Chemicals Guidance Document #3

Example 3.4, Figure 1 – Integrated Hazardous Waste Processing Plant

The figure describes a 5-stage process for treatment of heavy metal liquid waste.

Waste from a feed tank flows into a Microfiltration system. Filtrate flows out to a Spiral Wound Reverse Osmosis Membrane System. Backwash concentrate flows into Thin Film Evaporator #2.

From the Spiral Wound Reverse Osmosis Membrane System, the concentrated waste flows into a Tubular Reverse Osmosis Membrane System. Clean water flows into a Storage Tank.

From the Tubular Reverse Osmosis Membrane System, the concentrated waste flows into Thin Film Evaporator #2. Treated water is recycled back through the Spiral Wound Reverse Osmosis Membrane System.

From Thin Film Evaporator #2, liquid concentrate flows into the top of Thin Film Evaporator #1 where it is simultaneously mixed with molten bitumen. Clean water flows into a Storage Tank.

From Thin Film Evaporator #1, waste particles coated in bitumen flow into Product Drums. Clean water flows into the Storage Tank.

The liquid in the storage tank is monitored to ensure that water discharge criteria are met, and then sampled, and finally discharged to the river.

Example 3.4, Table (under heading “List of Contractors”)

The table outlines the contractors involved in the project and their roles and responsibilities.

In this project, Contractor A was responsible for sampling and chemical analysis.

Example 3.4, Table 1: EXPENDITURES CLAIMED USING PROXY METHOD

The table outlines the type and amount of expenditures that were claimed using the proxy method of overhead calculation.

Total labour expenditures claimed were $385,000.

Expenditures for materials consumed and/or transformed were $30,000 comprised of bitumen ($5,000), ion exchange resin ($10,000), chemicals ($ 5,000) and 10 Microfiltration membrane elements removed for destructive autopsy after the trials ($10,000).

Contract expenditures claimed for analytical services were $400,000.

Capital expenditures claimed were $210,000 comprised of pilot-scale equipment ($200,000), and bench scale equipment ($10,000).

The total expenditures claimed, excluding the prescribed proxy amount were $1,025,000.

The prescribed proxy amount claimed (calculated as 65% of labour costs) was $250,250.

The total expenditures claimed for the 9 trials, including the prescribed proxy amount was $1,275,250.

Example 3.5, Table (under heading “List of Contractors”)

The table outlines the contractors involved in the project and their roles and responsibilities.

In this project, Contractor X was responsible for installation of the methanol injector.

Example 3.5, Figure 1 – Continuous Multi-stage Gas-solids Fluidization Process for Large-Scale Polyethylene Production

The figure describes the processing flow of a continuous multi-stage gas-solids fluidization process for large-scale polyethylene production.

Gas feeds into a Gas Feeds Purification unit from which 2 separate streams exit:

• The first stream passes through a Catalyst Feeder - catalyst particles are transported with the gas to an injection point in the fluidized bed Reactor;
• The second stream merges with the recycled purified gas flow from the Cooler (described below) and then flows back into the fluidized bed Reactor.

In the disengaging zone of the fluidized bed gas-solids reactor, there are two gas-phase and one solid streams that exit:

• The smaller gas slipstream goes to a gas analyzer.
• The larger gas stream feeds the cyclone from which gas recycle passes through a filter, a compressor and a cooler where it is combined with the second stream from the Gas Feeds purification units and returned to the Reactor.
• Product solids (polyethylene resin beads) flow out of the bottom of the reactor and pass through a Timer circuit and a product purge unit, after which the resin is fed into a compounding resin storage unit.

From the Compounding Resin Storage, additives are mixed with the resin in the Mixer and fed into the Extruder. After extrusion the product is dried with hot air in the Dryer and fed into Blenders. From the Blenders, the product is discharged into Hopper Cars, Hopper Trucks and or packaged for shipment to customers.

Example 3.5, Table 1a: EXPENDITURES CLAIMED USING PROXY METHOD

The table outlines the type and amount of expenditures that were claimed using the proxy method of overhead calculation.

Total labour expenditures claimed (laboratory, pilot work and plant trials) were $150,000.

Expenditures for materials consumed were $64,000 comprised of product given to customers for applications testing under Trial 1 ($24,000), excess additive costs in Trial 1 ($20,000) and comonomer costs due to extra flaring during Trial 1 ($20,000).

Capital expenditures claimed were $20,000 for the temporary Methanol Injection System (all or substantially all used for Trial 2).

The total expenditures claimed for the four trials, excluding the prescribed proxy amount were $234,000.

The prescribed proxy amount claimed (calculated as 65% of labour costs) was $97,500.

The total expenditures claimed for the four trials, including the prescribed proxy amount was $331,500.

Example 3.5, Table 1b: EXPENDITURES CLAIMED USING TRADITIONAL METHOD

The table outlines the type and amount of expenditures that were claimed using the traditional method of overhead calculation.

Total labour expenditures claimed (laboratory, pilot work and plant trials) were $150,000.

Expenditures for materials consumed were $64,000 comprised of product given to customers for applications testing under Trial 1 ($24,000), excess additive costs in Trial 1 ($20,000) and comonomer costs due to extra flaring during Trial 1 ($20,000).

Capital expenditures claimed were $20,000 for the temporary Methanol Injection System (all or substantially all used for Trial 2).

The total overhead expenditures claimed for the four plant trials, laboratory facilities were $930,000. The entire amount was directly attributable to SR&ED. The overhead expenditures were comprised of:

• $500,000 for utilities (steam, natural gas, electricity, water, nitrogen, air);
• $75,000 for benefits and incentives ($80,000 less $5,000 attributable to managers and administrative personnel);
• $50,000 for contract services of pipefitters and millwrights ($100,000 less $50,000 of ineligible expenditures);
• $25,000 for supplies;
• $150,000 for maintenance;
• $10,000 for information technology;
• $80,000 for plant operating costs ($100,000 less $20,000 of ineligible expenditures); and
• $40,000 for technical services.

The total expenditures claimed for the four trials, calculated using the traditional method for overhead, were $1,164,000.

Example 3.6, Table 1a: EXPENDITURES CLAIMED

The table outlines the type of expenditures incurred, the expenditures claimed and what can be claimed under labour.

Total labour expenditures claimed were $150,000. These include labour expenditures for the R&D Manager, a process engineer, a technician, the Product Manager, the Plant Manager, the Shift Supervisor, 3 operators, maintenance and a quality control technician.

Expenditures for materials (resin feedstocks) were $156,200. These are described in more detail in Table 1b below.

The total expenditures claimed, excluding the prescribed proxy amount were $306,200.

The prescribed proxy amount claimed (calculated as 65% of labour costs) was $97,500.

The total expenditures claimed, including the prescribed proxy amount was $403,700.

Example 3.6, Table 1b: COSTS OF MATERIALS

The table provides some additional details on the materials claimed and how they were calculated.

The cost of materials for off-site testing was $200. The cost of resin feedstocks was $12,000 for each day of experimental production trials. There were 13 days of experimental trials amounting to $156,000.

Materials were claimed for all of Trial 1 (3 operating days) and all of Trial 2 (10 operating days) since all of the product was scrapped from both trials 1 and 2 (the resulting product was sold for less than 10% of its market value).

Materials were not claimed for Trials 3, 4 or 5 since the product was sold as either off-grade or A-grade because the costs would be subject to an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) recapture.