON H STRyay Asewtsy y
#SMOT [OJ Se ase suotyeubtsap 404 a5
“QE YSd-ayut yoo pue fuoryeryur yo faytt ‘dinbe aA ¢
‘apN[IUt suotydwnsse yeuoryippy
‘an[eA aduasajas e se
SIU) UATN payepnayed st [eAowas abequazuad 18491 *4ead/sauuoy ogg ‘yg 848 StsAyeue styy Joy pasnsse suorssiea 205 [PiJUIAO1 ased aseq [PJ0] 33) QN
6£0'042 E61' 642 LL" 68"S01$ 90°boI8
00529 005'29 cie'ts 95° LLI8 00°8hs 02" das ¥0°0S (553201d)41q Aesds an17 - N 00G'eEl 005 ‘EI 194s 94° 1614 Ob YES 04° EBS K0'0S (552201d)094 - y G65'e ole'e Ghos CL GL'Is 00°0$ 10°94 - G,ueayg pans - ç 600'ES SE ‘91 ace$ LS'6s 60°es EES *9'Ee biueal3 [any - | 620'b éle9l BEI I$ ca'164 OL'Ls OL'Les *1°08 (512[104)094 - H 849 ESI'I E2bs 26°1$ 24°08 00°0$ 40°49 b,ueal jany - 9 271s Ble‘or BhIs OL"4$ OS'ts 00°0$ 40°SE (S42, 10q)Auq Aesds awry - 4 St3‘8 ech‘ le2 Ll$ o's 19°14 60°08 0'2L (553201d)Q94 - 3 go's 5e ‘2 629$ Ol'bs 1E"I$ 00'0s 0°2E b,uea]3 [ans - q ec] 46 IE 50°08 00°08 99°08 [TA (553201d)41g Aesds avi - g Gal béh'EI £8S$ $9" hes 02°ds oles 6°46 (§5204d)q95 - ¥
manne (14/1) --2nnnnn- (GONE INSEE ONE
UO1S51W acs
uot }2npay [EAoway 205 1599 [Purbsey ane, yuasasg 1509 buryesadg 599 1eyrde) uadJag
votsdg [013009
992° 042 = (44/1) 13437 TWAQKIY 205 03139401
JVY ASIYTINT *S2 ‘NOLLINGIY KOE - 91 OIYYNIIS 20S
A-5
quawdinby wotyeysodsues) 9
$424N0g a[1904 Q uotyeatagey [eyay 4
OspAH e1segug 7 Sy2nposd paltly % Jaded 3
sdno19 sayyo ¢ Sal sySnpuy (13x21 Q
S)INpIdy Bnaporyag 9 sa) | 5] 9Nposg 2135814 7 4aqqny 9 S}INPOIg 21[[E4aH-U0N H abeiaaaÿ 9 poo4 4
:SHO[[0} SB aye SUOljeUbISap 104235
‘8121 YSesaqur xe] pue fuaryepjyur yb fayty ‘dinba JA 61 apn[Jut suotydensse [euotytppy
‘an[ea azuasajas € se SY} YIM Paye[MI[EI St [eaowas abequarsad [eo] ‘seadysauuoy GEI BUS ase SISAJPUR STY} 10} pawNSSe SudTS3twa XQN [PIDUIAOAI ased aseq [2301 :310N
cEh' O21 ese'S3t ANA 06°18 Lo'iso'ls XIE 1W101
165'S6 Ten‘ bbl DTA] LE‘ LES 00°0$ LE‘ LES 419 4aysaauo) 319A] 292) - 0 104' be Eh" IE 999$ 0L'661$ 06"41$ l'US 165 U,Inpay 214/ [8489 BALyILES - 1
mm. (JA/L) --------- (1/8 LOI) ---------" ($ CBOE M) -----------"--""" HOT anpey U9155193 AON peaowey XON 150) [eulbsey 2n[eA yuaseig 450) buryesedg 1509 1e310e) 1022134 uo13dg 101quc7 Tho ‘ELT = (2/1) 13431 TWAOWIY *ON 03139391
WOLLWISNI 4h ‘NOTLINOIY BOE - # OLHYNIIS *ON 9°v ATdVL
A-6
yuaedinb; voryeysodsueyy 9
S331n0$ al tqoy 0 WoryeItagey [eyay 4
OupAy o1ejup 7 SYINpOsg palt]y 4% sadeg 3
sdnosg sayyg ç Sa1135npu] aptyxay q
SY INPCsg ena101ad 7 ‘eayy | S}IMpOdg 2135219 % Jagqqny 9 SJ2NPO1Y 21{(EJ24-U0N H abesaraq % pooy g
$SMO1[0J SP ase Suctzeublsap Joyrag
"ASP ySeuaqut yey pue fuoryerjut yg fayty ‘dtnba JA cy SOpN[IUI suotydwnsse [euotytppy
‘an[eA auUasajas e Se SUUY UATM payepnryed st [erowas abeyuarsad [301 *seadysauuoy GEL BUS ase SISÂ[EUE STYy 10J pawnsse suoIssiva XON [eI2UIAOUd a5e2 ase] [P30{ 3310N
2E Hel €5e'cey 49 0OT TS 06°18 Lo" IGO ‘TS XI'2E
1ES ‘Gé EC TL 869$ LE" Lbs 000$ LE" bLbs x19 18418400) 214A[83e9 - 0 hoa ‘te 26496 9695 La grès Ob" dI$ O1 LUS 165 U,anpay 213ALEE) aATy2a[aG - 7 mom (1/1) == (4/8 CBI) ---------" ($ L861 H) ------- = uoryanpay uolssta3 ON lenceay HON 9899 [eutbsey anjen quasaig 459) buryesacy 1507 feyréeg Wwangag wong 103qu09 LT ELI = (4/1) 13431 WAOWY YOU 03139491
