Cost estimate, facility

Indirect Manufacturing Costs Estimates for the cost of payroh overhead, control laboratoiy, general plant overhead, packaging, and storage facilities are best based on company records for similar processes. 

Vogel, G. A. and E. J. Martin, Estimating Capital Costs of Facility Components, Chemical Engineering, (November 28, 1983) pp. 87-90. 

Land. At this point, it should be possible to determine how much land will be required. Do not forget to include things like holding ponds, environmental buffer area, camp facilities, and rights of way or easements. It may be well to allow some contingency in initial cost estimates for land requirement increases, as more definitive design information becomes available. 

The cost estimate should include provisions for any required satellite boiler water analysis laboratories. The central control lab cannot normally handle analyses of widely spread boilers satisfactorily. The designers, while remembering satellite water laboratory facilities for the utilities area, might overlook similar facilities for the steam generation in the process area. 

Early in the life of a project, information has not been developed to allow definitive cost estimates based on material takeoff and vendor quotes for equipment. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the cost of a facility using shortcut methods. The first step is to develop or check flow-sheets, major equipment sizes, and specification sheets as described in earlier chapters. From the equipment specification sheets, the cost of each piece of equipment is estimated, using techniques discussed later. Once the major equipment cost has been estimated, the total battery limit plant cost can he quickly estimated using factors developed on a similar project. 

The team will develop a detailed plan, including timetable and cost estimates. In the meantime, it is estimated that the process, from start through pilot testing, will require about 120 staff-months over a period of approximately 18 months, including time from corporate division and facility personnel. A more rigorous estimate will be made before we move into PSM system development. 

This book applies a systems philosophy to the preliminary process design and cost estimation of a plant. In doing so, it tries to keep in perspective all aspects of the design. There is always a tendency on the part of designers to get involved in specific details, and forget that their job is to produce a product of the desired quality and quantity, at the lowest price, in a safe facility. What is not needed is a technological masterpiece that is difficult to operate or costly to build. 

The projected size of the installation is also encouraging Based upon cost estimates for MCFC facilities, including ancillary equipment, this installation is estimated at 5.1 MM, or about 10/kW (installed). This also compares favorably with present treatment techniques, which range from 100 to 250/kW. 

Cost estimates can be prepared to perform any portion or all the risk evaluation for a particular facility or installation based on the manpower necessary for each portion of the analysis and the size and complexity of the facility. 

Two advantages of this approach would be the minimized capital and operating costs, along with minimal space requirements. The best process (for iron removal) would probably be chemical precipitation with lime through a rapid mix, flocculation, and DAF step. DAF size requirements would be in the range of a 300- to 350-ft2 unit. Total costs for operation and maintenance of the preliminary treatment facility using an interest rate of 10% over 10 years are estimated at 0.44/1000 gal. A summary of the capital and operating cost estimates is presented in Table 8.2. 

The EDS II test program includes testing and design studies needed for a preliminary design of a full-scale pilot plant, a preliminary hazard analysis, development of a full-scale cost estimate, and a schedule for construction and operation of a facility employing the AEA technology. 

Based on data obtained during testing for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1992, cost estimates were prepared. These estimates used a 2-gallon-per-minute (gpm) pilot plant as a baseline case, and projected the costs of a full-scale 300-gpm facility. It was estimated that the installed costs would be (US)275,000 for the 2-gpm system, and 4 million for the 300-gpm system. Annual operating costs were estimated to be 368,000 and 4 million for the 2-gpm, and 300-gpm systems, respectively. Annual secondary waste disposal costs were estimated to be 50,000 (2-gpm plant) and 8 million (300-gpm plant) (D152136, p. x). 

At the conclusion of DOE testing in 1996, AECL developed a cost estimate for the treatment of contaminated soil using the technology as part of a treatment train. The combined cost of soil leaching and leachate treatment was estimated to be 340 per ton of treated soil (DOE/Femald soil). This estimate included all operating and capital depreciation costs for a plant life of 5 years. The cost estimate also assumed the reuse of the recovered uranium from the soil treatment at an existing Canadian facility (D17560U, p. 68). 

TABLE 1 Operating Cost" Estimate for a 110-Ton/Day Mercury Removal/Recovery Process Mixed-Waste Facility... 

The costs of operating a PACT-2 system on site were estimated to be 30% greater than the costs of operating it at a fixed facility (if only the costs estimated in the SITE demonstration are considered). This is an approximate estimate, based on treating a total volume of 2000 tons of waste and a per diem of 60 per day per operator (D104585, p. 24). 

Based on costs estimated for the SITE demonstration, operation of a PACT-2 portable system was estimated to cost 30% more than a PACT fixed facility. This is an approximate estimate that assumes 2000 tons of waste require treatment and operators cost 60 per day (D104585, p. 24). 