NOV TANT 48 ‘NOLL9NGIY ¥OE - S OLYYNIDS XON
A-7
quavdinby voryeqsodsues, g
5334006 311004 Q votyertsgey [ejay 4
24psy otseque S)MpOsg pattty y sedeg 3
Sdroig sayyo f S314}SNpU] alt
342 Pedg #r3121}34 y ‘Uau) | SJINPOIg 21358[d % saqgny J S|INPOJg IVP LEYaW-UON H abesanag ? poc4 4
SMO[ [OJ Se ase suoTyeubtsap 103236
"OPEL ZESISQUT ET pue fuoryepyut xg fayty ‘dirba 44 ç apN[IUI SuoTydensse jeuolztppy
*an[eA auasajas e se S14} YYIM PayepMI[eI st [eaowas abequarsed [e30] ‘sead/sauuoy sey ‘gus 318 SUSATEUP SIY} 10, pawnsse Suotsstwa ON [PTIUTAUJÉ 2522 aseq [240] :310N
LUNETTES A ER RU DRE PE ICS nets WO Ree 1E5'55 125'ohl (TAN I$ LE‘ hL6$ 00°08 LE‘ hub x19 4ajsanuog 214A[81E9 - C 104°+2 ohh 9E ob S§°BE!$ 06'418 (OMAA} x45 U,2npay 21jA18}87 3413238135 - 1 120" CITE) 96618 42°€1$ 00°2$ (o°Ss tle u9tysngsoy pabeys - 3
ET --------- (2'$ L861) ---------- ($ LB61 M) ---------2-s7---------- UOT Npay WOtSs LI Ain [isceey ON 35079 JeuIbsey anpes yuasasy 450) bulyevadn 1505 tente JOLIE LAC Thh Cy = (4/1) 13431 140433 *ON 0313946
NOZIYOH QNINNYTS 4424 S ‘HOI19N03Y ROE - 9 OIYHNIIS *ON 8°V ATAVL
A-8
quawdinb3 UOT3e312050eJ) 9 ;
S221n05 afiqcy g Wolyertugey [8334 4
O1pAH otsejug 7 SYINPI4d Patty 7 sadeg 3
Sdn919 13439 f Satsysnpuy aft}xa] q
S42f 319 Na{01384 7 ‘vay) | SYIMPOJg 21}5814 ? Jaqgny 9 NPA TULPEaY-UON H abesanag 3 pooy y
FEMOT] IJ} SP ase Suotyeubrsap 133226
BYE! J5912}U1 LE] Pue fuorqeryur yo fayt| ‘dinba 14 g¢ FAPN[IUT suotydensse jeuorytppy
"AN|EA aduasajas E se STU3 UAIN payernaqed st [erowas 36 jua2 ad [8101 ‘seakysayuoy Gel ge
JE SISAÇEUR £14} 40} pawnsse suo1S5102 XON [PtQUIAo4d 3582 a52q 1E301 :310N
HN'EET leg'eel In'ael'ls c'es IE'EIO ‘IS so°42 1101
00°08 LE" 4Lb$ 119 12112007 313A[6387 - D Es ‘ct 005° BI 5554 LAULIE ES'L$ bb'GES KOE U,anpay 2t4A[e4e) 24142816 - J
menesnnse (1A/}) ee. LUS L861) --------=- ($ LOGE M) === — uotyanpay UOS5183 : GN TEAOUSY XON 1599 [PUIDJEN anyeA quasarg 4509 burje sad ua: 1ay uotsdg [014097
CMT A = (44/1) 13431 WAOkIY x0h 03139491
NOZTYOH SNINNHTd 4931 OS ‘NOTLINGIY 20€ - 6 OIYENIIS xON
A-9
quewdinby WOTZe;Jodsues) 9 VOLyeITIGEY [e1ay 4 S12nP04g party 2 Jedey 3 SAlsysnpuy 3113x3) g SYIMPOId 3145814 7 1aqqny J abesaaag 9 pooy ÿ ‘SHOT [9J SB ase surtzeubtsap 103225
5821006 2[1q0ÿ 9
01pAH otiejup 71
5dn019 sayyg [
S120p914 Un31013a4 9 "eu | 312NP0/4 ITT [eYsy-uOW H
"8161 YSatajqur yca tayty ‘dinba 14 (3
2pn[5ul suotydunsse [EUOIgIppy
pue fuotjepyur yg
“AN[PA aUaJajas pe 5e *seaA/Sauuoy SEI ‘QS 218 SISATPUE Sty) 494 pawnsse SUOTSSIV9 XON [eLoUTAOUd ase> aseq [P40/
*310N
A-10
etc Oui eee eA EU APE res sete: AE ee). 1e5'5 124‘ bh} 284’ 2s CEH LOS 00'0$ LE""L6$ nt? 19118AU07 3144{83e9 - 9 Ud cen ‘SE Se0'1s 8L'Eclt 06418 Ores 465 U,IMPay 21}ATEIP) 84133135 - 1 Tou's ase'2 8614 ceils 00'c$ CO°SS “le J14Snge27 pabeys - 3 se El Mer ee EUR BOOT ee cere nce oe er uotionpay ISSU yoy [PADbaY XOH 1507 qeutÉsey enzeq Wesasq 480) butaesedg 4509 perce) 3132134 witydg [o13u02
Toned ih
= (44/1) 13431 TWAQW34 “ON 0313946]
314 1S3431KI 262 ‘NOILING2Y koe - ST OIW#N32S ON
OT'V ATdVL
APPENDIX B
FUEL DESULFURIZATION CALCULATIONS
= (D ae — dont et er ihe
FIGURE B.1
LFGD+FD Removal Efficiency Calculations :
The removal efficiency for LFGD+FD
control is calculated by using the following Squauons ©:
ee Jeo JLFep
| ue a ‘Uncontrolled Y Por Sireamseue
NOTES” 2) Fp ED Removal Efficiency; Ateneo LFGD Removal Efficiency.
Total emission = (1—/))[(1-/) )x+y] + P FD LFGD
. loralSEelss ion % Reduction (J) = (1 oats ane
CPV OG ca ees (Ga
DOTE SEE SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOLLOWS
B-1
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
* Using equations B.3.1 & B.3.2;
* All H ard LFGD used in the following calculations are tabulated in Table B.1 and B
Consider Transportation Equipment:
Total emission after FD + LFGD =
(1 - 0.84) [1 - 0.95)1600 + 197.45] + 5.4
= 49.79 Tonnes/year
% reduction = (1 - 49.70/1801) x 100 = 97.2% FD + LFGD
Consider Metal Fabrication:
(1 — .84)[(1 - 0.95) 350 + 14134.07] + 11864.9 Total emission = 13725.1 tonnes/year
% Reduction = (1 - 13725.1/29480) x 100 = 53.4% Consider Non-Metallic Products:
(1 - 0.87)] [(0.05) 887.4 + 53.43] + 19308.3
= Total emission = 19321 tonnes/year
% red. = (1 - 19321/20248) x 100 = 4.6%
Consider Chemical & Petroleum Products:
(1 - 0.78) [ (0.05) (20533.7) + 12820.83] + 36073.3 = Total emission = 39119.75 | % red. = (1- 39119.75/69384) x 100 = 43.6%
Consider Other Groups: | ‘Coal Sl ae X 3423.9 + 982.16] + 404.3
= 600.37 tonnes/year % red. a — 600.37/4805) x 100 = 87.5%
ee
1 - 0.85) [0.05 x 849.2 + 219.2] + 353.6 Total E = 392.849
( $ r= (1 - 392.849/1421) x 100 = 72.35%
Consider Textile Industries:
(1 - 0.88) [0.05 x 2882.7 + 24.6] + 4454.5 = Total E = 4474.748 % r = (1 - 4474.748/7359) x 100 = 39.2%
Consider Paper & Allied Products
(f— 0282) [0205 %.12772.5:+ 1561.25) .+ 16201.1 Total E = 16597.0775
% r = (1 - 16597.0775/30516) x 100
= 45.6%
TABLE B.1: REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR FUEL DESULFURIZATION
Total so2 Total $02 $02 so2 Overall
Boiler Emission Controlled Removal Control Control (T/yr) (T/yr) (T/yr) Efficiency Efficiency Transportation Equipment 1,795 983 825 84% 46% Metal Fabrication 17,615 3,401 2,997 87% 10% Non-Metallic Products 940 879 767 87% 4% Chem. & Petroleum Products 33,311 28,638 22,362 78% 32% Other Groups 4,400 4,132 ‘ 3,440 83% 72% Food & Beverage 1,067 1,067 905 85% 64% Textile Industries 2,904 2,904 2,568 88% 35% Paper & Allied Products 14,315 3,829 3,158 82% 10%
TABLE B.2: REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Total SO2 Total SO2 S02 Uncon- SO2 Process so2 Boiler Emission Controlled trolled Emission Control
(T/yr) (T/yr) (T/yr) (T/yr) Efficiency Transportation Equipment 1,795 1,600 197 5 95% Metal Fabrication 17,615 3,504 14,134 11,895 95% Non-Metallic Products 940 887 53 19,308 95% Chem. & Petroleum Products 33,311 20,534 12,821 36,073 95% Other Groups 4,400 3,424 982 404 95% Food & Beverage 1,067 849 219 354 95% Textile Industries 2,904 2,883 25 4,855 95% Paper & Allied Products 14,315 12,773 1,561 16,201 95%
FIGURE B.2
LBGD+FD Cost Calculations :
Assuming the capital cost is the same as the LFGD and operating cost is to
tonnes of SO2 (controlled load).