LLNL researchers prepared a DUS cost estimate for a shallow chlorinated solvent spill at the DOE Pinellas facility. They estimated average cleanup costs of 65/yd of treated soil (D168698, pp. E1-E3). 

Based on information from the Eco Waste commercial pilot facility in 1995, costs for a full-scale SCWO unit were estimated to be 10 to 20 cents per gallon of waste treated (D11868N, p. 3). Detailed cost estimates are provided for the Eco Waste system (T0877), the Foster Wheeler system (T0314), and the General Atomics system (T0329). 

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared a cost estimate for PET treatment of salt wastes containing heavy metals and organics. The estimate compared PET treatment with the current baseline (cement encapsulation). It is assumed that waste loading for the cement system would be 10%, while the PET system would allow for a 30% waste loading. An analysis of operations and maintenance for the PET system was not performed. It was assumed that the basic mixing apparatus and extruder could be purchased off the shelf and that facility requirements would be similar for the two options (D20937K, p. 12). 

In a 1995 treatability study conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River facility, a cost estimate was prepared for an FTO system with a flow rate of 400 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) using natural gas to maintain process temperatures. Costs were estimated at 0.72/lb. For the purposes of this estimate, the inlet concentration was assumed to be 400 ppm of trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). Capital costs were estimated at 160,000. Capital costs were amortized over 10 years, not over the time required to remediate the site. This cost estimate found FTO to be more cost effective than thermal catalytic technologies due to lower operating and maintenance costs (D125122, p. 10). 

A UV/ozone Ultrox system was used to treat wastewater contaminated with phenol and polychlorophenol (PCP) at a wood processing facility in Denver, Colorado. The capital cost for the Ultrox system was 200,000. Operation and maintenance costs for the entire remediation system were 10.92 per 1000 gal of treated wastewater. This cost estimate excludes the expenses associated with site preparation, permitting and regulatory compliance, startup, analysis, effluent disposal, and demobilization (D205505, p. C-1). 

Even before the optimum plant size was determined, a contractor had been selected and process design work was in progress. The contractor was selected on the basis of competitive cost plus fixed-fee bids. The contract was later converted to a turn-key type, based on the competitive-bid fixed-fee percentage and a definitive cost estimate for completion of the job. This saved about 2 months in over-all job completion time. Through duplication of equipment purchases and construction drawings, it was possible to reduce over-all completion time for three subsequent plants by as much as 8 months from the 17 months required for the first module (Fig. 2). About 29 months were required from Geld discovery to startup of the last Exxon treating facility. 

A key factor in obtaining funding support for aquaculture is development of a sound business plan. The plan needs to demonstrate that the prospective culturist has identified all costs associated with establishment of the facility and its day-to-day operation. One or more suitable sites should have been identified and the species to be cultured selected before the business plan is submitted. Cost estimates should be verifiable. Having actual bids for a specific task at a specific location eg, pond construction, well drilling, building construction, and vehicle costs helps strengthen the business plan. 

The primary methodology utilized in OTA s cost analysis was to translate all program costs, both nonrecurring one-time costs and recurring costs, to annualized values. Capital investment costs were annualized over a 10-year period at an interest rate of 10%. This method was utilized for all initial expenditures (requalification, waste facilities, etc) with the exception of tooling costs estimated for detonators and blasting caps, which were written off in a 5-year period at 10% interest. All costs are given in 1979 dollars... 

The capacity of gas storage is essential for many purposes It defines the size of the working gas volume, the number of wells for injection and withdrawal and other equipment of the facility. These parameters determine the requirements to the reservoir simulation model and the cost estimates for the required investments in equipment (compressors, pipelines, etc.) at the UGS site. Thus the overall feasibility of the storage is very dependent on the capacity of the gas storage in relation to the gas demand. 

A cost estimate has been prepared for the Ninotsminda UGS facility (see figure 6-3) - based on in-house RAMB0LL data. An adjustment has been introduced to take into account an estimated price difference for work carried out in Europe and Georgia. Particularly, construction and civil engineering works are presumed relatively cheaper in Georgia (a factor of 0.5 to 0.6 has been applied in this case)10. The price level is year 2003. 

Cost Estimates - Plant investment costs were developed using cost correlations based on actual plants constructed by Standard Oil Company of California. The important bases for these estimates are summarized in Table XVIII. Costs for the overall Case 1 refinery are broken down and detailed in Table XIX. Investments are categorized as "onplot," those directly concerned with the individual refinery process plants, and "offplot," for auxiliary or supporting facilities, such as utility plants, tankage, etc. The estimating allowances shown... 

The term contingencies covers many loopholes in cost estimation of process plants. The major loopholes include cost data inaccuracies, when applied to specific cases, and lack of complete definition of facilities required. 

---