(B) ep LFSD Boiler Controlled In X FD LFGD Uncontrolled Y Process Streams (P
Operating Cost = RUE Operating cost of (FD+LFGD) Rene
Nema) Cost = Operating cost + Capital cost
(FD+LFGD) (FD+LFGD) (LFGD) ER | None Ch) —— FD Removal Biricrency.
4 icy ——— LFGD Removal Efficiency.
B-5
APPENDIX C
MODEL DOCUMENTATION
meme cna ent ry AL eres | mn 3
oe rn ran à
Sed @ 2% baccenignt acre ost rar sw! ity lantont il : Mtifire (Cake pyar ue . amt iis; DIA Sie
one ait Geiaa Seva Beet aren eat arr r Méobon curl stores «a pate siutos the ets Pois tacit emetic tm ah seen Sekt al? pére eae jaar.) or es, 1 of Deateotioy air 5.8 ef jéntept ion “ions
Lien deat! 111 4b'boirserwo soi 1 mt miEféraonnt PAT D ent ob Avot #36 Re 20 7e 145 A ° ; ArTTA £ 2002 auralb rive 6
Mara meiosis m7 La ire & (18% Si nE noie 182 3 cot dit pileoins’ eus “Olu LE JOR ‘St fe fala Li
Dr. to. ut 0
. fsa12410% 9 :
Pympetted. nt .swginsesis su 2 UT aide Sohrtetzo nel site Fu oF eldriimeremi tp fm So uit out ote .-fekom att ou ° ec? Gas fo. ty sen ett oo ata” xth : 2% > e are alah vec get © = 32 oi, ‘tie dual" wit est Éniivo fe att Him Sy A ck Ge a soa afr = tals ; (eriic2) £ temic "CS Sin Db =a *~ ‘agra 1 ; 4 . 7e tri is re ie (iii +
eight) represent ren aoe we hiotef oats - On . {Vs 1 chattes geri? Case MU «+ «2 ENS ote 0 L “ sa | à \ 2 AL HortuT) < marion 6 = eGR VE vet te eee (4
is re sara tarot Ge te à « acte TA 'eicpemét (Nr! ms Gin or ea eb Mee veered blige int + eco ive)? MA sis ses «1! aetrole > th eer OT AE fabhmeped’ xt E btolsates att 10 poly oy pepe til “A soos b iiwiemitte {orto > omfrogeana Suge D | Jeet 6 af) | = sedernitst the Jerome. soo Yiwieescous ; ae ” 5 « à - (amis : smic) € mwilod- KE ey yemivad dl ane - ot cobalt = cakes Ut bent = Sera? (et | -: ARÉCI ~ sige (tt) fente mé etipih bs memos Suarttiw Ee-s3rms 3 eisa - atte (vi AOS EE 0.1) bars iquib se Jon (itv hel ieclow atl TEE
10). a.) aa}
104 LL >
COMPUTER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND USE
Model Structure
The marginal cost based algorithm was implemented as a computer model, The Simple Acid Rain Model (SARM), using Lotus 1-2-3 software. It is a menu operated and macro driven program made up of three separate modules, each module comprising a separate Lotus worksheet. The three worksheets are the input worksheet, the calculation worksheet and the output worksheet. These worksheets are interconnected; thus, one worksheet can call up another worksheet by invoking a call macro. There are three temporary files generated during these calling processes. These files serve to transmit information between the three worksheets. The flow and structure of SARM are shown in Figure C.1.
General discussions on the structure of the model and the use of the model are given in the following sections. The discussion pertains to both the S0, model and the NO, model which are basically the same.
Input Worksheet
The input worksheet (Table C.1) is the first interface between the user and the model. There are three main options available to the user here: the "Input/Edit" option, the "Save" option and the "Cal" option.
The "Input/Edit" option allows the user to input new data and/or edit old data. The user should input the data in the following format:
1) Colum 1 (Source) - i) Enter - Name of emitter ii) Format - Label iii) Example - Hydro iv) Note - These labels are not used in subsequent displays and are entered as a guide in using this worksheet.
2) Colum 2 (Technologies) - i) Enter - Technology index
ii) Format - Label
iii) Example - Al
iv) Note - Indices should identify both the source and the technology. For instance, Al designates the base case for source A. Integer portions of the code should be sequential (1, 2, 3, ...) and should correspond to control options with successively higher removal efficiencies.
3) Colum 3 (Contaminant Emissions) - i) Enter - Emissions for sources in tonnes/year ii) Format - Numeric iii) Example - 12345.22 iv) Note - Data is entered without commas and digits can be entered after the decimal but will not be displayed (i.e. 12,345).
C-1
TABLE C.1: SO2 "INPUT" WORKSHEET DATA LISTING
So2 Operating Idexing Growth
Emissions % Capital Cost Cost 0 - Not incl’d Rate
Source Technology (Tonnes/year) Reduction (million $) (million $) 1 - Included (%) A ——_—
Dummy Source (not app.) 0 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0 0
(not app.) 0 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
(not app.) 0 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0 0
Primary Metal Products Al 14,219 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
A2 725 94.9% $2.10 $7.20 0
Food & Beverage Prod’s B1 1,421 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
B2 1,322 6.% $0.06 $0.00 0
B3 570 59.9% $11.90 $5.20 0
B4 398 72.0% $161.20 $7.52 0
Leather/Textile Prod’s Di 7,359 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
D2 7,072 3.9% $0.03 $0.00 0
D3 5,004 32.0% $0.00 $1.31 0
D4 3,569 51.5% $8.10 $1.88 0
Paper & Allied Prod’s E1 30,516 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
E2 29,143 4.5% $0.06 $0.00 0
E3 8,545 72.0% $0.00 $1.61 0
Metal Fabrication F1 29,480 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
F2 29,109 1.3% $0.08 $0.00 0
F3 19,162 35.0% $0.00 $1.50 0
F4 13,738 53.4% $215.60 $8.71 0
Transportation Equip’t G1 1,801 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
G2 1,622 9.9% $0.03 $0.00 0
G3 648 64.0% $0.00 $0.42 0
G4 279 84.5% $6.90 $2.44 0
GS 50 97.2% $268.90 $12.50 0
Non-metallic Products K1 20,248 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
H2 18,223 10.0% $0.00 $0.39 0
H3 4,029 80.1% $27.70 $7.70 0
Chem. & Petro. Prod’s 11 69,384 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
12 66,539 4.1% $0.14 $0.00 0
13 53,009 23.6% $3.30 $2.00 0
14 45,238 34.8% $30.40 $10.70 0
15 39,133 43.6% $209.10 $14.34 0
16 35,108 49.4% $246.90 $79.00 0
Other Groups Ji 4,805 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
J2 4,377 8.9% $0.20 $0.00 0
J3 2,595 46.0% $0.00 $1.75 0
Jé 1,158 75.9% $40.90 $17.20 0
J5 577 88.0% $750.40 $38.40 0
INCO Ki 265,000 0.0% $0.00 $0.00 0
K2 238,500 10.0% $16.74 $6.88 0
K3 212,000 20.0% $33.48 $13.76 0
K4 185,500 30.0% $50.22 $20.64 0
KS 132,500 50.0% $83.70 $34.40 0
C-2
L3ASHS MYOM
LAd LAO
d31Nläd OL INläd
MO|4 WHVS 10} wesbeig yooig L ‘9 81nBI4
1300 HL A8 Q319413S SAISOIONHOSL
NOILOF 19S
YO4 1AGOW FHL OLNI O9 S319010NH931
133HSHHOM
NOILV1N91V9
S319010NH931
03193135 à335N
L33HSHHOM LNdNI
4)
5)
6)
7)
Column 4 (% Reduction) - i) Enter - Contaminant removal efficiency ii) Format - Numeric (0.0 to 1.0) iii) Example - 0.1 iv) Note - For base case, users should enter 0.0. Data are displayed in percentage format (i.e. 0.10 appears as 10%).
Column 5 (Capital Cost) - i) Enter - Capital cost in millions of 1987 dollars ii) Format - Numeric iii) Example - 13.90 iv) Note - Data are displayed in currency format (i.e. $13.90).
Column 6 (Operating Cost) - i) Enter - Operating cost in millions of 1987 dollars ii) Format - Numeric iii) Example - 3.10 iv) Note - Currency are displayed in currency format (i.e. $3.10) .
Colum 7 (Indexing) - i) Enter - 0 for excluded, 1 for included and blank if model is to make the selection ii) Format - Numeric
iii) Example - Technology Indexing Al 0 A2 1 A3 0 Bl B2 B3 C1 0 C2 O C3 0 D1 D2 D3 iv) Note - users can force one or more of the technologies
into an abatement strategy by entering 1’s in column 7, or can exclude any of the technologies from the solution by entering 0’s in this column. For the colum entries left blank, the model evaluates corresponding technologies based on the marginal cost ranking process.
In the example, technology A2 is forced into the solution and technologies Cl, C2 and C3 are excluded from the selection. The rest of the technologies (i.e. Bl, B2, B3, D1, D2 and D3) are Passed into the "calculation" worksheet and the
model will make a selection from among these based on the marginal ranking procedure and the target removal. Note that the target removal used when certain control technologies are forced into the abatement strategy is equal to the target removal input by the user minus the contaminant removed by the pre-selected technologies (this calculation is done by the model automatically). Only one technology per sector can be forced into the solution. In other words, after one of the technologies is forced into the solution; the rest of the technologies within the sector must be excluded from the solution by assigning zero’s to these in Colum 7.
8) Column 8 (Growth Rate) - i) Enter - Growth rate in percent
ii) Format - Numeric
iii) Example - 10
iv) Note - Growth rate factors are used to change the emission level and corresponding operating costs for a sector. For the example above, emission levels and costs would be multiplied by the value (1 + 10/100). A negative entry would correspond to an assumed reduction in sector emissions by 1994. Note that this growth rate causes a one time change in level rather than an annual change continuing over the planning horizon.
Individual growth rates must be assigned to each control technology. Within a sector these should be the same though they can vary across sectors.
It is assumed that any increase in emissions stipulated using the growth rate factor is within the capacity limits of the control technology. For this reason, capital costs are not adjusted.
The next major option available to the user is "Save". It contains three sub-options; they are "Create", "Save" and "Quit". The "Create" sub-option creates two temporary files. The first file contains the user’s selected technologies and it is passed to the output worksheet. The second file contains the technologies which are passed to the calculation worksheet for selection based on the marginal cost ranking procedure and the target removal. After making changes with "Input/edit", "Create" must be executed before passing control over to the "Cal" worksheet. The "Save" sub-option allows the users to save the input worksheet. The "Quit" sub-option allows the user to go back to the main menu.
The last major option available to the users is "Run". It allows the users to save the input worksheet and calls up the calculation worksheet for model execution.
model selected technologies. The users Should keep these dummy entries as they appeared in the example file (they do not interfere with the
Calculation Worksheet
There are five major options available to the users in this module. They are the "Input" option, the "Edit" option, the "Run" option, the "Print" option and the "Quit" option.
The "Input" option allows the user to input "model parameters", such as the inflation rate, the nominal interest rate, the target removal level and the planning horizon.
The "Edit" option allows the user to Save the calculation worksheet and call up the input worksheet to edit the input data.
The "Run" option performs the selection based on the marginal cost ranking procedure.
The "Print" option saves the results from a model "Run" in a temporary file which is passed to the output module. Furthermore, this option also Saves the calculation worksheet and calls up the output worksheet.
The "Quit" option allows the users to quit macros and go back to the Lotus control menu. In other words, this option allows the users to edit the macros which were developed by the author.
Output Worksheet
The "Output" worksheet automatically generates the final table reporting control options for a scenario (see Table C.2). Once this table is Prepared, there are four major Options available to the user. They are the "Browse" option, the "Print" option, the "Edit" option and the "Calculation" option.
The "Browse" option allows the users to examine the results on screen before printing.
The "Print" option permits the users to print the results directly to the
printer. Just prior to print, the user is prompted to enter a table title. For instance, the user can enter a scenario ID number for a run.
C-6
TABLE C.2: SO2 "OUTPUT" WORKSHEET DATA LISTING
TARGETED SO2 REMOVAL LEVEL (T/yr) 270,266 Control Options Emission Capital Operating Present Total SO2 $02 Emiss- Comment Chosen by Model Reduct’n Costs (M$) Cost (M $) Value (M$) Removal(T/yr) ions(T/yr)
Si ee ee ee ee pe
Al 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 14,219 OUT A2 95% $2.10 $7.20 $69.35 13494 725 IN B1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 1,421 OUT B2 Th $0.06 $0.00 $0.06 99 1,322 IN B3 60% $11.90 $5.20 $60.47 0 570 OUT B4 72% $161.20 $7.52 $231.44 0 398 OUT D1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 7,359 OUT D2 4% $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 0 7,072 OUT D3 32% $0.00 $1.31 $12.24 2355 5,004 IN D4 52% $8.10 $1.88 $25.66 0 3,569 OUT E1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 30,516 OUT E2 4% $0.06 $0.00 $0.06 0 29,143 OUT E3 72% $0.00 $1.61 $15.04 21972 8,545 IN F1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 29,480 OUT F2 1% $0.08 $0.00 $0.08 0 29,109 OUT F3 35% $0.00 $1.50 $14.01 10318 19,162 IN F4 53% $215.60 $8.71 $296.95 0 13,738 OUT G1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 1,801 OUT G2 10% $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 0 1,622 OUT G3 64% $0.00 $0.42 $3.93 1153 648 IN G4 85% $6.90 $2.44 $29.69 0 279 OUT GS 97% $268.90 $12.50 $385.65 0 50 OUT H1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 20,248 OUT H2 10% $0.00 $0.39 53.64 2025 18,223 IN H3 80% $27.70 $7.70 $99.62 0 4,029 OUT 11 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 69,384 OUT 12 4% $0.14 $0.00 $0.14 0 66,539 OUT 13 24% $3.30 $2.00 $21.98 16375 53,009 IN 14 35% $30.40 $10.70 $130.34 0 45,238 OUT 15 44% $209.10 $14.34 $343.04 0 39,133 OUT 16 49% $246.90 $79.00 $984.78 0 35,108 OUT J1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 4,805 OUT J2 9% $0.20 $0.00 $0.20 427 4,377 IN J3 46% $0.00 $1.75 $16.35 0 2,595 OUT J4 76% $40.90 $17.20 $201.55 0 1,158 OUT J5 88% $750.40 $38.40 $1,109.07 0 577 OUT K1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 265,000 OUT K2 10% $16.74 $6.88 $81.00 0 238,500 OUT K3 20% $33.48 $13.76 $162.00 0 212,000 OUT KS 30% $50.22 $20.64 $243.00 0 185,500 OUT K5 50% $83.70 $34.40 $405.01 132500 132,500 IN L1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 175,000 OUT L2 10% $62.30 $4.70 $106.20 0 157,500 OUT L3 20% $124.60 $9.30 $211.47 0 140,000 OUT L4 30% $186.90 $14.00 $317.66 52500 122,500 IN 5 50% $311.50 $23.40 $530.06 0 87,500 OUT
TABLE C.2 (continued)
TARGETED SO2 REMOVAL LEVEL (T/yr) 270,266 Control Options Emission Capital Operating Present Total SO2 SO2 Emiss- Comment Chosen by Model Reduct’n Costs (M$) Cost (M $) Value (M $) Removal(T/yr) ions(T/yr)
M1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 100,000 OUT
0 M2 10% $14.30 $9.30 $101.17 0 90,000 OUT M3 20% $23.40 $22.20 $230.76 0 80,000 OUT M4 30% $30.30 $36.50 $371.22 0 70,000 OUT M5 50% $42.50 $71.40 $709.40 0 50,000 OUT N1 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 125,000 OUT N2 20% $22.50 $0.10 $23.43 25000 100,000 IN N3 50% $27.20 $48.00 5475.54 0 62,500 OUT Sub-Totals : $298.76 $62.93 $886.55 278,217 466,015 TARGETED SO2 REMOVAL LEVEL (T/yr) 270,266 Pre-specified Percent Capital Operating Present Total SO2 S02 Emiss- Comment
Control Options Reduction Costs (M$) Cost (M$) Value (M$) Removal (T/yr ions (T/yr)
re es eee eee eee
(not app.) 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 OUT (not app.) 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 OUT (not app.) 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 OUT Sub-Totals : $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 TOTALS: $298.76 $62.93 $886.55 278,217 466,015 Notes: Nominal interest rate (%) 13 Inflation rate (%) = 6 Time horizon (yr) = 15
C-8
The "Edit" option saves the output worksheet and calls up the input worksheet for editing the data.
The "Calculation" option saves the output worksheet and calls up the calculation worksheet. After the calculation worksheet is called up by the output worksheet; the user can change the model parameters and rerun the model with these new parameters.
Getting Started
This software requires that the user possess an IBM or 100% IBM compatible PC, XT or AT machine and the Lotus 1-2-3 software version 2.0 or above by Lotus Development Corporation. For further instructions regarding the installation of the Lotus 1-2-3 program, the user should refer to the 1-2-3 reference manual.
Prior to running the model, the user should back up the original disks. If you have a hard disk system, SARM can be copied onto the hard disk. Running SARM from the hard disk speeds up the program operation.
& Diawtavté
AIORTATS po AMVOs LITLON
APPENDIX D
MOBILE SOURCE NOy CONTROLS
ba à ° ‘ e ‘ P *oté rn its ‘ 7 rT? sui : : Los SPA Le: ] 50 de, 2700 iitnes Do Molo eg s or
aia? es : ur Voth vil rm cop. asie PLACES À p> Ta Y14 aa6L fo Gaines no Genad Sus Ot aah 4: dO eur So Beet no te SÉVILLE I Le a oh focdis)9901 , Heres) aciaaie® J Soe OO ea ie ist oe ve Ait br cl rade he! to Tuga ) MIT ND CROIRE SE, LI":
LA |
5 to peeddiers! ot? mov) meh aS oes ald? [ast Sy nor forte =r — acriime. ATLÈCES red kine in, = tas car tithe Où A cctt-mnl
ET TN tre er) Téiatwt ace
tol (2 226} LOS
¢ ae Fatti#dré fab
es “ml et. staat sit er | nb blo soriger esateemon oityintag matt ot one Ger Lib = cops, pfidos 2 shih ala power Ga gem al, CD TIR (ef 1n20 0 fin Line
* Bites me vs DEF eral tata nt codons resté cmm.oaet. Ars ve] phaecoËt. NIMES yh) 50 ectars eff .faliomces cpt "edkh 024; sacre SF ASE < sider, (A fpmeely saree et jah atsrrat 282, a FA LAS ÉSCL) Tac pont ati he? ce ae ery + ra tu" Reet teenie ol 25th VON LES ri St ase pecs tk mois ae AE ceerseues MIO Bae ede afro Laie i de | JL vue ei =": rem ms navid .t allem yo trie ALES
fe Le 1 7k
deb pols [Ces 4: : reroliqet aan gil: ol ARRET = fr 7
cesckerin: PoE Deed, ay ae ee em . S46 ext Baer) joa Mort Sor Sr War er OI
FOX = & si Fie , + mL Ed ai A he) ee Lard 1 « (Ku saiee seat ‘0 :
(Tsirov banal 271 imap Su bai ‘aie . un oc Les real rx 1) CAPE NE OMIS | 26. LE = Ft x Se cc et Stine: —jmeiiok ai mo foes wie ateb eo, ! L
. stp) 4 LE © 6 Gee ] ok ) 21e" ea Veer
fie = 8 sur. atic’ LA y Ge 9 Ser? cordes — . SLI, EN E A ser : | 7 7 DIE F3 0 CE 0 en M
The interpretation of control option data for mobile sources presented particular problems. Status quo emissions for 1994 from this source, amounting to 435,324 tonnes NO,, are based on estimates of 1985 emissions (Senes, 1989(a)) and do not incorporate existing Federal regulations requiring 3-way calalytic converters on passenger vehicles which took effect in 1987 (Maclaren, 1988).
This treatment differs from the treatment of regulations facing the large point source emitters. The control option data from Maclaren (1988) describe a do nothing case assuming pre 1987 conditions (their Case C), the Federal regulation case (Case A) and a case involving even stricter controls (Case C). Control option capital cost and emission reduction data are presented as a time series extending from 1984 to 2002 showing progressive reductions in emissions as new vehicles equipped with catalytic converters replace old vehicles. Thus the format of control option data for mobile sources did not conform to that of other sources which had initial start-up capital costs and recurring operating costs.
Finally there were discrepancies in emissions data that could not be reconciled. The status quo emissions for licensed vehicles is given by Senes (1989(a), Table 6) as 326,603 tonnes but the corresponding value from MacLaren (1988, Table 1) is either 250,066 tonnes for 1985 or 212,701 tonnes for 1994. Maclaren’s (1988) emission estimates for passenger vehicles in 1994 appear not to be reconciled, being given as 95,468 tonnes in Table 1 and 177,805 tonnes in Table 2.
Given the above noted difficulties, control option data were derived for mobile sources by making the following assumptions:
. emission control efficiencies were based on percentage reductions implied by data for 1994 from Maclaren (1988, Table 2):
Case A = 61%, Case B = 70% . these emission reduction efficiencies were applied to the percentage of Senes’ base case emissions for licenced vehicles representing passenger vehicles in 1985 (percentage figures based on Maclaren 1988, Table 1):
326,603 tonnes x 75% = 244,952
- cost data were based on the following information from Maclaren (1988):
1987 cost/vehicle: Case A = $313 (updated from 1985 $)
Case B = $413 Emissions: Case C= 5.0g NO,/mile Case A=1.0g NO,,/mile B= 0.4 g N0,,/mile
Assuming a vehicle use rate of 12,000 miles/year, total capital cost data per tonne of NO, removed annually are:
Case A $313/(12,000 mi x 4.0 g/mi x 10 6 g/t) = $6,521/T
Case B $413/(12,000 mi x 4.6 g/mi x 10~© gt)
$7,482/T Final emission control data for mobile sources are:
Se
Emission Capital Emissions Reduction Reduction Cost (tonnes) Level (tonnes) (M $ 1987)
— eee
Base Case 244,952 = - = Case A 95/7531: 61% 149,421 $ 974.37 Case B 73,486 70% 171,466 $1,282.91
a
Note that, when treated in this manner, there are no annual operating costs; thus the present value of cost for mobile sources will be just the Capital cost and this will not change with changes in interest rates or the planning horizon. This is Clearly not an accurate way in which to treat costs for this option but the treatment is adequate for purposes of this study. Moreover it overcomes problems associated with the direct use of Maclaren figures which do not lend themselves to a direct comparison with Senes cost data.
The "life time" figures assumed for development of scenarios in Chapter 4 are not related to any vehicle life time assumptions made by Maclarens.
»
,—
V\es f
ASE
td
109, Sf 2
o a’ni s Love
ss 3 % NOR - i ¢ + pe : ” e Ce © hx te GOO Sty é. = { Le | + @ + yi i) 4 " Let Ü cal h A fe gr LA oe ne "“ € , 4 : =“ 1c. . » 4 sfita2 101 Be loxtram Ae n a: NY ~~ — a 7 ee al ‘ f LL : A" 1 ry: “ F à ba a e" = ‘ = » 2 an _— ES 7 a 4 Æ . ie « : … L + é ad C2 JA , ae le 7 —_—- 4 D ~~ cae it aoa | +70 36 ov eee # : I > Ax Tan + el
C1
ot Decutie swag ? DL Ee ee S 1 > ,